News 2020 Season requests - 11 games at GMHBA

[cats_09]

Adding this article to the OP for this thread and that way when anyone dares to raise the false idea of Geelong "requesting home games" at the MCG, we have easy access to the following:

GEELONG will again request to play all 11 home games at GMHBA Stadium in 2020, declaring it will “not relent” its lobbying of the AFL.

The Cats received nine matches at Kardinia Park this year, but have written to the league mounting their case for a full complement of true home games next year.

The club is hopeful the AFL will schedule a big-drawing Melbourne club in Geelong, but chief executive Brian Cook acknowledged the league’s contractual arrangements with the Melbourne Cricket Club may prevent that occurring.

While there has been some talk from commentators that Geelong should request more matches at the MCG to better prepare for finals football, Cook said the Cats were not going to be pressured to move games from their traditional home venue.

“Our position, and what we have said to the AFL, is ideally we want to play 11 games at GMHBA Stadium and we are not going to relent on this,” Cook told the Geelong Advertiser.

“They think we are going to relent on this because they think we are kidding, but we are not — we want 11 games down at GMHBA.”

“If, however, for them to meet their stadium requirements and everything else, and we have to play Collingwood at the MCG, then we understand that, but our minimum is nine, and we are really strong on that.

“There might be a year where we don’t play Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond or Hawthorn as a home game for us and if that is the case there is no reason we can’t play 11.

“So we have written to the AFL and told them that.”

The GMHBA Stadium capacity will grow once the final stage of the redevelopment is finished, which could increase Geelong’s chances of hosting a home final if it earns the right.

Irrespective of how that plays out, Cook said the club had put itself in a strong position off-field and had rid itself almost entirely of the revenue it generated through pokies.

“We reached nearly 66,000 members, which was a record, and were able to attract $100 million for stage 5 of the GMHBA Stadium redevelopment, which will start next year,” he said.

“We also had the highest average crowd for AFLW and are now second in sponsorship stakes behind West Coast, so to think that a regional team with a capacity stadium of 34,000 is No.2 in raising sponsorship dollars is outstanding.

“So we will be better than breakeven this year and have been able to replace $4.5 million dollars in pokies revenue down to one at the moment, which will be none next year, and that has been a major turnover for us and a major change.”

Geelong Advertiser

No Cookies

www.geelongadvertiser.com.au

 

[CatTricks]

Never going to happen.

 

[cats_09]

Never going to happen.

It may not happen, but clearly we are requesting 11 home games at our home venue - unlike what some were sprouting during the season about us requesting home games at the MCG against the bigger teams and then sooking come finals when it apparently doesn't suit us to play them there.

 

[STPer18]

Didn't the AFL want Hawthorn out of Tasmania before they signed their latest deal but they signed it anyway and the AFL had no choice but to fixture them their Tassie games? Can't we do something like that, enter into some shitty contract with KP and tell the AFL we need 11 games there and our hands are tied? Be a flog to get what you want.

 

[cats_09]

Didn't the AFL want Hawthorn out of Tasmania before they signed their latest deal but they signed it anyway and the AFL had no choice but to fixture them their Tassie games? Can't we do something like that, enter into some s**tty contract with KP and tell the AFL we need 11 games there and our hands are tied? Be a flog to get what you want.

Adelaide & Port are both contracted to a minimum of 11 home games each year at Adelaide Oval - and that's why with Port wanting to play 1 game each year in China, they had to find a team willing to give up a home game & move it overseas

I agree - why can't we do the same...

 

[goyoucatters]

Club is absolutely entitled to advise the AFL of our ongoing request for '11'. What other club gets told by the AFL where to play their home games?

Still, I don't expect we will win the argument. Doesn't change the validity of continually pointing out the inequity, though, in the interests of integrity.

After all, at least then the ill-informed can dine out on moaning about us supposedly whining all year round about the venue issue rather than simply in the lead-up to finals.

 

[cynical]

7 or 8 should be enough

if the ground size wasn't vastly different then more would be better but there is no good reason to play less games at the MCG

unless we want to make finals every year and keep getting embarrassed

 

[goyoucatters]

And as much as I like and endorse the fixture request, I am also impressed by the other info published in this article.

