MCG to host GF through to 2057

Remove this Banner Ad

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
58,955
109,574
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
It would be a complete insult to SA and WA for Brisbane to get to host the grand final ahead of them.
just IMO, but qld is overplaying its hand. they are also making moves for the brownlow (meh, have it), and most of the Spring Carnival

as melbourne found out, you only need a few dickheads and covid shuts your sh*t down in weeks

I look at the Gold Coast, and one thing Queensland isnt short of is brain dead dickheads
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
33,357
31,080
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
I have never seen the AFL do anything for any reason other than money, it what universe has that changed? The GF if it can’t be at the MCG will be where the AFL can get the most money. There will be not one other consideration involved in it.
theres a hell of a lot of money going into womens footy and development at the moment that isnt exactly raking in the dollars.
 

big_e

Premium Platinum
Apr 28, 2008
6,462
18,435
The Championship
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
I have never seen the AFL do anything for any reason other than money, it what universe has that changed? The GF if it can’t be at the MCG will be where the AFL can get the most money. There will be not one other consideration involved in it.
Ding ding we have a winner.

If they haven't done so already, state premiers will be about the start the bidding war. Comes out of the tourism budget, on the grounds that it is broadcast around the world. Plus economic recovery, etc.

Considering the sums state governments have been paying to get the Juventus thirds to come out here and play, it could be in the tens of millions to the AFL.
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
29,134
15,883
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
I have never seen the AFL do anything for any reason other than money, it what universe has that changed? The GF if it can’t be at the MCG will be where the AFL can get the most money. There will be not one other consideration involved in it.
LOL, the Suns and Giants are for money? Losing money maybe.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
27,374
10,128
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
Ding ding we have a winner.

If they haven't done so already, state premiers will be about the start the bidding war. Comes out of the tourism budget, on the grounds that it is broadcast around the world. Plus economic recovery, etc.

Considering the sums state governments have been paying to get the Juventus thirds to come out here and play, it could be in the tens of millions to the AFL.
A ground with a crowd will get the gig. Wont be many starters ....
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
9,850
5,950
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
theres a hell of a lot of money going into womens footy and development at the moment that isnt exactly raking in the dollars.
Same with the suns and giants, but the same as with AFLW HQ are hell bent on breaking new markets regardless of how much of a cash siphon they are.

Still greatwhiteshark is correct, HQ's first priority is $..................... so they can throw it away in an attempt to break new markets. Grow the game is their motto that they haven't told the public about.
 

MrKK

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2012
3,553
5,168
City of churches
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
theres a hell of a lot of money going into womens footy and development at the moment that isnt exactly raking in the dollars.
LOL, the Suns and Giants are for money? Losing money maybe.
Both of these are the AFL playing the long game with the intention of making money. Whether they do or not isn't relevant to the AFL's decision at the time.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
29,134
15,883
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Both of these are the AFL playing the long game with the intention of making money. Whether they do or not isn't relevant to the AFL's decision at the time.
So you think it's not about more players and more supporters?

You know the AFL doesn't have shareholders that demand dividends? All the money they raise goes back into the game, which allows them to do things like subsidise Auskick programs. The only reason they would want more money is for that purpose.
 

MrKK

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2012
3,553
5,168
City of churches
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
So you think it's not about more players and more supporters?

You know the AFL doesn't have shareholders that demand dividends? All the money they raise goes back into the game, which allows them to do things like subsidise Auskick programs. The only reason they would want more money is for that purpose.
Yes, those decisions are about getting more money for future expansion and keeping the other codes down (plus some nice exec bonuses to be creamed off). I think we're actually agreeing here.
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
29,134
15,883
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Yes, those decisions are about getting more money for future expansion and keeping the other codes down (plus some nice exec bonuses to be creamed off). I think we're actually agreeing here.
You seem to think the end game for the AFL is more money.

I'm suggesting the end game is more players and more supporters. It's no different to any other not for profit sporting club or association, just on a bigger scale.

This isn't to say that I think everything the AFL does has this effect, I can list plenty of things done by the league that has the opposite effect. The reason for this thread is one of them.
 

MrKK

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2012
3,553
5,168
City of churches
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
You seem to think the end game for the AFL is more money.

I'm suggesting the end game is more players and more supporters. It's no different to any other not for profit sporting club or association, just on a bigger scale.

This isn't to say that I think everything the AFL does has this effect, I can list plenty of things done by the league that has the opposite effect. The reason for this thread is one of them.
It's naive to think that the execs aren't driven by KPIs that affect their bonuses. The cynic in me thinks they don't really care what sport a young girl in Queensland plays, but it's better for their bank balance if it's Auskick.
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
29,134
15,883
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
It's naive to think that the execs aren't driven by KPIs that affect their bonuses. The cynic in me thinks they don't really care what sport a young girl in Queensland plays, but it's better for their bank balance if it's Auskick.
Well no sh*t. AFL employee has an incentive to get more young kids playing Auskick.

