Geelong post a $3 million loss

[Kwality]

We have no deal to play at Etihad in force. No signed deal to play home games there. No buy out of for Nothing. So why should we?

None.

And our two MCG games generally v Hawks and Pies draw, on average, more than the Etihad gate.

And then WC, AFC, BL, GC can play home games there too then right?

Go Catters

Speaking as a West Coast supporter, why would you schedule an Eagles home game in Melbourne when demand exceeds supply at home - sure the GF is the only game you can play at home, unearned, if you are a Melbourne club - the big dance is GIFTED, not earned - we've won 3 GFs on the road, Hawks NIL, Lions 3 x GFs, Cats NIL.
Is guilt the only reason you'd schedule a non Melbourne club home game in Melbourne ? No one denies supply of footy in Melbourne exceeds demand but the handout set do nothing except rationalise the handouts.

The Eagles offered a deal exceeding Norths best ever annual profit to move a home game - the Eagles tried, North agreed, why did the AFL reject it?

 

[Kwality]

It's a regressive tax and it's the middle clubs who are worst off.

Regressive eh !! WA footy fans pay more to go to the footy & courtesy of the WA Govt WA clubs have a good stadium deal, so the WA clubs should subsidise a deal stadium deal in Melbourne whilst the Vic Govt subsidise the MCC.
Elitist nonsense NSFB, the MCC get Vic government money so ask them, pony up & pay your way , don't hide behind the notion of a regressive tax.

 

[Kwality]

So you hand on some of the taxpayers money from Tasmania to the whole AFL?

Sadly 747, its a commercial deal & the Hawks provide value & that's why the deal gets renewed. Yes, its different to the sale of games.

 

[HolyWars]

Geelong are in a position of being the only non-Melbourne based Vic club, so if they needed it, they would get plenty of help because it's in both the AFL's and State Government's best interest to have a Geelong based AFL team.

Regardless of this year's result, they will be just fine.

 

[dazbroncos]

Speaking as a West Coast supporter, why would you schedule an Eagles home game in Melbourne when demand exceeds supply at home - sure the GF is the only game you can play at home, unearned, if you are a Melbourne club - the big dance is GIFTED, not earned - we've won 3 GFs on the road, Hawks NIL, Lions 3 x GFs, Cats NIL.
Is guilt the only reason you'd schedule a non Melbourne club home game in Melbourne ? No one denies supply of footy in Melbourne exceeds demand but the handout set do nothing except rationalise the handouts.

The Eagles offered a deal exceeding Norths best ever annual profit to move a home game - the Eagles tried, North agreed, why did the AFL reject it?

I was pointing out the stupidity of the Ethiad post that inferred that just because the AFL clubs that have signed deal to play there, then all the other AFL clubs should play home games there. Its never meant in reality.

Go Catters

 

[The 747]

Sadly 747, its a commercial deal & the Hawks provide value & that's why the deal gets renewed. Yes, its different to the sale of games.

Not relevant to the sale of games, just pointing out how the money is socialised.

 

[dean31]

So you hand on some of the taxpayers money from Tasmania to the whole AFL?

So you hand on some of the Sponsorship money from FORD to the whole AFL?

 

[The 747]

So you hand on some of the Sponsorship money from FORD to the whole AFL?

Ah well we do, that's the point of the discussion. Do keep up y'all.

 

[Seeds]

Speaking as a West Coast supporter, why would you schedule an Eagles home game in Melbourne when demand exceeds supply at home - sure the GF is the only game you can play at home, unearned, if you are a Melbourne club - the big dance is GIFTED, not earned - we've won 3 GFs on the road, Hawks NIL, Lions 3 x GFs, Cats NIL.
Is guilt the only reason you'd schedule a non Melbourne club home game in Melbourne ? No one denies supply of footy in Melbourne exceeds demand but the handout set do nothing except rationalise the handouts.

The Eagles offered a deal exceeding Norths best ever annual profit to move a home game - the Eagles tried, North agreed, why did the AFL reject it?

Afl rejected it because it's unfair for the other teams if Eagles are effectively getting an extra home game.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

How does the CEOs salary compare? Silvagni?

Don't know. The point is we may have had to pay more to get the right people in place because we aren't an attractive destination. If we don't spend more, we will remain unattractive and so the cycle goes.

 

[Randomizor]

Afl rejected it because it's unfair for the other teams if Eagles are effectively getting an extra home game.

How so? It's not as if other teams couldn't strike similar deals if they wanted to, so WC wouldn't be getting any special permissions over other teams. It's "unfair" that the two WA teams get sent to Tasmania so often. It's "unfair" that the WA/SA teams have to travel every second week. The fixture is not fair and equitable, what difference would this have made really?

 

[doppleganger]

Pies and it gives me the sh!ts every year.

?? Pies play home games at Etihad.
Hawthorn plays all 11 home games at venues it considers to be "home" venues.

How many Melbourne clubs don't play 11 games a year at their home ground, Hawks included? Do the Pies still sell 18 game memberships?
https://membership.collingwoodfc.com.au/packages/view/585/Home-Away

[/QUOTE]
No 18 game membership, Pies travelled five times a season with the introduction of the expansion clubs as they use Collingwood to try to draw a crowd in the developing markets. Same reason why the Pies almost always play Sydney in Sydney but rarely play WCE in Perth, AFL wants more exposure in a Sydney and WCE get a sell-out to a tiddlywinks game.

 

[doppleganger]

Are you talking about the venue or the revenue that differentiates a 'home' game ?

A 'home' game is at a ground that your players are much more familiar with than the opposition, where your home fans completely dominate the stadium with just a sprinkling of opposition fans.

There is only one 'home' ground left in Victoria....KP.

