Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[Papa G]

Yeah of course have been to England, there is no bleating about how many games Arsenal play in London. Because they understand that home and away advantage exist regardless of travel.

ManU home at Old Trafford enjoy an advantage against Liverpool (just up the road), Arsenal AND Bayern Munich.

And I have been to the US, a more similar size comparison to Aus.

Guess what, the remote teams on the West Coast travel more than teams located in the more populous north east.

It is only moronic VICBias wowsers that ignore home ground advantage, and instead focus on how many times a team jumps on a plane.

Did you read my next comment?

 

[Papa G]

"For locations situated southwest of the Barassi Line, he [Oakley] stated a minimum urban population of 500,000 is required, as well as an established supporter base if there is an existing franchise in the area. On the other hand, for locations located northeast of the Barassi Line, a minimum urban population of 1.5 to 2 million and a treasure trove in lifeline funds for a period of 20 to 25 years are necessary to maintain a new franchise."

The AFL should've been set up that way from day dot in 87.

6 Melbourne teams who play all their home games at the MCG.
2 Perth teams who play all their home games at Optus.
2 Adelaide teams who play all their home games at Adelaide Oval.
1 Geelong team (long history, within an hours drive of Melbourne) playing all home games at Kardinia Park.
1 Sydney team who play all their home games at the SCG.
1 Brisbane team (was under 1.5 mill but reached it by mid 90s) who play all their home games at the Gabba.
1 Tasmania (450k but most footy mad state) who play 7 home games in Hobart, 4 in Launceston.

Have a pre-season tournament in NT/ACT.

14 teams.

No GC team as they were 500k when entering and still are at around 750k.

I agree that the travel burden for WA clubs is greater than any other state (no one could argue otherwise). I also agree though that clubs should play all of their home games at their home ground. I'd still have the WA clubs travel 11 times per year, but with 3 less teams in Vic, the Vic sides would of course be travelling more.

Too late for that, though, and with Melbourne's population over 5 mill, they have enough now to support 10 teams, let alone 9.

Melbourne's population growth is on the back of more Toyota Camry sales, they don't watch or play football.

 

[Demons09]

What's with the username? you barrack for Melbourne in 2009?

Join date and WAFL team i support.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The AFL should've been set up that way from day dot in 87.

6 Melbourne teams who play all their home games at the MCG.

Then you'd immediately lose 5 bases.

 

[Coolangatta]

Then you'd immediately lose 5 bases.

3. 9 Melbourne teams - 3 = 6 Melbourne teams.

I was going by the Barassi numbers. 500k per team south-east of the line. Melbourne had 3m back in 1987. So the national comp should've reflected that (6 teams in Melbourne, not 10, which as we know was reduced to 9).

The AFL still would've been a huge product today, most the young Saints/Dogs/Roos supporters around today would've supported other clubs and all the big clubs (Pies, Hawks, Bombers etc) still would've had their supporter bases cause you would've kept them.

Saints, Roos, Dogs would've been out, Roys relocate to Brisbane (instead of folding), and South already relocated to Sydney.

 

[Coolangatta]

What it should've looked like in 87: West Coast, Freo, Adelaide/Norwood, Port, Sydney, Brisbane, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong, Melbourne, Tasmania.

14 teams.

A 3rd club in Perth around the 2010s and a 2nd club in Sydney.

16 teams and then no more till Adelaide's big enough for 3 teams then add them and Canberra.

That would've been the logical way based on the numbers.

But like I said, what's done is done and Melbourne is big enough now for 10 teams let alone 9 but it's about time Perth has a 3rd.

 

[doppleganger]

Did you read my next comment?

The comment that would result in barely any change to the status quo, which all you wowsers sook about?

What would happen is that means more games in Melbourne, as teams like Hawthorn, Melbourne and North wouldnt travel as much!

The travel stuff is pretty difficult to overcome, given the arse about way the comp is set up and too many Vic teams, its just impossible to overcome.

