Universal Love Princes Park Update

[slashin_velvet]

How much difference do you think there is between 100% of the revenue for 20,000 and 40% of the revenue for 40,000.? (Crowd figures Ill note are rare against non victorian sides even when we are traveling well)

If the revenue per head is the same the difference is that the current deal would be 4000 attendees at 100% worse off.

But I think looking at it only from a revenue perspective is counter intuitive. Unless the stadium is ready to use now, then any revenue gains from the 1 or 2 matches there would be offset by the cost to get the ground afl match ready.

If we're not having to front up the cost, then the afl won't give us 100% of the returns, so the argument is moot.

 

[Dadadadaaaaaa]

Forget the dollar advantage, forget the history and culture, forget the members belonging, forget everything but just think of this....when we play interstate the advantage onfield for those teams is immense. Now think of that fortress for us against them, think of the 50-50 or even 40-60 games suddenly be 70-30 in our favour due to 'home ground'. That is what top interstate clubs are enjoying and will keep enjoying while us Vic clubs share public park land .....

Your right mate. That is the main reason interstate teams are so successful is because of their home fortresses. Look at geelong , 3 flags in 5 years while only loosing 1 game at Simmons in the process. By the way apart from Esseendon in 2000 not 1 club has won a premiership while being an Etihad tennate.

 

[TBellicious]

I dont see why we cant do a renovation and play 2-3 games a year against interstate opposition

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Look I know my first comment may have seamed a bit arrogant, but if we are going to be successful it all starts from your clubs culture. This ground has been our home for since the 1900's, we are one of the only Victorian clubs to still train on our ground and it holds about 25 000, a few upgrades round the back would made it doable. Agreed about the tassie grounds and TIO holding less than Ikon Park.
By the way I am 15

Nah, didn't note any arrogance. Quite a measured and articulate post for a 15 y/o, not that age is any relevance in these fora. Or should that be forums.

 

[Azul]

I think I said this the last time around...

There's a new train station being built at Arden St. There's more chance of North Melbourne's ground being redeveloped than ours.

 

[Dadadadaaaaaa]

Every Carlton supporter has criticised old Jack Elliott for wrecking our club. He actually wanted to make Ikon Park the 2nd ground. He always loved the football club and wanted to upgrade the ground more. Collins destroyed our club.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I dont see why we cant do a renovation and play 2-3 games a year against interstate opposition

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[The_Wookie]

If the revenue per head is the same the difference is that the current deal would be 4000 attendees at 100% worse off.

The revenue per head is nowhere near the same. Thats my point.

But I think looking at it only from a revenue perspective is counter intuitive. Unless the stadium is ready to use now, then any revenue gains from the 1 or 2 matches there would be offset by the cost to get the ground afl match ready.

No one is talking about doing this now. We've got existing deals to honor at the MCG, but not at Etihad now.

If we're not having to front up the cost, then the afl won't give us 100% of the returns, so the argument is moot.

The ground is not owned by the AFL, theres no reason Carlton wouldnt get a geelong type arrangement at Princes Park. Geelong didnt front up the cost either.

 

[slashin_velvet]

The difference is irrelevant, and your suggestion that we get good crowds of 40k plus against interstate sides is bullshit.

Show me where I said that?

 

[FootyGeek]

She is dead. Let her rest in peace in dignity.

If the 10s of millions of dollars that were needed to get the ground up to AFL standard were available it would mean handing the ground to the AFL.

There is ZERO chance we get to keep her and AFL games are played there again.

Let's just enjoy our annual practice match against the Pies or Bombers every year and see if we can develop the ground in other ways that might excite and engage the Carlton supporting community.

As an example, it would be awesome if say the Pratt stand was demolished and a new facility built which incorporates a new social club. Imagine watching Carlton games with hundreds of other supporters on a massive screen with Princes Park as the backdrop in luxury surrounds. Watching away games at PP like that would be awesome.

 

[The_Wookie]

Show me where I said that?

It wasnt you, it was someone else.

 

[The_Wookie]

She is dead. Let her rest in peace in dignity.

If the 10s of millions of dollars that were needed to get the ground up to AFL standard were available it would mean handing the ground to the AFL.

Theres AFL standard, and then theres apparently the gold standard people here expect it to be upgraded to. Traeger Park has a capacity of 5,000 and a friggin tree hanging over the boundary. Manuka Oval, York Park, Bellerive, Cazalys stadium, TIO Stadium, all have equivelant or worse facilities, less seating, and are all "AFL standard".

There is ZERO chance we get to keep her and AFL games are played there again.

lol. sure. I

Let's just enjoy our annual practice match against the Pies or Bombers every year and see if we can develop the ground in other ways that might excite and engage the Carlton supporting community.

