North want to sell a home game to the Dockers or Eagles

[Rooboy53]

It’s not a great measure but it’s the best we have.

Ultimately I think they’d be best off attacking a new market - but they’re probably all taken.

So 8000 paid up members not as good as a facebook page.....got it.

Im guessing here but the non travel component for WCE & Freo is huge & goes some way to equalization for them.
We would be well compensated for the game & probably get a high stake from the gate currently we have 4 games in Tasi so if its only 2 games we get to see our team more often. We get better exposure on TV for our sponsors than a Sunday arvo 3.10 slot.
Could also probably put on the table to the AFL we will do this but dont want to go to Qland in the name of equalization to the teams of the West.

Not so bad and make millions....

 

[Mitchell Madness]

All teams should be selling a home game to one of the wa or SA clubs (if they want to)

Would stop the whinging about travel, allow fans of those clubs who don't get to attend due to membership numbers the chance to attend.
If the afl is concerned about "integrity" of it, capnthe amount of games that can be taken to those locations at 3 per team

 

[stallon]

Telling this to a Dogs fan is rich.

Travel is not as much as a determinant of home ground advantage as crowd factors.

Small Melbourne teams are not allowed to reduce the capacity of their ground to prevent away fans (interstate or Melbourne) to attend the game. In fact, when we play a large Melbourne club, at our home ground, we are often outnumbered by home fans.

If 5,000 West Coast fans wanted to fly from Perth to Melbourne to watch the Dogs, they would be able to. If the Western Bulldogs wanted to prevent the West Coast fans from attending the game, the AFL wouldn't let them. However, West Coast is allowed to prevent 5,000 Western Bulldogs fans from flying over to Perth, because the capacity of the stadium is limited artificially by the construction of its size.

This leads to the overall aggregrate crowds the Dogs play in front of over the course of their 23 games to be playing in front of far more away fans, than they do home fans. I will concede that there's not much we can do about this in a Melbourne vs. Melbourne game, though it should be noted that Collingwood etc. can effectively prevent GA access to away fans for their games, but we can't for away fans. I would love it, if we were to host Collingwood, for the AFL to allow the Western Bulldogs to progressively sell tickets as a priority first to Dogs GA members before they do it to Collingwood away access members or the GA public, but they don't, and the AFL doesn't allow us to.

For instance, if West Coast and Western Bulldogs were to play each other once home and once away, West Coast would play in front of an aggregated amount of 55,000 West Coast fans (50k in their home game and 5k in their away game), and Dogs would only play in front of 25k Bulldogs fans (24k in their home game and 1k in their away game).

And before you say, "well that's just the realities of being a small club", I could argue, that the realities of West Coast being a big club is only due to geographical reasons that allow you to be a big club (being the first club in Perth and only one of two), the same geographical realities that is often a complaint of West Coast fans that mean they do extra travel in the first place.

For the same reasons, try telling a Geelong fan that they have a unique home ground advantage - they can effectively lock out the crowd of Melbourne-based fans when they go to Geelong, but Melbourne-based teams can't lock out Geelong fans from attending away games in Melbourne on an equivalent basis, meaning that Geelong have a distinct home ground advantage that doesn't become a disadvantage in the return, away matchup. Geelong fans refuse to accept that for some reason though (or at least that they have to play MCG home finals is a reasonable trade-off to that advantage).

Maybe you could have a point arguing with a Big 4 club fan but arguing the point with a Dogs fan isn't going to get you anywhere.

Not passing judgement whether North should be allowed to sell their home game - they're effectively selling off some of their home ground advantage to make more money - but it is uniquely distinct from other fixturing advantages/disadvantages.

Why are you on about crowd sizes? Thats hardly the biggest factor here.
The travel is the issue. Players being away from their family and from their own bed for 3-4 days every fortnight makes a huge difference.
I do not care at all where the games are played or how many fans are there, I just want the travel burden to be eased somewhat as that is the biggest inequality for the WA teams by far, and one of the biggest inequalities in the entire competition

 

[amazingjoshy]

Why are you on about crowd sizes? Thats hardly the biggest factor here.
The travel is the issue. Players being away from their family and from their own bed for 3-4 days every fortnight makes a huge difference.
I do not care at all where the games are played or how many fans are there, I just want the travel burden to be eased somewhat as that is the biggest inequality for the WA teams by far, and one of the biggest inequalities in the entire competition

Meanwhile

"The Blues are already slated to play away games in Round 1 (Richmond), Round 5 (Gather Round) and Round 6 for Good Friday (North Melbourne) and want to steer clear of another trip away to New South Wales or Queensland for the Opening Round on March 6-8."

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I do not care at all where the games are played or how many fans are there, I just want the travel burden to be eased somewhat as that is the biggest inequality for the WA teams by far,

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?

Why are you on about crowd sizes? Thats hardly the biggest factor here.

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.

I just want the travel burden to be eased somewhat as that is the biggest inequality for the WA teams by far, and one of the biggest inequalities in the entire competition

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.

 

[Taylor]

I think the AFL will just pay North to "sell" a game to WC and Freo so both teams play an extra game at home and they'll pretend a week off travel makes up for the massive differential - and it would go part way.

I think we will know the AFL has paid for the game if the members of both WC and Freo get access to the games included. The AFL getting a take of the catering.

Carlton is due to play a home game in Adelaide this year anyway

 

[windyhill]

I would argue North Melbourne would be the West's 3rd most supported footy team.

