which is exactly what would happen if the AFL's disequal distributions (or prop-up) funding to those 4 clubs ceased.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion
- Thread starter Hank Heavenly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
It would happen to all but about 3 clubs.
by allowing (paying for) those clubs to stay in Melbourne, the AFL made the poor decision to create 2 start-ups in GWS and GC creating an even larger drain on the AFL finances. They both should have had been formed from relocations of the 2 least viable of the Melbourne clubs, probably NM and StK who, along with WB and Melbourne, will always be unable to support themselves.
The relocation proposition was put to NM members for a relocation to Gold Coast in 2007 from NMFC.
The members emphatically voted no.
Any relocation / merger / dissolution, requires the club to agree to it and then their members.
If the members agree, if I am correct, the proposal goes to HQ and further it is put forward to all competing clubs, by which a 3/4 majority in favour is required to enact the proposal.
In short, this is very difficult to achieve.
So why do HQ give distributions to these clubs, to keep them alive? Well it's quite simple, collectively one could conservatively argue that they have at least half a million members and supporters and HQ don't wanna give em up.
By doing so this created an extra game and thus more broadcast coin. Same thing will happen with WA3/Canberra etc.
As mentioned, no club can be forced to do anything.
Noidnadroj
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2020
- 7,017
- 26,500
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Let’s review ‘bias’…. by looking at 2018.
Week 1 of finals : Tigers finish two games clear on top and play Hawks at 100% neutral venue. Eagles play Pies at home.
PF: Tigers play Pies at 100% neutral venue. Eagles play Demons at home.
So Eagles had a massive advantage over the Tigers in regards to getting to the GF, yeah?
So it’s swings and roundabouts. The higher ranked Victorian teams constantly play finals at relatively neutral venues despite earning home ground advantage. The Eagles never do (unless they play Freo).
This is something never mentioned but is regularly a factor in the interstate teams making GF so often as their path to the GF is often easier with massive home ground advantage.
So imagine for a minute the GF was in Perth …. Pies could finish top and play neutral final / neutral final / away final in Perth. Meanwhile Eagles finish second and play home final / home final / home final….
So let’s not act like Victorian teams always benefit in finals …. Tigers in 2018 compared to Eagles 2018 a very obvious example of second ranked Eagles getting a much much easier path into GF than top ranked Tigers.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
First week Tigers get a disadvantage, Collingwood gets an advantage.
Vic teams break even.
sr36
TheBrownDog
You seem to think the comp is a state Vs state comp rather than a club comp.
In 2018 as in 2023 as probably in other years which I'm not going to check, the Vic team that finished top had a more difficult path to the Granny based on home games than the non Vic team that finished second. It's not something that you can argue.
If you really want the finals series to be levelled in terms of home ground advantage, don't just push for a neutral GF venue - push for all finals venues to be neutral. Fat chance that any club or many supporters are going to push for that though.
You just repeat the same pints, ignoring the advantage the vic team who cane 4th gets.
It balances itself out.
I don't want neutral finals, I want the tip team to home finals including the gf.
sr36
TheBrownDog
It doesn't balance itself out. You want advantages to fall when they'll most benefit you.
Hawthorn finished 4th in 2018 and they got a neutral final, great for that game, but they weren't going to win the flag that yea as they weren't as good as the teams above them. Melbourne seem to disagree, but they weren't good enough in 2023. You want the advantage when you're in the running, which is most often when you finish high up the ladder and get home finals. Vic teams get it in the GF and the non Vic teams get in the earlier finals. To remove the advantages you would need neutral finals all the way through.
Last edited:
- Apr 4, 2009
- 5,250
- 5,799
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Knowing how much a Collingwood premiership hurts you makes it that much sweeter
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,356
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Banned
- #6,537
Really doesn't it just doesn't.
Haha. I think you believe you are correct which is funny.
There is a big difference between a neutral game an away game.
And plenty of teams have won grand finals from outside the top 2.
