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

[doppleganger]

Why do clubs put up with poor management signing deals that are bad for their club? Every club with a bad stadium deal it is in them. They signed up to the bad deal. It’s about time clubs expected the people running their clubs to do a far better job.

Go back to the 90s, the AFL was imposing ground rationalisation on the Melbourne clubs

Carlton didnt want to leave PP
Saints/Hawks didnt want to leave Waverley

Melbourne and Richmond has been MCG clubs for decades, why would they actively seek to play home games at Etihad??

The AFL set the agenda, negotiate the deals, they shafted the Melbourne based clubs.

 

[refresh]

The AFL set the agenda, negotiate the deals, they shafted the Melbourne based clubs.

Only the weak ones that needed financial support and probably shouldn't be there.

 

[The_Wookie]

That's not revenue from the stadium deal, that's revenue from supporters and sponsors.

You think they sign their deal and the revenue just comes flooding in? No, they get their revenue by selling product.

Its also dependent on the stadium deal. West Coast effectively had a clean stadium that they then paid rent on before moving to Perth Stadium.

And in Victoria and SA theres only a limited amount of product clubs can sell and profit from because they compete with the league or the SANFL/SACA or the MCC who ALSO sell corporate boxes and hospitality packages, and in Victoria at least, only a part of the corporate revenue from matches is returned to the clubs.

At Docklands, clubs split seating reservation fees and catering/dining with the venue owners, and receive 75% of the admission price for stadium members and corporate boxes - the stadium owner was responsible for marketing said corporate boxes.

See also this image from 2011 and the AFL 2012 funding proposals

 

[The_Wookie]

Only the weak ones that needed financial support and probably shouldn't be there.

The AFL has overarching deals at the MCG and Docklands, and control of the fixture. Clubs go where they are told, deal or no deal. Some clubs cant get deals with these stadiums - which is why North, Saints and Bulldogs are mostly at Docklands in the first place.

 

[The_Wookie]

How come the big VIC clubs don’t have the corporate support in Melbourne mate? Is that because of the AFL club and the MCC?

In part yes. Corporate box revenues are split between clubs and the stadium owner, if not outright sold by the venue to no club benefit. This also happens in Adelaide to an extent.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Go back to the 90s, the AFL was imposing ground rationalisation on the Melbourne clubs

Carlton didnt want to leave PP
Saints/Hawks didnt want to leave Waverley

Melbourne and Richmond has been MCG clubs for decades, why would they actively seek to play home games at Etihad??

The AFL set the agenda, negotiate the deals, they shafted the Melbourne based clubs.

Your presidents and or CEO accepted and signed on for the poor deal. The AFL didn’t force them to sign up to lose money. Something must of been offered to sign such crap deals.

 

[doppleganger]

Only the weak ones that needed financial support and probably shouldn't be there.

The weak ones??

Carlton, Richmond, Hawthorn all were dudded by AFL imposed ground rationalisation.

StKilda, Footscray, North royally shafted by the stadium deal.

Melbourne was forced to play home games away from the G...Y?

Essendon got the best $$ deal, but now dont really have a home...they were a powerhouse back in the 90s when they had all their games at the G.

 

[doppleganger]

Your presidents and or CEO accepted and signed on for the poor deal. The AFL didn’t force them to sign up to lose money. Something must of been offered to sign such crap deals.

What were the options?

AFL negotiates a deal to play XX number of games at Colonial Stadium. AFL controls the fixture. The AFL future wasnt Waverley and suburban football, but "blockbusters" under a roof.

The AFL imposed ground rationalisation on Melbourne based clubs. It was a disaster for many individual Melbourne clubs, on and off field.

But yeah, the poor WA teams have to fly further so think everyone is out to get them.

 

[kranky al]

The only reason it moves every year in the US is because the US has multiple large population hubs, and stadiums worthy of hosting it.

Australia only has one.

It isnt rotated or shared fairly.

Thanks for playing.

The only reason they build stadiums that big is because its shared.

And they have played at 65k stadiums.

And thatd a country of 300 million.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What were the options?

AFL negotiates a deal to play XX number of games at Colonial Stadium. AFL controls the fixture. The AFL future wasnt Waverley and suburban football, but "blockbusters" under a roof.

The AFL imposed ground rationalisation on Melbourne based clubs. It was a disaster for many individual Melbourne clubs, on and off field.

But yeah, the poor WA teams have to fly further so think everyone is out to get them.

