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

[bzparkes]

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

Only 1 team is playing at Optus(Freo next year) the other is playing at Busso.

Also, North have a better track record at Optus recently than they do in Hobart.

Finally, teams that barely travel shouldn't really be complaining that the 2 teams who travel way more than anyone else get some schedule relief.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I had a stroke reading this.

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

Maybe relative to the biggest Vic clubs. Not compared to the smallest Vic clubs.

The very fact that if Dogs/North play any of the biggest Vic clubs twice across the season the overall result is a small disadvantage in both the games is of far greater disadvantage than physically having to fly a few times a bit more and for a bit longer in a season.

I may be a bit more sympathetic to WA's travel burden if and when the AFL allows us to lock out Essendon members from the "home" game we lost on the field to them earlier this year where the Essendon members had equal ground access to our GA members and outnumbered us in the crowd.

 

[stallon]

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.

You get less of a home advantage, but you still breakeven more or less.

The home/away vs having more neutral games thing is better or worse entirely depending on if youre a strong team or not.

Strong team then youll win most of your neutral games and your home games, a much smaller % of away games.
If you suck then youll lose more neutral games, and struggle to make the 8.
TRhen when finals come around you have plenty of experience playing at the MCG, and your players have travelled far less meaning theyre a bit fresher for finals.

The home advantage helps a team be middle of the road, but thats it. It gives them a better "floor", doesnt help to win finals though. The non-vic teams still need to be able to win away in Melbourne to be a threat.
The non vic teams also have that travel burden, so by the end of the year the fatigue and injury is more likely to be a factor.

The real difference is the travel, and burden it puts on players. Career longevity, how prone to injury they are, recovery times, etc are all affected

 

[VicBased]

North should be allowed to do this providing the opposition team isn't West Coast or Fremantle. Let them play Gold Coast in Perth instead of Hobart if they want.

And what??? Have 10 spectators?

 

[blueboy25]

And what??? Have 10 spectators?

If the WA government are putting some money towards it, an AFL game at Bunbury between North and Gold Coast will still sell out.

 

[Spirit Level]

Maybe relative to the biggest Vic clubs. Not compared to the smallest Vic clubs.

The very fact that if Dogs/North play any of the biggest Vic clubs twice across the season the overall result is a small disadvantage in both the games is of far greater disadvantage than physically having to fly a few times a bit more and for a bit longer in a season.

I may be a bit more sympathetic to WA's travel burden if and when the AFL allows us to lock out Essendon members from the "home" game we lost on the field to them earlier this year where the Essendon members had equal ground access to our GA members and outnumbered us in the crowd.

Nope, sorry but you're wrong.

That's on Bulldogs fans for not showing up to their own home game. As if opposition fans should be locked out just cause the home team can't fill the ground, that's ridiculous.

Also being outnumbered in crowd demographics is such a cop-out, you're still playing your familiar home ground for away games without having to fly, change time zones ect.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Tourism.

How crap is your city when you actively encourage people to not come to the city and go elsewhere. Idiot governments.

 

[VicBased]

If the WA government are putting some money towards it, an AFL game at Bunbury between North and Gold Coast will still sell out.

Of course it will as it holds a staggering amount of 5000 spectators

 

[stallon]

If the WA government are putting some money towards it, an AFL game at Bunbury between North and Gold Coast will still sell out.

Part of the idea is to lessen the travel burden too.
Its a sum of all things, not just to get a game in Bunbury

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That's on Bulldogs fans for not showing up to their own home game. As if opposition fans should be locked out just cause the home team can't fill the ground, that's ridiculous.

There are Dogs fans that want to show up. But they can't. Because they get no priority ticketing over the fact that any Essendon fan can obtain equal access to the game by virtue of buying an away-game GA membership package, or that any punter can just purchase a $27 general admission ticket for the game leading up to it. What if you're a Dogs fan that's a GA member, but can only physically get to the game as the opening bounce happens, but by then the ground is filled to capacity, and your barcode doesn't work. Because a Essendon fan was able to get to the game 30 mins earlier and take up a seat. Even though it's a Dogs home game. You can argue that if Dogs fan wants to guarantee a seat, they should pay more. But then I could argue that if an Essendon fan wants to even have access to an away game, they should also pay more (or not be allowed to at all). The moral argument for home game access is the same either way.

