Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[doppleganger]

Agreed. Hey, Adelaide teams have only been playing at AO since 2014...not as long as many Melbourne clubs have had to establish a home field advantage since rationalisation ( this is said in jest, BTW so don't jump all over me).

Home ground advantage doesnt improve over time??

Serious question though...why is there not a 3rd AFL venue in Melbourne...I know it is politics and backroom horse trading but it seems it would make sense in the long term.

The AFL want BLOCKBUSTERS at the G, and to play a certain number of big games at AFL owned Etihad to strengthen AFL financial position.

That is a league decision to control more of the dollars, and then drip feed the clubs.

Same with AFL memberships, directly competing with Melbourne based clubs offering club memberships. AFL offer betyer value memberships, and again control more of the $$ instead of it going directly to Melbourne based clubs.

H&A season, the advantage is to clubs who have a home ground advantage

Finals Wk1, Wk2 and Wk3, the biggest advantage is with clubs who have a home ground advantage and clubs who are familiar with the MCG

GF, advantage is with clubs who are familiar with the MCG

 

[Cleric]

Actually, you're right, and then there's also the probability that there was some financial difficulty in the west? And the whole WAFC buying a licence could've been a marriage of convenience.

Maybe The_Wookie or Roylion could shed some light.

In any case, my club was one of those that were bankrupt, I think Richmond too. However, clubs like that, at the time still had high market (public) demand, so even if they 'died' they'd likely be resurrected in some way shape or form.

Even then it doesn't give right to non vic fans to imply that vic clubs should die off to accommodate the expansion clubs, 'we were here first' and all that.

I don't call for a Vic team to be wound up (other than stirring up North supporters), the market will bare what it will. I also think with the extreme growth in the population of Victoria, there is more than enough population base to support the 10 clubs now.

The AFL played a dirty hand in SA. They wanted the extra money from an SA team and the SANFL didn't want to do it, so they went to a dillusional Port board and convinced them to join the AFL, thus setting into motion the biggest rift and blood letting that has ever happened in SA football. Those wounds still exist today, and the Port board members who were used by the AFL to get their desired outcome are now pariahs.
It was never SA wanting to join the "Big Boys" it was a bankrupt VFL who was chasing us to join, by any means they could.

Now that's history, and we now have a national competition. Maybe the ends justifys then means, but if Port hadn't been played like an old fiddle, a national competition could have been made without the VFL dominance, which in part still exists today.

 

[Papa G]

I don't call for a Vic team to be wound up (other than stirring up North supporters), the market will bare what it will. I also think with the extreme growth in the population of Victoria, there is more than enough population base to support the 10 clubs now.

The AFL played a dirty hand in SA. They wanted the extra money from an SA team and the SANFL didn't want to do it, so they went to a dillusional Port board and convinced them to join the AFL, thus setting into motion the biggest rift and blood letting that has ever happened in SA football. Those wounds still exist today, and the Port board members who were used by the AFL to get their desired outcome are now pariahs.
It was never SA wanting to join the "Big Boys" it was a bankrupt VFL who was chasing us to join, by any means they could.

Now that's history, and we now have a national competition. Maybe the ends justifys then means, but if Port hadn't been played like an old fiddle, a national competition could have been made without the VFL dominance, which in part still exists today.

You go Graham

 

[doppleganger]

Is there a point attatched to this?

I think Papa is showing that so far the Friday night competing teams are split equally

15 Melbourne based and 15 nonMelbourne based - with Sydney and Brisbane the most frequent teams having played 4 each.

But as Port has only played 3 Friday night games, compared to 0 for Essendon and Hwwthorn, it is evidence of bias against Port.

 

[Brasher]

Home ground advantage doesnt improve over time?

Well yeah. Hence highlighting SA and WA clubs haven't had as long to acclimatize to their home grounds. It was tongue in cheek comment not demanding reply.

But I've heard your point regarding diminished H&A advantage for Melbourne teams in a rationalized world, just don't need to read the same response every time. You and I share different views, although I accept your perspective.

