Administration - The AFL v NRL *Moderator Approved* - Rules in OP

[The_Wookie]

I think it shows the AFL arent the prinaw tennant. Yes more games are played there but have no doubt as to who holds the power with the MCG

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

thats debatable. You can be the primary tennant without being the landlord.

AFL
The MCG attracted 2,338,885 people to 47 home and away matches in the 2012 AFL season at an average of 49,763 per game. The MCG hosted five finals (including the grand final), culminating in a total attendance for the season of 2,703,296. This was approximately 10 per cent fewer than the bumper 2011 season, which contained seven finals.

Cricket
The MCG hosted the Boxing Day Test, a Twenty20 international, two one-day internationals and four T20 Big Bash League (BBL) matches in the 2012/13
cricket season. These matches attracted 312,010 patrons, significantly fewer than the previous summer. The ground also hosted Victorian Bushrangers’ matches in the Sheffield Shield and 50-over competitions.

 

[Colonial]

Wasnt saying they werent the more successfull tenenat. Primary means the owners put your needs above all others. This is obvious thats its cricket in the case of the MCG

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

 

[The_Wookie]

Wasnt saying they werent the more successfull tenenat. Primary means the owners put your needs above all others. This is obvious thats its cricket in the case of the MCG

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

no its not. its a 50/50 split, year in, year out. The troubles arise when the AFl wants to host matches in the designated Cricket portion of the year.

 

[Colonial]

no its not. its a 50/50 split, year in, year out. The troubles arise when the AFl wants to host matches in the designated Cricket portion of the year.

So when has the AFL forced the cricket to backdown at the MCG?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

 

[brisbane13]

They've apparently got nowhere else to go that has a first class suitable wicket and facilities. This would have been an advantage of upgrading Junction oval to a 30,000 seat stadium, with funding from cricket, the afl and the government. Everybody wins, except the taxpayer. That said, If SA can play matches at Glenelg, theres no reason shield matches couldnt be played at Princes Park, which could easily accommodate a shield crowd

i raised that that in anther thread, that optus oval would be great for cricket Victoria, to play some games there, or possibly even move there. the Blues has spent millions on new facilities there, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than doing a complete rebuild of the junction oval,

 

[Dont be a lemon]

I can't see Carlton wanting cricket pitches on their training ground for 6 months.

 

[The_Wookie]

I can't see Carlton wanting cricket pitches on their training ground for 6 months.

neither can I, but enough cash from the league, and guaranteed revenue from the opening carlton v richmond game at the MCG, might be enough to make it worth while. carlton can always train on Princes park oval no.1 which is right next to the main ground.

 

[brisbane13]

Wasnt saying they werent the more successfull tenenat. Primary means the owners put your needs above all others. This is obvious thats its cricket in the case of the MCG

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

the NSW cricket shield side got bumped from the SCG to a game of BASE ball could go ahead

 

[Colonial]

the NSW cricket shield side got bumped from the SCG to a game of BASE ball could go ahead

Not discussin a once off game at the scg


Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

 

[brisbane13]

Not discussin a once off game at the scg


Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

Well it's the shield final they are playing in Canberra because of the base ball.

 

[fabulousphil]

Wasnt saying they werent the more successfull tenenat. Primary means the owners put your needs above all others. This is obvious thats its cricket in the case of the MCG

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

50/50 split, the MCG is run by a trust that i presume has board members appointed by the Government, and makes decisions best for the MCG.

Cricket does not run the MCG, and neither does football.

 

[le dominateur]

no its not. its a 50/50 split, year in, year out. The troubles arise when the AFl wants to host matches in the designated Cricket portion of the year.

..or when Cricket wants to host games in the designated Football portion of the year like they will in 2015.

 

[The_Wookie]

..or when Cricket wants to host games in the designated Football portion of the year like they will in 2015.

yes but thats included in the AFl contract which resulted in 100k per game being given back to clubs. At that point, the league agreed to allow other events to be held during the football season in exchange for better returns on matches and returns to the league when attendance quotas were met

 

[le dominateur]

yes but thats included in the AFl contract which resulted in 100k per game being given back to clubs. At that point, the league agreed to allow other events to be held during the football season in exchange for better returns on matches and returns to the league when attendance quotas were met

thanks for that, any info on how many 'other' events are allowed during the footy season?

 

[fabulousphil]

..or when Cricket wants to host games in the designated Football portion of the year like they will in 2015.

