Dogs' "home game" to stay?

[timthefish]

Originally posted by BayseysLeftBoot
The AFL shouldn't allow teams to play their home games at opposition venues, It's completely unfair. The draw is allready uneven enough.

the great inequity of the competition is the amount of money clubs are able to earn via merchandising, ticket sales and sponsorship. i think these decisions should be left up to the struggling clubs in an open forum under the scrutiny of the afl who's responsibility is to see that these teams are being bullied into these decisions one way or another.

additionally, if the doggies want to build up a bit more of a supporter base in sydney in anticipation of a plausible move to be the second sydney team (western bulldogs) in the future then good luck to them.

i bet rocket wishes they wouldn't do it though.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
I was thinking asthma! You, no doubt, had your mind somewhere in the Ponds institute with the Ponds Cold Cream and other essential oils.

But as much as I laughed - I bet we better go back to footy discussion or this thread will go to that great unravelling place known only to moderators.

Over at BigFooty you just have to post that the Swans are great and the other teams can't/won't/don't want to win finals and that keeps the gang happy for hours of diatribes.

Or you could start a poll on which player has the worse asthma - that would amuse and stretch their brains for days!

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Or you could start a poll on which player has the worse asthma - that would amuse and stretch their brains for days!

No - too complex, they'd probably think you meant eczema. Rather: "who is the stupidest player in your team?"

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
No - too complex, they'd probably think you meant eczema.

Never understood how people confuse those two.

Rather: "who is the stupidest player in your team?"

Or who has the biggest hands! Oops - they've already done that one!!

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by Matt79
If you were a Bulldogs supporter I would agree with your sentiments, however being a Swannies fan, I'll take any extra advantage we can, including an extra game on our home turg the SCG.

In any case, it's the Bulldogs decision, they are not forced to play up here.

lucky that spelling mistake was a g and not a d

[monopoly19]

One thing I've never quite understood about this debate that pops up every few months - if the Bulldogs decided not to sell their game and play it in Melbourne, does that necessarily mean we get another game in Melbourne? I wouldn't have thought so.

[Sanecow]

Looking forward to the draw next year where there is no Bulldogs home game against Sydney.

[Bear]

Originally posted by monopoly19
One thing I've never quite understood about this debate that pops up every few months - if the Bulldogs decided not to sell their game and play it in Melbourne, does that necessarily mean we get another game in Melbourne? I wouldn't have thought so.

Not necessarily but likely. Certainly the chances would increase that we would get our club's request of a minimum of 6 games in metro Melbourne.

[DST]

Originally posted by monopoly19
One thing I've never quite understood about this debate that pops up every few months - if the Bulldogs decided not to sell their game and play it in Melbourne, does that necessarily mean we get another game in Melbourne? I wouldn't have thought so.

Probably 99% certain we would get the extra game back in Melbourne. It is very rare a team has to travel to both Adelaide & Perth four times in a year.

The AFL seem keen for us to build a rivalry with Brisbane so we will play in two games a year against the Lions, meaning we have 1 in Bribane, 1 in Canberra against the Roos is locked in, 3 shared in Perth & Adelaide with it interchanging every second year (ie 2 in Perth, 1 in Adelaide and then 2 in Adealiade and 1 in Perth).

This gives us the 6 games in Melbourne a year.

Not too sure that the Dogs are as keen to go ahead with the Sydney game next year. I reckon they are using the game as leverge at present to squeeze the NT Governement for as much cash as they can get. The Swans are keen to retain it, but the noise may only be us trying to put off the NT Goverment and sway the Dogs.

If the game does go ahead, it makes it very hard for the AFL to grant our 6 game request for Melbourne. The only way is for us to drop one of the Perth/Adelaide games and only play 1 a year in each state which affects the rest of the AFL's scheduling as teams such Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond are played in Victoria more often to boost crowds. This is even more crucial since the AFL now needs to meet the minimum crowd and game numbers at the G for the Preliminary Final contract.

DST

[barry]

With "home" games in Brisbane and Sydney, it means no team travels more than 10 times a year.

It gives us a slight edge over WC and Freo (who also travel 10 times), but still a long way behind the vic teams who travel 4 or 5 times.

[hammo]

If we lose the Dogs game, Swans will be playing the least number of matches in its home city (11).

All other clubs will play at least 12.

Not an idea scenario for a 'developing' market such as Sydney.

I wonder what the AFL's view on this is and how involved they are in negotiations with the Dogs??

[Wil]

To call the AFL a rabble is an insult to rabbles everywhere.

The idea of having a team play a home game at an oppositions home ground is too laughable to be taken seriously. So is the idea of having nine suburban teams in a national competition sharing two grounds.

Either kick out some of those Melbourne teams (or worse - move them) and set teams up in West Sydney, Canberra, South East Qld and perhaps NT/Tasmania. Either make the jump or at least stop playing around with yourselves.

[Mark]

Excellent news if it happens, interested to see we are increasing our offer. Makes a complete mockery of those who claimed we lost money on the game.

Long may it continue