North want to play 2 home games in WA next season

[The Feeder Club]

I know North need a solution to solve the Tasmania loss but if this gets approved (with Freo or WC the opponent) we'd now have 3 sides effectively getting 12 home games per year compared to the rest of the competition's 11, alongside Gather Round. There are plenty of inequalities in the AFL, including Grand Final day, but surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones. It stinks.

In principle I agree, but let's talk when Collingwood stop playing 14 or 15 H&A games a year at the MCG

 

[Sentinel]

Inequalities in the competition have existed since it became a National comp, but the teams that have been benefiting from it since say 1 have only started to complain about any sort of "unfairness" now that other teams are getting some small benefits.

A Perth team getting to travel a bit less is nowhere near the biggest issue with the competition

Didnt say its the biggest issue, nor is this the first time anyone has raised inequalities within the AFL.

As you'll see in my initial post: "surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."

 

[stallon]

Two games a year could set them up pretty nicely after Tasmania.

Then it reduces the travel burden for West Coast and Freo, increases footy content in Perth, and pretty much negates any need for a third Perth team.

I wouldnt say negates, it reduces it though.

 

[Spirit Level]

I know North need a solution to solve the Tasmania loss but if this gets approved (with Freo or WC the opponent) we'd now have 3 sides effectively getting 12 home games per year compared to the rest of the competition's 11, alongside Gather Round. There are plenty of inequalities in the AFL, including Grand Final day, but surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones. It stinks.

Weekly reminder that your team gets 16 games in their home city per year and an extra home game to WA teams still doesn't erase the inequalities the WA teams face vs the Victorian teams.

Dumbarse

 

[stallon]

I know North need a solution to solve the Tasmania loss but if this gets approved (with Freo or WC the opponent) we'd now have 3 sides effectively getting 12 home games per year compared to the rest of the competition's 11, alongside Gather Round. There are plenty of inequalities in the AFL, including Grand Final day, but surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones. It stinks.

12 home games instead of 17 games in your home state is an ok trade off, even still slightly vic team favoured

 

[Sentinel]

Weekly reminder that your team gets 16 games in their home city per year and an extra home game to WA teams still doesn't erase the inequalities the WA teams face vs the Victorian teams.

Dumbarse

"surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."

12 home games instead of 17 games in your home state is an ok trade off, even still slightly vic team favoured

"surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."

 

[William Lamb]

Why though, would there be any demand?

There's no demand in playing Freo at Docklands. There's hearsay that the club has asked the AFL not to schedule Freo at the Docklands in previous years only to get knocked back. It's a terrible crowd and I think ends up at a financial loss.

So the idea would be sell the game to Freo/WC at a small profit (instead of a loss), then Freo/WC get a full or near full house like they always do, netting themselves a small profit they wouldn't have made otherwise.

 

[stallon]

"surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."

"surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."

Reducing the travel inequality for the WA clubs is a step toward a more balanced competition. This is one of the easiest ways to fix this pretty important issue, a club is literally asking to be the solution lol

Regardless of how you think of it, the AFL has shown that they dont care about adding more inequalities to balance out existing inequalities. They like to have levers to play with to adjust as they see fit, the draft being the main example im referring to.

 

[Chip Scab1]

We have over 10,000 paid members in WA. Makes sense as we aren't the minnow in WA, we are everywhere else.

 

[Sentinel]

Reducing the travel inequality for the WA clubs is a step toward a more balanced competition. This is one of the easiest ways to fix this pretty important issue, a club is literally asking to be the solution lol

Regardless of how you think of it, the AFL has shown that they dont care about adding more inequalities to balance out existing inequalities. They like to have levers to play with to adjust as they see fit, the draft being the main example im referring to.

Do you think 1 game for 1 of the 2 teams would have a significant impact with that though? I might be wrong but I'd be more inclined to think having road trips for WA clubs to play several games away, and on the flipside having a decent stretch of home games together, like the NBA might be beneficial but equally that mightn't work because of the time between games.

I appreciate what this would do for both North (financially, not for on field results) and their opponent, and understand that there are some inherent disadvantages which can't really be solved organically, but the fixture (like the draft) is such a mess already so I'm not a fan at all of adding even more quirks to it - rather I think they should be removing them where they can.

 

[boncer34]

We have over 10,000 paid members in WA. Makes sense as we aren't the minnow in WA, we are everywhere else.

20% of your membership base is in WA? I call bullshit.

 

[Sentinel]

20% of your membership base is in WA? I call bullshit.

The Barry Cable effect perhaps?

 

[Spirit Level]

"surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."

"surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."

So your solution is to reduce the amount of games vic teams play in melbourne?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Functionally, in terms of fairness, how is it any different to Geelong hosting the big Melbourne clubs at the MCG?

Precedent is already set

Well, firstly, because there's more Geelong supporters in Melbourne than there is in Geelong.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Well, firstly, because there's more Geelong supporters in Melbourne than there is in Geelong.

Could almost say something similar about North supporters in Perth

 

[The Feeder Club]

So your solution is to reduce the amount of games vic teams play in melbourne?

