2026 Attendances

[PonsfordMagpie]

Essendon vs North Melbourne = 40,154

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Which is why they are a bigger club. They are overrepresented sure, but if you combined AFL and MCC memberships together that's the break down of club support in Victoria.

Do we really think Carl v WB, St K or NM draws 68,000 at the MCG today going through a rebuild?

For the millionth time, attending matches as the away team at Marvel isn't inherent to the fanbase for Marvel tenanted teams as it is for MCG tenant teams playing MCG away teams.

That doesn't make Melbourne magically a bigger team, it just speaks to the structural benefits of the MCG having a higher capacity, different membership categories (that makes accessing as an away fan identical to a home fan), and the fact that the MCG is just generally the higher reputation, more appealing city.

Melbourne fans are notorious for refusing to travel to Docklands for away games, worse than any other team in Melbourne. Dogs got virtually an identical crowd vs Melbourne as they did vs interstate teams in 2017, effectively suggesting that there were only a couple of thousand of Melbourne fans.

Over the years, similar St Kilda and North home games against Melbourne have also barely been above playing non-Melbourne teams - 22k last year, 25k in 2016, 22k in 2019 vs St Kilda etc.

But the fact that so few Melbourne fans make the trek to Docklands as the away team is no more proof of Melbourne being a very small team than the proof that tens of thousands of Melbourne fans went to the MCG game today as the away team is proof of them being a very large team.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

for whatever reason,

The AFL and MCC membership categories, and the general sentiment of the MCG being the better, ore historic stadium that provides a better fan experience, should be pretty obvious and it seems pretty strange that you're insisting on "oh but we can't know the reason".

It's fair to suggest that a very large chunk of the ~20,000 Melbourne MCC members - who don't have rights when they play away at Docklands, but have zero care that this is an away game when it's at the MCG - attended today.

Thread 'MCC member breakdown as of 31.08.18'

Mar 12, 2019

As per attachment below here is the mcc breakdown for mcc supporters who nominated their team of supporter out of the 131,797 financial mcc members



Numbers breakdown are as below;

Melbourne 22,932
Essendon 17,792
Collingwood 15,947
Carlton 12,784
Richmond 11,729
Hawthorn 11,070
Geelong 10,939
St.Kilda 7,248
North Melbourne 4,217
Western Bulldogs 3,294
Sydney 3,163
Brisbane 3,163
Other teams 1,845
No team listed 6,853

• gopies1981
• Replies: 28
• Forum: The Footy Industry

• 

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

After Round 3.

HOME CROWDS
Club (# of home games played) = Total (Average)

• Carlton (2) = 142,076 (71,038)
• St Kilda (2) = 114,382 (57,191)
• Essendon (2) = 111,538 (55,769)
• Collingwood (2) = 104,089 (52,045)
• Adelaide (1) = 49,185 (49,185)
• Hawthorn (1) = 47,945 (47,945)
• West Coast (1) = 47,083 (47,083)
• Melbourne (1) = 44,577 (44,577)
• Fremantle (2) = 79,981 (39,991)
• Sydney (2) = 78,500 (39,250)
• Port Adelaide (2) = 69,803 (34,902)
• Brisbane Lions (1) = 31,606 (31,606)
• Richmond (1) = 30,468 (30,468)
• Western Bulldogs (1) = 28,318 (28,318)
• Geelong (2) = 49,118 (24,559)
• North Melbourne (1) = 23,318 (23,318)
• Gold Coast (2) = 33,168 (16,584)
• GWS (2) = 25,306 (12,653)

HOME AND AWAY CROWDS
Club (# of games played) = Total (Average)

• Collingwood (3) = 186,617 (62,206)
• Carlton (3) = 182,448 (60,816)
• Melbourne (3) = 157,076 (52,359)
• Essendon (3) = 147,587 (49,196)
• Richmond (3) = 140,026 (46,675)
• Hawthorn (3) = 135,486 (45,162)
• Adelaide (3) = 132,070 (44,023)
• Sydney (3) = 126,445 (42,148)
• St Kilda (4) = 168,108 (42,027)
• North Melbourne (3) = 110,555 (36,852)
• Western Bulldogs (3) = 109,109 (36,370)
• Fremantle (3) = 108,696 (36,232)
• Brisbane Lions (3) = 101,588 (33,863)
• West Coast (3) = 94,146 (31,382)
• Port Adelaide (3) = 93,121 (31,040)
• GWS (4) = 95,231 (23,808)
• Geelong (3) = 68,977 (22,992)
• Gold Coast (3) = 63,636 (21,212)

