Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[doppleganger]

So should Collingwood have to travel to Tassie like other teams?

That is up to North. If North want to play Collingwood in Hobart instead of Marvel, then we would play there.

It once again highlights that disadvantaged teams are the small Melbourne teams. It is North (a small Melbourne team) selling home games, and they will play teams like the Dees (another small Melbourne team) in Hobart giving them an extra trip compared to a big club like Coll or Ess.

Absolutely no impact to WC, as they are travelling across the country to play North anyway if they are fixtured away to North.

That is why your Tassie "argument" is flawed. WC aint disadvantaged.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Leave the Eagles out of it for a sec. I only mentioned them because they're one of the select few that do travel there. Strip it back to my core argument. If a team has a certain home ground, should all teams have to play them there?

Teams should have absolutely no say in who they play and where. Like seriously WTF.

 

[VicBased]

It is a bit unfair that teams like GWS, GC, Coll, Geel, NM, Haw, Melb, WB, Rich dont get to play all of their home games at a single home ground.

WC, Freo, Syd, and Port should also be forced to play home games at neutral alternate grounds, as everyone should have to.


You do realise that WC travelling to play North in Melbourne at Marvel, is hardly any different to WC travelling to play North in Hobart at Blundstone.

Both get a direct flight of circa 4 hrs, the large impost.

But once arrived, airport to hotel / ground would be quicker in Hobart than Melbourne.

Why do you keep pretending it is some huge additional travel impost for WC going to Hobart compared to Melbourne?


It is VICBias (prejudice against them) that those two VIC teams have to travel for some of their home games.

I think the point of difference is that Collywobbles never travel to Tassie....or Geelong for that matter.
Not your fault of course, but definitely a contender for Vicbias .

 

[sr36]

So should Collingwood have to travel to Tassie like other teams?

Or will we see more random whataboutisms like BUT WHAT IF THEY PLAYED IN ALBANY???

You're getting your whataboutism mixed up. Brisbane not going to darwin and Sydney not going to Canberra was whataboutism.

Albany was a hypothetical to help you see that your position on this is odd.

I doubt Collingwood would care if they played North in Tassie rather than Marvel. I don't see how playing them in Tassie versus Marvel is a disadvantage - a ground where we'd be level in terms of travel (like Marvel) where they play less often than Marvel where we'd have more support than them - like Marvel. Marvel isn't a happy hunting ground for us.

West Coast and Port aren't disadvantaged when they play North in Tassie instead of Marvel. What's your issue with Tassie?

It'd be a big financial disadvantage to North though and I don't get why you think clubs shouldn't be able to choose who they play where for their home games.

Plus, you'd lose teams doing being willing to spread the game like this if they had to do it against the games that are their big ones. Or does you not want the national comp to have any games in cities without teams.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

You boys sure say a lot of words just to say "No, I don't think that every team should have to play at their opponent's home ground"

 

[doppleganger]

Leave the Eagles out of it for a sec. I only mentioned them because they're one of the select few that do travel there. Strip it back to my core argument. If a team has a certain home ground, should all teams have to play them there?

Yes.

North's home ground is Marvel.
Collingwood's home ground is the MCG.
WC's home ground is Optus.

Only WC play all their home games at their single preferred home ground.

When WC get to play "away" games v North and Coll at grounds that aren't their actual home ground, it aint WC who are disadvantaged.

But you somwhow think that WC are dudded and it adds to your VICBias "argument"?

 

[doppleganger]

I think the point of difference is that Collywobbles never travel to Tassie....or Geelong for that matter.
Not your fault of course, but definitely a contender for Vicbias .

It aint VICBias.

It is Collingwood bias, over other Melbourne teams.

It aint Sydney, Port, WC or Brisbane who are disadvantaged...it is StK, WB, NM, Melb, Carl, Ess.

 

[VicBased]

It aint VICBias.

It is Collingwood bias, over other Melbourne teams.

It aint Sydney, Port, WC or Brisbane who are disadvantaged...it is StK, WB, NM, Melb, Carl, Ess.

We are slowly making headway DG.
We are up to Collingwood bias.
Not far to go now

 

[sr36]

You boys sure say a lot of words just to say "No, I don't think that every team should have to play at their opponent's home ground"

Well there's layers to your complaint:

a) Is it an advantage/disadvantage at all? Darwin will be because of climate - no one will beat GC there, but Tassie, Ballarat and Canberra?
b) Do we want games in regional areas without a footy team?
c) Should teams who choose to play home games in regional areas be able to pick which teams they don't want to play there?
d) Considering we're talking 2 Non-Vic teams and 3 Vic teams who play most of these regional games, with Non-Vic teams also on lists of they won't play there, are we talking a Vic bias issue at all.

