Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[The 747]

Well I guess because without consultation they signed a million year deal with them mcg, is that why it doesn't make sense??? Or do you have a reading difficulty?

An organisation that wasn't biased and wanted a national game wouldn't have signed that deal... they would have gone here are the parameters for hosting the gf:
1. 100k+ capacity

Mcg is the only stadium currently viable... what do you think the capacity at Optus would be if a non biased, transparent decision was made about this?

I am having a discussion with you, post another insult and we are done OK.

There are so many assumptions and premises here that are opinion based in this post.

What are you trying to prove here? That the AFL didn't ever intend to hold the GF out of Victoria? No they didn't, if that is what you are asking.

And it has been done to absolute death in this thread and others. Talk about some #VICBIAS! that isn't about the GF, or is that all #VICBIAS! is?

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

For starters, if the league is going to be so biased as to lock the deciding match of the entire season to one venue, how about letting us play more than one game in the best part of a year and a half there.

Seriously the last time we played at the ‘G was round 2 last year!

Send some other sides to Ballarat, NT, Tasmania and who tf knows where else for once instead of us every year.

 

[The 747]

Ok

First with today the review decision is worse as it showed a goal and the footage was surprisingly conclusive... will likely never get another mention.

The Richmond vision was entirely inconclusive and impossible to tell where the ball passed the post on angles available... yet we hear vic media sooking for months on end...

Most of the umpires are victorian And even if they aren't from Vic they often need to move there if the want to be an umpire. This wouldn't even fly with an organisation like Fifa it's like having 4 brazillians ref an Argentina game...

As a national comp are we saddled with the likes of Melbourne St kilda footscray North Melbourne? These clubs that are not financially viable are the reason for soft caps etc...

As mentioned re stadiums afl should have parameters around what is required for a ground to host a gf min capacity for one. This info should have been available to interstate clubs when developing their stadiums...

So there is umpiring #VICBIAS! accompanied by the Vic media being #vicbiased (hilarious concept ever listened to SA football radio for unbiased commentary) and the AFL making payments to Victoria clubs is #VICBIAS! (even though they pay a lot more to the expansion teams) and the AFL should have told the other states the parameters to hold a GF so they could be sued when the GF was not held there. OK.

 

[The 747]

For starters, if the league is going to be so biased as to lock the deciding match of the entire season to one venue, how about letting us play more than one game in the best part of a year and a half there.

Seriously the last time we played at the ‘G was round 2 last year!

Send some other sides to Ballarat, NT, Tasmania and who tf knows where else for once instead of us every year.

Already discussed in this thread, Crows can dip into their money chest and pay out the Marvel contracts. Then whenever you play an MCG tenant in Victoria it will be at the MCG.

 

[kranky al]

Stop bringing up irrelevant sports please.

OK now we have "resemble", who judges what "resemble" means?

I don't mind your idea as a way to mitigate the advantage MCG tenants get during finals, but I don't see that it would be workable - practically or politically.

The basis of our jurisprudence, debating and and general worldview works by comparison. We use examples of what has been done elsewhere as a blueprint for what we would like to improve here. The afl is always sending officials overseas to look at what different sports are doing better and implementing those ideas here.

If every world sport just simply held its national grand final in the biggest stadium in the country regardless of whos home ground it was im one billion percent certain id have been bashed over the head with it endlessly in this thread.

You quite literally said the mcg wouldnt change its boundaries for the biggest game of the season.

I suggested that the cricket world cup is just as big as the afl grand final and not only would the mcg change its boundary size - but noone would say a word.


Cricket, like football is one of the few sports around the world that doesnt have a fixed size field and as such is an excellent comparison.

Furthermore the mcg has shown that it has no problems with changing its ground dimensions for soccer, rugby league and rugby union.

You seem to just not like the idea and are trying to handwave it away rather than cone up with legitimate reasons as to why it wouldnt work.

 

[kranky al]

So there is umpiring #VICBIAS! accompanied by the Vic media being #vicbiased (hilarious concept ever listened to SA football radio for unbiased commentary) and the AFL making payments to Victoria clubs is #VICBIAS! (even though they pay a lot more to the expansion teams) and the AFL should have told the other states the parameters to hold a GF so they could be sued when the GF was not held there. OK.

