Sydney/WCE MCG Final Looms

[mocaholic]

As a Syd member, MCC member and a Melbournian, I'd love to see the bloods at the G for a game in September. We have not won at the G in the finals since 1945.

And given we are playing there this Satdy, I would like to think we'll check out the lie of the land and play a hard final there. We would be less disadvantaged than WCE, although they are arguably the no. 1 or 2 form teams of the comp at the moment, and resigned to travelling for the final no matter the outcome.

Nevertheless, it IS a joke.

 

[dr nick]

Less disadvantaged than the eagles???

Not as disadvantaged had they been playing in Sydney.

 

[gundy]

Anyway, finals are meant to be at neutral venues so I don't think it's a huge problem. It's not like the game will be against a Victorian team. Home finals were brought in to counter the disadvantage playing Victorian teams at the 'G or Waverly, rather than give them an advantage per se.

No, finals are not meant to be at neutral venues. To quote from the AFL's own rules;

"Sides which finish above their opposition on the ladder earn the right to host a home final in week one of the finals. In week two, losers from the qualifying finals host a home final. In week three, winners from the qualifying finals host a home final."

In order to compete in the AFL each of the 16 clubs agrees to abide by these rules however the AFL, due to conflicting contractual arrangements with the MCC, can not meet its contractual requirements to all 16 clubs, only those Melbourne based clubs.

 

[mocaholic]

Less disadvantaged than the eagles???

Not as disadvantaged had they been playing in Sydney.

I was VERY careful with my language there - that is precisely what I meant. I do agree with your point, however, I think it would be a fantastic boost for the club should we win at the G in the first round.

 

[gundy]

The ridiculous thing is that the agreement was altered to allow for the MCG redevelopment. The banking system was brought in, whereas previously it was simply that it was 1 final a week, regardless of how many have been played there previously.

The AFL simply piked it on the issue. It should have either been that the clause was scrapped, or no MCG redevelopment.

Exactly. The AFL has made numerous concessions to the MCC during the term of this current agreement to allow for Rugby Union, ground redevelopment and the Melbourne Commonwealth Games (to name a few)however they did not use any of these negotiating opportunities to remedy the contradiction between their own agreement with the clubs and their MCC contract as THEY DID NOT SEE IT AS A PROBLEM.

 

[dr nick]

I was VERY careful with my language there - that is precisely what I meant. I do agree with your point, however, I think it would be a fantastic boost for the club should we win at the G in the first round.

It's also about cracking the Sydney market. A finals win is Sydney is far better than a finals win in Melbourne in terms of support, memberships, crowds, sponsors etc. They need to play finals in Sydney.

The reason i mentioned it was because i read your post and thought.. oh yeah, at least we get some advant.... oh hang on, what about the advantage in Sydney?

 

[dr nick]

Maybe considering the merger... the Lions could play at the 'G.

 

[mocaholic]

It's also about cracking the Sydney market. A finals win is Sydney is far better than a finals win in Melbourne in terms of support, memberships, crowds, sponsors etc. They need to play finals in Sydney.

The reason i mentioned it was because i read your post and thought.. oh yeah, at least we get some advant.... oh hang on, what about the advantage in Sydney?

Furry muff. As I said, I don't disagree; in fact I don't actually think we're in disagreement here at all. You're point is that we SHOULD be hosting the game in NSW to which I agree; my point is that if we play at the G and win it would be a great boost to the club and players - maybe even bigger than a win in Syd.

Being a Vic though obviously I want to see us win finals, and for me, the first week of the finals I cannot travel - and in fact if it's Sat afternoon I may even struggle. Also, it may be a big boost to membership and sponsorship in Vic, too. Yup, I'm being selfish and I admit it!!

Funny, if we play to our best - and we have showed some glimpses of that recently, particularly with the last three quarters Sat night - for four quarters, we should win wherever and whoever we play. Call me arrogant.

 

[TheBloods]

No, finals are not meant to be at neutral venues. To quote from the AFL's own rules;

"Sides which finish above their opposition on the ladder earn the right to host a home final in week one of the finals. In week two, losers from the qualifying finals host a home final. In week three, winners from the qualifying finals host a home final."

In order to compete in the AFL each of the 16 clubs agrees to abide by these rules however the AFL, due to conflicting contractual arrangements with the MCC, can not meet its contractual requirements to all 16 clubs, only those Melbourne based clubs.

Finals used to be at neutral venues anyway.

So if those are the rules I wonder if a team losing its home final can sue for breach of contract/promise.

