Carlton at Adelaide Oval

[JeffDunne]

Carlton like most Melbourne clubs, have a proposal on their desk from the SACA to schedule 2 home games a season at the Adelaide Oval.

The deal would net them I believe around $1.2Mil a year.

The AFL and the SANFL are dead against it, but since the agreement between the SANFL and AFL on preventing the SACA from selling games was torn up last year (because of a SACA legal challenge), it is now a viable option.

The arguments the SANFL have against it is that it takes money from SA for Victorian clubs without any input into SA football. But given the SANFL's position and that of the Crows and Port, it's not really surprising that they'd be against it for the same reasons the Lions and Swans are against other teams diluting their market.

If the money's there though and cricket want to contribute to football should Carlton be forced to explore this option rather than the pie-in-the-sky plans from Princes Park (which we all know is really nothing more than a handout by another name).

Should the other 13 clubs try and force Carlton to take up the offer?

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It's a two fold problem, finance vs performance. Both need help. Go for the financial plan, play two less home games in Melbourne, potentially lose more members and lessen our chances of on field success. On field success can equal off field success for some clubs, so the AFL would have to consider whether the short term benefits outweight potential further damage to our finances long term.

[JeffDunne]

Hasn't hurt St Kilda's ability to build a competitive team or the Kangaroos.

It's turned out to hurt us financially, but at the time we did the deal we did it so we wouldn't need CBF assistance.

[igt22265]

Originally Posted by JeffDunne

Carlton like most Melbourne clubs, have a proposal on their desk from the SACA to schedule 2 home games a season at the Adelaide Oval.

The deal would net them I believe around $1.2Mil a year.

The AFL and the SANFL are dead against it, but since the agreement between the SANFL and AFL on preventing the SACA from selling games was torn up last year (because of a SACA legal challenge), it is now a viable option.

The arguments the SANFL have against it is that it takes money from SA for Victorian clubs without any input into SA football. But given the SANFL's position and that of the Crows and Port, it's not really surprising that they'd be against it for the same reasons the Lions and Swans are against other teams diluting their market.

If the money's there though and cricket want to contribute to football should Carlton be forced to explore this option rather than the pie-in-the-sky plans from Princes Park (which we all know is really nothing more than a handout by another name).

Should the other 13 clubs try and force Carlton to take up the offer?

Pretty true,
When first mooted in July last year,
i think the SA Government kicks in as well.
Deal was around $500k per game.

Which when you consider Carlton v Freo at the MCG last year,
crowd 16,000
earned Carlton one poke in the eye with a burnt stick.

However an issue with the SACA is the rooms,
which have to be up to AFL specifics,
and SACA are notorious for having short hands and long pockets.

Said last year,
should look to play Queens Birthday weekend
last years QB had these crackers
Sydney v Fremantle, SCG (early start)
Geelong v Adelaide, Skilled Stadium
Kangaroos v Richmond, Telstra Dome

[drakeyv2]

The clubs don't schedule the games, the AFL does, so any arrangements would have to at least have the AFL's sanction. Even the SACA accepts the AFL has the right to program games where they want. Given the AFL understands & accepts totaly the SANFL's position re playing AFL games at the oval, I would think it would be very unlikely they would give that sanction.

Adelaide oval is also not up to AFL standard.

[JeffDunne]

Originally Posted by drakeyv2

Adelaide oval is also not up to AFL standard.

Maybe that's a good reason for the AFL to want games played there.

Given they are arguing we need a backup for the MCG and TD, what's the backup in Adelaide if Footy Park is unavailable?

Play games at Adelaide Oval and let the SACA pay for the upgrades. Carlton make money and could very well attract new sponsors, we get another AFL standard venue in SA and the AFL don't have to chip in a cent.

[Demonic Ascent]

Send them to Carrara. If its good enough for the Roos, Dogs, Saints, Hawks & Demons to sell home games interstate, then the Bluebeggars can do it too. Beggars cant be choosers.

ODN, do you reckon the same membership problems dont affect these clubs? Even moreso if you ask me cause Carlton has a traditionally large, well-off support base who are just deserting their club when it needs them most like the Tigers supporters are famous for. It is not for the long-term, just until the debt is serviced. Members usually get into allocated away games for free if a club sells home games interstate, so still entry to 11 games a year.

Quit whingeing and get to the back of the queue. In case you haven't heard we hate queue-jumpers in Australia.

