Could interstate clubs sell games to the MCG?

[telsor]

I think each clubs should play 3 games there minimum per year (I think the swans are the only interstate team to have achieved that over the past 3 years). And I do mean minimum, but it doesnt happen for all the clubs.

I think if the grand final is always at the MCG (Which I think it should be, I love the idea) then players should get experience playing there no matter whether they play for collingwood, brisbane, etc....

But this is one of the glaring disparities of the draw that I dont think will ever be fixed.

and you want to fix it by adding another disparity to the draw?

Think about how you get 18 clubs to all play 3 games at the MCG in a 'fair' fixture.

Of course, it can be done, by shifting a lot of Vic v Vic games to Docklands, leaving people unable to attend, while the larger stadium hosts Melbourne v GC...Tell me, who is going to compensate Vic clubs for that, or is this yet another case of a sacrifice the Vic clubs will need to make that will be ignored next time an excuse to whinge about them comes up?

 

[telsor]

Well I am not one of those who think not playing at the G much cost us the GF. I think when a side from outside of Victoria is one of the top sides of the comp then they should get 3 games per season. If the Eagles finished bottom 4 and were in a rebuild then I would expect us to be lucky to get 1.
Next year I think we should and will get 3 games, Richmond, Collingwood and Melbourne.
But trying to work out the fixture is always hard. But generally everytime a club complains about something they generally get something out of it.

and a club that came 9th last year can hardly be expected to reach the GF...

I think including something for all clubs like

Finish 1-6, get at least 3 next year
Finish 7-12 get at least 2
Finish 13-18 get least 1

Would be fair enough. (obviously MCG based teams would get more..I'd like to say 11, but 10 seems the best we can hope for).

 

[Papa G]

and you want to fix it by adding another disparity to the draw?

Think about how you get 18 clubs to all play 3 games at the MCG in a 'fair' fixture.

Of course, it can be done, by shifting a lot of Vic v Vic games to Docklands, leaving people unable to attend, while the larger stadium hosts Melbourne v GC...Tell me, who is going to compensate Vic clubs for that, or is this yet another case of a sacrifice the Vic clubs will need to make that will be ignored next time an excuse to whinge about them comes up?

Only 16 MCG games eclipsed the capacity of Etihad. There's plenty of scope to move Vic vs Vic games to Etihad.

 

[telsor]

Why dont Melbourne clubs sell out more games at the G, the clubs have so many members, why dont they go? Do clubs other than Essendon sell out their seating on a season ticket?

Is there a business plan that supports bigger & bigger stadiums OR is one for the mindnumbers ...

The new Perth v the G, is utilisation a factor?

Because Vic clubs are forced to sell cheap memberships, so have to work the numbers, including 3 game memberships, which make the club money by making them more appealing to sponsors, which is one of the reasons Vic clubs get a relatively higher sponsorship revenue (WCE and North both got about the same amount from sponsors in 2014).

I know Richmond has had issues trying to negotiate with the MCG to get more seats available for reserved seat sales, so while they mightn't 'sell out', there is obviously a fair demand. Of course, in Vic, the clubs don't run the ground anything like they do in WA...Subi management doesn't tell WCE they can't sell tickets to certain bays.

As for why the ground doesn't fill with 'so many members'...Whenever I point out that Subi isn't full most games, I get told 'doesn't matter, they paid anyway'...Well, it doesn't matter if Vic members attend, they paid anyway! Games in Vic also average higher attendance than games in WA.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So interstate clubs selling home games should affect whether interstate clubs can play at the MCG? The blockbuster melbourne games should affect whether interstate clubs can play at the MCG?

I know the AFL is a business but it is also National Competition. If the AFL want to play the Grand Final solely at the MCG, this should mean that the AFL structure a fair draw so that Interstate clubs can get exposure there.

For example, We have played Collingwood at the G 6 times in the last 15 years (22 games). Note the total does not include finals. That is a glaring disparity in the draw, and reduces the games that we get allocated to the MCG.