 

[Hawkk]

Dude, I'm just relaying information from people high up in the Hawks and Tassie and people associated with them that I've heard. I have no idea or I'm not providing commentary on it, just that everyone who makes the decisions and that are party to it seem to be happy with it, it seems to be a successful venture beyond just the headline attendance numbers, and Hawthorn have a genuine home ground advantage there in a sporting sense. And there's very minimal Hawks member grumbling as well (you aside), possibly because there isn't much fan demand for a Docklands home game in a half-empty stadium with zero away supporters that would be played if there were more games in Melbourne, so there's not much complaints for avoiding such a game.

That's not true at all. There is a whole thread on the Hawthorn board about it and has been mentioned at multiple AGM’s over decades.

Hawthorn has played 8 (non Covid) home games at Marvel Stadium since 2013 and have averaged 30,933 at those 8 games. That's pretty good to be honest given Hawthorn members don’t have a reserve seat at Marvel games (they only get 6 MCG home games on their ticket) and 3 of their 4 designated away games last year were ‘fully ticketed’ and worthless (Carlton, Geelong and Collingwood). This year it's probably two (Essendon and Collingwood) because Easter Monday falls on the other side.

If bringing the 4 games back means they get 7-8 home games at the MCG (Coll, Rich and Melb get 9) it's a massive upsell for members and given the Hawks are one of the wealthiest clubs in the comp I'm sure they'll be okay. The only reason Hawthorn is still in Launceston is because it's easier to extract millions out of wedging the Tasmanian government than it is finding a new sponsor.

Certainly, Hawthorn is big enough to be full time in Melbourne as Caroline Wilson said in her recent column. The losers are the rank and file members and the Tasmanian tax payers.

This feud has become a ‘festering sore’ for the game’s 19th club. Why won’t the AFL act?

That head office has failed to take a position in a debate that has confused Tasmanian football supporters and divided the very market it vowed to unite underlines the lack of decisive leadership which has too often punctuated Andrew Dillon’s time as CEO.

www.theage.com.au

The definitive call for Hawthorn to exit Tasmania should have been made in 2025. And any business analysis being undertaken by the AFL on behalf of the Hawks where Tasmania is concerned should be focused on a farewell tour a full time presence at the MCG.

When Hawthorn went to Launceston in 2001 they played 8 home games at the MCG, that dropped to 7 when Ian Robson and Jeff Kennett guaranteed Hawthorn members 7 home games and 4 away games at the MCG which dropped to 6 after 2016. The lack of MCG home games is a very significant concern amongst the Hawthorn membership.

 

[Hawkk]

For the millionth time, attending matches as the away team at Marvel isn't inherent to the fanbase for Marvel tenanted teams as it is for MCG tenant teams playing MCG away teams.

That doesn't make Melbourne magically a bigger team, it just speaks to the structural benefits of the MCG having a higher capacity, different membership categories (that makes accessing as an away fan identical to a home fan), and the fact that the MCG is just generally the higher reputation, more appealing city.

Melbourne fans are notorious for refusing to travel to Docklands for away games, worse than any other team in Melbourne. Dogs got virtually an identical crowd vs Melbourne as they did vs interstate teams in 2017, effectively suggesting that there were only a couple of thousand of Melbourne fans.

Over the years, similar St Kilda and North home games against Melbourne have also barely been above playing non-Melbourne teams - 22k last year, 25k in 2016, 22k in 2019 vs St Kilda etc.

But the fact that so few Melbourne fans make the trek to Docklands as the away team is no more proof of Melbourne being a very small team than the proof that tens of thousands of Melbourne fans went to the MCG game today as the away team is proof of them being a very large team.

What's the Dogs best MCG crowd? Have they attracted as many 60,000 plus away crowds as Melbourne? That's the issue. It's a bit like the Swans who for one reason or another attract much larger MCG crowds than the Dogs, Saints and North.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If Hawtthorn bringing those games back to Melbourne means they get 7-8 home games at the MCG

That's a big if though

Certainly, Hawthorn is big enough to be full time in Melbourne at the MCG as Caroline Wilson said in her column last week.

