Essendon's Home Ground

[JayJ20]

Okay so I think you're actually conflating two arguments.

The first is some generic argument about home ground advantage, which is plainly flawed especially when you start referencing international sports, which are played on standardised fields and have a home ground system that makes vastly more difference to them than what West Coast's does to West Coast. If that was your argument, you'd be happy to play 12 games at Etihad, and 2 at the MCG all year, the same as West Coast do. I'll refute that one until the cows come home, as I see no real advantage to that scenario especially when any finals would be played at the G, which half of our likely opponents would call home and the other half would've played there more often than we would anyway.


The second version of the argument, which has more merit but has nothing to do with international sports, is the advantage that the MCG tenants may have, which is the ability to play on the MCG 14 games a year, like Richmond do, and then play 2/3 of the finals series there as well. That's not a home ground advantage in most senses, in that there's no requirement for someone else to be miles from home, 'on your turf' wondering around a city that's a one team town. The stadium isn't going to be filled 99% by your own team's supporters, and you couldn't doctor the pitch or turn the town white or any of that sort of thing that might throw the opponent off their game. It would merely be somewhat advantageous over interstate teams and full time Etihad teams, if you know how to play that ground better than they do. Given the amount of time our opponents spend at the MCG facing other opponents though, it's still not as advantageous as it might otherwise be.


Having said that, I can also see advantages to a split that allowed us to play 15 games across two ovals, giving no other Victorian team any significant advantage over us. Practicing on two very different ovals also makes it easier to adapt, with some being more the skinny oval shape of Etihad, and therefore being more adaptable to those strategies, while others are more round, like the MCG and adapt better to those.




From a purely selfish perspective, I like the atmosphere at the MCG much better. I'd prefer to have more games there. But that's not particularly relevant to the performance or success of the team.

I'm sorry but the international sport reference was a simple reference on home ground advantage and playing at a particular ground for majority of home games. It is not the main argument.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more. Playing at a particular ground makes you more familiar with that ground. The current arrangement we have in Victoria with so many neutral games makes it all the more important to play more games at one ground. Leaving the MCG was incredibly short-sighted. We left the ground that the grand final is played on for money. Not only that, but we didn't even go to the new ground full time. We're in between the two. Not really good/bad at Etihad, nor really good/bad at the MCG. Playing an extra 4 games at Etihad or an extra 5-6 games at the MCG a year will definitely improve how we play the ground. You can't possibly think that playing 5-6 extra MCG won't change anything. Richmond are very dominant at the MCG, but not that good at Etihad. Does it matter to them? No because they'll only play 2-4 games there a year. Majority of their games will be at the MCG.

Richmond will play at the MCG 14 times
Interstate teams will be lucky to play 3 games there
We play at Etihad 8 times
Interstate teams will play there 2-5 times
Who has the bigger advantage? It's not even a contest.

Do I prefer Etihad as our home ground over MCG? No.
Do I prefer that then the current arrangement? Absolutely.
Since making Etihad our home ground full time is simply not going to be allowed by the AFL, we have to move as much games to the MCG as possible before Carlton do it.

 

[JayJ20]

Typo sorry, they do own it.

Of course it's possible - anything is - but is it likely in a commercial and practical sense? Not really. We've hitched our float to Etihad and I think it suits everybody - the league (who control the fixture) - that we continue to play the majority of our home games there.

I really think the only chance we make a meaningful move to the G is if we start selling out Etihad. Our home games since the start of 2017 have been

Melbourne 44k
Eagles 36k
Port 34k
Brisbane 41k
North 40k
Crows 38k
Dockers 43k
Crows 43k
Power 31k
Melbourne 36k

We really don't present any realistic reason as to why we need to move. The highest crowd we've pulled there in the last 12 months+ has been 10k or nearly 20% below capacity.

I think some of those numbers are affected by reserved seats.

Melbourne (2017), Brisbane, Adelaide X2 and Fremantle would have been closer to 50K at the MCG.

