Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[VicBased]

The economics support Collingwood playing West Coast and Freo away where they get 50,000 plus as opposed to at Marvel where they get less than 40,000. This also applies to Pies away games against the likes of North and Saints. So why do the economic priorities apply more to Victorian teams than non-Victorian teams?

Good luck getting an intelligent answer back from that question .

 

[Muddiemoose]

The economics support Collingwood playing West Coast and Freo away where they get 50,000 plus as opposed to at Marvel where they get less than 40,000. This also applies to Pies away games against the likes of North and Saints. So why do the economic priorities apply more to Victorian teams than non-Victorian teams?

I must admit that I do enjoy watching the tigers play the WA sides in WA compared to home

Can’t really tell you why maybe because historically our teams match up pretty well and tend to put on a good show regardless of where the game is played

 

[JackOutback]

Good luck getting an intelligent answer back from that question .

The argument generally goes, you can’t have Collingwood play WC and Freo away every year, regardless of whether they meet once or twice because it’s not fair. You have to balance the home and away games between individual teams. But when you point out it’s unfair for West Aussie teams to travel 10 times to their four, then the response is ‘geography dude’.

If teams like Collingwood and Richmond, who traditionally get as many as 16 games at home, we’re forced to travel twice to WA and SA regardless of whether they played once or twice, it would go some way to evening the travel burden, given smaller clubs tend to be shunted around anyway. And as a bonus, the economics support it.

 

[Muddiemoose]

The argument generally goes, you can’t have Collingwood play WC and Freo away every year, regardless of whether they meet once or twice because it’s not fair. You have to balance the home and away games between individual teams. But when you point out it’s unfair for West Aussie teams to travel 10 times to their four, then the response is ‘geography dude’.

If teams like Collingwood and Richmond, who traditionally get as many as 16 games at home, we’re forced to travel twice to WA and SA regardless of whether they played once or twice, it would go some way to evening the travel burden, given smaller clubs tend to be shunted around anyway. And as a bonus, the economics support it.

As an extension on my last post I don’t think it would upset me a huge amount if we always met the WA sides away

But that’s only my personal view and i obviously can’t answer for all Richmond fans

Although it does further expose interstate sides with one of the other issues of not getting enough exposure to playing on the mcg that I have seen from time to time (not saying you have said it specifically but it’s something I have seen in the past)

 

[VicBased]

The argument generally goes, you can’t have Collingwood play WC and Freo away every year, regardless of whether they meet once or twice because it’s not fair. You have to balance the home and away games between individual teams. But when you point out it’s unfair for West Aussie teams to travel 10 times to their four, then the response is ‘geography dude’.

If teams like Collingwood and Richmond, who traditionally get as many as 16 games at home, we’re forced to travel twice to WA and SA regardless of whether they played once or twice, it would go some way to evening the travel burden, given smaller clubs tend to be shunted around anyway. And as a bonus, the economics support it.

It would also contribute to equalising the comp, small vic clubs also.
The smaller vic clubs can play each other on the G while the G hogs are away.
Is there not a sneaky deal been done that Collingwood have to play a certain amount of games at the G, put in place by Eddy?
That should be looked at if so.

 

[VicBased]

As an extension on my last post I don’t think it would upset me a huge amount if we always met the WA sides away

But that’s only my personal view and i obviously can’t answer for all Richmond fans

Although it does further expose interstate sides with one of the other issues of not getting enough exposure to playing on the mcg that I have seen from time to time (not saying you have said it specifically but it’s something I have seen in the past)

We hardly get a game at the G as it is though.

 

[LoungeLizard]

The argument generally goes, you can’t have Collingwood play WC and Freo away every year, regardless of whether they meet once or twice because it’s not fair. You have to balance the home and away games between individual teams. But when you point out it’s unfair for West Aussie teams to travel 10 times to their four, then the response is ‘geography dude’.

If teams like Collingwood and Richmond, who traditionally get as many as 16 games at home, we’re forced to travel twice to WA and SA regardless of whether they played once or twice, it would go some way to evening the travel burden, given smaller clubs tend to be shunted around anyway. And as a bonus, the economics support it.