 

[doppleganger]

We are slowly making headway DG.
We are up to Collingwood bias.
Not far to go now

Port and Adelaide getting 13 games at AO, 11 with a full home ground advantage is SABias.

What is next?

 

[sr36]

We are slowly making headway DG.
We are up to Collingwood bias.
Not far to go now

Well our extensive exploration into vicbias has established that:

Geelong won 4 flags because Collingwood never play at Kardinia Park.
Hawthorn won 4 flags because Collingwood never travel to Tassie

Perhaps the Non-Vic teams issue is that Collingwood travel to your home grounds too often.

Melbourne and Dogs won a flag each because the media always talk about Collingwood.

**** knows how Richmond won 3.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Yes.

Wasn't hard was it?

I don't care if the answer was yes or no, I just wanted one.

Ridiculous it took this long. And I know I cut the rest of your answer off cos it was going of on more tangents .And not even engaging with your magpie mate who still can't come close to answering it. ALBANY!

Hence my point earlier, you guys don't want a genuine discussion. You go off on all different directions, then argue those points, then when the responses come to all the random tangents, you point and laugh at the silly interstaters. Rinse and repeat. I've tried not to engage with all that, repeated the same basic question, and finally dragged a half answer out of you. Take a step back and look at how you Collingwood boys have danced and danced and danced around a straightforward question if you really want a laugh.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Well our extensive exploration into vicbias has established that:

Geelong won 4 flags because Collingwood never play at Kardinia Park.
Hawthorn won 4 flags because Collingwood never travel to Tassie

Perhaps the Non-Vic teams issue is that Collingwood travel to your home grounds too often.

Melbourne and Dogs won a flag each because the media always talk about Collingwood.

**** knows how Richmond won 3.

See?

 

[sr36]

Wasn't hard was it?

I don't care if the answer was yes or no, I just wanted one.

Ridiculous it took this long. And I know I cut the rest of your answer off cos it was going of on more tangents .And not even engaging with your magpie mate who still can't come close to answering it. ALBANY!

Hence my point earlier, you guys don't want a genuine discussion. You go off on all different directions, then argue those points, then when the responses come to all the random tangents, you point and laugh at the silly interstaters. Rinse and repeat. I've tried not to engage with all that, repeated the same basic question, and finally dragged a half answer out of you. Take a step back and look at how you Collingwood boys have danced and danced and danced around a straightforward question if you really want a laugh.

Right. So you want a genuine discussion, but want to remove the discussion and just have a yes/no poll?

Yes - I think if North want Collingwood in Melb - let them. If Freo want to play us in Broome let them. (feel free to write Broome in cap locks)

I asked you a question earlier that you're still yet to answer, which is strange as Tassie seems to be your undeniable proof of something.

How are Non-Vic teams disadvantaged by playing North in Tassie rather than Melbourne? As I genuinely don't get the vicbias logic on this one.

 

[AstonSouffle]

AFL could just pay for all travel costs and then proportionally take off the soft cap more off the teams that travel less?

Also they should probably introduce a third party arrangement cap, this can be as far reaching as money received from running a podcast to doing a Cotton On commercial. Not really a VicBias thing, more a good for the competition as a whole thing.

 

[VicBased]

Well our extensive exploration into vicbias has established that:

Geelong won 4 flags because Collingwood never play at Kardinia Park.
Hawthorn won 4 flags because Collingwood never travel to Tassie

Perhaps the Non-Vic teams issue is that Collingwood travel to your home grounds too often.

Melbourne and Dogs won a flag each because the media always talk about Collingwood.

**** knows how Richmond won 3.

This is where it goes pear shaped though SR.
That whole Collingwood and Travel to our home grounds to often in one sentence just does not compute.
Last time in Alice?
Last time in Tassie?
Last time in Geelong?
Last time in Darwin?
Last time in Canberra?
Anymore???
Change thread title and join with DG" "Collingwood bias."

 

[AstonSouffle]

Right. So you want a genuine discussion, but want to remove the discussion and just have a yes/no poll?

Yes - I think if North want Collingwood in Melb - let them. If Freo want to play us in Broome let them. (feel free to write Broome in cap locks)

I asked you a question earlier that you're still yet to answer, which is strange as Tassie seems to be your undeniable proof of something.

How are Non-Vic teams disadvantaged by playing North in Tassie rather than Melbourne? As I genuinely don't get the vicbias logic on this one.

Not really a VicBias it's a more an an example of an uneven competition. If it's ever asked why bigger Vic clubs can't be sent down there for their away games... money is brought up as the reason.

Surely ethics comes into consideration as well?

