North want to play 2 home games in WA next season

[threenewpadlocks]

It's been pointed out time and time again, that sharing a ground is a far greater a disadvantage than travel. This proposal means 3 teams now share Optus. That is of far greater benefit to vic teams than the two WA teams getting an extra match at Optus.

And to all those complaining about compromised fixtures, you're just sooking cos it doesn't help you for once. The fixtures are already ****ed and this doesn't change that fact.

Lol, agreeing with this but clearly the conclusion is that there's a disadvantage to small Melbourne clubs (like North and Dogs) having to play nominal "home" games such as against Carlton and Essendon at Docklands (and even against each other), given that fans of those away teams can clearly attend games, give vocal crowd support and are not unfamiliar with the ground?

 

[AstonSouffle]

Absolute disgrace that the AFL allow and actively encourage this..

Imagine Freo play North Home & Away in Perth next season at Optus?

The melting would be radioactive (and rightfully so mind you, but gosh I'd love to see it).

 

[hawkman]

Imagine Freo play North Home & Away in Perth next season at Optus?

The melting would be radioactive (and rightfully so mind you, but gosh I'd love to see it).

Think they will always get the team they play down in Bunbury as the away game

 

[JPetro83]

AFL should say no or tell them to pick elsewhere! Cairns

 

[wandering123]

AFL should say no or tell them to pick elsewhere! somewhere actually NORTH

And why would the AFL do that? The AFL would want more games in WA to lessen the bickering from WC & Freo about travel.

 

[Philth]

Some of the comments here are genuinely laughable.

Proud of the club for pulling the available levers to increase revenue, whilst thinking outside the box to alleviate travel concerns that plague this league.

So, North are doing this to alleviate travel concerns for Freo and WC?

Lol, I don't think so.

And there's no way they would be considering this if they were a finals contender next year.

It's for $$$$$. Nothing more.

 

[Farang83150]

What do you mean by "inequity"?

Of course Perth has to travel more, that's the geographic reality of being Perth. I don't agree that we should try and square it away, it's part of the realities of variance that cities being building up due to geographic and economic factors happen. The very fact that Perth is an isolated and growing city both necessitates travel but also is the reason why the club can be a strong club in the first place. If you took the city of Perth and dumped it halfway across the Nullabor, the travel to the east would be less, but you wouldn't have a team, because you wouldn't have a city, because there's no reason for a city to have developed in the Nullabor. West Coast and Fremantle were both aware of the geograhpic realities of being Perth as they entered the competition.

I agree it's unfortunate that your players are away from their families more often. But in the interests of sporting fairness, what proof do you have that it influences match results?


There have been numerous studies done on home ground advantage and they all find that the majority of home ground advantage is through noise of affirmation impacting umpiring (and maybe player effort) from crowds offering support. The bigger the crowd, and the the bigger the difference between home and away supporters in the ground, the greater influence it has. Footballistics wrote a chapter on this (a book about AFL published in 2018), or you can literally just google any of the litany of academic research on the various global sports that played without crowds under Covid e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10653546/

Even if I were to agree that more travel is a disadvantage (not that I necessarily do), at the same time, you can't decontextualise the fact that such increased travel is resultant of other factors that also contribute to home ground advantages, such as the ability to build a bigger stadium and have more fans attend the game, due to the growth of the city due to the very same isolated geographic factors. You can't claim one and ignore the other.

And I disagree because I believe that the biggest inequity is the fact that by virtue of being forced to play in stadiums with increased capacities, many Melbourne-based teams cannot create a home-ground advantage by only attempting to sell home game tickets to supporters of their teams. (And a smaller factor of ground familiarity, in the Dogs' home games their opponents are typically familiar with Docklands to some extent, but the Dogs are completely unfamiliar with interstate venues. Plus MCG finals in terms of ground familiarity too - we played Hawthorn at their home ground with more Hawks fans in our final this year, I get we didn't have to travel, but we clearly had a disadvantage depsite being the nominal home team).

