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

[The_Wookie]

If the AFL was fair dinkum about an equitable competition, they would find a way.

Everything comes with a tradeoff. Giving up the right to a final every week came at a small cost, but prelims were sacrosanct.

In 2002, the AFL in its annual report noted

During negotiations with the MCC we were not able to substantially change the condition of our 1989 agreement between our respective organisations which requires us to play 1 game per week at the MCG during the finals.

The new agreement does, however, allow us to “bank” finals so that during any three year period, we will average four finals at the MCG each year including a Preliminary Final and a grand Final.

This agreement was challenged by the then Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann who complained to the ACCC who advised that since the AFL, MCC and MCG Trust were not competitors they could not be in voliation of competition law.[7]

Prelims and Grand Finals were considered sacrosanct by the Victorian Government.

Demetriou said the AFL had offered the MCC financial compensation in return for giving up the automatic preliminary final, but, for the MCC, it was not simply a matter of financial compensation. Demetriou said the preliminary finals were a key to the selling of the MCC’s corporate packages and boxes, not to mention its membership, while the Victorian Government – which has a substantial hand in the development of the MCG – believes the preliminary and grand finals have “a massive economic impact” on the Victorian economy and wishes to retain them in the state.[6]

To allow prelim finals to move was something else, as the league noted in 2005.

Finals scheduling

After lengthy negotiations, we successfully concluded a new agreement with the Melbourne Cricket Club and the MCG Trust regarding the scheduling of finals at the MCG. The key elements were:

• Removing the requirement to play one preliminary final per year at the MCG in the event that two non-Victorian teams earn the right to host a preliminary final in their home states.
• Ensuring all preliminary finals in Victoria are played at the MCG.
• Allowing greater flexibility to bank finals in weeks one and two, with the clause amended to ensure that 10 matches are played over five years.
• Delivering an additional four premiership season games to the MCG each year, taking the number of matches played to 45.
• Delivering 14 Collingwood home and away games to the MCG
• The AFL making the MCG available for other major sporting events on a limited basis.
• Scheduling any representative football matches in Melbourne at the MCG.

Its unlikely the Victorian Government would accept compensation or any other inducement to give up the Grand Final.

As for replays or additional grand finals, the MCC believes its entiteld to ALL grand finals.

‘I would have thought the contract’s fairly clear, Gough said. The grand final is played here and if it happens that there are two versions of it, then it makes no difference whether it’s version one or version two. That is why we always keep the ground in reserve for an extra week in the event of a draw, and that will be the case again next year.

 

[Papa G]

So in short, the third party MCC and Victorian governments interests are put in front of fairness and equality of a sporting competition. Like with all corruption, some benefit, some don't.

 

[LoungeLizard]

So in short, the third party MCC and Victorian governments interests are put in front of fairness and equality of a sporting competition. Like with all corruption, some benefit, some don't.

Tell me this.

Why would a Vic comp want to play it's GF in another state unless it had to?

It's a Vic comp, always has been.

If you don't like supporting a Vic comp, no-one is stopping you from going back to the comps you gave up.

 

[The_Wookie]

So in short, the third party MCC and Victorian governments interests are put in front of fairness and equality of a sporting competition. Like with all corruption, some benefit, some don't.

In short, the arrangements are made to benefit the majority of the competition and the overall league financial picture, and to preserve a traditional event that has been held at the MCG every year of its existence except once in 1991 and during war time. It is something that has never been offered to another venue, and has never been put to public tender.

 

[doppleganger]

So in short, the third party MCC and Victorian governments interests are put in front of fairness and equality of a sporting competition. Like with all corruption, some benefit, some don't.

Nothing stopping you putting your name down and becoming an MCC member.

You too can then join the 200k sporting tragics who want to give themselves GF access in case their team qualifies in say 40 years time.

If you dont want to play the waiting game, fork out on the sceondary market if you aint a premium Port member and then you will get access to the 17k tickets made available to Port fans.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Used to make sense when MCG was head and shoulders the best stadium in Australia.. Now Adelaide and Perth are clearly better footballing stadia, Brisbane will no doubt get a grand stadium for Comm games.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I agree.

So how would you propose keeping sponsorship $$$ at the same level without grand final tickets?

And if AFL and MCC members ticket quotas were eroded, how would they be compensated?

Where will the money come from?

Members would be willing to pay as much to attend the grand final. Their money replaces that of those who currently attend.

How much was made by hosting the last grand final at Optus?

 

[Papa G]

Tell me this.

Why would a Vic comp want to play it's GF in another state unless it had to?

It's a Vic comp, always has been.

If you don't like supporting a Vic comp, no-one is stopping you from going back to the comps you gave up.

Do you have a "If you don't love it, leave" sticker on the back of your AU Falcon?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You keep blabbering about equity.

Why?

The GF location in shared equally amongst competing clubs in which Aussie Rules competitions?

How is potentially costing 60k fans a chance to see their team in a GF live if it was at the SCG an improvement?

I'm sure Sydney members would prefer to watch a home grand final rather than missing out & watching on TV as the hanger ons watch at the MCG with little interest in who actually wins.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The problem for you is the "non commercial" MCG contract is very much a commercial decision for the league. Youve yet to demonstrate any corruption, particularly for something that has never been put to tender or public consultation.

No, it was a biased Victorian decision which freezes out most genuine members from witnessing their side play a grand final... but guarantees others with no connection to competing clubs to attend.

Yeah, Gil said he was going to do more for grass root supporters.... we are still waiting!

 

[LoungeLizard]

Do you have a "If you don't love it, leave" sticker on the back of your AU Falcon?

Am I upsetting you mate?

