Interstate teams and the MCG

[Yellow Paint]

So what is your solution?

Use the same system that is used for all other finals.

 

[telsor]

Use the same system that is used for all other finals.

So we should play the GF at Spotless?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Use the same system that is used for all other finals.

They can't do that as there is a contract at the MCG for many years to come.
After that yes there should be a bidding city system put in place where maybe the MCG hosts every second grand final and the other grand finals are hosted by the largest bidding city.
Anyway it is at the G for now, fair? No but thats what the clubs and the league signed up for.

 

[telsor]

They can't do that as there is a contract at the MCG for many years to come.
After that yes there should be a bidding city system put in place where maybe the MCG hosts every second grand final and the other grand finals are hosted by the largest bidding city.
Anyway it is at the G for now, fair? No but thats what the clubs and the league signed up for.

Point is that it's still fairer at the MCG than it would be anywhere else.

Because there are so many Vic clubs, and thus games there, it means that all potential GF teams can/should play at least 2 games there. Nowhere else can offer that.

But if it's to be moved, then it'd be awful for fans anyway. Sure, they wouldn't have the MCC to deal with, but you can bet the AFL would still want a similar number of seats available for their cash cows (sponsors and AFL members), so any other ground 'loses' ~50K seats before fans even get a look in.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Point is that it's still fairer at the MCG than it would be anywhere else.

Because there are so many Vic clubs, and thus games there, it means that all potential GF teams can/should play at least 2 games there. Nowhere else can offer that.

But if it's to be moved, then it'd be awful for fans anyway. Sure, they wouldn't have the MCC to deal with, but you can bet the AFL would still want a similar number of seats available for their cash cows (sponsors and AFL members), so any other ground 'loses' ~50K seats before fans even get a look in.

Agree and I think it will stay at the G for probably another contract. Is that good for the sport? Probably not, if it was a neutral venue like Wembley stadium then that would be different but its not. As far as the fans are concerned I am not sure how big an issue it is, now if two Vic sides play in the GF there seems some issue with seats. If a Vic side and an interstate side play not such an issue as its such a mission to go to the game from interstate.
The Eagles have played in 5 Grand finals and I have been once, it is not so much the financial issue but more of its a 3-4 day gig to watch a 3 hour game. I think the fans would rather a fairer system than worrying about whether they can get in to actually watch it.
All of the issues in the AFL go back all the way to 1987, just so many things we are stuck with that seem to be to hard to fix and of course money always the over riding factor.
That is why a bidding system is the future, the AFL live for money and a bidding system will bring in huge amounts more money than 30k extra spectators.
90K at the G @$250 per ticket = 22'500'000.00, Probably add 10 million more in packaged products.

Grand final at Adelaide Oval, smaller capacity. City of Adelaide bid 30 million to host Grand final.
50K at higher price I would guess $400 per ticket 20'000'000.00
Not as many corporates can go and certainly not as many fans.

It works in the USA and we seem to follow their lead so I think that is where it will go. We can never have highest placed side host it as it is not enough time to prepare such an event.

Whatever system is in place people will not be happy. I like it at the G for the history perspective. I think it is a huge advantage to a Victorian side but many have overcome that. But the sides that do win from interstate against Vic opponents in my view are not just better sides but far better sides as they need to be to do it.

 

[PerthBoy86]

And played precisely 0 of them against a team who call the MCG home...

This is why beating a Melbourne-based club, especially Collingwood, Hawthorn, Essendon, Carlton, would be all the sweeter for me. Especially Hawthorn to avenge the two losses in grannies (one at Waverley). We still haven't claimed a Melbourne-based scalp in the GF.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Given the fact that each and every club can replicate the conditions at the MCG at their elite training bases (West Coast, Adelaide and Sydney in particular) do we really think the concept of home ground advantage still exists?

