Finals

[stevoswan]

C'mon folks. The "home of football", "a magical day in September". These are advertising slogans.

....and we all know what the object of advertising is.....money. Well said KTigers.

[KTigers]

The reality of footy is that there is a massive home ground advantage. There are a bunch of reasons for this but the fact remains, teams
have a much better chance of winning a game if it is played on their home ground.
Look at the top 4 teams from this year.
Richmond (12-2 at the MCG, 6-5 away from the MCG)
Adelaide (11-3 at Adelaide Oval, 6-1-4 away from Adelaide Oval)
Geelong (6-1 at Skilled, 10-1-7 away from Skilled)
GWS (10-1-1 at Spotless & Manuka, 5-1-7 away from Spotless & Manuka)
It doesn't matter who you are, winning away is substantially more difficult than winning at home.
It is just a huge advantage, getting to play the Grand Final at your home ground.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

It's not just about integrity. Two big (related) factors are fiscal & capacity. Every season thousands of fans miss out on attending with a ground that holds 100,024 people.

The next biggest is that miserable Stadium Australia that has been maligned by the majority of AFL players and supporters alike, holding just 84,000. Already there would be 16,024 people missing out. Before you remount your hobby horse on this ground, get off it, your views are well known. My point is it's smaller than the MCG. Can't be argued, so please don't bother.

Docklands (Melbourne), Adelaide Oval, Lang Park (Brisbane) and Football Park (Adelaide) all have capacities in the 50,000 range - so just over half the number of patrons would have the pleasure of attending the biggest day of the football calander. And you can exclude Dockland and Footy Park as there are larger stadiums within the same state (MCG and Adelaide Oval respectively).

The rest of the functional grounds Australia wide (I'm ignoring Perth Stadium as it isn't open and hasn't had a game played on it. It only holds 60,000 as an oval anyway) hold less than hold of less than 50,000 patrons.

For those who have had the fortune of attending a grand final at the MCG, the atmosphere is almost indescribable, even if your team isn't playing. Whether a 50,000 full stadium can generate such an atmosphere is potentially inconsequential - the point is 50,000 people would miss out on experiencing it in a smaller stadium (or 16,024, if it was held at Stadium Australia).

For all those who desperately want to attend a grand final but miss out, having 16,024 or more fewer seats is devastating.

With fewer seats, comes fewer ticket sales. This would run into the millions of lost revenue. Less game day merchandise sold at the ground. Less catering sales at the ground. That's people's livelihoods you are suggesting compromising.

Ok, a logical counter argument might be build more large capacity stadiums to MCG capacity all around Australia (they have them scattered across the US, some would argue). Where is the money coming from to build them? What do you do with them during the regular home and away season when they are only half or a third filled (or worse still during the summer). That is a lot of under-utilised realestate (the majority of attendances are significantly less during the home & away season than finals & grand finals). Additionally, having a mega stadium is in say WA, SA or NSW, is also less useful during he finals if that state doesn't have a team that qualifies. As for the US, they have the population to sustain such stadiums (US 323M vs Aust 24M). And by the way, America's largest stadium only holds 107,601 attendees - per capita, the MCG affords AFL fans a far greater opportunity to attend the sporting season's marquee event.

Your views are idealistic but impractical.

One caveat I'd agree to is that more tickets should be made available to the general public rather than the MCC members & corporate (even at the high prices if the public are willing to pay it - and given the scalpers, I'd suggest many are). But that won't happen at the MCG any time soon. And many general public do get access to corporate tickets.

This year's Superbowl is in Minneapolis at 66,655 + temp seats and there is no current stadium at 103K. Just LA Coliseum at 93K.

The NFL is similar in terms of making $s but them by bidding, we do it by crowd.

THE AFL sale their soul every year to corporates and only 30K for 2 competing teams. Other AFL teams all get a fixed number of tickets and some send them back.

Cut down corporates and VIP crew and allow more fans in.



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[0918330512]

This year's Superbowl is in Minneapolis at 66,655 + temp seats and there is no current stadium at 103K. Just LA Coliseum at 93K.

The NFL is similar in terms of making $s but them by bidding, we do it by crowd.

THE AFL sale their soul every year to corporates and only 30K for 2 competing teams. Other AFL teams all get a fixed number of tickets and some send them back.

Cut down corporates and VIP crew and allow more fans in.



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

No argument from me on more tickets for fans and less for corporate. But a 100k stadium lets more fans enjoy a grand final and we only have one stadium that accomodates that.

[0918330512]

Why does Melbourne have to have a third big stadium?! That would just keep the GF in Melbourne! WTF? The GF should be played at the home ground of the highest team that earns it. Integrity of the GF result should over ride 'pleasing as many fans as possible'......just get rid of the corporates so more 'real fans' can attend. If GWS qualify for a home GF, they can play at Homebush like we were made to. Every capital city involved with AFL has stadiums worthy of holding a GF. Integrity is paramount, not revenue.....in a perfect world that is.......as opposed to Gil's Vic based 'fantasy world'.

Melbourne doesn't. My post was in response to bodgie's suggestion.

