Beyond the GF – Why the MCG Contract doesn’t pass the Stink Test

[Rob]

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

Back in 2011, when St Kilda were still a finals team, St Kilda is set to post a loss this season of between $1.5 million and $2m because of its unsatisfactory deal at Etihad and has requested that all home matches next season be played at the MCG.

The Melbourne based clubs have been shafted for decades during H&A, all because of sh*te stadium deals.

That needs to be fixed well before any movement with the GF...but you don't have WA or SA wowsers sooking about that as they have been benefiting from the H&A fixture for decades.

I can't read your article because it's behind a paywall, but I will point out that St Kilda's average home crowd went from 38k in 2010 to 23k in 2014.
15,000 people per game @ $30 each is a whopping $5 million per year. If they charged normal (i.e non Victorian) prices it's going to be $50 per person so that's over $8 million per season. You reckon the problem is the stadium deal? Bullshit. Low crowds at low prices. The economics of that will never work.

But in any case, i'm not interested in arguing about that, because i'm proposing to solve the problem. Let clubs negotiate their own deals. No more complaining about poor stadium deals, because whatever stadium deal you've got is what you agreed to. Like I asked a few posts ago, are you actually disagreeing with me here? It sounds like you're on my side.

 

[doppleganger]

I can't read your article because it's behind a paywall, but I will point out that St Kilda's average home crowd went from 38k in 2010 to 23k in 2014.
15,000 people per game @ $30 each is a whopping $5 million per year. If they charged normal (i.e non Victorian) prices it's going to be $50 per person so that's over $8 million per season. You reckon the problem is the stadium deal? Bullshit. Low crowds at low prices. The economics of that will never work.

But in any case, i'm not interested in arguing about that, because i'm proposing to solve the problem. Let clubs negotiate their own deals. No more complaining about poor stadium deals, because whatever stadium deal you've got is what you agreed to. Like I asked a few posts ago, are you actually disagreeing with me here? It sounds like you're on my side.

What you are proposing isn't a realistic solution...StKilda were happy at Waverley, the AFL didn't want Waverley.

In 2011 their avg home crowd was 36k, that isn't a team playing in front of 15k like you keep referring to. Yet despite healthy crowd numbers, the Saints still were unable to make any profit on their home games....they would have at Waverley.

So if the Saints in 2011 were crying poor with avg crowd of 36k, you can only imagine how poor the numbers get in battling years or what North/Dogs would suffer through.

The AFL stadium deals have been fecking over the Melbourne teams since Etihad was introduced, even a supposed big club like Richmond was selling games to Cairns in the early 2010s!!

That is a much bigger inequality problem than the GF stadium deal, but WA wowsers don't care as they are the beneficiaries.

 

[Grin]

Here is the allocation of the last GF at the MCG

Footy's biggest day: how the tickets are allocated

Not all memberships will guarantee you a ticket to the AFL grand final. Here's how the seats are allocated.

www.smh.com.au

Forget that its GWS, the allocations are the same, let's go back 2 years and say it was Adeaide v Richmond. Adelaide even have the bigger supporter base.

17,000 go to each clubs members. Fine. Even Keel so far.

Now it gets interesting

MCG membership: 23,000 according to that article. How many Richmond supporting MCG member are their compared to Adelaide? Sure there definitely would be a fair few neutrals in the MCC but you'd think every Tigers MCC member would find a way to get in. Lets give them half the MCC Reserve Lets call it 11,500 tigers fans to say 500 Crows fans and the other 11,000 neutrals.

Okay now we're sitting at 38500 to 17500.

Lets halve the Allocation to of AFL members to 18,000. From the article Gold AFL Members of competing clubs are given preference. How many AFL members do you reckon Adelaide have compared to Richmond? AFL members are also transferable. So how much easier is it for a Richmond supporter, living in the same city as 99% of AFL members, find someone friend family or otherwise to give them their ticket?

Let's give 11500 to Richmond, 500 to Adelaide and 6000 to the neutrals.

Now we are sitting at 50,000 Richmond supporters to 18,000 Adelaide supporters

4000 Medallion club members. Being a Melbourne thing, you expect almost all of these would be Melbourne based. I'm sure these tickets too could be farmed out to a local you know if you, as a say Saints supporter doesn't want to go. Are you more likely to have friends or family that are Tigers or Crows supporters? Exactly. So let's give 2000 of these tickets to Tigers fans, 1800 to neutrals and 200 to Crows fans.

52,000 to 18,200 now.

5000 to competing clubs? They tend to resell a lot of these. Lets split this so let's give this 1500 to each of the Tigers and Crows and 2000 neutrals.

53500 to19700.

Lets give 2000 to Government, Dignitaries and Sponsors, which whilst a lot of neutrals, given the Vic Govts running of the show there would be a heavy bias to the local side. Lets 1400 neutrals, 500 Richmond, 100 Adelaide.

