Opinion VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[doppleganger]

Next you will tell me playing away at the mcg is an advantage for non Vic sides.

You mean how the VicBias moaners think a club like Melbourne playing away from home in the NT is an advantage to Melbourne!

 

[go_the_dockers]

It's not state versus state, it's an 18 team comp.

Essentially there's equalisation rules that are the only reason 6 of the non Vic clubs and 4 of the Vic clubs are competitive.

Then the 4 northern clubs are given a handicap - an intentional advantage with their academies.

The MCG granny advantages about half the Vic teams in the years they are good enough to make the granny - once every 9 years.


Let's give the WA teams a 4 goal handicap to compensate for travel?

The grand finalists coming off the shortest preseasons had to start the season a week earlier than everyone else and both started the year really badly - maybe award them with an extra win as a handicap?

Etc ...

The MCG Grand final advantages all victorian teams, it just advantages some more than others.

How many years of the Vic teams winning the 80% of premierships will it take you to admit, the Victorians teams have a massive advantage?

If they win 24 premierships in 30 years, will that be enough? If not, how many?

 

[dockshark]

The cap on football department spending.

Teams like Port, GC, GWS, Melbourne, North, StK etc cant compete with WC,Adel,Coll and Syd f it was open slather in relation to assistant coaches, wellbeing officers, recruitment, data analytics etc.

It’s only a soft cap. If WC, Adel, Coll, and Sydney are so powerful then there’s nothing stopping them from exceeding it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The cap on football department spending.

Teams like Port, GC, GWS, Melbourne, North, StK etc cant compete with WC,Adel,Coll and Syd f it was open slather in relation to assistant coaches, wellbeing officers, recruitment, data analytics etc.

Ok but having more of all that does not mean you succeed more?
You could have the bare minimum and win an AFL flag.
Not sure why these restrictions were even put in place as none of it was equating to premiership cups.

 

[2big sound]

No I won't.

At the end of this round, we'll most likely have GC, Freo, Sydney, GWS and Port in the top half and Coll, Adelaide and WCE in the bottom half - that's the result of the AFL equalisation rules, those 3 teams would dominate the comp without the equalisation rules, but a heap of fans are complaining that the competition is rigged against them ... The Northern states with the equalisation laws giving them a chance and then with their academy concessions actually giving them an advantage think the comp is rigged against them? It's wierd. Freo, who would be crushed to dust by WCE, without the equalisation rules think the comp is rigged against them?

The Northern academies do not provide any advantage. They are to overcome the lack of any elite pathways that do exist in the developed states, and therefore, help the norther teams retain players. You have evidently never heard of the "go home to mummy" syndrome. When was the last father-son recruited by the Giants or Suns?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It’s only a soft cap. If WC, Adel, Coll, and Sydney are so powerful then there’s nothing stopping them from exceeding it.

This is correct, the Eagles could spend whatever they like and just pay the tax.

 

[sr36]

You keep talking about equalisation laws and rules. Please be specific with what you are talking about.

WA could easily support to AFL teams in an unregulated environment.

I don't think I needed to spell out the draft, the salary cap and the soft cap.

Other than the MCG granny which is a legitimate complaint for non-Vic teams, Geelong and Dockland tenants (who also have a legitimate complaint concerning home finals) whats being asked for isn't equalisation - it's handicaps. And 4 of the non-Vic clubs already have a significant handicap in place with their academies.

It really should be Geelong, Dockland tenants, SA and WA teams combined complaining about the advantages that MCG tenants and Northern clubs get, rather than this strange vic vs Non-Vic.

 

[doppleganger]

Ok but having more of all that does not mean you succeed more?
You could have the bare minimum and win an AFL flag.
Not sure why these restrictions were even put in place as none of it was equating to premiership cups.

Money has historically been how teams succeeded.

And it was heading in the same direction, a football arms race where you had WC, Coll etc. spending multi millions more on the players.

There was a clear correlation between speding and winning games of football.

Despite the sooking about travel, yet to see any actual data that shows that WA teams win less games than teams like Carlton/Essendon/Collingwood who dont travel.

 

[WilloTree]

False

The Grand Final is not a home game. Irrespective of ladder positions, no team gets to "host" the GF.

The Grand Final is played at the traditional home of football, the MCG, which also happens to be the closest thing we have to a neutral venue.

An equal number of tickets are made available to the two competing clubs.

At least one-third of the GF attendance is made up of neutral scenesters who don't make much noise at all, hence the surprisingly subdued atmosphere on Grand Final day compared to every other MCG game which draws 85,000+

Of course there is a lot of support on GF day for the Vic teams in the MCC and AFL members. But there are also many so-called "neutrals" in the MCC section who throw their support behind the non-Vic teams to knock off the hated Vic rivals.

I went to the 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018 Grand Finals. Sydney, Fremantle and West Coast had a LOT of crowd support in these games. Not 50%-50%, but WAY MORE than the 95%-5% partisan crowds the Vic teams must face when they play away finals in Perth, Adelaide or Sydney.