Sure, but every other club in Melbourne wants to add more MCG home games. Saints, Dogs and North would love 1-2 guaranteed home games there a year.

Carlton and Essendon are always making noises about shifting one of their Docklands home games to MCG

At this stage, in the interest of fairness of the 5 clubs that do play their games in Docklands, you can't just have Hawks swan back in to Melbourne and leapfrog the other teams have done the dirty work of playing low-crowd games with unappealing away non-Victorian teams at crappy timeslots to support the operations of the league, when the Hawks have avoided those games by collecting a paycheque from Tassie interests. Keep in mind that this has also come on the back o the last 15 years of Geelong being able to extricate themselves from Docklands home games while also keeping MCG ones. Who cares if Caroline Wilson said it. She's certainly not speaking in the interests of fairness of the 5 existing Docklands teams.

Hawthorn has played 8 (non Covid) home games at Marvel Stadium since 2013 and have averaged 30,933 at those 8 games.

In an era where the Hawks have almost always been successful.

Should there be 2+ more Docklands games in a season, I can't imagine that in the 1/4 long-term average case that the Hawks are a bottom 4/5 team on the cycle, there's going to be a huge crowd when playing Port/Freo/GWS/GC who also might be a bottom 6-8ish team on the same cycle, and that there's more total opportunity to see the Hawks play (ie, declining interest to seeing an nth, nth+1, nth+2 game for the season).

Hawks got sub-17k crowds to games against Freo in 2000 and 2001. It was clear that it was a very unappealing for Hawks fans to play games against non-Victorian teams there while also playing a large number of other accessible games in Melbourne, while the team was doing bad against other bad low-drawing non-Victorian teams. That led to hunting out Tassie in the first place, and I think it's fine for the board to want to avoid another scenario. I get that time has passed since then, but at the same time ... more people could have turned up for those 2 games if it truly was an appealing offering. 17k is a woeful crowd.

Worth noting your 31k average is a bit biased ... includes a home game vs Dogs in 2017 post-flag, another home game vs Saints which is another Victorian team. The 2/3/4 additional Docklands games will only be vs. non-interstate teams, because if you bring 4 games back to victoria, it's fair to say that 1 will be at MCG (the equivalent to hosting a Victorian team at Launceston), but the 3 non-Victorian matches will be at Docklands. So you can't claim 2/8 games where you hosted a Victorian team at Docklands in that time as being representative of the 3 extra Docklands games, that will be 0/3 against Victorian teams...

 

[Hawkk]

That's a big if though

Hence my post.

Sure, but every other club in Melbourne wants to add more MCG home games. Saints, Dogs and North would love 1-2 guaranteed home games there a year.

Extra Hawthorn games are far more attractive for the AFL and MCC than Saints, Dogs and North games (which are really only there to meet the Collingwood contract).

Carlton and Essendon are always making noises about shifting one of their Docklands home games to Melbourne.

This is the far greater threat. Because those games are more valuable, especially Essendon who are the sleeping giant of the AFL.

At this stage, in the interest of fairness of the 5 clubs that do play their games in Docklands, you can't just have Hawks swan back in to Melbourne and leapfrog the other teams have done the dirty work of playing low-crowd games with unappealing away non-Victorian teams at crappy timeslots to support the operations of the league, when the Hawks have avoided those games by collecting a paycheque from Tassie interests. Keep in mind that this has also come on the back o the last 15 years of Geelong being able to extricate themselves from Docklands home games while also keeping MCG ones. Who cares if Caroline Wilson said it. She's certainly not speaking in the interests of fairness of the 5 existing Docklands teams.

Like I said in my post above, if Hawthorn bring those games back 1 or 2 of those games are likely to be at the MCG. When Hawthorn went to Tasmania their MCG average was 38,000. It's now 65,000 (the greatest increase out of the Vic clubs).

They might not get all the games back but it's highly probably they'll get some back.

In an era where the Hawks have almost always been successful.

No they weren't.

Hawthorn was awful in 2017 to mid way through 2024 and the bulk of those games were played during that time.

Should there be 2+ more Docklands games in a season, I can't imagine that in the 1/4 long-term average case that the Hawks are a bottom 4/5 team on the cycle, there's going to be a huge crowd when playing Port/Freo/GWS/GC who also might be a bottom 6-8ish team on the same cycle, and that there's more total opportunity to see the Hawks play (ie, declining interest to seeing an nth, nth+1, nth+2 game for the season).

