Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[RUNVS]

Didn't mind joining the VFL as it was in Vic but they really should've gotten rid of all the insolvent clubs, such as Richmond, to make the competition truly national.

Really, the AFL should have a maximum of 6 clubs in Melbourne. 9 clubs is insane.

The competition would be fairer with fewer Victorian clubs, though it is not exactly a priority as there are far worse things when it comes to the biases.

 

[Senor M]

The 10% is to encourage players to stay in their team, rather than moving back home, and as for how it is added, simply have a normal salary cap, and if a player meets the criteria then the AFL adds the 10% on top.

Again, it would not be for the top players, only players earning under $400,000 and it is to help try and lessen the "go home" factor.

But you didn't really address the concern I had--- how do you prevent AFL clubs using this as an additional 10% within the salary cap (as seen with the Swans with Tippett/Franklin in the early 2010's). Clubs could just recruit mostly players from other states & then offer them 10% less than they normally would (ie. less than what other clubs could offer them in a trade/FA) but use the extra 10% allowance to make the amount the same/slightly higher.

As I said in my last post-- great in theory, difficult in practice as clubs will always try to maximise potential loop holes in situations.

 

[WHOME]

SA and WA stuffed up big time and only have ourselves to blame. They should have formed an alliance in the 80's and said to the VFL we are not interested in joining your little state league, we will only participate in a new AFL competition - so get rid of half your clubs and get back to us. VFL was a financial basket case at the time so they needed us more than we needed them. We held the position of power yet somehow got screwed over and now the horse has bolted. Those in charge of the WAFL and SANFL back then should hang their heads shame. If you designed a new AFL competition from scratch it would look nothing like this Victorian dominated dogs breakfast we have at present.

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RUNVS]

But you didn't really address the concern I had--- how do you prevent AFL clubs using this as an additional 10% within the salary cap (as seen with the Swans with Tippett/Franklin in the early 2010's). Clubs could just recruit mostly players from other states & then offer them 10% less than they normally would (ie. less than what other clubs could offer them in a trade/FA) but use the extra 10% allowance to make the amount the same/slightly higher.

As I said in my last post-- great in theory, difficult in practice as clubs will always try to maximise potential loop holes in situations.

The extra 10% is there to prevent the go-home factor. If AFL clubs are willing to risk that, then they are digging their own hole.

Also ultimately it won't be that much money, just a bit more to help the players on less coin who are living away from home. A lot of it would go to the initial contacts already decided based on the contracts for players just drafted, so lets say a first round draft selection is given a 3 year $80,000 salary. If he is drafted to a state he is not from then his contract is instead $88,000.

 

[bluebob1]

SA and WA stuffed up big time and only have ourselves to blame. They should have formed an alliance in the 80's and said to the VFL we are not interested in joining your little state league, we will only participate in a new AFL competition - so get rid of half your clubs and get back to us. VFL was a financial basket case at the time so they needed us more than we needed them. We held the position of power yet somehow got screwed over and now the horse has bolted. Those in charge of the WAFL and SANFL back then should hang their heads shame. If you designed a new AFL competition from scratch it would look nothing like this Victorian dominated dogs breakfast we have at present.

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

That was the Sanfl strategy but wafl and a club in the western suburbs of adelaide didnt hold the course. If they held out of say 1993 they would have a much better deal. Maybe 8 clubs from Vic - at least 2 more would have folded and sa and wa probably would have 3 teams now, rotating gf etc

 

[campbell]

I believe that there are many inequities within the AFL today:

• The long-term Grand Final deal. But I also acknowledge as a Victorian that I'm happy my State government negotiated that with the AFL before the most recent state government funding was announced for the MCG/Marvel. That's a win from a state government perspective that's impacted the inequity of the AFL IMO.
• The varying rules for Father/Son, NGA, Academy players, etc. in the draft that provide some teams a leg-up RE: access to talent
• Fixturing anomolies (Richmond not playing against North Melbourne @ the G during a H&A game in 8 years, COLL & ESS not going to Geel, true 'home ground' advantage for some clubs over others, back-to-back interstate travel, etc.)

