Could you imagine the size West Coast would be if they got the free national leg up advertising as the 4 big VIC clubs. That they are arguably the comps biggest club without it is amazing.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Moved Thread For non vic fans who disdain the AFL competition
- Thread starter Carringbush2010
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #152
Without derailing the thread subject.
If Collingwood played Saturday they wouldn't get the extra day advantage, ever since this finals model has existed, the intent has always been to give the top placed team that advantage.
Like I said I have never heard of that before. I have only known it to be about giving all sides equal break before next game.
I think you will find abd I don’t know for sure that it has not worked like that before. It is always about just giving the big VIC club the Friday night. Might have a look into it and let you know. No big deal of course, just nit fair for the giants
- Thread starter
- #154
West Coast is the biggest club, Collinwood is the highest profile club.
The reason the 4 big vic clubs get so much media and advertising is coz they have colossal fan bases, garners $.
The reason WC is so large is coz there's only two clubs here in the v/afl, all the other clubs are in the wafl, not many wanna follow the wafl, they wanna follow wc or freo v/afl but complain about the v/afl all the time.
- Thread starter
- #155
Was last year and the year before that for memory, has been for as long as we've had this finals model. There's always been a Friday night prelim for as long as I can remember.
Anyway the counter argument to ' No big deal of course, just nit fair for the giants' would be 'well they should've finished higher'
This isn't about HQ conspiring against the giants, it's about favouring the highest finishing team.
How can other clubs ever grow if you give such a keg up to such a small group.
And if they are as big as you say then it should not matter when or where they play. Big clubs don’t need the leg up. See West Coast.
Always will have a Friday prelim. It should be Brisbane v Carlton in my opinion. That way all sides get a minimum 7 day break.
Anyway if it is about the top placed team getting an extra days break the. I believe you. Never heard of that though
- Thread starter
- #158
Like I said, being a two club town that is why WC is so large, not because they're irresistible.
IF WA entered 4 clubs into the v/afl at a similar time, then it'd be a lot different.
Big clubs don't need a leg up, but the big 4 clubs always garner public interest from colossal fan bases,HQ and media exploit it for $.
As for smaller clubs like the giants and gc growing, well that will require public interest, at the moment there's almost zero and it's moving at treacle speed.
Seems HQ want to 'force' public interest in non footy territory in futility. You can lead a horse to water and all that.
Lastly WC is the largest club in the comp, yet the bulk of the fans complain about the comp their behemoth club is because of it's inequity.
- Thread starter
- #159
If it was BRis v blues then the top placed team gets one day less break than the 2nd or 5th team.
The aim is to give the extra break to the top placed team.
Like I said, being a two club town that is why WC is so large, not because they're irresistible.
IF WA entered 4 clubs into the v/afl at a similar time, then it'd be a lot different.
Big clubs don't need a leg up, but the big 4 clubs always garner public interest from colossal fan bases,HQ and media exploit it for $.
As for smaller clubs like the giants and gc growing, well that will require public interest, at the moment there's almost zero and it's moving at treacle speed.
Seems HQ want to 'force' public interest in non footy territory in futility. You can lead a horse to water and all that.
Lastly WC is the largest club in the comp, yet the bulk of the fans complain about the comp their behemoth club is because of it's inequity.
Not sure the complaints will go away mate, sort of comes with the territory now.
You have to laugh at some of it. Like you said the original 10 vic clubs are all from the former VFL. It has a big following in Victoria and is widely catered to for the most part.
Mate I am hearing you I am just saying I have never heard the AFL say that ever. I do hear them say it’s imperative that all sides get equal breaks if it’s possible. It is possible this coming week.
I am not ignoring what you are saying, just saying I have never ever heard of that or heard the AFL ever mention it.
- Thread starter
- #162
How you think you will go against the giants? Their midfield is very good. Reckon you guys will be too good though.
- May 17, 2014
- 4,606
- 6,042
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Not for minnow clubs like us that play there once a year
- Thread starter
- #165
That's pretty much it.
There was 12 clubs once, and now it has expanded, most of the non vic fans don't like the comp yet won't stop following it.
They complain about vic centric, and that centric does exist, because it provides the bulk of the market, non vic fans don't like it yet won't stop following it.
I get why they still follow, it's all about tearing down vic, but it's a club competition, not state of origin. WC and Freo are clubs not state representatives for the purposes of beating vic sides just coz they're vic clubs. But that seems to be the narrative 'beat vic'.
For Collingwood fans it's not about 'beat wa and beat sa' it's about beat the other clubs, more so beat the blues, tiges and bombers - we barrack for all other clubs playing these teams regardless of which state they're based in.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #166
If you watch our game against the dees, the immediate impression is we just hung on.