Hawks got sub-17k crowds to games against Freo in 2000 and 2001. It was clear that it was a very unappealing for Hawks fans to play games against non-Victorian teams there while also playing a large number of other accessible games in Melbourne, while the team was doing bad against other bad low-drawing non-Victorian teams. That led to hunting out Tassie in the first place, and I think it's fine for the board to want to avoid another scenario. I get that time has passed since then, but at the same time ... more people could have turned up for those 2 games if it truly was an appealing offering. 17k is a woeful crowd.

So you think a crowd from 25 years ago is relevant today? Up until 2007, Hawthorn had only played a handful of games in front of 55k plus. Last year, 9 of 11 MCG home and away games drew over 55k (and all over 50k)

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What's the Dogs best MCG crowd? Have they attracted as many 60,000 plus away crowds as Melbourne? That's the issue. It's a bit like the Swans who for one reason or another attract much larger MCG crowds than the Dogs, Saints and North.

For the millionth time

The Dogs to not have tens of thousands of AFL and MCC members, because we so rarely play at the MCG (so there's no benefit of our fans attempting to get these memberships to see our home games there, because they do not exist), so there's no bonus additional free access to attending away games as a natural byproduct of getting these memberships to have a better experience of watching our home games there, because they don't exist.

There are 20,000 Melbourne MCC members who for historical reasons reasons and that the MCC itself is just a pleasant way of watching an MCG game, use this membership category as a way to support Melbourne home MCG games. It is then a bonus for Carlton in this instance that many of them do not care that it is not their home game, they can outnumber Carlton fans in the reserve and support their team for this game with Melbourne MCC members not caring about the distinction of it being an away or home game. They'll attend their 11-odd MCG games a year irrespective of whether it's home or away.

This is not representative of Melbourne being a large club, it's just that a very large chunk of their fanbase has an ease of access in attending away games that no other club (other than maybe Collingwood) also do.

Western Bulldogs | Western Bulldogs Membership

A new season, brings a new chapter. Strong. Proud. United. Become a member today.

membership.westernbulldogs.com.au

There is not even any Membership category that you can buy that gives you access to away games at the MCG. Ziltch.

The only way that you can access this away game as a Dogs fan is via the AFL membership. But it's also a thing that very few Dogs fans actually have. Mainly because its benefits are less relevant for us as a club - there is no specific level 2/3 reserve at Docklands (as there is at the MCG), so it's only beneficial for your own bay/reserved seat if you like sitting on level one. And its benefits in finals ticketing for MCG home finals, should we make it, is limited - because we have fewer members full stop, we are far less likely to miss out on using our usual barcode for a normal final in week 1-3 unlike being a Richmond/Essendon/Carlton/Collingwood/Hawthorn member.

And as I said above, it's counterbalanced by Melbourne fans refusing to travel to Docklands when they play there instead. For much the same reason that Dogs fans get no access to MCG games, have to pay and it's unfamiliar to their experience, is also true for Melbourne fans when they travel to Docklands (but even more extreme).

I've been to numerous Docklands games - Saints vs Melbourne, Dogs vs Melbourne, like the examples I listed above - that there are fewer than 5k Melbourne fans in the stands. That's far fewer than the typical attendance of any away team at Docklands games. For example, there would have been at least 8-10k North fans in their away game against Essendon on Saturday night, but I'm not using this greater away attendance in a Docklands game as "evidence" that Melbourne are a smaller team than North in that fewer Melbourne fans went to the 35k attended game last time Essendon hosted Melbourne at Docklands

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Extra Hawthorn games are far more attractive for the AFL and MCC than Saints, Dogs and North games (which are really only there to meet the Collingwood contract).

The AFL should be in the interest of operating in a fair manner of all its clubs, not just making $$$$$. What's the point of $$$$$$ if it simply more $$$$ in service of a functionally unfair competition, with arranging fair competition a reason it exists? As long as the AFL insists that the Dogs should play their home games at the MCG in finals, the Dogs have a right to insist that they are allowed to take at least 1 of their home games to the MCG in the regular season so they can get practice on playing on it in anticipation for the finals. The Dogs are a very reasonable chance of playing 2 MCG home finals this season if we finish top 2 (and maybe a 3rd via the GF). We play 2 away games there. We might "host" a home game against the Hawks this finals series again like 2024 and be outnumered and less experienced in the venue than our "away" opponents. The AFL can fairly marginally offset that disadvantage by swapping around a couple of Hawks and Dogs home games between Docklands and the MCG.