If you cant see why a case why an expansion team in a non footy state needs more money as opposed to a team that’s over 100 years old, from a heartland state and on a permadrip…..

 

[kranky al]

Not attractive - wtf?
Resemble not be identical.

So how about a football ground with a centre square and 50m arks.

How does that fix anything?

It isnt Geelong dimensions, so why bother??

Need to also lengthen the ground, Adelaide Oval and CatPark are longer....SCG and Gabba shorter.

Sigh.

Tell me how we are to lengthen the mcg.

You obviously keep it to whats possible - no surprise that its you i have to explain this to.

That thought must have had a long and very lonely trip from your brain to fingertips.

No wonder it came out sounding like a mad womans crap.

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

Already discussed in this thread, Crows can dip into their money chest and pay out the Marvel contracts. Then whenever you play an MCG tenant in Victoria it will be at the MCG.

How is Marvel the issue? Happy to play there too, just send some other clubs out to the remote venues for a change.

 

[2notepockets]

So there is umpiring #VICBIAS! accompanied by the Vic media being #vicbiased (hilarious concept ever listened to SA football radio for unbiased commentary) and the AFL making payments to Victoria clubs is #VICBIAS! (even though they pay a lot more to the expansion teams) and the AFL should have told the other states the parameters to hold a GF so they could be sued when the GF was not held there. OK.

Yeah good counter points... you've just reiterated the bias through a lense of sarcasm or something providing nothing to refute why any of it is an issue... 5AA is biased, correct most south Aussies would be embarrassed if it was national, do you get it now?

 

[The 747]

Yeah good counter points... you've just reiterated the bias through a lense of sarcasm or something providing nothing to refute why any of it is an issue... 5AA is biased, correct most south Aussies would be embarrassed if it was national, do you get it now?

I was just summarising what I thought your argument was.

 

[2notepockets]

Here's some more bias, Adelaide having their assistant coach banned for Melbourne tanking and receiving harsher draft sanctions for tippetts contract than Essendon got for doping their entire list. Carlton not being done for tanking despite their assistant coach outing them in the media....

 

[The 747]

How is Marvel the issue? Happy to play there too, just send some other clubs out to the remote venues for a change.

So the AFL has a contract with Marvel to play a certain number of games there. Given the AFL now owns Marvel those are supplier contracts now though.

In order to reach the games required under the contract, MCG tenants have to play some games there. They host interstate sides there instead of playing them at the G, because they will make more money playing a Vic side at the G.

BUT Marvel has a higher crowd break even point than the MCG so faced with the prospect of making little money out of the game some clubs elect to play those games regionally.

That is a little seperate from the Crows (or any other team) playing away games in regional areas. I don't have any sympathy for that, away games are away games.

 

[The 747]

Here's some more bias, Adelaide having their assistant coach banned for Melbourne tanking and receiving harsher draft sanctions for tippetts contract than Essendon got for doping their entire list. Carlton not being done for tanking despite their assistant coach outing them in the media....

That one is a good example.

The Tippet thing, the Crows volunteered the penalty for the millionth time.

 

[The 747]

The basis of our jurisprudence, debating and and general worldview works by comparison. We use examples of what has been done elsewhere as a blueprint for what we would like to improve here. The afl is always sending officials overseas to look at what different sports are doing better and implementing those ideas here.

If every world sport just simply held its national grand final in the biggest stadium in the country regardless of whos home ground it was im one billion percent certain id have been bashed over the head with it endlessly in this thread.

You quite literally said the mcg wouldnt change its boundaries for the biggest game of the season.

I suggested that the cricket world cup is just as big as the afl grand final and not only would the mcg change its boundary size - but noone would say a word.


Cricket, like football is one of the few sports around the world that doesnt have a fixed size field and as such is an excellent comparison.

Furthermore the mcg has shown that it has no problems with changing its ground dimensions for soccer, rugby league and rugby union.

You seem to just not like the idea and are trying to handwave it away rather than cone up with legitimate reasons as to why it wouldnt work.