This is terrible.

 

[dockshark]

I don't think I needed to spell out the draft, the salary cap and the soft cap.

Other than the MCG granny which is a legitimate complaint for non-Vic teams, Geelong and Dockland tenants (who also have a legitimate complaint concerning home finals) whats being asked for isn't equalisation - it's handicaps. And 4 of the non-Vic clubs already have a significant handicap in place with their academies.

It really should be Geelong, Dockland tenants, SA and WA teams combined complaining about the advantages that MCG tenants and Northern clubs get, rather than this strange vic vs Non-Vic.

Ok but you were referring to rules and laws…

The salary cap is not purely an equalisation mechanism, it’s also about ensuring sustainability of the financial models (advertising revenue and tv royalties).

The soft cap is just that, a soft cap. There is nothing stopping the richer clubs from exceeding it.

So if your whole point is around the draft, I think your argument is really breaking down.

 

[2big sound]

You mean how the VicBias moaners think a club like Melbourne playing away from home in the NT is an advantage to Melbourne!

First, it is Melbourne's choice to play in the NT, and second, it is neutral as the non-Victorian team also has to travel.

 

[WilloTree]

The cap on football department spending.

Teams like Port, GC, GWS, Melbourne, North, StK etc cant compete with WC,Adel,Coll and Syd f it was open slather in relation to assistant coaches, wellbeing officers, recruitment, data analytics etc.

I actually think this is a good idea, but we have to wait until Tas comes in.

Keep the 'expansion' teams but cut the equalization costs on WA teams.

Melbourne pays for it's teams and the broadcast right pay for GWS, Suns and Tas.

We would go back to 12 teams in a super-league within about 3 years. Love it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Money has historically been how teams succeeded.

And it was heading in the same direction, a football arms race where you had WC, Coll etc. spending multi millions more on the players.

There was a clear correlation between speding and winning games of football.

Despite the sooking about travel, yet to see any actual data that shows that WA teams win less games than teams like Carlton/Essendon/Collingwood who dont travel.

The money historically however has been spent on recruiting players. Recruiting extra assistants, extra medics etc has no history at all it will provide better on field results.

 

[sr36]

The Northern academies do not provide any advantage. They are to overcome the lack of any elite pathways that do exist in the developed states, and therefore, help the norther teams retain players. You have evidently never heard of the "go home to mummy" syndrome. When was the last father-son recruited by the Giants or Suns?

They're a handicap that does provide an advantage. Whether the size of the handicap is the right size or too big or small is unknown. But it's looking like a significant advantage with the academy advantage beginning to really kick in, and all the academy clubs looking strong and rising, including Sydney who have been up the top for 20 years and look to have avoided a fall due to their academy recruits.

 

[dockshark]

The money historically however has been spent on recruiting players. Recruiting extra assistants, extra medics etc has no history at all it will provide better on field results.

One of the outcomes of the independent review at Freo a few years back was that there was too many off field people leading to an overly complicated organisation setup and too much conflicting messages going to players.

Interestingly, JL after years at West Coast and Collingwood (by far the 2 richest and most powerful clubs) was a fan of a more simplified off field setup.

The idea that bottomless spending off field will translate to on field success seems more notional, there is no real evidence that this is the case.

 

[2big sound]

They're a handicap that does provide an advantage. Whether the size of the handicap is the right size or too big or small is unknown. But it's looking like a significant advantage with the academy advantage beginning to really kick in, and all the academy clubs looking strong and rising, including Sydney who have been up the top for 20 years and look to have avoided a fall due to their academy recruits.

How can a handicap provide an advantage???

The Giants, Suns and Swans have lost more top 20 players to "southern' teams than they have recruited through their academies. The Cats and the Dogs have recruited more father-sons than that.

Most of the academy recruits would have been playing a different code, mostly rugby league, if not for the academies, so unlike the NGA's, they have increased the draft pool for all clubs.

 

[sr36]

Ok but you were referring to rules and laws…

The salary cap is not purely an equalisation mechanism, it’s also about ensuring sustainability of the financial models (advertising revenue and tv royalties).

The soft cap is just that, a soft cap. There is nothing stopping the richer clubs from exceeding it.

So if your whole point is around the draft, I think your argument is really breaking down.

The soft cap is badly named. It's a 200% penalty for exceeding it. Exceeding it isn't sustainable.

The salary cap is indisputably an equalisation measure. Not sure how you can argue it.

 

[sr36]

How can a handicap provide and advantage???

Give me a handicap of 30 in PGA events and I'd be the number 1 ranked golfer in the world rather than a weekend hacker.

 

[sr36]

The Giants, Suns and Swans have lost more top 20 players to "southern' teams than they have recruited through their academies. The Cats and the Dogs have recruited more father-sons than that.

Sydney:

Ins through academy and poaching: Franklin, Heeney, Mills, Blakey, Gulden, Grundy

Outs: Dawson

A few other minor players either way.