Still remains, I'm not sure there are too many national competitions in the world where so many teams share so few grounds as is the case with Melbourne. Why doesn't the AFL open their purse strings and build another AFL ground in Melbourne? Would create new home ground advantages, keep fools like me happy cause we play Melbourne clubs in Melbourne and loosen the monopoly of the existing grounds? They seem perfectly happy to let Tasmania make this leap with a 10th the population of Melbourne and serving a single team.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Friday Night FTA Ratings (source mediaweek)
Rd1. Geelong v Collingwood 551,000
Rd.2 Brisbane v Melbourne 448,000
Rd.3 Collingwood v Richmond 481,000
Rd.4 Good Friday afternoon game Not nationally televised
Rd.5 Richmond v Sydney 484,000
Rd.6 Fremantle v Dogs 420,000
Rd.7 Saints v Port 453,000
Rd.8 Carlton v Brisbane 475,000
Rd.9 Richmond v Geelong 427,000
Rd.10 Port v Melbourne 515,000
Rd.11 Sydney v Carlton 484,000
Rd.12 Melbourne v Carlton 439,000
Rd.13 Dogs v Port 410,000
Rd.14 Brisbane v Sydney 348,000 (Ashes affected)
Rd.15 Saints v Brisbane 402,000
Rd. Swans v Geelong 340,000 (Ashes affected)

This just shows, if they put the best teams on you are fine.

No need to just favour the vic sides.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I think Papa is showing that so far the Friday night competing teams are split equally

15 Melbourne based and 15 nonMelbourne based - with Sydney and Brisbane the most frequent teams having played 4 each.

But as Port has only played 3 Friday night games, compared to 0 for Essendon and Hwwthorn, it is evidence of bias against Port.

Bullshit the vic clubs don't get more marquee timeslots.

The bottom 4 clubs are all non victorian. No big surprise.

Are AFL clubs getting a fair deal when it comes to off-field finances?

As well as competing for points on the field, AFL teams face some tough battles off it. Some clubs earn more money than others, so how does your team fare when it comes to off-field financials?

www.abc.net.au

 

[Underarm]

I'm sure you can work it out. I believe in you.

This is a genuine confusion. Friday night fta ratings has nothing to do with the conversation above it.

Tell me what Vic Bias I'm supposed to be seeing.

 

[Underarm]

I think Papa is showing that so far the Friday night competing teams are split equally

15 Melbourne based and 15 nonMelbourne based - with Sydney and Brisbane the most frequent teams having played 4 each.

But as Port has only played 3 Friday night games, compared to 0 for Essendon and Hwwthorn, it is evidence of bias against Port.

Well Port were a bottom 8 side last year so it makes sense they would only get rewarded with 3.

 

[doppleganger]

Bullshit the vic clubs don't get more marquee timeslots.

The bottom 4 clubs are all non victorian. No big surprise.

Are AFL clubs getting a fair deal when it comes to off-field finances?

As well as competing for points on the field, AFL teams face some tough battles off it. Some clubs earn more money than others, so how does your team fare when it comes to off-field financials?

www.abc.net.au

Tis a nicely balanced article that one.

The article details the following

Generally, they draw 25 per cent more attendees than the remaining two thirds of matches. And, again, the effect is most-clearly seen in Victoria.

Elsewhere, the market is a bit different. The teams based in Adelaide and Perth pack their member-filled stadia, regardless of when their games are played, which is part of the reason why they're rarely given Friday night fixtures.

Some NSW and Queensland clubs often prefer family-friendly earlier timeslots, with Gold Coast not seeing any crowd premium from the night games they play at Carrara.

But I guess fixturing to preferences of QLD clubs is still considered VICBias.

 

[Papa G]

Rd1. Geelong v Collingwood 551,000
Rd.10 Port v Melbourne 515,000
Rd.5 Richmond v Sydney 484,000
Rd.11 Sydney v Carlton 484,000
Rd.3 Collingwood v Richmond 481,000
Rd.8 Carlton v Brisbane 475,000
Rd.7 Saints v Port 453,000
Rd.2 Brisbane v Melbourne 448,000
Rd.12 Melbourne v Carlton 439,000
Rd.9 Richmond v Geelong 427,000
Rd.6 Fremantle v Dogs 420,000
Rd.13 Dogs v Port 410,000
Rd.15 Saints v Brisbane 402,000

 

[go_the_dockers]

Tis a nicely balanced article that one.

The article details the following

Generally, they draw 25 per cent more attendees than the remaining two thirds of matches. And, again, the effect is most-clearly seen in Victoria.

Elsewhere, the market is a bit different. The teams based in Adelaide and Perth pack their member-filled stadia, regardless of when their games are played, which is part of the reason why they're rarely given Friday night fixtures.

Some NSW and Queensland clubs often prefer family-friendly earlier timeslots, with Gold Coast not seeing any crowd premium from the night games they play at Carrara.

But I guess fixturing to preferences of QLD clubs is still considered VICBias.

It shows it is purely money driven.

