Roast The Non Goal: F*** the AFL, court injunction?

[VKCrow]

Weren't the two at the post the ruckman and Mills?

Who knows. But I wish Rankine and Murphy and McAdam made more of a song and dance about it and demand a review. Players need to remonstrate a perceived injustice.

 

[SugarShane]

Weren't the two at the post the ruckman and Mills?

Yeah, Lloyd was at the top of the goal square. He did point to the post, but by the time he even starts to lift his hand the goal umpire is already signalling.

From where he was he wouldn't have seen the daylight between the ball and post. He doesn't look over confident on the replay, ironically to me it looks more like your standard "Please review that before you give it a goal" hail Mary that defenders do.

 

[Checksider]

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/afl-2023-adelaide-crows-chairman-john-olsen-opens-up-to-matt-turner-in-a-revealing-qa/news-story/f8f703db3bd7953601c7355c8b7c6e38?amp

The Crows didn’t just ponder legal action after the review blunder, they sought advice from a pair of King’s Counsels. Chairman John Olsen opens up on the 24 hours that followed.

Matt Turner: Have you had much sleep this week or just had Ben Keays’ shot replaying in your head?

John Olsen: There was not a lot of sleep Saturday night or Sunday night on the basis of addressing the circumstances and making sure we protect the players’ interest in this. They worked their backsides off all year to position themselves for finals and they don’t get the opportunity because it was eliminated by this mistake and decision. From the supporter base point of view, the passion and emotion of the Crows family, wanting us to succeed and play finals, it is devastating for them.

Crows chairman John Olsen, left, says he didn’t sleep a lot on Saturday night. Picture: Mark Brake/Getty Images
Crows chairman John Olsen, left, says he didn’t sleep a lot on Saturday night. Picture: Mark Brake/Getty Images
MT: How close were you to taking things further?

JO: Over those first 24 to 48 hours, we wanted to explore every opportunity to redress the set of circumstances unfolding. We sought legal advice and sought two KCs’ advice on that legal advice. We asked ‘is there a capacity for us to legally challenge this decision and in any way seek a changed set of circumstances?’ Bearing in mind the rules of the game, the simple fact is when the Sydney Swans player (Jake Lloyd) kicked that ball back into play, under the rules there was no capacity for the field umpire to then go back to review. The human mistake was reviewed in calling it a point and not calling a review … because if he had, it would’ve been awarded a goal (by the AFL Review Centre). There were also 70 seconds of play left to go. If it had been the last kick of the match, the legal option would’ve opened up. So the clear legal advice was that if you challenge this, it’ll cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue and you’re unlikely to be successful. We’d be spending a substantial amount of members’ money on a futile exercise, which would be a dereliction of duty by the board.

MT: What did you make of well-known lawyer Greg Griffin’s comments during the week about the club owing the AFL money and that affecting who sat on the board and its decision-making?

JO: It’s been suggested we owe the AFL money but we do not owe the AFL one cent. We have no indebtedness to the AFL. Even if we did, it wouldn’t influence our decision in how we would approach this. Secondly, the board positions at the Adelaide Football Club have not been interfered with by the AFL over the period that I have been involved. Not at all.


MT: You had a board meeting this week. How much time was spent discussing this issue?

JO: It was one of the longest board meetings we’ve had in three years. We canvassed a whole raft of things, everyone expressed a point of view and had a thorough discussion. Some people externally have suggested ‘the footy department has moved on, why doesn’t the club?’ Simple. When you’re playing elite sport and there’s another game to play, you’ve got to switch on to that and don’t have the luxury of wallowing in self-pity. At the 4pm in the team meeting on Monday, Nicksy (coach Matthew Nicks) gave the players one minute to vent and then ‘we don’t talk about it again, we focus on the game on Saturday’, which is important to us to prove a point or two. And it’ll be a challenge with the retirement of three West Coast stars and a sold-out stadium. Our footy department’s job is to focus on the next game, but our job (off-field) is to focus on correcting the injustice that’s been done.

Th

MT: Beyondthe obvious, what frustrated you most about last week?

JO: Trying to convince myself not to get angry but to get even.

MT: What is the redress you are seeking from the league?