These kinds of disparities happen for all MCG based clubs that we verse, and quite a few interstate teams play there on a whole less then the swans

Where did I say squat about non Vic games selling anything?

I was responding to your notion that non Vic clubs must be guaranteed four games each at the MGC, which would cost mcg clubs considerable money as they are forced to play 9 extra games at Etihad to meet the Etihad quota (because the 4 game minimum will mean Etihad clubs will see a significant bump in their mcg games)

 

[telsor]

Only 16 MCG games eclipsed the capacity of Etihad. There's plenty of scope to move Vic vs Vic games to Etihad.

a) Source
b) How many came close?

Any game with a decent chance of being 40K+ should be at MCG both for comfort and to allow for favorable events (clubs doing well, good weather, etc) to push the crowd up without causing a lockout.

 

[telsor]

So interstate clubs selling home games should affect whether interstate clubs can play at the MCG? The blockbuster melbourne games should affect whether interstate clubs can play at the MCG?

Yes.

If you don't want these things to effect it, then pony up the revenue you cause Vic clubs to lose through your change.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not travelling for the Grand Final, its at the G .... Melbourne clubs play home games wherever, whats a few more (the travel factor, its 1.5 km to Docklands). Geelong travel hasnt held them back, its the non performers that would suffer? yes/no?

What does this have to do with anything???

Someone made a reasonable point that clubs should play at their home grounds. I responded that's it's never gunna happen, and the Etihad clubs are continuing to successfully fight for more and more home games at the MGC, which means mcg tenant clubs are being forced to meet the Etihad quota

Nothing about travel

 

[doona]

Yes.

If you don't want these things to effect it, then pony up the revenue you cause Vic clubs to lose through your change.

it was suppose to read

So melbourne clubs selling home games should affect whether interstate clubs can play at the MCG?

but I made a typo

 

[footyfan1978]

I think when a side from outside of Victoria is one of the top sides of the comp then they should get 3 games per season. If the Eagles finished bottom 4 and were in a rebuild then I would expect us to be lucky to get 1.
Next year I think we should and will get 3 games, Richmond, Collingwood and Melbourne.
But trying to work out the fixture is always hard. But generally everytime a club complains about something they generally get something out of it.

Tends to work. Sensible approach.

I think each clubs should play 3 games there minimum per year (I think the swans are the only interstate team to have achieved that over the past 3 years). And I do mean minimum, but it doesnt happen for all the clubs.

I think if the grand final is always at the MCG (Which I think it should be, I love the idea) then players should get experience playing there no matter whether they play for collingwood, brisbane, etc....

But this is one of the glaring disparities of the draw that I dont think will ever be fixed.

I think it would be great if they each got 3 per season but not going to happen. Simply too hard to fixture it.
I think a more realistic aim is most clubs get at least 5 away games at G from interstate over a two year period. The AFL should aim to achieve that, if they can.
We should remember before the VFL expanded beyond 12 teams to more clubs outside Victoria that the grand final week teams also had most clubs only played two away games at the MCG for the many years that Melbourne and Richmond were only tenants there. So 2 games a year there was never an issue.
For example 1982 grand final of Richmond v Carlton. We had played at the G two times in home and away rounds.

I think including something for all clubs like

Finish 1-6, get at least 3 next year
Finish 7-12 get at least 2
Finish 13-18 get least 1

Would be fair enough. (obviously MCG based teams would get more..I'd like to say 11, but 10 seems the best we can hope for).

I think something like this is a decent approach in the fixture.
The only way for individual clubs from interstate to guarantee more is by asking for one of their own home games to be at MCG. Clearly though that needs to be against a club that is not an MCG tenant. I think only a club in top part of ladder would consider such a move for a year or two to bump their MCG games up for their players they think will be part of finals campaigns. Something like Adelaide playing Port at MCG one year and Port v Crows at MCG the following year is a possible situation in future. Plenty of South Australians would make a weekend journey of it. For Perth based clubs I doubt they would value the exercise simply to gain one more MCG game. They will just ask for things likes can they play Melbourne, Collingwood and Richmond as away games more often just to increase their chances of more MCG games. Not much point asking to play Hawks more as they know they are likely to be in Tassie as Hawk home games. Maybe in 2016 with it being a grand final replay match up there is a small chance it would be at the G. Would not bank on it though.

