Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[The Feeder Club]

Not sure that is correct, such a move (withdraw licence) would have to go to a vote of all clubs, who would probably have to consult their members. Not likely to get up. Unlikely HQ are able to just withdraw a licence at their whim.

Correct, so now what?

It's in the constitution, it's not on a whim, a simple majority of the commission can terminate a licence. It wouldn't have to go to club members, that's not how the commission runs

 

[sr36]

It's in the constitution, it's not on a whim, a simple majority of the commission can terminate a licence. It wouldn't have to go to club members, that's not how the commission runs

Commission decisions can be vetoed by the clubs though, so it's not as straight forward as you're suggesting. I think it's two thirds majority needed for veto, but simple majority needed to veto merger, relocation or licence removal. Could be wrong on the last bit

 

[Outtatym]

I actually don't think it is. The AFL were ecstatic when the Bulldogs and Melbourne won their grand finals, fairytales come true. They would love the Saints to win one and break their drought, far more than Port winning one.

What makes you think the AFL were? The media were for sure, don't think that means the league are. They were pretty ecstatic when Sydney finally broke through as well.

In terms of the financials of a premiership team I don't see how any of the 4 central/western clubs produces less than North/Stk/WB in terms of viewers/merch/bandwagoners etc

 

[The_Wookie]

It's in the constitution, it's not on a whim, a simple majority of the commission can terminate a licence. It wouldn't have to go to club members, that's not how the commission runs

Not quite. Clubs have to approve termination of a license as stated in clause 25a and 27b of the constitution of the AFL. These are literally the only powers the clubs retained after the changes in 1993.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Not quite. Clubs have to approve termination of a license as stated in clause 25a and 27b of the constitution of the AFL. These are literally the only powers the clubs retained after the changes in 1993.

View attachment 21380484

That's essentially I am saying, a simple majority of the AFL can remove a license. There's no right veto of any club, let alone that club's members.
It would end up being challenged in the courts by that club/members, no doubt

 

[Carringbush2010]

That's essentially I am saying, a simple majority of the AFL can remove a license. There's no right veto of any club, let alone that club's members.
It would end up being challenged in the courts by that club/members, no doubt

How likely do you think the bolded could be? This would've already happened if this was a majority wish. Clearly it isn't.

 

[The_Wookie]

That's essentially I am saying, a simple majority of the AFL can remove a license. There's no right veto of any club, let alone that club's members.
It would end up being challenged in the courts by that club/members, no doubt

Thats not what you said. You said a simple majoity of the Commission could do it.

a simple majority of the commission can terminate a licence

The Constitution is plain on this - a majority of the clubs is required. Clause 27b requres the consent of a majority of Appointees - each club has its own Appointee.

An appointee is a club appointed representative as defined in the glossary of terms in the beginning of the constitution.



Clauses 14-17 of the constitution deal with this

 

[The Feeder Club]

Thats not what you said. You said a simple majoity of the Commission could do it.



The Constitution is plain on this - a majority of the clubs is required. Clause 27b requres the consent of a majority of Appointees - each club has its own Appointee.

An appointee is a club appointed representative as defined in the glossary of terms in the beginning of the constitution.

View attachment 2138142

Clauses 14-17 of the constitution deal with this

View attachment 2138143

Appointees don't represent clubs after they are appointed, they become independent of club. See clause 23 of the constitution.
But yes, I agree that a AFL majority vote would have to agree to get rid of any one club. That's the point Iwas trying to make, clubs do not have to consent to be folded if a majority of others agree to fold them

 

[peetoo]

You might have a Point about this....

I am suprised a Victorian Side hasnt finished out side the top 4 and not won the flag... Acutally the dogs did it in 2016.

Ok more specific. I am suprised in a way That a collingwood or Hawthorn or Richmond side hasnt won a flag finishing 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th, then plays 4 finals in a row at the MCG vs a Victorian club.

In 1991 the hawks beat the eagles in their own house in QF

Otherwise no doubt there’d be a reference to this too, given the granny was at waverley

 

[peetoo]

So what? Look at the dockers back in 2001 when they went 0-17 and ended up 2 and 20?

Struggle to get 15,000 in some games.

