Should Interstate Clubs Sell Home Games To Play At The MCG?

[Brasher]

Did you build it to be the no2 stadium?

If not, then it doesn't really compare to Docklands, does it.

True...but the fact is no one for any code anywhere is building 100k stadiums because there is no economic justification in Australia.

The MCG is a legacy for everyone, we are lucky to have it but to expect smaller cities to build compable stadiums just won't happen. The number crunchers would rather turn away a few 1000 supporters then pay to maintain empty seats.

Even the MCG has been 100% utilised maybe 10 times in the last 5 years?

 

[footyfan1978]

The grand final is not the grand final if not played at the home of football. Imagine playing it in Adelaide... haha I mean seriously lol

It was bad enough back in the day needing to play one out at Waverley Park in 1991.
Did not have the same feel of the excitement and tradition of the grand final at the home of footy at the MCG.

Clubs should all play at least 2 games at MCG if possible like used to be the case when Melbourne and Richmond were the only tenants there.

Just a quick think about it I reckon the first starting point for long term is all of Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood and Carlton should have 9 of their designated home games at MCG and 2 at Docklands. Hawks 7 at MCG and 4 in Tasmania and Essendon 7 at Docklands and 4 at MCG. That is 47 games at the G and for the away clubs each of the 8 interstate clubs and Geelong should be placed there for 2 away games each. Would be a challenge logistically to do but if someone works it out , would be interesting if still possible.

For Docklands they should get 2 home games for Dees, Tigers, Blues and Pies each.
7 home games for their anchor tenant from start in Dons.
11 for St.Kilda, 9 for Dogs (they can play 2 in Ballarat), 7 for North with 4 in Tassie and possibly 2 for Cats or Cats get 11 at Kardinia Park if they want.
That leaves 42 to 44 games at Docklands depending on if Cats settle for 2 there. I say gives Cats 11 down in Geelong to make them happy.
I hate Docklands btw, except for twilight games there for Saturday's in middle of winter but we are stuck with it after AFL own it now.

 

[telsor]

True...but the fact is no one for any code anywhere is building 100k stadiums because there is no economic justification in Australia.

The MCG is a legacy for everyone, we are lucky to have it but to expect smaller cities to build compable stadiums just won't happen. The number crunchers would rather turn away a few 1000 supporters then pay to maintain empty seats.

Even the MCG has been 100% utilised maybe 10 times in the last 5 years?

Why does a ground need to regularly lock people out to be 'the right size'?

This year alone it had 100K, 2*95K and 3*85K for football alone.

As for it being purely a matter of legacy, it's been completely rebuild in the past 25 years...surely if they thought it should be smaller, it could have been done during that time.

 

[estibador]

Collectively, tens of millions in revenue that 'should' go to the clubs goes to the AFL....a significant burden that only gets levied on Vic clubs.

And by the same token the WA clubs each pay millions every year to fund the WA footy system that the Vic clubs are also free to draft from.

It's the same burden levied in a different form.

 

[Murray2503]

Do Adelaide fans actually think they lost because the GF was played at the MCG?

Didn't help. Played pathetic on the day and injuries to crucial players end of year was the major reason. Along with the coach not picking the right side. Add in the Lever situation who should not have played and that pretty much sums it up.

 

[telsor]

And by the same token the WA clubs each pay millions every year to fund the WA footy system that the Vic clubs are also free to draft from.

It's the same burden levied in a different form.

What did WA clubs pay last year?

At Docklands we pay over $500K/game (over $23Million), at the MCG we lose about 1/3 of stadium revenue (no idea, but 2.7m people would pay a fair bit, but it'd be very comfortably over $30m), and both lose considerable amounts to AFL members on top of that (rough guess $500 * 60k of them so another 30million, but there is probably some overlap with the MCG number).

So conservative guess, Vic clubs average somewhere between $5-8M each in payments (or more correctly, lost revenue), probably more.


Quick check...WAFC reported $3.7M in royalties for 2016.

 

[EagleShore]

The more logical question is should the afl be tied to one ground which poses an unfair advantage to victorian clubs

Moot point, by which I mean sure, from a long-term perspective, this can be considered and possibly altered, though...

The G is the home of footy and always will be

...perhaps not always, but for the foreseeable future (15-20 years) the MCG will remain as the home of football and the ground at which the grand final is played.

Everyone needs to quit the whingeing and find solutions within the relatively rigid framework presented by the geography and population distribution of this country.

Club solutions, such as:

I dont understand why interstate teams that build new stadiums dont make the oval exactly the same dimensions as the G.
Richmond were awful at Etihad. They redeveloped PRO to have exactly the same dimensions and we have been much better there

West Coast are doing this at their new home in Lathlain, with one oval the dimensions of the MCG and the other the dimensions of the new Perth stadium.