But if you analyse the game, you could see that the Collingwood team were able to tempo the game or play that manic style at will. That last qt was definitely a deliberate ploy to go team defence mode. Not a fan for the whole qt but it seems to be successful
The broader picture over the season it's looking more and more like we've 'managed' the season, in short they've got more gears and can just change up at will.
The Giants are gonna be a tough gig, but they played a banged up Port, the Pies will be a very different assignment, they're up against it.
Carringbush
Because non Vic fans have no option. West Coast and Collingwood are the biggest clubs in the country and should be treated the same. It doesn't matter that it is a two team town- it's a fact. To claim Collingwood have more support around the nation may be true but we earned our place at the top table.
If we were to leave the we would have nothing as any decent young players would go straight from WAFL colts to AFL and any good over agers would end up in the AFL. Then we would have no games.
Liverpool, a city of 500k has two teams. One is the greatest club in British football. They weren't told they couldn't play with the London teams. The issue is that what you are saying is prioritising large historic Melbourne clubs because they are the big teams in the biggest market. Liverpool and Man U are the biggest teams and they aren't in London.
In the past I had suggested teams dropping out of the AFL but was rightfully told this will lead to many disenfranchised fans and you are right. But how is that different to saying a 35 year old club with 100k members and $57m in the bank must leave the league if they think it is unfair, whilst at the same time saying a financially struggling small club that is 125 years old gets the right to stay because they were a legacy member.
That's fundamentally contradictory as you are asking a successful club to leave to maintain a structure to accommodate marginally viable clubs. It's also a club from a region that is growing and supplies over half of the GDP of Australia.
There's only two ways this can ever get resolved: less clubs in Melbourne or conferences. We have discussed less Melbourne clubs and there have been conference suggestions.
As we have decided to prioritise financial and viewership over equality and we're not folding clubs here are my conferences.
Premier Conference
Financially viable large drawing clubs with minimum financial conditions for entry as we are prioritising catering to the largest amount of supporters where demand is highest and that's why there are 6 Melbourne and 4 interstate:
18 rounds of home and away
9 home games
9 away games (e.g. Collingwood play 9 home at MCG and 3 away at MCG, 2 away at Marvel, 1 at GMHBA, 1 in Sydney, 2 in Perth, 1 in Adelaide)
Carlton (Marvel)
Collingwood (MCG)
Essendon (Marvel)
Richmond (MCG)
Hawthorn (MCG)
Geelong (GMHBA)
Sydney (SCG)
West Coast (Optus)
Adelaide (AO)
Freo (Optus)
Championship Conference:
Smaller Vic and Interstate who can move conference when they meet minimum financial and membership requirements as we are prioritising viewership and finance
St Kilda
Western Bulldogs
North Melbourne
Melbourne
Brisbane
Port
GWS
GC
Tas
Team 20 (a new franchise)
Then a final 4 that leads to a rotating Premiership Final and a separate final 4 that leads to a rotating Championship final. With the winners of each conference playing in a Grand Final with a rotating venue.
There you have it, your large Vic and large interstate clubs at the top table as they should be.
My apologies to the small Vic and small interstate but we are prioritising most viewers and financial in this model.
I can't help but also notice Premier Conference with Port, Brisbane, GWS and GC added is what the AFL probably should be if we are looking through it with ice cold logic. But we are developing a model to accommodate the smaller clubs and allow them at the top table when they get bigger.
This is just my opinion and is probably wrong but I have to try something to reward the big interstate clubs and not only Large Vic. Thanks for the debate Carringbush and no offence meant to any.
- Thread starter
- #168
Why not? You have relatively new teams in the rebranded v/afl and the wafl and your old wafl clubs.
Vic fans only have their teams in the v/afl and vfl, already lost Fitzroy and South Melbourne, seemingly HQ regret this.
I didn't claim as such I claimed they have a higher profile, profile and largest fan base are not mutually inclusive, it may be likely but that is not proven.
Yeah you've earned your place as the biggest club, that doesn't change the likelihood that wouldn't be the case if WA introduced more than two teams at a similar time frame.
I'm pointing out that even though you have the biggest club, WA has far less population and therefore less market.
^That is not a criticism that is an observation.
Yes that is likely but there was no problem following the wafl before the vfl was rebranded, the same scenario.
Every man and his and his dogs bowl prioritized WC over their wafl clubs almost instantly, for a brand new club with zero history, their wafl club was dropped like a toxic ex.
And ever since 99.99% of them have done nothing but complain about the inequities.
Wanting their cake and eat it too, they'd probably get it if there was enough market here, but there isn't
That's not my wish, I'm saying the market dictates the landscape. HQ are the ones prioritising the vic clubs because of it, $.
Has zero to do with HQ deliberately conspiring against non vic clubs and fans, it's just blunt harsh reality.
I didn't say 'wc must leave' I'm saying wc, freo and every other non vic club and their fans must accept the inequities because the market dictates the landscape.