Richmond were dire on field for most of 2000-2016. They had drawn massive crowds at the MCG from 2000 to 2016 before that 2017 flag.

Demons were never the biggest vic club after 1964. the Bandwagon fans left as they didnt make finals from 1965 to 1986.


Hawks? well they had a massive band wagon base too. They dropped off after the 1991 flag and nearly merged in 1996.

No. Massively outnumbered v other Victorian teams in 1991
It was the near merge which kicked our arses and turned up more and more after that

 

[Freomaniac]

I actually don't think it is. The AFL were ecstatic when the Bulldogs and Melbourne won their grand finals, fairytales come true. They would love the Saints to win one and break their drought, far more than Port winning one.

Well I am a dockers fan and you are an eagles fan.

So I will ask you a neutral question from one WA fan to another. Did you think the AFL was Happy to have A queensland side vs a NSW side in a grand final?

I think the AFL was happy. AFL was thrilled when Brisbane beat the Geelong cats in the prelim final. Had geelong beat Brisbane, I am 99 percent certain Geelong would of belted the swans in the 2024 grand final just like in 2022.

I personally didnt mind the AFL grand final in 2024. Glad the cup left Victorian soil for the 1st time since 2018 when the eagles won.

But yeah the AFL is estatic seeing the Bulldogs and demons breaking their droughts. AFL were also happy Geelong broke their drought in 2007 and Richmond breaking theirs in 2017.

AFL would of been happy had the Saints won a grand final in 2009 or 2010

 

[Freomaniac]

In 1991 the hawks beat the eagles in their own house in QF

Otherwise no doubt there’d be a reference to this too, given the granny was at waverley

Yes you did. Hawks beat the Eagles in that Qualifying final in 1991 and in the AFL grand final in 1991 in Waverly. I think even if the AFL grand final was at the MCG in 1991, I still think the hawks win regardless. but thats my view.

Saying that the eagles won the flag in 1992. They beat your mob in an elim final in 1992 to start it off, won a semi final vs the cats in the MCG to get into the grand final. The eagles had a week off and waited for the cats to beat the dogs in the prelim final. The Eagles then beat the cats at the MCG in the 1992 AFL grand final.

But even before the 1992 flag, the Eagles won 3 finals. they won a final in 1990 beating the Demons at Waverly. They also won 2 more finals in 1991. The eagles beat Demons again and geelong at waverly before the 1991 grand final.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I agree totally with you, I am not disputing it. But you did sign up for it. When ground rationalisation happened your CEO at the time grabbed his pen and agreed to sign up to it.
I think you should be playing at Marvel stadium, but as you don't even fight to play there then its hard to do anything other than shrug your shoulders and go they seem happy with it.

Well that should lock this thread.

 

[Grin]

Adelaide and Port get the biggest HGA of all clubs
13 games at home. 11 against interstate sides.
Unarguable fact = SABias.

 

[sr36]

Adelaide and Port get the biggest HGA of all clubs
13 games at home. 11 against interstate sides.
Unarguable fact = SABias.

WA teams will get the same, if North selling games go through.

We'll have big recruiting advantages to Northern clubs seeing them all up the pointy end. Plus HGA to the Western clubs helping their ladder positions, but there will still be angst about vicbias.

 

[Grin]

WA teams will get the same, if North selling games go through.

We'll have big recruiting advantages to Northern clubs seeing them all up the pointy end. Plus HGA to the Western clubs helping their ladder positions, but there will still be angst about vicbias.

I honestly think if Victorian clubs were allowed to field just one player, from the little league, bound and blindfolded, our brethren in SA and WA would still howl VICBias!!!
Their sense of entitlement and constant demands for ever more unsporting leg-ups appears insatiable.

 

[Freomaniac]

Adelaide and Port get the biggest HGA of all clubs
13 games at home. 11 against interstate sides.
Unarguable fact = SABias.

you lived in Port Adelaide.

COmpare Port Adelaide to say.... Kabul or Kandahar in Afghanistan? lol

 

[Grin]

you lived in Port Adelaide.

COmpare Port Adelaide to say.... Kabul or Kandahar in Afghanistan? lol

I'd compare it to Fremantle with the added advantage of being near a city with a bit of culture, where as Fremantle's nearest city is Perth. Must really shit you.

