MCG debater- please press pause - important clarifications

[Khan]

can the debaters fans please note

the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) is not the MCC (Melbourne Cricket Club) or the MFC(Melbourne Football Club).


They are long term tenants. Neither control or run the ground this is done by the MCG trust. The only thing the MCC lease is grandstand space for around 30,000 members (out of 78,000) sort of like the 40,000 out of 45,000 seats that are owned by the Crows. The MFC is a separate club all their is a provision from the MCC to nominate which football club you support ( my Brother in Law is an MCC member and a Collingwood supporter). The other football tenants there are Richmond, Collingwood, and Hawthorn ( sorry North fans if you are still tenants) have similar rights. The two other tenants are the VCA and the ACB during summer.


The MCC is not old school tie. Anyone can become members in around 12 years similar to becoming a crows or AFL member. Put you name down, pay the holding fee and eventually when someone dies you get membership.


PLease blame this current faisco on the MCG Trust. Leave the MCC or MFC out of it


Now return to regularly scheduled debate


Lets Roar

Khan

 

[Mr Q]

Before you go any further though you should tell us all who actually runs the MCG trust though...

Anyway the MCC are the major tenant - they would have huge influence on the MCG trust, so they are an obvious target.

 

[THE ATOM]

I'm a junior MCC member and I can go and see who I want when I want.......as long as i pay my fees.

I reckon its great

 

[understudy]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Before you go any further though you should tell us all who actually runs the MCG trust though...

MCG trustes are government appoints I believe...therefore ultimately the government is in control!

 

[MarkT]

How is it possibly anyones fault but the AFL? They negotiated a silly deal and they haven't renegotiated it. They in fact have inflamed the issue by giving the MCG more dud games (from a financial perspective) and not banking games.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by MarkT
How is it possibly anyones fault but the AFL? They negotiated a silly deal and they haven't renegotiated it. They in fact have inflamed the issue by giving the MCG more dud games (from a financial perspective) and not banking games.

What do you mean "not banking games"? They haven't had any games to bank.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Before you go any further though you should tell us all who actually runs the MCG trust though...

Anyway the MCC are the major tenant - they would have huge influence on the MCG trust, so they are an obvious target.

The Trustees - and as far as I know they are appointed by the Government.

 

[Still Crowing]

Originally posted by DaveW
What do you mean "not banking games"? They haven't had any games to bank.

Which is the whole reason Adelaide got dudded last year, because the agreement to bank games had only just begun, and the cupboard was bare (so to speak).

Bomb the lot and start again...stuff the collateral (AFL/MCC)damage!

Kasey.

 

[McAlmanac]

Originally posted by Khan
The MCC is not old school tie.

You can't be serious.

 

[THE ATOM]

Re: Re: MCG debater- please press pause - important clarifications

Originally posted by McAlmanac
You can't be serious.

Its called family planning.

My dad nominated me when I was born.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by DaveW
What do you mean "not banking games"? They haven't had any games to bank.

I though some finals had benn played at TD?
I also though there was talk of playing extra big games during the H&A? Appologies if I'm wrong but I do recall the MCC saying there were not helped by a refusal to bank games.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by MarkT
I though some finals had benn played at TD?
I also though there was talk of playing extra big games during the H&A? Appologies if I'm wrong but I do recall the MCC saying there were not helped by a refusal to bank games.

As I understand there hasn't been an opportunity to bank finals. The Melbourne-North Melbourne qualifying final was played at the Docklands due to contractual obligation.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Khan
can the debaters fans please note

the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) is not the MCC (Melbourne Cricket Club) or the MFC(Melbourne Football Club).


They are long term tenants. Neither control or run the ground this is done by the MCG trust. The only thing the MCC lease is grandstand space for around 30,000 members (out of 78,000) sort of like the 40,000 out of 45,000 seats that are owned by the Crows. The MFC is a separate club all their is a provision from the MCC to nominate which football club you support ( my Brother in Law is an MCC member and a Collingwood supporter). The other football tenants there are Richmond, Collingwood, and Hawthorn ( sorry North fans if you are still tenants) have similar rights. The two other tenants are the VCA and the ACB during summer.


The MCC is not old school tie. Anyone can become members in around 12 years similar to becoming a crows or AFL member. Put you name down, pay the holding fee and eventually when someone dies you get membership.


PLease blame this current faisco on the MCG Trust. Leave the MCC or MFC out of it


Now return to regularly scheduled debate


Lets Roar

Khan

You sure?

http://heraldsun.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,6556750%5E20322,00.html
MCC boss hits out
07 June 2003 Herald Sun
By SCOTT GULLAN

A PRELIMINARY final between two interstate sides at the MCG would not be an embarrassment.

That was the view of MCC chief executive Stephen Gough yesterday as he hit back at another attempt by the AFL to get out of its contractual requirement to hold a preliminary final at the ground.

With the likelihood of a non-Victorian club winning the privilege of hosting the game, AFL boss Wayne Jackson turned up the heat this week on the MCC, saying the league was desperately keen to move the game out of Melbourne.

Gough said the MCC had already been flexible with the contract, which runs for another 32 years, by allowing the league to "bank" games in the first two weeks of September.

"There is going to be a preliminary final here this year," Gough said. "They have got the right to bank games in weeks one and two. They can do that this year without any trouble.

"I don't feel that you can say it will be an embarrassing game for the competition and the ground because of them (interstate teams) playing.

"It is a significant game on the calendar regardless of who is in it, and I think that will attract people.

"We've had interstate teams in preliminary finals before. Look at Adelaide against the Western Bulldogs, who aren't a big drawing team, and there were no problems there.

"I'm sure if it was the two Adelaide teams, it would be a very good drawing crowd."

The contract dates back to the construction of the Great Southern Stand.

Gough rejected a suggestion by Jackson that the AFL could offer some compensation to the MCC by scheduling more games or events at the MCG at other times in the season.

The problem for the league is it changed its rules this year to allow the two highest-ranked teams to have the right to host the preliminary finals. It was originally the case for only the highest-ranked team.

Gough said the MCG should be held in the same regard as Wembley Stadium in England.

"This is Wembley," he said. "This is the equivalent of what the MCG is in the status of the competition. All the players say they want to play in finals on the MCG and ultimately a Grand Final."

Gough has held informal talks with Jackson and AFL football operations manager Andrew Demetriou about the issue in recent weeks.

Jackson has also lobbied other top MCC officials.

The AFL will release details in a fortnight outlining where the finals will be staged.