And League solutions:

No, it's the AFL's responsibility ensure non-Vic clubs have fair access during the course of the H&A season.

Far easier (and cheaper) to just ensure the fixture has at least two games for every interstate club at the MCG.
There have been seasons where interstate clubs have just had one or not even a single game at the MCG.
It's not hard.

And mixed solutions such as in the OP; selling a home game is a big move but I doubt AFL would go for two interstate teams at the MCG. It'd look like a preseason match. A West Coast v Richmond or Collingwood (whichever we're not ordinarily scheduled to play in Melbourne that year) would be feasible.

Something the AFL and fans alike have to accept is that the status quo with the MCG will not change any time soon, so best we make access to the 'G as equitable as possible, and non-Victorian teams in this phase of the competition can find their own workable solutions while having the opportunity to win it at the hallowed ground.

1992 was GLORIOUS for us, as has each has been since. As I'm sure 1997/98 were for Adelaide, 2001/02/03 were for Brisbane, 2004 was for Port, 2005/12 were for Sydney, and GWS will likely taste it soon, maybe even Fremantle or Gold Coast before they fold.

The MCG has an aura that magnifies the glory of winning the premiership. Peter Matera's majestic goal from 55m out in 1992 wouldn't have looked or felt the same at Subiaco. Adelaide Oval, the new Perth stadium? Not sure. I think we have to wait and see where this country goes in a couple of decades from now to change this part of the AFL.

 

[dean33]

Didn't help. Played pathetic on the day and injuries to crucial players end of year was the major reason. Along with the coach not picking the right side. Add in the Lever situation who should not have played and that pretty much sums it up.

And of course the side you played being comprehensively better of course... lol

 

[Kwality]

They do. They play them at least once each. Sometimes, they also get to play them a second time.

Or are you suggesting that interstate teams don't play any other interstate team except Victorian teams? They just play Victorian teams twice (20 games), and then 2 showdowns (to make 22 game season)?

Or, are you suggesting all Vic teams only play interstate teams once as the away team (10 games), and then each interstate team play other State teams once (6 games), 2 showdowns (2 games), and then schedule another 4 return games from a list of 16 teams (which could be interstate teams or Vic teams!). Hmm. A maximum of 4 games in Melbourne only, but most likely only one or two, and a chance that Etihad is the stadium.
And, if you work through the logic, how many home games does each interstate team get? a minimum of 12, and a maximum of 18 ?? The interstate teams will fight among yourselves about this...

Some attempt to even up the number of games played in the home state is one possibility. Transfer say one game per Melbourne club from the G interstate, freeing up fixturing @ the G.

Games at the G need to be allocated on the basis of equity to overcome the GF FIXture.

 

[Kwality]

They're not freeloading per se, but they're also not carrying the same economic costs as the Vic clubs towards the expenses of the AFL, a matter that is particularly relevant when you look at the stadium returns.

Vic clubs bought Docklands for the AFL and at the MCG we both lose a qtr of the best seats to 'AFL members' (getting only token revenue in return) and a significant part of the revenue from the ground goes to the AFL (e.g the multi Million dollar bonuses the AFL collects each year for large crowds).

Collectively, tens of millions in revenue that 'should' go to the clubs goes to the AFL....a significant burden that only gets levied on Vic clubs.


I admit 'freeloading' is a bit strong, but Kwality deliberately misleading people by repeating an argument he surely knows to be full of crap annoys me.

Arent the AFL members contributing money to the AFL undere your motherhood freeeloading claim.

 

[telsor]

Arent the AFL members contributing money to the AFL undere your motherhood freeeloading claim.

and why do they do that? What benefits do they get for the money they pay? Or more pointedly, who would they be paying if AFL membership didn't exist?

 

[slugger01]

Some attempt to even up the number of games played in the home state is one possibility. Transfer say one game per Melbourne club from the G interstate, freeing up fixturing @ the G.

Games at the G need to be allocated on the basis of equity to overcome the GF FIXture.

Oh, so you're happy to keep 11 home games for interstate clubs, but you want Vic clubs to transfer one of their home games interstate? So they only have have only 8 home games, ?? Yep, i can see your balance of fairness.
Why don't interstate clubs transfer their home games to the MCG? Maybe WCE V Crows, WCE V Sydney, WCE V Port. There's an extra 3 games at the G for you?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Oh, so you're happy to keep 11 home games for interstate clubs, but you want Vic clubs to transfer one of their home games interstate? So they only have have only 8 home games, ?? Yep, i can see your balance of fairness.
Why don't interstate clubs transfer their home games to the MCG? Maybe WCE V Crows, WCE V Sydney, WCE V Port. There's an extra 3 games at the G for you?