Also being outnumbered in crowd demographics is such a cop-out, you're still playing your familiar home ground for away games without having to fly, change time zones ect.

None of which have any proof that this is a disadvantage to the fact that over the course of two home-and-away games against Essendon, the net crowd would be about 70,000 Essendon fans and only 30,000 Dogs fans, which has a proven statistical impact on margins.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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

Because its a ****ing stupid idea if its against WC/Freo. Both from the point of view of the extra home games some sides get, but also from the club's own point of view as well - all it does is open up yet another "relocate them" rant from Caro and the other death-riders.
If there's nowhere to play with zero prospect of getting a (first or extra) team and ready to play venue, and Docklands won't produce a half-decent deal, then just move games to Geelong (but not ones against Geelong).

 

[FlowersByIrene]

View attachment 2155099

Joondalup Kangaroos. You're welcome Laura.

Northern Roos does write itself really. Relocate them.

 

[Papa G]

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.

Said it a thousand times but the easiest way to somewhat mitigate this is that Victorian teams only play their home games at their home ground regardless if it is mandated Spankbusta! The stupid ****ing MCG Contract skews things far more than most Vic supporters (especially the bigger clubs) will admit to. It's simple.

MCG tennants: Melbourne, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Richmond play ALL home games at the Melbourne Citadel of Corruption.

Marvel Tennants: Dogs, Saints Essendon and Carlton play ALL home games at Marvel.

Therefore at most, you will have a possible 6 games against fellow tennants. Probably closer to 4 most years.

But no, we have to honour the corrupt MCG Contract, we have to have our Blockbusters at the GEEEEEEEEEEEE. Well in that case you can't really complain about Home Ground Advantage.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Said it a thousand times but the easiest way to somewhat mitigate this is that Victorian teams only play their home games at their home ground regardless if it is mandated Spankbusta! The stupid ****ing MCG Contract skews things far more than most Vic supporters (especially the bigger clubs) will admit to. It's simple.

MCG tennants: Melbourne, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Richmond play ALL home games at the Melbourne Citadel of Corruption.

Marvel Tennants: Dogs, Saints Essendon and Carlton play ALL home games at Marvel.

Therefore at most, you will have a possible 6 games against fellow tennants. Probably closer to 4 most years.

But no, we have to honour the corrupt MCG Contract, we have to have our Blockbusters at the GEEEEEEEEEEEE. Well in that case you can't really complain about Home Ground Advantage.

Sure, but then allow teams to prioritise finals ticketing and location.

All good and well until you have a situation like this year where the Dogs finished above Hawks, but then played at their home ground with equal access to tickets for both teams (and an MCC and AFL members bias to the Hawks).

 

[Papa G]

Sure, but then allow teams to prioritise finals ticketing and location.

All good and well until you have a situation like this year where the Dogs finished above Hawks, but then played at their home ground with equal access to tickets for both teams (and an MCC and AFL members bias to the Hawks).

Mate almost everything that is wrong with silly comp revolves around the MCG.

 

[Philth]

Northern Roos does write itself really. Relocate them.

Yeah, all the poms and saffers that populate the northern burbs would really welcome the new minnow club from another city.

Usually it's people from outside WA that promote the crazy idea that is WA3.

 

[Philth]

Either North or Melbourne would be a good case.

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

Jeez, I'd hate to hear what you think about the geographical locations of Richmond and Collingwood and the purpose they serve

 

[amazingjoshy]

Maybe relative to the biggest Vic clubs. Not compared to the smallest Vic clubs.