That practice game is so far a one off, not an annual thing.

 

[Dadadadaaaaaa]

She is dead. Let her rest in peace in dignity.

If the 10s of millions of dollars that were needed to get the ground up to AFL standard were available it would mean handing the ground to the AFL.

There is ZERO chance we get to keep her and AFL games are played there again.

Let's just enjoy our annual practice match against the Pies or Bombers every year and see if we can develop the ground in other ways that might excite and engage the Carlton supporting community.

As an example, it would be awesome if say the Pratt stand was demolished and a new facility built which incorporates a new social club. Imagine watching Carlton games with hundreds of other supporters on a massive screen with Princes Park as the backdrop in luxury surrounds. Watching away games at PP like that would be awesome.

I think I will let you others lay the boots into this guy. On the Pratt stand though. I think it is too good to demolish. Build upwards. I sat there in the preseason match and it was the first stand full. Behind the back is a mess though. If you want a social club build it at the heatley end where we need something instead of the cafe.

 

[slashin_velvet]

It wasnt you, it was someone else.

I wouldn't be that careless usually .

35k from interstate teams at home is a good result.

We nearly managed it against the swans and Adelaide I think. Other matches against interstate sides were in the 25k to 30k range. We didn't have one game with less than 25k attendees which is why if we were to use ikon park, I would expect a minimum capacity of 30k to allow for membership growth and attendance improvals linked to team performance.

 

[Doro]

Didn't Trigg have some dialogue with the AFL about it? I think the AFL stated it wasn't on their agenda and we're in no financial position to do much about it ourselves.

 

[agro]

Every Carlton supporter has criticised old Jack Elliott for wrecking our club. He actually wanted to make Ikon Park the 2nd ground. He always loved the football club and wanted to upgrade the ground more. Collins destroyed our club.

What Elliott had in mind fr the club was fine, a 45,000 seat boutique stadium, however once he rubbed the big end of town the wrong way, which included Graeme Samuel Ron Evans et al, it was doomed.

They made sure that the planned vision for the stadium never got through planning at the Melbourne City Council, so a compromised development at Princes Park, meant a poorly designed Legends Stand, and because the AFL and big business wanted the Docklands Stadium, the AFL ensured through its power of fixturing that Princes Park was never going to continue as a viable AFL venue.

John Elliott's intransigence at not wanting to recognise this and adjust to it was the start of the path of our clubs financial ruin, Collins wasn't perhaps the best choice as president after Elliott but we the members voted him in, the club had very limited choices and bargaining position in negotiating a stadium deal.

Don't worry too much about what Collins did, he left the club in 2006, we've had 10 years to turn around our club financially, and we owe more money now than we did then, this is despite past president Stephen Kernahan getting up at an AGM in 2010 or 2011 and stating we would be debt free by 2015.

 

[Coops93]

Do we still have a contract with Etihad at all?

If we don't/it runs out soon, is there actually any reason (aside from $) that we HAVE to resign to play games at the Etihad? Could we not just say we'll use our own ground thanks? I'm sure it's not as simple as that, but the way I understand it is we agree to play a certain amount of games at the Etihad and are contractually abliged to do so, but if the contract expired why are we then forced to find an agreement to play x amount at Etihad an x amount at the MCG? Could we not simply say we're not going to play at Etihad and are going to use Princes

As I said, I know surely it can't be that simple, but what is actually stopping us from doing that, aside from $ or is that purely the only reason?

 

[SurreyBlue]

Agro.....you can't repay a debt when you have to pay for the privilege of playing at your home ground.

 

[FootyGeek]

The Legends stand is the number one reason the Carlton Football Club is in the position it is in now.

Massive debt building a stand no-one used or liked, with no corporate facilities, staring straight into the sun all afternoon. Was the straw that broke the AFL back in terms of club support.

That stand set us back decades. It has been an albatross around the neck of the club since it was planned.

To add insult to injury building it changed the dimensions of the ground from a short ground where we had a massive home ground advantage to an MCG-ish length ground where we completely lost one of the most unique aspects of the ground.

 

[thylacine60]

never seen a grandstand make decisions at board level or on list improvement or player development or team selection - still............

 

[FootyGeek]

never seen a grandstand make decisions at board level or on list improvement or player development or team selection - still............

The stand got us into massive debt, it pissed off the AFL, it put us at a competitive disadvantage to the MCG and new Etihad Stadium. It forced the AFL to schedule games away from Princes Park and eventually shut the ground down, which disenfranchised the supporters even more so that we now have no real home and the lowest membership numbers of any of the "big four". It stopped us from getting into the MCG before other teams where they now enjoy facilities we can only dream about. It was the catalyst that has made every decision by every board since it was built much more difficult because we have basically been at ransom to the AFL since then.

