MCG to host 4 finals

[SWANSBEST]

Des , I know that this is a general issue but the Swans look set for final football so could you please leave this thread here . This decision could greatly affect our finals prospects.


MCG to host four finals
6:41:10 PM Tue 17 June, 2003
Paul Gough
afl.com.au
The MCG will host a minimum of one final each week of the 2003 finals series ? and not just a preliminary final and the grand final ? regardless of which teams are involved in the September action.

In a move that will likely further anger the six non-Victorian clubs, who currently occupy six of the top seven positions on the ladder, there is now a strong possibility that the MCG will host not only a preliminary final but also an elimination and a semi-final between two non-Victorian teams.



AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson revealed to afl.com.au on Tuesday that the impasse over finals scheduling with the Melbourne Cricket Club will not only affect the preliminary final but the first two weeks of the finals.

This follows talks breaking down on Monday with both sides now at an ?impasse? over where the finals should be played.

The news that a minimum of one final per week will be played at the MCG comes despite the AFL now being able to ?bank? finals in the first two weeks of the finals series.

However Jackson told afl.com.au the league was not prepared to risk playing no games at the MCG over the first two weeks of this year?s finals series ? despite the non-Victorian domination - because it would then owe the MCG extra finals in the next two seasons.

Under the new agreement with the MCC signed in 2001, the AFL has to play a minimum of six finals over the first two weeks of the final in any three year period - as well as one preliminary final and a grand final ? as opposed to one final per week at the ground as was the case previously.

But due to the current domination of the competition by the six non-Victorian clubs ? Jackson said if the league decided to play all finals away from the MCG in the first two weeks this season it could cause even further problems down the track.

?It (the stand-off with the MCC) will relate to all finals and not just the preliminary final,? Jackson said.

?We will have to play one (final) per week (at the MCG) this year because we haven?t got anything in the bank to off-set it again next year.?

That is because the AFL only played the minimum number of four finals at the MCG last year in the first year of the new agreement.

That means the AFL has no room to stage extra finals away from the ground this season.

?If we went into overdraft (having to owe the MCG extra finals) it would put incredible pressure on us next year,? Jackson said.

?We could go into the negative if we wanted to take the risk but then if the same situation happened again next year (with non-Victorian sides again dominating), you are in a worse situation.?

Jackson said the AFL would not be able to reward all non-Victorian clubs with home finals ? if the MCC refused to back down - until it had a year where extra finals were played at the MCG in a previous season.

Such was the case in 1995 when all nine finals were played in Melbourne due to the dominance of Victorian clubs.

This means that if the six non-Victorian clubs finished in the top six places at the end of round 22 this year ? they currently hold six of the top seven spots ? then a non-Victorian club would have to host a Victorian club in an elimination final in week one of the finals at the MCG.

This would most likely be the clash between the sixth and seventh placed sides as teams one, two and five would have home state advantage for their finals against teams four, three and eight respectively.

And providing the six non-Victorian teams kept winning their finals it would mean the MCG would not only stage a preliminary final between two non-Victorian clubs but also a semi-final the previous week.

Based on the current ladder ? the Kangaroos, who are sixth, would be the only Victorian side that would earn a home final at the MCG by having finished higher on the ladder and that would be for the first week of the finals only.

Therefore the remainder of the three finals the AFL plans to play at the MCG would either be between two non-Victorian clubs or with a non-Victorian club hosting a Victorian club despite having finished higher on the ladder.

While the MCG has never staged a final between two non-Victorian clubs, on three previous occasions a non-Victorian club has been forced to host a final against a Victorian club at the MCG despite finishing higher on the ladder.

And on the first two occasions this resulted in West Coast copping hidings in knockout semi-finals from Essendon in 1996 and Carlton in 1999 while last year Adelaide beat Melbourne in a semi-final.

Jackson said he was bitterly disappointed the MCC again refused to give ground during Monday?s negotiations.

?We have reached an impasse,? he said. ?It?s very, very disappointing they won?t recognize the position or give any relief to the position we?ve got.?

?I don?t understand why they won?t do it, they are not going to be worse off financially because we said we will protect their position financially.?

?We have said to them ?just do what?s fair but they say ?no, they won?t? so we are at an impasse.?

MCC general manager Stephen Gough has consistently said the MCC will not budge, saying his organisation had already given the AFL to right to shift finals from the ground in the first two weeks of the finals.

But Gough told afl.com.au recently that if the MCC also allowed the preliminary final to be moved away from the MCG ? membership and as a result long-term revenue for the MCC would fall threatening its ability to finance the ground?s re-development which could in turn results in admission costs rising for all AFL matches.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=99804

[j s]

Sounds to me like they would like to show the MCG Trust just how poorly attended an all non-vic final would be.

We'll just have to make sure we finish in an "odd-numbered" position (1st, 3rd or 5th) although playing WC at the G (if it comes to that) would be better than playing them at Subi.

