Finals

[Swansongster]

I'm sorry. I really don't get the argument that the GF shouldn't be at MCG. Always has been always should be. 09183305 nailed it. Ain't going to happen.

And i don't think it is an integrity issue for the AFL. There are plenty of issues that are questionable but IMHO the location of the GF is not one of them.

All the teams that lost this year (and in days of yore) where their earned home ground advantage was reversed, didn't turn up and play their best footy on the day. There are plenty of times when those same teams ventured into hostile interstate territory (and did turn up) and won convincingly.

Any disadvantage of home town support (even from influenced umpires) can be overcome if you are good enough and play your best footy.

Winning at footy is a balance between skills, fitness strategy and execution. The ground it is played is not a major factor in any of those.

I have no problem with the Grand Final and other big games always being at the G. It is the home of football.

[Nico]

I'm sorry. I really don't get the argument that the GF shouldn't be at MCG. Always has been always should be. 09183305 nailed it. Ain't going to happen.

And i don't think it is an integrity issue for the AFL. There are plenty of issues that are questionable but IMHO the location of the GF is not one of them.

All the teams that lost this year (and in days of yore) where their earned home ground advantage was reversed, didn't turn up and play their best footy on the day. There are plenty of times when those same teams ventured into hostile interstate territory (and did turn up) and won convincingly.

Any disadvantage of home town support (even from influenced umpires) can be overcome if you are good enough and play your best footy.

Winning at footy is a balance between skills, fitness strategy and execution. The ground it is played is not a major factor in any of those.

I have no problem with the Grand Final and other big games always being at the G. It is the home of football.

Also the AFL makes a lot of money from the GF and the competing clubs get paid well. There is also the TV rights to consider. Channel 7 wants it at the MCG to maximise their exposure, and it is televised world wide so the AFL want to showcase themselves. Every club wins in the financial stakes at the MCG GF.

[barry]

The MCG has no impact on TV rights value.

[Plugger1300]

Well I'm a Victorian too and while you make some valid points re: Vics not supporting certain Vic teams, in regard to paranoia, I totally disagree. I think we have all seen enough repeated evidence, basically since we recruited Buddy, that the Melbourne Boys club is alive and well in keeping the heartland at the forefront of 'it's' league......and therein lies the problem. Too many footy powerbrokers, most who are Victorian born and Melbourne based, still see this league as somehow Victorian and treat interstate teams almost as if they should be happy just to be involved in 'their' league. Gil's not going to change anything so it would be nice for the interstate clubs to show some balls and stand up to them....but they're probably 'constitutionally' hamstrung by the laws drawn up by......the Melbourne Boys club (!) and of course, an iron clad contractual protection of 'heartland' home state advantage on Grand Final day.......

I agree that the Vic powerbrokers wield too much power and have a vic bias. I was more referring to the comment that there is a vic bias "wave of emotion" towards the GF from the greater public.
That just isn't something that i have seen.
Don't get me wrong i strongly believe that Eddie and his pals have hamstrung our club for the past 10yrs. The trading ban is the chief example of this

[barry]

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.

[stevoswan]

It's all well & good to say build at third stadium in Melbourne that's neutral but at what cost?

You have to have the land and if you are talking a stadium that holds 100k that's a big piece of land. Perth Stadium is costing between $1-1.5b to build and it holds only 60k. How can you justify building another Melbourne stadium that is filled to capacity once a year? And it it has to be tenanted by someone, who will have a home ground advantage. And who would pay for the
construction?

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'.

[top40]

I'm sorry. I really don't get the argument that the GF shouldn't be at MCG. Always has been always should be. 09183305 nailed it. Ain't going to happen.

And i don't think it is an integrity issue for the AFL. There are plenty of issues that are questionable but IMHO the location of the GF is not one of them.

All the teams that lost this year (and in days of yore) where their earned home ground advantage was reversed, didn't turn up and play their best footy on the day. There are plenty of times when those same teams ventured into hostile interstate territory (and did turn up) and won convincingly.

Any disadvantage of home town support (even from influenced umpires) can be overcome if you are good enough and play your best footy.

Winning at footy is a balance between skills, fitness strategy and execution. The ground it is played is not a major factor in any of those.

I have no problem with the Grand Final and other big games always being at the G. It is the home of football.

Respectfully I disagree about your comments about the influence of umpires. The 2016 Grand Final performance by the field umpires made me ashamed to follow the game. Their was a seemingly determination to ensure that the Bulldogs fairy tale occur.

I should add to this the Tribunal decision in 2005 to let Barry Hall to play in the Grand Final, (showing I am trying to be objective here, this was OUR fairy tale then); as well as this year's MRP's decision to allow Trent Cotchin to play.

The Code's questionable integrity is very disappointing.

[stevoswan]

I'm sorry. I really don't get the argument that the GF shouldn't be at MCG. Always has been always should be. 09183305 nailed it. Ain't going to happen.

And i don't think it is an integrity issue for the AFL. There are plenty of issues that are questionable but IMHO the location of the GF is not one of them.

All the teams that lost this year (and in days of yore) where their earned home ground advantage was reversed, didn't turn up and play their best footy on the day. There are plenty of times when those same teams ventured into hostile interstate territory (and did turn up) and won convincingly.

Any disadvantage of home town support (even from influenced umpires) can be overcome if you are good enough and play your best footy.

Winning at footy is a balance between skills, fitness strategy and execution. The ground it is played is not a major factor in any of those.

I have no problem with the Grand Final and other big games always being at the G. It is the home of football.

....and your a Victorian who seems to be confused about where your allegiance lies. Not all Victorians are so parochial, me being one. The MCG is the excuse for maintaining Victorian advantage. Can't believe that you can't see this. Your claim that "the ground it is played (at) is not a major factor" is pure fantasy as this very point is what makes umpires see things that no one else sees and if you truly believe last years GF backs up your point that "any disadvantage of home town support (even from influenced umpires) can be overcome if you are good enough and play your best footy" then you are truly deluded.

- - - Updated - - -

Also the AFL makes a lot of money from the GF and the competing clubs get paid well. There is also the TV rights to consider. Channel 7 wants it at the MCG to maximise their exposure, and it is televised world wide so the AFL want to showcase themselves. Every club wins in the financial stakes at the MCG GF.

So, by your reckoning, money is all that matters, not the integrity of the result.....sheese!!!

[KTigers]

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

[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.