Record membership
Funds secured for Stage 5 of redevelopment
Major player in crowd numbers for AFLW
High-end sponsorship numbers across the comp
Well on the way to eliminating revenue from pokies from the club's activities

Add to that our achievement of eliminating gambling advertising at the ground, and we have a great deal of progress off the field to celebrate. Still hurdles to climb on the footy and business front, of course.

But I still see the club getting lots more right than it does wrong at this point.

 

[cats_09]

7 or 8 should be enough

if the ground size wasn't vastly different then more would be better but there is no good reason to play less games at the MCG

unless we want to make finals every year and keep getting embarrassed

Or maybe we could actually play finals at our home ground - I know novel idea right...

And, it's not like our home ground is the only one that varies in size to the MCG in comparision with other home grounds - so should every team play minimal home games at their home ground & request at least half of their home games at the MCG instead?

AFL BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS

Ground - length - width

UTAS Stadium - 175m - 145m

TIO Stadium - 175m - 135m

GMHBA Stadium - 170m - 116m

TIO Traeger Park - 168m - 132m

Adelaide Oval - 167m - 123m

Cazaly’s Stadium - 165m - 135m

Optus Stadium - 165m - 130m

Spotless Stadium - 164m - 128m

UNSW Canberra Oval - 162.5m - 138m

MCG - 161m - 138m

Jiangwan Stadium - 160m - 136m

Etihad Stadium - 160m - 129m

Mars Stadium - 160m - 129m

Blundstone Arena - 160m - 124m

Metricon Stadium - 158m - 134m

Gabba - 156m - 138m

SCG - 155m - 136m

 

[Max Milburn]

That's funny, I heard we have never requested 11 home games.
Isn't it our choice to play home games at the MCG?
What's going on here?

 

[cynical]

Or maybe we could actually play finals at our home ground - I know novel idea right...

And, it's not like our home ground is the only one that varies in size to the MCG in comparision with other home grounds - so should every team play minimal home games at their home ground & request at least half of their home games at the MCG instead?

no other grounds are as narrow as KP

being a victorian side we have the advantage of playing games at the MCG so why not do it

playing finals at KP is a joke, as i've mentioned before, the ground is so narrow it requires a totally different game style (much more contested)

as usual its just about money and trying to push an unfair advantage

 

[goyoucatters]

In the last ten years, three clubs have won flags despite not playing home games at the 'G (Weagles, Dogs, Swans).

And we won three premierships in five years recently, despite playing minimal home games there.

Conceding our home ground advantage (both tactically and financially) in the interests of more experience at the 'G is not a sensible approach. And history shows it hasn't stopped teams progressing to glory if they're good enough. The orange and charcoal finally showing something at the venue on the weekend is further proof of that.

So I hope the club continues to gets its priorities right on this front. Play every game at home that you can whilst using every game at the 'G (and every possible practice session at Deakin) to prepare for the different dimensions and conditions there.

Other clubs just turn up at the 'G and win, home team or otherwise. We need to be good enough (haven't been since 2011, admittedly) to do the same.

 

[Drunkcat]

That's it if you have a good side they can win at any ground

 

[Baudolino]

I love that quote from Cook about the club refusing to relent on this or back off on the pressure they've been putting on the AFL. It's impressive how uncompromising and unwilling to be bullied to submission both he and the rest of the club leadership have been.

I have many criticisms of the way Scott, Cook, Carter and co have operated this season but this is the one area in which I literally cannot fault them. The way they have handled the home ground situation has been perfect. They've been superb ambassadors for the GFC in this area, and I'm glad to hear Cook say it will continue.

 

[goyoucatters]

That's it if you have a good side they can win at any ground

Absolutely. Which also means good sides can come down and beat us at our home ground, if they make it simply about the contest and not the supposedly insurmountable difficulty in not playing at that venue regularly enough.

 

[Nickoo]

Club is absolutely entitled to advise the AFL of our ongoing request for '11'. What other club gets told by the AFL where to play their home games?

Still, I don't expect we will win the argument. Doesn't change the validity of continually pointing out the inequity, though, in the interests of integrity.

After all, at least then the ill-informed can dine out on moaning about us supposedly whining all year round about the venue issue rather than simply in the lead-up to finals.