You already have the Geelong example a few posts earlier that shows why it won't work. Plus Doppleganger's post pointing out that some grounds are longer than the MCG.

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

So the AFL has a contract with Marvel to play a certain number of games there. Given the AFL now owns Marvel those are supplier contracts now though.

In order to reach the games required under the contract, MCG tenants have to play some games there. They host interstate sides there instead of playing them at the G, because they will make more money playing a Vic side at the G.

BUT Marvel has a higher crowd break even point than the MCG so faced with the prospect of making little money out of the game some clubs elect to play those games regionally.

That is a little seperate from the Crows (or any other team) playing away games in regional areas. I don't have any sympathy for that, away games are away games.

I don’t disagree with any of that, but it’s completely irrelevant to us getting sent to every corner of Australia each season.

 

[kranky al]

Already discussed in this thread, Crows can dip into their money chest and pay out the Marvel contracts. Then whenever you play an MCG tenant in Victoria it will be at the MCG.

What you didnt explain is why the crows should pay to fix a victorian fkup.

Reminds me of how the eagles had to pay the victorian teams flights to wa when we entered the league.

Of course we had to pay our own the other way.

 

[2notepockets]

That one is a good example.

The Tippet thing, the Crows volunteered the penalty for the millionth time.

So it's up to the clubs to penalise themselves? Your solutions are non vic clubs to use their money to buy out of these problems when they are saddled with a soft cap to keep vic clubs competitive? F Me....

 

[The 747]

If you cant see why a case why an expansion team in a non footy state needs more money as opposed to a team that’s over 100 years old, from a heartland state and on a permadrip…..

Sure, some clubs require more assistance than others. The AFL sets itself up to maximise revenue (at the expense of some clubs) and so distributes that revenue to the clubs.

 

[CrowToon]

So the AFL has a contract with Marvel to play a certain number of games there. Given the AFL now owns Marvel those are supplier contracts now though.

In order to reach the games required under the contract, MCG tenants have to play some games there. They host interstate sides there instead of playing them at the G, because they will make more money playing a Vic side at the G.

BUT Marvel has a higher crowd break even point than the MCG so faced with the prospect of making little money out of the game some clubs elect to play those games regionally.

That is a little seperate from the Crows (or any other team) playing away games in regional areas. I don't have any sympathy for that, away games are away

I mean you are implying the fixture is unfair here based on commercial interests and somehow it's up to the away side to remedy that. **** sake plane, your argument is a bit weird if we are to just accept reality as a necessity.

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

That one is a good example.

The Tippet thing, the Crows volunteered the penalty for the millionth time.

Now do the AFL’s approach to Essendon’s drug saga.

They considered withdrawing from WADA at one point to save the club FFS

 

[The 747]

What you didnt explain is why the crows should pay to fix a victorian fkup.

Reminds me of how the eagles had to pay the victorian teams flights to wa when we entered the league.

Of course we had to pay our own the other way.

You are very set on making moral judgements, which blinds you to the superordinate goal of making the competition fairer. As I said many times more interested in complaining than coming up with solutions.

 

[2notepockets]

Sure, some clubs require more assistance than others. The AFL sets itself up to maximise revenue (at the expense of some clubs) and so distributes that revenue to the clubs.

How often to 2 vic clubs play Friday and Saturday night? Vs 2 no vic clubs in those slots, Sunday twilight on the other hand....

 

[The 747]

Now do the AFL’s approach to Essendon’s drug saga.

They considered withdrawing from WADA at one point to save the club FFS

Yes they did but not sure what the relevance is to this thread. Would they have done the same for a smaller club? Probably not but that isn't Victorian bias.

 

[The 747]

So it's up to the clubs to penalise themselves? Your solutions are non vic clubs to use their money to buy out of these problems when they are saddled with a soft cap to keep vic clubs competitive? F Me....

What?

You cited Adelaides draft penalties as an example of bias, I pointed out that the Crows volunteered the penalty. How can the penalty be biased against the Crows if the punishment was their idea?

 

[2notepockets]

I can fix it easily merge the 4 non financial vic clubs...