View Full Version : Selling home games against interstate sides
Selling our home games may well have cost us 8 premiership points this season and more than likely a spot in the finals last year.
Selling home games against interstate sides leaves us at a massive disadvantage and also hands that club and to a lesser extent the rest of the field an advantage.
Our only REAL home games are against interstate sides, all other home games are neutral.
So, couldn't Melbourne, Kangaroos and the Bulldogs play their 'sold games' against eachother?
For example 2007, rd 4 Melb v Dogs @ Carrara, rd 19 Dogs v Dees @ Marrara.
Isn't that a logical solution?
Don't confuse sales with service delivery!
We play the non-Victorian sides away because we dont make any money playing them in Melbourne. They have few Vic based supporters, the crowd is small and we get minimal return...when we play them elsewhere, the revenue is guaranteed.
Playing Victorian teams at the 'G or Dome at least gives a chance of a bumper crowd and financial dividend...
That's it really. It all comes down to $, and it is a reality of where we are at. It is now up to the footy department to win the games. I know this isn't fair, but it is just the way it is.
I guess you know all of that though...
natedog
17 Aug 2006, 11:27
Its not totally out the question to play a Vic. side interstate. By doing so we don't give up our "home" advantage against interstate teams. We did play Carlton in Darwin last year which means that it is feasible.
Its not totally out the question to play a Vic. side interstate. By doing so we don't give up our "home" advantage against interstate teams. We did play Carlton in Darwin last year which means that it is feasible.
Good point. Our Nth game this year only attracted ~ 26K at the G (maybe a little less). The Dees game in rnd 2 only attracted ~29K. These games are barely above the profit line for T-Dome. Our freo game this year almost got the same.......so I'd be taking Dees/Nth interstate....
Melb sides need to be making the interstate sides play in melb as much as possible........otherwise we end up with a ladder looking like it is at the moment.
We play the non-Victorian sides away because we dont make any money playing them in Melbourne. They have few Vic based supporters, the crowd is small and we get minimal return...when we play them elsewhere, the revenue is guaranteed.
When we played Fremantle at the TD we got 25,000. Yea i know some are paid members and all, but that's why they buy their memberships.
Against Carlton at TD we got 28 i think.
The games played at Carrara and Manuka this year attracted only 10,000 on average which is far less than TD.
So of a 25,000 crowd how many would be our paid members? 15?
You have to consider everything and look at the bigger picture and the benefits that come along with success.
How you go on the field is a direct result of what happens off the field financially etc.
As i said, one of the two games should be against a Victorian club (Carlton, Melbourne etc). Given that what happens on the field determines what happens off it. Yea, we might lose a little financially in the short term but that would be made up by playing finals footy and giving yourself a more realistic chance at a premiership and again, the benfits that come along with that, memberships, revenue of finals, prizemoney, merchandising etc.
The clubs who are selling games particularly Melbourne and the Dogs as they're closer to a premiership than the others, could get together with the AFL and work out a round robin so that at least one of their sold home games are played against eachother.
Ideally:
Kang v Dogs @ carrara
Dogs v Melb @ Manuka
Melb v Dogs @ carrara/manuka
etc
Carlton & Hawthorn aswell.
Compare us to a club like geelong, 70% of their home games are at Shell stadium which is a true home ground, all their away games against Victorian clubs are neutral, and they don't sell ANY games.
This would have to be worth at least +6 premiership points handicap at least wouldn't it. Which i guess makes their year look even worse.
scooter600x
17 Aug 2006, 13:55
Selling our home games may well have cost us 8 premiership points this season and more than likely a spot in the finals last year.
By selling a home game to Sydney we also guarantee that we only played the reigning premiers once for the season.
In all likelihood we would have had to play them at the SCG anyway so there's a good chance all we've done is avoiding playing them in Melbourne.
Selling our home game to Sydney may have helped get us into the finals.
Pembleton
17 Aug 2006, 16:41
Playing Victorian teams at the 'G or Dome at least gives a chance of a bumper crowd and financial dividend...
We're fixed dividend at the Dome though, so we make the same (not much) regardless of how many turn up.
By selling a home game to Sydney we also guarantee that we only played the reigning premiers once for the season.
In all likelihood we would have had to play them at the SCG anyway so there's a good chance all we've done is avoiding playing them in Melbourne.
Selling our home game to Sydney may have helped get us into the finals.
Hardly, we only have to play 7 of the 15 sides twice, 2 of those are Adelaide and Port so it evens up, it’s not like we have a favourable fixture for games against interstate sides on a home and away basis.
You make a good point about playing Sydney once but it’s been on their home ground each time. As for reigning premiers and talking them up, they‘ve been struggling when we played them and only came good later. And i'd rather play Sydney than Adelaide twice. This year and last our home SCG games were both very winnable.
I think the proof is in the pudding here, we lose these games every time and in footy it's either a win or a loss and at the end of the day it makes a big difference.
We're fixed dividend at the Dome though, so we make the same (not much) regardless of how many turn up.
True, it's roughly 20,000 from memory.
Pembleton
18 Aug 2006, 01:19
True, it's roughly 20,000 from memory.
I was at selectors dinner tonight and a board member (i dunno which one, they aren't exactly high profile) said we have the option on the deal going into next season. So we can again go for the fixed dividend or we can take the risk on attendances. From what he said it sounds like which way we go will depend on how many big drawing type home games we are fixtured for at TD.