"Handing the keys to the AFL" - Carlton's situation

[Demonic Ascent]

You may agree with parity, but at what point is that a reward for poor performance? In some cases a whole history of poor performances.

Surely the Salary cap & Draft was at least aiming at parity of opportunity. Thats something that never occurred in the VFL. Given that, the results for some clubs haven't changed very much from one administrations set of rules to the next.

The salary cap and draft are two pillars of parity/equalisation (which is equality of opportunity, not outcome, which is what we talk about when we talk about equalisation). However we have never had a pure draft or salary cap (although have come close with the draft) and if anything the AFL is going backwards on these things considering third party payments, club academies, banking salary cap space for next year etc.

Another pillar of equalisation is the fixture which, with the way our competition is structured competitively and financially, has a huge bearing on the finances of the clubs and hence their ability to invest in their resources and compete on an equal footing.

I would beg to differ about results not changing very much.

St. Kilda and the Bulldogs have had close to their most successful periods in their history over the last 20-25 years albeit falling short of the ultimate prize.

Hawthorn and Geelong have bucked the trend over the recent past and gone from middle of the road clubs to powerhouses, Geelong maybe a little less so.

North have been quite successful over the last 20-25 years as well, which bucks the trend for the majority of their existence (they capitalised on some short term rule changes in the 70's and some savvy management which was a bit of an anomaly compared to their history).

Carlton has fallen off the perch and is no longer the powerhouse they once were.

Melbourne is an anomaly and probably the "anti-Hawthorn" having gone from powerhouse to outhouse however in the period 1987-2006 was one of the more "successful" Victorian clubs despite again falling short of the ultimate prize.

 

[madmug]

The salary cap and draft are two pillars of parity/equalisation (which is equality of opportunity, not outcome, which is what we talk about when we talk about equalisation). However we have never had a pure draft or salary cap (although have come close with the draft) and if anything the AFL is going backwards on these things considering third party payments, club academies, banking salary cap space for next year etc.

Another pillar of equalisation is the fixture which, with the way our competition is structured competitively and financially, has a huge bearing on the finances of the clubs and hence their ability to invest in their resources and compete on an equal footing.

I would beg to differ about results not changing very much.

St. Kilda and the Bulldogs have had close to their most successful periods in their history over the last 20-25 years albeit falling short of the ultimate prize.

Hawthorn and Geelong have bucked the trend over the recent past and gone from middle of the road clubs to powerhouses, Geelong maybe a little less so.

North have been quite successful over the last 20-25 years as well, which bucks the trend for the majority of their existence (they capitalised on some short term rule changes in the 70's and some savvy management which was a bit of an anomaly compared to their history).

Carlton has fallen off the perch and is no longer the powerhouse they once were.

Melbourne is an anomaly and probably the "anti-Hawthorn" having gone from powerhouse to outhouse however in the period 1987-2006 was one of the more "successful" Victorian clubs despite again falling short of the ultimate prize.

Nice description of events.

It just goes to show that 10 clubs within spitting distance of on & other in one market cant all be successful. The market can only bear to support so much. It certainly cant sustain 10 clubs at their best all at the same time. Theirs only so much interest & support to go around.

Its interesting that so many of them have had to sell games interstate to help balance the books. Reason being as I said, too many teams competing in the same place.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Nice description of events.

It just goes to show that 10 clubs within spitting distance of on & other in one market cant all be successful. The market can only bear to support so much. It certainly cant sustain 10 clubs at their best all at the same time. Theirs only so much interest & support to go around.

Its interesting that so many of them have had to sell games interstate to help balance the books. Reason being as I said, too many teams competing in the same place.

That's your view and it's distorted by your beliefs rather than the facts. Clearly the market is big enough, the ten clubs gave existed side by side for decades and have only gone from strength to strength.

Your original assertion that the same clubs have failed under an equalisation regime that failed under the previous one was shown to be incorrect and you've then gone off on some other tangent.

