Carlton want to move back to Princes Park

[Rob]

Correct. North would make $180k, Doggies $40k, Blues $10k if they're the home team with a 42,000 crowd. North actually has a pretty good deal, if their members bothered to show up.

Isn't it because their members don't show up (partly because their membership base is smaller), a 42k crowd at a Roos game includes a far higher proportion of gate sales? Hence why their net return would be higher.

Given the Blues make a lot more from memberships, to suggest North would be better off with a 42k crowd as well is highly misleading.

The Dogs were just sucked into signing a guaranteed return contract, which in business will always restrict your potential return because it reduces the risk.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Not sure if its been answered earlier but does anyone know what the basis of the deals are and why there is such a discrepancy between teams.

eg: Is Collingwood guaranteed a minimum return or more per ticket ?

I know Carlton have a bad deal but part of that was getting several million up front ($6M) when the club was basically broke.

 

[Beckers]

Except our average attendance is over 30k of course.

Who gives a $hit! You still lose money on 30k at Etiturd. Can you afford to do that for another 16 years?? NO!

Its much better financially to have 20k crowds at Skilled or Visy than 35k crowds at Etiturd or MCG. Its a no brainer!!

 

[caddyhawk]

Isn't it because their members don't show up (partly because their membership base is smaller), a 42k crowd at a Roos game includes a far higher proportion of gate sales? Hence why their net return would be higher.

North have no guaranteed payment deal with Etihad, hence they get market prices. The other are hamstrung by the deal AFL made, lower returns with guaranteed payment. When the guaranteed payment stopped, all they had left was the low return.

eg: Is Collingwood guaranteed a minimum return or more per ticket ?

Collingwood is guaranteed $200k min a game.

 

[Hawkk]

Isn't it because their members don't show up (partly because their membership base is smaller), a 42k crowd at a Roos game includes a far higher proportion of gate sales? Hence why their net return would be higher.

Given the Blues make a lot more from memberships, to suggest North would be better off with a 42k crowd as well is highly misleading.

The Dogs were just sucked into signing a guaranteed return contract, which in business will always restrict your potential return because it reduces the risk.

Looking solely at gate receipts (not including membership revenue) the Dogs are the club that get short changed far and away the most of any club in the leagye

They signed a contract giving them a fixed return regardless of how many they get through the gates and have played 3 home games (Rich, Carl, STK) at the venue drawing 42,102 to each match.

Given they’ve got around 26,000 members, that's at least 16,000 paying customers per game – comfortably the most across the Dockland's tenants and perhaps the league, yet they get the lowest returns.

They've made a $180,000 on gate reciepts for their 3 home games, it'd probably be triple that with a new stadium deal

 

[caddyhawk]

They signed a contract giving them a fixed return regardless of how many they get through the gates....

That contract keep them afloat in the short term, they desperately needed the cash. Of course now that they have the crowd they're stuck with it with no room for growth.

 

[Rob]

North have no guaranteed payment deal with Etihad, hence they get market prices.

Whatever they are.

But what I was saying is that a 42k crowd for the Roos would have a hell of a lot more of gate sales than a 42k crowd for Carlton. So when you don't include membership income (which is ridiculous IMO), North are going to look like they get a better stadium return.

Of course, anyone with a modicum of intelligence can work out that Carlton get a lot more in membership income that the Roos don't, and are probably overall better off with a 42k crowd.

The other are hamstrung by the deal AFL made, lower returns with guaranteed payment. When the guaranteed payment stopped, all they had left was the low return.

Aren't the Dogs still on the guaranteed return deal they signed a few years ago?

 

[Rob]

Looking solely at gate receipts (not including membership revenue) the Dogs are the club that get short changed far and away the most of any club in the leagye

They signed a contract giving them a fixed return regardless of how many they get through the gates and have played 3 home games (Rich, Carl, STK) at the venue drawing 42,102 to each match.

Given they’ve got around 26,000 members, that's at least 16,000 paying customers per game – comfortably the most across the Dockland's tenants and perhaps the league, yet they get the lowest returns.

They've made a $180,000 on gate reciepts for their 3 home games, it'd probably be triple that with a new stadium deal

Yeah, that's how I understood it.

Not sure why the blame for that situation is at the foot of anyone but the Dogs management. They made a business decision at a time they were a s**t team and drawing s**t crowds. They start playing good footy, crowds improve and they don't see much upside because of this deal they signed.

That's business - less risk, less prospect of higher returns. You can't turn around when you should be earning more and say your deal should be changed. What about when they're s**t again? If they get rid of their guaranteed return deal, they'll probably whinge that the deal is costing them money then.

 

[caddyhawk]

Whatever they are.

But what I was saying is that a 42k crowd for the Roos would have a hell of a lot more of gate sales than a 42k crowd for Carlton.

Aren't the Dogs still on the guaranteed return deal they signed a few years ago?

True, Carlton's loss should be offset by it's membership sales. What I meant was if North could draw a crowd in they could actually thrive with a good stadium return. As stated by another poster, the Doggies have similar membership numbers and still get the crowd in.

Etihad choose not renew the guaranteed return deal for all clubs except Collingwood and Essendon.

 

[Mighty Eagles]

I've been saying this for years.

Victoria needs more than 2 major stadiums and a third which only hosts 8 matches a year.

If Princess Park becomes an AFL venue in the future I'd like to see another club with Calrton host matches there.

