Port Adelaide midfielder Tom Rockliff has accused the AFL of bias toward Victorian teams after the league’s ruling to prevent certain clubs resuming group training.
The Western Australian government has lifted the local limit on outdoor gatherings to ten people as the state’s COVID-19 cases decline.
The ruling in WA matches that of South Australia and would have allowed teams in those states to expand their training groups as the AFL moves towards restarting the postponed season.
Gold Coast chief executive Mark Evans has confirmed the two Queensland clubs – the Suns and Brisbane Lions – could also ramp up training if given approval by the AFL after the state government on Friday eased restrictions.
But the AFL quickly stepped in to ensure the ten Victorian clubs, along with Sydney and GWS, were not disadvantaged by different restrictions in different states, stressing all 18 teams must abide by initial rules where players can only train with one other person.
While Rockliff – who has previously captained Brisbane and has spent his entire 191-game career outside of Victoria – understands the AFL’s predicament, he is still frustrated by the stance.
(Photo by Daniel Kalisz/Getty Images)
“I sort of get where the AFL’s coming from. They wanted to go with Scott Morrison’s advice and the federal government,” Rockliff told ABC Radio.
“The ability for us to train in groups would have been handy but as we know the AFL makes the rules and it’s generally got a bias towards Victorian teams, and that’s just the way it goes.
“It’s something we have to adjust to but I sort of understand it in this scenario.”
Port Adelaide football boss Chris Davies disagreed with his midfielder, saying the AFL’s equalisation move is fair in the current climate of uncertainty.
“We have the potential to be able to train with more than two people, but we’re also going into a period now where there’s 15 to 17 of our guys who are going to have to quarantine for two weeks,” he told ABC Radio.
“It’s really important from here that everyone gets an opportunity to have some form of level playing field.”
West Coast chief executive Trevor Nisbett is expecting the AFL to soon revisit the rules surrounding group training.
“That will change very rapidly and hopefully we’ll be able to at least start training with groups of ten and then a few weeks down the track we may be able to get a full group of guys training together,” he said.
RT
Roar Rookie
Come back when you have a ladder where double up games count for half each, rather than not at all. i.e. 2 points and half the for/against tally in each game. Not that there is any such thing as home grounds for Grand Finals, the fact is Richmond in 3rd beat the team 2nd in the first week of the finals and then the team that finished 1st. In the GF they played GWS who finished 6th. If you want to have a home team it doesn't get any more emphatic than that? How are those facts?
Flagpies
Roar Rookie
I think you're spot on Matto, the bias - if that is the word for it - is not intentionally so. Regardless of the want of belief that it it is. I'll say it again the 'bias' is catered for, not solely, but mostly for the vic market. The reason for that is because that market provides the most market. In essence that is basic economics. Has zero to do with the big bad AFL 'wanting' to keep the comp in favour of vic clubs. That's the market doing that not the AFL. So in summary basics economics says you want to keep all vic clubs because the lowest member base is roughly 40k, that's not taking into account the paying non member fans. That's usually double or even thrice non member numbers that sit in the seats in the stands or on the couch. Saints is a good example of that. Go figure.
PriddisJunior
Roar Rookie
I think we mostly agree :) to say they are "deliberately" bias is parochialism. As would be denying they have at times made poor decisions that (could) give this impression. Appreciate your replies. Look forward to reading your comments when we have some actual footy to talk about mate.
Flagpies
Roar Rookie
I agree with your view they could improve, greatly, in the administration of the game. But all the noise from non vic fans is 'bias' as in deliberately unfair. Now if one were to actually step back and actually look at that belief, you could see how that ridiculous that sounds. For example, why bother with clubs north of the Murray to grow the game? I mean you couldn't get anymore vic bias than that right? Actually throw money to grow the game where the public interest is little. Vic biased! Another example, if it is deliberately conspired to be vic bias then why do we actually have an expanded competition that exists not only in vic but with teams in every state from those states? (Apart from Tas & territories) Yeah a deliberate conspiracy to stamp out non vic clubs right? I'm not saying it's equal, it's not equal for a reason - the market driven landscape. Yet still to this day we have blind minded fans claiming conspiracy. Oh well enjoy your misery I say.
Flagpies
Roar Rookie
Google the population numbers of all the heartland states and territories. No one is disputing the passion of footy fans, vic or non vic, it's the numbers that dictate the market and therefore landscape.
