- Banned
- #1
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=99804
Just when it looked like common sence would prevail, self-interest and weakness takes over. What is this sport coming too.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The MCG will host a minimum of one final each week of the 2003 finals series – and not just a preliminary final and the grand final – regardless of which teams are involved in the September action.
In a move that will likely further anger the six non-Victorian clubs, who currently occupy six of the top seven positions on the ladder, there is now a strong possibility that the MCG will host not only a preliminary final but also an elimination and a semi-final between two non-Victorian teams.
AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson revealed to afl.com.au on Tuesday that the impasse over finals scheduling with the Melbourne Cricket Club will not only affect the preliminary final but the first two weeks of the finals.
This follows talks breaking down on Monday with both sides now at an “impasse” over where the finals should be played.
The news that a minimum of one final per week will be played at the MCG comes despite the AFL now being able to “bank” finals in the first two weeks of the finals series.
However Jackson told afl.com.au the league was not prepared to risk playing no games at the MCG over the first two weeks of this year’s finals series – despite the non-Victorian domination - because it would then owe the MCG extra finals in the next two seasons.
Under the new agreement with the MCC signed in 2001, the AFL has to play a minimum of six finals over the first two weeks of the final in any three year period - as well as one preliminary final and a grand final – as opposed to one final per week at the ground as was the case previously.
But due to the current domination of the competition by the six non-Victorian clubs – Jackson said if the league decided to play all finals away from the MCG in the first two weeks this season it could cause even further problems down the track.
“It (the stand-off with the MCC) will relate to all finals and not just the preliminary final,” Jackson said.
“We will have to play one (final) per week (at the MCG) this year because we haven’t got anything in the bank to off-set it again next year.”
That is because the AFL only played the minimum number of four finals at the MCG last year in the first year of the new agreement.
That means the AFL has no room to stage extra finals away from the ground this season.
“If we went into overdraft (having to owe the MCG extra finals) it would put incredible pressure on us next year,” Jackson said.
“We could go into the negative if we wanted to take the risk but then if the same situation happened again next year (with non-Victorian sides again dominating), you are in a worse situation.”
Jackson said the AFL would not be able to reward all non-Victorian clubs with home finals – if the MCC refused to back down - until it had a year where extra finals were played at the MCG in a previous season.
Such was the case in 1995 when all nine finals were played in Melbourne due to the dominance of Victorian clubs.
This means that if the six non-Victorian clubs finished in the top six places at the end of round 22 this year – they currently hold six of the top seven spots – then a non-Victorian club would have to host a Victorian club in an elimination final in week one of the finals at the MCG.
This would most likely be the clash between the sixth and seventh placed sides as teams one, two and five would have home state advantage for their finals against teams four, three and eight respectively.
And providing the six non-Victorian teams kept winning their finals it would mean the MCG would not only stage a preliminary final between two non-Victorian clubs but also a semi-final the previous week.
Based on the current ladder – the Kangaroos, who are sixth, would be the only Victorian side that would earn a home final at the MCG by having finished higher on the ladder and that would be for the first week of the finals only.
Therefore the remainder of the three finals the AFL plans to play at the MCG would either be between two non-Victorian clubs or with a non-Victorian club hosting a Victorian club despite having finished higher on the ladder.
While the MCG has never staged a final between two non-Victorian clubs, on three previous occasions a non-Victorian club has been forced to host a final against a Victorian club at the MCG despite finishing higher on the ladder.
And on the first two occasions this resulted in West Coast copping hidings in knockout semi-finals from Essendon in 1996 and Carlton in 1999 while last year Adelaide beat Melbourne in a semi-final.
Jackson said he was bitterly disappointed the MCC again refused to give ground during Monday’s negotiations.
“We have reached an impasse,” he said. “It’s very, very disappointing they won’t recognize the position or give any relief to the position we’ve got.”
“I don’t understand why they won’t do it, they are not going to be worse off financially because we said we will protect their position financially.”
“We have said to them ‘just do what’s fair but they say ‘no, they won’t’ so we are at an impasse.”
MCC general manager Stephen Gough has consistently said the MCC will not budge, saying his organisation had already given the AFL to right to shift finals from the ground in the first two weeks of the finals.
But Gough told afl.com.au recently that if the MCC also allowed the preliminary final to be moved away from the MCG – membership and as a result long-term revenue for the MCC would fall threatening its ability to finance the ground’s re-development which could in turn results in admission costs rising for all AFL matches.
