Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[Carringbush2010]

Because it would itherwise mean staying in a secondary league rather than being in the big league. And after decades of being top dogs in what was the big league (VFL), they wouldn't take the risk of no longer being in it, which is obviously what the national comp would become. Furthermore by not jumping they would have opened the door for another VFL club to usurp them.
Believe me, if a national comp was created as it should have been at it was clear there would be, say, five licences for Vic clubs the established clubs would have been crawling over each other to be one of the five

Well that's what we have now, an expanded vfl rebranded as a national one. No need to rejig, the league just added franchises from WA, QLD and SA, and a relocated South Melbourne.

No need to trip over themselves to claim a spot, those clubs are the league now, with added clubs from other states.

The established clubs were never not going to be part of it, coz HQ knew that's where the public interest was / is = $

 

[The Feeder Club]

Well that's what we have now

You're arguing against yourself. A few pages back you said a national comp should have 4-6 Vic teams. That's on the money, 100% correct, I couldn't agree more.
The only argument you have left now, to protect your dewy eyed romanticism of VFL history, is you think those 4-6 should have been franchise new teams created from nothing, rather than established VFL clubs defecting to that national league . But that is not what would have happened, IMO what would have happened is hard heads in those clubs would have applied to join the national league and left the VFL behind

 

[Carringbush2010]

You're arguing against yourself. A few pages back you said a national comp should have 4-6 Vic teams.

I said that to have a truly national comp, I've also clearly stated it wouldn't have worked and it wouldn't work now.

So, no, not arguing against myself.

The only argument you have left now, to protect your dewy eyed romanticism of VFL history, is you think those 4-6 should have been franchise new teams created from nothing,

See above.

But that is not what would have happened, IMO what would have happened is hard heads in those clubs would have applied to join the national league and left the VFL behind

What happened was the vfl expanded and rebranded itself as national, which it isn't.

So effectively you've got what you've proposed, traditional vfl clubs in the national league. The difference being the vfl clubs didn't join, other new clubs and franchises joined the vfl (1987) and the league then later rebranded itself as the afl (1990).

The reason I said a truly national comp with franchise vic clubs is because the vic fans won't / wouldn't have got behind it. To show its imminent failure before it began, which if I am correct, the thought was not even entertained.

You'd end up with the vfl as the most attended, participated, the biggest league and the national league as the bridesmaid.

That's why we've got what we've got.

 

[The_Wookie]

I said that to have a truly national comp, I've also clearly stated it wouldn't have worked and it wouldn't work now.

So, no, not arguing against myself.

See above.

What happened was the vfl expanded and rebranded itself as national, which it isn't.

So effectively you've got what you've proposed, traditional vfl clubs in the national league. The difference being the vfl clubs didn't join, other new clubs and franchises joined the vfl (1987) and the league then later rebranded itself as the afl (1990).

The reason I said a truly national comp with franchise vic clubs is because the vic fans won't / wouldn't have got behind it. To show its imminent failure before it began, which if I am correct, the thought was not even entertained.

You'd end up with the vfl as the most attended, participated, the biggest league and the national league as the bridesmaid.

That's why we've got what we've got.

There was at least one alternative plan

• 1985, November 7. The NFL releases its own play for a national compeition, with a 12 team structure featuring 9 teams from Melbourne and one each from Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. It also proposed an independent form of administration rather than the VFL’s Melbourne centrered power base”. The WAFL supports the NFL option, going so far as to send its CEO to talk to Macquarie Bank in Sydney about getting $100 million to float a competition, with six Melbourne clubs saying they’d break away. (Behind the Play pg 198)

Towards a National Competition – Timeline of VFL/AFL Expansion - SportsIndustryAU

Sources used:

footyindustry.com

but in essence what you wrote is correct, the Vic clubs and the VFL were in lock step and no national competition was going to go ahead with the VFL undermining it at every opportunity. The WAFC had zero resources, and even the SANFL was heavily reliant on revenues from Origin to make money.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Yeah of course, if a national competition and the old VFL minus a few big teams that had joined that national competition were running in parallel, sponsors, the national broadcasters and punters would still flock to prioritisr the old VFL. Elite players would prefer to play in the suburbs than on the national stage. Makes sense

 

[sr36]

You're arguing against yourself. A few pages back you said a national comp should have 4-6 Vic teams. That's on the money, 100% correct, I couldn't agree more.
The only argument you have left now, to protect your dewy eyed romanticism of VFL history, is you think those 4-6 should have been franchise new teams created from nothing, rather than established VFL clubs defecting to that national league . But that is not what would have happened, IMO what would have happened is hard heads in those clubs would have applied to join the national league and left the VFL behind

The biggest ones would be too big. The Vic market is 5 times the SA one and a lot more than 5 times SA and NSW. The 20th club really should come from WA to balance things out in terms of the southern AFL market.