JO: The club has been pressing the AFL all this week on removing the disadvantage we have as a club on the fixtures you’ve provided to us over the years. We get regional grounds to play on. Home, Launceston, home, Geelong, home, Ballarat, home, Darwin – no other team has had a schedule like that this year. No other team has played the top-four sides seven times this year. We deserve and are entitled to a better fixture and the disadvantage we have needs to be removed. We played two games at the MCG this year. Collingwood president Jeff Browne said at a function in Melbourne three weeks ago ‘we have 14 games at the MCG’. It’s their training ground for the grand final. I’ve had a discussion with the chairman of the AFL commission (Richard Goyder) on that – it’s not reasonable from our point of view. Not having an opportunity to play more there is a disadvantage to us.

MT: What else specifically are you seeking from the fixture?

JO: We want more timeslots at Adelaide Oval that maximise the attendance of our members and supporters. (Getting a lot of games) lunchtime on Saturdays – everyone has school sport, local sport and country sport. That needs to be corrected. I accept that if you’re not performing on-field and not getting eyes through broadcast you do suffer in fixtures, but we bottomed out several years ago and are on a pretty good journey, so there needs to be more flexibility in the scheduling to reward your performances in the season.

MT: Could the blunder be the impetus to finally getting the AFL to give you a Thursday night or Friday night stand-alone Showdown?

JO: Yes. We have got a series of requests already in and will be pressing those.


MT: The AFL also apologised to the club for an umpiring error against Collingwood in June that would have given Jordan Dawson a shot in the dying stages.

JO: (The two major mistakes) would have had an opportunity to provide the club with eight premiership points, which would have secured our finals berth. It is unfair treatment and will be the basis of discussions again next week in Melbourne. We will continue to push our case and leave no stone unturned.

MT: Was the goal review system an issue for too long waiting for an error like this to provoke change?

JO: Yes. It has been a problem waiting to occur and it’s occurred in dramatic fashion, which has forced immediate action. If there’s something good to come out of this, it’s at least that the rules will get changed. They need to be and should’ve been changed in the past.

MT: Can you quantify how much not playing finals has cost you?

JO: You can’t because it’s the opportunity that’s been lost for a young squad to get finals experience. The match payments for players is gone, the coaching group – there are bonuses to get to the finals and how you progress, and the opportunity is gone. On a good day, we can mix and match it with the best teams in the competition so who could predict if we’d got into the finals how far we would have gone?


AFL: Crows coach Matthew Nicks has urged his players to move on from the incident that saw their Finals hopes dashed against the Swans.
MT: What are your thoughts on the potential changes to the score review system for the finals?

JO: We’ve been pressing the AFL for that to happen. The AFL have had a working party looking at suggestions and putting in interim measures for the finals series and are looking at a more permanent solution in 2024 and going forward, so this sort of incident doesn’t happen again. Let’s just see where the changes end up.

MT: What changes would the club like to see happen?

JO: There’s a billion-dollar broadcasting income stream and we need to have the best technology available, coupled with rules for umpires to be able to make decisions, reviews to be done in a timely way and limit human error influencing outcomes. We’ve put a number of suggestions through to the AFL. It’s a moving feast because there’s now an avalanche of ideas from around the AFL.

MT: How difficult is it going to be watching the finals next week given how close the club was to making them for the first time since 2017?

JO: At the start of the year, I was asked ‘how do you think we will go this year?’ I thought if we could finish ninth or 10th and move up the ladder, 2024 and 2025 were going to be our years. Our performance exceeded my expectations. And then when our defence was decimated (with injury), we had young players step up in a way that I thought was a real credit to them. During the course of the year I started to think perhaps we’d position ourselves to make finals. We had significant improvement. Next year and the year after will be years we hope to play finals.

MT: Last week’s result summed up the season in some ways. It was the club’s fifth loss by six points or fewer this year.

JO: A young squad’s got to build character, depth and perseverance, and we have shown that. Accuracy cost us in a couple of games, our skills need to improve in some areas. But I’d say to our members and supporters, we’re on a really good journey and have the coaching staff and the team that can take us through the finals.


MT: The focus will soon turn to list management. Is the club still confident it can keep Tom Doedee?

JO: I’d like to see Tom be a Crow for life and would hope we might be able to get that end result. That’s the basis of contract negotiations and discussions.

MT: What about Matt Crouch?

JO: The quality of Matt Crouch has shown up during the course of the year when he’s been prepared to play and give his all in the SANFL, then in these last five games at AFL level. Contract negotiations will take place in the next week or two and I’d also like to see him continue. Both Tom and Matt are quality people.