What do you think should drive their decisions?
 

MrKK

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2012
3,553
5,168
City of churches
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
Well no sh*t. AFL employee has an incentive to get more young kids playing Auskick.

What do you think should drive their decisions?
I really think we're arguing the same thing. The AFL should make decisions to "grow the pie", that is increase the amount of money the game generates so they can reinvest it in further growth.

This includes things like AFLW and GC/GWS where they cost money initially but are planned to generate more money down the track. I.e. those were decisions taken for financial reasons.

There are other decisions (e.g. this thread's premise, as you rightly pointed out) where I feel self interest has taken precedence over the good of the game.
 

Mesc

Retired Porn Star
Mar 30, 2008
1,977
1,019
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
South Freo
Make the GF a best of 3 series. Perth , Brisbane , Adelaide. ( not particulary in that order ) The AFL gets 3 x the cash . 3 states get numbers and interest. Win / Win
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
27,374
10,128
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
I really think we're arguing the same thing. The AFL should make decisions to "grow the pie", that is increase the amount of money the game generates so they can reinvest it in further growth.

This includes things like AFLW and GC/GWS where they cost money initially but are planned to generate more money down the track. I.e. those were decisions taken for financial reasons.

There are other decisions (e.g. this thread's premise, as you rightly pointed out) where I feel self interest has taken precedence over the good of the game.
This is where the Commission should be setting the course. When too many Commissioners dont have 'a feel' for the game, the inmates run the asylum.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
9,850
5,950
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I really think we're arguing the same thing. The AFL should make decisions to "grow the pie", that is increase the amount of money the game generates so they can reinvest it in further growth.

This includes things like AFLW and GC/GWS where they cost money initially but are planned to generate more money down the track. I.e. those were decisions taken for financial reasons.

There are other decisions (e.g. this thread's premise, as you rightly pointed out) where I feel self interest has taken precedence over the good of the game.
Well no sh*t. AFL employee has an incentive to get more young kids playing Auskick.

What do you think should drive their decisions?
Well it seems you both agree that the intent of HQ is to grow the game and that the intent is not some bias towards the vic market for emotive reasons it's for $ to grow the game.

How efficiently they do this is up for debate but there is no doubting the intent. > End game = grow game = needs money = more money the better <

Yet STILL! you're both in opposition to the thread premise, isn't that the definition of a conflict of interest?

It is obvious (outside of pandemic times) that the premiership game at the G makes more money for the >End game< than it would elsewhere. It is not self interest that has taken precedence over the game. And you both pointed that out in these recent posts, 'it's not emotive' and then in the next breath 'the decision to have the GF at the g is emotive'.

Is there something I'm missing here?
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
29,134
15,883
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Well it seems you both agree that the intent of HQ is to grow the game and that the intent is not some bias towards the vic market for emotive reasons it's for $ to grow the game.

How efficiently they do this is up for debate but there is no doubting the intent. > End game = grow game = needs money = more money the better <

Yet STILL! you're both in opposition to the thread premise, isn't that the definition of a conflict of interest?

It is obvious (outside of pandemic times) that the premiership game at the G makes more money for the >End game< than it would elsewhere. It is not self interest that has taken precedence over the game. And you both pointed that out in these recent posts, 'it's not emotive' and then in the next breath 'the decision to have the GF at the g is emotive'.

Is there something I'm missing here?
No, it's not obvious at all. When you start from such a ridiculous premise then no wonder you've got no idea what you're missing.

The benefits to the AFL with the MCG contract is a bunch of sh*t governments should be doing anyway. But ignoring that, the AFL refused to open it up to tender and kept the extension as quiet as possible. Why would they do that if the answer is so obvious in the first place? The answer is that they were worried that it wasn't. That's the emotive bit - they didn't want to agitate their home fans.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
9,850
5,950
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
No, it's not obvious at all. When you start from such a ridiculous premise then no wonder you've got no idea what you're missing.

The benefits to the AFL with the MCG contract is a bunch of sh*t governments should be doing anyway. But ignoring that, the AFL refused to open it up to tender and kept the extension as quiet as possible. Why would they do that if the answer is so obvious in the first place? The answer is that they were worried that it wasn't. That's the emotive bit - they didn't want to agitate their home fans.
By home fans you mean the vic market, now going by the (correct) logic that you agree with i:e it's about $ and not emotive then wouldn't it make sense not to agitate your largest revenue base?

Apart from that as far as the deal that went down, we don't know if it was HQ or the vic govt. that roadblocked any ideas of tenders outside of vic. That's just speculation.

However it seems it worked in the best interest of the vic govt. and going by the logic we both seem to agree on, HQ as well.

I don't see the 'emotive bit'.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Top Bottom