The concept of inter-state advantage has some weight but that has more weight with Victorian clubs traveling North and West rather than traveling WA, SA and NSW teams

Still different from an AFL game. And home crowd advantage is still a pretty big factor. Kardinia Park/Skilled Stadium has similar dimensions as Subi/Domain, but we have a pretty poor record against the Cats there, I think almost every team does.

 

[PerthBoy86]

A subject near and dear to my heart...! If I'd known that the 1991 season would be the last fling of the great era, I still would have kept it as a great memory of a team that took control of the season when it mattered, safe in the knowledge that despite WC's supremacy for the first 5 months of the season, the Hawks chipped away after a horrific loss at home to the Eagles, did some serious reconnaissance when they lost narrowly late in the season at Subiaco, and comprehensively outplayed the home team again a few weeks later when it counted in what was a massive upset to everyone except the Hawks...who had won something like 12 out of 13 at this point...they were favourites on GF day, and would have won at either stadium...very satisfying win because they had to seriously work their arses off in 1991 to stay at the top...WC worthy, but we all knew they were never going to get us again after that home semi...

Eagles peaked pretty early in their AFL career. Well one of their peaks. Hopefully we can beat the Hawks in a GF and avenge those two losses lol.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Happy for the G to be used, but every team should get at least 2 games there per season - no matter if they are Victorian or non-Victorian based (There are 4 MCG tennants, so if you only play each of them once you play 2 home and 2 away minimum).

How a Melbourne based club could get only a single H&A games at the MCG is ridiculous (Bulldogs 2014, St. Kilda 2009, North 2012) - and there would be more examples recently as well

 

[telsor]

Agree and I think it will stay at the G for probably another contract. Is that good for the sport? Probably not, if it was a neutral venue like Wembley stadium then that would be different but its not. As far as the fans are concerned I am not sure how big an issue it is, now if two Vic sides play in the GF there seems some issue with seats. If a Vic side and an interstate side play not such an issue as its such a mission to go to the game from interstate.
The Eagles have played in 5 Grand finals and I have been once, it is not so much the financial issue but more of its a 3-4 day gig to watch a 3 hour game. I think the fans would rather a fairer system than worrying about whether they can get in to actually watch it.
All of the issues in the AFL go back all the way to 1987, just so many things we are stuck with that seem to be to hard to fix and of course money always the over riding factor.

Most of the leagues problems are due to demographics...When ~half the fanbase in in one place, it's tough to 'fairly' cover the whole country. One benefit of growth in NSW/QLD would be to shift that balance somewhat.

That said, I'm not so sure that a non Vic side changes the availability of seats that much. The fan seats still sell out very quickly, and I suspect they could easily sell another 100K tickets if they were available. A non vic side might change total demand from ~250K to ~225K, but when you're selling the ground out twice either way, it doesn't really matter.

That is why a bidding system is the future, the AFL live for money and a bidding system will bring in huge amounts more money than 30k extra spectators.
90K at the G @$250 per ticket = 22'500'000.00, Probably add 10 million more in packaged products.

Grand final at Adelaide Oval, smaller capacity. City of Adelaide bid 30 million to host Grand final.
50K at higher price I would guess $400 per ticket 20'000'000.00
Not as many corporates can go and certainly not as many fans.

Agreed, although I think the AFL would 'require' AO to pay at least $500/ticket to make up for the loss of corporates and thus less money from there (although they'd probably dress it up as being due to loss of fans).
That said, I imagine there would be an outcry about the higher prices....

Whatever system is in place people will not be happy. I like it at the G for the history perspective. I think it is a huge advantage to a Victorian side but many have overcome that. But the sides that do win from interstate against Vic opponents in my view are not just better sides but far better sides as they need to be to do it.

I'm not sure it's that big a deal, based on the fact that history shows non Vic sides seem quite capable of winning. If it really was a "huge advantage", then surely the results would be showing that. (yes, sample size is small, but a truly huge advantage would be starting to peek through the stats by now).