 

[Papa G]

a) Source
b) How many came close?

Any game with a decent chance of being 40K+ should be at MCG both for comfort and to allow for favorable events (clubs doing well, good weather, etc) to push the crowd up without causing a lockout.

Allthestats.

Came close? For comfort? Seriously? 40-50,000 at Etihad had a better atmosphere than 40-50k at the MCG.
But on your premise, could Richmond, if up and about, draw more than 40K against West Coast, Adelaide, Port or Sydney?

 

[telsor]

Allthestats.

Came close? For comfort? Seriously? 40-50,000 at Etihad had a better atmosphere than 40-50k at the MCG.
But on your premise, could Richmond, if up and about, draw more than 40K against West Coast, Adelaide, Port or Sydney?

allthestats breaks it up that much? Awesome...have you got a link, I only seem to get averages with a few highs and lows.


Yes, they could, which is why I suggested 40k as 'normal/expected' with 10K more for a good game.

You might prefer docklands with 40-50K, I don't and I'd be surprised if most Richmond (or indeed most Vic) fans would agree with you.


Also one other point...Why can't my club play all it's games at it's home ground?

You seem to think it's OK for Vic clubs to play home games at Docklands to suit, but if it's all the same, why do you need to play at the MCG? If it's not the same, why should we be shoved around, at our expense to suit clubs that jealously protect their own home ground advantage (which is far bigger than ours to start with)?

 

[Papa G]

On phone so linking is hard.

I think all clubs should play all home games at their home ground.

 

[telsor]

The only way for individual clubs from interstate to guarantee more is by asking for one of their own home games to be at MCG.

Problem with that is that there is limit to how many games can be played there, so if (for example) GC played an MCG home game against GWS, then that's one less game a Vic club can host there. (they can probably add 2 or 3 before this would come into effect).

 

[telsor]

On phone so linking is hard.

I think all clubs should play all home games at their home ground.

Makes it tough to fit in 3 games for all clubs at the MCG though.

Also means no games in smaller centers (forget the arguments about Tassie for a sec, but Darwin, Cairns, and the like wouldn't get live games if no games were sold, which would be a bad thing)

 

[Papa G]

Tasmania should have 11 games.

 

[footyfan1978]

Problem with that is that there is limit to how many games can be played there,

Not so sure about that. I cannot recall hearing a limit of how many games can be at MCG.
Logistically it is harder to program many more but I would think not impossible. I never heard anything like MCG can only host 50 home and away games or anything like that. I think there is only a lower limit based on contracts. Similarly Docklands has a lower limit but it is a smaller amount than MCG but indirectly tends to lead to some clubs playing home games at Docklands they would rather play at MCG.
Overall though, I think there would be scope for a game or two extra from interstate based clubs that ask for a home game there at expense of a game in their traditional home. Really, if Port had a home game at MCG v Crows once every two years it is a game they move from Adelaide Oval. Not a game stealing a home game from Richmond at MCG for example. However, come to think of it Adelaide Oval probably have a contract the binds all Port and Crow games there so probably does not happen in any case.

 

[telsor]

Tasmania should have 11 games.

Your dream of fewer Vic clubs would mean fewer MCG games.

 

[Papa G]

Your dream of fewer Vic clubs would mean fewer MCG games.

Not necessarily.

 

[telsor]

Not so sure about that. I cannot recall hearing a limit of how many games can be at MCG.
Logistically it is harder to program many more but I would think not impossible. I never heard anything like MCG can only host 50 home and away games or anything like that. I think there is only a lower limit based on contracts. Similarly Docklands has a lower limit but it is a smaller amount than MCG but indirectly tends to lead to some clubs playing home games at Docklands they would rather play at MCG.