MT: The club missed out on signing Essendon’s Mason Redman. Can Crows fans still expect the club to land a significant off-season recruit?

JO: List management is a very complicated scenario and not always will you enter the market if the person you want is not available. The progression of a number of our players might mean we have changed what our needs are and making an assessment over the next three to five years what the composition of the team should look like. We’ll make a value judgment as to who is available.

MT: Let’s switch to the proposed move to Thebarton. It keeps dragging on. What is the latest?

JO: This has been a very long and protracted process but we will persevere and are determined to get an outcome for our members and the local community. We said we wanted to arrive at Thebarton being a good neighbour and I think we’ve arrived at a position that is the best outcome for the club and the local community. We are in the final stages of putting the financing package together to enable us to be able to proceed.

MT: You have made some changes to help appease residents, moving your administration and training centre and changing the size of your second oval.

JO: When the plans are released, the amount of green space, trees, skate park, cricket

Very good from Olsen.

 

[robboaustralia]

Who knows. But I wish Rankine and Murphy and McAdam made more of a song and dance about it and demand a review. Players need to remonstrate a perceived injustice.

Should have grabbed the Sydney player/ball before Sydney kicked out. Prob cost us 50m but a review could still be called if we kept remonstrating?

 

[Southerntakeover]

"MT: Could the blunder be the impetus to finally getting the AFL to give you a Thursday night or Friday night stand-alone Showdown?

JO: Yes. We have got a series of requests already in and will be pressing those."


This is such a shit demand.

 

[dogs105]

"MT: Could the blunder be the impetus to finally getting the AFL to give you a Thursday night or Friday night stand-alone Showdown?

JO: Yes. We have got a series of requests already in and will be pressing those."


This is such a s**t demand.

Hopefully one of the requests is recruiting concessions...

 

[glengowan]

organiC gROWth

 

[mr.sheen]

Everyone gets a goal review now.

Good solution afl

Edit: ok all these goal reviews are becoming patronising now lol

 

[AJB84]

Everyone gets a goal review now.

Good solution afl

Edit: ok all these goal reviews are becoming patronising now lol

and totally missing the entire bloody point!

Review close points because if you think its a goal and you call it a goal it gets reviewed.

It would make more sense to review the ball that hit the post and went back into play this is the AFL doing this on purpose to pretend this is what you were asking for but it isn't at all.
It is a pantomime performance built on a corrupt joke of an organisation that refuse to tell the details of what happened.

 

[aabp1978]

Nothing like being trolled by the Swans captain …and on the AFL website yet again. Amazing he was pushed and shoved when there wasnt a single Crows player near him. What is the bet we play the Swans first round next year…in Sydney..

Where were you for the drama on Saturday night when Ben Keays had his shot for goal?
I was on the goal line watching it. It was hard to see it from my angle because you get pushed and shoved around but I'll back the umpire in!

 

[PCORF]

Even if the Sydney game was correct we would have finished 8th. I seriously doubt we would have the premiership this year. But a finals apperance would have been a big step forward for the team.

2024 will be tough and we need to do all the hard work again, will the players be mentally up to it? = good luck.

 

[Blues Man]

Wasn't even near the padding or post for that matter

View attachment 1779133

Best suggestion I've heard is to hang the photo in the Louvre in Paris alongside the Mona Lisa, as it looks like a goal from every angle.

 

[Back One Out]

John Olsen: The club has been pressing the AFL all this week on removing the disadvantage we have as a club on the fixtures you’ve provided to us over the years. We get regional grounds to play on. Home, Launceston, home, Geelong, home, Ballarat, home, Darwin – no other team has had a schedule like that this year. No other team has played the top-four sides seven times this year. We deserve and are entitled to a better fixture and the disadvantage we have needs to be removed. We played two games at the MCG this year. Collingwood president Jeff Browne said at a function in Melbourne three weeks ago ‘we have 14 games at the MCG’. It’s their training ground for the grand final. I’ve had a discussion with the chairman of the AFL commission (Richard Goyder) on that – it’s not reasonable from our point of view. Not having an opportunity to play more there is a disadvantage to us.

MT: What else specifically are you seeking from the fixture?

