MCG to host GF through to 2057

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Posts
16,055
Likes
7,194
Location
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Do you have a link to the book? I haven't found a link, and book reviews say it's a good read but jump to conclusions that aren't always there. Also, it's methodology has not been made available. Would be a good read though. Designed for the average fan rather than the scientific crowd.

ANZ Stadium OK.:rolleyes:
No link unfortunately, and yes it isnt a scientific journal.

Pies have a better win rate at Stadium Australia than we did at Victoria Park!!

So yep would play there over the MCG.

But if had the option of a ‘neutral’ MCG or a 90% Collingwood crowd at the GABBA, I would play it at the GABBA.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

skipper kelly

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
28,728
Likes
3,867
Location
far queue
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
NSW Blues
No link unfortunately, and yes it isnt a scientific journal.

Pies have a better win rate at Stadium Australia than we did at Victoria Park!!

So yep would play there over the MCG.
I was hoping for a link as it is a thought provoking theory.

Your choice to have GF's in Sydney. You will never get that.
 

LoungeLizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Day Off
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Posts
7,564
Likes
5,493
Location
gippsland
AFL Club
Collingwood
The obvious thing then is why only 4 in WA/SA but 4 in Northern states & 10 in Vic? How does that compute?



Because it mucks up the argument. They dont have AFL clubs either, so they dont rate. I mean giving no weight to QLd & NSW at all is crazy. Clearly they all have Aussie supporters.
Did you read the bit about "market"?

I think you already know why.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,185
Likes
21,604
AFL Club
West Coast
AFL could have got so much more for the GF rights if they had waited and opened it up to all states to bid in the mid 2030s.

So short-sighted.

Not to mention the inequity of putting the same 8 clubs at a huge disadvantage every year.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
30,054
Likes
26,484
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
AFL could have got so much more for the GF rights if they had waited and opened it up to all states to bid in the mid 2030s.

So short-sighted.

Not to mention the inequity of putting the same 8 clubs at a huge disadvantage every year.
They got ~$500M for 20 years, so $25M/year.

Paid long in advance, so add interest/return on investment.

They also get the additional money they receive from the larger ground for 20 years. (AFL members, etc.)

So somewhere over $50M/year for 20 years.

Just how much do you, realistically, think other potential venues would pay?
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,185
Likes
21,604
AFL Club
West Coast
They got ~$500M for 20 years, so $25M/year.

Paid long in advance, so add interest/return on investment.

They also get the additional money they receive from the larger ground for 20 years. (AFL members, etc.)

So somewhere over $50M/year for 20 years.

Just how much do you, realistically, think other potential venues would pay?
Some economist estimated the benefit at $125 million currently.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ty-match-consumes-a-city-20151003-gk0edl.html
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,185
Likes
21,604
AFL Club
West Coast
But I suppose the main issue is not that they got less than they should of, its the equity.

AFL asset: value gained from selling rights to hosting AFL grand final to state governments.

Equity consideration 1: teams have an advantage if the GF is played in their home state.

Equity consideration 2: Distribution of Funds of sale should be done equally.

Efficiency consideration: larger grounds can generate bigger revenue.

They have ignored the two equity considerations and focussed only on the efficiency consideration.

It’s so ridiculous it’s almost funny.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
30,054
Likes
26,484
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,185
Likes
21,604
AFL Club
West Coast
The benefit would be smaller with smaller stadia (fewer people/tourists = less money).
It'd also be lower if it moved due to extra one off costs.
Add to that that not all of the benefits will go to the AFL.

So $50M/year to the AFL is still a lot compared to what other cities can/would/should pay.
Let’s agree to disagree on that. I’ll side with the economist.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
66,302
Likes
26,025
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
But I suppose the main issue is not that they got less than they should of, its the equity.

AFL asset: value gained from selling rights to hosting AFL grand final to state governments.

Equity consideration 1: teams have an advantage if the GF is played in their home state.

Equity consideration 2: Distribution of Funds of sale should be done equally.

Efficiency consideration: larger grounds can generate bigger revenue.

They have ignored the two equity considerations and focussed only on the efficiency consideration.

It’s so ridiculous it’s almost funny.

The WA govt wouldn’t give a toss about Victoria and vice versa.

Always back self interest you’ll know it’s trying
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
30,054
Likes
26,484
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
But I suppose the main issue is not that they got less than they should of, its the equity.

AFL asset: value gained from selling rights to hosting AFL grand final to state governments.

Equity consideration 1: teams have an advantage if the GF is played in their home state.

Equity consideration 2: Distribution of Funds of sale should be done equally.

Efficiency consideration: larger grounds can generate bigger revenue.