What you can overcome a bit better is the is home ground advantage Doddlebanger and the other Collingwood Mental short people keep going on about.

You could split the Melbourne teams 4 and 4. 4 teams only play their home games at the Melbourne Citadel of Corruption, and 4 play all their home games at Marvel.

So Melbourne, Collingwood, Richmond and Hawthorn play their home games at the Citadel of Corruption, Essendon, Carlton, Bulldogs and St Kilda play at Marvel. Thus the lack of genuine home games the Bias Deniers keep going on about is minimised, meaning there are only a possible 6 games against co tennants but more likely only 4. Thus this seemingly huge impost of not having genuine home games is massively reduced. It is a very simple and doable solution.

You forgot North and Carlton want to go to the G, so the Vic split would be 5 MCG, 4 Etihad, 1 Cat Park.

If retain the 22 round season.

Collingwood would get 11 home games at the G, on average 2-3 would be against other MCG based teams.

And then 11 away games. If purely random would expect the away games to average out as
2.58 away games at the G
3.24 away at Docklands/Cat Park
5.18 away games outside Vic

So we would get 13-14 games at the G with 5-6 being neutral clashes against other MCG teams and expect to leave Vic 5 times for away games

Not much change to the current which is 14 games at the G every year, with 8 or 9 neutral and 5 games outside Vic.

But, But, But Whadabout da Blockbustas!! At The Geeee!!! Da Blockbustas!!!

Yes indeed, the commercial reality.

StK are asking for more home games at the G. Essendon would want home games at the G.

 

[Carringbush2010]

3. 9 Melbourne teams - 3 = 6 Melbourne teams.

I was going by the Barassi numbers. 500k per team south-east of the line. Melbourne had 3m back in 1987. So the national comp should've reflected that (6 teams in Melbourne, not 10, which as we know was reduced to 9).

The AFL still would've been a huge product today, most the young Saints/Dogs/Roos supporters around today would've supported other clubs and all the big clubs (Pies, Hawks, Bombers etc) still would've had their supporter bases cause you would've kept them.

Saints, Roos, Dogs would've been out, Roys relocate to Brisbane (instead of folding), and South already relocated to Sydney.

I don't know where to begin with this post.

'So the national comp should've reflected that (6 teams in Melbourne, not 10, which as we know was reduced to 9).'

Like I said you immediately lose fan bases of 5 clubs, barring Sydney which already took a hit when they moved from South Melbourne, lost a lotta fans.

'The AFL still would've been a huge product today, most the young Saints/Dogs/Roos supporters around today would've supported other clubs and all the big clubs (Pies, Hawks, Bombers etc) still would've had their supporter bases cause you would've kept them.'

The whole idea of expansion was expansion, not reduction. Fans don't just jump on other clubs bandwagons when their club is lost from the league, they abandon (as they should), as we've seen with Fitzroy and South Melbourne.

So no, the fan base would not have been kept.

To suggest that 'young' fans would just accept after years of hearing the parents / aunties / uncles disdain for their club being culled from the league is wishful at best, not to mention wrong, you don't just cull clubs with a 100+ years of history.

Those young kids would've have a narrative that footy sucks drummed into them and the AFL are aholes who killed their club which mum and dad and grandpa and grandma have been supporters of all their life.

'Roys relocate to Brisbane (instead of folding)'

A/ Fitzroy never folded, they're still competing in the VAFA

B/ Fans and members don't accept relocation, North members rejecting relocation to GC is evidence of this.

 

[Papa G]

Maybe they should build another MCG next door to the current Citadel of Corruption. We could call them the Two Towers or The Twin Towers. The Victorian Labor Party/CMFEU has lots of concrete.

 

[sr36]

3. 9 Melbourne teams - 3 = 6 Melbourne teams.

I was going by the Barassi numbers. 500k per team south-east of the line. Melbourne had 3m back in 1987. So the national comp should've reflected that (6 teams in Melbourne, not 10, which as we know was reduced to 9).