However I also feel that the #VICBIAS whinging & ranting gets thrown around that often on BigFooty that it starts to lose some of its meaning & impact when it's discussed. The amount of outrage at the AFL maintaining the status quo & not upping the number of people who could train together a few weeks ago was a prime example. It became "Victoria's fault"

There's currently advantages & disadvantages of being every club within the competition--- that's not going to be fixed, but it's important that the advantages of all clubs get acknowledged rather than just whinging about the "pampered Victorian clubs" that "owe the interstate clubs" because of a $4 million licence fee to join the AFL over 30 years ago.

Do Collingwood or Essendon ever play in Tassi or Canberra or NT?

 

[Gavin Excell]

A. Interstate sides have to travel, a big disadvantage.
B. Interstate sides play 12 home games on their own deck, big advantage.

Compare the home game advantage with my club who play 6 at Marvel and 5 at the MCG and also travelled to every state last year. So you got a give some and take some and also it wouldn't hurt to share the Grand Final around.

There's an argument Docklands tenants are the most disadvantaged in the league

 

[RUNVS]

There's an argument Docklands tenants are the most disadvantaged in the league

A bad argument though. Statistics prove that even Docklands tenants have an advantage at the MCG over a non-Victorian team.

 

[Senor M]

Do Collingwood or Essendon ever play in Tassi or Canberra or NT?

According to AFL Tables for
Manuka Oval: https://afltables.com/afl/venues/manuka_oval.html
Bellerive Oval:https://afltables.com/afl/venues/bellerive_oval.html
York Park: https://afltables.com/afl/venues/york_park.html

Collingwood has been to Canberra once & never to any of the 2 current Tasmania Venues.

Essendon hasn't been to Canberra or either of the 2 current Tasmania venues.

In comparison Richmond has been to Canberra once, York Park once & Bellerive Oval twice (4 times total)

Didn't check the NT venues though.

 

[Rich01]

Didn't mind joining the VFL as it was in Vic but they really should've gotten rid of all the insolvent clubs, such as Richmond, to make the competition truly national.

Yes your view is quite obvious in your postings.

However the VFL accepted the Eagles and Bears and as a result, created these two entities. At the same time, your cash saved several Victorian clubs. So while the VFL created your team, the kicker was your team agreed to save other sides in doing so.

Couldnt have one without the other, so to speak.

 

[Kappa]

The fact that the AFL just signed a 50 million year deal with the MCG to host the Grand Final seemingly without even consulting the teams or fans annoyed the crap out of me. Almost like they did not want the non-Victorian teams and fans to know about it ahead of time.

Why would they need to consult the fans? The vast majority of fans would support it, that's obvious.

And the clubs have never had any real say in terms of where their matches are fixtured, that's not new.

 

[RUNVS]

I think the perfect example of bias within the AFL towards the Victorian clubs happened in 2006 or 2007, as from 2001 to 2006 (6 years in total) it had been won only by non-Victorian teams and the AFL introduced a committee to look into why a Victorian team had not won the premiership in 5 or 6 years.

From 2007 onwards there have been 13 Grand Finals, and non-Victorian teams have won 2 of them, and yet the AFL is not looking into the issue, it isn't even on the radar as an issue. If Victorian teams not winning the premiership for 5 or 6 years is an issue, why isn't non-Victorians only winning the flag twice in 13 years an issue?

 

[Farang83150]

This is the football equivalent of "I'm not racist, but".

Nailed it.
The OPs FOS.

 

[Quinz]

Yes but the AFL has shown it can change

Look at the finals from back in the 1990s/ early 2000s.Non Vic teams were forced to travel to play second week semi finals and prelim finals despite being higher qualified. Now that would be considered totally unfair

That had to be fought for as well, and it rightly got changed, even though some prominent Victorian ex players wanted to bring it back in the mid 2000s.....

If the OP is right teams shouldn't have bothered fighting for that because those were the rules when they joined. I don't understand that argument really. You can join something and still seek to make it fairer.

 

[Rich01]

I think the perfect example of bias within the AFL towards the Victorian clubs happened in 2006 or 2007, as from 2001 to 2006 (6 years in total) it had been won only by non-Victorian teams and the AFL introduced a committee to look into why a Victorian team had not won the premiership in 5 or 6 years.

