Could interstate clubs sell games to the MCG?
- Thread starter Mick39
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I agree more exposure to playing at MCG would be a good thing to clubs outside of Victoria. However that is not for clubs that play at MCG to work out. It is for the AFL and clubs interstate to work together how to do it.
Getting West Coast and Freo away from Subiaco is not what this is about. It is about playing one or two more games at G during home and away.I guess we should get West Coast and Fremantle are away from Subiaco as well
If West Coast or Freo as clubs choose to be pro-active and move a home game to the G it is very different circumstance to Hawks playing game in Tassie for financial reasons and growth of fan base.
For West Coast or Freo it would need to be thought through about working out how to make it attractive for Perth based fans to travel to Melbourne and get some package deal as part of their membership involved. A special cheap flight rate and decent place to stay should be an attractive offer and they should probably work with an away club to combine the benefits for both sets of fans travelling for that game. It also should be to promote a growth of their fan base of Melbourne living West Coast fans. If they can sell a 3 game package to Melbourne based members of West Coast for example like Hawks fans promote Tassie based fans it has to be seen as an opportunity to look beyond club state borders. Maybe there should be a special club function for fans on those weekends too. Whatever way can make it work has to be thought through.
I dunno its up to the WA clubs to negotiate and reimburse clubs (as Hawthorn does)
Your the one claiming the MCG's tenant clubs (Collingwood, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Richmond) should surrender home games at their ground
Other clubs surrendering home games to help other clubs clearly is not the way to do this. This has to be about growth, not restrictions. You guys argue about somebody benefiting and somebody pay for another to benefit. This is silly. You guys need to think outside the square on this and give up the squabbling or just get a room.
Sarang
Debutant
Or y'know the AFL could schedule games against MCG tenants at the MCG instead of shafting the non-vic clubs to Etihad, Tasmania, & the NT.
Completely BS when we get told the GF shouldn't move because the MCG is close to neutral and it's the most used ground. But apparently you have to 'earn the right' to play games at the MCG. Have no problems with the Hawks/other clubs moving home games from the MCG, but it shouldn't be at the expense of robbing valuable game time for clubs who are lucky to play there 1-2 times a year.
There should be a rule that each club has to play a minimum of 3-4 games a year at the MCG, including the smaller Vic clubs.
Completely BS when we get told the GF shouldn't move because the MCG is close to neutral and it's the most used ground. But apparently you have to 'earn the right' to play games at the MCG. Have no problems with the Hawks/other clubs moving home games from the MCG, but it shouldn't be at the expense of robbing valuable game time for clubs who are lucky to play there 1-2 times a year.
There should be a rule that each club has to play a minimum of 3-4 games a year at the MCG, including the smaller Vic clubs.
I like the sentiment but I'm not sure its that simple...
Hawthorn were able to capitalise on a perfect storm of opportunities...circumstances that probably won't be available to other clubs -
- a) they got compensation for breaking a 40 year lease at Waverley Park and were given the opportunity to negotiate with the MCG and Docklands (by choosing the MCG as its home ground they effectively left North Melbourne without a home ground in 2000 and 2001 before they signed an agreement to play home games and move their pokies to Docklands under Aylett)
- b) secured Box Hill Football Club as a VFL feeder club....the Hawks control the Box Hill club in all but name. The Hawks employ Box Hill's staff and have seats on its board...since 2000 the Box Hill Hawks have made 5 VFL Grand Finals (including the last three straight)
- c) they negotiated with the Tasmanian government to move a package of two home games down to Tasmania in 2001/02. This was at a time when Essendon, St Kilda, the W Bulldogs and in time Carlton were negotiating tenancy agreements with Docklands - the AFL were trying to get Carlton into Docklands, there was a squeeze on venues and Hawthorn games were expendable (the Hawks latent support didn't come to the fore until 2007/08).
- d) Hawthorn traded McPharlin, Croad (who they got back in 2003) and some magic beans for Hodge + Mitchell...and used their 2001 picks on Osborne, Campbell Brown and Bateman - enter the nucleus for the 2008 premiership side and the rock for the 2013-15 three peat bid.