The Dogs might also play a "home" MCG final against Gold Coast, Fremantle, Sydney or Brisbane this year - four teams that will gather just as much experience on the width of the ground as the Dogs will (that is, all 5 teams are merely playing 2 away games there this year).

You get the idea. The AFL needs to run a competition fairly, not just increase the unfair inequities between teams because you want to think "hawks = money".

Like I said in my post above, if Hawthorn bring those games back 1 or 2 of those games are likely to be at the MCG. When Hawthorn went to Tasmania their MCG average was 38,000. It's now 65,000 (the greatest increase out of the Vic clubs).

Because you were able to avoid playing the lowest-interest games, that also have diminishing interest of asking fans to attend 10+ games a year, by taking them to Launceston

So you think a crowd from 25 years ago is relevant today? Up until 2007, Hawthorn had only played a handful of games in front of 55k plus. Last year, 9 of 11 MCG home and away games drew over 55k (and all over 50k)

I'm talking about what coloured the view to avoid playing these types of games in Melbourne. They're far less appealing.

And I know what I'm talking about because I've had this discussion with people at the Dogs who have made the decision to take games to Ballarat. You can't just point to averages for all of these games and say that's typical for home game 9, 10, 11. The Dogs have been able to take home games against Gold Coast etc. to Ballarat, that are typically played at crappy timeslots with zero appeal. For instance, Dogs have only hosted GC 3 times at Docklands since 2011. I've been to all three games. They were depressing, and brought out the worst of what a Docklands experience game can be, and the crowds were low because there was minimal appeal for the rusted ons to make this their 10th attended game of the season when they can attend the other 9. Hawks would have similar thinking in seeing Launceston as appealing.

BTW, Hawks play 5 away games at the MCG this year. That's relevant to this discussion. If the Hawks only ever played about 2 away games at the MCG every year, I think the Hawks board would want more home games in Melbourne (Docklands or otherwise).

 

[Demon13304]

Disagree - one piece of evidence of this is people nominating Melbourne as their favourite team in polling is smaller than every other club in Victoria bar North:

Sydney Swans are Australia’s most widely supported AFL club for 20 straight years - Roy Morgan Research

www.roymorgan.com

This almost lines up perfectly with 2025 membership numbers which the bottom clubs were ordered in the exact same way - North fewest polled fans, fewest members, Melbourne second-fewest fans, second-fewest members in Victoria.

That being said, Melbourne being an MCG tenant club will always lead to greater attendances when they're the away team at the MCG (in contrast to Saints, North and Dogs' away attendances when they play their away games at Docklands being much lower than their home crowds). This is because of Melbourne having ~10,000 of their club members being MCC/AFL Gold members (who do not care for home or away), plus the fact that the bigger GA capacity for away fans meaning that your typical reserved seat holders in home games feel happy sitting in GA seats because there's lots of space, vs a Dogs/Saints/North reserved seat holder maybe not liking Docklands GA where they don't want to sit next to an opposition fan.

I'm not going argue too much about the size of Melbourne, but using 2025 numbers for us is just wrong mate.
It was an absolute disaster of a year (yes I know technically North were worse) and our membership/supporters dropped because the club was being run so so badly, they were lying to us and we were just over Simon Goodwins coaching.

Call me a bad supporter, but I stopped going to games because I genuinely started to dislike the club and how it was run

Again, I'm not going to argue whether we're bigger that the Doggies or Saints. But It was tumultuous year for us and shouldn't be used as the benchmark for our support

 

[What else we can do]

Which is why they are a bigger club. They are overrepresented sure, but if you combined AFL and MCC memberships together that's the break down of club support in Victoria.

Do we really think Carl v WB, St K or NM draws 68,000 at the MCG today going through a rebuild?

There would of been 10k less, there was a huge Carlton contingent yesterday and probably the last time this year.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm not going argue too much about the size of Melbourne, but using 2025 numbers for us is just wrong mate.
It was an absolute disaster of a year (yes I know technically North were worse) and our membership/supporters dropped because the club was being run so so badly, they were lying to us and we were just over Simon Goodwins coaching.