But it can seem VicBias if the answer is because we need to protect the bottom line of the big Vic clubs, and as such certain clubs on repeat have to go to Tassie over others.

 

[sr36]

This is where it goes pear shaped though SR.
That whole Collingwood and Travel to our home grounds to often in one sentence just does not compute.
Last time in Alice?
Last time in Tassie?
Last time in Geelong?
Last time in Darwin?
Last time in Canberra?
Anymore???
Change thread title and join with DG" "Collingwood bias."

You forgot Ballarat.

I wouldn't hold your breath on this changing - except for Tassie in a couple, as frankly none of the clubs involved who play in those cities will want it to change - vic and non-vic. Nor will the AFL - particularly regarding the games against the non-vics.

Not going to Geelong is an advantage. Not going to Darwin too due to climate. I honestly don't get why the others are advantages?

 

[VicBased]

You forgot Ballarat.

I wouldn't hold your breath on this changing - except for Tassie in a couple, as frankly none of the clubs involved who play in those cities will want it to change - vic and non-vic. Nor will the AFL - particularly regarding the games against the non-vics.

Not going to Geelong is an advantage. Not going to Darwin too due to climate. I honestly don't get why the others are advantages?

You think from the supporter point of view, try thinking from an oppo point of view when they look at the fixture.

 

[sr36]

Not really a VicBias it's a more an an example of an uneven competition. If it's ever asked why bigger Vic clubs can't be sent down there for their away games... money is brought up as the reason.

Surely ethics comes into consideration as well?

But it can seem VicBias if the answer is because we need to protect the bottom line of the big Vic clubs, and as such certain clubs on repeat have to go to Tassie over others.

It's money and promotion. Home team gets the gate. It's not a financial benefit for the teams who don't go to these grounds. It protects the bottom line of the team who sells games to regional areas and doesn't de-insentivize them from doing so. Forcing them to sell their big earning home games there would be a disinsentive. And in the case of the Northern clubs who sell home games - Collingwood in town helps to promote the game and they want that in at main home base. It's why their local rival won't get moved there either.

For it to be unfair, there needs to be winners and losers from the practice - I really can't see it. We have to play in tassie and they don't seems to be the refrain. But what's the disadvantage in Non-Vic teams playing in Tassie rather than Melbourne and what's the advantage for the Pies in not?

 

[sr36]

You think from the supporter point of view, try thinking from an oppo point of view when they look at the fixture.

I'd say it's the opposite.

Which oppo clubs point of view are you looking at? North? Hawthorn? Gold Coast? GWS? Dogs? None of them want to be forced to play a home game against Collingwood at their small regional ground. And frankly, I'd be shocked if it's an issue or talking point with the AFL for any of the other clubs - why would it be? How does Collingwood playing in Tassie benefit any club in the league? And why does playing at these grounds disadvantage the clubs that do?

 

[Freomaniac]

So no team "earns" a home grand final.

Now you are getting it.

They play the WA GF at the biggest venue in WA.

They play the AFL GF at the biggest venue in Australia.

AFL grand final wasnt played in Victoria in 2020 and 2021.

I guess we need a virus pandemic to prove that lol

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

I know I said Tassie so you've got that bee in your bonnet so I do apologise for that. My point, which I did then repeat about 500 times to try and clarify it for you, was more about the general principle rather than any particular advantage or disadvantage.

Collingwood should travel to Geelong, like other teams do. You see Collingwood's current situation there as an advantage. Cool. I agree. Collingwood should travel to Tassie like other teams do. You don't see that as as an advantage. Cool. I don't agree.

Think of it as Collingwood traveling to Geelong like other teams have to if it makes it easier for you. Forget Tassie. Please. Simples.

 

[VicBased]

I'd say it's the opposite.

Which oppo clubs point of view are you looking at? North? Hawthorn? Gold Coast? GWS? Dogs? None of them want to be forced to play a home game against Collingwood at their small regional ground. And frankly, I'd be shocked if it's an issue or talking point with the AFL for any of the other clubs - why would it be? How does Collingwood playing in Tassie benefit any club in the league? And why does playing at these grounds disadvantage the clubs that do?

Herein lies the problem, you don't get it.
An Interstate side looking at Collingwoods fixture compared to theirs is the absolute beginning of Vicbias.
You look at it from the wrong side. Anyway, when it boils down it is only a game of footy.

 

[The Feeder Club]

We got the Melbourne-Hawthorn quinella this year, instead of two away games at the MCG versus MCG tenants we got the boondocks. When they start playing finals in Launceston and Alice Springs is when we won't be routinely disadvantaged. When Collingwood start playing their away games against those teams in NT and Tassie rather than the MCG is when Collingwood won't be routinely advantaged.