It wouldn't worry me if they sent Collingwood west twice every year.

But stop making crap up, we don't travel 4 times and we never play 16 H&A games at the G

We have a contact to play 14 at the G, we have no say in it, that was between the AFL and the MCC.

Now, talk crap and crap will most probably come back at ya.

 

[Muddiemoose]

We hardly get a game at the G as it is though.

But to get more would mean more travel and probably getting more games who have the mcg as a home ground that tend to be the bigger clubs

Under this hypothetical the WA sides and interstate sides as an extension need to figure out what they would prefer

Less travel overall but potentially greater home and away advantage but ultimately opening the possibility to a severe finals disadvantage or more travel with more exposure to the ground that would ultimately be the ground that determines if you win a flag or not

Under the current structure the league is built on that is just the reality and as unfair as it may be it’s not something that’s going to change in the foreseeable future

 

[Demons09]

The "home"

Oh my you really want to hurt my feelings don't you.

So when your supporters booed Goodes after being told it was racist, that's ok is it?

You see, there are DH's in every club, by the looks of your posting, trying to get under peoples skin, you just might be one from Freo.

I think you’ve mixed Freo up with the team down the road you’re supporters and prez did more than boo Goodes or has that slipped your mind, christ have you forgotten the famous or infamous incidents at Victoria park those ferals have had kids that support your club lol.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I think you’ve mixed Freo up with the team down the road you’re supporters and prez did more than boo Goodes or has that slipped your mind, christ have you forgotten the famous or infamous incidents at Victoria park those ferals have had kids that support your club lol.

Are you saying Freo didn't boo Goodes?

You booed after told it was racist to do it.

Would you like me to post that article again of the Freo supporter belting the mother at the footy, now her child is too scared to go.

So if you want to talk about ferals, have a look at your own club, you're not immune to them, no-body is.

 

[sr36]

The economics support Collingwood playing West Coast and Freo away where they get 50,000 plus as opposed to at Marvel where they get less than 40,000. This also applies to Pies away games against the likes of North and Saints. So why do the economic priorities apply more to Victorian teams than non-Victorian teams?

Collingwood play 1 away game at Docklands per year.

This was the attendances for Collingwood away games in Melb last year:

Rd 1 Geelong 86,000
Rd 10 Carlton 84,000
Rd 13 Melb 83,000
rd 17 Dogs 43,000
Rd 21 Hawks 62,000
Rd 24 Ess 74,000

So no the economics don't support it from an attendance or a broadcast persepctive.

Economic priorities don't apply more to Vic teams - they apply more to poorer teams. And the boost of a home game against Collingwood or another big club is a big deal.

I know you don't give a shit and want to kill off the poorer Vic teams. When I read this thread and people crapping on about killing off poorer Vic clubs, I'm not sure whether that's because you haven't seen the impact that has on tens of thousands of people, or whether you just don't give a shit about people.

I couldn't care less if Pies or other Vic clubs travel more or WA clubs travel less, but stop going into victim mode when someone says your idea is shit because it will disadvantage clubs that are a damn site more disadvantaged than the richest and third most successful club of the AFL era.

 

[VicBased]

But to get more would mean more travel and probably getting more games who have the mcg as a home ground that tend to be the bigger clubs

Under this hypothetical the WA sides and interstate sides as an extension need to figure out what they would prefer

Less travel overall but potentially greater home and away advantage but ultimately opening the possibility to a severe finals disadvantage or more travel with more exposure to the ground that would ultimately be the ground that determines if you win a flag or not

Under the current structure the league is built on that is just the reality and as unfair as it may be it’s not something that’s going to change in the foreseeable future

Well yes and no we travel to Melbourne more than enough to get a few games at the G.
We only ever get 2 or 3 anyway but lately not much at all.
I reckon the majority of supporters would be happy with 2 or three .
Push comes to shove though I reckon travel less so we don't run out of steam towards the end of the season.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Well yes and no we travel to Melbourne more than enough to get a few games at the G.
We only ever get 2 or 3 anyway but lately not much at all.
I reckon the majority of supporters would be happy with 2 or three .
Push comes to shove though I reckon travel less so we don't run out of steam towards the end of the season.