- Apr 4, 2009
- 5,250
- 5,799
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
sr36
TheBrownDog
Yes. I do believe I'm correct. If you want equality - it has to be neutral finals all the way through. Obviously you can see how that wouldn't give an adavantage either way.
Ask yourself this:
If we did move to neutral finals all the way through, which clubs would benefit from that change in the pre-grand final stage?
As far as I can see the answer is unequivocably Vic teams as their home grand advantage is significantly less due to lots of neutral finals already and teams being much more exposed to the G than Vic teams are to interstate venues. Or in other words, home ground advantage benefits Non-Vic teams in the lead up to the GF.
Obviously non-Vic teams would benefit in GFs if we shifted to neutral venues all the way through.
Last edited:
This post just goes to show, it's not equality you're after, you won't be happy until the AFL just gifts you the GF.
You're laughing at another poster, when you don't even realise how stupid your post was.
Just because Richmond and Collingwood are from Vic, does not make them the same, they are as different as Richmond and West Coast, IE: 2 different clubs, in fact both Collingwood and West Coast getting an advantage in 2018, makes it even worse for Richmond.
It just goes to show, you aren't really for equality at all.
Noidnadroj
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2020
- 7,017
- 26,500
- AFL Club
- Richmond
In lead up finals of course, sometimes it benefits the Vic teams who finish 3rd or 4th, which by extension means it MUST not advantage the Vic team who finishes first or second as they get no home ground advantage.
But in lead up finals where the Eagles or Dockers
earn a home final advantage, they will get a massive advantage every single time (except very rare likelihood of playing each other).
Even 2007 … Geelong play lead up finals against Roos and Pies …. no advantage for them at all. Port play lead up finals at their home ground with massive advantage.
So for Geelong it was neutral / neutral / ‘sort of home’. For Port as the lower ranked team it was home / home / away.
In 2018 let’s say Tigers win PF… then it would be Tigers neutral / neutral / home. Eagles as second ranked were home / home / away.
So overall which teams had the overall easier finals pathway based on ALL finals?
Sometimes the cards fall your way, sometimes they don’t. It’s luck of the draw with who you play, but let’s not pretend the Non-Vic teams are given the short straw every time as it’s not the case and history tells you this very clearly.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
grand final is played at top teams home ground.
Equal marquee, Thursday, friday night and nationally broadcast games. Ideally based on finish last year plus performance this year.
Give sa and wa clubs more priority access to local talent, to even up local talent percentage with vic teams.
Who is this super club known as Victoria that everyone supports and how can I switch to them?
It's the same fallacy of logic where people argue "Vic teams" get access to players wanting to come home, as if there's a single Victorian super club they are coming back to. There's 10 teams in Victoria which means any single team isn't necessarily advantaged when you're competing with 9 others that cancel out some potential benefits.
sr36
TheBrownDog
Yep. Some seem to struggle with the concept that this comp is 18 clubs competing against each other - rather than state vs state competing against each other - or in the views of many in this thread Victoria competing against the rest of the country.
Yep this is the narrative, as a Perth resident the sentiment (as far as footy is concerned) is oppose vic.
It's literally a chip on the shoulder inferiority complex, some seem conscious of it and others don't.
For example the media reports here, when they're reporting about anything vic (doesn't even have to be sport) if there's any wa element to it, it gets highlighted like it's the centre of the story. If it is sport unless it has a was element it barely rates a mention.
What I wanna know is why? Why is it so important to beat the vics? Why is it so abrasive that vic is the centre of footy? I've asked these questions and other relevant ones ad nauseam and no one wants to answer.
I spose it doesn't help when wc come in and was viewed as the 'state' team, same with the bears, and later the crows - viewed as the same purpose. (Bears not so much coz rl territory)
Im all for the GF to be played at top teams home ground. However how laughable would it be to for the Giants to host it with 23k capacity ? Last i looked they were landscaping some of the sections of seating to make it look full.
16 to 1. Takes a high degree of character inadequacy and low self esteem to be a serial troll on an internet forum. Poor Adam. What a sad, unfulfilling life you must lead.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