 

[Cudi_420]

With West Coast, Sydney and Adelaide all likely to be premiership contenders in September, it is important that they know how to win on the MCG, as it is for any team wanting to win a flag. However, looking at the recent records of the interstate teams at the MCG is grim reading overall.

Adelaide - 6 losses in a row
Brisbane - 2 wins in the last 10 games
Fremantle - 1 win in the last 12 games
Port Adelaide - 4 losses in a row
Sydney - 1 win in the last 15 games
West Coast - 1 win in the last 10 games

What are people's thoughts on this?

Pretty sure that all of those teams have beaten Melbourne at the MCG within those record timeframes lol

Adelaide v Melbourne this week. Crows would be certain favourites you'd think.

 

[telsor]

Happy for the G to be used, but every team should get at least 2 games there per season - no matter if they are Victorian or non-Victorian based (There are 4 MCG tennants, so if you only play each of them once you play 2 home and 2 away minimum).

How a Melbourne based club could get only a single H&A games at the MCG is ridiculous (Bulldogs 2014, St. Kilda 2009, North 2012) - and there would be more examples recently as well

Not so sure about 2 every year, but generally, yes.

I'd have 16-20 games for 'non-vic' clubs, weighted depending on where they finished the previous year (so if you played finals last year, you'll probably play 3 this year, while if you were bottom 4, you'd only get 1).

As for MCG tenants...If only the AFL would let us play all our games there....

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Not so sure about 2 every year, but generally, yes.

I'd have 16-20 games for 'non-vic' clubs, weighted depending on where they finished the previous year (so if you played finals last year, you'll probably play 3 this year, while if you were bottom 4, you'd only get 1).

As for MCG tenants...If only the AFL would let us play all our games there....

I don't understand the logic there (well I do, but I think it's stupid) - it's okay for teams to choose to play a home game interstate (Melbourne in Darwin, Hawks and North and Tasmania and I think you guys in QLD), but if you want to play all your other home games at your own home ground, you're told no?

 

[Mateyman]

Still different from an AFL game. And home crowd advantage is still a pretty big factor. Kardinia Park/Skilled Stadium has similar dimensions as Subi/Domain, but we have a pretty poor record against the Cats there, I think almost every team does.

But there is minimal if any home crowd advantage at the G comes the GF

 

[Papa G]

When this ridiculous 45 year MCG GF deal was signed did the MCG/VIC govt have to actually put their hand in their pockets? Also when other cities "bid" for events like the draft, they pay for it but when say the Brownlow is held in Melbourne does the Vic govt or that Crown monstrosity have to pay for the free advertising?

 

[telsor]

I don't understand the logic there (well I do, but I think it's stupid) - it's okay for teams to choose to play a home game interstate (Melbourne in Darwin, Hawks and North and Tasmania and I think you guys in QLD), but if you want to play all your other home games at your own home ground, you're told no?

It's pretty simple, and only really benefits the AFL.

Docklands will be handed over to the AFL if the AFL plays the required number of games there.
The Docklands owners, having a captive client base charges the clubs massive sums.
Tenant clubs, desperate to actually make some money, try and play elsewhere (which also feeds into the AFL agenda of getting game sin more places).
That leaves a shortfall in matches at the ground, so the AFL forces the other Vic clubs to play there instead in order to ensure it's meets it's requirements.

So the AFL wins by getting a ground 'for free' *cough*, and also gets games played at other places that make it feel/seem more national.
Vic clubs meanwhile either pay through the nose to provide this 'free' ground, or piss off/lose local fans from playing elsewhere.


Meanwhile people outside Vic tell us that the AFL is all about helping Vic clubs

 

[blue harvest]

When this ridiculous 45 year MCG GF deal was signed did the MCG/VIC govt have to actually put their hand in their pockets?

Yep, that's what paid for a lot of the new Southern Stand and later on again the new Ponsford/Olympic stands. The MCC still has something like $200M debt.
That's why the AFL have to honour the deal, without it the G would be like Subiaco.