Oh ffs mate I am trying to understand and have an adult conversation, in 1990 the AFL was just being started and had very little power, Vic clubs standing together could of got better deals and or kept their grounds. Clearly the ones who got the good deals didn’t care about their fellow Vic clubs?

I am not crying the poor WA teams so give it a rest and or point in another direction.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What were the options?

AFL negotiates a deal to play XX number of games at Colonial Stadium. AFL controls the fixture. The AFL future wasnt Waverley and suburban football, but "blockbusters" under a roof.

The AFL imposed ground rationalisation on Melbourne based clubs. It was a disaster for many individual Melbourne clubs, on and off field.

But yeah, the poor WA teams have to fly further so think everyone is out to get them.

And you did have options, you could of said no. We’re your clubs scared you would be thrown out? Wtf could the AFL do?

 

[Progressive Aggresion]

At the end of the day I really couldn't care less about where the grand final is played. It's pretty clear from the last couple of years that venue advantage is irrelevant in this day and age (imo) it didn't make a difference in our last 2 prelims or the last 2 grand finals. If you're good enough you can play anywhere and anytime at an elite level.

Fremantle, Adelaide, Port and GWS were all close to premierships over the last 10 years, and ultimately you can't blame the MCG for none of those teams falling short. It was our own ceilings which got in the way. It wasn't the MCG's fault Fremantle couldn't kick straight in the spotlight, that or Adelaide went to sleep in after half time in 17, or that Ken Hinkley and Leon Cameron

Leon Cameron

Age

53

Ht

185cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.2

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.7

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.9

3star

No current season stats available

D

20.8

5star

K

14.4

5star

HB

6.4

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.8

3star

somehow still have jobs. All those issues are internal club issues which needed fixing in time to close the gap, a gap which only existed because of our own ceilings, not because of the type of grass we played on or the type of stands we played in front of.

 

[doppleganger]

And you did have options, you could of said no. We’re your clubs scared you would be thrown out? Wtf could the AFL do?

The VFL/AFL owned Waverley. They decided to sell Waverley, as they wanted the funds to transition to Docklands.

On what basis do you think Hawthorn and StKilda had any bargaining power to say no we arent going.

What were there options?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The VFL/AFL owned Waverley. They decided to sell Waverley, as they wanted the funds to transition to Docklands.

On what basis do you think Hawthorn and StKilda had any bargaining power to say no we arent going.

What were there options?

There options were to say we will
Lose money and we cannot do that. It’s not rocket science

 

[doppleganger]

The only reason they build stadiums that big is because its shared.

??
The biggest football stadiums in America arent the NFL stadiums.

It is the college stadiums that are cramming in people.

NFL stadiums are all about corporate facilities.

And they have played at 65k stadiums.

And thatd a country of 300 million.

You are starting to get it...the USA is completely different.

USA has 300million people, dispersed all over the country, some 20+ states with 5mil+ population and they all love NFL.

Australia has 3 states with 5mil+ population, and only one where AFL is king.

Of the 30 NFL stadiums, 28 of them are 65k+, and none are more than 85k capacity. So many amazing venues!!

In Aus, we only have one stadium above 65k, and it is the big daddy that stands out - the G

In the US there is no single standout stadium or single dominant NFL population hub completely different to Aus, as we do have a standout stadium and dominant population hub.

We do some things the same as the NFL

NFL doesnt do highest team host
NFL doesnt rotate between all venues
Some NFL stadiums are never going to host a Superbowl
NFL Superbowl location isnt about fairness
NFL favours certain states and venues
NFL shafts people in remote states like Washington who miss out "unfairly" and face greater travel impost if they want to watch

 

[Underarm]

Oh ffs mate I am trying to understand and have an adult conversation, in 1990 the AFL was just being started and had very little power, Vic clubs standing together could of got better deals and or kept their grounds. Clearly the ones who got the good deals didn’t care about their fellow Vic clubs?

I am not crying the poor WA teams so give it a rest and or point in another direction.

The AFL was almost 100 years old in 1990.

 

[bh90210fan]

Go back to the 90s, the AFL was imposing ground rationalisation on the Melbourne clubs

Carlton didnt want to leave PP
Saints/Hawks didnt want to leave Waverley

Melbourne and Richmond has been MCG clubs for decades, why would they actively seek to play home games at Etihad??

The AFL set the agenda, negotiate the deals, they shafted the Melbourne based clubs.