I would not want any of that. The AFL run the comp and they are responsible for the fixture and it should have zero to do with what the clubs want.
It should not be difficult at all for all clubs outside of Victoria to play 2-3 games per year at the MCG.
As an Eagles fan the only thing I hate about our fixture is having to do Tasmania trip which should be the sole bastion of Victorian clubs or a Canberra or NT trip.
Other than that I don’t care much about the fixture, if you are good side you have a chance anywhere, if you are a great side you can win anywhere.
My club needs to become a very good side and once that happens all this crap doesn’t matter.

 

[Spook]

Why do you use the word "interstate"? It's nonsense in the context of the AFL. The AFL is Australian, not state based. Use the term "non-Victorian" but "interstate" is non sensical. And don't give me the AFL is based in Victoria crap. Even though the head office may be there, The AFL is a league made up of teams, not an office.

 

[TGFC]

The MCG and Etihad get the most games each year. Every club should on average play more away games at each of those two grounds than any other away venue. The MCG and Etihad are the closest things we have to neutral venues.

that is true if we have one designated ground for GF's. The idea of choosing the ground based off a set of criteria such as neutral to the two competing teams, highest finishing team gets the GF, or on a rotation basis may over come some of the issues which we currently face for the most important game of the year. i however appreciate there is no silver bullet and each of my ideas has flaws that need to be teased out

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

You think the eagles had no input on the new perth stadium? Geelong had nothing to say about the redevelopment at skilled?

I think the Eagles wanted an 80k stadium, and they would come close to selling it out every game too. WA govt just wasn't going to put in that much extra money for it. At 60k, Freo are a good chance of selling out a lot of the time.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think the Eagles wanted an 80k stadium, and they would come close to selling it out every game too. WA govt just wasn't going to put in that much extra money for it. At 60k, Freo are a good chance of selling out a lot of the time.

Could not be more wrong mate, both the Eagles and Dockers wanted the lower level capacity as it keeps them in a strong position with demand and supply and they can keep fleecing their members with huge membership charges.
An 80k stadium removes the need to be a member for many as they know they can turn up when they want and get in.
The government more than likely wanted the larger capacity but would of been influenced by the AFL and especially the Eagles and Dockers who they wanted as tenants.
The Eagles were happy to stay at Subi, they want the money more than anything else.

 

[doppleganger]

The biggest issue is the crowd.

WCE playing a game against Melbourne in front of 25-30K people with no atmosphere doesn't help.

It is having a dominant home crowd and the crowd support that influences umpires that is the big factor in home ground advantage.

 

[slugger01]

I would not want any of that. The AFL run the comp and they are responsible for the fixture and it should have zero to do with what the clubs want.
It should not be difficult at all for all clubs outside of Victoria to play 2-3 games per year at the MCG.
As an Eagles fan the only thing I hate about our fixture is having to do Tasmania trip which should be the sole bastion of Victorian clubs or a Canberra or NT trip.
Other than that I don’t care much about the fixture, if you are good side you have a chance anywhere, if you are a great side you can win anywhere.
My club needs to become a very good side and once that happens all this crap doesn’t matter.

Yes, a great team can win anywhere, poor teams even lose at home.

So, as a WCE supporter, you were happy with the fixture this year... Played 2 games at the MCG. (Although, i am not sure why the Coll V WCE is played at Etihad these days.. That's another game at the MCG for you, but maybe it's something the WCE agree to/want/request??).

Only GCS and GWS can complain this year. Syd & Adl would be chuffed!. (And i doubt GCS have a case, when the sold their home game to play in China!!).
So, this season, this is how many MCG games each non-Victorian teams played..
Adl 3
Bne 2
Fre 2
GC 1
GWS 1
Port 2
Syd 4
WC 2

WCE didn't travel to Tas/NT/Canberra this year.. And Canberra is something the GWS want, not a Victorian team.

I think everybody needs to understand that the draw will always have advantages/disadvantages for individual teams. We will always get that because we play 22 H&A games in an 18 side competition. To jump a fairness level, we really need to play 34 H&A games. But that can't happen, unless AFL players are capable of playing twice a week (and supporters are happy to attend games on, say, Wednesday afternoon/night!!). The climate is too hot to extend the season by 3 months (12 games).

It's what we have, and it is not easy to construct a season fixture that is fair for every team, based on the constraints we have.
Try it.. You will find it is very, very difficult, and you will find that you just transfer the unfairness from one team to another.. It still will be compromised, but most likely compromised in favour of the team you support at the expense of teams you don't like...