No Melbourne team is allowed to prevent an away Geelong fan from purchasing a ticket if the seat is unsold, the AFL does not let them because it aims to maximise revenue, though Geelong can effectively prevent an away team fan from going to the game into Geelong - there is no capacity to buy a membership or a cheap face-value ticket at Kardinia as you can at many Docklands and MCG games. The same is broadly true for interstate teams, though I will concede far fewer people intend to fly between the cities than drive between Melbourne and Geelong. The Dogs would love to be able to have a stadium where we can essentially sell out the crowd with only Dogs fans and we do to an extent in Ballarat. The AFL has prevented us playing a home game at the Whitten Oval in recent years even though it's up to AFL hosting standard.

With regard to the unfairness of the big Melbourne clubs getting their fixture preferences - yes, I agree with that, but that's a pro-big-Melbourne-club bias, which impacts both the small Melbourne clubs and the interstate clubs. It's not inherently anti-interstate club.

"that's the geographic reality of being Perth. I don't agree that we should try and square it away"...
As is the fact your team is in a state with to many teams, yet I'm sure you agree it should be squared away by your club getting given more money than others.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Joondalup Kangaroos. You're welcome Laura.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

"that's the geographic reality of being Perth. I don't agree that we should try and square it away"...
As is the fact your team is in a state with to many teams, yet I'm sure you agree it should be squared away by your club getting given more money than others.

I mean sure but I don't see how that's any different than being an equal part of the league providing context to the competition in it having interest because clubs are considered relatively equal.

If you don't think we should get money, why stop there? Why not, remove the salary cap and allow the richer clubs to buy better players?

 

[Farang83150]

I mean sure but I don't see how that's any different than being an equal part of the league providing context to the competition in it having interest because clubs are considered relatively equal.

If you don't think we should get money, why stop there? Why not, remove the salary cap and allow the richer clubs to buy better players?

So you don't think travel should be evened up a little because of geography but you think the WB should be given more money than others because their in a place with to many teams.
Get the extra money to even things up.

 

[AstonSouffle]

View attachment 2155099

Joondalup Kangaroos. You're welcome Laura.

Why stop there - South West Pelicans has a nice ring to it!

 

[Cam Payne]

Joondalup - Rockingham Expats.

P.s. Bunbury is north of North Melbourne. A little north of Sydney for that matter.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So you don't think travel should be evened up a little because of geography

But if we're going to consider geography as something that needs to be equalised, it's only fair to consider geography's impact on all elements of how it influences the sporting competition beyond just travel.

I can then argue that geography is what allows for Perth to be a big city and for the Perth teams to be strong clubs with regards to financial security and desirability for players as much as it is a disadvantage for travel.

For instance, the U18 division 1 championships has five teams - Allies, WA, SA, Vic Country, Vic Metro.

Now lets line them up with the AFL clubs based in the same regions that there's clearly a preference to have local talent developed and put in the shop window for you:

Allies - 4 teams
WA - 2 teams
SA - 2 teams
Vic Country and Vic Metro - 10 teams/2

Yet 50+% of victorians are good enough to be drafted in the league, but Victoria doesn't get the advantage of the talent development of these players going through the U18 nationals. Many Victorian players get drafted without playing for Vic Metro or Vic Country, while basically every WA draftee played for WA in the nationals.

If U18 nationals were not divided by geographic lines, you'd have proportionally fewer WA and SA players playing in the nationals (as proven by draft statistics), making it less likely that their talent was developed relative to a non-champs playing Victorian player, making it less advantageous for the WA teams to have an AFL-paid for talent development thorugh the champs that allows it for the WA teams to identify and develop any of the players that played for the WA U18 teams.

FWIW I'm not saying that there should be a different system of U18 national champs. Due to geography, it's silly to do anything different. Just that it's reflective of a geographic reality that advantages the WA (indirectly) as much as travel apparently also disadvantages the team.

but you think the WB should be given more money than others because their in a place with to many teams.

No, it's nothing to do with where we're located. It's to do with the fact that we're providing context to an equal competition with 18 teams without relegation and that necessitates some level of equal footing. We understand this from a footballing sense with a salary cap and a draft. The same principles could hold true financially that would result in the fact, that for the same reason we want to make the league equal through a salary cap, we should also want to make the league equal financial in that all 18 teams can host 11 home games with a reasonably strong home ground advantage and if they desire, through a consistent home venue.