[drakeyv2]

Originally Posted by JeffDunne

Maybe that's a good reason for the AFL to want games played there.

Given they are arguing we need a backup for the MCG and TD, what's the backup in Adelaide if Footy Park is unavailable?

Play games at Adelaide Oval and let the SACA pay for the upgrades. Carlton make money and could very well attract new sponsors, we get another AFL standard venue in SA and the AFL don't have to chip in a cent.

Footy Park is owned by the SANFL & is wholey & soley a footy ground. It is unlikely to be unavailable. The money the ground generates goes into upgrading the stadium, the 9 SANFL clubs & grass roots footy. Surely this is better use of football money than giving to the SACA members.

[JeffDunne]

Originally Posted by drakeyv2

Footy Park is owned by the SANFL & is wholey & soley a footy ground. It is unlikely to be unavailable. The money the ground generates goes into upgrading the stadium, the 9 SANFL clubs & grass roots footy. Surely this is better use of football money than giving to the SACA members.

But would it be taking money from the SANFL? If Carlton managed to secure a home game against the Crows & Port, both SA teams and the SANFL would benefit. IMO it would be taking money from cricket that would benefit football.

While I accept what you say on Footy Park, the contracts the AFL have with the MCG and TD give them priority. If the AFL wanted, they could have forced an act of parliment to be bumped by the Commonwealth Games. What if SA bid for the games . . . Footy Park would be a natural. Anyhow, it could be an act of God that makes it unavailable.

[Andre]

Originally Posted by JeffDunne

But given the SANFL's position and that of the Crows and Port, it's not really surprising that they'd be against it for the same reasons the Lions and Swans are against other teams diluting their market.

If Carlton were to seriously consider selling 2 home games to the SACA you'd imagine they'd want at least one against Port or the Crows. SACA pays them, then they'd get a cut of gate from a full house (smaller capacity then Footy Park) to boot.

Without trying to start another Crows/Port thread out of this, the Crows are for all intents and purposes an arm of the SANFL, so they can't make any moves to say it's good.

Port have constraints due to the licensing conditions (the SANFL actually owns the license to play in the AFL, which is sub-licensed to Port), but if it ever looked like getting off the ground, Port at least would be trying to get one of the games.

Until then they'll play the official SANFL line. No need to cause grief without any realistic gain out of it.

As long as the game isn't scheduled the same day as a match at Footy Park, the SANFL aren't going to lose anything, other then a big of ego. They don't get anything if say Port played Carlton at TD, instead of Adelaide Oval.

That all said, the biggest hurdle isn't Carlton, SACA or even the SANFL. It's Andy Dimwitreou. Brisbane and Sydney get gifted 4 points every year for tainted finishes, as they are developing markets. The most strongly pro-Vic. AFL CEO since we've had teams outside Victoria in the competition is never going to let Victorian clubs sell home games to SA or WA venues.

[Docker_Brat]

Originally Posted by drakeyv2

Adelaide oval is also not up to AFL standard.

Garbage. If that's the case, get rid of Manuka and York Park.

There are plenty of valid reasons why there shouldn't be AFL at AO and this isn't one of them.

[igt22265]

I think what the SACA and SA govt are selling is two non-south australian teams playing at Adelaide Oval.
ie: Hawks at Tassie, Kangas at Manuka.

[Forzaport]

While the idea of port playing 13 games in SA instead of 12 is appealing i doubt it'll happen

[drakeyv2]

The SANFL would argue the games (Carlton home games) should be played at Footy Park. By playing them at Adelaide Oval you are allowing football money to go th the SACA. I would imagine that if the AFL was to seriously contemplate Carlton playing home games in Adelaide, then Footy Park would make a similar bid to the SACA & that would be the option taken up.

As for the Adelaide Oval being used as an alternative to Footy Park for Crows/Power home games; the ground is many, many millions of dollars away from having either the capacity or facilities to be a suitable replacement.

[Sticks 4]

It would be worth thinking about for Carlton. We have a large supporter base in Adelaide and it would encourage a lot of them to join up (I'm already a member, for what it matters) I, personally, love the idea of watching my beloved Blues having a kick at Adelaide Oval. I reckon it's a good place to watch footy and having my team accessable to me a couple of extra times a year sound pretty decent to me.

I don't reckon it will happen though. We'd get too many current menbers off side.