No doubt the Vic gov will step in and Tap the AFL on the shoulder once the last redevelopment is done. You don’t pay that sort of money to be trifled with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Nickoo]

I love that quote from Cook about the club refusing to relent on this or back off on the pressure they've been putting on the AFL. It's impressive how uncompromising and unwilling to be bullied to submission both he and the rest of the club leadership have been.

I have many criticisms of the way Scott, Cook, Carter and co have operated this season but this is the one area in which I literally cannot fault them. The way they have handled the home ground situation has been perfect. They've been superb ambassadors for the GFC in this area, and I'm glad to hear Cook say it will continue.

There’s some absolute bullies on the AFL board or have been.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[dazbroncos]

7 or 8 should be enough

if the ground size wasn't vastly different then more would be better but there is no good reason to play less games at the MCG

unless we want to make finals every year and keep getting embarrassed

If you think ground size had anything to do with the QF loss, the SF win and the PF loss, you’ve got rocks I’m your head. Had nothing to do with it

Go Catters

 

[Down at K Park]

No doubt the Vic gov will step in and Tap the AFL on the shoulder once the last redevelopment is done. You don’t pay that sort of money to be trifled with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Good point. Government didn’t throw millions at the stadium to see it sit idle.

 

[cynical]

If you think ground size had anything to do with the QF loss, the SF win and the PF loss, you’ve got rocks I’m your head. Had nothing to do with it

Go Catters

rocks in my head?

our game style is designed to win games at home due to the narrow size

its why we play more big slow defenders, its why we underrate pure outside players

why do you think Scott puts players like Selwood, Blicavs and Kolo on the wing? its cos it doesn't get exploited at KP

the narrowness means outside players have less room to move and it becomes more contested

there are many reasons why we play poorly in finals, specialising in a game style around KP ground dimensions is one of them

you might want to think outside your narrow point of view before throwing insults

 

[Baudolino]

why do you think Scott puts players like Selwood, Blicavs and Kolo on the wing? its cos it doesn't get exploited at KP

LOL.

The *only* games Blicavs played on the wing this year were at the MCG. Same story with Kolo a few years ago - he spent almost the entire home and away season as a defender, then went to the wing in finals at the MCG.

 

[cats_09]

LOL.

The *only* games Blicavs played on the wing this year were at the MCG. Same story with Kolo a few years ago - he spent almost the entire home and away season as a defender, then went to the wing in finals at the MCG.

Happy to see someone else reply first

The Kolo decision a couple of seasons ago was more frustrating because it seemed to be done as a means of not dropping a player or making a hard decision to drop a defender.

And I'm aware that we named a few extra defenders last Friday night, but it felt like that was more out of necessity, with Blicavs ending up on the wing due to his athleticism but it wasn't advantageous to the team. At rounds 20/21 etc, I don't think the MC would have even been considering Blicavs as playing on the wing during the finals, but then we had Clark injury his elbow, Duncan injured his knee in the first final & Selwood who has spent extended time on the wing during the season was thrown back into the heat of the battle & really stood up in the finals. I guess the MC could have thrown Tuohy on the wing or maybe even bought in Parsons who actually plays through the midfield, but that last decision would have potentially seen more melts than the decision to play Blicavs on the wing.

Hoping we see both Kolo & Blicavs as locks in the defensive 50m next year and not anywhere near the wing

 

[Podsnap]

They need to change the Richmond/Collingwood/AFL controlled narrative about how it is in the best interests of the fans to have games played at the G. Who gives a s**t what their fans want and how many of them we can get in. Its our home game and it needs to be seen as belonging to the club rather than some ridiculous obligation to meet the interests of everyone else.

 

[Falconx]

We'll get the 9-2 split again between KP and MCG which I'm perfectly fine with. Much better than the 8-3 split between KP and Docklands that we used to always get a decade ago.

 

[Turbocat]

Adding this article to the OP for this thread and that way when anyone dares to raise the false idea of Geelong "requesting home games" at the MCG, we have easy access to the following:

Geelong Advertiser

No Cookies

www.geelongadvertiser.com.au

Well at least this is the time of the year to talk etc.... but really .. why can the club put it onto the back burner till the stadium is totally finished...