God knows how or why but I think it’s Essendon.

 

[stallon]

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?

Its hardly a secret that the travel loads affect things like recovery and player mental health. The information is all out there. Fifo work is hardly a new phenomenon

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.

Jesus christ mate, im not reading all this.

Travel load has a bigger effect than having a smaller advantage in your home games.
All the home advantage the non vic clubs get does is helps them be less shit and stay closer to the middle of the ladder, it doesnt help them win a premiership

 

[stallon]

Meanwhile

"The Blues are already slated to play away games in Round 1 (Richmond), Round 5 (Gather Round) and Round 6 for Good Friday (North Melbourne) and want to steer clear of another trip away to New South Wales or Queensland for the Opening Round on March 6-8."

Gee imagine having 2 travel games in the first 6 weeks of the season, crazy stuff. One of them is all the way up to Sydney too! Thats a whole hour and 20 mins on the plane
We should be doing more for them

 

[amazingjoshy]

Gee imagine having 2 travel games in the first 6 weeks of the season, crazy stuff. One of them is all the way up to Sydney too! Thats a whole hour and 20 mins on the plane
We should be doing more for them

Seems the Blues think that travel is a factor

They should read this thread to realise its not

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Travel load has a bigger effect than having a smaller advantage in your home games.

What proof do you have of this?

Its hardly a secret that the travel loads affect things like recovery and player mental health. The information is all out there. Fifo work is hardly a new phenomenon

Ok sure, I don't disagree but at least try to contextualise it given the known statistical advantages of crowds.

How many points per game (or aggregated over a season) things like recovery and player mental health factors harm Perth teams, relative to the rest of the league?

At least we know that when Dogs host Essendon in a home game, it's about a two-point advantage to Essendon. When Essendon host us, it's about a nine-point advantage.

When West Coast host Dogs, it's about an eleven-point advantage. When Bulldogs host West Coast, it's about a seven-point advantage.

When the Dogs host Geelong it's about a two-point advantage. When Geelong host Dogs, it's about a eight-point advantage.

This is directly due to statistical relationship of crowd sizes.

While teams play some teams once and some teams twice, the broad principles above is true for the 11 home and 11 away games generally.

The best player in the league is worth about 9-10 points themselves (we can infer this from gambling markets moving as well as their proportion of player statistics). A good, AA-quality but not best player is maybe worth a goal if they're a late out. So when you're aggregating these home ground advantages over 22/23 games, a few points here or there, in context, is like having/not having a great player.

At least I'm trying to contextualise it. Give me a points per game (or aggregate of the season) for the travel factors you suggest are a disadvantage. I think it's less than the aggregate of the Dogs' home/away crowd splits adding up to a difference of 2-4 points per game of match margin on average per 23 games (or 4-8 points of margin per collective set of 1 home, 1 away game).

 

[stallon]

What proof do you have of this?

Ok sure, I don't disagree but at least try to contextualise it given the known statistical advantages of crowds.

How many points per game (or aggregated over a season) things like recovery and player mental health factors harm Perth teams, relative to the rest of the league?

At least we know that when Dogs host Essendon in a home game, it's about a two-point advantage to Essendon. When Essendon host us, it's about a nine-point advantage.

When West Coast host Dogs, it's about an eleven-point advantage. When Bulldogs host West Coast, it's about a seven-point advantage.

When the Dogs host Geelong it's about a two-point advantage. When Geelong host Dogs, it's about a eight-point advantage.

This is directly due to statistical relationship of crowd sizes.

While teams play some teams once and some teams twice, the broad principles above is true for the 11 home and 11 away games generally.

The best player in the league is worth about 9-10 points themselves (we can infer this from gambling markets moving as well as their proportion of player statistics). A good, AA-quality but not best player is maybe worth a goal if they're a late out. So when you're aggregating these home ground advantages over 22/23 games, a few points here or there, in context, is like having/not having a great player.

At least I'm trying to contextualise it. Give me a points per game (or aggregate of the season) for the travel factors you suggest are a disadvantage. I think it's less than the aggregate of the Dogs' home/away crowd splits adding up to a difference of 2-4 points per game of match margin on average per 23 games (or 4-8 points of margin per collective set of 1 home, 1 away game).

Mate I do not care enough to read an entire essay response to each comment.

Nothing I said was wrong or controversial, go and do some research. Fifo is not a new thing, its well researched, the recovery aspect and time spent travelling is also a factor.
I have no idea what you could possibly be writing to refute this

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Mate I do not care enough to read an entire essay response to each comment.

Nothing I said was wrong or controversial, go and do some research. Fifo is not a new thing, its well researched, the recovery aspect and time spent travelling is also a factor.
I have no idea what you could possibly be writing to refute this

I'll make it simple.

Number of one teams fans - number of other teams' fans = home ground advantage (aggregated across a whole season). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10653546/

Dogs' 23 games has more opposition fans than Dogs fans. 75 point disadvantge.

Eagles' 23 games has more Eagles fans than opposition fans. 30 point advantage.

The biggest beneficiary of this is Geelong, who have about a 100 point advantage in the season.

The value of an an average established best 22 player is also worth about 75 points across a season, for context.

If your FIFO claims are well researched, can you please put them into context to how many aggregated points in a season you think it harms West Coast, so we have a scale and context to discuss.