- e) Hawthorn were able to negotiate terms with MIRVAC to relocate from Glenferrie Oval to Waverley Park. There is a bit of a misconception that Hawthorn was given Waverley Park for free but St Kilda were also given the opportunity to move into the new facility. The fact that Hawthorn was able to move into the facility and eventually take ownership of the grandstand for a peppercorn $1 p/a rental was huge for the balance sheet (approx $8m by 2010/11).
- f) Hawthorn finished bottom 2 at exactly the right time (2004/05), just before the priority pick system was phased out and just in time for Roughead, Franklin, Lewis and Birchall to add to the 2001 nucleus. At a time when they recruited arguably the second coming of Norm Smith (Clarkson) it was the perfect storm for a decade of on field success
- g) Roll on 2006 and the Hawks replace Dicker with Kennett as president. Hawthorn get whiff that the Saints are unhappy in Tasmania and are looking to return back to Docklands. Kennett negotiates a naming rights partnership (worth $15m over 5 seasons) to take St Kilda's 2 games off their hands and secure the major sponsorship of the club. The Hawks use the money to improve their football department, set up a Hawthorn Forever Foundation and finance the Caroline Springs development in Western Melbourne (along with Waverley Gardens this is the facility that brings in the pokies revenue)
- h) Hawks storm up the ladder in 2007 and Lance 'Buddy' Franklin arrives as an on field / off field phenomena. In 2008 he kicks the ton, the Hawks win an unexpected flag and merchandise explodes (in 2012 Hawthorn had four of the top 7 most marketable players in the league in terms of merchandise sales - Franklin, Rioli, Hodge and Mitchell)
- i) Hawthorn rise from basket case (2005) to premiership contender (2008) and membership / crowds explode. In 2006 the Hawks had 28k members and drew 30k to their home and away games...by 2008 they have 40k members (by 2009 its 50k, 2012 its 60k and 2015 its 73k) and jumped to 45k averages per home and away season. The jump was a perfect mix of the club building decisions made in the 1997-2007 period, current day success and the latent remnants of the 1971-1991 club success
- ...and finally j) the 2010/12 compromised drafts and free agency rules basically delayed the status quo by 2-3 years as it basically starved the competition of draft picks. As a club that was around the mark in 2008/11 (albeit with a much younger spine than the Dogs, Saints, Cats) the Hawks were in position A to capitalise on the changes to the competition. The Pies were the other club that should have been able to reep the spoils but they had their own mini meltdown during / after Mick Malthouse left in 2011
So basically you had exposure to the MCG (great for our finals record), growing revenue streams (great for our football department), Tasmania (great for our support / membership growth + multiplying revenue streams), changing free agency, astute recruiting and drafting (extending our time at the top) and exposure to the MCG (a substantial boost for attendances and membership) that have added to the perfect storm
If the AFL had its way there is no way the AFL would allow us to play in Tasmania however after 15 years in the state its going to be very, very hard to remove Hawthorn unless they are replaced by its very own club...
Hurbis is the death of all great clubs (Melbourne in the 60s, Richmond in the 80s, Hawthorn in the 90s, Carlton / Essendon in the 00s) but the death knell for the Hawks could be the land acquisition in Dingley (28ha) which is a $50m undertaking by the club.
Last edited:
So called MCG tenant clubs that choose to play a few home games somewhere else is their choice.
That is not shafting a non-Vic based club. It is helping the home club deal with their own club circumstances as one of 18 clubs.
A non vic club have no say it where away games are programmed by AFL.
It is the AFL to work out what is best for the league schedule.
As for non-Vic clubs playing a game or two more at the G I am all for it.
It is however up to those clubs to get themselves into that situation. They have to think outside the box and if it means playing a home game at G to expand their fan base then maybe that is the path to look down. Hawks certainly looked beyond state borders to grow their fan base. The upshoot is if non-Vic based clubs grow their fan base in Melbourne some of their away games against Vic clubs are likely to be drawn at the G more, just as Sydney Swans are. Tassie based Hawks fans should not be shafted because Eagles do not have enough Melbourne based fans. Grow your support base and getting other clubs to want to play Eagles at the G will be more attractive to the AFL.
