Is Geelong home games at Etihad the biggest league-endorsed rort of recent times?

[MotleyLemon]

This article popped up this arvo.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...t-club-1-million/story-e6frf3e3-1227638141124

I've harped on about this in the fixture thread a bit, but felt it was time for its own discussion.

All I hear from opposition fans is "Oh but Geelong have the biggest home ground advantage in the league", but it seems when it comes to the AFL, we play where they tell us to.

Seems absolutely obscene that Etihad tenants like North can sell games to Tasmania in order to make money, yet we have to make up a "home game", losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.

Can anyone possibly explain the thought process behind this, because from where I stand, it's blatantly robbing a club of valuable dollars for seemingly no reason?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I agree its completely unfair that a majority of clubs are forced to play games at Etihad to pay off the stadium debt while Geelong pull in a stack of clean money off the gate sales at Simonds.

The reason Etihad tenants are selling games where allowed is because of how ridiculously high the crowds need to be to even break even let alone make a $. Geelong have it faaaaaaaaar better than most when it comes to stadium deals, it's not just the "true home ground" advantage. Its money made off of signage, sponsorship, gate sales, food, drink etc at their own stadium.

Its easy to look at figures in that article and think its doom and gloom but it's primarily Geelongs own doing in regard to the redevelopment which has cost them which in the long run will only increase the money they pull in from games.

 

[DieSwans]

Big business ******* people....well I never....

 

[MotleyLemon]

I agree its completely unfair that a majority of clubs are forced to play games at Etihad to pay off the stadium debt while Geelong pull in a stack of clean money off the gate sales at Simonds.

The reason Etihad tenants are selling games where allowed is because of how ridiculously high the crowds need to be to even break even let alone make a $. Geelong have it faaaaaaaaar better than most when it comes to stadium deals, it's not just the "true home ground" advantage. Its money made off of signage, sponsorship, gate sales, food, drink etc at their own stadium.

Its easy to look at figures in that article and think its doom and gloom but it's primarily Geelongs own doing in regard to the redevelopment which has cost them which in the long run will only increase the money they pull in from games.

Geelong's own doing??? Now I've heard it all.

If it was Geelong's "own doing", surely the Cats would be signed up Etihad tenants?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Geelong's own doing??? Now I've heard it all.

If it was Geelong's "own doing", surely the Cats would be signed up Etihad tenants?

Geelong chose to spend money on the redevelopment, therefore they accrued the debt in an effort to improve the stadium which will lead to them making more money.

Don't misquote me.

 

[MotleyLemon]

Geelong chose to spend money on the redevelopment, therefore they accrued the debt in an effort to improve the stadium which will lead to them making more money.

Don't misquote me.

So Geelong choosing to spend money on KP redevelopment = home games at Etihad?

 

[Jaeger]

Some might say the amount Geelong gets from the Vic government for every game played at Kardinia Park is a rort.

 

[CrazyKenny]

I agree its completely unfair that a majority of clubs are forced to play games at Etihad to pay off the stadium debt while Geelong pull in a stack of clean money off the gate sales at Simonds.

The reason Etihad tenants are selling games where allowed is because of how ridiculously high the crowds need to be to even break even let alone make a $. Geelong have it faaaaaaaaar better than most when it comes to stadium deals, it's not just the "true home ground" advantage. Its money made off of signage, sponsorship, gate sales, food, drink etc at their own stadium.

Its easy to look at figures in that article and think its doom and gloom but it's primarily Geelongs own doing in regard to the redevelopment which has cost them which in the long run will only increase the money they pull in from games.

The Cats spending money on their own redevelopment is irrelevant, they're losing money with this deal. The fact they have to play two "home" games there is quite ridiculous... OP has a point, if I was a Cats supporter I'd be filthy, they aren't a Melbourne based club.

 

[MotleyLemon]

Some might say the amount Geelong gets from the Vic government for every game played at Kardinia Park is a rort.

No different to being sponsored by an entire territory, surely?

 

[STFU Donnie]

No different to being sponsored by an entire territory, surely?

It's a state, Dude. They have a big enough inferiority complex already. Don't aggravate them further.

 

[MotleyLemon]

It's a state, Dude. They have a big enough inferiority complex already. Don't aggravate them further.

What a shocking oversight on my behalf.

Apologies Tasmania.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-...lion-afl-commission-grant-for-simonds-stadium

End thread.

 

[Jaeger]

No different to being sponsored by an entire territory, surely?

A sponsorship is very different to getting a fortune per game for playing matches at your home ground.

 

[Gavin Excell]

A sponsorship is very different to getting a fortune per game for playing matches at your home ground.

But hawks effectively get this. .a fortune to play at defacto home ground in Tas and then all melbourne home games at MCG. No ethiaad. Its a cosy arrangement

 

[Lensen]

Its absolutely ridiculous that the AFL signs stadium deals and this dictates where teams play home games. Teams should be able to play their home games wherever it is most advantageous for them to do so. Up to clubs to balance game/ $$$ advantage

Of course this is predicated on there also being completely open finals home ground advantage so as usual a compromised situation in the AFL leads to further compounding compromises

 

[treefingers]

I agree its completely unfair that a majority of clubs are forced to play games at Etihad to pay off the stadium debt while Geelong pull in a stack of clean money off the gate sales at Simonds.

How is that Geelong's fault? Should Fremantle play home games at Etihad because other clubs signed up to a s**t deal?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

How is that Geelong's fault? Should Fremantle play home games at Etihad because other clubs signed up to a s**t deal?