 

[Papa G]

Yep, that's what paid for a lot of the new Southern Stand and later on again the new Ponsford/Olympic stands. The MCC still has something like $200M debt.
That's why the AFL have to honour the deal, without it the G would be like Subiaco.

Pretty cosy little deal there. Is there an AFL ministry in the Victorian cabinet?

 

[telsor]

Pretty cosy little deal there. Is there an AFL ministry in the Victorian cabinet?

As opposed to 'cosy little deal' to do up Adelaide oval on the condition that the AFL clubs moved there?

 

[Papa G]

As opposed to 'cosy little deal' to do up Adelaide oval on the condition that the AFL clubs moved there?

Why else would it have been done up?
Not sure theres a deal to play all grand finals there.
Surely the new grand stands costs could have been justifiable to house the Tiger Army March through August.

 

[telsor]

Why else would it have been done up?
Not sure theres a deal to play all grand finals there.
Surely the new grand stands costs could have been justifiable to house the Tiger Army March through August.

Why else would the MCG have been done up?

and the deal isn't just for the GF...it's 45(?) H&A games & 1 final per week.

 

[Syd]

Hence why Hawthorn or Collingwood will win the flag. Whoever makes it. Sydney especially are just deplorable at the MCG. If Richmond came up against them next week at the MCG I'd be very confident even in current form.

ps. excluded Brisbane, Port and Freo as they're irrelevant.

Quality post/prediction in 2012

Love the bump

 

[MarkT2]

Still a massive issue that needs rectifying, after all this is the AFL not the VFL.

Would Hawthorn have a three peat if they didn't get to play interstate teams on the MCG? Highly unlikely.

This is why Brisbane will always be remembered as a better side than Hawthorn. People really underestimate how tough it is for interstate teams to win one premiership, let alone three in a row with the Grand Final being played at the MCG every year.

Every single word is unsubstantiated tripe and paranoid, entitlement driven whining about nothing.

The MCC don't want small loss making crowds, the AFL don't want to and cannot schedule for contractual reasons too many loss making games at the G and even if all that wasn't true there is still only 1 MCG and 18 teams which means they can't even accommodate all the actual tenants home games.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Every single word is unsubstantiated tripe and paranoid, entitlement driven whining about nothing.

The MCC don't want small loss making crowds, the AFL don't want to and cannot schedule for contractual reasons too many loss making games at the G and even if all that wasn't true there is still only 1 MCG and 18 teams which means they can't even accommodate all the actual tenants home games.

Collingwood have 9 home and 5 away games at the G
Melbourne 8 home 4 away at the G
Hawthorn 7 home 3 away at the G
Richmond 8 home and 5 away at the G

How anyone can think a side from outside of Victoria playing any of these sides in a final at the MCG is on a fair playing field probably needs to go to speak to someone about their mindset.

I understand and accept this is how it is and has been this way for so long or ever but it doesn't change what it is.

 

[MarkT2]

Collingwood have 9 home and 5 away games at the G
Melbourne 8 home 4 away at the G
Hawthorn 7 home 3 away at the G
Richmond 8 home and 5 away at the G

How anyone can think a side from outside of Victoria playing any of these sides in a final at the MCG is on a fair playing field probably needs to go to speak to someone about their mindset.

I understand and accept this is how it is and has been this way for so long or ever but it doesn't change what it is.

MCG tenants play home games at other venues and other MCG tenants at the G, as well as Etihad tenants subject to AFL contracts that go to funding the competition. Fairness is subjective and in any case isn't a part of the equation any more than it is for making finals participation easier if you have 12 games in Perth or Sydney. If you are based where there are more teams you will travel less. If you want an even distribution of teams , which is the only solution then you can forget viability of the competition at current players payment and club costing levels.

Whinging about the disadvantages of your location is pointless, one sided and financially naïve.