Maybe if Richmond or Melbourne beat West Coast in the grand final again, then interstate teams could spit the dummy about Hawthorn and Melbourne selling home games, which might grant us some extra home games at the MCG. That could be one way

 

[yaco55]

If you think that the MCG couldn't handle 3 extra games a year then I dont think its everyone else that's divorced from reality mate.

I am not divorced from reality - The MCG like any ground can only cope with x amount of games per year before its affected by wear and tear - We are lucky that the MCG has been in such pristine condition in the last ten years

 

[boncer34]

I am not divorced from reality - The MCG like any ground can only cope with x amount of games per year before its affected by wear and tear - We are lucky that the MCG has been in such pristine condition in the last ten years

We're not lucky.

It's not 1995 anymore, the ground is designed to handle a heavy workload.

Suggesting it couldn't handle another 3 games would make you divorced from reality.

 

[yaco55]

Moving our games from Etihad to the G would def require games to go the other way, you’d think.

Who’s gonna move games to Etihad? Collingwood? Richmond? Melbourne? Hawthorn? Absolutely no chance.

The only way it can happen is if we absolutely force the issue by selling the joint out every time we play there. Which is a long way from ever happening.

You nailed it with your post - Some Essendon supporters believe we have a God Given right to play unlimited games because we are a big club.

 

[yaco55]

We're not lucky.

It's not 1995 anymore, the ground is designed to handle a heavy workload.

Suggesting it couldn't handle another 3 games would make you divorced from reality.

It's not just Essendon who may want to move games - Why would EFC move from Etihad when they have a super deal ? Have you heard one complaint from EFC about the deal at Etihad in 19 years ? Nah - We have a perfect mix of games and AFAIK the member surveys show members are happy with the status quo - It's only the disaffected minority who try to cause a stink - Bunk's posts with crowd numbers for Etihad perfectly sums up the situation.

 

[boncer34]

It's not just Essendon who may want to move games - Why would EFC move from Etihad when they have a super deal ? Have you heard one complaint from EFC about the deal at Etihad in 19 years ? Nah - We have a perfect mix of games and AFAIK the member surveys show members are happy with the status quo - It's only the disaffected minority who try to cause a stink - Bunk's posts with crowd numbers for Etihad perfectly sums up the situation.

I'm not suggesting we should. In fact I agree we shouldn't.

But we could easily shift 3 or 4 games across as I've explained with next to no disruption.

 

[JayJ20]

It's not just Essendon who may want to move games - Why would EFC move from Etihad when they have a super deal ? Have you heard one complaint from EFC about the deal at Etihad in 19 years ? Nah - We have a perfect mix of games and AFAIK the member surveys show members are happy with the status quo - It's only the disaffected minority who try to cause a stink - Bunk's posts with crowd numbers for Etihad perfectly sums up the situation.

Maybe because the MCG is not only the venue for the grand final, but also the venue where we'll play all finals in Melbourne?

Being an MCG tenant will bring more members and attendances that'll make up for a lot of the "super deal" money that we're making from Etihad.

It's a logical change.

 

[boncer34]

Being an MCG tenant will bring more members and attendances that'll make up for a lot of the "super deal" money that we're making from Etihad.

How?

 

[JayJ20]

How?

It's well known that Etihad restricts attendances and ultimately memberships as well.
If you've kept track of attendances, you'll know that the same fixture will draw more at the MCG than what it will at Etihad. At times considerably more. We're capped at 42K-45K for home games. In the late 90s, we were drawing huge crowds against interstate teams at the MCG. We had 50K for the Essendon vs Geelong game this year. Considering our form, we'd be lucky to get 35K there at Etihad.

With memberships, we're already at 75K playing out of a 50K stadium. More room to grow at the MCG in the future.

So whilst we won't have a stadium deal to match the current one, there are other avenues to generate revenue. More attendances and more memberships might attract more lucrative sponsorship deals.

Would an MCG tenant ever leave the MCG for our current deal? Not a chance. Would Essendon have their time over again if they had the chance to go to the MCG full time? They wouldn't even think twice about it. Collingwood were smart enough to resist it. We weren't.