Agreed that said I don't understand why this is an issue now
From 1897 - 1965 Melbourne was the only club that played home games at the MCG...
In an 18 round season the Dees got 9 home games and the 11 VFL rivals raffled the 9 games amongst themselves
With retrospect its probably not surprise that the Dees went 12-1-4 in GF's, given they had a home ground advantage every time they made the GF...
From 1965 - 1968 (18 games), 1969-1970 (20 games) and then from 1971-1985 Richmond and Melbourne shared the ground (the Tigers went 5-2 in GF's at the ground), then North Melbourne (1985-1999, 2-1 in GF's), Essendon (1993-1999, 1-0 in GF's), Collingwood (1998-2015, 1-1-3 GF's) and Hawthorn (2000-2015, 4-1 GF) have all had stints at the ground.
I just understand why this is only an issue now
Probably also worth mentioning that the primary reason why Hawthorn play a package of games in Tasmania is because the AFL couldn't provide a commitment to schedule all 11 of our home games at the MCG
You'll probably find that Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn (and dare I say it, Carlton) all want 11 home games at the MCG
I would agree. Most of these clubs would be happy to play all 11 home games at the G. The challenge is how to you play over 70 odd games at the G over 23 weekends. This is part of reason some clubs are essentially forced by AFL play a few games at Docklands and other alternatives such as Tassie and in Dees case Darwin.
They really need to look into the MCG playing two games on a Saturday if they can.
A day game at 2-10 pm and a night game should be able to de done on same day, surely?
In the case of clubs from interstate playing a special home game at G possibly a double header is an option too. The AFL and clubs need to look into such ideas.
Equalise the results across the clubs playing home games at Etihad, specifically take to account the Dons good deal ... the dud deal at Etihad would be an AFL problem, funded by the AFL. cue telsor ....
Looking ahead will non Melb clubs be expected to play in Ballarat - after all if you cant pull a crowd at Etihad, aspire to the G, playing in country Vic ... imagine a Vic club with the Eagles travel 2015? No way !
Very possible if Eagles and Dogs do not grow their fan bases enough to be make it an attractive fixture to play at Docklands. Clubs like Eagles, Freo and Port need to grow their fan bases beyond their own pond and make themselves more appealing for AFL to program more games at the G. Swans and Adelaide do it better for clubs that been around awhile from interstate. They have less problem getting their own fans based to be big enough in Melbourne to play a few more games at bigger venues when they are the away team.
- Oct 4, 2011
- 521
- 428
- AFL Club
- Sydney
1) The grand final needs to be at the MCG.
2) The AFL has ratified every ground used for AFL level footy for the year including their dimensions.
3) The mcg size has not been the same size for last 119 years of aussie rules.
Lets spice things up ... and say that of the gf teams, the one that is higher up on the table at the end of H&A, is allowed to determine the ground size they want within what the mcg can handle.
I.e sa and wa teams have them narrower, nsw smaller and vic standard mcg size for that year.
That equalises the issue of lack of familiarity of the ground to the team that has "earned" the advantage.
2) The AFL has ratified every ground used for AFL level footy for the year including their dimensions.
3) The mcg size has not been the same size for last 119 years of aussie rules.
Lets spice things up ... and say that of the gf teams, the one that is higher up on the table at the end of H&A, is allowed to determine the ground size they want within what the mcg can handle.
I.e sa and wa teams have them narrower, nsw smaller and vic standard mcg size for that year.
That equalises the issue of lack of familiarity of the ground to the team that has "earned" the advantage.
I see Pinky And Leather Tuscadero with help from Jenny Piccolo have highjacked the argument again.
How bout this simple equation. You play your home games at your home ground in your home city. Problem ******* solved.
How bout this simple equation. You play your home games at your home ground in your home city. Problem ******* solved.