The best solution is to reduce the number of Vic teams. But none of them want to hear that

 

[stallon]

Do you think 1 game for 1 of the 2 teams would have a significant impact with that though? I might be wrong but I'd be more inclined to think having road trips for WA clubs to play several games away, and on the flipside having a decent stretch of home games together, like the NBA might be beneficial but equally that mightn't work because of the time between games.

It definitely would help. Doing road trips only works while a playing group is young and has no kids. That was a big part of why the Eagles struggled with the covid hubs, so many of the players had families and they werent given dates for how long theyd be away for. Then there is all the other staff who may have to be away for multiple weeks too.
Why not just have the vic clubs do road trips? 2 Vic clubs per year spend 3 weeks in WA, they could play west coast, then each other, then play freo before heading home. Every 5 years the club gets to spend 3 weeks away(10 vic clubs, 2 per year). A lot more manageable and fair than making the WA teams do it every year.

I appreciate what this would do for both North (financially, not for on field results) and their opponent, and understand that there are some inherent disadvantages which can't really be solved organically, but the fixture (like the draft) is such a mess already so I'm not a fan at all of adding even more quirks to it - rather I think they should be removing them where they can.

The fix is to either give the WA clubs an extra home game like SA gets with gather round, or find another way to reduce travel that is not just the WA clubs spending 3 weeks away in a row every year.

 

[Plugger35]

AFL wont allow it v eagles or v dockers.
But will allow it v saints or hawks

Why would the Saints or the Hawks want to travel to WA to play a game against North which North get all the money from?

It would benefit the Eagles or the Dockers to play North in WA as they don't have to travel but it's no benefit to other clubs.

 

[Rob]

Ordinarily I'd be against it as it lowers the integrity of the competition.

But the AFL clearly don't give a **** about the integrity of the competition so why should I?

 

[jiphoc]

Why would the Saints or the Hawks want to travel to WA to play a game against North which North get all the money from?

It would benefit the Eagles or the Dockers to play North in WA as they don't have to travel but it's no benefit to other clubs.

Additionally why would North not request to play Hawks down in Tassie?

This stinks of AFL intervention to get North to play a WA team to reduce travel for then. North are just the fodder.

 

[WeMissYouMarkCoughlan]

They should request to play one of the double header Friday games in Perth.

 

[Power Raid]

I remember they tried this years ago but the AFL blocked it, saying you can’t sell your home games to a location that already has an AFL team.

Could the AFL have changed their tune in the hunt for money?

Would seem a bit of a dangerous precedent where rich clubs could buy home games.

Every Melbourne club should be encouraged to sell a few home games to level out the average number of games they play in Melbourne to a number closer to 14

 

[The_Reaper]

Well, firstly, because there's more Geelong supporters in Melbourne than there is in Geelong.

That has nothing to do with fairness at all.

 

[chaddy22]

The Barry Cable effect perhaps?

If you are a keen follower of West Australian football, there is a reasonable chance that North Melbourne would have been your team in the VFL if you were around before 1987.

North retain a strong WA following 28 years after West Coast entered the competition and 20 years following the admission of Fremantle.

Why? Because of the parade of WA champions that were running around for them from the time that Barry Cable crossed the Nullarbor to play for the Kangaroos in 1970, until the period Ross Glendinning returned from North to lead West Coast in their inaugural season in 1987.

West Australians have remained strong contributors at the Kangaroos since.

More than any other single VFL team of the 1970s and 1980s, the Kangaroos plucked the cream of the WAFL for almost 20 years before the advent of the Eagles.

And they got serious bang for their buck.

The team we picked of West Australians who represented the Kangaroos includes players who account for eight Sandover Medals — Cable (three), Peter Spencer and Phil Kelly (two each) and Graham Melrose (one). There would have been a ninth, but Derek Kickett was ineligible when he dominated the 1988 vote count.

​

There is also a Brownlow medallist in there as well, thanks to Glendinning’s super 1983 campaign.

He was also runner-up the previous year. Cable finished fourth in 1970 and 1976.

West Australians account for 10 best and fairests at North Melbourne from 1970 to the present day. Cable won in 1970, Glendining in 1982 and 1983, Jim Krakouer in 1986, Peter Bell in 2000, Andrew Swallow in 2009, Daniel Wells and Swallow in 2011, Swallow in 2012 and Wells, who shared the gong with Scott Thompson in 2013.

The WA contingent also account for several All-Australian jumpers and team-of-the-year honours. Cable was a multiple All-Australian, ditto Glendinning. Bell was an All-Australian in 1999.

Krakouer was named in the VFL team of the year in 1986 and 1987, a side Glendinning was also named in for three successive seasons in the 1980s.

Every North Melbourne premiership team has contained at least one West Australian — Cable in 1975, Cable and Stephen McCann in 1977, Bell and Dean Laidley in 1996 and Bell and Winston Abraham in 1999. Melrose was desperately unlucky to miss the 1975 flag through injury.

Two West Australians have coached North — Cable from 1981 to 1983 and Laidley from 2003 to 2009, highlighted by a preliminary final in 2007.

Swallow has captained the club the past three seasons.

 

[hotchilli]

Additionally why would North not request to play Hawks down in Tassie?

This stinks of AFL intervention to get North to play a WA team to reduce travel for then. North are just the fodder.

Because it’s planning for life after Tassie when they have their own side and we won’t be playing any home games in Tassie.