-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The Grand Final should be hosted at a neutral venue
- Thread starter Nile
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Find another ground elsewhere in Australia that holds 100,000 people, and I'll listen to this argument. Until then, MCG it is.
Brisbane won 3 in a row, West Coast have won 3, Sydney 2, Adelaide back-to-back .... most of these wins against teams from Melbourne. They were good enough, they won.
Brisbane won 3 in a row, West Coast have won 3, Sydney 2, Adelaide back-to-back .... most of these wins against teams from Melbourne. They were good enough, they won.
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
I'm indifferent towards this. I think the Grand Final SHOULD be held at a neutral venue, but understand why it's difficult and may never happen.
However, this argument is rubbish. Let's say Fremantle and West Coast, Adelaide and Port Adelaide, Brisbane and Gold Coast, or Sydney and GWS played in the GF, and the AFL hosted the match at the MCG. Would that be accepted by the two clubs?
Coastroast
Debutant
- Sep 28, 2015
- 78
- 122
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #229
Should stay at the G. Always been there always should be doesn't matter who makes it. Why deny 60,000 people a chance to witness one of our greatest traditions. If you're good enough you will win no matter where the game is played. Today west coast found out what it's like to trade punches with the big boys. If you want to win the fight you got to be able to take them on the chin.
Build it (100k ground), and they will come.
Venue isn't an excuse for yesterday. Hawthorn were clearly a class better than us.
I'm fine with it at the MCG.... for now.
Venue isn't an excuse for yesterday. Hawthorn were clearly a class better than us.
I'm fine with it at the MCG.... for now.
There was plenty of outrage and the AFL changed the rules after that.
I don't understand the argument that the GF should be played at whichever team 'deserves' it the most (however you determine deservedness, in this case). Just from a logistical point of view it seems fundamentally impossible. You simply can't determine the venue of a sporting match so major as the AFL grand final only one, two, max-three weeks from the actual event.
As for a pre-existing neutral venue; I can see the merit if a) venues of large enough capacity actually existed in Australia and; b) there again was some way of determining where this neutral venue would actually be some way prior to the commencement of the finals. If a top-eight consists of Adelaide, Sydney, Freo and Hawthorn, as it did this year, then the neutral venue wouldn't be decided until at-best a fortnight prior to the GF - again, this is impossible.
I can only take OP to be suggesting then, that a neutral stadium that can seat 100,000 + people should be constructed simply for the GF? I mean, sure, you could play other games there during the season, but that means that two supporter bases would have to travel to the ground from interstate. This isn't so much as problem in small boutique stadiums where only 20-30k can be seated, but a 100,000 seat stadium with only 9k people in it (think manuka, Canberra) is a massive problem. The cost of upkeep for a venue that only becomes useful once a year would be huge, and attempts to justify its existence outside of GF day (i.e. scheduling h+a games there) would only result in dwindling crowd numbers. Let's not even begin to mention the cost of actually constructing a stadium of that magnitude. No state would be willing to take that venture on. We don't want a completely economically unviable sporting venue to exist simply to stop the whinging of a select number of AFL supporters pre-occupied by a seriously minor issue.
As for a pre-existing neutral venue; I can see the merit if a) venues of large enough capacity actually existed in Australia and; b) there again was some way of determining where this neutral venue would actually be some way prior to the commencement of the finals. If a top-eight consists of Adelaide, Sydney, Freo and Hawthorn, as it did this year, then the neutral venue wouldn't be decided until at-best a fortnight prior to the GF - again, this is impossible.
I can only take OP to be suggesting then, that a neutral stadium that can seat 100,000 + people should be constructed simply for the GF? I mean, sure, you could play other games there during the season, but that means that two supporter bases would have to travel to the ground from interstate. This isn't so much as problem in small boutique stadiums where only 20-30k can be seated, but a 100,000 seat stadium with only 9k people in it (think manuka, Canberra) is a massive problem. The cost of upkeep for a venue that only becomes useful once a year would be huge, and attempts to justify its existence outside of GF day (i.e. scheduling h+a games there) would only result in dwindling crowd numbers. Let's not even begin to mention the cost of actually constructing a stadium of that magnitude. No state would be willing to take that venture on. We don't want a completely economically unviable sporting venue to exist simply to stop the whinging of a select number of AFL supporters pre-occupied by a seriously minor issue.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 26,199
- 43,380
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
That's only recently. For many years they were a week apart. Not sure what's changed, nor if either party would be willing to give in now. Dunno.So AFL grand final on the Saturday, NRL grand final on the sunday? Makes sense
So OP wants like a 'Wembley Stadium' kind of deal.... a ground that is supposedly a mecca to a sport but rarely gets used except for "special" occasions like the GF.