The AFL still would've been a huge product today, most the young Saints/Dogs/Roos supporters around today would've supported other clubs and all the big clubs (Pies, Hawks, Bombers etc) still would've had their supporter bases cause you would've kept them.

Saints, Roos, Dogs would've been out, Roys relocate to Brisbane (instead of folding), and South already relocated to Sydney.

The AFL had a crack at pushing Vic clubs into merger or relocation. Members voted against it and the AFL didn't have the power to force it.

 

[jakson68]

So you would prefer to be in Fremantle's or West Coast's position instead?

Not necessarily. There are pluses and minuses.

In Freo and WC situation, they should (like other non Vic and Geelong sides) have a distinct home advantage, ensuring 8 or so wins from those home games. Good leg up.
Vic sides, get less travel which is also an advantage but have little to no home advantage in most cases.

There is no right or wrong way to see it, as one supporter bases view will siut their own narrative.

It isn't perfect but it is what we have, so do we bitch and moan, or just enjoy what we have because it could be worse.

 

[jakson68]

Maybe they should build another MCG next door to the current Citadel of Corruption. We could call them the Two Towers or The Twin Towers. The Victorian Labor Party/CMFEU has lots of concrete.

They certainly do, it is between their ears.

 

[Forward Press]

Join date and WAFL team i support.

My condolences.

 

[Carringbush2010]

My condolences.

Ouch!

 

[thefreodockers]

Victorian team supporters talking about ViCBias is like listening to Boomer landlords talk about rental costs or university fees.

It’s either in their interest to maintain the current state of Bias, or they don’t have any need to try and understand - so don’t care.

Vic teams get so much competitive advantage from it that they shouldn’t even get a say in any attempts at leveling it up.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Victorian team supporters talking about ViCBias is like listening to Boomer landlords talk about rental costs or university fees.

It’s either in their interest to maintain the current state of Bias, or they don’t have any need to try and understand - so don’t care.

Vic teams get so much competitive advantage from it that they shouldn’t even get a say in any attempts at leveling it up.

The trouble is, you won't do anything for yourselves, you will cry until the Vics do it for you.

How about getting something done for yourselves instead of following like sheep.

 

[Papa G]

The trouble is, you won't do anything for yourselves, you will cry until the Vics do it for you.

How about getting something done for yourselves instead of following like sheep.

You are right. West Coast for example are the biggest club in the land. They should be throwing their weight around much more. The Crows are insipid but a big club. The Swans are such an important club to the AFL brand. These clubs in particular should be fighting the good fight.

 

[Coolangatta]

I don't know where to begin with this post.

'So the national comp should've reflected that (6 teams in Melbourne, not 10, which as we know was reduced to 9).'

Like I said you immediately lose fan bases of 5 clubs, barring Sydney which already took a hit when they moved from South Melbourne, lost a lotta fans.

'The AFL still would've been a huge product today, most the young Saints/Dogs/Roos supporters around today would've supported other clubs and all the big clubs (Pies, Hawks, Bombers etc) still would've had their supporter bases cause you would've kept them.'

The whole idea of expansion was expansion, not reduction. Fans don't just jump on other clubs bandwagons when their club is lost from the league, they abandon (as they should), as we've seen with Fitzroy and South Melbourne.

So no, the fan base would not have been kept.

To suggest that 'young' fans would just accept after years of hearing the parents / aunties / uncles disdain for their club being culled from the league is wishful at best, not to mention wrong, you don't just cull clubs with a 100+ years of history.

Those young kids would've have a narrative that footy sucks drummed into them and the AFL are aholes who killed their club which mum and dad and grandpa and grandma have been supporters of all their life.

'Roys relocate to Brisbane (instead of folding)'

A/ Fitzroy never folded, they're still competing in the VAFA

B/ Fans and members don't accept relocation, North members rejecting relocation to GC is evidence of this.

