Finals

[0918330512]

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.

Perhaps your opinion might carry more weight if you had been to one

A smaller ground would likely mean less to tickets for people. Try squeezing a bowling ball in to a billiard ball table pocket and see how well it fits

[Doctor J.]

Perhaps your opinion might carry more weight if you had been to one

A smaller ground would likely mean less to tickets for people. Try squeezing a bowling ball in to a billiard ball table pocket and see how well it fits

Not necessarily so. This years GF there were 34,000 tickets allocated to members of competing clubs.

That leaves 66,000 tickets to go to "non aligned" people.

Of those 66,000, 25,133 went to MCC members. and 5,000 to medallion club (etihad stadium members). So individuals got tickets to the GF via membership of a non AFL club.

We also know that 4,513 tickets were issued by AFL clubs who then distributed these to sponsors, coterie groups, staff players etc.

That leave 31354 tickets available to AFL members and corporate sponsors.

Lets assume the same ticket allocation and exclude the MCC and medallion club from tickets. (why should they be included in an event that is being played away from their stadium)

If the game was at ANZ stadium, capacity 83,500

10,000 Stadium members.
34,000 Participating clubs
4,513 AFL clubs
31,354 AFL members and corporate sponsors

79,867 total tickets

With a ground capacity of 83,500 there would be an additional 3,633 tickets available to the football public.

SO in reality a smaller ground does not mean less tickets for the people, in the case of ANZ it actually means more tickets for the real fan, and less tickets for cricket club members and Medallion club members, who are mostly Corporate entities

[KTigers]

Every now and again a test match is played in Hobart, and has the sky fallen in? I'm sure the ACB loses money on it,
and a whole lot less people go and see it than if it was on pretty much anywhere else. But cricket is a national game, and
people across the country should be able to see it played at the highest level.
If for example every now and again the GF was played at ANZ then 15,000 less Victorians, MCC members and hospitality package buyers
would not be able to attend the game. Would society as we know it collapse? My guess is probably not. Look, I could be wrong.
It's possible it could be all too much and some of the Melbourne clubs would have to disband, footballs would not inflate properly,
and kids not want to have a kick in the backyard anymore.
Many other major sports across the globe have survived being played on neutral grounds. Some of them are not even the largest
capacity stadiums available. The 1991 GF was played at Waverley which holds less people than ANZ, and I gather Hawthorn still
counts that flag in their premiership tally. Or does that flag have an * next to it, because it wasn't played at the "home of footy".

[barry]

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.

Let's more Victorian fans enjoy the grand final you mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps your opinion might carry more weight if you had been to one

A smaller ground would likely mean less to tickets for people. Try squeezing a bowling ball in to a billiard ball table pocket and see how well it fits

As I pointed out, a movable grand finals allows more people to go, not less.

Sure, less Victorians, but more from all the other states

[Meg]

Paul Roos (when he was the Swans coach) once said that he thought the only real home team advantage that the travelling team couldn?t do anything about was the fact that home team players get to sleep in their own beds the night before the match and go through their normal routines in preparation.

The umpiring in the 2016 GF was poor umpiring. I too am inclined to think crowd affirmation can influence umpires - but it shouldn?t for the best umpires. Despite our past issues with Ray Chamberlain I don?t think he is swayed by the crowd noise.

And if we do believe crowd support can influence the result, then in principle that should be an argument for GFs to be held at neutral venues, not at the ground of the team that finished higher in the H&A. (If?s not going to happen, too many logistical problems with organising a GF with one week?s notice.)

[KTigers]

Looking at the stats for this year, the top 4 teams (Richmond, Adelaide, Geelong & GWS) were collectively 39-1-7 at home,
and 27-3-23 away from home. A 85% winning record at home, and a 55% winning record away from home. That is a substantial
difference, and I would think there would be more to it than just proximity to their own beds as Roos once said.
Home ground advantage is the biggest single identifiable indicator of the result of a game. And everyone knows this.
So what do the AFL do? They play the game at one team's home ground. And not even at the home ground of the team that
finished first. The team that finished third. Just brilliant.