It would probably be my preferred option as well if my club was in the same situation

 

[VicBased]

Collingwood play 1 away game at Docklands per year.

This was the attendances for Collingwood away games in Melb last year:

Rd 1 Geelong 86,000
Rd 10 Carlton 84,000
Rd 13 Melb 83,000
rd 17 Dogs 43,000
Rd 21 Hawks 62,000
Rd 24 Ess 74,000

So no the economics don't support it from an attendance or a broadcast persepctive.

Economic priorities don't apply more to Vic teams - they apply more to poorer teams. And the boost of a home game against Collingwood or another big club is a big deal.

I know you don't give a shit and want to kill off the poorer Vic teams. When I read this thread and people crapping on about killing off poorer Vic clubs, I'm not sure whether that's because you haven't seen the impact that has on tens of thousands of people, or whether you just don't give a shit about people.

I couldn't care less if Pies or other Vic clubs travel more or WA clubs travel less, but stop going into victim mode when someone says your idea is shit because it will disadvantage clubs that are a damn site more disadvantaged than the richest and third most successful club of the AFL era.

Last time I looked Geelong, Carlton, Melbourne, Hawthorn and Essendon are not what we would call poorer or small teams..
Matter of fact they are doing very well without the benevolence of Collingwood.
The world won't stop turning if Collingwood travel a couple of times more in the season.
Your compassion for the "littler teams"is noted though.

 

[VicBased]

It would probably be my preferred option as well if my club was in the same situation

Well that is the truth of it isn't it.

 

[JackOutback]

It wouldn't worry me if they sent Collingwood west twice every year.

But stop making crap up, we don't travel 4 times and we never play 16 H&A games at the G

We have a contact to play 14 at the G, we have no say in it, that was between the AFL and the MCC.

Now, talk crap and crap will most probably come back at ya.

Gee, I apologise for being so wide of the mark, they travel six times, not four (one of those being Gather Round) and play at the MCG 14 times, not 16 (including six of the last seven games at the G, with three long road trips to Marvel). And can potentially play three finals at the MCG, even if they don’t finish top two. That makes it look completely different.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Gee, I apologise for being so wide of the mark, they travel six times, not four (one of those being Gather Round) and play at the MCG 14 times, not 16 (including six of the last seven games at the G, with three long road trips to Marvel). And can potentially play three finals at the MCG, even if they don’t finish top two. That makes it look completely different.

Well if you want to throw mud at Vic posters all the time, I will throw it back at ya, tell lies to make it sound worse, I will pull you up for your lies.

Now about the travel, I'm fine if the AFL send the pies to help you out over there in the west, we went to Sydney for 10 years to help them out, why not West Coast.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Getting a bit personal this thread, and I'm guilty of being snarky.

Apologies to bzparkes and SC_Power, no excuses for that.

Non vic fans must understand though, as fans of our clubs we didn't want the vfl expansion, none of us did.

Yeah you could argue we needed the wafc to buy a competition licence and we now have non vic clubs.

By and large most vic club fans understand the inequities of travel and the GF at the G, but that doesn't mean you can all just walk in and demand mechanisms that are detriment to vic clubs and their fans in the name equity.

Remember we were here first, so you don't have the right to just demand mergers / culling / extra travel for vic clubs (which means less those club fans can see their team play, and that's why it's not popular).

What we have is an expanded vfl, we all have it, I'd rather just a vic competition, but we don't and my club is in it, so I accept it. It's an impasse.

Non vic fans have choice, you can still snub this league that you all hate so much and follow your original clubs in their top tier competitions, vic fans don't have that choice.

So if you really really hate this league so much vote with your feet and remotes and follow your original clubs or just accept what we have, coz it ain't gonna change for the purposes of equity at the detriment of foundation clubs.