In 2016 id argue Collingwood only have 3 actual 'home' games - WCE, Freo and Port at the G.

Playing Melbourne, Richmond, Hawthorn, Carlton, Essendon etc. at the G is neutral there is no home team, even at the Showdown and Derby the actual home team has the lions share of supporters in the stadium...if the Dees are going poorly Richmond may have more fans as the away team.

 

[The Darkman]

Lots of differing views here. Could someone confirm which is more profitable. 70k on Easter Monday at the MCG or 34k at Kardinia on the same day. If it's the latter, then play all home games in Geelong. What will be the capacity of Kardinia once the next stage of development is completed? 40k?

 

[madmug]

How so? It's not as if other teams couldn't strike similar deals if they wanted to, so WC wouldn't be getting any special permissions over other teams. It's "unfair" that the two WA teams get sent to Tasmania so often. It's "unfair" that the WA/SA teams have to travel every second week. The fixture is not fair and equitable, what difference would this have made really?

I agree. If we had our own team then the spread of clubs 'sent' to Tassie would be evenly spread out.

 

[JackFlash]

How would you find the money Jack?

Once the ground is complete, they play 9 maybe 10 games there and has a capacity of 36k...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Seeds]

The person who designed the tax was Geelong chairman, Colin Carter.

The tax isn't based on profits and non football revenue.

It's based on how much you spend on football operations.

If you feel aggrieved about paying a tax, lower your spend on football operations.

or spend a lot lot more and get the higher amount tax free.

 

[#gosaintas]

We have no deal to play at Etihad in force. No signed deal to play home games there. No buy out of for Nothing. So why should we?

None.

Nor do we

 

[Kwality]

?? Pies play home games at Etihad.
Hawthorn plays all 11 home games at venues it considers to be "home" venues.

No 18 game membership, Pies travelled five times a season with the introduction of the expansion clubs as they use Collingwood to try to draw a crowd in the developing markets. Same reason why the Pies almost always play Sydney in Sydney but rarely play WCE in Perth, AFL wants more exposure in a Sydney and WCE get a sell-out to a tiddlywinks game.[/QUOTE]

Pies offer a seated membership for ALL home & away games, so is only 17 games?

So does Collingwood get favours from the FIXture?

 

[Kwality]

Once the ground is complete, they play 9 maybe 10 games there and has a capacity of 36k...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So you want the tax based on profits?

Maybe even the clubs that bank the benefits should pay, pay from the games they earn the profits to the teams that are dudded - the AFL should be paying direct any other subsidy.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Regressive eh !! WA footy fans pay more to go to the footy & courtesy of the WA Govt WA clubs have a good stadium deal, so the WA clubs should subsidise a deal stadium deal in Melbourne whilst the Vic Govt subsidise the MCC.
Elitist nonsense NSFB, the MCC get Vic government money so ask them, pony up & pay your way , don't hide behind the notion of a regressive tax.

You do realise that regressive as an economics term where those who earn less pay a higher proportion of their income compared to those who earn more?
The key here is to view it not as tax but as a fine for over spending on football department which has a maximum size. This then disconnects it from "taxation" type arguments. I think that the AFL would have been smarter to not use a footy dept spend cap but just adjust AFL distributions in the same way eg give hawthorn, wce, Collingwood less by the amount that would have been "fined". It would feel less aggravating IMO to fans.

 

[Gigantor]

You do realise that regressive as an economics term where those who earn less pay a higher proportion of their income compared to those who earn more?
The key here is to view it not as tax but as a fine for over spending on football department which has a maximum size. This then disconnects it from "taxation" type arguments. I think that the AFL would have been smarter to not use a footy dept spend cap but just adjust AFL distributions in the same way eg give hawthorn, wce, Collingwood less by the amount that would have been "fined". It would feel less aggravating IMO to fans.

Although I can see basing it on footy dept overspends gives a degree of control to the clubs involved, plus it effectively introduces two forms of equalisation in the one policy.

A club like Hawthorn might still see value in overspending and giving back more to the AFL to remain at the cutting edge, and in any event, what else is a footy club going to do with its largesse?

 

[Kwality]

Although I can see basing it on footy dept overspends gives a degree of control to the clubs involved, plus it effectively introduces two forms of equalisation in the one policy.

A club like Hawthorn might still see value in overspending and giving back more to the AFL to remain at the cutting edge, and in any event, what else is a footy club going to do with its largesse?

The Eagles pump the extra into WA footy, & not just the WAFL.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Lots of differing views here. Could someone confirm which is more profitable. 70k on Easter Monday at the MCG or 34k at Kardinia on the same day. If it's the latter, then play all home games in Geelong. What will be the capacity of Kardinia once the next stage of development is completed? 40k?

Well the only people who can answer that for you are the Geelong executives who see all the numbers. But we got an idea from Brian Cook at the senate inquiry into a Tassie team in June 2009 so these are 2008 figures. From this post on the Geelong board;

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/stadium-yields-and-compensation.596244/#post-14901897

Originally Posted by Brian Cook
...at Skilled Stadium when you have a capacity of 25,000, we make a net profit in that game of $638,000 per game, which is $26 per head. If we have a crowd of 85,500 at the MCG, which we did have against Collingwood in 2007, we brought home $771,000, which was $9 a head. Importantly,Telstra, now Etihad Stadium, with a near capacity of 46,000, we brought home $293,000, which is $6 a head. So when you compare a crowd at Skilled of 25,000 compared to Telstra, which is nearly twice as much at 46, you at Skilled bring home to the club $638,000 out of all revenue sources per game and only $293,000 from Telstra. It is extremely important that if an AFL stadium is developed in Tasmania, the lease arrangements and the revenue attraction arrangements provide a high yield to ensure sustainability. It is pretty simple, really.