Opinion MODERATE ideas for a 'fairer' AFL without the hyperbole of VIC & non-VIC trolls. TROLLS FROM BOTH SIDES PLEASE KEEP OUT

[doppleganger]

Split the memberships between cricket & the AFL clubs like other stadiums.

??
You do realise that SCG members get access to AFL games and NRL games held at the SCG

GABBA members the same.

Adelaide ****ed it up because the SANFL and SACA couldn’t sort their s**t, one wanting a transferable ‘medallion club style’ membership.

Currently the MCC membership is ridiculously cheap for what they get to watch.

Because they sell each seat more than 6x over, you simply haven’t grasped the business model.

Yeah they could sell just 22k tickets for 4000 each.

But they have opted to give access to 130k financially paying members instead.

 

[blue harvest]

you also make out like every expansion is just for football

<<<The proposed expansion is almost double the 30,000 approved by members in the six years to August 2005, which was to help fund the major redevelopment of the northern half of the ground in preparation for the 2006 Commonwealth Games>>>

source: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/plan-t...-wait-for-mcc-membership-20141118-11p5j6.html

That's expansion in number of members, not seats.

 

[Rich01]

I wonder how many MCC members would give up their memberships because of this? How big is the waiting list?

I still reckon access to 45 AFL games a year plus all cricket for $650 is a bargain and I'm sure plenty others would too.

It’s a good question.
Many people I know don’t get full value out of their memberships during the regular season and do value the AFL finals aspect out of it. I would say many would abandon it even at the discounted price of $650 you mention.

The crux of the issue is that the MCC have this feature for the next 34 years. Why would they give up a key benefit of their membership? Do we expect them to do this out of the goodness of their heart because it isn’t fair?

Generally if someone in society wants something the other person has, they pay for it. So who do you proposes pays for it?

 

[blue harvest]

... which is wrong.

Gil keeps talking that the AFL is about the fans, so give the grand final back to the fans who are the most deserving to attend, rather than the corporates & other hangers on.

MCC are fans not corporates. They queue up overnight to get into the GF.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

MCC are fans not corporates. They queue up overnight to get into the GF.

They are not all fans of the competing clubs in the grand final though.

That is the key point!

 

[Billy ray]

Shouldn't the grand final be the one which is the best of 3?

Look ideally yes. The other finals being best of three are to make up for lost games from going from 22 game season to fairer 17 game season.
Perhaps grand final can best of 5!

 

[blue harvest]

They are not all fans of the competing clubs in the grand final though.

That is the key point!

You are just going around in circles, it's all been explained to you by several posters.

 

[Rich01]

So you are saying no one will take up cricket membership to watch the boxing day test?

How many do you think would pay $700+ to go to the Boxing Day test?
Be honest.

Are you also saying no current MCC members would convert to club memberships where they play at the MCG.

Not at all. But how does that even close to compensate the loss in MCC membership revenue?

This would not be a financially sound decision for the MCC to just give up.

So..... who is going to pay for your proposal? It’s a really simple question. But it’s proving challenging for many to answer.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You are just going around in circles, it's all been explained to you by several posters.

Yes, most competing club members shouldn't attend the grand final because the MCC members, corporates & other hangers on should get preference.

AFL, the game of the people... my arse!

 

[Papa G]

It’s a good question.
Many people I know don’t get full value out of their memberships during the regular season and do value the AFL finals aspect out of it. I would say many would abandon it even at the discounted price of $650 you mention.

The crux of the issue is that the MCC have this feature for the next 34 years. Why would they give up a key benefit of their membership? Do we expect them to do this out of the goodness of their heart because it isn’t fair?

Generally if someone in society wants something the other person has, they pay for it. So who do you proposes pays for it?

Was any other entity in Australia afforded the opportunity? No. It's a closed shop which benefits the MCC and Victoria. To argue otherwise is silly.