Personally, I just think Non-Vic fans have to realise that it's a club competition - it's not a state based competition. Fair enough to whinge about the MCG grand final advantage, but it is the best venue for the GF. ANd frankly, I think WA and SA fans are going to look pretty silly over the next decade or two for their Vicbias carry on. They're completely missing what's going on. The AFL is trying to grow in the rugby states - pretty clear that the Northern clubs are getting the big leg up at the moment in terms of actual football and are set for a dominant decade or two.

	CLUB	TOTAL
1	Collingwood*	110,628
2	Carlton*	106,345
3	West Coast	103,498
4	Richmond	98,489
5	Geelong*	90,798
6	Hawthorn*	83,823
7	Essendon	83,664
8	Adelaide*	75,477
9	Sydney*	73,757
10	Port Adelaide*	66,015
11	Melbourne	65,479
12	Brisbane*	63,268
13	Western Bulldogs*	62,328
14	Fremantle*	62,237
15	St Kilda*	60,467
16	North Melbourne	50,628
17	GWS*	36,629
18	Gold Coast*	26,157

 

[Gavin Excell]

The problem HQ have with clubs relocating, merging, moving to other leagues, or dying off completely is they don't wanna lose fans.

North for example have 50k members, who knows how many paying fans they have on top of that, and that's just one of the smaller vic clubs. Hence why HQ prop up or redistribute funds to them (and all clubs).

If you remove 3 or 4 small vic clubs, you're talking about over half a million fans, and that's probably being very conservative.

There's also the not insignificant issue that the TV rights deal is dependent upon their being 18 teams. There's no genuine motivation for the Commission to shrink the league

 

[The Feeder Club]

The biggest ones would be too big. The Vic market is 5 times the SA one and a lot more than 5 times SA and NSW. The 20th club really should come from WA to balance things out in terms of the southern AFL market.

Personally, I just think Non-Vic fans have to realise that it's a club competition - it's not a state based competition. Fair enough to whinge about the MCG grand final advantage, but it is the best venue for the GF. ANd frankly, I think WA and SA fans are going to look pretty silly over the next decade or two for their Vicbias carry on. They're completely missing what's going on. The AFL is trying to grow in the rugby states - pretty clear that the Northern clubs are getting the big leg up at the moment in terms of actual football and are set for a dominant decade or two.

	CLUB	TOTAL
1	Collingwood*	110,628
2	Carlton*	106,345
3	West Coast	103,498
4	Richmond	98,489
5	Geelong*	90,798
6	Hawthorn*	83,823
7	Essendon	83,664
8	Adelaide*	75,477
9	Sydney*	73,757
10	Port Adelaide*	66,015
11	Melbourne	65,479
12	Brisbane*	63,268
13	Western Bulldogs*	62,328
14	Fremantle*	62,237
15	St Kilda*	60,467
16	North Melbourne	50,628
17	GWS*	36,629
18	Gold Coast*	26,157

Sure but I have made this argument before with yourself and others here. To their credit the AFL wants an even competition. I don't think Vic bias is conspiracy designed in AFL house. The problem is instead of tackling the root causes of inequality, namely the VFL legacy of the competition, they just put that in the too hard basket and try and achieve equalisation by artificially boosting the northern clubs to allow them to compete against the baked in biases that come with this being an expanded VFL.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There was at least one alternative plan

• 1985, November 7. The NFL releases its own play for a national compeition, with a 12 team structure featuring 9 teams from Melbourne and one each from Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. It also proposed an independent form of administration rather than the VFL’s Melbourne centrered power base”. The WAFL supports the NFL option, going so far as to send its CEO to talk to Macquarie Bank in Sydney about getting $100 million to float a competition, with six Melbourne clubs saying they’d break away. (Behind the Play pg 198)

Towards a National Competition – Timeline of VFL/AFL Expansion - SportsIndustryAU

Sources used:

footyindustry.com

but in essence what you wrote is correct, the Vic clubs and the VFL were in lock step and no national competition was going to go ahead with the VFL undermining it at every opportunity. The WAFC had zero resources, and even the SANFL was heavily reliant on revenues from Origin to make money.

Yep, and to this day non vic fans still have a bee in their bonnet about it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There's also the not insignificant issue that the TV rights deal is dependent upon their being 18 teams. There's no genuine motivation for the Commission to shrink the league

Yep, and to this day non vic fans still have a bee in their bonnet about it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Personally, I just think Non-Vic fans have to realise that it's a club competition - it's not a state based competition.