54000 to 19700.

Leaving 12,000 Corporate seats

Hard to judge but again a bias to the locals because they're in town any rate. Lets go with 4000 Tigers, 2000 Crows and 6000 neutrals.

58000 tigers, 21700 Crows and the rest neutrals. Whilst educated guesstimates im pretty sure I wouldn't be far off the mark. So in this instance, and pretty much every instance when a WA or SA team plays a Vic MCG Tennant club, that Tennant club supporters will outnumber them 3 to 1. Which my Chimpy friend equals massive home ground advantage.

So you've got no evidence as always. You're just guessing and making stuff up to suit your argument that Victorians aren't doing enough to win your club unearned success.
I was at the game with a mate. We got those $2000 grand final brecky packages because that was all that was left. With regards to that package and all the others, I reckon it was about 90% Crows supporters because they knew they were likely going be in the grand final weeks before the end of the home and away season.
But that's all beside the point because, like you, I don't have any solid evidence.

The fact is, and I know how much you despise facts because the tend to be very destructive to your victim narrative, the fact is that there is no evidence of any advantage beyond about 3 or 4 points for Victorian clubs over non Victorian clubs at the MCG in the Grand Final. No evidence at all.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

the fact is that there is no evidence of any advantage beyond about 3 or 4 points for Victorian clubs over non Victorian clubs at the MCG in the Grand Final. No evidence at all.

He's a Port supporter mate, he must think the MCG gives Vic sides about a 120 point advantage on GF day

 

[Leeda]

Afl : we need to expand out audience as much as possible… by treating anyone outside of the audience in one state as a second class citizen.

Supply is limited…the heart leads me russin

 

[Leeda]

Huss..baby hush.…working my next move.."

 

[Kwality]

No.

All sporting competitions use an equal spread of home and away games as part of regular season fixtures.

Many sporting leagues have specific teams that endure larger travel as a result of geography.

How nice for the rest of world .

You so easily deny home & away is long gone, even Geelong dont train at 'home'. Car parking under most stadiums often indicate 'away' or a bus from the airport/overnight in a hotel.
Home & away was from an era when there was a draw (all State comps), not a FIXture at the whim of the AFL who act in their own best interest, not the game, not the clubs.

A review is long overdue to meet the needs of the national comp.

 

[Rob]

What you are proposing isn't a realistic solution...StKilda were happy at Waverley, the AFL didn't want Waverley.

Because the AFL was meddling in stadiums. That's what i'm opposed to.
The league should have taken the opportunity to rid itself of Waverley and get out of the stadium business. By all means faciliate the Docklands deal - but any deal should have been with clubs, not the AFL.

In 2011 their avg home crowd was 36k, that isn't a team playing in front of 15k like you keep referring to. Yet despite healthy crowd numbers, the Saints still were unable to make any profit on their home games....they would have at Waverley.

So if the Saints in 2011 were crying poor with avg crowd of 36k, you can only imagine how poor the numbers get in battling years or what North/Dogs would suffer through.

The AFL stadium deals have been fecking over the Melbourne teams since Etihad was introduced, even a supposed big club like Richmond was selling games to Cairns in the early 2010s!!

That is a much bigger inequality problem than the GF stadium deal, but WA wowsers don't care as they are the beneficiaries.

Dude, go and read the St Kilda 2011 annual report. Google it and it comes up.
Sponsorship down $1.4m
Merchandise down $400k
Fundraising (raffles and the like) down $350k
Plus all the expenses from relocating to Seaford which the report spells out

But yeah, blame the stadium deal.

However, I go back to my question - are you in favour of the AFL signing stadium deals and enforcing it on clubs?

And WA is the beneficiary of the MCG stadium deal? Are you on crack?

 

[doppleganger]

How nice for the rest of world .

You so easily deny home & away is long gone, even Geelong dont train at 'home'. Car parking under most stadiums often indicate 'away' or a bus from the airport/overnight in a hotel.
Home & away was from an era when there was a draw (all State comps), not a FIXture at the whim of the AFL who act in their own best interest, not the game, not the clubs.

A review is long overdue to meet the needs of the national comp.

You do realise plenty of sporting teams have established dedicated training centres.

And US sport have fixtures where different groups of teams play in heavily compromised fixtures.

Playing at home and away is a constant.

 

[doppleganger]

Because the AFL was meddling in stadiums. That's what i'm opposed to.
The league should have taken the opportunity to rid itself of Waverley and get out of the stadium business. By all means faciliate the Docklands deal - but any deal should have been with clubs, not the AFL.