8000 at the Melbourne game. I admit that only 15,000-16,000 might have been at the MCG, but wouldn't have been as big a loss than 8000 at the Etihad. Even 15k at Etihad is a bigger loss than the same crowd at the MCG.
28500 at the Hawks v Port game, 36500 at Collingwood v West Coast and 40000 at Richmond v North Melbourne...all massive unders compared to the MCG but not quite as bad as the Dees game!
Last edited:
Such incredible nonsense. At no time has the league grand final been about anyone earning an advantage.
The sense of anyone entitlement for anyone to be earning an advantage for the grand final I find laughable.
You play the grand final for the good of the league to have a game decide premier team of league and game, not for some precious few that feel they should be entitled to play the grand final with an advantage when the grand final has never been devalued to such small minded thinking. The precious fragile people that want an advantage and feel they should be entitled to one makes me laugh. Win a premiership by winning it where it has always been meant to be played. At the biggest ground for a crowd for the league to do the grand finale justice. Pandering to adjust the size of playing surface is laughable. I'm not saying it could not be done but it is laughable to me to even think why anyone would think there is a need.
- Oct 4, 2011
- 521
- 428
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Grand finals have not been about being given an advantage for no reason too.
It was rubbish that the swans got an extra day preparation in 2012. Both teams should play prelims on Saturday. Thats 1-5% difference right there.
Teams with unique ground sizes have teams that take advantage of it for the 11-12 home games they play there to get into finals. ie swans play hard inside footy as if they lose it in close, the have little opportunities to salvage in the small ground. Similarly, wa teams have runners and long kicks to get things going quickly to make distant.
When teams are developed, drafted, trained to play the style needed at their ground, there are out of water when they play at other grounds. You cant change your team for the last 4 weeks of the year.
Thus an advantage is given to teams who happen to play at the ground more frequently. They have a team equipted for that ground.
I know it seems that that 1-5% doesnt make a difference, then give the 1-5% up.
It was rubbish that the swans got an extra day preparation in 2012. Both teams should play prelims on Saturday. Thats 1-5% difference right there.
Teams with unique ground sizes have teams that take advantage of it for the 11-12 home games they play there to get into finals. ie swans play hard inside footy as if they lose it in close, the have little opportunities to salvage in the small ground. Similarly, wa teams have runners and long kicks to get things going quickly to make distant.
When teams are developed, drafted, trained to play the style needed at their ground, there are out of water when they play at other grounds. You cant change your team for the last 4 weeks of the year.
Thus an advantage is given to teams who happen to play at the ground more frequently. They have a team equipted for that ground.
I know it seems that that 1-5% doesnt make a difference, then give the 1-5% up.
Too many MCC members with Melbourne club support who don't get access to Etihad. Every year it's the same. Maybe it's a deal the AFL has with Etihad that every club needs one home game at Etihad, but at least give it to us against a Melbourne team, and give the away team's members standard access. I'd much rather a home game at Etihad against Bulldogs or North or Carlton. In the 00s we often play Melbourne teams twice at Etihad in a year.
I never at any stage worried about my Carlton team playing Richmond in the grand final in 1982 at the MCG.
Richmond would have played 12 or so games there in home and away and us just twice. We did not care. We knew you played the grand final at the G and that is where you win the premiership. You simply play better and know part of being a premiership team is you win the grand final at the MCG no matter what and prove you are the best and not worry about ground dimensions. You win it where it is played. You do not change the ground to pander to small minded thinking.
- Oct 4, 2011
- 521
- 428
- AFL Club
- Sydney
But back then, the level of scrutiny of controllable outcomes were not analysed to the same way they are now. The ground size would be reviewed as much as left footedness, or stamina or vertical leap.
If your club is worried about the different ground size, like you are, they are not very professional then if they haven't got a training track to match
- Oct 4, 2011
- 521
- 428
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Its a controllable outcome, thats all. If its no issue, just change it, yeah?
Don't forget eating a dim sim for energy.
Similar threads