If your footy club can’t afford to pay anyone to mow the grass on the oval or keep the lights on, it’s a bit rich to complain about being forced to move and share a ground with less than favourable stadium deals.

With cheap memberships and low attendances Marvel stadium would be operating at a loss half the time. If Melbourne clubs had the same deal as West Coast and Fremantle they wouldn’t be any better off. How do you think you’re going to get rich on any stadium deal if you’re bringing $120 season memberships and a 25,000 crowd average to the table.

 

[kranky al]

If your footy club can’t afford to pay anyone to mow the grass on the oval or keep the lights on, it’s a bit rich to complain about being forced to move and share a ground with less than favourable stadium deals.

With cheap memberships and low attendances Marvel stadium would be operating at a loss half the time. If Melbourne clubs had the same deal as West Coast and Fremantle they wouldn’t be any better off. How do you think you’re going to get rich on any stadium deal if you’re bringing $120 season memberships and a 25,000 crowd average to the table.

Thiiiissss


All part of the self pleasuring vic mythology.


I mean listen to this twaddle:

<<<Australia has 3 states with 5mil+ population, and only one where AFL is king.>>>

Orly?

 

[doppleganger]

I mean listen to this twaddle:

<<<Australia has 3 states with 5mil+ population, and only one where AFL is king.>>>

Orly?

Yep.

NSW, VIC and QLD account for 75% of Aussie population.

And of NSW, QLD and VIC currently just VIC that is a dominant AFL state.

Completely different market to NFL in USA, where american football is the dominant code everywhere.

 

[doppleganger]

There options were to say we will
Lose money and we cannot do that. It’s not rocket science

The AFL entered into a deal to play certain number of games at Colonial. Also noting the AFL controls the FIXture.

They had to try and get the best deal available, but had no leverage and AFL already entered into their own agreement with stadium owners.

It's not rocket science to realise that the projections and figures the clubs were presented by the AFL were crap and never eventuated.

You also had/have the AFL pushing AFL memberships on the Melbourne fans, directly competing for supporter $$, offering a much better value deal to the fan than an individual club can provide, funnelling more $$ to AFL that would previously end up in clubs pockets through regular gate takings.

 

[sante]

This thread would have legs if the interstate teams hadn’t won any flags.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yes but the fact that it moves every year has meant only two teams have ever had hga in the superbowls history.

Thanks for playing…..

NFL has 32 teams playing out of 30 stadiums, about 10 of which are suitable for the Superbowl.

AFL has 18 teams playing out of 8 stadiums, 1 of which is suitable for a grand final.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Your presidents and or CEO accepted and signed on for the poor deal. The AFL didn’t force them to sign up to lose money. Something must of been offered to sign such crap deals.

You don't know what you're talking about

 

[Rich01]

NFL has 32 teams playing out of 30 stadiums, about 10 of which are suitable for the Superbowl.

AFL has 18 teams playing out of 8 stadiums, 1 of which is suitable for a grand final.

Disagree. The Gabba and Perth Stadium did a great job hosting Covid grand finals. Adelaide oval could probably do the job as well.

The issue has always been paying out the gf contract which non vic clubs have always shirked away from.

Which premier is going to put up their hand for this? Chairman McGowan perhaps?

 

[Rob]

Its also dependent on the stadium deal. West Coast effectively had a clean stadium that they then paid rent on before moving to Perth Stadium.

And in Victoria and SA theres only a limited amount of product clubs can sell and profit from because they compete with the league or the SANFL/SACA or the MCC who ALSO sell corporate boxes and hospitality packages, and in Victoria at least, only a part of the corporate revenue from matches is returned to the clubs.

At Docklands, clubs split seating reservation fees and catering/dining with the venue owners, and receive 75% of the admission price for stadium members and corporate boxes - the stadium owner was responsible for marketing said corporate boxes.

See also this image from 2011 and the AFL 2012 funding proposals

None of that effects membership, and in any case, none of those clubs (with the possible exception of Adelaide) sell out what they're given. If anything the stadium deal prevents West Coast selling more because they are the club that doesn't have enough seats. They'd probably fill an 80k seat stadium every week if they had the capacity.

If what you say is true, and the stadium deal prevents these clubs from being bigger than West Coast, then you'd at least expect them to be selling what they've got. They don't. Not just that, the prices that are generally charged are low. The last game I went to in Melbourne was Richmond v Adelaide (GF replay). I paid $25 at the gate, and there were heaps of empty seats around me. Imagine the crowd if you doubled prices!