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

[Lincs]

If you guys believe in this, I have some magic beans to sell you.

This is 1 thing. North Melbourne launching a absurd proposal in order to shake down the AFL to get better/more funding from them. AFL will nevet go for this. They will simply pony up the 5 million they are after in funding and this will never be spoken about again

North Melbourne are deserving of it in the end. Brisbane Lions receive 7 mill more per year then them despite having 10x the assets North have. Give them the money and stop being hypocrites.

are those beans good eatin'?

 

[Enviable Tradition]

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.

Ok. Let's start with grand final day.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lincs]

What is the capacity of the ground? Would they bring in make ship stalls?

it's your standard oval, they have just put in a 750-seat stand (https://www.bunbury.wa.gov.au/projects/hands-oval-redevelopment). maybe 7500 with additional seating as that's apparently where they got to at Mt Barker... not sure what the plan is for parking though

 

[Billy ray]

A free home game for Freo and WC then.

SA teams get a free home game each for Gather Round already.

Draw already has no integrity anyway.

Where’s the extra home games for the suns i wonder. 9 on the gold coast. Would be nice to be 10 or 11 or 12

 

[Lincs]

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.

this is not exactly new though is it - Kangas and Dogs played regular "home" games in Sydney against the Swans in the late 90s/early 2000s, ditto for North and even Hawthorn once playing "home" against Brisbane at Carrara in the mid 2000s.

 

[stallon]

it's your standard oval, they have just put in a 750-seat stand (https://www.bunbury.wa.gov.au/projects/hands-oval-redevelopment). maybe 7500 with additional seating as that's apparently where they got to at Mt Barker... not sure what the plan is for parking though
View attachment 2154671

Probably set up a parking area down the road somewhere and do shuttle buses back and forward to the oval or something

 

[Sentinel]

this is not exactly new though is it - Kangas and Dogs played regular "home" games in Sydney against the Swans in the late 90s/early 2000s, ditto for North and even Hawthorn once playing "home" against Brisbane at Carrara in the mid 2000s.

Nope. And Collingwood this year played a "home" game at Marvel against the Dogs (I think they were forced to rather than selling it though).

I'm not a fan of any of it, including when my side benefits.

(I do appreciate that it somewhat assists the travel factor for WA sides though, but wish there was a better solution to that then relying on a small club selling a couple of home games off to their on-field detriment).

 

[WestCoast05]

I'm fundamentally opposed to this even though we as a club benefit.

The league is compromised enough as it is, we don't need more inequality we need less.

Granted it helps us with the excessive travel burden of WA clubs but IF an extra home game is the solution to the WA travel burden then it should not solely rely on North to have to cover that. The home game should at least be rotated.

Also, West Coast gets massive crowds even when they're at the bottom of the ladder - the game should be help at Optus to allow for there to be more home games available to attend.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Nth playing 4d chess

 

[Altum Volantes]

it's your standard oval, they have just put in a 750-seat stand (https://www.bunbury.wa.gov.au/projects/hands-oval-redevelopment). maybe 7500 with additional seating as that's apparently where they got to at Mt Barker... not sure what the plan is for parking though
View attachment 2154671

North should set up their HQ in Big Swamp Reserve.

Will feel just like Melbourne.

 

[Altum Volantes]

I think they will play away in Perth vs Eagles at Optus. Ideally 1 trip west in round 2(Darlings 300th), then do the other 2 WA games later in the year, around school holidays in winter perhaps

It would be nice to bring out the Bronx cheers for the big man on his special day.

 

[Rob]

Nth playing 4d chess

Dunno whether that means an awful lot given Freo have been ordinary and West Coast have been complete arse.

 

[stallon]

I'm fundamentally opposed to this even though we as a club benefit.

The league is compromised enough as it is, we don't need more inequality we need less.

Granted it helps us with the excessive travel burden of WA clubs but IF an extra home game is the solution to the WA travel burden then it should not solely rely on North to have to cover that. The home game should at least be rotated.