 

[Seeds]

Adelaide and Port get the biggest HGA of all clubs
13 games at home. 11 against interstate sides.
Unarguable fact = SABias.

Dont richmond get about 15 games at home?

 

[Grin]

Dont richmond get about 15 games at home?

Usually 13. 10 of them home games (We don't get to play all of our home games at our home ground, which we also don't get to train on) Only about 3 or 4 home games against interstate sides.
I'd say that Geelong's HGA rivals the SA clubs. 9 (10 next year I think) at an asymmetrical ground that you exclusively train on (only true HGA for any Victorian club). Play the majority of your away games in Victoria. So Geelong basically gets all the advantages of a non-Vic club with the reduced travel of a Vic club.

If the non Melbourne based clubs had to put up with even a fraction of the unsporting disadvantages Melbourne based clubs get, and Melbourne based clubs got fraction of the unsporting advantages Geelong and the non-Vic clubs get, your heads would explode and this thread would have some basis in fact.

Instead it's a thread dedicated to the entitled supporters the most advantaged clubs (Non-Melbourne clubs) whinging infernally that Melbournians aren't doing nearly enough to carry them.

 

[Underarm]

Dont richmond get about 15 games at home?

We don't. Thanks for asking.

 

[bzparkes]

I'd happily have WVE swap locations and fixtures with an MCG tenant for a season.

Any takers?

 

[Seeds]

We don't. Thanks for asking.

How many is it then?

 

[Seeds]

Usually 13. 10 of them home games (We don't get to play all of our home games at our home ground, which we also don't get to train on) Only about 3 or 4 home games against interstate sides.
I'd say that Geelong's HGA rivals the SA clubs. 9 (10 next year I think) at an asymmetrical ground that you exclusively train on (only true HGA for any Victorian club). Play the majority of your away games in Victoria. So Geelong basically gets all the advantages of a non-Vic club with the reduced travel of a Vic club.

If the non Melbourne based clubs had to put up with even a fraction of the unsporting disadvantages Melbourne based clubs get, and Melbourne based clubs got fraction of the unsporting advantages Geelong and the non-Vic clubs get, your heads would explode and this thread would have some basis in fact.

Instead it's a thread dedicated to the entitled supporters the most advantaged clubs (Non-Melbourne clubs) whinging infernally that Melbournians aren't doing nearly enough to carry them.

so you get 13 on your home ground where you either have clear home advantsge or are neutral with your opponents in home advantage. Plus 2 games elsewhere where you have clear home city and home support advantage. Thats 15 games without being disadvantaged.

Geelong has only 9 games where it has any home advantage (hopefully 10 next year). Trying to count mcg games for geelong as away games or even neutral games against teams literally from melbourne who play more games there then us and have overwhelming home support is literally crazy. Its a clear disadvantage to geelong. Geelong are disadvantaged in 13-14 games each season. Richmond only 7-8. That bias is staggering. And thats before we even get to finals.

Its hard to find a club in professional sport that is more disadvantaged in terms of away games then geelong. Im only mentioning this cos you bought it up.

 

[Grin]

so you get 13 on your home ground where you either have clear home advantsge or are neutral with your opponents in home advantage. Plus 2 games elsewhere where you have clear home city and home support advantage. Thats 15 games without being disadvantaged.

Geelong has only 9 games where it has any home advantage (hopefully 10 next year). Trying to count mcg games against teams literally from melbourne who play more games there then us and have overwhelming home support is literally crazy. Its a clear disadvantage to geelong. Geelong are disadvantaged in 13-14 games each season. Richmond only 7-8. That bias is staggering.

Its hard to find a club in professional sport that is more disadvatnaged in terms of away games then geelong.

Lol. When Richmond play games at a ground that's not their home ground, it's a massive advantage. When Geelong do, it's a massive disadvantage. The laments of the spoiled but entitled I suppose.
Fact is (and I get your really hate facts as they always utterly destroy your delusions of unbearable victimhood) Richmond get about 3 or 4 games a year where there is a clear home ground advantage.
Geelong unarguably has the biggest leg ups, by a mile, of all Victorian clubs. Please stop whinging that despite all that, you still need Melbourne clubs, the AFL and the tax payer to do even more to carry you.