Should we forget home finals and move on?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • jixygirl
    On the Rookie List
    • Jun 2003
    • 432

    #31
    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.
    Sydney Swans Premiers 2005 - The Mighty Bloods

    Comment

    • Jon
      On the Rookie List
      • Mar 2003
      • 162

      #32
      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.

      Last edited by Jon; 19 June 2003, 06:42 PM.
      Time to march for the Red and White

      Comment

      • barry
        Veterans List
        • Jan 2003
        • 8499

        #33
        "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.

        Comment

        • Jon
          On the Rookie List
          • Mar 2003
          • 162

          #34
          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?
          Time to march for the Red and White

          Comment

          Working...