Thing is, Australia likes sport too much... no way we would have a stadium like the MCG left unused for the majority of the year just to make it feel "special".
Thing is, Australia likes sport too much... no way we would have a stadium like the MCG left unused for the majority of the year just to make it feel "special".
Last edited:
i think its just this year with the season pushed back because of the CWC
kaiserchief13
Hall of Famer
- Jul 12, 2011
- 35,478
- 26,343
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
Eagles choked at MCG, Subiaco, Adelaide Oval etc, however I do see OP's point. Surely higher ranked team shouldn't have to play at lower ranked teams home ground?
- Feb 25, 2013
- 51,281
- 58,426
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
That was pretty much the VFL before ground rationalisation. Only the Dees had home games at the MCG before finals, and back when the Dees were huge a club, so they'd pack out the place.
Richmond moving in from next door did make sense, but after that, the flood gates opened.
This, but Docklands has to remain relevant I guess.
Eagles Pumped em 3 weeka ago at Subi, Hawks Pumped em today at the G.
If you think it isnt a factor then i think you need to ask your guide dog for help.
If you think it isnt a factor then i think you need to ask your guide dog for help.
- Jun 7, 2015
- 7,528
- 14,973
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Are you offering to move most of your home games to Etihad?
The two clubs yes because they'd get boatloads of moolah.
But everyone that wasn't in tune with Victorian tradition over here and casually watched footy, questioned why a possible Grand Final between the two WA teams would be played over there.
Of course, since tradition became a bit a pathetic reason to say. Since it basically translates to 'we do things because somebody said so'. So I said to make more money, it's the biggest stadium etc etc. Which frankly having to justify was also a bit ordinary.
But regardless, since footy throughout the levels has a neutral ground as the GF venue. I'd have thought that was stronger national tradition, so I personally wouldn't have had a problem with interstate GF in Melbourne as that fufills that. But in the event it's Victorian vs. interstate and they finish lower? Host it in Adelaide or the new Perth Stadium that makes the game neutral (so this years would of been in Adelaide). Also becomes a true economic benefit to the city, that'll be another way to get the non-traditional states to truly get behind it.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 41,902
- 91,501
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Tassie v Perth in Melbourne
Seems pretty neutral to me
Seems pretty neutral to me
Eagles played 1 game there this year-at that rate they should be used to the ground in 2020.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,341
I think this is it more than anything. For the foreseeable future the GF will always be at the MCG. It's about giving the interstate contenders more games to test their game plan on the wider expanses of the ground.
The interstate teams need to push for a clause - Interstate team finishing top four should be guaranteed four matches the MCG the season after, whilst other interstate finalists guaranteed three matches.
Wouldn't have helped us this year given we missed finals, but it's pretty rare for a team to rise as rapidly as we did in 2015.
- May 10, 2004
- 24,853
- 5,691
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Pistons/Hammers/Sri Lanka/The Exers
Threads like this never fail to amuse me.
The clubs from other states that want to play more games there just have to move one of their home games there each year. Maybe two. Up to those clubs if they want to enough. Bit like how Hawks move some of their home games interstate, North do it, Bulldogs do it and St.Kilda have even gone over the Tasman overseas for some home games. Richmond have played in Cairns and Dees also played game in other states. Going to have to think outside the box as there is never going to be the equivalent of Waverley Park that was built in it's time to be a so called neutral venue. So for clubs that do not play many games there it is up to them to work out a deal with the MCG to get more of their own designated home matches there. Maybe even organize some special travel deals to get many of their own supporters to travel with them.
Similar threads