Pretty sure it's a 'ground surface quality' argument, and it's why they don't like the idea of curtain raisers and had to have their arms twisted pretty hard to allow kick to kick on the ground after a few games (very few).

Docklands and MCG have contracted minimum games (with some limits on game quality/crowds). The reason MCG tenants have to play home games there is as a subsidy for the clubs tenanted there by letting them 'escape' from the place for a game or two and actually make some money for a change.

Overall though, I think there would be scope for a game or two extra from interstate based clubs that ask for a home game there at expense of a game in their traditional home. Really, if Port had a home game at MCG v Crows once every two years it is a game they move from Adelaide Oval. Not a game stealing a home game from Richmond at MCG for example. However, come to think of it Adelaide Oval probably have a contract the binds all Port and Crow games there so probably does not happen in any case.

Guarantee that we'll wont play fewer games and I'm fine with it, but I really doubt the MCC would agree to that. (BTW, it wouldn't 'just' be one club every 2 years...).

There is also the small matter of $$$...Non-Vic clubs probably wouldn't like having to suffer through the ground deals we get, and it would cost them a lot (both from the mostly empty MCG and the lost revenue from their missing home game).

 

[telsor]

Not necessarily.

Oh? How do fewer clubs play as many home games? Do Melbourne clubs get 13 home games a year to make up for the 2 you want gone?

 

[footyfan1978]

Guarantee that we'll wont play fewer games and I'm fine with it, but I really doubt the MCC would agree to that. (BTW, it wouldn't 'just' be one club every 2 years...).

There is also the small matter of $$$...Non-Vic clubs probably wouldn't like having to suffer through the ground deals we get, and it would cost them a lot (both from the mostly empty MCG and the lost revenue from their missing home game).

The one club every two years you misunderstood.
It is a suggestion of an arrangement of something like a Port v Crows home game at G one year followed by Crows v Port home game the following year. If they did that, it would be one club every two years of those clubs from that state moving a home game to the G.
60 thousand South Aussies travelling to G once a year is not out of question of possible.

Clearly the matter of $$$ only makes it happen if inventive deals get done involving tourist discounts for weekend packages to make it attractive proposal. However in these club cases their motivation for most part would be an extra game experience at G for their players. The money is just secondary issue. If they made a small loss in comparison to not moving it, I doubt would be a big issue to them. They would only do it if the pros outweigh the cons. I'm not even sure if they do. I personally don't know if it really is important. Just pointing out the idea is there if a club really were super keen to play an extra game at the G given they got no say on away game being there. Having said all that, I've not seen interstate based clubs shown any suggestion of doing that. Those clubs do not take the sooks that whinge about losing grand final due to playing one or two games at MCG as seriously as those sooks would hope.
But I still think those clubs would like an extra game at G in some manner if they could.

The best approach short of asking for a home game at G is simply have your first preference in draw to AFL be. " Of our 11 away games a year can we maximise playing more against clubs likely to play their home game against us at MCG. "
I think the AFL try to help out where they can. The higher priority you put in your wish list, the better chance over the years of getting those things tend to lean towards happening.

great white shark was close to the mark

trying to work out the fixture is always hard. But generally everytime a club complains about something

they generally get something out of it.

 

[Papa G]

Oh? How do fewer clubs play as many home games? Do Melbourne clubs get 13 home games a year to make up for the 2 you want gone?

The 2 gone would be Etihad clubs;-)

 

[telsor]

The 2 gone would be Etihad clubs;-)

So the AFL gives up on the contract they have with Docklands that would deliver the ground?

 

[telsor]

The one club every two years you misunderstood.
It is a suggestion of an arrangement of something like a Port v Crows home game at G one year followed by Crows v Port home game the following year. If they did that, it would be one club every two years of those clubs from that state moving a home game to the G.
60 thousand South Aussies travelling to G once a year is not out of question of possible.

I don't really think 60K South Australians would do that, but regardless of the result, you can be sure over a million South Australians would be complaining about the 'VFL' taking their game.