Clubs sell games interstate for two reasons; 1) the AFL manipulate the fixture so they get more home games against non-vic clubs and hence less profitable home game every year compared to their crosstown rivals and 2) The stadium deals and AFL contracts tie their hands with regards to making money off games in Victoria.

 

[The Darkman]

That's your view and it's distorted by your beliefs rather than the facts. Clearly the market is big enough, the ten clubs gave existed side by side for decades and have only gone from strength to strength.

Your original assertion that the same clubs have failed under an equalisation regime that failed under the previous one was shown to be incorrect and you've then gone off on some other tangent.

Clubs sell games interstate for two reasons; 1) the AFL manipulate the fixture so they get more home games against non-vic clubs and hence less profitable home game every year compared to their crosstown rivals and 2) The stadium deals and AFL contracts tie their hands with regards to making money off games in Victoria.

This has to be one of the most Victorian centric posts I have read on BF. Your comment on the equalisation regime makes no sense. Clubs remain crap due to poor management and shouldn't rely on the draft, salary cap & academies to improve. Your club is a prime example.

As for all clubs standing strong. The club's 2014 financial statements (as the 2015 statements are not available) show Geelong, St Kilda & Carlton (the topic of this thread) reported losses for that financial year. Geelong are still fairly safe at the moment. St Kilda have a negative asset position (don't worry as they will be owned by Hawthorn within the next 15 years) and Carlton (the topic of this thread) are likely to record a loss for 2015 due to declining membership, poor on field performances (declining home attendances) & bad management (Mick Malthouse payout). Past posters on this thread have given a number of possible reasons for Carlton's decline. Crowding has been mentioned a number of occasions as well as competition for available sources of donations and sponsorship. The number of Victorian clubs could have contributed to Carlton's demise.

Hosting interstate clubs. The AFL competition is made up of 18 teams, 10 in Victoria and 8 outside Victoria. In a 22 game season which each team plays each other once and play 5 teams twice, a Victorian club may have to play non Victorian teams 10 or 11 times a season. Therefore, may have to host non Victorian teams 5 or 6 times a season. Here is the funny part. Non Victorian teams host interstate club's 10 times a season and they don't complain about hosting poor drawing Victorian teams. Adelaide hosted Melbourne this year and still drew over 40k in the wet.

Stadium deals. My only response is would the Victorian clubs prefer to go back to playing out of Arden Street, Western Oval, Windy Hill & Princes Park. For all of Etihad's supposed faults, there is a high benchmark standard of comfort for spectators & players which ensure the games are played. I think it comes down to a club's ability to draw a crowd and stop blaming stadium deals.

Go back and read rfctiger74's posts. He's right when he states no club has a guaranteed place in the AFL competition. If Carlton can't get it right, they will lose games, players will leave, they will lose members and their financial position will deteriorate. Eventually, they may have to merge or be taken over by a bigger club.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

This has to be one of the most Victorian centric posts I have read on BF. Your comment on the equalisation regime makes no sense. Clubs remain crap due to poor management and shouldn't rely on the draft, salary cap & academies to improve. Your club is a prime example.

As for all clubs standing strong. The club's 2014 financial statements (as the 2015 statements are not available) show Geelong, St Kilda & Carlton (the topic of this thread) reported losses for that financial year. Geelong are still fairly safe at the moment. St Kilda have a negative asset position (don't worry as they will be owned by Hawthorn within the next 15 years) and Carlton (the topic of this thread) are likely to record a loss for 2015 due to declining membership, poor on field performances (declining home attendances) & bad management (Mick Malthouse payout). Past posters on this thread have given a number of possible reasons for Carlton's decline. Crowding has been mentioned a number of occasions as well as competition for available sources of donations and sponsorship. The number of Victorian clubs could have contributed to Carlton's demise.