Flagpies
Roar Rookie
Oh I'm not disagreeing spanny, of course they're every bit as passionate as vic fans. Just that there's a lot more vic fans than not. In fact, the vic population outnumbers all footy heartland states and territories combined by 1.5 million. And that is the reason why the bulk of the revenue comes from there. Oh and no one needs to get on a tram to go to the couch by the way.
Ravi
Roar Rookie
Any chance you Richmond guys could come up with facts rather than denigrate a reasonable comment and pat each other on the back. Facts like Richmond lost all but 1 game on the road in 2017 & got a home GF against the top team. No chance of winning away, so they got an AFL gift. In a ladder where only the games where every team played each other once are counted, Richmond is 6th in 2019. Then with the inequities and they move up to 4th but didn’t earn another home GF. I think it’s obvious that it’s you two who have the long history of embarrassing yourselves with comments like the two above and absolutely no substance.
PriddisJunior
Roar Rookie
Sure, cleared up that the AFL is a not for profit market driven org. Did not know that. I did admit the fixtures can't be equalized. Just suggesting it would benefit the competition in the long run to improve what it can. Also don't think they should reduce Melbourne teams to 4.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
The AFL just making it up as they go. Qantas aren’t opening up flights until at least end June. Charters? It’s turning into a farce.
Spanner
Roar Rookie
Rubbish Flaggie - SA, WA and Tassie fans are every bit as passionate and have to travel a long, long way to watch their teams play "away" - not just hop on a tram to the MCG for 9 out of 10 weeks.
Graeme Combe
Guest
Rubbish Flaggie - SA, WA and Tassie fans are just as manic - take the blinkers off matey.
David C
Roar Rookie
Seemed a pretty logical response if you ask me.
6x6 perkele
Roar Rookie
Wce is apparently a very decent possibility as it is rightfully felt the AFL has not taken into account the position we are in here and WA isn't opening its borders for nearly 6 mths or reviewing the closure, mark magowan stated that a couple of weeks ago and the wa population is very supportive of it.
Col from Brissie
Roar Guru
So are you saying that if the AFL starts up say end of June early July and WA still won’t open their borders for ‘fly in fly out’ teams then West Coast & Freo won’t be playing?
6x6 perkele
Roar Rookie
Nah they won't, wce and the wafc can support WA footy including Freo for this season so it's more desirable to protect the population. Heard some interesting things on wce stance tonight and funnily enough when you're the richest you don't need to do what Victoria wants in the current situation.
Yattuzzi
Roar Rookie
What is Burns a Scotti?
Col from Brissie
Roar Guru
So Jonboy your Premier has stated that WA was not going to compromise on their border restrictions so the AFL’s proposed ‘fly in fly out ‘ will not be agreed by WA. He is happy to have all the teams stay in WA though which would be very costly for the AFL. So if he sticks to that policy then West Coast & Fremantle could be forced to move to Victoria.
Gary
Roar Rookie
Comes under 'other states'. The NSW govt handling of it's stadia infrastructure is woeful... i think the only AR friendly stadia remaining will be spotless and SCG.
Flagpies
Roar Rookie
I never suggested that HQ have not been incompetent, that's not the point. The AFL is a not for profit organization. The coffers that the 'product' produce are given back to all of the member owned teams and other funding areas like grass roots, infrastructure and broadcasting for example. The efficiency of all that is I agree not at it's best, regardless the AFL is run this way for those purposes. This scenario is completely different to any other professional leagues, the NFL and EPL teams (and maybe Bundesligia) are largely privately owned, the EPL also if I am correct does not have a player salary cap. So while their fixturing while on face value is more equitable the playing field is far from. That league does not require product raised coffers as much as what the AFL does - far from it. It's fair speculation, to have the 'best footy comp' (read more equitable) then the product would produce less coffers than what it does currently. Purely because of market saturation and where that is. For example, let's say there are only 4 teams in vic, and equal everywhere else and somehow travel is equaled for all then you lose member and fan bases of 6 clubs. We're talking about more than a million 'customers'. Just wouldn't work. Hope that clears some things up.
Flagpies
Roar Rookie
If I am correct, it was for the purposes of keeping all 18 clubs afloat, if need be. The only public noise on requirement has been from Fremantle. We haven't heard anything since. Even then it is widely regarded that 4 clubs will not need a lifeline (in social media anyways). So it's fair speculation that the whole $600m will not be required anyway. What I'd like to know, how much if any has yet been borrowed.