[Steve]

The MCC signed off on the agreement to help retain the 'attractiveness' of an MCC ticket to its members.

The AFL signed off on the agreement assuming they'd be able to get it changed anyway when push came to shove.

Obviously the AFL and the MCC don't agree on what "protect their position financially" entails - 30 years worth equates to a hell of a lot of 'protecting'.

Seemingly all the AFL have offered is some cash and a few more H&A games each year.

If they want to renege on an air-tight agreement they'll have to cough up a bit more.

[robbieando]

The AFL-MCC Contract is now in its 11th year. I say its too late to start complaining about it. To say its unfair is crap. You know about it at the start of each finals series, you must move on.

[SWANSBEST]

Advantages in finishing 4th.




Another finals anomaly
12:58:19 PM Wed 18 June, 2003
Paul Gough
afl.com.au
Question: When is finishing fourth on the ladder better than finishing third?

Answer: When the AFL and the MCC fail to come to terms over finals scheduling ensuring that one preliminary final will be played at the MCG in 2003 regardless of which teams are involved.



After reaching an ?impasse? in its bid to get the MCC to back down on its contracted right to stage at least one preliminary final per season ? regardless of the fact non-Victorian teams are dominating the competition - the AFL revealed to afl.com.au on Tuesday that at least one final per week will be played at the ground this season.

And while that announcement will also advantage and disadvantage some clubs in the bottom half of the eight in the first two weeks of the finals ? it is the fact that one preliminary final will be staying at the MCG that will have the most impact on ladder positions come the end of round 22.

Effectively what it means is that it is better to finish fourth than to finish third on the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season.

While it sounds strange a close look at how the finals system works and where finals will be played as a result of the AFL/MCC finals agreement reveals just how much more of an advantage the fourth-placed side will enjoy over the third-placed side come September.

Consider this scenario based on the current top four sides as the competition heads into the mid-season break with just 10 rounds left.

At present Port Adelaide is top with West Coast in second, the Brisbane Lions in third and Sydney in fourth ? all non-Victorian clubs whose respective home grounds of AAMI Stadium, Subiaco, the Gabba and the SCG would provide an enormous advantage come finals time where the home state side nearly always prevails.

And if you don?t believe that then consider that in 66 finals played between teams from two different states since the first such final between Melbourne and West Coast in 1988 ? the home state side has won on 45 occasions, a ratio of 68 per cent.

But since the end of 1993 when the ledger stood at eight wins apiece (plus the Collingwood-West Coast draw in 1990) ? the home state side has prevailed in 37 of the past 49 finals, a ratio of 75 per cent or three in every four finals.

And of these 12 wins by the visiting side in finals in the past nine years ? five of them or nearly half have come in the grand final when the home state advantage is virtually non-existent due to the vastly different make-up of the crowd.

In fact the atmosphere on such occasions is very similar to how it would be at the MCG for a ?neutral? preliminary final between two non-Victorian sides which is why it will be so much better to finish fourth on the ladder than third this season.

Consider this scenario based on the current top four sides.

In the first week of the finals ? when the top four sides have the double chance and the stakes are nowhere near as high as preliminary final week ? fourth-placed Sydney would play its qualifying final at AAMI Stadium against top-placed Port Adelaide while third-placed Brisbane would journey to Subiaco to play the second-placed West Coast Eagles.

Now presuming the top two sides win that would mean that for the preliminary final weekend the top-placed Power would again have home advantage at AAMI Stadium but the second-placed Eagles would have to play their preliminary final at the MCG to satisfy the AFL/MCC finals agreement.

But who would their opponents be?

Now presuming both Brisbane and Sydney rebounded to win their semi-finals this is where the benefit of finishing fourth as opposed to third kicks in because for the preliminary final week ? where there is no second chance ? they would go onto opposite sides of the draw.

That would mean the third-placed Lions would face the cauldron of AAMI Stadium against Port Adelaide while the fourth-placed Swans would suddenly find themselves playing West Coast at a neutral venue at the MCG and given their support in Melbourne would have far more of the crowd behind them.

Which path looks easier - playing a team in front of its own fans on home state soil or playing on neutral soil at the MCG?

So as long as the top two sides remain from outside Victoria ? which almost will certainly happen given the quality of Port, Brisbane and West Coast in particular, there is little doubt that fourth place will be better than third come the start of September given the current finals system.

[Damien]

Originally posted by robbieando
The AFL-MCC Contract is now in its 11th year. I say its too late to start complaining about it. To say its unfair is crap. You know about it at the start of each finals series, you must move on.

It is unfair - very unfair!

The governing body of a national competition should not lock the competition into one city for such a long period of time. For all the great things the AFL have done in comparison to other codes this has to be the silliest. You can't talk about having a 2nd team in Sydney or QLD, or moving teams to Canberra, Tas etc if you are going restrict that team from providing to new fans what is possibly the best advert for the game - a final.