Hosting interstate clubs. The AFL competition is made up of 18 teams, 10 in Victoria and 8 outside Victoria. In a 22 game season which each team plays each other once and play 5 teams twice, a Victorian club may have to play non Victorian teams 10 or 11 times a season. Therefore, may have to host non Victorian teams 5 or 6 times a season. Here is the funny part. Non Victorian teams host interstate club's 10 times a season and they don't complain about hosting poor drawing Victorian teams. Adelaide hosted Melbourne this year and still drew over 40k in the wet.

Stadium deals. My only response is would the Victorian clubs prefer to go back to playing out of Arden Street, Western Oval, Windy Hill & Princes Park. For all of Etihad's supposed faults, there is a high benchmark standard of comfort for spectators & players which ensure the games are played. I think it comes down to a club's ability to draw a crowd and stop blaming stadium deals.

Go back and read rfctiger74's posts. He's right when he states no club has a guaranteed place in the AFL competition. If Carlton can't get it right, they will lose games, players will leave, they will lose members and their financial position will deteriorate. Eventually, they may have to merge or be taken over by a bigger club.

The draft and salary cap aren't relied on to improve they are pillars of equalisation which in a sports competition is of paramount importance.

All clubs are professionally run with multi millions in revenue and at least 30K members. Any financial losses come down to expenses rather than revenue and other factors to do with stadium deals and fixturing as previously detailed. On field performance obviously has an effect on this but in a fair competition these things usually turn around over a period of time. Carlton has had a bad 15 years but were playing finals only a couple of years ago. The worm will turn again.

I dont dispute the national competition means clubs will have to host non-vic clubs up to 5-6 times a season. However when some Vic clubs have to host non-vic clubs 6-7 times a year every single year and other Vic clubs only host non-vic clubs 4 times a year every single year something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I don't dispute non-vic clubs hosting interstate clubs every other week but when comparing some Vic clubs to others it is clear some Vic clubs get favoured financially by the fixture every year with guaranteed home derbies against other Vic clubs 7 tines a year.

The stadium deals rest on the AFL. The AFL has a contract to play a certain number of games at Docklands each year so the clubs playing there have no negotiating power to get better deals. They were also sold a lemon when Docklands was first developed and were told the non-footy events in the off-season would help subsidise the footy. Some events there make money off smaller crowds due to different deals that the Vic clubs can't negotiate due to being hamstrung by the AFL's contracts. Some clubs like North and Dogs were also prevented by the AFL from playing home games in Geelong. Therefore they had minimal options but to sell games interstate especially when taking into account the previous issues of the unfavourable fixtures every year. Hawthorn sell games to Tassie, does that make them unsustainable?

I don't dispute no club is bigger than the game and clearly said as much. Having said that, there is no way on earth the AFL would ever allow Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond to go under and Hawthorn and Geelong would be pretty close there too. Do you really think there is any way in the foreseeable future the competition would be without Collingwood or Carlton? It simply won't happen. Not saying it's right or wrong but that's my opinion.

 

[The_Wookie]

The number of Victorian clubs could have contributed to Carlton's demise.

No it didnt. Its purely bad management or must I walk you through the loans and coaching payouts, and drop offs in gate reciepts, memberships and sponsorship that comes with not winning.

Non Victorian teams host interstate club's 10 times a season and they don't complain about hosting poor drawing Victorian teams. Adelaide hosted Melbourne this year and still drew over 40k in the wet.

And most non victorian clubs are not preferred viewing for teams and supporters in victoria, especially not at 4pm on Sunday. At Etihad. Its the biggest losing quadrella of the football fixture. Again, Victorian clubs have 17 games to choose from a year, they dont have to go matches to see teams they have no interest in, at times they cant stand, and at a stadium they dont prefer.

Stadium deals.

My only response is would the Victorian clubs prefer to go back to playing out of Arden Street, Western Oval, Windy Hill & Princes Park. For all of Etihad's supposed faults, there is a high benchmark standard of comfort for spectators & players which ensure the games are played. I think it comes down to a club's ability to draw a crowd and stop blaming stadium deals.

