AFL Grand Final Week Discussion Thread

[KTigers]

I think it's generally understood that the concessions GWS rec'd were better than the Suns. Not a lot better, but better.
For me the biggest single advantage they have over the Suns is they are based in Sydney. But I really think things were
actually going OK at the Suns until they fired Guy McKenna at the end of the 2014 season. That year (their fourth) they
won ten games, only two games out of the eight. Since then they haven't won more than six games in a season.
GWS won 11 games in their fourth season (2015), didn't fire their coach for not making the finals (or not getting along
with G Ablett Jnr.... take your pick) and have now played in at least two finals every year since. Until this trade week
there are eleven players that have been at GWS since their first season. They are trading out two of them this trade season
apparently, but that still leaves nine, and six of them (Cameron, Greene, Haynes, Davis, Ward & Coniglio) are AA level players.
Jarrod Harbrow & David Swallow are serviceable players for the Suns, but not really in the same category as the "old-timers"
at GWS. Losing Lynch & May in the same year wasn't good, but they did put in for eight years there and were RFA's.
You have to feel for Stuart Dew. I'm not sure if he's a good coach or not. Who can tell when you've only won seven games
in two seasons. This year must have been a nightmare for him.

[MattW]

I think it's generally understood that the concessions GWS rec'd were better than the Suns. Not a lot better, but better.
For me the biggest single advantage they have over the Suns is they are based in Sydney. But I really think things were
actually going OK at the Suns until they fired Guy McKenna at the end of the 2014 season. That year (their fourth) they
won ten games, only two games out of the eight. Since then they haven't won more than six games in a season.
GWS won 11 games in their fourth season (2015), didn't fire their coach for not making the finals (or not getting along
with G Ablett Jnr.... take your pick) and have now played in at least two finals every year since. Until this trade week
there are eleven players that have been at GWS since their first season. They are trading out two of them this trade season
apparently, but that still leaves nine, and six of them (Cameron, Greene, Haynes, Davis, Ward & Coniglio) are AA level players.
Jarrod Harbrow & David Swallow are serviceable players for the Suns, but not really in the same category as the "old-timers"
at GWS. Losing Lynch & May in the same year wasn't good, but they did put in for eight years there and were RFA's.
You have to feel for Stuart Dew. I'm not sure if he's a good coach or not. Who can tell when you've only won seven games
in two seasons. This year must have been a nightmare for him.

I don't feel for Dew. He took the job knowing all the problems and risks. He just got delivered a slab of first round picks.

[Boddo]

AFL 2019 Grand Final MCG: David Koch rages over Richmond favouritism



Neutral my a...

[KTigers]

AFL 2019 Grand Final MCG: David Koch rages over Richmond favouritism



Neutral my a...

Yep, my Bombers member mate who I went to the game with noticed it, and pointed it out to me, and thought it was very poor.
I think there are a lot of people in Melbourne who are very aware how skewed the AFL is to the teams based there, and know
in the long run it is very unhealthy.

[liz]

AFL 2019 Grand Final MCG: David Koch rages over Richmond favouritism



Neutral my a...

Unfortunately, the game was so one-sided that it's not really possible to attribute it to any favouritism that Richmond might have enjoyed. The Giants simply had no plan on how to win against the Tigers.

That said, I don't understand why the non-Victorian clubs accepted the MCG contract extension without so much as a whimper. It's not just the fact the contract was extended. It was the fact it was presented as a fait accompli, thus cutting out discussion amongst all stakeholders about whether it was in the best interests of the competition as a whole. It is possible that the commercial rewards for the extension were compelling, but discussion was needed around how those commercial benefits were to be applied and shared, and what other safeguards could be put in place to balance things out. Like guaranteeing EVERY non-MCG tenant at least five H&A games at the MCG each season, even though that would necessarily push the high-drawing MCG tenants to more games at Etihad, or at regional grounds. There would be a commercial effect of that, which should have been balanced against the commercial benefits of extending the MCG GF deal.

West Coast and Adelaide have huge clout in the competition. And while Sydney isn't as much of a financial powerhouse, its strategic position as the established club in NSW gives it some strength. The eight non-Vic clubs should at least have asked - publicly, not just privately - some searching questions of the AFL Commission about the process by which the extension was agreed to. And even some Vic clubs have expressed concerns about the arrangement and how the extension came about.

Does anyone know how the commissioners are elected / appointed? What would be required for a spill of the Commission?

[dimelb]

AFL 2019 Grand Final MCG: David Koch rages over Richmond favouritism



Neutral my a...

Good to see Adam Spencer chipping into the criticism - "It's not a Richmond home game".

And although the AFL went ahead and bought the MCG without a hint of consultation, it's important to keep the criticism coming. As Koch said, "There's no V in AFL".

