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

[dean33]

The AFL would never allow it for a Vic club. Clear #NONVICBIAS

100%. They shouldn’t allow it for any team. Say freo get them next year and make top 4 by % due to giving north a belting in a “away” game in Perth. That hurts all the teams who just missed top 4. It doesn’t directly affect my team as we won’t be near finals but it’s just more compromising of the fixture.

 

[Purple Suit]

100%. They shouldn’t allow it for any team. Say freo get them next year and make top 4 by % due to giving north a belting in a “away” game in Perth. That hurts all the teams who just missed top 4. It doesn’t directly affect my team as we won’t be near finals but it’s just more compromising of the fixture.

You mean like Port making top 4 getting an extra Home game last year? The fixture is completely cooked anyway, this will change nothing except getting North some money.

Freo would beat North in Melbourne. WC won’t be making finals.

 

[bzparkes]

So every time a north or saints or dogs are struggling financially they should just be allowed to sell games to financially powerful clubs? What a disgrace and compromises the fixture even more. I don’t blame north for doing this but the afl shouldn’t allow it. What’s to stop rich Victorian teams from doing the same when an interstate team is struggling?
Just wrong on all fronts.

Must be nice to get 7 homes games to close out the season on the way to a flag, then sook when 2 teams get an extra home game, despite being the 2 most travel affected teams in the comp.

Also:

Reluctant Tigers to keep selling games

Richmond president Gary March looks forward to day his club no longer forced to sell home games outside Victoria.

www.theage.com.au

 

[dean33]

Must be nice to get 7 homes games to close out the season on the way to a flag, then sook when 2 teams get an extra home game, despite being the 2 most travel affected teams in the comp.

Also:

Reluctant Tigers to keep selling games

Richmond president Gary March looks forward to day his club no longer forced to sell home games outside Victoria.

www.theage.com.au

Here he is right on cue lol

 

[dean33]

You mean like Port making top 4 getting an extra Home game last year? The fixture is completely cooked anyway, this will change nothing except getting North some money.

Freo would beat North in Melbourne. WC won’t be making finals.

Why cook it anymore? This opens up for any rich club to just buy home games from poorer clubs. What would you say if hawthorn or Collingwood bought a home game from the eagles and you missed top 8 by percentage and they finished 8th? It’s just wrong on every front.

 

[STPer18]

Reminder the AFL stepped in to stop the Western Bulldogs from hosting games at Kardinia Park. #wabias

The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

$750k for Dogs games in Geelong

www.foxsports.com.au

Rival clubs can host at Cattery, says Cook

Geelong CEO says rival clubs should use Simonds Stadium to host games

www.afl.com.au

Cats give up Dog chase over games at Simonds

Cats not trying to entice Bulldogs to play home games at Simonds Stadium

www.afl.com.au

 

[TheEscapeClub]

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.

For mine, North should be playing 9 games at Marvel Stadium, 1 in Bendigo and 1 in Albury/Wodonga.

Focus on improving grassroots football in those regions, which is still recovering from Covid.

it is the most uneven sports competition in the world. A club selling home games to teams that travel more that 4 x the amount of other teams does not impact how uneven the competition is.

North have made a profit in 12 of the last 13 years. Pretty well done if you ask me. They are chipping away at being self sustainable, and this will help over the next three years.

Clubs that have sold home games in recent years:

North Melbourne
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Gold Coast Suns
St.Kilda
Richmond
Western Bulldogs

But when North do it, its a problem.

Wait until GWS get the tick of approval to play a home game in LA...

As a supporter you may be happy with it, as a North player I don't think I would be.

 

[bzparkes]

Here he is right on cue lol

So, you're of the opinion Richmond should've just folded instead of selling those homes games, correct?

 

[bzparkes]

. What would you say if hawthorn or Collingwood bought a home game from the eagles

 

[Purple Suit]

Why cook it anymore? This opens up for any rich club to just buy home games from poorer clubs. What would you say if hawthorn or Collingwood bought a home game from the eagles and you missed top 8 by percentage and they finished 8th? It’s just wrong on every front.

It’s actually evening it up more than cooking it. WA clubs have the biggest travel burden and it grew with the introduction of gather round. This brings it back to the same level it was 2 seasons ago.

WA based players have shorter careers. This makes winning even harder as it compresses your window and the output of your veterans is worse at a comparable game mark. There are exceptions but it stacks up as a disadvantage. Other advantages WA teams have like being Rich have been gimped with the introduction of Soft caps to keep it fair for the poor teams.

It’s time to balance our travel burden back the other way and at the same time it transfers wealth to the poorest. Win-win.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

So North want to come to Perth to make some cash and then the AFL and North agree to playing a game in Bunbury where a maximum of 10k will attend when 40-50k would of attended at Optus.
Yep some real smart people working in the AFL!!

 

[bzparkes]

It’s actually evening it up more than cooking it. WA clubs have the biggest travel burden and it grew with the introduction of gather round. This brings it back to the same level it was 2 seasons ago.

WA based players have shorter careers. This makes winning even harder as it compresses your window and the output of your veterans is worse at a comparable game mark. There are exceptions but it stacks up as a disadvantage. Other advantages WA teams have like being Rich have been gimped with the introduction of Soft caps to keep it fair for the poor teams.