When the Western Bulldogs can categorically tell you that they made a crap load more money from a crowd of 10,000 at the Western Oval than they made in a SEASON at Etihad, theres a problem with the stadium deal. The AFL says theres a problem with the stadium deal - to the point that they paid Etihad to pay the clubs in the new deals first year. The Clubs say theres a problem with the stadium deal, to the point that they would ALL prefer to play at the MCG if they had a choice.

Go back and read rfctiger74's posts. He's right when he states no club has a guaranteed place in the AFL competition. If Carlton can't get it right, they will lose games, players will leave, they will lose members and their financial position will deteriorate. Eventually, they may have to merge or be taken over by a bigger club.

Despite the fervent hopes of many, Carlton wont be going anywhere. And for all that he said, the AFL wont be getting rid of any clubs while its still flush with cash. Theres a lot more to getting rid of a club than just wishing it was so.

 

[western royboy]

Many clubs are technically insolvent if you take away the afl dividend / guarantee. The afl thrived based on an 18 team TV deal, no team is folding any time soon. Fitzroy was earmarked for deletion long before our eventual demise - the program to get rid of us was wagered over a long period to facilitate aspects of the national competition. It was not necessarily essential that we were killed off and could have survived easily with some assistance - less than many other clubs have today.

 

[Father Jack]

Is it a pity they didn't go to Brisbane in the late 80s, or wouldn't that have made any real difference to the average Fitzroy fan at the time?

 

[telsor]

Stadium deals. My only response is would the Victorian clubs prefer to go back to playing out of Arden Street, Western Oval, Windy Hill & Princes Park. For all of Etihad's supposed faults, there is a high benchmark standard of comfort for spectators & players which ensure the games are played. I think it comes down to a club's ability to draw a crowd and stop blaming stadium deals.

In a lot of cases, a number of those clubs WOULD prefer that...They'd make a lot more money out of it, but they don't have a choice, the AFL forces them to play at docklands for a far crappier deal.


How would Sydney fans feel if they were told that the AFL had struck a deal that it ultimately benefited from (but not your club) and as a result for the next 25 years, every home game would be at ANZ, and unless they pulled a 30K crowd, their club would have to pay for the 'privilege'? (oh, and even if they do make bigger crowds, they wont make much money anyway).

 

[madmug]

In a lot of cases, a number of those clubs WOULD prefer that...They'd make a lot more money out of it, but they don't have a choice, the AFL forces them to play at docklands for a far crappier deal.


How would Sydney fans feel if they were told that the AFL had struck a deal that it ultimately benefited from (but not your club) and as a result for the next 25 years, every home game would be at ANZ, and unless they pulled a 30K crowd, their club would have to pay for the 'privilege'? (oh, and even if they do make bigger crowds, they wont make much money anyway).

Strange, I thought the whole AFL thing was devised to save quite a few VFL clubs from bankruptcy in the 1980s. I didnt realise how healthy the game actually was.

Clearly, having clubs play out of such pig sties as Moorabbin & Arden street must have been better for business than I, or others, had imagined.

 

[telsor]

Strange, I thought the whole AFL thing was devised to save quite a few VFL clubs from bankruptcy in the 1980s. I didnt realise how healthy the game actually was.

So that's why they did it? Got to love revisionist history.

Clearly, having clubs play out of such pig sties as Moorabbin & Arden street must have been better for business than I, or others, had imagined.

Everything is relative, and compared to playing out of Docklands....

 

[telsor]

Strange, I thought the whole AFL thing was devised to save quite a few VFL clubs from bankruptcy in the 1980s. I didnt realise how healthy the game actually was.

Clearly, having clubs play out of such pig sties as Moorabbin & Arden street must have been better for business than I, or others, had imagined.

BTW...Are you saying that playing out of smaller grounds with relatively limited facilities doesn't have the potential to be profitable?

 

[madmug]

BTW...Are you saying that playing out of smaller grounds with relatively limited facilities doesn't have the potential to be profitable?

Certainly not, you are though. Anyway, those old grounds were putrid, literally.