From 2007 onwards there have been 13 Grand Finals, and non-Victorian teams have won 2 of them, and yet the AFL is not looking into the issue, it isn't even on the radar as an issue. If Victorian teams not winning the premiership for 5 or 6 years is an issue, why isn't non-Victorians only winning the flag twice in 13 years an issue?

Interesting. Do you have any further details on this?

 

[Gavin Excell]

Interesting account of history of the VFL's somewhat agonising journey to a national competition

Towards a National Competition - Timeline of VFL/AFL Expansion (updated 11/7/18) - Sports Industry AU

Towards a National Competition - Timeline of VFL/AFL Expansion (updated 24/4/2023) - Sports Industry AU

Sources used: The Australian Game of Football…since 1858, edited by Geoff Slattery 100 Years of Australian Football – the official History of the AFL The South Australian Football Story, by Bernard Whimpress Behind the Play – A history of football in Western Australia, by Anthony Barker From...

www.footyindustry.com

Of interest while majority of clubs voted to allow a western Australian club to join comp in 1986, Collingwood, Essendon , carlton and melbourne voted against

In 1986 Richmond proposed playing 11 games in Brisbane

 

[RUNVS]

Interesting. Do you have any further details on this?

I am looking right now and quickly discovering how hard it is to find specific articles from over a decade ago. I will keep looking though and also hope someone else has a link.

 

[RUNVS]

Interesting account of history of the VFL's somewhat agonising journey to a national competition

Towards a National Competition - Timeline of VFL/AFL Expansion (updated 11/7/18) - Sports Industry AU

Towards a National Competition - Timeline of VFL/AFL Expansion (updated 24/4/2023) - Sports Industry AU

Sources used: The Australian Game of Football…since 1858, edited by Geoff Slattery 100 Years of Australian Football – the official History of the AFL The South Australian Football Story, by Bernard Whimpress Behind the Play – A history of football in Western Australia, by Anthony Barker From...

www.footyindustry.com

Of interest while majority of clubs voted to allow a western Australian club to join comp in 1986, Collingwood, Essendon , carlton and melbourne voted against

In 1986 Richmond proposed playing 11 games in Brisbane

Took me forever but I found it

Demetriou: Victorian clubs need help
27 May 2007 Sunday Herald Sun
Jon Ralph and Kelvin Healey


The league boss revealed he had ordered an investigation into why Victorian clubs were being dominated by their interstate rivals.

The review, to be completed by September, was ordered after the league finally conceded the lack of recent Victorian premierships was not a temporary trend.

"I think we wanted to believe that it is a cycle, but history is now starting to go against that belief," Mr Demetriou said. "We are pretty sure that it is more than cyclical."

Victoria has had a flag drought since Essendon's triumph in 2000 and has not had a grand finalist since Collingwood in 2003.

Eight premierships have been won by interstate clubs in the past decade and only two by Victorian teams.

Mr Demetriou said the league executive had been examining the issue for several months.

"When you get a season where two Victorian clubs, in Melbourne and Richmond, are 0-8 after eight games, I can't remember that happening. That says something," he said.

"Whatever way you cut it or look at it, it's not great."

The admission came eight months after football great Ron Barassi called for the review in the Sunday Herald Sun.

Victorian football identities backed the investigation yesterday.

Mr Demetriou said the AFL was serious in its efforts to help Victorian clubs bounce back up the ladder.

The review is investigating a series of issues, including the level of resourcing in recruitment, revenue to clubs, boards and governance, facilities, the second-tier competition and the TAC Cup competition.

"There is a whole range of things we need to look at and analyse to see what we can do to make sure we address this issue," Mr Demetriou said.

"You hope that in our system the salary cap and draft are the equalisers, but eight of our last 11 premiers have been non-Victorian, the last three Grand Finals have been non-Victorian.

"It is great for the national game, but there are clubs in this town, the Western Bulldogs who haven't won a premiership for 50 years, Geelong and St Kilda 40 years, Richmond nearly 30 years and there is something going on in Victorian football that is not just cyclical."

He conceded that while football support was still strong in the Victorian heartland, the AFL could not guarantee that would be the case in years to come if Melbourne teams did not start contesting premierships again.

