North want to play 2 home games in WA next season

[Strapping Young Lad]

An actual rumor from someone I trust.

North will be playing 2 home games in WA next year.
1 at Optus, and another location tbc. Still hosting 2 in Hobart.

 

[cybercrab]

A actual rumor from someone I trust.

North will be playing 2 home games in WA next year.
1 at Optus, and another location tbc. Still hosting 2 in Hobart.

Would the other game be at a WAFL ground in Perth or regional victoria

 

[blueboy25]

A actual rumor from someone I trust.

North will be playing 2 home games in WA next year.
1 at Optus, and another location tbc. Still hosting 2 in Hobart.

Interesting.....if the second game is at a WAFL ground it would be interesting to see how it would work and how they would make it worthwhile.

Most you would get in to a WAFL ground these days would be 10k and I can't see Tourism WA offering any incentives to bring a extra game in.

 

[RightWingRoo]

A actual rumor from someone I trust.

North will be playing 2 home games in WA next year.
1 at Optus, and another location tbc. Still hosting 2 in Hobart.

Have heard Bunbury

 

[Billy ray]

A actual rumor from someone I trust.

North will be playing 2 home games in WA next year.
1 at Optus, and another location tbc. Still hosting 2 in Hobart.

against the eagles or dockers or a neutral game say against the saints or soemthing?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

A actual rumor from someone I trust.

North will be playing 2 home games in WA next year.
1 at Optus, and another location tbc. Still hosting 2 in Hobart.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I remember they tried this years ago but the AFL blocked it, saying you can’t sell your home games to a location that already has an AFL team.

Could the AFL have changed their tune in the hunt for money?

Would seem a bit of a dangerous precedent where rich clubs could buy home games.

 

[bomberclifford]

Didn’t they try to do this once before?

 

[NetworkNerd]

WA and SA teams now get 11 home games against interstate teams

#VICBIAS

 

[The_Reaper]

I remember they tried this years ago but the AFL blocked it, saying you can’t sell your home games to a location that already has an AFL team.

Could the AFL have changed their tune in the hunt for money?

Would seem a bit of a dangerous precedent where rich clubs could buy home games.

Functionally, in terms of fairness, how is it any different to Geelong hosting the big Melbourne clubs at the MCG?

Precedent is already set

 

[stallon]

Functionally, in terms of fairness, how is it any different to Geelong hosting the big Melbourne clubs at the MCG?

Precedent is already set

Only difference is North actually want it

 

[Billy ray]

AFL wont allow it v eagles or v dockers.
But will allow it v saints or hawks

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Why though, would there be any demand?

 

[Underarm]

Functionally, in terms of fairness, how is it any different to Geelong hosting the big Melbourne clubs at the MCG?

Precedent is already set

Would you describe a Geelong v West coast final at the G a neutral game?

 

[Canberra Pear]

Two games a year could set them up pretty nicely after Tasmania.

Then it reduces the travel burden for West Coast and Freo, increases footy content in Perth, and pretty much negates any need for a third Perth team.

 

[NetworkNerd]

Two games a year could set them up pretty nicely after Tasmania.

Then it reduces the travel burden for West Coast and Freo, increases footy content in Perth, and pretty much negates any need for a third Perth team.

Poor north. They would be starting on -8 premiership points almost every year

 

[Canberra Pear]

Poor north. They would be starting on -8 premiership points almost every year

They've got a 44% win rate at Optus. Pretty sure that'd better than their regular win-loss rate since then.

 

[Sentinel]

I know North need a solution to solve the Tasmania loss but if this gets approved (with Freo or WC the opponent) we'd now have 3 sides effectively getting 12 home games per year compared to the rest of the competition's 11, alongside Gather Round. There are plenty of inequalities in the AFL, including Grand Final day, but surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones. It stinks.

 

[boncer34]

I know North need a solution to solve the Tasmania loss but if this gets approved we'd now have 3 sides effectively getting 12 home games per year compared to the rest of the competition's 11 (alongside Gather Round). There are plenty of inequalities in the AFL, including Grand Final day, but surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones. It stinks.

Who's the 3rd?

 

[Sentinel]

Who's the 3rd?

Adelaide, Port, and whoever of Freo/WCE play 'away' to North in Perth.

 

[boncer34]

Adelaide, Port, and whoever of Freo/WCE play 'away' to North in Perth.

Yeah of course. For some reason I was thinking West Coast and Freo but they wouldn't sell 2.

 

[amazingjoshy]

I know North need a solution to solve the Tasmania loss but if this gets approved (with Freo or WC the opponent) we'd now have 3 sides effectively getting 12 home games per year compared to the rest of the competition's 11, alongside Gather Round. There are plenty of inequalities in the AFL, including Grand Final day, but surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones. It stinks.

Serious question, how is it really different from Geelong or a Marvel tennant playing their "home" games against the Pies/Tigers at the G?

Could argue reducing the travel burden for the WA teams is reducing one of the inequalities

 

[jdeezy]

I know North need a solution to solve the Tasmania loss but if this gets approved (with Freo or WC the opponent) we'd now have 3 sides effectively getting 12 home games per year compared to the rest of the competition's 11, alongside Gather Round. There are plenty of inequalities in the AFL, including Grand Final day, but surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones. It stinks.

If they lock in this and Gather Round until at least 2059 then yeah maybe we should address it

 

[Sentinel]

Serious question, how is it really different from Geelong or a Marvel tennant playing their "home" games against the Pies/Tigers at the G?

Could argue reducing the travel burden for the WA teams is reducing one of the inequalities

It's not that different, although I'd consider Geelong at least as an MCG tenant given how often they play there so those games are more neutral than anything (as opposed to St Kilda playing a home game there the last couple of years). I'm also against that, as I am when Collingwood for some reason played a home game against my own side at Marvel this year. Travel is certainly more of a burden for the WA sides, no argument there, but even then you've got 1 side receiving this advantage and not the other.

If they lock in this and Gather Round until at least 2059 then yeah maybe we should address it

Read my post genius.

 

[jdeezy]

Read my post genius.

Inequalities in the competition have existed since it became a National comp, but the teams that have been benefiting from it since say 1 have only started to complain about any sort of "unfairness" now that other teams are getting some small benefits.

A Perth team getting to travel a bit less is nowhere near the biggest issue with the competition