But who is going to stump up the money for your grand plan of 4 or 5 shiny new boutique stadiums in Melbourne. Each having 6 or 8 games each a year. Also what happens to the current contracts signed to use Docklands & the MCG?

 

[telsor]

Certainly not, you are though. Anyway, those old grounds were putrid, literally.

But who is going to stump up the money for your grand plan of 4 or 5 shiny new boutique stadiums in Melbourne. Each having 6 or 8 games each a year. Also what happens to the current contracts signed to use Docklands & the MCG?

Where did I say that was my plan? (BTW, some, like Whitten Oval & Punt Road are already good enough to host games).


Just pointing out that the stadium deal(s) in Vic are a big part of the problem, and when they get fixed in a few years, the financial situation for Vic clubs (especially the poorer ones) will be significantly better.

Seems that 'stadium deals' is a valid excuse for why SA clubs sucked financially, and why Tas will be rolling in money, but the mere mention of it in regard to Vic clubs gets shouted down by the anti-Vic crowd as if it makes no difference, in spite of every source making it clear that it has a massive effect.

 

[madmug]

Where did I say that was my plan? (BTW, some, like Whitten Oval & Punt Road are already good enough to host games).


Just pointing out that the stadium deal(s) in Vic are a big part of the problem, and when they get fixed in a few years, the financial situation for Vic clubs (especially the poorer ones) will be significantly better.

Seems that 'stadium deals' is a valid excuse for why SA clubs sucked financially, and why Tas will be rolling in money, but the mere mention of it in regard to Vic clubs gets shouted down by the anti-Vic crowd as if it makes no difference, in spite of every source making it clear that it has a massive effect.

Dont get paranoid. We arent all against you.

The problem is you cant have such stadiums as the MCG getting massive upgrades to be the world class facility it is, & docklands with its roof & great spectator comforts & also spend money on other venues. No one is going to pay for them.

Its cake & eat it stuff. It doesnt add up.

Its either clubs grow into the stadiums or they go & play suburban footy.

 

[telsor]

Dont get paranoid. We arent all against you.

The problem is you cant have such stadiums as the MCG getting massive upgrades to be the world class facility it is, & docklands with its roof & great spectator comforts & also spend money on other venues. No one is going to pay for them.

Its cake & eat it stuff. It doesnt add up.

I'm not suggesting you're against *ME*, I'm saying the arguments used to justify killing off Vic clubs are inconsistent with those used to support other clubs.

Yes, they're being paid for...That's why these clubs get such crappy returns...and in 10 years, they'll have paid it off, so their returns should be significantly better.

Its either clubs grow into the stadiums or they go & play suburban footy.

So if the AFL commissions a 50K stadium in Hobart, your club gets forced to play there and is told that they will make more money, and then find that you only make a profit on if you get over 30K, but can't move elsewhere because the league is making lots from the deal, would you agree a Tas team should be dumped if it doesn't fill it regularly, or should the league compensate you for being forced to lose money yourself to help them?

These clubs are getting significantly bigger crowds than they were 15 years ago when they were forced to move, and still can't make money off the deal. I think it's safe to say the deal sucks, and the AFL, as the party who is both benefiting and forced/forces those clubs to play there should pay them accordingly.

 

[The_Wookie]

Strange, I thought the whole AFL thing was devised to save quite a few VFL clubs from bankruptcy in the 1980s. I didnt realise how healthy the game actually was.

Clearly, having clubs play out of such pig sties as Moorabbin & Arden street must have been better for business than I, or others, had imagined.

Moving clubs out of suburban stadiums had nothing to do with club profitability and everything to do with the Victorian Government and the VFL agreeing to ground rationalisation on the grounds that funding was not going to be made available for upgrades for most of them. Its worth noting that the WAFL and WA Government received a report in 1983 that recommended they cut the number of grounds used to four, including Subiaco and the WACA.

Such moves werent favoured by the club administrators in either league. Collingwood held out until 1999, Carlton strung it out right until 2005.