Call me a bad supporter, but I stopped going to games because I genuinely started to dislike the club and how it was run

Again, I'm not going to argue whether we're bigger that the Doggies or Saints. But It was tumultuous year for us and shouldn't be used as the benchmark for our support

Oh we can split hairs about good years/bad years and how Melbourne might rearrange itself to appear marginally bigger than Dogs/Saints/North in the years those 3 teams are doing badly and Melbourne are doing well, but that's not the post I was responding to:

There is a misconception that Melbourne is a small club like North, St Kilda and the Dogs but that is not the case at all. They are a much bigger club (in Victoria).

This is the quote I was responding to, which is patently false. A large part of Melbourne's fanbase getting access to an away game (that is impossible for those 3 clubs to get similar access to away games, at the MCG or Docklands otherwise) is not evidence of being a bigger club per se, and indeed, the fact that so few Melbourne fans attend Docklands games is also itself not evidence that Melbourne is a smaller club.

 

[Rouel_14]

Which is why they are a bigger club. They are overrepresented sure, but if you combined AFL and MCC memberships together that's the break down of club support in Victoria.

Do we really think Carl v WB, St K or NM draws 68,000 at the MCG today going through a rebuild?

Agree.

I have always thought that Richmond is the 4th of the “big 4” by a long way and just done a much better job of turning ‘supporters’ in to ‘attendees’ that compete with the big boys.

I feel Melbourne though MCC are good at this too.

Absolutely zero data to back up that vibe.

 

[Demon13304]

Oh we can split hairs about good years/bad years and how Melbourne might rearrange itself to appear marginally bigger than Dogs/Saints/North in the years those 3 teams are doing badly and Melbourne are doing well, but that's not the post I was responding to:

I wasn't suggesting this at all, just saying 2025 shouldn't be used as a benchmark for our support which is what you did.

You're coming off as a bit passive aggressive here

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I wasn't suggesting this at all, just saying 2025 shouldn't be used as a benchmark for our support which is what you did.

You're coming off as a bit passive aggressive here

As I get older, I get frustrated at people talking down the club I support not for or well or poorly we're run (and that generally speaking we've been well run for 10+ years in an administrative sense), but the fact that we're constantly up against it in a structural sense. We have not been more poorly run than Melbourne since 2011 (where we had a regime change) in terms of building our fanbase relative to them, despite the obvious handbrake of not being an MCG tenanted club and not having blockbuster fixtures such as Queen's/King's Birthday and Anzac Eve that Melbourne get for no other reason than being a MCG tenanted club.

I still read constant, serious non-troll posts about "relocation" and "extra money from the AFL that needs to be subsidised" etc. Maybe a specific post about Melbourne being bigger than us wasn't the best case to be passive-aggressive, but I'm generally more upset at the lack of recognition of the fixturing and scheduling disadvantages handed to the Dogs (and the Dogs' administrative success over a 15 year period despite that barrier).

 

[Hawkk]

Interesting article re fully ticketed games: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...-won-t-be-fully-ticketed-20260325-p5xdos.html

It is still open for the Hawks to make Easter Monday a fully ticketed game, subject to demand, but Hawthorn’s call is merely one of several instances in which high-drawing clubs in Melbourne are weighing up carefully whether to go down the road of fully ticketing or not.

They are selling up the back the Ponsford Stand but Q1-Q6 is seemingly unsold (for walk ups presumably)

 

[BallaratBulldog]

I will still defend the Easter Sunday Night time slot and the idea of worship during the day and being able to still go to the game for those that are religious.

The Saints game was boosted compared to normal crowd last year. But Dons fans might not be keen will be interesting.

 

[dave10]

I will still defend the Easter Sunday Night time slot and the idea of worship during the day and being able to still go to the game for those that are religious.

The Saints game was boosted compared to normal crowd last year. But Dons fans might not be keen will be interesting.

Happy to be surprised but I think most Bombers fans will want to avoid paying money to watch them get thrashed. Who knows though, some might still pay the GA price and sit on level 3 for a half!
I think we lost to you guys by 93 & 91 points last year. I don’t see this being any better. Tell your blokes to pretend it’s training.