The very fact that if Dogs/North play any of the biggest Vic clubs twice across the season the overall result is a small disadvantage in both the games is of far greater disadvantage than physically having to fly a few times a bit more and for a bit longer in a season.

I may be a bit more sympathetic to WA's travel burden if and when the AFL allows us to lock out Essendon members from the "home" game we lost on the field to them earlier this year where the Essendon members had equal ground access to our GA members and outnumbered us in the crowd.

Firstly, bullshit that having a small disadvantage in crowd number is more of a burden than travelling across the country (and back) every 2nd week (not a bit more like you said)

Secondly, sounds like your anger is massively misdirected

Should be at the bigger Vic teams/AFL/your own supporter base for not turning up

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Yeah, all the poms and saffers that populate the northern burbs would really welcome the new minnow club from another city.

Usually it's people from outside WA that promote the crazy idea that is WA3.

Anyone who doesn't think WA3 would be a success has rocks in their head in my opinon.

 

[Spirit Level]

Jeez, I'd hate to hear what you think about the geographical locations of Richmond and Collingwood and the purpose they serve

Yeah that's my point though, there's already a crowd of teams around the CBD so that would be the place to cut, hence North being the weakest of them.

Richmond and Collingwood are too big to cut.

 

[Spirit Level]

Anyone who doesn't think WA3 would be a success has rocks in their head in my opinon.

Who would support them? Everyone in WA already has an allegiance and plonking a team in Joondalup isn't going to make the rusted on Northerners jump ship.

West Sydney is still battling and it dipped into an entirely new market.

The only way WA3 could work is a team in the South-West, and that would be years away with the infrastructure required

 

[Purple Suit]

There are Dogs fans that want to show up. But they can't. Because they get no priority ticketing over the fact that any Essendon fan can obtain equal access to the game by virtue of buying an away-game GA membership package, or that any punter can just purchase a $27 general admission ticket for the game leading up to it. What if you're a Dogs fan that's a GA member, but can only physically get to the game as the opening bounce happens, but by then the ground is filled to capacity, and your barcode doesn't work. Because a Essendon fan was able to get to the game 30 mins earlier and take up a seat. Even though it's a Dogs home game. You can argue that if Dogs fan wants to guarantee a seat, they should pay more. But then I could argue that if an Essendon fan wants to even have access to an away game, they should also pay more (or not be allowed to at all). The moral argument for home game access is the same either way.

None of which have any proof that this is a disadvantage to the fact that over the course of two home-and-away games against Essendon, the net crowd would be about 70,000 Essendon fans and only 30,000 Dogs fans, which has a proven statistical impact on margins.

This sounds like major first footy world problems for the unorganized. If you want access over here, you need to be a signed up member with a seat or plan ahead at least a month out to get one. We don't have half the stadium GA like over in Victoria and the chances of a walkup game are very slim. It's because we have a city of 2.2m people with 2 teams and 1 game on a weekend. In comparison to Melbourne with 9 teams & 4-5 games for 5.3m people. Don't get me started on the price difference for footy in the different state that has created.

I think this just shows how unbalanced the comp is and moving 2 games over a year is only a pebble on the giant scale but better than nothing.

 

[Purple Suit]

Who would support them? Everyone in WA already has an allegiance and plonking a team in Joondalup isn't going to make the rusted on Northerners jump ship.

West Sydney is still battling and it dipped into an entirely new market.

The only way WA3 could work is a team in the South-West, and that would be years away with the infrastructure required

The South West doesn't have the population. Perth is an under catered market, it can take another team and people will jump ship from WC & Freo once it happens, especially if Freo maxes out in the next 4-5 years before the 20th team kicks off.

Vic Expats living in WA might even stop supporting their original Vic team if it means they can go to 10 games a year instead of 1 or 2. They will only do this for a new team, not for a relocated team.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Firstly, bullshit that having a small disadvantage in crowd number is more of a burden than travelling across the country (and back) every 2nd week (not a bit more like you said)

At least we can statistically measure the relationship to home ground advantages to crowd sizes. It's been done. Plenty of research on it.

