Could interstate clubs sell games to the MCG?

[Ant85]

Not sure where you got that from. The stuff I have seen have it longer than the G and narrower.

I think they mentioned it on AFL 360 or On The Couch last night.

 

[1achie]

2035? so in 10 years, AO & new Perth will be redundant? That's harsh.

If they were going to do it, they should have done so before those 2 grounds were done.

As you say though, the SCG and Gabba are the real stoppers...The AFL can want all they like, but unless there is a genuine alternative (or the AFL pays them a bucketload), they're very unlikely to shift.

Perhaps that's the wrong timeframe but they do need to have something to work towards or we'll continue to have a dogs breakfast of oval sizes.
6 years ago nobody in SA dreamed that we'd be watching footy at a brilliantly redeveloped Adelaide Oval so things can turn change pretty quickly - we just need to be ready when they do.

 

[Hawkk]

Why should the non-Victorian teams suffer because some basketcases needs to sell games?

It's not our fault you're poor

Except Hawthorn is one of the wealthiest clubs in the league with one of the largest memberships

I understand that is difficult to grasp for a xenophobic sandgroper

 

[Hawkk]

9 Melbourne based teams.... correct. I didn't think the numbers looked right at first glance but I'm quite a few beers in. Still we are short 7 or 8 interstate games in 2015.

Your last line is correct and a club like West Coast, who has been pushed to York Park god knows how many times, could easy say to Hawthorn what's the difference and we'll play the G and we'll cover it. We've got a ******* ton of money at the moment.

It all comes down to this; You can sit there and whinge and go on and on and on.... Or you can get off your ass and think of ways to improve the situation for a club.

telsor

The Hawks are loaded to the brim...

Hawthorn definately doesnt need the money ($70m revenue - 2nd in league, 73k members - 2nd in league, $40m net assets - 2nd in league) so we are entitled to play our home games wherever we like

If you want to play one of your 11 home games against us at the MCG thats cool...

I understand that West Coast fans are hurt but the realty is that you didnt lose tge flag due to ground dimensions

 

[telsor]

The Hawks are loaded to the brim...

Hawthorn definately doesnt need the money ($70m revenue - 2nd in league, 73k members - 2nd in league, $40m net assets - 2nd in league) so we are entitled to play our home games wherever we like

If you want to play one of your 11 home games against us at the MCG thats cool...

Hate to burst your bubble, but it's the AFL who does the fixturing...Clubs can only ask...

That said, Hawthorn didn't get so rich by making bad financial calls...Playing WCE in Tas instead of a Vic club would make (save?) you a nice slice of change, which surely has a bearing on the preferences you express to the AFL. If WCE was to pay you enough that that situation was reversed, do you really think your club wouldn't ask the AFL to fixture your home games against WCE at the G more often? (doubtless pretending it's for other reasons for PR purposes, as all clubs would).

 

[The_Reaper]

Except Hawthorn is one of the wealthiest clubs in the league with one of the largest memberships

I understand that is difficult to grasp for a xenophobic sandgroper

And Melbourne (Darwin)?
And North Melbourne (Hobart)?

If Hawthorn is still so financially strong - why continue to sell gains to Launceston and why invest so much money on pokies?

 

[The_Reaper]

Clubs shouldn't be able to request s**t all when it comes to the fixture.

 

[Hawkk]

Hate to burst your bubble, but it's the AFL who does the fixturing...Clubs can only ask...

That said, Hawthorn didn't get so rich by making bad financial calls...Playing WCE in Tas instead of a Vic club would make (save?) you a nice slice of change, which surely has a bearing on the preferences you express to the AFL. If WCE was to pay you enough that that situation was reversed, do you really think your club wouldn't ask the AFL to fixture your home games against WCE at the G more often? (doubtless pretending it's for other reasons for PR purposes, as all clubs would).

Agreed that said the reality is that even if the Hawks didnt play in Tasmania the Eagles games would invariably be one of the 4 games we would be scheduled to play at Docklands

The great irony is that Tassie is the closest ground to the MCG in terms of stadium dimensions...

 

[refresh]

if the poorer clubs need to sell off games all clubs should have to rotate as the away team. When we play hawthorn in Tasmania it is a game that would have otherwise been played at the MCG. It is to hawthorns financial advantage but our detriment not to play at the MCG.
I understand the financial arguments but there needs to be some equality

 

[telsor]

Clubs shouldn't be able to request s**t all when it comes to the fixture.

So you're going to give up your double up of the derby every year?