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Could not be more wrong mate, both the Eagles and Dockers wanted the lower level capacity as it keeps them in a strong position with demand and supply and they can keep fleecing their members with huge membership charges.
An 80k stadium removes the need to be a member for many as they know they can turn up when they want and get in.
The government more than likely wanted the larger capacity but would of been influenced by the AFL and especially the Eagles and Dockers who they wanted as tenants.
The Eagles were happy to stay at Subi, they want the money more than anything else.

I could have sworn I read a few times they wanted a bigger stadium, but am happy to accept the correction.
At 60k there is little doubt they will sell out most games, if not all. At 80k they would still be a damned good chance of selling out every game
And they would just about get that many members. Current membership plus waiting list must be getting near 60k already, and that's not taking into account those who don't bother because there is a waiting list.

 

[footyfan1978]

So, this season, this is how many MCG games each non-Victorian teams played..
Adl 3
Bne 2
Fre 2
GC 1
GWS 1
Port 2
Syd 4
WC 2

So if that is true. All they need to do is have one less for Crows and Sydney and one more for each of GWS and GC and we are all good.

Curious how many games Dogs, North and Saints played at MCG this year too.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yes, a great team can win anywhere, poor teams even lose at home.

So, as a WCE supporter, you were happy with the fixture this year... Played 2 games at the MCG. (Although, i am not sure why the Coll V WCE is played at Etihad these days.. That's another game at the MCG for you, but maybe it's something the WCE agree to/want/request??).

Only GCS and GWS can complain this year. Syd & Adl would be chuffed!. (And i doubt GCS have a case, when the sold their home game to play in China!!).
So, this season, this is how many MCG games each non-Victorian teams played..
Adl 3
Bne 2
Fre 2
GC 1
GWS 1
Port 2
Syd 4
WC 2

WCE didn't travel to Tas/NT/Canberra this year.. And Canberra is something the GWS want, not a Victorian team.

I think everybody needs to understand that the draw will always have advantages/disadvantages for individual teams. We will always get that because we play 22 H&A games in an 18 side competition. To jump a fairness level, we really need to play 34 H&A games. But that can't happen, unless AFL players are capable of playing twice a week (and supporters are happy to attend games on, say, Wednesday afternoon/night!!). The climate is too hot to extend the season by 3 months (12 games).

It's what we have, and it is not easy to construct a season fixture that is fair for every team, based on the constraints we have.
Try it.. You will find it is very, very difficult, and you will find that you just transfer the unfairness from one team to another.. It still will be compromised, but most likely compromised in favour of the team you support at the expense of teams you don't like...

The fixture doesn’t bother me much at all, I don’t like any of the proposed fixture systems but my preference which is a rolling concurrent fixture seems to never be in discussion so it is what it is. I am totally against grouping the teams top six, middle six. Bottom six after 17 rounds. If I have worked so hard for 17 rounds to end up top 6 I would not want a nightmare of playing all the other top sides every eek leading into finals.

Yes I know it is difficult to do the fixture, many of those difficulties come however from trying to appease clubs requests. The clubs should have no say in it and the AFL should just do the fixture.

 

[JohnZ]

Oh, so you're happy to keep 11 home games for interstate clubs, but you want Vic clubs to transfer one of their home games interstate? So they only have have only 8 home games, ?? Yep, i can see your balance of fairness.
Why don't interstate clubs transfer their home games to the MCG? Maybe WCE V Crows, WCE V Sydney, WCE V Port. There's an extra 3 games at the G for you?

No no no, don't you understand. The Vic market is OVER saturated, so we need to move games away, even if no one gives a f about them interstate /s

 

[slugger01]

So if that is true. All they need to do is have one less for Crows and Sydney and one more for each of GWS and GC and we are all good.

Curious how many games Dogs, North and Saints played at MCG this year too.

Dogs - 2
Saints - 2
Roos - 1

Yep, one more game for those teams you mentioned, but as i keep saying, it's not easy. Try to formulate a fixture with all your wishes, with the constraints we have (22 games, 18 teams, etc etc). I'll bet you find that your fixture is compromised, and the question is, which team is it compromised in favour of. I'm betting it is towards the team you support, and the disadvantage is towards the team you don't care much for..

 

[slugger01]

No no no, don't you understand. The Vic market is OVER saturated, so we need to move games away, even if no one gives a f about them interstate /s

Yep. We should move ten Victorian teams interstate, because there is no interest in AFL in Victoria. And they really don't have a good record of attending sporting functions, compared to the other States.
You wait until the NRL State of Origin game is played at the MCG next year.. Crickets in the grandstands...