JO: We want more timeslots at Adelaide Oval that maximise the attendance of our members and supporters

I don't blame Olsen for trying leverage this situation to eke out a better draw from the AFL. There isn't a club in the AFL who is 100% happy with the fixture. Not even Collingwood or Richmond, who seem to get ALL the favours from the AFL and Channel 7. The Tigers and Pies still find something to complain about and want more, more, more.

However, it should also be pointed out the Crows had one extra home game this year when they flogged Carlton by 10 goals during the "Gather Round".
The Crows played 13 games at the Adelaide Oval - two of those vs Port - plus 10 trips interstate for away games..

Port and Crows will enjoy this fixture advantage over the 16 other clubs for at least the next 3 years. So it's a bit rich of Olsen to complain about any "disadvantages".

Let's pretend justice was done and the goal was awarded to Keays... the Crows defeated the Swans... and they edged out the Swans, Bulldogs or Giants for a spot in the Top 8... Wouldn't the 9th placed team also be entitled to moan about the Crows being advantaged by playing one extra home game this year?

--------------

I understand the complaint from WA or SA teams about having to play away games in Launceston or Ballarat. I get they'd prefer to play Hawthorn at the MCG, or the Bulldogs at Marvel. But the simple fact is... it's not their home game. Someone has to be the away team for those games. And it's not going to be any of the big crowd-drawing Victorian teams because that would defeat the purpose of clubs "selling" those home games. They're doing it to maximise their revenue. They want the lucrative gate receipts from their Vic rivals... and they want to make a few dollars on their "break even" games versus teams from interstate.

It would be good if the AFL stopped pandering to Channel 7 and the "big four" Vic clubs and shared the fixture around more evenly so they didn't force the smaller Vic clubs into selling off their home games to make a few bucks.

 

[Checksider]

I don't blame Olsen for trying leverage this situation to eke out a better draw from the AFL. There isn't a club in the AFL who is 100% happy with the fixture. Not even Collingwood or Richmond, who seem to get ALL the favours from the AFL and Channel 7. The Tigers and Pies still find something to complain about and want more, more, more.

However, it should also be pointed out that Adelaide had one extra home game this year when they flogged Carlton by 10 goals during the "Gather Round".

This year, the Crows played 13 games at the Adelaide Oval - two of those vs Port - plus 10 trips interstate for away games..

Port and Crows will enjoy this fixture advantage over the 16 other clubs for at least the next 3 years. So it's a bit rich of Olsen to complain about any "disadvantages". Let's say the goal was awarded to Keays... the Crows defeated the Swans... and they edged out the Swans, Bulldogs or Giants for a spot in the Top 8... Wouldn't the fans of the 9th placed team be entitled to moan about the Crows being advantaged by playing one extra home game this year?



I understand the complaint from WA or SA teams about having to play away games in Launceston or Ballarat. I get they'd prefer to play Hawthorn at the MCG, or the Bulldogs at Marvel. But the simple fact is... it's not their home game. Someone has to be the away team for those games. And it's not going to be any of the big crowd-drawing Victorian teams because that would defeat the purpose of clubs "selling" those home games. They're doing it to maximise their revenue. They want the lucrative gate receipts from their Vic rivals... and they want to make a few dollars on their "break even" games versus teams from interstate.

It would be good if the AFL stopped pandering to Channel 7 and the "big four" Vic clubs and shared the fixture around more evenly so they didn't force the smaller Vic clubs into selling off their home games to make a few bucks.

Please tell me more about how 13 games at home due to special case Gather Round is better than a minimum 17 games at home on a permanent yearly basis.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

I don't blame Olsen for trying leverage this situation to eke out a better draw from the AFL. There isn't a club in the AFL who is 100% happy with the fixture. Not even Collingwood or Richmond, who seem to get ALL the favours from the AFL and Channel 7. The Tigers and Pies still find something to complain about and want more, more, more.

However, it should also be pointed out the Crows had one extra home game this year when they flogged Carlton by 10 goals during the "Gather Round".
The Crows played 13 games at the Adelaide Oval - two of those vs Port - plus 10 trips interstate for away games..

Port and Crows will enjoy this fixture advantage over the 16 other clubs for at least the next 3 years. So it's a bit rich of Olsen to complain about any "disadvantages".