[Nico]

....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 - - -



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

Yep.

[stevoswan]

Melbourne doesn't. My post was in response to bodgie's suggestion.

Take issue with with bodgie, not me

I agree with you then and my apologies....

[Nico]

Looking at the stats for this year, the top 4 teams (Richmond, Adelaide, Geelong & GWS) were collectively 39-1-7 at home,
and 27-3-23 away from home. A 85% winning record at home, and a 55% winning record away from home. That is a substantial
difference, and I would think there would be more to it than just proximity to their own beds as Roos once said.
Home ground advantage is the biggest single identifiable indicator of the result of a game. And everyone knows this.
So what do the AFL do? They play the game at one team's home ground. And not even at the home ground of the team that
finished first. The team that finished third. Just brilliant.

But that's because they were the better teams. The teams at the bottom likely had the opposite. Regardless you have to have a good team to finish top 4.

[stevoswan]

Yep.

Wow! You're barracking for the wrong team then.....maybe the Bulldogs are more suited to you if integrity isn't an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

But that's because they were the better teams. The teams at the bottom likely had the opposite. Regardless you have to have a good team to finish top 4.

You're argument is pathetic.....seems you're not actually a 'neutral' Victorian......I am.

[KTigers]

But that's because they were the better teams. The teams at the bottom likely had the opposite. Regardless you have to have a good team to finish top 4.

But they weren't very good away from home, only winning a slightly over half their games. If the venue is neutral then by definition
the home ground advantage factor is taken out of it. The other weird aspect of the finals is that for the first three weeks teams are rewarded
with a home ground advantage by their earlier results, but come the GF, it doesn't matter anymore.

[Nico]

Wow! You're barracking for the wrong team then.....maybe the Bulldogs are more suited to you if integrity isn't an issue.

- - - Updated - - -



You're argument is pathetic.....seems you're not actually a 'neutral' Victorian......I am.

Just stating facts mate. Nothing to do with my integrity. They have just upped the salary cap by 20%. They don't do that using fresh air.

[KTigers]

I don't think this discussion should get personal. We're all meant to be on the same team here. I just bring this stuff up because
I think the comp should be fair. And playing the most important game of the season at one team's home ground, when it is very
obvious how important the home ground advantage is in determining the winner of games, just so an extra 15,000 people who are
only there because they have a few more spare dollars than the average punter can see the game is sort of bull@@@@.

[Nico]

But they weren't very good away from home, only winning a slightly over half their games. If the venue is neutral then by definition
the home ground advantage factor is taken out of it. The other weird aspect of the finals is that for the first three weeks teams are rewarded
with a home ground advantage by their earlier results, but come the GF, it doesn't matter anymore.

KT it comes down to the $$$$. I don't disagree that GF's should be played at different venues. It is how it is for a number of years. Barry says it is not to do with TV rights but I can't see how it doesn't have a big influence on the venue. The AFL wants as many bums on seats at a GF. Imagine if the GF was in Adelaide and only a % quota was given to Adelaide members. They would pull the stand down. The corporates are always going to get a slice of the action regardless of the venue.

[Ludwig]

Swans' supporters putting premierships as the be and end all for measuring how our season went are setting themselves up for disappointment. Just accept the landscape as it is and deal with it. Of course Victorian clubs have a big advantage in the GF. I take this into account and set the bar lower for what I consider a successful season. Finishing top 4 or playing in a Prelim Final is a very good season in my book. Making the GF for us is the equivalent of winning a GF for a Victorian club. For an interstate team to win, they almost have to get lucky enough to play another interstate team.

We all wish it were different. I even posted a solution to these inequities (by reducing the competition to 12 clubs). But I can't see anything changing in the foreseeable future, so it just has to be my mindset that changes if I don't want to habitually upset about the pro-Victorian position of the league.