They have ignored the two equity considerations and focussed only on the efficiency consideration.

It’s so ridiculous it’s almost funny.

Consideration 1 loses out to there being no practical alternative.

Consideration 2 pretty much happens already. (MCG based teams lose out a bit due to the MCG deal & AFL members, but that's more a whole season thing rather than a GF thing).

But an equity consideration for you....the advantage non Vic teams gets during H&A (and thus, them being more likely to host finals and make the GF).
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,185
Likes
21,604
AFL Club
West Coast
The WA govt wouldn’t give a toss about Victoria and vice versa.

Always back self interest you’ll know it’s trying
Can you explain how your post relates to mine?

Consideration 1 loses out to there being no practical alternative.

Consideration 2 pretty much happens already. (MCG based teams lose out a bit due to the MCG deal & AFL members, but that's more a whole season thing rather than a GF thing).

But an equity consideration for you....the advantage non Vic teams gets during H&A (and thus, them being more likely to host finals and make the GF).
The practical alternative is to consider it in the policy. That could include selling each 5th GF to a non-vic location.

Consideration 2 - I can’t agree. There isn’t much correlation between vic/nonvic and contribution to the AFL coffers. We give heaps while GC take heaps. Same with pies and saints.

The main point here is that it’s league-earned money distributed to vic clubs for a vic club benefit. That’s a fact.

Kudos to you for trying to spin it as fair or reasonable - I can understand why you are taking this approach considering you support a club that benefits from the decision. Confirmation bias is tough to recognise when it impacts you.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
66,302
Likes
26,025
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Can you explain how your post relates to mine?



The practical alternative is to consider it in the policy. That could include selling each 5th GF to a non-vic location.

Consideration 2 - I can’t agree. There isn’t much correlation between vic/nonvic and contribution to the AFL coffers. We give heaps while GC take heaps. Same with pies and saints.

The main point here is that it’s league-earned money distributed to vic clubs for a vic club benefit. That’s a fact.

Kudos to you for trying to spin it as fair or reasonable - I can understand why you are taking this approach considering you support a club that benefits from the decision. Confirmation bias is tough to recognise when it impacts you.
I recall the proceeds from the sale of Waverley went to all afl clubs.

Don’t forget the vic govt is central to this deal. It’s not in their brief to support WA or it’s clubs and they just got a new stadium over there. Eagles and dockers will benefit from that, no? That’s my point
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
30,054
Likes
26,484
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Can you explain how your post relates to mine?



The practical alternative is to consider it in the policy. That could include selling each 5th GF to a non-vic location.

Consideration 2 - I can’t agree. There isn’t much correlation between vic/nonvic and contribution to the AFL coffers. We give heaps while GC take heaps. Same with pies and saints.

The main point here is that it’s league-earned money distributed to vic clubs for a vic club benefit. That’s a fact.
The AFL makes far more of the MCG deal, Docklands and AFL members than they give to Vic clubs...fact.

Kudos to you for trying to spin it as fair or reasonable - I can understand why you are taking this approach considering you support a club that benefits from the decision. Confirmation bias is tough to recognise when it impacts you.
Like non Vic fan failing to recognise that they have an advantage during H&A which flows into finals?
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,185
Likes
21,604
AFL Club
West Coast
I recall the proceeds from the sale of Waverley went to all afl clubs.

Don’t forget the vic govt is central to this deal. It’s not in their brief to support WA or it’s clubs and they just got a new stadium over there. Eagles and dockers will benefit from that, no? That’s my point
The AFL sold an asset and distributed profits to all clubs - surely that’s how things should work?

The AFL is the body here with equity considerations. They need to represent the interest of all 18 clubs.

State govts look after their citizens.

No one is arguing that the vic govt should support West Australian clubs or citizens. Or if anyone is using this argument, it’s either misguided or a poorly constructed straw man.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,185
Likes
21,604
AFL Club
West Coast
The AFL makes far more of the MCG deal, Docklands and AFL members than they give to Vic clubs...fact.



Like non Vic fan failing to recognise that they have an advantage during H&A which flows into finals?
Everyone plays home and away - it’s swings and roundabouts. Same as it would be if all finals were hosted by home teams. Anyway, this is a separate issue that is in no way being used as a reason by anyone to explain the rationale behind this decision.

Bottom line is that the rights to hosting to the grand final were sold by the afl (representing 18 clubs) in exchange for benefits to Victorian clubs (money for stadiums) and disadvantaged to non-vic clubs (playing interstate for all grand finals).
 

Carringbush2010

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Posts
4,460
Likes
2,456
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club

Isaac Cumming No 1

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Posts
10,235
Likes
7,998
AFL Club
GWS
Top Bottom