 

[doppleganger]

You keep putting up the melbourne CRICKET club members as if the only thing they buy their CRICKET club membership for is afl.

and refuse to discuss what else that membership gets you.

you also make out like every expansion is just for football

<<<The proposed expansion is almost double the 30,000 approved by members in the six years to August 2005, which was to help fund the major redevelopment of the northern half of the ground in preparation for the 2006 Commonwealth Games>>>

source: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/plan-t...-wait-for-mcc-membership-20141118-11p5j6.html

??
I am not putting up anything, it is yourself that is fixated on the name and what people do with it.

It is a stadium membership, they get access to any events at the stadium...how is that so hard for you to grasp!?

Do you actually understand what your quotes are saying? Previously they capped memberships at 100k. 5x the size of the reserve. The plan is to gradually expand the number of members out to 150k...selling each seat 7.5x to give them more financial members. They can still only access the same reserve.

Some might only come to a Comedy at the G night, some might only come to a lunch event put on in the dining room during brownlow week, some might only go to wine club events, some might actually play for the cricket or tennis teams and play on the weekend for the club, some might just go to big bash games, some never even use it at all.

Some sports nuffies might go to 30 AFL games, every day of the test, all big bash games, any international cricket and some random WWE events just because they can.

They all pay their membership every year, and that locked in revenue of $65m+ per year (as you bring on more members this grows) is what enables the club to take on massive debt to actually develop the ground without using tax payer money.

 

[Papa G]

How many do you think would pay $700+ to go to the Boxing Day test?
Be honest.


Not at all. But how does that even close to compensate the loss in MCC membership revenue?

This would not be a financially sound decision for the MCC to just give up.

So..... who is going to pay for your proposal? It’s a really simple question. But it’s proving challenging for many to answer.

24000 people pay $370 for a SACA ticket. I go to the first day of the Test, that's it. I'm sure many would be the same. If I had to pay $280 extra to get access to 22 games of AFL football as well plus finals, I'd be ******* over the moon.

 

[Rich01]

Was any other entity in Australia afforded the opportunity? No. It's a closed shop which benefits the MCC and Victoria. To argue otherwise is silly.

I’ve been quite consistent in my comments that the current agreement isn’t to the benefit of equity for all AFL clubs. We all know it isn’t fair. There are plenty of threads on the main board with thousands of posts about this.

However, this thread is about solutions to inequity in the AFL.

The question I have on this issue still hasn’t been addressed by those that are the most vocal about the topic in this thread. Who pays to compensate the MCC to break their Grand Final agreement for the next 34 years?

 

[blue harvest]

24000 people pay $370 for a SACA ticket. I go to the first day of the Test, that's it. I'm sure many would be the same. If I had to pay $280 extra to get access to 22 games of AFL football as well plus finals, I'd be ******* over the moon.

After waiting 30 years.

 

[kranky al]

??
I am not putting up anything, it is yourself that is fixated on the name and what people do with it.

It is a stadium membership, they get access to any events at the stadium...how is that so hard for you to grasp!?

Do you actually understand what your quotes are saying? Previously they capped memberships at 100k. 5x the size of the reserve. The plan is to gradually expand the number of members out to 150k...selling each seat 7.5x to give them more financial members. They can still only access the same reserve.

Some might only come to a Comedy at the G night, some might only come to a lunch event put on in the dining room during brownlow week, some might only go to wine club events, some might actually play for the cricket or tennis teams and play on the weekend for the club, some might just go to big bash games, some never even use it at all.

Some sports nuffies might go to 30 AFL games, every day of the test, all big bash games, any international cricket and some random WWE events just because they can.

They all pay their membership every year, and that locked in revenue of $65m+ per year (as you bring on more members this grows) is what enables the club to take on massive debt to actually develop the ground without using tax payer money.

Whereas the clear imputation coming from your side is that 65 million is brought in by just the afl grand final rights.

its not - its just one part of the ticket.

if they got rid of just that part of the ticket outof the $650 per year? It cost what do you think they would charge.

 

[doppleganger]

24000 people pay $370 for a SACA ticket. I go to the first day of the Test, that's it. I'm sure many would be the same. If I had to pay $280 extra to get access to 22 games of AFL football as well plus finals, I'd be ******* over the moon.

Pity the SACA and SANFL couldn’t come to an agreement, and unlike SCG, GABBA and MCC members you cop a s**t deal.