Bang on, there's still some sort of belief that vic stake holders and the vic fans have some sort of barrack against non vic clubs.

Or want to believe, to continue the narrative.

Couldn't be further from the truth, we'd both be barracking hard for any non vic club against our traditional rivals.

 

[sr36]

Sure but I have made this argument before with yourself and others here. To their credit the AFL wants an even competition. I don't think Vic bias is conspiracy designed in AFL house. The problem is instead of tackling the root causes of inequality, namely the VFL legacy of the competition, they just put that in the too hard basket and try and achieve equalisation by artificially boosting the northern clubs to allow them to compete against the baked in biases that come with this being an expanded VFL.

There's over 800,000 members of the Vic teams. 140,000 for SA, 90,000 Qld 110,00 Syd

WA is a bit uncomparable as WCE fans can't get seats unless they have one already and footy is priced much higher in WA - they could have a lot more than 165,000 if footy was priced and accessible in WA like it is in Melbourne and the other states. But WA clubs are choosing to stick with two teams as it makes them more money.

Considering, it's a club and not a state based competition - how many clubs would you have in each state looking at those numbers?

If you took away the travel advantage of the current ratio - you'd create a massive size advantage and WA teams would still have a heap more travel than the Eastern seaboard.

"bias" is unavoidable as footy fans are distributed biasedly around the country.

Of the Vic advantages - the MCG grannie is the one that you can do something about without creating further bias in other aspects. But I'd take an advantage that made you a better team ahead of an advantage that you only get sometimes when you're already a good team - many Vic teams have never actually had that as an advantage and many who have had it have lost the grand final anyway as they've played a better team.

 

[Freomaniac]

The advantage is to the WA teams.

But yes, more VicBias if you have gooses that still want to claim it is North who are advantaged by playing WC in WA.


Again, no advantage to North.

Of the 13 games Adelaide play in Adelaide, two are neutral against another SA team and 11 they enjoy a distinct home advantage.

Of the 13 games North play in Melbourne, 11 are against another Vic team, and only 2 they enjoy a distinct home advantage.

Advantage Adelaide.

Imagine getting 11 games where you have a full blown home ground advantage, not selling home games and then also playing away games at neutral venues where your opponent is also travelling.

The life of an SA team!

The fact you don't even see that Adelaide have it much better than a team like North is unsurprising.

Then relocate Collingwood to Adelaide then lol

 

[Freomaniac]

It's now shifting towards the president who has enabled this situation. The president is pushing this culture of softness that has washed over this club and the lack of strong leadership shows on all levels.

You won't get rid of Kochie that easily either

 

[doppleganger]

Then relocate Collingwood to Adelaide then lol

Pies are eyeing off Gold Coast

 

[Rabish Binney]

Bang on, there's still some sort of belief that vic stake holders and the vic fans have some sort of barrack against non vic clubs.

Or want to believe, to continue the narrative.

Couldn't be further from the truth, we'd both be barracking hard for any non vic club against our traditional rivals.

Agree.

I hate Collingwood as much as any other club but, for example if it is a Collingwood vs Port Grand Final, I'm hoping Collingwood win.

You are still going to get the happy clappers who will barrack for the other SA club if they are in finals and their club isn't but I think that attitude has waned greatly over the years.

It is a club based competition & I don't want our closet rival (PA) winning anything or having any success whatsoever.

And I would expect the same attitude exists from Port supporters to us.

 

[ibd77]

Agree.

I hate Collingwood as much as any other club but, for example if it is a Collingwood vs Port Grand Final, I'm hoping Collingwood win.

You are still going to get the happy clappers who will barrack for the other SA club if they are in finals and their club isn't but I think that attitude has waned greatly over the years.

It is a club based competition & I don't want our closet rival (PA) winning anything or having any success whatsoever.

And I would expect the same attitude exists from Port supporters to us.

Pretty much, the amount of gloating would be off the scale. You still have Crows supporters harping over 1997/98. Nearly 30 years on, the game is so different now.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Bang on, there's still some sort of belief that vic stake holders and the vic fans have some sort of barrack against non vic clubs.

Or want to believe, to continue the narrative.

Couldn't be further from the truth, we'd both be barracking hard for any non vic club against our traditional rivals.

No we don't think that Collingwood fans would prefer Carlton to win over a non-Victorian team.

But if it came to talking about advantages that Carlton gain against a non-Victorian team simply by being located in Melbourne, then yeah what we see are Collingwood fans defending those advantages because its the same things they benefit from.

Just like in 2017, I was incredibly happy that the Tigers beat the Crows. But that doesn't stop me from being able to recognise the disadvantages the Crows faced when playing against the lower ranked Tigers in a Grand Final at the Tigers home ground.