Take issue with with bodgie, not me

[0918330512]

True.
The capacity argument is also hollow. Only 40,000 members of each club get to go to the grand final. Which means every state bar qld could hold that many.

Your narrow, misguided view is that only participating club's members get tickets.

To make an appropriate comparison, less than 40% of tickets go to participating clubs, so a simple extrapolation is that in a 50,000 seat stadium, less than 20000 tickets would go to members (less than 10000 per club).

I caveat this with the fact we wouldn't have to worry about the MCC members getting preference. Although if the crap ANZ stadium was used, I suppose their members might hypocritically expect the same preference benefits.

[0918330512]

Another angle on the GF location is the availability to normal fans.

Currently there are three types of AFL fans regards to GF.
Those that go most years. AFL/MCG members.
Those that go occationally when their team makes it. Via the ballot.
Those that never get to go.

I've followed footy for 30 years, never been to a GF, but have been to two NRL grand finals. Due to location and availability.

Having the AFL GF movable would open it up to a lot more people, not just a select few who go every year.

Perhaps your opinion might carry more weight if you had been to one

A smaller ground would likely mean less to tickets for people. Try squeezing a bowling ball in to a billiard ball table pocket and see how well it fits

[Doctor J.]

Perhaps your opinion might carry more weight if you had been to one

A smaller ground would likely mean less to tickets for people. Try squeezing a bowling ball in to a billiard ball table pocket and see how well it fits

Not necessarily so. This years GF there were 34,000 tickets allocated to members of competing clubs.

That leaves 66,000 tickets to go to "non aligned" people.

Of those 66,000, 25,133 went to MCC members. and 5,000 to medallion club (etihad stadium members). So individuals got tickets to the GF via membership of a non AFL club.

We also know that 4,513 tickets were issued by AFL clubs who then distributed these to sponsors, coterie groups, staff players etc.

That leave 31354 tickets available to AFL members and corporate sponsors.

Lets assume the same ticket allocation and exclude the MCC and medallion club from tickets. (why should they be included in an event that is being played away from their stadium)

If the game was at ANZ stadium, capacity 83,500

10,000 Stadium members.
34,000 Participating clubs
4,513 AFL clubs
31,354 AFL members and corporate sponsors

79,867 total tickets

With a ground capacity of 83,500 there would be an additional 3,633 tickets available to the football public.

SO in reality a smaller ground does not mean less tickets for the people, in the case of ANZ it actually means more tickets for the real fan, and less tickets for cricket club members and Medallion club members, who are mostly Corporate entities

[KTigers]

Every now and again a test match is played in Hobart, and has the sky fallen in? I'm sure the ACB loses money on it,
and a whole lot less people go and see it than if it was on pretty much anywhere else. But cricket is a national game, and
people across the country should be able to see it played at the highest level.
If for example every now and again the GF was played at ANZ then 15,000 less Victorians, MCC members and hospitality package buyers
would not be able to attend the game. Would society as we know it collapse? My guess is probably not. Look, I could be wrong.
It's possible it could be all too much and some of the Melbourne clubs would have to disband, footballs would not inflate properly,
and kids not want to have a kick in the backyard anymore.
Many other major sports across the globe have survived being played on neutral grounds. Some of them are not even the largest
capacity stadiums available. The 1991 GF was played at Waverley which holds less people than ANZ, and I gather Hawthorn still
counts that flag in their premiership tally. Or does that flag have an * next to it, because it wasn't played at the "home of footy".

[barry]

No argument from me on more tickets for fans and less for corporate. But a 100k stadium lets more fans enjoy a grand final and we only have one stadium that accomodates that.

Let's more Victorian fans enjoy the grand final you mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps your opinion might carry more weight if you had been to one

A smaller ground would likely mean less to tickets for people. Try squeezing a bowling ball in to a billiard ball table pocket and see how well it fits

As I pointed out, a movable grand finals allows more people to go, not less.

Sure, less Victorians, but more from all the other states

[Meg]

Paul Roos (when he was the Swans coach) once said that he thought the only real home team advantage that the travelling team couldn�t do anything about was the fact that home team players get to sleep in their own beds the night before the match and go through their normal routines in preparation.

The umpiring in the 2016 GF was poor umpiring. I too am inclined to think crowd affirmation can influence umpires - but it shouldn�t for the best umpires. Despite our past issues with Ray Chamberlain I don�t think he is swayed by the crowd noise.

And if we do believe crowd support can influence the result, then in principle that should be an argument for GFs to be held at neutral venues, not at the ground of the team that finished higher in the H&A. (If�s not going to happen, too many logistical problems with organising a GF with one week�s notice.)

[KTigers]

Looking at the stats for this year, the top 4 teams (Richmond, Adelaide, Geelong & GWS) were collectively 39-1-7 at home,
and 27-3-23 away from home. A 85% winning record at home, and a 55% winning record away from home. That is a substantial
difference, and I would think there would be more to it than just proximity to their own beds as Roos once said.
Home ground advantage is the biggest single identifiable indicator of the result of a game. And everyone knows this.
So what do the AFL do? They play the game at one team's home ground. And not even at the home ground of the team that
finished first. The team that finished third. Just brilliant.