I never said that's geelongs fault. I'm making the point that Geelong make easy money off their games compared to others.

Not sure where you pulled that from.

It's also the AFL that signed the minimum games agreement with Etihad.

 

[MotleyLemon]

I never said that's geelongs fault. I'm making the point that Geelong make easy money off their games compared to others.

Not sure where you pulled that from.

It's also the AFL that signed the minimum games agreement with Etihad.

Which we didn't sign.

Why don't interstate clubs make up games at Etihad?

 

[Prudster]

Colin Carter might want to look up his own clubs history. Just a couple of years ago, Hawthorn were forced to play a home game at Etihad to make up for the fact that Geelong played a final down at Kardinia. Geelong didn't say anything about 'picking up the tab' on that occasion. I wonder why...

The fact is that all Victorian clubs are picking up the tab of the AFL's deal with Etihad. The smaller clubs and Essendon/Carlton are bearing the brunt of that, but even Hawthorn and Collingwood have home games scheduled there some years. Hawthorn have as little reason to play there as Geelong, having had our home ground sold from under us, which saw us turn to Tassie.

And on a side note, thanks to equalisation payments, we actually are picking up the tab, at least to a certain degree.

 

[Lensen]

Colin Carter might want to look up his own clubs history. Just a couple of years ago, Hawthorn were forced to play a home game at Etihad to make up for the fact that Geelong played a final down at Kardinia. Geelong didn't say anything about 'picking up the tab' on that occasion.

Well no, they were forced to due to the AFL signing a stadium deal independent of Geelong and other clubs

 

[D-N-R]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-...lion-afl-commission-grant-for-simonds-stadium
End thread.

Quotes from this article;

GEELONG'S hopes of starting the stage four redevelopment of Simonds Stadium as soon as the season finishes has received a boost, with the AFL Commission granting $4 million towards the project.

The Cats received $75 million in government funding towards stage four, with the Andrews' state government pledging $70 million to the project before being successful at the last state election.

The AFL is tipping in money to this project, as well as the state government. In the long run this will benefit Geelong greatly.

In the short term, Geelong are being asked to make up a shortfall by playing a couple of games at the Dome. It's not like the games against North and Essendon were going to be played at Simmonds anyway - and next year the capacity will be 25% down due to the construction. Is he annoyed they aren't being played at the MCG?

 

[CrazyKenny]

Quotes from this article;


The AFL is tipping in money to this project, as well as the state government. In the long run this will benefit Geelong greatly.

In the short term, Geelong are being asked to make up a shortfall by playing a couple of games at the Dome. It's not like the games against North and Essendon were going to be played at Simmonds anyway - and next year the capacity will be 25% down due to the construction. Is he annoyed they aren't being played at the MCG?

Again, it's irrelevant what Geelong receive for other projects and where they've thrown their money.
They have to play two home games at Etihad against two clubs' home ground... Plus they're losing money because of it, that's not fair.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Colin Carter might want to look up his own clubs history. Just a couple of years ago, Hawthorn were forced to play a home game at Etihad to make up for the fact that Geelong played a final down at Kardinia. Geelong didn't say anything about 'picking up the tab' on that occasion. I wonder why...

The bare minimum of what we deserve. we deserve home finals at our home ground.

The fact is that all Victorian clubs are picking up the tab of the AFL's deal with Etihad. The smaller clubs and Essendon/Carlton are bearing the brunt of that, but even Hawthorn and Collingwood have home games scheduled there some years. Hawthorn have as little reason to play there as Geelong, having had our home ground sold from under us, which saw us turn to Tassie.

And on a side note, thanks to equalisation payments, we actually are picking up the tab, at least to a certain degree.

We do all have to pick up the tab in some way and I'd happily wear that if there was something coming back the other way. Like playing the big Melbourne clubs on our home ground.

Why should we have to pick up the slack at Etihad but then clubs like Hawks, Pies, Blues and Dons get an eternal free pass from travelling down the highway.

* the crowd numbers, we deserve to play all 17 sides down here not 12-13 sides because the afl deem the other to be superior to everyone else. Seems very elitist to me.

 

[D-N-R]

Again, it's irrelevant what Geelong receive for other projects and where they've thrown their money.
They have to play two home games at Etihad against two clubs' home ground... Plus they're losing money because of it, that's not fair.

The games are against Essendon and North. I'm certain they never play Essendon at Simmonds and I'm almost certain the same goes for North. These games would probably be played at the MCG even if they were a 'home' game for the Cats.

How many Geelong / Hawks blockbusters have they had at the G in recent years? How much money have they made from these games? These have been manipulated in their favour - prime time slots, lots of money from sponsorship deals for these timeslots. It can't always be one-way.

 

[Pessimistic]

This article popped up this arvo.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...t-club-1-million/story-e6frf3e3-1227638141124

I've harped on about this in the fixture thread a bit, but felt it was time for its own discussion.

All I hear from opposition fans is "Oh but Geelong have the biggest home ground advantage in the league", but it seems when it comes to the AFL, we play where they tell us to.

Seems absolutely obscene that Etihad tenants like North can sell games to Tasmania in order to make money, yet we have to make up a "home game", losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.

Can anyone possibly explain the thought process behind this, because from where I stand, it's blatantly robbing a club of valuable dollars for seemingly no reason?

Dude half your home ground is a wreck, theytre doing you a favour.

Abnd why is head honcho complaining about hawks being favoured in tassie when you have so much freebies from the govt?