 

[maskmcgee]

Who’s gonna move games to Etihad?

Carlton. How'd they get out of their deal to play home games at Etihad anyway?

 

[boncer34]

It's well known that Etihad restricts attendances and ultimately memberships as well.
If you've kept track of attendances, you'll know that the same fixture will draw more at the MCG than what it will at Etihad. At times considerably more.

Do you have the evidence to back this up?

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Do you have the evidence to back this up?

Well, if you look at crowd sizes as a % of capacity instead of the raw attendance number, it stands to reason that we'd get many more people at the equivalent game at the MCG. For example, if we average 38,000 at Etihad this would represent ~71% of capacity. This number could in theory translate to 71,000 people at the G. Now clearly there are diminishing returns for want of a better term, but we would undoubtedly average a higher crowd at the G for equivalent games. Even 50% capacity (a significant drop in % of capacity) is 31% higher crowd numbers (12k more people). In fact, without looking into it too far, I have no doubt that teams we've played a lot at Etihad over the last few years (Geelong for example) translate to much larger MCG crowds while the Melbourne game this year will have gone the other way compared to games where we've played them at the G in the last few years.

The argument that because we don't sell out Etihad games then we wouldn't get more at the G is crazy.

 

[boncer34]

Well, if you look at crowd sizes as a % of capacity instead of the raw attendance number, it stands to reason that we'd get many more people at the equivalent game at the MCG. For example, if we average 38,000 at Etihad this would represent ~71% of capacity. This number could in theory translate to 71,000 people at the G. Now clearly there are diminishing returns for want of a better term, but we would undoubtedly average a higher crowd at the G for equivalent games. Even 50% capacity (a significant drop in % of capacity) is 31% higher crowd numbers (12k more people). In fact, without looking into it too far, I have no doubt that teams we've played a lot at Etihad over the last few years (Geelong for example) translate to much larger MCG crowds while the Melbourne game this year will have gone the other way compared to games where we've played them at the G in the last few years.

The argument that because we don't sell out Etihad games then we wouldn't get more at the G is crazy.

Comes down to how large you think the "diminishing returns" would be though Scezza.

I personally wouldn't anticipate a much larger return simply because the stadium is better, in fact while I accept your argument is entirely plausible on paper in reality it wouldn't fly in my opinion. We're not going to suddenly find an extra 20k who want to attend just because its at the G.

Though having said that I can't obviously prove it.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Comes down to how large you think the "diminishing returns" would be though Scezza.

I personally wouldn't anticipate a much larger return simply because the stadium is better, in fact while I accept your argument is entirely plausible on paper in reality it wouldn't fly in my opinion. We're not going to suddenly find an extra 20k who want to attend just because its at the G.

Though having said that I can't obviously prove it.

It won't be an extra 20k people, but it wouldn't be an insignificant increase in attendances. The Melbourne and Geelong games over the last few years would back that up.

 

[boncer34]

It won't be an extra 20k people, but it wouldn't be an insignificant increase in attendances. The Melbourne and Geelong games over the last few years would back that up.

Geelong I'll grant you, though we hype the s**t out of the country game now so I'd argue marketing plays a large part in it. Having said that though removing 2016 for obvious reasons the crowds at Etihad have been 40k, 43k, 53k and 50k. Even with the hype of Country bla we've only managed 42k, 57k and 50k at the G, doesn't seem to be a increase to me personally outside of the 57k. Be interesting to see what the crowds would've been if we didn't get 14 emails telling us to join Sheeds at the country game and it'd been treated like a normal game.

But Melbourne? Apart from the "March to the G We Are Essendon" game in 2016 then in 15 and 14 we got 38k and 44k. Compare that to 17 and 18 at Etihad of 35K and 44K I'd argue the evidence suggest we won't see a sizable enough uptick to support the theory more will turn up coz MCG.

 

[yaco55]

EFC makes more money from Etihad games and it's been the same since 2000 - It's about the bottom line which is what any prudent club would follow.