Home Advantage is Probably About Crowds​

Home advantage is definitely a thing. But people attribute it to a lot of different factors – especially travel distance and ground shape – that there isn’t much evidence for. But there is reason to believe that if you dominate a stadium with your team’s fans, it will exhibit home ground advantage, no matter who travelled where. The main vector is likely to be social pressure on umpiring decisions.

Travel is a burden, to be sure, and generates physical and logistical challenges that teams have to manage. But its effect on game-day performance seems small enough to be hard to detect at all. This is probably why a 50-minute drive to Geelong depresses the performance of Melbourne-based teams more than a flight to Queensland.

Some Useful Things I Learned About Football - Squiggle

I got into football stats because I wanted to understand why my team was so bad for so long and was there any hope for the future or should I just die. That was about 20 years ago. Along the way, I learned that plenty of common football wisdom is probably wrong. Stats people can … Continue...

squiggle.com.au

The squiggle then factors that into creating a more accurate predictor of results, because it knows that when Essendon or whomever travel, they're at a far greater disadvantage (worth a goal a game or more) driving down to Geelong where Geelong have the entirety of the crowd, than flying up to GC where half the crowd (if not more) at Cararra are Geelong supporter

Other than "vibes", actually try and put the travel burden into some sort of points-per-game equivalent? I agree that all things being equal that it's probably a disadvantage. I can't agree that it disadvantages more than the fact that there's a clear net home ground advantage through crowds that other teams don't get. (ie if the Dogs and Eagles were to play each other home and away, Eagles' advantages at home are far greater than the Dogs' advantages at home for each pairing of games).

Secondly, sounds like your anger is massively misdirected

Should be at the bigger Vic teams/AFL/your own supporter base for not turning up

I do that too, I'm just defending my own club from WA fans that somehow that every Vic club is equal in the logistics/scheduling/travel overall advantages of a collective.

It's also hard to build a supporter base in the first place when it is those advantages go against you. Collingwood have more fans than us in part because they've written into the contract that they get to play 5 away games at the MCG every year, and get ticketing advantages for doing so. That helps a random person who is undecided of which team to support to suppor the Pies.

The AFL does not give priority to the fact that a given Dogs fan may have purchased a membership through the club's website to the fact that the other people have GA access through an away or AFL membership, or through just buying a ticket on the AFL's website. The Western Bulldogs cannot give priority to those fans in any way, despite the fact that they could and should theoretically be allowed to control through which mechanisms those tickets are distributed (such as being forced to buy tickets to other Dogs' games, or reserve a seat well before the game). This results in the net result of Dogs GA member holders not going to the game as they don't want to sit around opposition fans, would have to arrive early to get large number of seats together etc. and then away fans make up the numbers.

If they did this, you could get to similar levels of HGA for home teams against other big Melbourne clubs that is similar to the fact that every interstate team bar basically GC don't really have large number of away fans sitting in the stands of their home games.

Also, by extension of this logic, it's not fair for WA fans to complain about geography. Because it is only by virtue of that geography that there is a supporter base for those fans to turn up. So if you think that overall advantages/disadvantages

 

[stallon]

Who would support them? Everyone in WA already has an allegiance and plonking a team in Joondalup isn't going to make the rusted on Northerners jump ship.

West Sydney is still battling and it dipped into an entirely new market.

The only way WA3 could work is a team in the South-West, and that would be years away with the infrastructure required

People would 100% jump ship, not everybody or not even most, but there would definitely be enough to justify the clubs existence.
All the interstate fans in WA would more likely favour the WA3 club and potentially even jump ship so they can get to regular games, and a chunk of WCE and Freo fans would support them at least initially just to get them going, like how Tassy has so much support despite 95%+ of those people having 0 intention of actually wanting the club to win.

Perth is a city that is under-represented in the AFL, compared to Melbourne at least. People still go to North, Saints and Dogs games every week, WA3 will get a far larger marketshare than any of those clubs.