It's well known you think the league is corrupt, but you are a little slow in the upstairs department, it's not corrupt, it's just been doing what it always has.

You must be fed up with the league you followed to come over to a league you hate.
But like I said, you don't have to stay if it upsets you, just piss off, no-one cares.

 

[Rich01]

Members would be willing to pay as much to attend the grand final. Their money replaces that of those who currently attend.

That’s a really short sighted single year commercial view.

Wouldn’t come close to compensating the MCC for losing their biggest benefit for membership.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

That’s a really short sighted single year commercial view.

Wouldn’t come close to compensating the MCC for losing their biggest benefit for membership.

Why should cricket members be prioritised over football members to attend a grand final?

It's a nonsense!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Am I upsetting you mate?

It's well known you think the league is corrupt, but you are a little slow in the upstairs department, it's not corrupt, it's just been doing what it always has.

You must be fed up with the league you followed to come over to a league you hate.
But like I said, you don't have to stay if it upsets you, just piss off, no-one cares.

The AFL should be governing for all clubs without playing favourites. That goes for favouring cricket members over AFL club members.

Shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

[Papa G]

Wouldn’t come close to compensating the MCC for losing their biggest benefit for membership.

45 or so regular season matches, finals, Boxing Day Test, International 1 dayers/T20s access to all Stars games. All for $750. Pretty confident people would still be lining up for this membership, Grand Final or no Grand Final.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

45 or so regular season matches, finals, Boxing Day Test, International 1 dayers/T20s access to all Stars games. All for $750. Pretty confident people would still be lining up for this membership, Grand Final or no Grand Final.

They get 5x number of games than SACA members who pay over half of this amount & still a waiting list.

I pay much more for my combined SACA & Crows membership & get far less than a MCC membership.

Why should AFL membership subsidise the MCC?

It's bullshit!

 

[Hippster]

Whinge all you like, but GF will be played at MCG till contract runs out.
And unless another state builds a big 100k stadium the contract will just roll over again.
Pretty clear.

 

[Rich01]

45 or so regular season matches, finals, Boxing Day Test, International 1 dayers/T20s access to all Stars games. All for $750. Pretty confident people would still be lining up for this membership, Grand Final or no Grand Final.

If you were selling a product and lost your biggest benefit, do you honestly think the demand would be the same, for the same price?

 

[Rich01]

They get 5x number of games than SACA members who pay over half of this amount & still a waiting list.

I pay much more for my combined SACA & Crows membership & get far less than a MCC membership.

Why should AFL membership subsidise the MCC?

It's bullshit!

Both are products that have high demand. One offers significantly better value and benefits than the other one, that’s all. That’s why the waiting list is so big.

 

[Underarm]

No, it was a biased Victorian decision which freezes out most genuine members from witnessing their side play a grand final... but guarantees others with no connection to competing clubs to attend.

Yeah, Gil said he was going to do more for grass root supporters.... we are still waiting!

More genuine fans of the competing clubs can attend a Grand final at the MCG than any other venue. Perth only offered 24,000; Brisbane 16,000. Melbourne 35,000. Its also more than the Superbowl has ever given. (this year: 24,500).

 

[LoungeLizard]

The AFL should be governing for all clubs without playing favourites. That goes for favouring cricket members over AFL club members.

Shouldn't be too much to ask.

What should they do?
Do you think they should play a Vic comp GF in another state?

I don't see clubs complaining, all I see is a few sooks, maybe it's not your fault though, the clubs have most likely been told what to expect before they join.

It's a Vic comp, the Vic government win by supporting the MCC because they pay for the upgrades to the MCG, if they didn't then the taxpayer pays.
So complain here all you want, but nothing you say here will matter, if you really care, do something about it, stop paying, lobby for other to stop, boycott the league.

 

[Underarm]

Why should cricket members be prioritised over football members to attend a grand final?

It's a nonsense!

No one signs up for MCC for the access to any cricket match. its a cricket club in name only.

 

[Del28562]

Whinge all you like, but GF will be played at MCG till contract runs out.
And unless another state builds a big 100k stadium the contract will just roll over again.
Pretty clear.

No one in the world builds a 100k stadium, the money is made via tv and could easily be made by being open for cities to tender. The AFL didn't need to extend the contracts to 2057, it's disgraceful, as a "charity" non for profit organisation that doesn't pay tax, they need to be fully transparent before they even sign these deals, all of their tenders should be open for everyone to see instead of the old boys club, where they scratch each other's backs.

The commetry on here stating its a Victorian league are stuck in the 90s, its a national comp, will be interesting what the next ceo does, let's hope it's an outsider appointed, where there's the likelihood the contract will be ripped up, for the benefit of AFL footy not the vfl

 

[Papa G]

If you were selling a product and lost your biggest benefit, do you honestly think the demand would be the same, for the same price?

Arguable if its the biggest benefit.

There are many cricket fans out there The Boxing Day is a big draw.
Any of the Tennant clubs get home games as well away games against any other Tennant club. Plus any other Wankbuster they want to go to, finals too.
They ain't giving that up. It still by far the best value membership just about anywhere in the world. There's a 22 year wait list. Not having the AFL Grand Final would have zero impact on membership. Zero.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Arguable if its the biggest benefit.

There are many cricket fans out there The Boxing Day is a big draw.
Any of the Tennant clubs get home games as well away games against any other Tennant club. Plus any other Wankbuster they want to go to, finals too.
They ain't giving that up. It still by far the best value membership just about anywhere in the world. There's a 22 year wait list. Not having the AFL Grand Final would have zero impact on membership. Zero.

Correct- take away the grand final & the MCC would still have a waiting list.