Yeah I get that the AFL is really just VFL expansion, what I’m saying is that it shouldn’t have been. It should have been a brand new comp setup, a super league breakaway with 6 Melbourne teams max. Less is more in terms of the quality of the product.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah I get that the AFL is really just VFL expansion, what I’m saying is that it shouldn’t have been. It should have been a brand new comp setup, a super league breakaway with 6 Melbourne teams max. Less is more in terms of the quality of the product.

If you're alluding brand new teams from vic then no vic fans would follow, they'd follow their clubs.

If you're alluding 6 foundation clubs from vic in a break away leagues, then that'd only work if those clubs played as much in vic as they do now. Obviously those clubs would play less in vic so the fans and members wouldn't go for it.

So we can put this to bed.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

No I don't think so.

Depends on which clubs are in that league, willing to bet the wafl would just grow exponentially over here if it came to that. There's lot's of history and passion for this league right now.

I'd assume the same could be said for the sanfl.

I've asked the question many many times on these boards why non vic fans are so keen on new start up franchises (port excepted) in a league centred in vic over their 100+ yo clubs, have never once got a straight answer.

Think I have answered this many times for you. The VFL kept knocking back our clubs requests to join. East Perth, West Perth and South Fremantle all applied to join the VFL at some point in time knowing the game will eventually have to have a national league.
The VFL wanted franchises not clubs, it’s that simple. Not sure why but at that time they had the power to decide.

 

[Coolangatta]

If you're alluding brand new teams from vic then no vic fans would follow, they'd follow their clubs.

If you're alluding 6 foundation clubs from vic in a break away leagues, then that'd only work if those clubs played as much in vic as they do now. Obviously those clubs would play less in vic so the fans and members wouldn't go for it.

So we can put this to bed.

What are you talking about? 11 home games at the MCG isn’t enough? Plus some away game double ups in Melbourne? Vic clubs can play 15+ games in their home state but interstate teams can’t? Is that it?

 

[Carringbush2010]

West Coast for example are the biggest club in the land.

By membership and fan base (if I am correct), certainly not in profile, that certainly belongs to the big 4 vic clubs, nationally. Probably Collingwood ahead of the pack, just.

Yeah vic bias.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Think I have answered this many times for you. The VFL kept knocking back our clubs requests to join. East Perth, West Perth and South Fremantle all applied to join the VFL at some point in time knowing the game will eventually have to have a national league.
The VFL wanted franchises not clubs, it’s that simple. Not sure why but at that time they had the power to decide.

Which is a shame, wouldn't mind seeing your mob in it, Norwood, Swan districts etc.

The issue I have is that non vic fans just abandoned their original clubs and then complain about the comp being an expanded vfl and death riding vic clubs. It was always gonna be an expanded vfl, there was no other way.

So it really comes down to what non vic fans want, for obvious reasons they can't have what they want.

There is choice, either they STFU and accept what is, or vote with their feet and remotes and support the state leagues and return them to their rightful glory.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Which is a shame, wouldn't mind seeing your mob in it, Norwood, Swan districts etc.

The issue I have is that non vic fans just abandoned their original clubs and then complain about the comp being an expanded vfl and death riding vic clubs. It was always gonna be an expanded vfl, there was no other way.

So it really comes down to what non vic fans want, for obvious reasons they can't have what they want.

There is choice, either they STFU and accept what is, or vote with their feet and remotes and support the state leagues and return them to their rightful glory.

Well it was not always going to be this way. John Elliot was organising a new national league and that was going to include WAFL and SANFL clubs and not all VIC clubs from what I understand.
Not sure what happened with it in the end. But here we are now.

Now we have an expanded VFL and now called a national comp.

Yep lucky I don’t have an oil well in my backyard.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What are you talking about? 11 home games at the MCG isn’t enough? Plus some away game double ups in Melbourne? Vic clubs can play 15+ games in their home state but interstate teams can’t? Is that it?

What I'm talking about is that if your model is brand new vic franchises, it won't work.

What I'm talking about is that is your model is 6 vic foundation clubs playing less in vic, it won't won't work.