But they don't, the complaining continues day in day out. This thread asks the question 'why bother then?' which is a reasonable question and all I get is personal insults and salt.
As for your conference models, well that doesn't negate things like travel, the inequities we have now, or not much.
The only conference model that would work would be a return to state leagues, the problem is all non vic fans don't want that, yet will forever complain about the v/afl. and would still complain about your model, coz it still has inequities.
The state leagues before rebrand didn't have such inequities
Ok, you'd have the best players and coaches from all corners of the country (and now the globe) wanting to play in the highest profile league, coz it has the largest market base, would be just like it used to be in that respect before the rebrand. Once again all non vic fans would complain about that too.
That's just blunt reality, like I said vic outnumbers all other footy states and territories combined by more than a million people, that's why the landscape caters for them, more of them and more $.
Right now clubs like WC are a destination club for players and coaches (ok maybe not the last two years), but that's still not good enough for WA fans, same with SA, good clubs with good facilities in the top league, still not good enough for SA fans.
Hope that explains it Faz.
Jazny
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 2, 2014
- 21,265
- 39,459
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- #TeamTurboChooks
MY STATE HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FOR 100 YEARS AND YOU WANT TO TELL ME THERE IS NO VIC BIAS!>!>
- Thread starter
- #170
The vic comp was going for 90 years before a non vic club gained a licence.MY STATE HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FOR 100 YEARS AND YOU WANT TO TELL ME THERE IS NO VIC BIAS!>!>
There is vic bias, because as I've explained eleventy gazillion times, market dictates the landscape.
It's not because HQ is conspired against non vic clubs and their fans in bad faith, it's coz $ in the end.
We literally have 1000's pages on the complaining from non vic fans on vic bias, even after this has been explained eleventy gazillion times, yet the complaining continues and will forever continue.
So I ask a reasonable question and put forward a reasonable model and nothing but salt and personal attacks in return.
Jazny
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 2, 2014
- 21,265
- 39,459
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- #TeamTurboChooks
okay thank you so much for explaining it to me, I always thought there was quiet significant Vic bias but I think maybe you are right.The vic comp was going for 90 years before a non vic club gained a licence.
There is vic bias, because as I've explained eleventy gazillion times, market dictates the landscape.
It's not because HQ is conspired against non vic clubs and their fans in bad faith, it's coz $ in the end.
We literally have 1000's pages on the complaining from non vic fans on vic bias, even after this has been explained eleventy gazillion times, yet the complaining continues and will forever continue.
So I ask a reasonable question and put forward a reasonable model and nothing but salt and personal attacks in return.
Thanks Carringbush
Great explanation. For what it is worth I asked this same question on ABC Perth WA Sportstalk. They agreed that it's manifestly unfair but it won't change as those in Victoria don't want change. They also reiterated they have been asking Gill or Richard to be interviewed on the show for 56 weeks. They won't come on as people like me will ask questions like this.
You mention dropping WAFL clubs, I still go to WAFL games and have never dropped Subiaco. The Eagles were a slow burn in the early years with only 23000 at the first game. It took a 2 or 3 years to build.
If I and many others had rejected the Eagles they would have gone under (as they nearly did). If they had, all West Australians would be supporting Melbourne teams with no access to any games other than flying to Melbourne. Because as the draft developed the VFL would have picked the WAFL clean as recruiting and drafting developed and the WAFL would still be where it is now.
Anyway, thanks for the logical explanation. I think another bit of the AFL in me died today as it challenges my core beliefs of striving for equity and fairness in life. Don't ever forget that I'm paying double what Vic members do for their tickets too! But getting price gouged and supporting the rest of Australia seems to be part of living in Western Australia.
To add insult to injury, a Peel side full of Dockers players just knocked Subiaco out of the WAFL finals. Another structural inequity!
aaarghhhhhh!
Thanks for the engaging debate Carringbush
Isnt that the whole thing though? the market might say that there is more money to be made by favouring vic teams, but this is exactly what we dont like, and what should be removed from the game.
The AFL is meant to be not for profit, and honestly would be a much better product if it cared just a tiny bit less about $$$, and more on the equity of the whole scene. WA, SA, and the lesser AFL states have enough viewership, and have earned more than what they get given, to tone the bias down a little bit.
It may be as simple as a new CEO from interstate and only 75% of the media being victorian, and it would sort itself in a few years, but thats never going to happen.
Nobody is going to stop following the AFL over these, its just silly to even suggest it, but that doesnt mean we cant rightfully complain about it!
I think the real test will be when Stephen Michael dies. He's the greatest non VFL player I have seen but I can assure you they wont be announcing it on AFL Broadcast games or having a minute's silence. An unfortunate outcome of the Vic based AFL media is that to be a truly recognised great who hasn't played AFL you must have played VFL.