At least you admit the vic clubs get more.

National broadcasting the game broadcast in Victoria is just silly.

The impact of teams getting more marquee timeslots and more national broadcast games must impact both team. And player sponsorship deals.

 

[doppleganger]

But I've heard your point regarding diminished H&A advantage for Melbourne teams in a rationalized world, just don't need to read the same response every time. You and I share different views, although I accept your perspective.

It is pretty repetitive listening to the same nonsense that the non-Melbourne teams are supposedly shafted.

If they are shafted, why do non-Melbourne teams dominate the top2 of the H&A ladder?

Since 2000, we are talking almost a quarter of a century - not one of Kranky's select windows - and it has been 32 non Melbourne to 14 Melbourne.

Yet the SA/WA position is the Melbourne teams are favoured!?

Still remains, I'm not sure there are too many national competitions in the world where so many teams share so few grounds as is the case with Melbourne. Why doesn't the AFL open their purse strings and build another AFL ground in Melbourne?

They wont make any $$ from it.

The big games are already at the G.

The problem games from a commercial perspective are the Melbourne v nonVic games.

Would create new home ground advantages, keep fools like me happy cause we play Melbourne clubs in Melbourne and loosen the monopoly of the existing ground

It really wouldnt change much.

If AFL invested in Princes Park as an example, and Carlton and Hawthorn decided to host their low drawing fixtures at Princes Park (both used to call PP home)...you SA fans will keep sooking as you dont get any extra games at the G.

Carlton and Hawthorn aint requesting to play Collingwood and Richmond at Princes Park, they would all be at the G.

 

[doppleganger]

It shows it is purely money driven.

At least you admit the vic clubs get more.

Because they want them...they get the crowd spike that other States dont.

National broadcasting the game broadcast in Victoria is just silly.

The impact of teams getting more marquee timeslots and more national broadcast games must impact both team. And player sponsorship deals.

Again, your article details that impact is once again most impactful between the Melbourne based teams.

WA and NSW teams get plentiful sponsorship due to their own market.

 

[GWT6]

It’s in the best business interests of the AFL to give the bigger clubs more prime time slots. If it was about what’s fair, GWS, Gold Coast, and Brisbane would get more prime time games because they’re in most need of growth.

That said, we’ve had our fair share of prime action this year due to on field performance. The Demons haven’t exactly been shafted of Friday night games either. Saints have had a couple, I think.

No one wants to watch North. If they want more prime time games, perform better on field. They invented Friday night blockbusters in the 90s. Had ample opportunity to become as big as any of the big 4 but didn’t.

You’re never going to be as big as the Tigers or Bombers, no matter what fixture you’re given. People want to see the most supported teams in action unless they’re really s**t like West Coast.

Looks like you didn't read my post.

Go back and try again champ.

 

[doppleganger]

Rd1. Geelong v Collingwood 551,000
Rd.10 Port v Melbourne 515,000
Rd.5 Richmond v Sydney 484,000
Rd.11 Sydney v Carlton 484,000
Rd.3 Collingwood v Richmond 481,000
Rd.8 Carlton v Brisbane 475,000
Rd.7 Saints v Port 453,000
Rd.2 Brisbane v Melbourne 448,000
Rd.12 Melbourne v Carlton 439,000
Rd.9 Richmond v Geelong 427,000
Rd.6 Fremantle v Dogs 420,000
Rd.13 Dogs v Port 410,000
Rd.15 Saints v Brisbane 402,000

You dropped off a couple of non Melbourne clashes.

Rd.14 Brisbane v Sydney 348,000
Rd.16 Sydney v Geelong 340,000

 

[Papa G]

You dropped off a couple of non Melbourne clashes.

Rd.14 Brisbane v Sydney 348,000
Rd.16 Sydney v Geelong 340,000

They were Ashes affected. I didn't include the Good Friday game either.

 

[Brasher]

It is pretty repetitive listening to the same nonsense that the non-Melbourne teams are supposedly shafted.

If they are shafted, why do non-Melbourne teams dominate the top2 of the H&A ladder?

Since 2000, we are talking almost a quarter of a century - not one of Kranky's select windows - and it has been 32 non Melbourne to 14 Melbourne.

Yet the SA/WA position is the Melbourne teams are favoured!?

They wont make any $$ from it.

The big games are already at the G.

The problem games from a commercial perspective are the Melbourne v nonVic games.

It really wouldnt change much.

If AFL invested in Princes Park as an example, and Carlton and Hawthorn decided to host their low drawing fixtures at Princes Park (both used to call PP home)...you SA fans will keep sooking as you dont get any extra games at the G.