Or do you just mean Vic clubs shouldn't get what they want?

 

[Hawkk]

And Melbourne (Darwin)?
And North Melbourne (Hobart)?

If Hawthorn is still so financially strong - why continue to sell gains to Launceston and why invest so much money on pokies?

Its not a matter of if bro, check the annual report for yourself

Look I know you are hurting but the stadium choice wasnt the reason why you put up the most lackluster GF performance since 119 in 2007...

I understand its difficult to grasp outside your very small WA cacoon but the Tasmanian games would be switched with a package of games at Ethiad. By taking games down to Tasmania we get cost-plus on both MCG games and York Park...

Hawthorn and St Kilda - different sides of the equalisation debate

2. MCG/Etihad

The Hawks play almost exclusively profitable games, while the Saints have struggled with their deal at Etihad.

To compensate for giving up three (and now four) games to Tassie, they devised an arrangement in which regular (11-game) members were given three (and now four) “away” games on their membership. Almost invariably, these away games were blockbuster-type matches – principally Geelong and Collingwood, sometimes Carlton and Essendon or Richmond – at the 'G. Far from hurting Hawthorn's Victorian base, the Tasmanian deal has enabled it to grow dramatically.

In the modern AFL, there are two types of high-earning games: blockbusters that draw large crowds to the MCG, and the boutique games at smaller venues, in which the home team – with a “clean stadium” – reaps massive returns from relatively small crowds.

Geelong is the Victorian apotheosis of the boutique money machine (West Coast, with a higher-capacity home ground, does even better), while Collingwood is almost entirely reliant on a blockbuster model.

Hawthorn is perhaps the only club that has the luxury of both models – combining blockbusters at the G, with high-yielding boutique-busters in Launceston. St Kilda has had neither. Butterss said there was a “double whammy” for the Saints in leaving Tasmania – they gave up profitable games in Tassie that don't make money in Melbourne.

Indeed the concept of Melbourne stadium economics is probably beyond the grasp of a set enthralled by the #westisours tagline

 

[Hawkk]

if the poorer clubs need to sell off games all clubs should have to rotate as the away team. When we play hawthorn in Tasmania it is a game that would have otherwise been played at the MCG. It is to hawthorns financial advantage but our detriment not to play at the MCG.
I understand the financial arguments but there needs to be some equality

Its no different to Essendon's 7/4 arranagement between MCG and Ethiad

Given Hawthorn is much wealthier than Fremantle (cough 750k in equalisation tax) perhaps you can sell your Perth game against us to the MCG? Would help with our travel loads building up to the the fourpeat bid.

 

[DERIBERATE]

So you're going to give up your double up of the derby every year?

Or do you just mean Vic clubs shouldn't get what they want?

Why not play each opponent twice?

Seems to me the reason why something always must be taken away is because you can intimidate clubs in to complying.

I'd love to see the AFL try: "like everything we say and do or we'll take away a derby" - it'll open more eyes sooner.

 

[telsor]

Why not play each opponent twice?

Seems to me the reason why something always must be taken away is because you can intimidate clubs in to complying.

I'd love to see the AFL try: "like everything we say and do or we'll take away a derby" - it'll open more eyes sooner.

Play each opponent twice? I think a 34 game season might be a bit long...

 

[FootyJunkie]

Another idea would be to fixture MCG games featuring non Vic sides in tail end of the HA season, closer to the finals so relevant sides can treat those games as a finals dress rehearsal, getting used to the ground.... kind of pointless if we get to play at the MCG in Round 1 and not again until the finals.... so get all the Etihad and secondary market games out of the way first

 

[FootyJunkie]

Why don't we just relocate all the interstate teams back into Melbourne?

WA footy fans wouldn't mind having to support the Doncaster Dockers or Elwood Eagles.

Roweville Crows (nicknamed Croweville)
Eaglemont Eagles
Fitzroy Lions
Williamstown Dockers
Sunshine Suns
Glen Waverley South (GWS) Giants
Port Melbourne Power
South Melbourne Swans

 

[footyfan1978]

I would not be opposed to the club playing a home game at the MCG. The terminology is a bit wrong because for the Eagles it's not "selling" a home game. We don't need the cash. But we could certainly do with an extra game (or two) on the MCG.