Peace out.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Well that is the truth of it isn't it.

Hey I may be a big 4 vic team supporting nuff but that doesn’t mean I can’t be empathetic…


Sometimes

 

[VicBased]

Gee, I apologise for being so wide of the mark, they travel six times, not four (one of those being Gather Round) and play at the MCG 14 times, not 16 (including six of the last seven games at the G, with three long road trips to Marvel). And can potentially play three finals at the MCG, even if they don’t finish top two. That makes it look completely different.

It amazes me that the club who has the most benefits in the AFL are the one's who deny it the most and defend it the most.

 

[LoungeLizard]

See what I mean, I said I would go to the west twice a year as requested, but now I am denying and defending.

This is why I really couldn't give a crap if they all just piss off, they will never be happy, complete sooks.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It amazes me that the club who has the most benefits in the AFL are the one's who deny it the most and defend it the most.

There's probably one Pie poster who denies the inequities, the rest of us are aware of it, and have been stating for pages, if you don't like it then vote with your feet and remotes or campaign to HQ, or something, instead of bitching and moaning about it and making false claims like this one.

dUM PY spOORTERs ThINC theEERS nO BYas

 

[sr36]

Last time I looked Geelong, Carlton, Melbourne, Hawthorn and Essendon are not what we would call poorer or small teams..
Matter of fact they are doing very well without the benevolence of Collingwood.
The world won't stop turning if Collingwood travel a couple of times more in the season.
Your compassion for the "littler teams"is noted though.

That's a sample year - the AFL and broadcasters try to grow the game through blockbusters - hence Collingwood play Carlton and Essendon twice every year - ditto showdowns. Collingwood currently plays 5 of the other away games interstate leaving 4 other games in Melb which get rotated through the other 7 Vic clubs - last year it was the 4 listed. This year it's Saints, North, Haw and Melb. So you're right, these clubs don't get the cash cow that often - but it's better than them not getting it at all.

I don't care if Collingwood travel more without it impacting teams that need it like that. I think it's a heap of carry on. It doesn't matter in the years youre good as you're good enough to win on the road. And it doesn't matter in the years you aren't any good - because you're not good enough. Ladder positions haven't been skewed towards less travelled teams over the last 20 years. It being a big disadvantage is just a theory that isn't supported by outcomes.

 

[VicBased]

Getting a bit personal this thread, and I'm guilty of being snarky.

Apologies to bzparkes and SC_Power, no excuses for that.

Non vic fans must understand though, as fans of our clubs we didn't want the vfl expansion, none of us did.

Yeah you could argue we needed the wafc to buy a competition licence and we now have non vic clubs.

By and large most vic club fans understand the inequities of travel and the GF at the G, but that doesn't mean you can all just walk in and demand mechanisms that are detriment to vic clubs and their fans in the name equity.

Remember we were here first, so you don't have the right to just demand mergers / culling / extra travel for vic clubs (which means less those club fans can see their team play, and that's why it's not popular).

What we have is an expanded vfl, we all have it, I'd rather just a vic competition, but we don't and my club is in it, so I accept it. It's an impasse.

Non vic fans have choice, you can still snub this league that you all hate so much and follow your original clubs in their top tier competitions, vic fans don't have that choice.

So if you really really hate this league so much vote with your feet and remotes and follow your original clubs or just accept what we have, coz it ain't gonna change for the purposes of equity at the detriment of foundation clubs.

Peace out.

I think you might be forgetting that Interstate supporters are just as invested in their clubs as you are in your teams.
Probably a lot of Interstate supporters have been supporting their teams longer than a lot of people supporting Vic teams.
Don't make the mistake of thinking just because the club is old a lot of supporters are not.
I have been supporting WC since inception so that is 36 years, ,,,,how long have you been supporting Collingwood?

 

[South of the Yarra]

So bitter. Clearly nostalgic for Wren, Lapband Eddie and no Aboriginal players at Vic Park.

What do Aboriginal players have to do with this?>