 

[madmug]

Moving clubs out of suburban stadiums had nothing to do with club profitability and everything to do with the Victorian Government and the VFL agreeing to ground rationalisation on the grounds that funding was not going to be made available for upgrades for most of them. Its worth noting that the WAFL and WA Government received a report in 1983 that recommended they cut the number of grounds used to four, including Subiaco and the WACA.

Such moves werent favoured by the club administrators in either league. Collingwood held out until 1999, Carlton strung it out right until 2005.

Well you'd better let Telsor know the bad news then.

He seems to think the clubs can have their boutique stadiums & also have the big facilities when they want to use them. You'd want to tell him the tax payers have other priorities than giving every club a bright shiny new $200million 30k stadium to use maybe 6 time a year. Thats 6 days out of 365. Not a very efficient use of the public purse.

 

[telsor]

Well you'd better let Telsor know the bad news then.

He seems to think the clubs can have their boutique stadiums & also have the big facilities when they want to use them. You'd want to tell him the tax payers have other priorities than giving every club a bright shiny new $200million 30k stadium to use maybe 6 time a year. Thats 6 days out of 365. Not a very efficient use of the public purse.

Where did I say that?

Indeed, I've often argued against that very thing.

Doesn't change the fact that the Bulldogs are financially better off playing most games at Whitten oval, without further renovations, than at Docklands.

 

[Rob]

Moving clubs out of suburban stadiums had nothing to do with club profitability and everything to do with the Victorian Government and the VFL agreeing to ground rationalisation on the grounds that funding was not going to be made available for upgrades for most of them. Its worth noting that the WAFL and WA Government received a report in 1983 that recommended they cut the number of grounds used to four, including Subiaco and the WACA.

Such moves werent favoured by the club administrators in either league. Collingwood held out until 1999, Carlton strung it out right until 2005.

Isn't that directly related to club profitability though? Clubs had the choice to move to modern stadia or pay for the upkeep and necessary upgrades to their own grounds themselves. If they had of stayed where they were it would have sent them broke.

In Carlton's case, they actually had every right to keep playing at PP - they even had a contract with the AFL that allowed them to do so. The initial Princes Park contract (post-legends stand) required 16 games a year to be held there. So desperate were other clubs not to play there that they successfully campaigned the AFL to buy out 7 out of those games, with the remaining 9 to be filled by Carlton. With a couple of years left on that contract, Carlton waived their remaining match rights by moving games to Docklands. The AFL probably encouraged it (and why not given it would have likely increased crowds and therefore AFL KPIs), but it was a choice made by Carlton.

 

[Rob]

Where did I say that?

Indeed, I've often argued against that very thing.

Doesn't change the fact that the Bulldogs are financially better off playing most games at Whitten oval, without further renovations, than at Docklands.

Fact? I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[telsor]

Fact? I do not think it means what you think it means.

Have you got anything to support that, or are you just throwing mud?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Where did I say that?

Indeed, I've often argued against that very thing.

Doesn't change the fact that the Bulldogs are financially better off playing most games at Whitten oval, without further renovations, than at Docklands.

You can't say it's cheaper as long as you exclude renos

Of course it is

As we have seen with the nrl though, it's the costs of doing that which ultimately hold clubs back

Whitten oval would only work if govt is happy to keep plowing coin into it

Have we forgotten princes park already???

 

[The_Wookie]

Isn't that directly related to club profitability though? Clubs had the choice to move to modern stadia or pay for the upkeep and necessary upgrades to their own grounds themselves. If they had of stayed where they were it would have sent them broke.

In a lot of cases clubs never had the choice, they didnt own the facilites, funding for ground improvements came from the AFLs Ground Improvement Fund and the state government. Profitability of the clubs wasnt a factor in the stadium rationalisation program.

In Carlton's case, they actually had every right to keep playing at PP - they even had a contract with the AFL that allowed them to do so. The initial Princes Park contract (post-legends stand) required 16 games a year to be held there. So desperate were other clubs not to play there that they successfully campaigned the AFL to buy out 7 out of those games, with the remaining 9 to be filled by Carlton. With a couple of years left on that contract, Carlton waived their remaining match rights by moving games to Docklands. The AFL probably encouraged it (and why not given it would have likely increased crowds and therefore AFL KPIs), but it was a choice made by Carlton.