The derby would never be played anywhere but Subiaco, and it would be stupid of the club to give up a home game against a team that is likely to be playing finals later that season. Why give up home ground advantage against one of the better teams and turn a should-win into a probably-lose game... That would be stupid.

moving both a home and an away game against an interstate team to the MCG. So for instance if we were sheduled to play the Swans twice in 2016, both clubs could arrange to play both games at the MCG, giving both valuable experience on the GF venue against another (expectedly) strong opposition.

The interstate teams also need to push the AFL for more games in Melbourne, and less games being sent to Tasmania, Darwin, Cairns etc. Last year interstate teams played the MCG 13 times and Etihad 23 times, which isn't near enough I wouldn't have though. If my maths is correct (and it might not be because I've had a few beers) the 11 Melbourne based teams on average, should play host to 4 or 5 interstate teams a season, which should mean an interstate team visits Melbourne about 50 times per season. But typically interstate games are the first to be shifted to regional venues which is something that should be evened out.

Yes, selling a home game is stupid phrase for this.
However for clubs like Eagles that want to play at MCG more not only is it stupid to play Hawks at MCG as an Eagles game but it is also not fair to other clubs that then seeing Hawks travel less per season so that won't happen. It really does come back to if clubs like Eagles want to be serious about an extra game guaranteed at the G the only way to assure that is to shift one of their own home games to there and it has to be against a club that is not from Victoria. It is the only way it can work. For example as you put forward Eagles v Swans at MCG or Eagles v Lions at MCG is not going to be seen by others clubs as Swans or Lions benefiting indirectly in unfair way.

 

[footyfan1978]

Just a fact of life. It's driven by stadium deals which dictate number of games and the type of games (in terms of likely attendances).

The AFL has two shiny state of the art stadiums in Melbourne and that's because they're both paid for by hosting a number of games there. It's a balance because Docklands needs those games too.

If we need more games then you could start with those that Hawthorn, North and Melbourne sell interstate. Returning those to proper "home" games, they could all be played at the G without changing anything else, which could give each interstate team an additional MCG away game. That'd be a start and Docklands still gets its games.

True. However you are forgetting then those Tassie based fans would feel ripped off after deals have been struck with the governments there for clubs like Hawks to play games there. Other clubs can not dictate whom Hawks play at Tassie. It is the AFL that decides that and Hawks probably ask for preferences of it be clubs they will draw least against at the G.

 

[footyfan1978]

Carlton and Essendon both nominated Etihad as their home.

We do not really have a homeground as such.
We played 6 games at the G as the so called home team. Four of those were against clubs that play at the G more than us. No home ground advantage there. We played two clubs from interstate at the G. Port Adelaide and Adelaide.
We played 5 home games at Docklands. Three of which were against clubs from interstate in Brisbane, GWS and Gold Coast and also stupidly a Hawks game at Docklands and against Melbourne at Docklands.
If we had not lost our true homeground probably 7 at Princes Park and 4 game at G would have been the split. I basically hate Docklands as any home games except if it is a Saturday Twilight game in middle of winter and the only time it serves a good purpose. I think we played the Eagles at Docklands in 2014 on a twilight Saturday game with Menzel kicking the winning goal. Only time I ever remember really enjoying playing a game there as the home team. 4-40 pm as inside venue in middle of winter is actually something Docklands can do well. It is s**t for days game as cannot even play with roof off because of stupid design of ground have goals facing wrong direction in relation to Sunlight. If Eagles and AFL want to make it one more home games of ours at the G I am more than happy to see it happen though. The only time I can remember playing Eagles at the G was in 1999 semi-final. At that stage we still had our true home ground of Princes Park. Never had a final played there since world war times.

 

[telsor]

If we need more games then you could start with those that Hawthorn, North and Melbourne sell interstate. Returning those to proper "home" games, they could all be played at the G without changing anything else, which could give each interstate team an additional MCG away game. That'd be a start and Docklands still gets its games.

The problem with 'bringing those games back' is that it would leave no games in those locations.

Sure, a Tas team might eventually be added that would cover those games, but what about the games in places like Darwin and Cairns? Should they never get live games?

For the clubs, selling games might be just about the money, but there is a bigger picture to it, one the AFL clearly recognises and supports.

 

[telsor]

If we had not lost our true homeground probably 7 at Princes Park and 4 game at G would have been the split.

If you were still playing at Princess park your club would be broke. The costs of the new stand (and interest on it) barely stood up while you had the AFL forcing other clubs to host games there so you could extort them with a stadium deal so bad they jumped at the chance to go to docklands.

Trouble is, every club was doing all it could to avoid the place, and the AFL wasn't willing to force them any more, leaving you without a paddle up a very smelly creek.