Just when it looked like common sence would prevail, self-interest and weakness takes over. What is this sport coming too.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The MCG will host a minimum of one final each week of the 2003 finals series – and not just a preliminary final and the grand final – regardless of which teams are involved in the September action.
In a move that will likely further anger the six non-Victorian clubs, who currently occupy six of the top seven positions on the ladder, there is now a strong possibility that the MCG will host not only a preliminary final but also an elimination and a semi-final between two non-Victorian teams.
AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson revealed to afl.com.au on Tuesday that the impasse over finals scheduling with the Melbourne Cricket Club will not only affect the preliminary final but the first two weeks of the finals.
This follows talks breaking down on Monday with both sides now at an “impasse” over where the finals should be played.
The news that a minimum of one final per week will be played at the MCG comes despite the AFL now being able to “bank” finals in the first two weeks of the finals series.
However Jackson told afl.com.au the league was not prepared to risk playing no games at the MCG over the first two weeks of this year’s finals series – despite the non-Victorian domination - because it would then owe the MCG extra finals in the next two seasons.
Under the new agreement with the MCC signed in 2001, the AFL has to play a minimum of six finals over the first two weeks of the final in any three year period - as well as one preliminary final and a grand final – as opposed to one final per week at the ground as was the case previously.
But due to the current domination of the competition by the six non-Victorian clubs – Jackson said if the league decided to play all finals away from the MCG in the first two weeks this season it could cause even further problems down the track.
“It (the stand-off with the MCC) will relate to all finals and not just the preliminary final,” Jackson said.
“We will have to play one (final) per week (at the MCG) this year because we haven’t got anything in the bank to off-set it again next year.”
That is because the AFL only played the minimum number of four finals at the MCG last year in the first year of the new agreement.
That means the AFL has no room to stage extra finals away from the ground this season.
“If we went into overdraft (having to owe the MCG extra finals) it would put incredible pressure on us next year,” Jackson said.
“We could go into the negative if we wanted to take the risk but then if the same situation happened again next year (with non-Victorian sides again dominating), you are in a worse situation.”
Jackson said the AFL would not be able to reward all non-Victorian clubs with home finals – if the MCC refused to back down - until it had a year where extra finals were played at the MCG in a previous season.
Such was the case in 1995 when all nine finals were played in Melbourne due to the dominance of Victorian clubs.
This means that if the six non-Victorian clubs finished in the top six places at the end of round 22 this year – they currently hold six of the top seven spots – then a non-Victorian club would have to host a Victorian club in an elimination final in week one of the finals at the MCG.
This would most likely be the clash between the sixth and seventh placed sides as teams one, two and five would have home state advantage for their finals against teams four, three and eight respectively.
And providing the six non-Victorian teams kept winning their finals it would mean the MCG would not only stage a preliminary final between two non-Victorian clubs but also a semi-final the previous week.
Based on the current ladder – the Kangaroos, who are sixth, would be the only Victorian side that would earn a home final at the MCG by having finished higher on the ladder and that would be for the first week of the finals only.
Therefore the remainder of the three finals the AFL plans to play at the MCG would either be between two non-Victorian clubs or with a non-Victorian club hosting a Victorian club despite having finished higher on the ladder.
While the MCG has never staged a final between two non-Victorian clubs, on three previous occasions a non-Victorian club has been forced to host a final against a Victorian club at the MCG despite finishing higher on the ladder.
And on the first two occasions this resulted in West Coast copping hidings in knockout semi-finals from Essendon in 1996 and Carlton in 1999 while last year Adelaide beat Melbourne in a semi-final.
Jackson said he was bitterly disappointed the MCC again refused to give ground during Monday’s negotiations.
“We have reached an impasse,” he said. “It’s very, very disappointing they won’t recognize the position or give any relief to the position we’ve got.”
“I don’t understand why they won’t do it, they are not going to be worse off financially because we said we will protect their position financially.”
“We have said to them ‘just do what’s fair but they say ‘no, they won’t’ so we are at an impasse.”
MCC general manager Stephen Gough has consistently said the MCC will not budge, saying his organisation had already given the AFL to right to shift finals from the ground in the first two weeks of the finals.
But Gough told afl.com.au recently that if the MCC also allowed the preliminary final to be moved away from the MCG – membership and as a result long-term revenue for the MCC would fall threatening its ability to finance the ground’s re-development which could in turn results in admission costs rising for all AFL matches.