It’s time to balance our travel burden back the other way and at the same time it transfers wealth to the poorest. Win-win.

Don't bother.

Richmond could play 24 games a year + 'away' finals at the MCG and they'd still sook an extra home game to Perth teams is unfair.

 

[bzparkes]

So North want to come to Perth to make some cash and then the AFL and North agree to playing a game in Bunbury where a maximum of 10k will attend when 40-50k would of attended at Optus.
Yep some real smart people working in the AFL!!

WA government picking up the tab, I believe.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

WA government picking up the tab, I believe.

Why?

 

[dean33]

Don't bother.

Richmond could play 24 games a year + 'away' finals at the MCG and they'd still sook an extra home game to Perth teams is unfair.

I couldn’t care who is getting the extra home game or who is losing it. You should not be allowed to sell home games to another teams home state. It just should not happen.
What happens if the saints want to sell a game, and Melbourne and the dogs? It just should not be permitted to anyone.

 

[Profop]

Must be nice to get 7 homes games to close out the season on the way to a flag, then sook when 2 teams get an extra home game, despite being the 2 most travel affected teams in the comp.

Also:

Reluctant Tigers to keep selling games

Richmond president Gary March looks forward to day his club no longer forced to sell home games outside Victoria.

www.theage.com.au

The slight difference there is that we didn’t sell games to play our opponents at their home stadium

From memory it was Port in Darwin and The Suns in Cairns so you could make an argument that the venue was at least neutral (harder to sell that on the suns game)

Selling a game to play one of the WA teams at Optus seems like putting money a bit too far ahead of actually giving the team the best chance to win the game

 

[Cam Payne]

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.

 

[blueboy25]

Why?

I would have thought to entice non WA people to enjoy our South West and promote the Melbourne to Busselton direct flight.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It's silly to talk about the impact to competitive balance when eight teams have to travel interstate every second week, and ten teams don't. Especially when WA are the most disadvantaged in travel burden.

Don't engage them, just a troll

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.

 

[Purple Suit]

The slight difference there is that we didn’t sell games to play our opponents at their home stadium

From memory it was Port in Darwin and The Suns in Cairns so you could make an argument that the venue was at least neutral (harder to sell that on the suns game)

Selling a game to play one of the WA teams at Optus seems like putting money a bit too far ahead of actually giving the team the best chance to win the game

50% of this deal isn’t at Optus so it leaves 1 game every 2 years extra at home for the WA teams.

Vic teams get 1 extra game every year guaranteed at home, it just happens to be the most important game of the year, the GF.

Why don’t you want to fix that inequality?

 

[flyinghi64]

So North want to come to Perth to make some cash and then the AFL and North agree to playing a game in Bunbury where a maximum of 10k will attend when 40-50k would of attended at Optus.
Yep some real smart people working in the AFL!!

Funny thing is they will probably still get more at Bunbury than they averaged in Hobart which was 7343.
5365, 10,048 and 6619.

Thinking with the takings from Optus the country trip is more a tourism payback in the south west.

 

[Sentinel]

Reminder the AFL stepped in to stop the Western Bulldogs from hosting games at Kardinia Park. #wabias

The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

$750k for Dogs games in Geelong

www.foxsports.com.au

Rival clubs can host at Cattery, says Cook

Geelong CEO says rival clubs should use Simonds Stadium to host games

www.afl.com.au

Cats give up Dog chase over games at Simonds

Cats not trying to entice Bulldogs to play home games at Simonds Stadium

www.afl.com.au

Reads like a dream from Cook to earn his own club an extra home game or two, but not something that was ever pursued by the Bulldogs.

I don't think the Bulldogs or North hosting neutral opposition clubs at GMHBA Stadium would be an issue, unless they were hosting the Cats specifically. It was bad when Melbourne sold home games against Brisbane at the Gabba, or the Bulldogs at the SCG against Sydney. Likewise how Bunbury being used as a home game for North against a WA side is far less of an eyebrow raiser (and solves part of the travel complaint for WA teams), than them playing WCE/Freo at Optus.

 

[amazingjoshy]

To keep this club in the league we've now got to skew the competitive balance of the competition and further compromise the fixture.

Playing a few games in non-football areas is one thing, but selling home games to direct competitors is a new low.

Can anyone make a reasonable argument as to why North should remain in the AFL based in Melbourne?

This needs to be considered a 2-year trial to see if there is any love for the Kangaroos in Perth ahead of permanent relocation.

So every time a north or saints or dogs are struggling financially they should just be allowed to sell games to financially powerful clubs? What a disgrace and compromises the fixture even more. I don’t blame north for doing this but the afl shouldn’t allow it. What’s to stop rich Victorian teams from doing the same when an interstate team is struggling?
Just wrong on all fronts.

The AFL would never allow it for a Vic club. Clear #NONVICBIAS

The slight difference there is that we didn’t sell games to play our opponents at their home stadium

From memory it was Port in Darwin and The Suns in Cairns so you could make an argument that the venue was at least neutral (harder to sell that on the suns game)

Selling a game to play one of the WA teams at Optus seems like putting money a bit too far ahead of actually giving the team the best chance to win the game

Less reasonable discussion and more posts like these please

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

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

 

[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?