Should we forget home finals and move on?

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't think it's a big deal. All the interstate premiers are jumping on the band wagon because the interstate teams are doing well, yet half of them know nothing about football. If you can't win a flag by winning a couple of games at the MCG then you don't deserve to win a flag!! In what way is travelling to the MCG a huge problem for Sydney teams? It's hardly much of a trip and the support we will get there would be pretty good.

Ah, here's someone that talks more sense

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Bear
a couple of Melbourne-based supporters views there...

but seriously it will probably work to our advantage where playing another interstater (likely this year) as a Melbourne game for us against (say) a WCE or Brisbane is a partial home game with all of our support in Melb and less travel than them...

overall a very unjust rule though and i could never support it with a clear conscience so i am totally against it

NB: you have to be in the GF to win it and the best way to do that is to WIN the week before. playing at home gives us the best chance to do this. i would so hate to play a "home" Prelim final against Feralwood at the MCG and lose due to their home ground advantage!

Aaaaah! so perhaps the swans should play more games at the MCG during the year?

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by jixygirl
The main thing that everybody needs to remember is that whoever is higher than the other team gets the home final. If Sydney is higher, than we play in Sydney. If Sydney is lower, than we play at the opposition's home ground, be it Melbourne or Adelaide, etc. Members of course get priority for tickets to every final (and I mean all members, Sydney, Melbourne, everywhere else) and the grand final should be the only match that is always at the MCG. The problem is the contract that the MCC has which will ensure that this doesn't happen.

OMG! She is such a lovely thing. And how clever! Seems common sense to me. Unfortunantly, others seem to be chucking temper tantrums and not focussing on the real issue. There appears to be more bias here than at a Lawn Bowls CLub.

[Damien]

Originally posted by scurrilous
OMG! She is such a lovely thing. And how clever! Seems common sense to me. Unfortunantly, others seem to be chucking temper tantrums and not focussing on the real issue. There appears to be more bias here than at a Lawn Bowls CLub.

I think bias is allowed somehow!!!

Melbourne can't be rewarded forever - they certainly started the game and are the lifeblood, but at some stage it has to evolve and other teams and cities need to be rewarded. Same goes for Rugby League really, because if AFL continues to be known as Melbourne Footy and RL as Sydney footy, both will find it hard to grow and prosper much further than it already has.

[Bear]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I'm actually Sydney based!

My apologies.

Are you originally Melb-based? I'm just saying you would be more sympathetic to an unjust Melb final in that case.

If not i withdraw completely!

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Bear
My apologies.

Are you originally Melb-based? I'm just saying you would be more sympathetic to an unjust Melb final in that case.

If not i withdraw completely!

No need - good memory. I am more sympathetic as I am originally Melbourne-based. I just like to see a final at the 'G each week. That it is unfair for the other interstaters, I don't care. I don't think it matters a heap for us. I'd like to see us play more at the MCG and win too!!

[jixygirl]

I'm Melbourne based and I would like to see a final at the MCG every weekend, but its just not fair so it shouldn't happen. There is a huge problem within the AFL and its got to do with the teams from different states being on one side and the Victorian teams on another. You hear it everywhere in the media and I get told by my best friend that I should change to Essendon every week because its "easier" to follow them. As soon as we fix this whole making sides thing, the AFL will be a whole lot better off. Also, I find the whole "banking" process hard to understand.

[Jon]

Originally posted by jixygirl
I find the whole "banking" process hard to understand.

You and me both...but here goes:

The MCC USED to have a contract that gave them one final per week, incl a prelim and the GF (4 games).

They NOW have a contract where they have 1 prelim, the GF and SIX finals in the first 2 weeks over a 3 yr period. (so pretty much they have still have a contract that ends up being for 4 finals a year over 3 years)

It APPEARS flexible, but really isn't at all.

The AFL can BANK games in the first two weeks of the finals. That means they can play them away from the MCG...but if they do, they then have to squeeze them in over the follwing two years to make sure they play those SIX GAMES over a 3 yr period.

Now last year the AFL only played 4 games at the MCG, so this means they only played the bare minimum. If they had played 5 or 6, then they would have had 1 or 2 games to offset the contract. But they don't. And they won't BANK any more games this year because they know it would only make the system even WORSE next year they did.

There you go. It makes even LESS sense when I try to explain it out aloud.

[barry]

"banking" should be spelt with a "W".

For a start the AFL refuse to go into debt with this bankings System, so one side of the banking doesnt work at all.

The other side, building up a surplus wont work either because of docklands. Docklands is guaranteed a melbourne final, after the MCG. So for the MCG to bank a final, there would need to be a minimum of 3 earnt melbourne finals in any one week.

Since there are only 4 finals in week one, and 2 in week two, there is only week one where banking could occur, and that is only when victorian teams occupy 3 places out of 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th places on the ladder.

ie. The rules for banking are so tight, it will never actually be used.

[Jon]

Originally posted by barry
"banking" should be spelt with a "W".

The rules for banking are so tight, it will never actually be used.

I reckon the AFL has been BANKING on the MCC caving in. So they were quite happy to re-sign this new contract. Why not? They were going to force the MCC to change its terms by popular demand in a year or two weren't they?

Um...weren't they?