 

[Hawkk]

For the millionth time

The Dogs to not have tens of thousands of AFL and MCC members, because we so rarely play at the MCG (so there's no benefit of our fans attempting to get these memberships to see our home games there, because they do not exist), so there's no bonus additional free access to attending away games as a natural byproduct of getting these memberships to have a better experience of watching our home games there, because they don't exist.

I agree to an extent but what's surprising is that St Kilda have more MCC and AFL members than the Dogs and they suffer from the same issue as the Dogs. That said, the Dogs I would argue is now a bigger club than the Saints as evidenced by crowds in the decade since 2016.

There are 20,000 Melbourne MCC members who for historical reasons reasons and that the MCC itself is just a pleasant way of watching an MCG game, use this membership category as a way to support Melbourne home MCG games. It is then a bonus for Carlton in this instance that many of them do not care that it is not their home game, they can outnumber Carlton fans in the reserve and support their team for this game with Melbourne MCC members not caring about the distinction of it being an away or home game. They'll attend their 11-odd MCG games a year irrespective of whether it's home or away.

I'm just saying that Melbourne routinely get bigger crowds than those clubs. For example Hawthorn v Melbourne last year drew 53,871 in the wet whilst the Dees were bottom 6. Hawthorn v North / Dogs / St Kilds has never drawn 50,000 plus to a home and away game before. Hopefully that changes this year with the Hawks v Dogs (it should).

This is not representative of Melbourne being a large club, it's just that a very large chunk of their fanbase has an ease of access in attending away games that no other club (other than maybe Collingwood) also do.

Western Bulldogs | Western Bulldogs Membership

A new season, brings a new chapter. Strong. Proud. United. Become a member today.

membership.westernbulldogs.com.au

There is not even any Membership category that you can buy that gives you access to away games at the MCG. Ziltch.

So what you are saying is that Melbounre are not a bigger club despite regularly drawing larger crowds than other clubs. It wasn't that long ago (the late 1980s) that Melbourne was basically a Big 4 club. In 1988 Melbourne was only behind Collingwood (and ahead of Carlton and Essendon) as the biggest drawing club in the VFL. Obviously they've slipped a long way since, which is why their super coach and but surely there is still a generation or two of Melbourne fans left.

The only way that you can access this away game as a Dogs fan is via the AFL membership. But it's also a thing that very few Dogs fans actually have. Mainly because its benefits are less relevant for us as a club - there is no specific level 2/3 reserve at Docklands (as there is at the MCG), so it's only beneficial for your own bay/reserved seat if you like sitting on level one. And its benefits in finals ticketing for MCG home finals, should we make it, is limited - because we have fewer members full stop, we are far less likely to miss out on using our usual barcode for a normal final in week 1-3 unlike being a Richmond/Essendon/Carlton/Collingwood/Hawthorn member.

And as I said above, it's counterbalanced by Melbourne fans refusing to travel to Docklands when they play there instead. For much the same reason that Dogs fans get no access to MCG games, have to pay and it's unfamiliar to their experience, is also true for Melbourne fans when they travel to Docklands (but even more extreme).

I've been to numerous Docklands games - Saints vs Melbourne, Dogs vs Melbourne, like the examples I listed above - that there are fewer than 5k Melbourne fans in the stands. That's far fewer than the typical attendance of any away team at Docklands games. For example, there would have been at least 8-10k North fans in their away game against Essendon on Saturday night, but I'm not using this greater away attendance in a Docklands game as "evidence" that Melbourne are a smaller team than North in that fewer Melbourne fans went to the 35k attended game last time Essendon hosted Melbourne at Docklands

This is all valid. But Melbourne’s ceiling and floor is bigger than those clubs right now, which I guess is my point. I do suspect that'll change over time though with clubs like the Dogs fast gaining ground out west (sort of like the Hawks in the east in ‘90s and ‘00s)

 

[Hawkk]

The AFL should be in the interest of operating in a fair manner of all its clubs, not just making $$$$$. What's the point of $$$$$$ if it simply more $$$$ in service of a functionally unfair competition, with arranging fair competition a reason it exists? As long as the AFL insists that the Dogs should play their home games at the MCG in finals, the Dogs have a right to insist that they are allowed to take at least 1 of their home games to the MCG in the regular season so they can get practice on playing on it in anticipation for the finals. The Dogs are a very reasonable chance of playing 2 MCG home finals this season if we finish top 2 (and maybe a 3rd via the GF). We play 2 away games there. We might "host" a home game against the Hawks this finals series again like 2024 and be outnumered and less experienced in the venue than our "away" opponents. The AFL can fairly marginally offset that disadvantage by swapping around a couple of Hawks and Dogs home games between Docklands and the MCG.