Let's pretend justice was done and the goal was awarded to Keays... the Crows defeated the Swans... and they edged out the Swans, Bulldogs or Giants for a spot in the Top 8... Wouldn't the 9th placed team also be entitled to moan about the Crows being advantaged by playing one extra home game this year?

--------------

I understand the complaint from WA or SA teams about having to play away games in Launceston or Ballarat. I get they'd prefer to play Hawthorn at the MCG, or the Bulldogs at Marvel. But the simple fact is... it's not their home game. Someone has to be the away team for those games. And it's not going to be any of the big crowd-drawing Victorian teams because that would defeat the purpose of clubs "selling" those home games. They're doing it to maximise their revenue. They want the lucrative gate receipts from their Vic rivals... and they want to make a few dollars on their "break even" games versus teams from interstate.

It would be good if the AFL stopped pandering to Channel 7 and the "big four" Vic clubs and shared the fixture around more evenly so they didn't force the smaller Vic clubs into selling off their home games to make a few bucks.

Isn’t the grand final played at your home ground?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

A better fixture is not what we should be demanding as compensation. We should be getting that anyway based on the footy we produced this year being high scoring and entertaining to watch. If we walk away with what we should have gotten anyway, our administrators are as dumb as a bag of rocks.

 

[Checksider]

Isn’t the grand final played at your home ground?

What a joke of a league hey.

 

[jackster83]

What a joke of a league hey.

Yep, the Vic clubs get every advantage under the sun. We get one Gather Round game and the flogs do nothing but complain about it.

They can GAGF.

 

[Checksider]

Yep, the Vic clubs get every advantage under the sun. We get one Gather Round game and the flogs do nothing but complain about it.

They can GAGF.

It’s actually hilarious how much outcry there was about gather round in Adelaide. They’re completely blind to the inherent advantages they get year in year out.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

It’s actually hilarious how much outcry there was about gather round in Adelaide. They’re completely blind to the inherent advantages they get year in year out.

This is human nature. Have you ever seen the response to a company or Government trying to remove a benefit.

People become entitled to the benefit and then complain when others receive new benefits or their benefits are removed.

 

[beartoo]

I don't blame Olsen for trying leverage this situation to eke out a better draw from the AFL. There isn't a club in the AFL who is 100% happy with the fixture. Not even Collingwood or Richmond, who seem to get ALL the favours from the AFL and Channel 7. The Tigers and Pies still find something to complain about and want more, more, more.

However, it should also be pointed out the Crows had one extra home game this year when they flogged Carlton by 10 goals during the "Gather Round".
The Crows played 13 games at the Adelaide Oval - two of those vs Port - plus 10 trips interstate for away games..

Port and Crows will enjoy this fixture advantage over the 16 other clubs for at least the next 3 years. So it's a bit rich of Olsen to complain about any "disadvantages".

Let's pretend justice was done and the goal was awarded to Keays... the Crows defeated the Swans... and they edged out the Swans, Bulldogs or Giants for a spot in the Top 8... Wouldn't the 9th placed team also be entitled to moan about the Crows being advantaged by playing one extra home game this year?

--------------

I understand the complaint from WA or SA teams about having to play away games in Launceston or Ballarat. I get they'd prefer to play Hawthorn at the MCG, or the Bulldogs at Marvel. But the simple fact is... it's not their home game. Someone has to be the away team for those games. And it's not going to be any of the big crowd-drawing Victorian teams because that would defeat the purpose of clubs "selling" those home games. They're doing it to maximise their revenue. They want the lucrative gate receipts from their Vic rivals... and they want to make a few dollars on their "break even" games versus teams from interstate.

It would be good if the AFL stopped pandering to Channel 7 and the "big four" Vic clubs and shared the fixture around more evenly so they didn't force the smaller Vic clubs into selling off their home games to make a few bucks.

Just F off.

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jo172]

Adelaide Oval is neutral for gather round.

Just like how the MCG is neutral on grand final day, or what I’ve been led to believe.

Also, even if it was unfair which it’s not it’s tradition and you couldn’t possibly move it

 

[Geoffa32]

A better fixture is not what we should be demanding as compensation. We should be getting that anyway based on the footy we produced this year being high scoring and entertaining to watch. If we walk away with what we should have gotten anyway, our administrators are as dumb as a bag of rocks.

The main compensation I feel we should get is the player bonus for making Finals and the cash the club misses out on.