We need to keep building a groundswell against this blight of Victorianism on a national sporting event.

[KTigers]

What I'd like to see is the AFL's explanation as to why they signed a 40 year to play the GF at the MCG. Were they pressured into
it by the MCG? Did they want to silence any discussion re moving it to other stadiums, or out of Melbourne. Did they not consider
the untold damage this decision has done to the concept of a national competition? If it's all just about money why didn't they
sign a five or ten year deal, and say after that, the other cities could bid for it. This process has worked rather well with the
Superbowl and the State Of Origin. Maybe the 2017-2057 deal is just another sign that the national comp is just a hollow, empty
promise.

[Bloods05]

What I'd like to see is the AFL's explanation as to why they signed a 40 year to play the GF at the MCG. Were they pressured into
it by the MCG? Did they want to silence any discussion re moving it to other stadiums, or out of Melbourne. Did they not consider
the untold damage this decision has done to the concept of a national competition? If it's all just about money why didn't they
sign a five or ten year deal, and say after that, the other cities could bid for it. This process has worked rather well with the
Superbowl and the State Of Origin. Maybe the 2017-2057 deal is just another sign that the national comp is just a hollow, empty
promise.

The AFL doesn't usually do explanations. It would probably be something like "the other states can't have everything".

[bloodspirit]

I suspect the Victorian government had a lot to do with it. They may not have any authority but they are a major stakeholder and pump a fair bit of money into the game. It's hugely beneficial for Victoria and its economy to keep the GF at the MCG. Perhaps there were additional commercial benefits that came from them.

Another thought: I would think that, in any negotiations the AFL do with the MCG, the AFL have the upper hand because the MCG arguably needs the footy more than the other way around.

[AnnieH]

One way to maybe relieve the "vic-centric" MCG problem, would be to maybe give the Melbourne city teams using the MCG as their home ground a few more "away" games - interstate, across town... anywhere but the MCG. For instance, if Melbourne are playing Collingwood, put the game on at Etihad and bring St Kilda or Norfs to the MCG for that weekend. Shake it up a bit for everyone.
Yes, I know it's a home ground... maybe they should just use it for finals?

[Blood Fever]

Unfortunately, the game was so one-sided that it's not really possible to attribute it to any favouritism that Richmond might have enjoyed. The Giants simply had no plan on how to win against the Tigers.

That said, I don't understand why the non-Victorian clubs accepted the MCG contract extension without so much as a whimper. It's not just the fact the contract was extended. It was the fact it was presented as a fait accompli, thus cutting out discussion amongst all stakeholders about whether it was in the best interests of the competition as a whole. It is possible that the commercial rewards for the extension were compelling, but discussion was needed around how those commercial benefits were to be applied and shared, and what other safeguards could be put in place to balance things out. Like guaranteeing EVERY non-MCG tenant at least five H&A games at the MCG each season, even though that would necessarily push the high-drawing MCG tenants to more games at Etihad, or at regional grounds. There would be a commercial effect of that, which should have been balanced against the commercial benefits of extending the MCG GF deal.

West Coast and Adelaide have huge clout in the competition. And while Sydney isn't as much of a financial powerhouse, its strategic position as the established club in NSW gives it some strength. The eight non-Vic clubs should at least have asked - publicly, not just privately - some searching questions of the AFL Commission about the process by which the extension was agreed to. And even some Vic clubs have expressed concerns about the arrangement and how the extension came about.

Does anyone know how the commissioners are elected / appointed? What would be required for a spill of the Commission?

Wouldn't surprise me at all if the non Vic clubs weren't consulted at all re GF extension. Big political plus for Andrews in Victoria plus money for the AFL. Big win for Dan and Gil who share the view that Melbourne and Victoria is the centre of the universe.

[KTigers]

I suspect the Victorian government had a lot to do with it. They may not have any authority but they are a major stakeholder and pump a fair bit of money into the game. It's hugely beneficial for Victoria and its economy to keep the GF at the MCG. Perhaps there were additional commercial benefits that came from them.

Sure, if you consider the Vic government is involved then they will actively work for the interests of their state, and in doing so actively against
the interests of the other states, making an even bigger lie of the so-called national comp. All the states compete against each other for major
events, so it's basically impossible for a national focus to exist when they are doing that. And put another way, if you were trying to build a
nationwide business would you only really focus on selling your product in Melbourne. Probably not.

Another thought: I would think that, in any negotiations the AFL do with the MCG, the AFL have the upper hand because the MCG arguably needs the footy more than the other way around.

Yes, in some ways you'd think so. But then AFL has always been a very half-hearted stadium operator, and that won't be lost on the MCG