 

[Pessimistic]

Princes park was abandoned because non carlton fans simply didnt go there.

Added to that theres little hope of night games (council won't allow floodlights) which are the big hope when GC17 and Wsyd come in. PP would compete with games scheduled in cnberr (OK no lights) or darwin, launceston, cairns etc where they would allow lights to get AFL games. inaccessible for all fans if mon or fri night but could be FTA TV type games .

So why was PP on the nose ? Heres what I think

Overpriced for an 'old' venue - actually made docklands look good in this regard, youd often miss the first quarter queuing up and I was once told standing tickets only available ao one gate.

Improvements ? Beware the 'Boutique stadium' term being bandied about - it literally means expensive

Unfriendly management - see above - the FuKK the rest attitude from carlton (although I see MCG and docklands are run by carlton cronies - no wonder there is a backlash - this could be imprioved if it had new management nd a big PR campaign

Access. Parking was a problem and will niot be improved because of residents and the council. Trams on amthcdays were the closest thing the AFL has seen to those "Hawthorn Bandwagon" emails going round. There is a perfectly good train station at the zoo but its not well known as the trains were quite empty the days I took them to PP - again more PR needed

Facilities. The VFL wanted to put more family friendly facilities there to attract people to low interest games. They do need to demolish that wooden stand - have they not seen the Bradford fire disaster video ?


I still think the lights issue is a killer along with the name carlton - indeed if they didnt have carlton cronies running the other two stadiums perhaps there woudn't be a problem

 

[deck]

Another ridiculous idea that any idiot can see won't work. The ground apparently can only hold 24,000 at the moment and would lose more seating for it to reach AFL standard. How are the 40,000 members going to fit in the ground.

The other problem is Carlton and the state government are spending millions on new facilities that sit in place of old grandstands. I can really see them knocking that down so they can resurrect a new grandstand in its place.

Yes some will say it is just a bargaining tool to use as a threat to the MCC and Etihad stadium management. But is it really a bargaining tool if it won't even happen.

 

[Couttsy]

Do it.

 

[ManWithNoName]

If they can redevelop it up to 40k odd it'd be absolutely fantastic. Hate that there's only two grounds in the supposed home of football.

 

[Duffman95]

If they can redevelop it up to 40k odd it'd be absolutely fantastic. Hate that there's only two grounds in the supposed home of football.

A lot of mistakes have been made with Princes Park over the last 20 years. I think spending all the money on a grandstand at that end of the ground was a mistake. Had they started with renovating the western end of the ground I think we would still be playing there today - Geelong still has their outer standing room today.

No doubt leaving that ground full time for Etihad was a mistake. I think a lot of Carlton supporters still hold a candle for AFL games at that ground

 

[Riccardo11]

The fact is, Princes Park would need major renovations and a proper rail link if it was to host any more than 4 or 5 games a year. Reality trumps nostalgia every time, I think.

 

[Couttsy]

Do you think you'll ever move back there?
I would love for some clubs to go back to their old heritage.

 

[ManWithNoName]

A lot of mistakes have been made with Princes Park over the last 20 years. I think spending all the money on a grandstand at that end of the ground was a mistake. Had they started with renovating the western end of the ground I think we would still be playing there today - Geelong still has their outer standing room today.

No doubt leaving that ground full time for Etihad was a mistake. I think a lot of Carlton supporters still hold a candle for AFL games at that ground

Went to a practice match there a couple of years back, just because I'd never been. Felt like a proper football ground, not like a stadium. Would love if they got back there.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Nobody is ever playing there again.

Nostalgia would last two weeks then people would stop going because of crap facilities and access.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Not gonna happen

They're just trying to squirm out of Etihad, it's just a bluff.

 

[Doro]

Not gonna happen

They're just trying to squirm out of Etihad, it's just a bluff.

eh? Someone just bumped an old thread, the club isn't trying to squirm out of anything. If Princes park was ever on the agenda, it would be the AFL with a state Govt kicker and not the club driving it. We already learnt that lesson.

 

[Bombermania]

As much as i hate giving Carlton anything i actually like the idea, its a good playing surface and easy to get too.

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

It's actually a lot more doable than the naysayers are squealing... It's RIGHT on the tramline. It's a 6 minute walk from royal park. A mountain of parking in the adjacent ovals and also zoo parking. The outer stand is reasonably new. If the AFL decided to do it, they'd get the state govt onboard in a heartbeat. Could happen easily.

 

[sherb]

The fact is, Princes Park would need major renovations and a proper rail link if it was to host any more than 4 or 5 games a year. Reality trumps nostalgia every time, I think.

I don't pretend to understand Melbourne public transport, but what is a "proper" rail link?

From what I can tell, there is a station (Royal Park) around 1km away, which is about 5 stops out of Melbourne city. Is that not sufficient?

 

[JackFlash]

Absolutely they should, all their matches against interstate sides should be played at Princes Park. I can't see why they can't be playing 4-6 games there.
The tram stops right outside and the train at Royal Park is approximately 7-10 minutes walk away. It is no coincidence that Carlton's fortunes have take a turn for the worse since they gave up their home ground. It was a dumb move. It wouldn't hurt North to play some games there either and the Dogs should play at least 4 games in Geelong. it won't happen though, the AFL have their heads firmly entrenched up their own clackers.....