Dude, go and read the St Kilda 2011 annual report. Google it and it comes up.
Sponsorship down $1.4m
Merchandise down $400k
Fundraising (raffles and the like) down $350k
Plus all the expenses from relocating to Seaford which the report spells out

But yeah, blame the stadium deal.

However, I go back to my question - are you in favour of the AFL signing stadium deals and enforcing it on clubs?

And WA is the beneficiary of the MCG stadium deal? Are you on crack?

The stadium deal wasn't why the Saints lost a shitload of cash, I never said that. I said that even when teams were having relatively strong on field performance and pulling solid crowds they were unable to generate profit from the stadium deal.

The AFL rectified this when they took over, after 15 years of pain for Melbourne based clubs.

Yes, when only Melbourne based teams are forced to sell home games it is their opposition in those games who benefit on field. 2015 an undeserved top2 finish for the Eagles due to the dodgy fixture that meant they didn't have to play Melbourne sides at their home ground.

 

[Rob]

The stadium deal wasn't why the Saints lost a shitload of cash, I never said that. I said that even when teams were having relatively strong on field performance and pulling solid crowds they were unable to generate profit from the stadium deal.

The AFL rectified this when they took over, after 15 years of pain for Melbourne based clubs.

In St Kilda's case, i'd more put it down to incredibly poor management than the stadium deal. But no point arguing about it now.

Yes, when only Melbourne based teams are forced to sell home games it is their opposition in those games who benefit on field. 2015 an undeserved top2 finish for the Eagles due to the dodgy fixture that meant they didn't have to play Melbourne sides at their home ground.

So going back again to the question - Are you in favour of the AFL signing stadium deals and enforcing it on select clubs?

 

[doppleganger]

In St Kilda's case, i'd more put it down to incredibly poor management than the stadium deal. But no point arguing about it now.




So going back again to the question - Are you in favour of the AFL signing stadium deals and enforcing it on select clubs?

I think AFL imposed ground rationalisation in Melbourne has been a disaster and has given non-Melbourne teams (all who have retained a home advantage) a clear advantage in H&A.

You dont see WA or SA fans moaning about any of that though, it is just the one time they aren't advantaged that they focus on.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think AFL imposed ground rationalisation in Melbourne has been a disaster and has given non-Melbourne teams (all who have retained a home advantage) a clear advantage in H&A.

You dont see WA or SA fans moaning about any of that though, it is just the one time they aren't advantaged that they focus on.

Oh FFS cry me a river. You gave up your home grounds without any fight at all. Do t complain now. And you guys leave Victoria 5 times a year so don’t give me this crap about who is advantaged.

Every club has their good things and their bad things . Don’t make it sound like WA clubs have some type of utopia set up because they would swap it all for the Pies set up every year.

 

[doppleganger]

Oh FFS cry me a river. You gave up your home grounds without any fight at all. Do t complain now. And you guys leave Victoria 5 times a year so don’t give me this crap about who is advantaged.

Every club has their good things and their bad things . Don’t make it sound like WA clubs have some type of utopia set up because they would swap it all for the Pies set up every year.

What fight were clubs meant to pursue? Carlton were the longest to hold out and now they don't have a home at all, just bounce between Marvel and the G with no real identity.
The AFL decided they wanted a second ground in central Melbourne and weren't going to support any others.
The option was to do what Collingwood and Essendon did and get in early with better stadium deals.

The stats don't lie, since ground rationalisation was enforced on the Melbourne teams and Marvel Stadium was introduced, the non-Melbourne teams are overrepresented at the pointy end of the ladder...that is what happens when there is a group of teams who retained home ground advantage whilst another had home ground advantage removed.

 

[BF Tiger]

All this is so freaking tedious.

It's at the 'G, all clubs knew this when entering the comp and the AFL have not seen fit to change it.

There will always be winners and losers.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What fight were clubs meant to pursue? Carlton were the longest to hold out and now they don't have a home at all, just bounce between Marvel and the G with no real identity.
The AFL decided they wanted a second ground in central Melbourne and weren't going to support any others.
The option was to do what Collingwood and Essendon did and get in early with better stadium deals.

The stats don't lie, since ground rationalisation was enforced on the Melbourne teams and Marvel Stadium was introduced, the non-Melbourne teams are overrepresented at the pointy end of the ladder...that is what happens when there is a group of teams who retained home ground advantage whilst another had home ground advantage removed.

If you wanted your home grounds together you could of kept them, you all rolled over without even the slightest resistance. Who is at fault with that? You could of easily keep them. You chose money over your ground, you chose looking after the MCG than your ground. You make choices then you deal with it.
Not as if your club has come out of it bad is it. Some did but again blame their weak as piss CEO who signed up to what was good for the AFL instead of what was good for their club.