I find it funny that the AFL allows these type of agreements - like who the hell else would use the MCG during the winter? Fine, promise 2 H&A games a weekend or whatever, but to promise finals for 40 years when your competition is meant to be national is ridiculous.

(BTW - I believe the MCG is the best place for the GF, and there is no competition in the country stadium wise.)

[Xie Shan]

Now presuming both Brisbane and Sydney rebounded to win their semi-finals this is where the benefit of finishing fourth as opposed to third kicks in because for the preliminary final week ? where there is no second chance ? they would go onto opposite sides of the draw.

I think the only problem with this is, if the top 8 stayed as is, with Freo (5) hosting Collingwood (8), if Coll managed to pull off an upset like they did against Port last year, we'd have to 'host' their rabid army at the MCG

then all the RWOers could go on to all the Collingwood message boards complaining..

unfair finals system blah blah blah no level playing field blah blah blah .....etc

(as in this thread: URL=http://65.108.81.213/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1577]It's not fair[/URL])

Of course, it would make beating them so much sweeter!

[robbieando]

Whats the big deal, a contracts a contract and it was signed before Adelaide joined the comp and ditto with Port and Freo. The contract was a major part of being able to get finance so the AFL could pay for its share of the cost of the Great Southern Stand.

The way the clubs go on is one minded and dumb. You don't hear people complaining about the NRL's Finals policy where the Finals from week 2 on a set in stone and won't change no matter who is playing. These finals are set at 2 grounds in Sydney. This has led to a Broncos vs Storm final being played in Sydney.

Get over it its only one game per week and in few years time with the banking of games means it won't be important.

[Damien]

Originally posted by robbieando
Whats the big deal, a contracts a contract and it was signed before Adelaide joined the comp and ditto with Port and Freo. The contract was a major part of being able to get finance so the AFL could pay for its share of the cost of the Great Southern Stand.

The way the clubs go on is one minded and dumb. You don't hear people complaining about the NRL's Finals policy where the Finals from week 2 on a set in stone and won't change no matter who is playing. These finals are set at 2 grounds in Sydney. This has led to a Broncos vs Storm final being played in Sydney.

Get over it its only one game per week and in few years time with the banking of games means it won't be important.

Oh you do hear it (and there were big time noises from QLD regarding that storm match), but let's face it, when a code thinks 15,000 is a good crowd, most are watching it on tele anyway, so if you played it in Perth, it doesn't make a difference to most RL fans.

The NRL runs on a neutral home ground policy from week 2, which they can easily do considering no team plays roster matches at Telstra Stadium and only the Roosters and Souths can gain any advantage from playing at Aussie Stadium.

In the AFL, all teams including Geelong get regular appearances at the MCG and Colonial, therefore shifting a 'home' balance back to those teams.

Also, one thing that the RL can do that AFL can't do for 40 years is actually change their minds!!! They can do anything they want to do because they don't have any silly contracts.

The fact the AFL had to contribute to all the work being undertaken is stupid also - it is pathetic that successive Vicotrian governments aren't footing the bill. It is Victorians who get the praise and benefits for having such a great stadium, the AFL is merely a tennant, who by staging any even there adds to their coffers, and who the MCG, without, could not survive.

They should have made bloody Colonial seat 100,000 really took the G on!! (Joking).

[jixygirl]

I wonder if when the AFL signed the stupid contract that they realised Aussie Rules is a national game???????? You would have thought that one person would realise. Oh well, now the AFL is in a massive load of problems which will still be around for quite a while.

[Craig]

The current system is bloody unfair. It's the AFL, not the VFL. If a team earns a spot to play a home final then that's what they should get.

[robbieando]

So why wait 13 years to start complaining about it???? The clubs knew and agreed to the contract, so to complain about it now is wrong, why not 13 years ago.

[Damien]

Originally posted by robbieando
So why wait 13 years to start complaining about it???? The clubs knew and agreed to the contract, so to complain about it now is wrong, why not 13 years ago.

I am not pretending to be an expert (of anything lol) but do the clubs decide or the commission? and even if they did, woudn't 10 votes from Vic clubs give the majority anyway?

[robbieando]

As far as I know the positions on the AFL commission are voted on by the clubs and in turn the commission picks who runs the show ie Wayne Jackson's replacement.

The thing is the deal WAS fair 13 years ago, so to expect so long down the line to finally decide that its now unfair because the interstate clubs are going to be effected on mass is a bit rich. A deal's a deal no matter how unfair the deal is. I'm not say it is but, the MCC is the premier ground in the AFL and ANY ground management would do the same if it was in this position.

Also knowing Contract Law, the MCC are well within their rights to force the AFL to honor the agreement.

[Craig]

My concern is not with the MCC, it is with the AFL.

The reason this hasn't been debated before is that a lot of people weren't aware of the original clause. Add the fact that there were two less interstate teams then, which made it less likely that a problem was going to occur.