Barassi, an ardent supporter of the national competition, said in September that a review was necessary, after the top four sides in last year's final series were all interstate.

"I think we should look at it to see if there's a reason that means if you are not in Victoria you have got a better chance," Barassi said at the time.

"If there is a reason, we should correct it."

Bulldogs hero Doug Hawkins applauded Mr Demetriou's intervention yesterday, saying interstate clubs were "miles" in front of Victorian sides.

"I think the boss (Mr Demetriou) is probably on the money," Hawkins said.

"At the moment Victoria is only making up the numbers."

Geelong's last premiership coach, Bob Davis, also threw his support behind the AFL's investigation.

"We need a very good look at it, it is necessary that Victorian teams pick themselves up a bit," he said.

"We need at least four of our teams in the top eight."

Triple Brownlow medallist Bob Skilton predicted Victorian clubs would bounce back on their own, but also supported the review.

"They have got to look at everything and if there is a particular reason and it can be fixed, well, why not?" he said.

"(But) I can't work out where the imbalance is."

But South Australian football figurehead Graham Cornes criticised the process and said Victorian clubs deserved no advantage.

"The reason the non-Victorian clubs are doing better than the Victorian clubs is that they are run better and they are coached better and have maximised their resources," he said.

Get ready for more hand-outs to Vic Clubs

I find this sickening. How about Vlad addresses the cause and does something about it! Too many clubs in Vic and therefore not enought dollars and supoprters for some clubs. His solution is to penalise those who can stand alone. I hope the interstate clubs together with viable Vic clubs tell...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Gavin Excell]

Took me forever but I found it

Get ready for more hand-outs to Vic Clubs

I find this sickening. How about Vlad addresses the cause and does something about it! Too many clubs in Vic and therefore not enought dollars and supoprters for some clubs. His solution is to penalise those who can stand alone. I hope the interstate clubs together with viable Vic clubs tell...

www.bigfooty.com

"interstate clubs"

 

[juss]

There are inequalities in just about every sporting league and code, it just can't be avoided and nothing is ever perfectly equitable.

Victorians have some advantages, they have some disadvantages, then broken down by each club they can be delved into further. Even within states not all clubs are equal.

Saying all that, I have my doubts Bigfooty can have this debate without the same old crap coming up and running the thread by page 5.

 

[Corkintheocean]

I've already come up with the perfect counter-balance for the Grand Final dis/advantage.

Prelims every year: Two best non-Melbourne teams host the two best Melbourne teams.

An interesting thought. I wonder what the uproar would be like if Optus Stadium and Adelaide Oval (and the WA/SA govt respectively) signed 50 year agreements with the AFL to host prelims?

Now would be a great time to try it by offering some much needed cash to the AFL.

 

[Corkintheocean]

Yes but the AFL has shown it can change

Look at the finals from back in the 1990s/ early 2000s.Non Vic teams were forced to travel to play second week semi finals and prelim finals despite being higher qualified. Now that would be considered totally unfair

I agree that all the AFL can do is move towards a point of equality over time. And objectively I believe that they had been doing so up until the behind the back MCG grand final contract. To me that has been the only proper breach of equality and transparency in recent times that clearly ran contrary to the trend.

All the covid-19 decisions are being made under duress and financial considerations take necessary precedence. As an interstate supporter, I am happy to take potential negative unknowns to get the season up and running. Not having a season is far more of a deterrent for interstate sides trying to win a flag.

 

[Chode1]

Imagine if the grand final was signed off and played at the highest ranked teams ground for the last 20 - 30 years whether there would be a zillion threads and trolls on demanding the final game be played back at at the G? I’d say no purely and solely cause it’s fair! Sure there would always be other things to whinge about!

 

[wagz]

Saints werent allowed to host the 2009 grand final at Etihad, forced onto the MCG

 

[GoalSneak38]

For me the biggest issue is the fact that some clubs play a lot of their games @ the Grand Final venue..and this becomes a huge advantage if one of those teams gets to the GF against an interstate club.....so if you cant shift the home of the GF....shift some of those tennant clubs around a bit more...

But that’s happened ever since Melbourne made Grand Finals and other clubs played at their suburban grounds


Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com