 

[kranky al]

What fight were clubs meant to pursue? Carlton were the longest to hold out and now they don't have a home at all, just bounce between Marvel and the G with no real identity.
The AFL decided they wanted a second ground in central Melbourne and weren't going to support any others.
The option was to do what Collingwood and Essendon did and get in early with better stadium deals.

The stats don't lie, since ground rationalisation was enforced on the Melbourne teams and Marvel Stadium was introduced, the non-Melbourne teams are overrepresented at the pointy end of the ladder...that is what happens when there is a group of teams who retained home ground advantage whilst another had home ground advantage removed.

Id say for sure st kida have a case here.

If they had played you at marvel instead of the mcg they would have another flag right now.

But collingwood have nothing to bitch about - you flail around and try making out that playing another mcg tenant at your mutual home ground is harder than an interstate team flying interstate to play games 10 times a year.


But we all know its not

 

[doppleganger]

If you wanted your home grounds together you could of kept them, you all rolled over without even the slightest resistance. Who is at fault with that? You could of easily keep them. You chose money over your ground, you chose looking after the MCG than your ground. You make choices then you deal with it.
Not as if your club has come out of it bad is it. Some did but again blame their weak as piss CEO who signed up to what was good for the AFL instead of what was good for their club.

You clearly don't recall the AFL agenda in the 90s - rationalisation, relocation, and mergers.

Which club(s) was going to easily keep a home ground when the AFL won't fixture games there?

And yes clubs then chose money over playing at Marvel which wasn't their home ground.

The AFL does what is in the best interests of the AFL, two world class stadiums in Melbourne is better than old suburban grounds, and the GF being at the G....if it upsets a few clubs or pockets of fans along the way so be it.

 

[doppleganger]

But collingwood have nothing to b*tch about - you flail around and try making out that playing another mcg tenant at your mutual home ground is harder than an interstate team flying interstate to play games 10 times a year.


But we all know its not

Hawthorn, the most successful "MCG tenant" travels for 9 games....travelling hasn't hurt them.

 

[kranky al]

Hawthorn, the most successful "MCG tenant" travels for 9 games....travelling hasn't hurt them.

Tasmania - boo hoo hoo - its a day trip

And of course it hasnt hurt them - look at how many times they have faced interstate clubs at their home grounds in gf’s.

 

[doppleganger]

Tasmania - boo hoo hoo - its a day trip

And of course it hasnt hurt them - look at how many times they have faced interstate clubs at their home grounds in gf’s.

So you agree that travelling isn't a disadvantage, when SA, NSW teams heading to Vic it is just a day trip.

After losing a GF to an interstate team, (and losing a PF at the G the year before) the Hawks then knew what it took, had extra motivation, and won a few GFs in a row.

 

[kranky al]

So you agree that travelling isn't a disadvantage, when SA, NSW teams heading to Vic it is just a day trip.

After losing a GF to an interstate team, (and losing a PF at the G the year before) the Hawks then knew what it took, had extra motivation, and won a few GFs in a row.

Its not a day trip - as a result of lessons learned from the flight length we fly a day or two before the game depending on what state we go to.

Hawthorn fly in and out on the same day for a tassie trip.


And by the way - you can waffle all you like about flying not being an issue - but the evidence proving it is - is on every single victorian team board.

Every single time you guys play over west the discussion about how well your team will play next week is full of “yeah well we did the perth trip this week so we arent expecting the best from our guys” or words to that effect.

If you want to convince me that the travelling has no effect - how about convincing your own supporters first - then come and see me.

Tell the commentators too while you are at it.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

If you wanted your home grounds together you could of kept them, you all rolled over without even the slightest resistance. Who is at fault with that? You could of easily keep them. You chose money over your ground, you chose looking after the MCG than your ground. You make choices then you deal with it.
Not as if your club has come out of it bad is it. Some did but again blame their weak as piss CEO who signed up to what was good for the AFL instead of what was good for their club.

What, like how WA fans rolled over and deserted their WAFL club's to support an expansion team in the VFL? And then have the temerity to bitch about having to fly interstate to play games and the Grand Final being in Melbourne? Boo ******* hoo.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What, like how WA fans rolled over and deserted their WAFL club's to support an expansion team in the VFL? And then have the temerity to b*tch about having to fly interstate to play games and the Grand Final being in Melbourne? Boo ******* hoo.

Not even mentioned that crap, you got nothing as you don’t like the truth.
I agree totally WA footy fans deserted their clubs. Our clubs were not invited to the party. Yours were, you deserted your roots and your grounds and you now think you are hard done by.
Spare me.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Not even mentioned that crap, you got nothing as you don’t like the truth.
I agree totally WA footy fans deserted their clubs. Our clubs were not invited to the party. Yours were, you deserted your roots and your grounds and you now think you are hard done by.
Spare me.

Melbourne's been playing at the MCG for over 160 years, we haven't deserted anything.