 

[The_Wookie]

What Elliott had in mind fr the club was fine, a 45,000 seat boutique stadium, however once he rubbed the big end of town the wrong way, which included Graeme Samuel Ron Evans et al, it was doomed.

They made sure that the planned vision for the stadium never got through planning at the Melbourne City Council, so a compromised development at Princes Park, meant a poorly designed Legends Stand, and because the AFL and big business wanted the Docklands Stadium, the AFL ensured through its power of fixturing that Princes Park was never going to continue as a viable AFL venue.

John Elliott's intransigence at not wanting to recognise this and adjust to it was the start of the path of our clubs financial ruin, Collins wasn't perhaps the best choice as president after Elliott but we the members voted him in, the club had very limited choices and bargaining position in negotiating a stadium deal.

Don't worry too much about what Collins did, he left the club in 2006, we've had 10 years to turn around our club financially, and we owe more money now than we did then, this is despite past president Stephen Kernahan getting up at an AGM in 2010 or 2011 and stating we would be debt free by 2015.

Theres a few parts missing from this.

• We played at Princes Park for another 5 years after Docklands was built. Carlton left by choice at the end of 2005 - even if we are told there was no choice.
  
• The AFL's position was that they wouldnt fixture other clubs to play at Princes Park as had been the case, leaving only small Carlton games there
• We then proceeded to get creamed by the salary cap debacle and three wooden spoons.
  
• Collins took the Docklands deal in the end - While he was its CEO - and I dont give a damn what the need was at the time, that stinks to high heaven. Once that happened we were screwed for a while

Do we still have a contract with Etihad at all?

Our contract expired in 2014 and we adjusted the number of games at the MCG as far as we were able (and even then, the AFL has used those two games as the means to give interstate sides a crack at the MCG before finals, notably Adelaide and Port Adelaide in consecutive seasons). Essendon is the only club with a formal Etihad contract now as far as Im aware.

If we don't/it runs out soon, is there actually any reason (aside from $) that we HAVE to resign to play games at the Etihad? Could we not just say we'll use our own ground thanks? I'm sure it's not as simple as that, but the way I understand it is we agree to play a certain amount of games at the Etihad and are contractually abliged to do so, but if the contract expired why are we then forced to find an agreement to play x amount at Etihad an x amount at the MCG? Could we not simply say we're not going to play at Etihad and are going to use Princes

As I said, I know surely it can't be that simple, but what is actually stopping us from doing that, aside from $ or is that purely the only reason?

The AFLs games contracts at Docklands and the MCG mandate where most games can be played. Docklands required 40 games a year until 2025, most of which are North Melbourne (8), Western Bulldogs (9), St Kilda (11), Essendon (6 or 7), Carlton (4 or 5). Other clubs will play 1 game a year there including Hawthorn, Geelong, Richmond, Collingwood. Extra games are required when Docklands doesnt get a final in the first week.

Clubs are being forced to honor the AFLs over-arching contracts with the MCG and Docklands., even if they wish to negotiate elsewhere, the Stadiums wont even bother negotiating.

The Legends stand is the number one reason the Carlton Football Club is in the position it is in now.

A decade in the football wilderness, with poor management and as yet, unrealised pokies investments, was just as responsible for club debt issues as the stadium was by the time all was said and done.

 

[Dominator_7]

The Legends Stand was filled plenty of times fir big games in the late 90s / early 00s. Don't know why people go on about it being hated.
Plus it was the AFL who screwed us over with Princes Park. Told us to go ahead and develop the ground as they planned to use it as a boutique stadium, but when all permits and contracts had been signed and development started, pulled out and chose to go with the Docklands Stadium idea.

 

[mediumsizered]

Every Carlton supporter has criticised old Jack Elliott for wrecking our club. He actually wanted to make Ikon Park the 2nd ground. He always loved the football club and wanted to upgrade the ground more. Collins destroyed our club.

It was John Elliott's legacy which led to us abandoning Princes Park as a playing venue.

With the club on the verge of handing back the keys, the financial incentive offered by the AFL to move our home games to Etihad was a guarantee ensuring the financial survival of our club.

 

[thylacine60]

The stand got us into massive debt, it pissed off the AFL, it put us at a competitive disadvantage to the MCG and new Etihad Stadium. It forced the AFL to schedule games away from Princes Park and eventually shut the ground down, which disenfranchised the supporters even more so that we now have no real home and the lowest membership numbers of any of the "big four". It stopped us from getting into the MCG before other teams where they now enjoy facilities we can only dream about. It was the catalyst that has made every decision by every board since it was built much more difficult because we have basically been at ransom to the AFL since then.

you put your case well....