Generally relations are cordial with cricket, give and take usually sees both sports win, why they have been able to hold it together in VIC, whilst SA and WA split would probably be a very long complicated story, and no doubt have many versions, depending on what side of the fence you sit story.

 

[The_Wookie]

thanks for that, any info on how many 'other' events are allowed during the footy season?

its a best efforts thing. Its why you'll see one off events, or even an Commonwealth games accommodated

 

[Rob]

Yeah, that's true, however, it is called the Melbourne Cricket Ground for a reason.

Yes, because in the 19th century it was originally primarily a cricket ground.

Not sure why that's justification for priority given to a cricket game that not only is not likely to even happen, if it did no-one would give a heck.

 

[mediumsizered]

neither can I, but enough cash from the league, and guaranteed revenue from the opening carlton v richmond game at the MCG, might be enough to make it worth while. carlton can always train on Princes park oval no.1 which is right next to the main ground.

Surely you don't want us training & playing intra-club & practice matches on #1 oval throughout the pre-season, leading right up to Round 1. There is a reason why the club wanted the Carlton Cricket Club off the ground.

At a time when most AFL clubs are upgrading their training venues (as we have done in recent years), we don't want our club falling behind for the sake of a few extra dollars from the AFL.

Ultimately if the AFL want access to the MCG earlier in March they need to work together with Cricket Victoria to secure the necessary funding to upgrade the Junction Oval, as preferred by Cricket Victoria. $30m is the estimated cost of the upgrade. If the AFL tipped in some & Cricket Australia tipped in some, they would only need a small contribution either from the State/Fed Govt, or a small bank loan. This would ensure Cricket Victoria have their own home, rather than being in another ground sharing situation.

 

[The_Wookie]

Surely you don't want us training & playing intra-club & practice matches on #1 oval throughout the pre-season, leading right up to Round 1. There is a reason why the club wanted the Carlton Cricket Club off the ground.

At a time when most AFL clubs are upgrading their training venues (as we have done in recent years), we don't want our club falling behind for the sake of a few extra dollars from the AFL.

Ultimately if the AFL want access to the MCG earlier in March they need to work together with Cricket Victoria to secure the necessary funding to upgrade the Junction Oval, as preferred by Cricket Victoria. $30m is the estimated cost of the upgrade. If the AFL tipped in some & Cricket Australia tipped in some, they would only need a small contribution either from the State/Fed Govt, or a small bank loan. This would ensure Cricket Victoria have their own home, rather than being in another ground sharing situation.

Its not my preferred option, as I strongly favour the Junction oval upgrade.

 

[finders]

They've apparently got nowhere else to go that has a first class suitable wicket and facilities. This would have been an advantage of upgrading Junction oval to a 30,000 seat stadium, with funding from cricket, the afl and the government. Everybody wins, except the taxpayer. That said, If SA can play matches at Glenelg, theres no reason shield matches couldnt be played at Princes Park, which could easily accommodate a shield crowd

The Brumby ALP government were going to upgrade the Junction Oval but the Liberals when they got into power scrubbed it.

 

[mediumsizered]

Its not my preferred option, as I strongly favour the Junction oval upgrade.

In the best interests of the Carlton Football Club, it is not an option at all. It is the AFL's problem & one they can overcome if they use a bit of smarts & invest a bit of money.

 

[finders]

50/50 split, the MCG is run by a trust that i presume has board members appointed by the Government, and makes decisions best for the MCG.

Cricket does not run the MCG, and neither does football.

You are 100% right The MCC are just the ground managers - they dont own the ground.

 

[Oneiros]

Yes, because in the 19th century it was originally primarily a cricket ground.

Not sure why that's justification for priority given to a cricket game that not only is not likely to even happen, if it did no-one would give a ****.

I'm not justifying a priority.

I'm merely pointing to the fact there is a priority and that's the history it arose from.

 

[mediumsizered]

The Brumby ALP government were going to upgrade the Junction Oval but the Liberals when they got into power scrubbed it.

It was actually the Rudd Govt which promised funding for the upgrade however the Abbott Govt has yet to state their position on the funding. The Rudd Govt commitment was to be $10m.

 

[Rob]

I'm not justifying a priority.

I'm merely pointing to the fact there is a priority and that's the history it arose from.

Maybe, but it's got nothing to do with the name. The ground could be called Rexona Reserve and it wouldn't change anything.