 

[sprucemoooose]

To the thread topic, for me the decision to lock the GF into one venue for so long in one contract was the biggest joke. The opportunity was there, and has now been tried and tested to cycle the GF around which to me would be the most iconic step towards a truly national competition. I think it was extraordinarily short sighted and simply pandering to the elite power brokers at the MCC.

It 100% should have been done. However the previous leader of Victoria was throwing money around like a drunken lunatic and it would have been incredibly stupid for the AFL to turn down a free stadium renovation at Marvel which desperately needed some love.

 

[dockshark]

The soft cap is badly named. It's a 200% penalty for exceeding it. Exceeding it isn't sustainable.

The salary cap is indisputably an equalisation measure. Not sure how you can argue it.

What is it with Big Footy and people not reading posts they are responding to. I said it’s not purely an equalisation mechanism. It’s very clear that you haven’t actually read the policy.

 

[2big sound]

Sydney:

Ins through academy and poaching: Franklin, Heeney, Mills, Blakey, Gulden, Grundy

Outs: Dawson

A few other minor players either way.

Wow!!! That's about 0.4 of a player per year since the academies were established. How many father/sons have Geelong, Collingwood, Dogs had access to since then? And the Giants and Suns? Or are you just going to ignore them to try and prove some minor point? Remember, the Captain and Vice-captain of Collingwood in the 2001 Grand Final were Number 1 priority draft selections for Brisbane and Sydney respectively.

So when are you going to address the other disadvantages I included in the original comment, i.e. the lack of elite pathways in the Northern states. How many father/sons have the Giants and Suns selected? And yet here you are trying to make out that these clubs have some sort of advantage.

 

[2big sound]

Sydney:

Ins through academy and poaching: Franklin, Heeney, Mills, Blakey, Gulden, Grundy

Outs: Dawson

A few other minor players either way.

By the way you forgot to mention Tom Mitchell, Toby Nankervis, Gary Rohan, Dan Hannebery, Nic Newman, Darcy Cameron, Zak Jones, Aliir Aliir. All these players were in the Swans top 20 and went to clubs where most of them were selected in the starting 18 when they were fit. The majority of them have played at least 50 games for their new club(s).

 

[sr36]

Wow!!! That's about 0.4 of a player per year since the academies were established. How many father/sons have Geelong, Collingwood, Dogs had access to since then? And the Giants and Suns? Or are you just going to ignore them to try and prove some minor point? Remember, the Captain and Vice-captain of Collingwood in the 2001 Grand Final were Number 1 priority draft selections for Brisbane and Sydney respectively.

So when are you going to address the other disadvantages I included in the original comment, i.e. the lack of elite pathways in the Northern states. How many father/sons have the Giants and Suns selected? And yet here you are trying to make out that these clubs have some sort of advantage.

The guys I listed are guns. 0.4 of a gun every year is huge. Over the 15 years a list is built it's 6 guns. It's more than the difference between being at the top or bottom of the ladder.

It's too hard to compare start ups like GWS and GC with the established clubs as huge disadvantages of being a start up club and huge concessions given.

But not so difficult to compare BRiS and Sydney to the other established clubs. Same access to father sons.

The absence of elite pathways in those states is a theoretical recruiting and retention disadvantage. Has it worked out that way? I can't see any evidence for it. Most of Brisbane's top 5 are non-Qlders poached from other clubs. There was the go home 5 - Yeo was a big loss., but they don't look to me to have been losers from the coming and goings of recruits. Sydney don't either. They poached the best player in the comp and the moment his salary came off te books they were able to poach again to fill the holes in their list. Dawson looks to be the only big loss they've had during this time.

I'm not seeing how 0.4 of a gun a year, which is likely to grow is anything other than a significant advantage.

And yes I understand that the Pies wouldn't have gotten close last year without draft concession access to a handful of guns. I know how big an advantage getting this access can be. We were bloody lucky that the right sperm met the right eggs on a few separate occasions.

With the Northern states, it's not luck. It's built into the system, designed to be a significant advantage to help grow the game up there. I don't actually have any qualms with it. Except when the Northern clubs start carrying on as though they're victims of a vicbias conspiracy. The bias is towards growing the game in the rugby states.

 

[sr36]

By the way you forgot to mention Tom Mitchell, Toby Nankervis, Gary Rohan, Dan Hannebery, Nic Newman, Darcy Cameron, Zak Jones, Aliir Aliir. All these players were in the Swans top 20 and went to clubs where most of them were selected in the starting 18 when they were fit. The majority of them have played at least 50 games for their new club(s).

Yeah I didn't mention Rampe, Mumford, Sinclair, Adams,Richards etc either.


I could have mentioned your Father son selection Mitchell as a concession rather than a loss. He left for more opportunity.

Darcy Cameron? - you didn't want him - traded him for a 3 pick downgrade at the back end of the draft. He played 2 games and left when 24, but was in your top 20 ... Mama Mia

Hannebery you salary dumped at the end of a good career.

You're really getting desperate with your examples in order to portray Sydney as an unfortunate victim of geographical recruiting disadvantages... The examples just aren't there.