The fact that WA teams can effectively use their financial strength to buy a home game from an away team creates an on-field advantage that's principally no different to if they artificially got a higher salary cap or better draft picks - the net result is still ultimately that they're more likely to win games.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Why stop there - South West Pelicans has a nice ring to it!

JOONDA JOONDA JOONDA

ROO ROO ROO

Supporters will love it.

This is a home run.

 

[Farang83150]

Mixed feelings on this, would rather not see my tax money going to help prop North Melbourne up, but hey, it’s an extra game in Perth, and I guess as a paying AFL customer, I already do pay to prop up the teams that don’t make money without additional top ups.

Brings things in line with the SA teams and an arrangement like this was pretty much the only way it was going to happen.

As a tax payer from WA your already propping up Victoria.

 

[Spirit Level]

There are pros and cons. It’s fine to have the argument, but you should acknowledge both sides.

Vic clubs travel less but also have much less home ground advantage.

My club as an example - since the end of COVID we’ve played 68 H&A games.

We’ve won 43%, which is a fair representation of where we are at.

Of the 68, only 18 have been in Vic against interstate opposition - so true home ground advantage. Average of 6 games per season.

We’ve actually won 56% of these, for very good reason - home advantage.

We’ve had 33 games against Vic opposition, for a 43% win rate. Exactly in line with our overall success.

We’ve travelled interstate 16 times, or just over 5 times per year.

I’d bump that 5 trips up to 10 if it meant 10 true home games against interstate opposition, for sure. We’d be much better off.

There isn't two sides to this argument though.

Vic clubs get to spend the majority of the season in their own state and play away games at their home ground.

There is an indisputable advantage to that, you can complain and try to argue against it all you want but you'd be wrong.

 

[kreuze_missile]

As a tax payer from WA your already propping up Victoria.

Westralia.

 

[kreuze_missile]

There isn't two sides to this argument though.

Vic clubs get to spend the majority of the season in their own state and play away games at their home ground.

There is an indisputable advantage to that, you can complain and try to argue against it all you want but you'd be wrong.

On behalf of (most) Victorians we would be happy to see the Kangaroos, Demons, Bulldogs and Saints permanently relocated elsewhere.

 

[Philth]

There isn't two sides to this argument though.

Vic clubs get to spend the majority of the season in their own state and play away games at their home ground.

There is an indisputable advantage to that, you can complain and try to argue against it all you want but you'd be wrong.

Yes, but we also play home games against clubs who share our ground. eg Richmond v Hawthorn.

Etc, etc.....

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Vic clubs get to spend the majority of the season in their own state and play away games at their home ground.

There is an indisputable advantage to that, you can complain and try to argue against it all you want but you'd be wrong.

But isn't this equaled out by the very same disadvantage in reverse when you're hosting teams with your own home game to the opposition that doesn't have to travel?

 

[Spirit Level]

On behalf of (most) Victorians we would be happy to see the Kangaroos, Demons, Bulldogs and Saints permanently relocated elsewhere.

Either North or Melbourne would be a good case.

Bulldogs and Saints can stay, they serve a geographical purpose in Melbourne

 

[Spirit Level]

Yes, but we also play home games against clubs who share our ground. eg Richmond v Hawthorn.

Etc, etc.....

Doesn't matter, still an advantage over WA teams having to fly across the country every 2nd week

 

[Spirit Level]

But isn't this equaled out by the very same disadvantage in reverse when you're hosting teams with your own home game to the opposition that doesn't have to travel?

I had a stroke reading this.

But no, not equaled out at all. WA clubs are still at a disadvantage

 

[15yearmember]

Mixed feelings on this, would rather not see my tax money going to help prop North Melbourne up, but hey, it’s an extra game in Perth, and I guess as a paying AFL customer, I already do pay to prop up the teams that don’t make money without additional top ups.

Brings things in line with the SA teams and an arrangement like this was pretty much the only way it was going to happen.

Assuming you are based in WA then your taxes are already propping up Vic, no biggie extending the largesse to North

 

[bzparkes]

Why?

Tourism.