You are correct, we earnt a better fixture and should just get it.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Southerntakeover]

I don't blame Olsen for trying leverage this situation to eke out a better draw from the AFL. There isn't a club in the AFL who is 100% happy with the fixture. Not even Collingwood or Richmond, who seem to get ALL the favours from the AFL and Channel 7. The Tigers and Pies still find something to complain about and want more, more, more.

However, it should also be pointed out the Crows had one extra home game this year when they flogged Carlton by 10 goals during the "Gather Round".
The Crows played 13 games at the Adelaide Oval - two of those vs Port - plus 10 trips interstate for away games..

Port and Crows will enjoy this fixture advantage over the 16 other clubs for at least the next 3 years. So it's a bit rich of Olsen to complain about any "disadvantages".

Let's pretend justice was done and the goal was awarded to Keays... the Crows defeated the Swans... and they edged out the Swans, Bulldogs or Giants for a spot in the Top 8... Wouldn't the 9th placed team also be entitled to moan about the Crows being advantaged by playing one extra home game this year?

--------------

I understand the complaint from WA or SA teams about having to play away games in Launceston or Ballarat. I get they'd prefer to play Hawthorn at the MCG, or the Bulldogs at Marvel. But the simple fact is... it's not their home game. Someone has to be the away team for those games. And it's not going to be any of the big crowd-drawing Victorian teams because that would defeat the purpose of clubs "selling" those home games. They're doing it to maximise their revenue. They want the lucrative gate receipts from their Vic rivals... and they want to make a few dollars on their "break even" games versus teams from interstate.

It would be good if the AFL stopped pandering to Channel 7 and the "big four" Vic clubs and shared the fixture around more evenly so they didn't force the smaller Vic clubs into selling off their home games to make a few bucks.

Sorry, the advantage that victorians claim we have is more than 12 games in our home city?

 

[Back One Out]

Sorry, the advantage that victorians claim we have is more than 12 games in our home city?

I was talking about the +1 advantage of 11 games with home ground advantage vs 10 away games

If you're talking about the number of traveling games throughout the season, getting on plane, sleeping in a hotel bed, etc, then the Crows are the same as most other clubs. When people bang on about clubs playing 17 MCG games, they are focused on the Richmond's and the Collingwood's.. Those big molly-coddled Vic clubs are the exception.

The Hawks travelled 10 times this year... the same as Adelaide.

I don't understand why people are always moaning about this stuff. This is the AFL. It is what it is. Why does everyone continually moan about it?

Don't get me wrong... I totally get people being pissed off about bad umpiring and decisions which don't go your way. You guys suffered a cruel blow last weekend. I would also be livid and wanna burn down the AFL headquarters. Maybe this is the wrong time & place for me to be posting here. You guys need to vent and find some outlet for your anger. I get it. A goal umpiring error has cost you a place in the finals. It's sh*t. I feel your pain. There's no lulz from me.

But why do some people always think it's their club who is being deliberately victimised? I mean, the people who constantly whine about the umpires and think it's an AFL conspiracy against their club. A vendetta by Victorians to stitch you up.

People should follow the sport and enjoy the game... But maybe they need to find another hobby if it brings them no happiness.. If following the AFL is just never-ending source of complaints about how unfair everything it is, then why bother?


The Grand Final at the MCG is the perfect example... That's where the game is played. Always has been. That is not changing. Locked in for the next 50 years. Sure, that's an advantage for some Vic clubs, in terms of travel and ground familiarity, but it isn't a home game. I would LOVE to see every Hawthorn member get a GF ticket, but we don't. Competing clubs get the same number of tickets. The crowd roars for both teams on Grand Final day. It's not a 100% partisan crowd like finals played in Adelaide, Perth, Sydney or Brisbane.

The Crows, Eagles and Swans might suffer a disadvantage on Grand Final day, but they have a more advantageous path to the Grand Final when they finish 1st or 2nd. They play a home final in Week 1 and a home Prelim Final with the entire stadium rocking. That's a massive home ground advantage for them. Nothing like that at the G. Compare that to Hawthorn or Richmond finishing on top of the ladder and playing finals versus 4th-placed Collingwood, Melbourne or Geelong where they get no advantage at all.

It's all just part of the vagaries of the AFL competition. Teams get advantaged in some ways and they get disadvantaged in others.

Money is usually the underlying motivation for everything. The AFL is a business.