Also, West Coast gets massive crowds even when they're at the bottom of the ladder - the game should be help at Optus to allow for there to be more home games available to attend.

Every other club gets things to swing it in their favour. SA gets gather round, Vic gets 10 teams in their state so they barely travel, NSW and QLD get their bs academies, etc.
WA is the state with nothing.

Yes its not ideal that it has to be done this way, but thats more on the AFL refusing to do anything for so long, the clubs have to take it into their own hands to find something.
This is just whats come out of it all.

If the AFL wont remove the existing inequities in the comp then more need to be added to even it up somewhat

 

[stallon]

Nope. And Collingwood this year played a "home" game at Marvel against the Dogs (I think they were forced to rather than selling it though).

I'm not a fan of any of it, including when my side benefits.

(I do appreciate that it somewhat assists the travel factor for WA sides though, but wish there was a better solution to that then relying on a small club selling a couple of home games off to their on-field detriment).

The "best" solutions are ones that people in victoria dont want to hear. Gather round in WA, mini conference where a couple of vic clubs stay over in WA for a couple of weeks a year, or the big one, removing teams.

The SA teams/government have literally bought an extra home game the last 2 years from the AFL with gather round.
This North thing is incredibly minor

 

[Dirty_banchez]

It's a good start. Hopefully, we see Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon play more games outside of Victoria.

Ideally clubs will have a minimum amount of interstate trips built into the draw. Maybe minimum of 10 interstate trips per year would be fair?

 

[parano1a]

It's a good start. Hopefully, we see Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon play more games outside of Victoria.

Ideally clubs will have a minimum amount of interstate trips built into the draw.

This will happen organically once Tasmania and Team 20 enter the competition, as it will be 10 Victorian teams and 10 Non-Victorian. Absolutely no need for teams to sell home games (except to areas which don't already have a team).

 

[boncer34]

It's a good start. Hopefully, we see Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon play more games outside of Victoria.

Ideally clubs will have a minimum amount of interstate trips built into the draw. Maybe minimum of 10 interstate trips per year would be fair?

Why would Essendon, for example, play an interstate side away twice?

 

[mightymouse75]

Yahoo .. the Perth Roos

 

[stallon]

It's a good start. Hopefully, we see Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon play more games outside of Victoria.

Ideally clubs will have a minimum amount of interstate trips built into the draw. Maybe minimum of 10 interstate trips per year would be fair?

minimum of 7 outside Melbourne including 6 outside the state would be a good start.
Never going to have 10 outside vic for all the vic clubs, just too many of then.

11 home games plus 4-5 away games is 15-16 games, only 7-8 more per year per team on top of that which should be split into regional and non vic games. Easy

 

[Obzerva]

As long as this North deal sticks around, its supposedly only lasting for 3 years at this stage.
North could easily turn around and say no thanks after that.

Need something long term.

If the AFL mandated that 2 vic clubs every year will go to WA and spend 3 weeks there per year(so each Vic team does it once every 5 years) I think we'd have a winner, assuming the 3rd wa team doesnt happen

Gonna take a stab and say it’s a 3 year deal because that brings us to 2028 when the Devils join.

North’s home games would get rejigged without any in Hobart; so they’ll need to determine where those 2 games go.

 

[GoRoos2023]

So does this mean we would play 2 games in WA a year as the home team and 1 as the away team?

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Cockburn.

 

[nicko74]

So does this mean we would play 2 games in WA a year as the home team and 1 as the away team?

I am guessing so yeah

 

[stallon]

Gonna take a stab and say it’s a 3 year deal because that brings us to 2028 when the Devils join.

North’s home games would get rejigged without any in Hobart; so they’ll need to determine where those 2 games go.

Thats a fair call actually. Could sell those 2 games elsewhere or even potentially have 4 WA games? Probably not lol but agree

 

[stallon]

So does this mean we would play 2 games in WA a year as the home team and 1 as the away team?

2 home games and probably an away game depending on what the fixture rolls out.
You probably play the Eagles twice next year anyway with a bottom 6 draw