 

[Goat]

No, Collingwood earned a home prelimary final by defeating the top team in week 1.

Adelaide had to come to melbourne to play Melbourne in a 'home' final in the semis

OK thanks - I knew we'd been screwed somewhere. So it was back to back travel when they shouldn't have had to.

 

[BigBoss]

Finally, West Coast get a little payback for getting screwed over twice in the past.
Really, who could care less about Sydney crying over this. WC has been the most effected by the agreement in the past, and it will be sweet irony going to the G in two weeks to see West Coast get their first finals' win there in 4 years.

 

[dr nick]

yeah... final at the MCG is 'payback'.

If that's what does it for you, each to their own.

And the word you're looking for is 'affected'

 

[Leigh Roy]

It's a shame after the huge week in Sydney for Aussie Rules when they played the Pies, the same old same old ends up being a problem for them at the business end of the season.

It was interesting that Bracks paid out Carr and Beattie last year for being Aussie Rules illiterate and selectively ignored Rann and Gallop, when they are actually the Premiers of two of the biggest Aussie Rules-loving states in the country. This seemed to be lost on a lot of people though, most of all the media.

 

[Beaussie]

Finals used to be at neutral venues anyway.

So if those are the rules I wonder if a team losing its home final can sue for breach of contract/promise.

Now that would be interesting.

 

[Duffman95]

I don't understand something. If, most likely this will happen, St Kilda and Geelong lose their first week game, then there will be two finals at the MCG in semi-final week, which makes up the 3 given Melbourne will host at the G in week one. So, why does Sydney v West Coast have to be at the G?

 

[dr nick]

do they play one of them at the dome?

 

[Syd]

...and it will be sweet irony going to the G in two weeks to see West Coast get their first finals' win there in 4 years...

You poor deluded bastard.

 

[Syd]

As a Syd member, MCC member and a Melbournian, I'd love to see the bloods at the G for a game in September....

Patience moca, patience.

 

[mocaholic]

Patience moca, patience.

Mate, I'm drooling. So much nervous energy I dunno what I'm doing! And it's still two weeks away.

Still gotta get through Sat though (actually, still gotta get through Fri night!) as it promises to be one of the uglier days on the mocaholic social calendar - commencing at the Vaucluse, then the G, then back to the Vaucluse, then the Casino, then the Prince Alfred to get my stomach pumped.

 

[MRobbo]

I don't understand something. If, most likely this will happen, St Kilda and Geelong lose their first week game, then there will be two finals at the MCG in semi-final week, which makes up the 3 given Melbourne will host at the G in week one. So, why does Sydney v West Coast have to be at the G?

They stated two months ago that there would 2 finals at the MCG in Week 1, so if it happens like we all think then the AFL would look silly because then there would be 6 finals at the MCG this season.

 

[MRobbo]

do they play one of them at the dome?

No games at the dome unless there are 3 finals in week 1 in melbourne and that won't happen.

 

[blackers]

Absolute disgrace. It looks like Sydney are going to be disadvantaged this year so that Brisbane could be accomodated last year.

Just to correct you, we weren't accomodated last year. The Lions finished third last year and played at the MCG in the first round against the Pies. And we are also in line to get done over in a big way this year, as we will probably face a lower-ranked Melbourne-based team in Melbourne in the preliminary final (assuming Port keeps winning).

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

Just to correct you, we weren't accomodated last year. The Lions finished third last year and played at the MCG in the first round against the Pies. And we are also in line to get done over in a big way this year, as we will probably face a lower-ranked Melbourne-based team in Melbourne in the preliminary final (assuming Port keeps winning).

No, to correct you: last year Brisbane was lower ranked than Port Adelaide yet still got a home semi-final in week 2 leaving the MCG vacant - the "banked" final.

If St Kilda and Geelong lose in week one perhaps the 6th MCG final could be overturned to give Sydney or West Coast the home semi-final - despite not "earning" it?? Watch out, low flying pigs!

 

[Mr Crow!]

This is disgraceful!

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

I don't understand something. If, most likely this will happen, St Kilda and Geelong lose their first week game, then there will be two finals at the MCG in semi-final week, which makes up the 3 given Melbourne will host at the G in week one. So, why does Sydney v West Coast have to be at the G?

IF Saints and Geelong lose. But if one of them wins? A top 2 team would be screwed out of a 2nd chance home final due to a lack of hindsight. Better to screw the 6th placed team, than the 2nd placed.
Worst case scenario, the AFL banks an MCG finals game for the future.