According to the AFL, they told Carlton in the strongest terms that Carlton had to move, told Elliot not to build the new Grand Stand because the Blues wouldnt be playing there to pay it off. Ian Collins - who was a former AFL General Manager before being Carlton President, moved Carlton to Docklands...and then became Docklands CEO. No shenanigans there.

 

[The Darkman]

No it didnt. Its purely bad management or must I walk you through the loans and coaching payouts, and drop offs in gate reciepts, memberships and sponsorship that comes with not winning.

Just read the 2014 financials. Why anyone would be an accountant beats me. All you have done is quoted from the report without showing any real understanding of the figures. Paying off the loans has made Carlton cash poor. Are any of the trade receivables outstanding memberships? If so, I don't think there is enough provision in case of lapsing memberships. Your current debts and trade payable is $1.15m higher so your gearing is deteriorating. My point is 2015 financials will be worse with paying out Malthouse's contract from a cash poor position and likely lower sponsorship. With the 2016 draw disclosed, Carlton will not be as visible on FTA. Have you done any financial modelling to project figures to October 2016. Also, in 2002 when you came last, membership only dropped by 4%. Last year, membership dropped by 9%. Obviously there are other factors at work.

And most non victorian clubs are not preferred viewing for teams and supporters in victoria, especially not at 4pm on Sunday. At Etihad. Its the biggest losing quadrella of the football fixture. Again, Victorian clubs have 17 games to choose from a year, they dont have to go matches to see teams they have no interest in, at times they cant stand, and at a stadium they dont prefer.[/QUOTE

Are you admitting the number of games in Victoria per season has reached a saturation point and marginal benefits are negligible when clubs play 17 games in Victoria? Not all games at 4pm on Sunday at Etihad involve non Victorian teams.

When the Western Bulldogs can categorically tell you that they made a crap load more money from a crowd of 10,000 at the Western Oval than they made in a SEASON at Etihad, theres a problem with the stadium deal. The AFL says theres a problem with the stadium deal - to the point that they paid Etihad to pay the clubs in the new deals first year. The Clubs say theres a problem with the stadium deal, to the point that they would ALL prefer to play at the MCG if they had a choice.

Firstly, I always thought Footscray should play out of Simonds making better use of the stadium which only hosts 8 games per season.

Didn't anyone at the AFL do a proper analysis and modelling of revenue and costs and distribution to the clubs before it started. I've met Mike Fitzpatrick. He's a smart man. What sort of capacity rate did they expect in order to turn a profit? At one stage the average crowds at Etihad was 70% capacity. I'm sorry but the clubs should not have agreed to it.

Despite the fervent hopes of many, Carlton wont be going anywhere. And for all that he said, the AFL wont be getting rid of any clubs while its still flush with cash. Theres a lot more to getting rid of a club than just wishing it was so.

Aahh, the land of milk and honey financed by television rights money. I wouldn't get too reliant on this cash cow.

In a lot of cases, a number of those clubs WOULD prefer that...They'd make a lot more money out of it, but they don't have a choice, the AFL forces them to play at docklands for a far crappier deal.


How would Sydney fans feel if they were told that the AFL had struck a deal that it ultimately benefited from (but not your club) and as a result for the next 25 years, every home game would be at ANZ, and unless they pulled a 30K crowd, their club would have to pay for the 'privilege'? (oh, and even if they do make bigger crowds, they wont make much money anyway).

Does this mean 15k cheering for the Tassie Devils at Blundstone is more profitable than 35k at Etihad watching Carlton? Interesting. The Wookie has already admitted the number of games in Melbourne has reached saturation point

Firstly, GWS would move there before the Swans. Second, crowds at the SCG are higher than Homebush. Finally, few Swans fans live west of Ashfield.