Carlton and Hawthorn aint requesting to play Collingwood and Richmond at Princes Park, they would all be at the G.

Then the whole argument regarding Melbourne clubs having a disadvantage during the home and away is irrelevant because the clubs themselves prioritize money over competitive advantage.

Keen to see how the AFL sees a state with 500K justify a new stadium with one team playing there once a fortnight yet a 3rd stadium isn't viable in Melbourne. Suggest it has more to do with preserving the duopoly that exists today than creating a fairer outcome for the Melbourne clubs.

Keep selling your games instead and then sook about the loss of home ground advantage is a way better option.

 

[doppleganger]

They were Ashes affected. I didn't include the Good Friday game either.

More melbourne bias evidence.

Of course they would fixture nonMelbourne games in prime time slots that are competing with the Ashes.

 

[windyhill]

Papa G

 

[Papa G]

More melbourne bias evidence.

Of course they would fixture nonMelbourne games in prime time slots that are competing with the Ashes.

We'll see how it effects the Dogs v The Bandwagon this Friday I guess.

 

[doppleganger]

Then the whole argument regarding Melbourne clubs having a disadvantage during the home and away is irrelevant because the clubs themselves prioritize money over competitive advantage.

Only as a result of AFL imposed ground rationalisation.

Hawthorn, Melbourne, Collingwood, Richmond arent FIXtured all home games at the G since the Docklands was introduced.

So the option is a game at Docklands, not their home ground where they lose money or a game somewhere else.

The AFL imposed thw competitive disadvantage on Melbourne based clubs.

Keen to see how the AFL sees a state with 500K justify a new stadium with one team playing there once a fortnight yet a 3rd stadium isn't viable in Melbourne. Suggest it has more to do with preserving the duopoly that exists today than creating a fairer outcome for the Melbourne clubs.

AFL imposing conditions on a new entrant is very different to them investing huge capital in a market that wont bring growth.

Keep selling your games instead and then sook about the loss of home ground advantage is a way better option.

From an AFL perspective absolutely it is the preferred option.

The AFL get exposure in non traditional markets, their clubs get extra $$ from non football states and the AFL doesnt have to invest any of their money in building amd upkeep of another venue.

The AFL wins, but at the expense of actual integrity and equality of the H&A season.

When you impose a set of conditions that mean of group of clubs have their home ground advantage reduced the obvious outcome is an imbalanced H&A season.

You end up with a H&A ladder where top 2 placings are dominated by the favoured group of teams, the AFL top2 is 32 non Melbourne to 14 Melbourne.

Yet the SA/WA wowsers keep pissing and moaning about how the big bad AFL is against them.

 

[go_the_dockers]

NSW teams get plentiful sponsorship due to their own market.

National audience equal to sa, wa or nsw market. Haha

Next thing you will say 16 home games is a disadvantage. Oh wait you already said that.

 

[doppleganger]

National audience equal to sa, wa or nsw market. Haha

Did you not even read your own article?

There are exceptions, notably in the corporate-friendly cities of Perth and Sydney.
The Eagles take in many millions in corporate funding in resource-rich Western Australia, despite rarely receiving national television exposure.
In the nation's financial hub of Sydney, even the ironically named Giants have found sponsorship dollars relatively easy to come by, out-earning several more widely-watched and supported teams.

 

[Brasher]

Only as a result of AFL imposed ground rationalisation.

Hawthorn, Melbourne, Collingwood, Richmond arent FIXtured all home games at the G since the Docklands was introduced.

So the option is a game at Docklands, not their home ground where they lose money or a game somewhere else.

The AFL imposed thw competitive disadvantage on Melbourne based clubs.

AFL imposing conditions on a new entrant is very different to them investing huge capital in a market that wont bring growth.

From an AFL perspective absolutely it is the preferred option.

The AFL get exposure in non traditional markets, their clubs get extra $$ from non football states and the AFL doesnt have to invest any of their money in building amd upkeep of another venue.

The AFL wins, but at the expense of actual integrity and equality of the H&A season.

When you impose a set of conditions that mean of group of clubs have their home ground advantage reduced the obvious outcome is an imbalanced H&A season.

You end up with a H&A ladder where top 2 placings are dominated by the favoured group of teams, the AFL top2 is 32 non Melbourne to 14 Melbourne.

Yet the SA/WA wowsers keep pissing and moaning about how the big bad AFL is against them.

Nothing new you haven't posted a dozen times already.

I'm out.