I agree with this. The 2024 Elimination Final was dumb. The Dogs should have hosted that game at Marvel and got first dibbs on tickets.

If the AFL is wedded to playing all Melbourne based finals at the MCG, both grounds should be neutral and all clubs should split home games between the MCG and Marvel.

This wasn't really an issue up until then 1990s when the MCG and Waverley Park was a neutral venue for 80 per cent of the teams.

The Dogs might also play a "home" MCG final against Gold Coast, Fremantle, Sydney or Brisbane this year - four teams that will gather just as much experience on the width of the ground as the Dogs will (that is, all 5 teams are merely playing 2 away games there this year).

You get the idea. The AFL needs to run a competition fairly, not just increase the unfair inequities between teams because you want to think "hawks = money".


Because you were able to avoid playing the lowest-interest games, that also have diminishing interest of asking fans to attend 10+ games a year, by taking them to Launceston


I'm talking about what coloured the view to avoid playing these types of games in Melbourne. They're far less appealing.

And I know what I'm talking about because I've had this discussion with people at the Dogs who have made the decision to take games to Ballarat. You can't just point to averages for all of these games and say that's typical for home game 9, 10, 11. The Dogs have been able to take home games against Gold Coast etc. to Ballarat, that are typically played at crappy timeslots with zero appeal. For instance, Dogs have only hosted GC 3 times at Docklands since 2011. I've been to all three games. They were depressing, and brought out the worst of what a Docklands experience game can be, and the crowds were low because there was minimal appeal for the rusted ons to make this their 10th attended game of the season when they can attend the other 9. Hawks would have similar thinking in seeing Launceston as appealing.

BTW, Hawks play 5 away games at the MCG this year. That's relevant to this discussion. If the Hawks only ever played about 2 away games at the MCG every year, I think the Hawks board would want more home games in Melbourne (Docklands or otherwise).

I agree with you on this too. But it doesn't change the fact that Hawthorn shouldn't be playing 4 games in Tasmania. It's terrible for rank and file members and bad for the Devils too.

 

[Hawkk]

Regarding Easter Monday I see the AFL have started selling Standing Room tickets before they’ve put Q1 to Q6 on sale (unless they’ve sold, which I highly doubt). Perhaps this is the new way that the AFL and clubs are trying to keep crowds to marquee fixtures high given the cost of living crisis.

In the Age article last week it was stated that Collingwood will try, where possible, to keep all MCG home games non fully ticketed. Perhaps standing room is the way to achieve this?

 

[Walshawk]

Regarding Easter Monday I see the AFL have started selling Standing Room tickets before they’ve put Q1 to Q6 on sale (unless they’ve sold, which I highly doubt). Perhaps this is the new way that the AFL and clubs are trying to keep crowds to marquee fixtures high given the cost of living crisis.

In the Age article last week it was stated that Collingwood will try, where possible, to keep all MCG home games non fully ticketed. Perhaps standing room is the way to achieve this?

Yes, Q1 - 6 is for walk ups. They should make that members only. Less than 100 seats left, plus standing room. I don’t see why they can’t put a few more bays on sale. If walk ups are limited to three bays, say 3k seats, so be it. If you can afford the extra $20 for a seat, or don’t want to stand, then get there early.

 

[Hawkk]

Yes, Q1 - 6 is for walk ups. They should make that members only. Less than 100 seats left, plus standing room. I don’t see why they can’t put a few more bays on sale. If walk ups are limited to three bays, say 3k seats, so be it. If you can afford the extra $20 for a seat, or don’t want to stand, then get there early.

They’re actually selling overflow into the AFL members (Q26-28) which is interesting. I gather that’s because demand is softer in the AFL members.

 

[Walshawk]

They’re actually selling overflow into the AFL members (Q26-28) which is interesting. I gather that’s because demand is softer in the AFL members.


View attachment 2567644

This is an excellent move. Hawks @ Cats have relatively low AFL members. Great work by Hawks/AFL. This might crack 90k.