You can wish it was still your home, but don't forget that if it was, your club would make North look like a financial powerhouse.

 

[footyfan1978]

If you were still playing at Princess park your club would be broke. The costs of the new stand (and interest on it) barely stood up while you had the AFL forcing other clubs to host games there so you could extort them with a stadium deal so bad they jumped at the chance to go to docklands.

Oh, I am well aware of the costs of the new stand was turned into a debt. That was a dumb decision by Elliott to build a compromised stand design that neither Carlton fans or visiting fans really wanted or liked. However if he had not done that, who knows, we could have had a smarter president like the Geelong one and kept our homeground asset and not copped a million dollar fine from AFL for Elliott's other stupid idea of not embracing the salary cap was part of the new AFL system back then even though it was not when he first became president. He never accepted it. The big fine was the last nail in coffin. We have been in limbo ever since as a club and well over a decade later not even close to recovery. It is frustrating to see Geelong as the only other Vic based club with a true homeground advantage but it is done now but frustrating to see all the same. We could have done that and even more but instead we are where we are at, in limbo. Anyway, gone off on quite a tangent but it is frustrating seeing some supporters whinge about not having home ground finals when they actually get distinct home ground advantages well beyond what we will ever get and if we ever return to top 2 again (long long time off) we will not get any massive homeground advantages in the lead up finals that some clubs are lucky to get.
Some fans with 11 games a season of true homeground advantage that almost means they can expect 8 wins minimum nearly every season and if they finish top two get 2 more distinct home games. Some do not realize the advantages they already have that give them quite a leg up. For example I doubt Freo would have finished top this season if they did not enjoy 11 games of distinct home ground advantage. I suspect they can bank on a good number of wins that help them go from a good team that probably 4th best to 1st or 2nd on ladder by enjoying those home ground advantages.The flipside is also they get the disadvantage of 10 genuine away game travels but if you can almost bank 7 or 8 wins almost every season with knowing you enjoy distinct homeground advantages that is wins quite a few clubs can never pencil in when the fixture is released. Them the facts of life in AFL though, just as the grand final being at the G is.

 

[D-N-R]

If West Coast want to play more games at the G, they have to come up with a proposal that makes financial sense to the Victorian club that hosts them.

1 - Pay a subsidy on tickets for all fans to encourage them to attend.
2 - Guarantee a massive amount of West Coast fans at the game by promoting it, getting a deal with flights worked out or selling it to Melbourne based West Coast fans.

The problem is that anything the West Coast Club does will be based on money. I think the club takes the fans for granted. They have a guaranteed full house every week, 15,000 odd fans waiting 'in the wings' - basically selling out the new stadium before it has been built. They don't have to do a thing. I doubt they would consider dropping a load of cash to get a few extra games at the G.

Collingwood and Eddie McGuire, as much as we hate them, get on the front foot and sell the s**t out of their club. Away games against other Melbourne povo clubs at the G. Promote games in Sydney at the Olympic Stadium (guaranteed short away trip every year) and get their fans to travel. Admittedly, they only have a short trip, but if West Coast really want to play more games at the G, then the club has to push the idea to fans and then to the AFL to make it happen. I don't think the club is interested. They make their cash without having to do too much and I think they like it that way.

If the problem is the size and shape of the ground, then make the new stadium the same dimensions as the G. Simple really. We might lose a bit of home advantage to the Melbourne clubs, but so be it. But unless it suddenly becomes economically advantageous to play games at the G instead of Docklands, then I can't see it happening. And when Docklands is owned by the league, I presume the more they use it , the more it will benefit them and the host clubs, which probably means even less games at the G for all non-Vic clubs.

 

[Kwality]

The interstate clubs would lose $hitloads of money to "sell a game". Perhaps if say an Essendon or a Collingwood paid them a lot of money to move a game to the MCG, it could make commercial sense (would have to be an insane amount of money though, > $1 million). Fairer would be that the same sides don't get sent to Tasmania each time, rotate them (think Brisbane has gone there every year for 4 or 5 years but hawthorn haven't played them in QLD for, well ever)

Fair is not a factor in the FIXture ....

 

[Kwality]

That's pretty much it.
.....
If Tas (or any other 'alternative market' buying games) wants the full range of games, then they'd need to make up the difference in $$$ by paying more for those games. If clubs like WCE think the spread should be more even, maybe they (and other clubs that play there more often) can chip in and pay the difference themselves.

Isnt this why clubs pay the equalisation, is this more $s ...