But yeah those SACA numbers are probably about right, you would probably lose 100k members.

 

[kranky al]

I’ve been quite consistent in my comments that the current agreement isn’t to the benefit of equity for all AFL clubs. We all know it isn’t fair. There are plenty of threads on the main board with thousands of posts about this.

However, this thread is about solutions to inequity in the AFL.

The question I have on this issue still hasn’t been addressed by those that are the most vocal about the topic in this thread. Who pays to compensate the MCC to break their Grand Final agreement for the next 34 years?

Pity the SACA and SANFL couldn’t come to an agreement, and unlike SCG, GABBA and MCC members you cop a s**t deal.

But yeah those SACA numbers are probably about right, you would probably lose 100k members.

But with members lined up for 20 years or However long theres a fair chance a good percentage are cricket nuts and arent as fased about losing the gf so they can be replaced easily?

 

[Papa G]

Pity the SACA and SANFL couldn’t come to an agreement, and unlike SCG, GABBA and MCC members you cop a s**t deal.

But yeah those SACA numbers are probably about right, you would probably lose 100k members.

Lol. Isn't the Sporting Capital of the Universe nearly 4 times the size of Adelaide? If there was no GF as part of the ticket I'd hazard a guess there would still be 100,000 plus members of the MCC. 45 plus games of football plus cricket for $650 is still absurd value.

 

[blue harvest]

Whereas the clear imputation coming from your side is that 65 million is brought in by just the afl grand final rights.

its not - its just one part of the ticket.

if they got rid of just that part of the ticket outof the $650 per year? It cost what do you think they would charge.

If you take the GF out it destroys the whole paradigm. There aren't 200,000 on the waiting list for 30 years waiting to go to the cricket. If you want to go to cricket on Boxing Day you can just log on to Ticketek and buy a ticket, other days you just rock up to the gate and pay your $40 or whatever it is.

 

[Rich01]

But with members lined up for 20 years or However long theres a fair chance a good percentage are cricket nuts and arent as fased about losing the gf so they can be replaced easily?

They may well be Kranky. But why would the MCC choose to dilute their offer?

It makes NO SENSE from their point of view. They own the product. If another venue or location wants that product, they will need to pay for it.

That’s on the assumption that it’s actually for sale (I’d imagine the financial offer would need to be significantly overs for the MCC to even consider).

 

[doppleganger]

Whereas the clear imputation coming from your side is that 65 million is brought in by just the afl grand final rights.

its not - its just one part of the ticket.

if they got rid of just that part of the ticket outof the $650 per year? It cost what do you think they would charge.

No it is simply stating that the consistent revenue stream is how the club can take on ~ $400m debt to redevelop the ground.

Take that away and it would be State Govt forking out $500mil to upgrade the stadium.

So for taking on that debt, the reward is the reserve.

The GF access is obviously the carrot, and why people pay up for 30 odd years.

Provincial members (that new category you talked about) pay ~ $400 a season, but they also had to pay the $1,100 joining fee, so that is an extra $30m that has popped in the balance sheet plus the $12m a year extra ongoing with no big event access.

Would people bother with that if no GF access?

 

[blue harvest]

Lol. Isn't the Sporting Capital of the Universe nearly 4 times the size of Adelaide? If there was no GF as part of the ticket I'd hazard a guess there would still be 100,000 plus members of the MCC. 45 plus games of football plus cricket for $650 is still absurd value.

When you factor in the 30 year wait the value is not so absurd.
Take away the GF and AFL Membership becomes much better value.

 

[Sterge]

i'm not sure how arguing about the value of an mcc membership makes the AFL fairer but here we are none the less

The MCC put around 13,000 tickets into a ballot for the GF and the rest are for walk ups. Just restrict the initial Ballot to those that have AFL club support for the competing clubs if you are so worried about genuine fans getting to see their team.

This still favours Victorians and does nothing to address the MCG unfairness though

 

[doppleganger]

Lol. Isn't the Sporting Capital of the Universe nearly 4 times the size of Adelaide? If there was no GF as part of the ticket I'd hazard a guess there would still be 100,000 plus members of the MCC. 45 plus games of football plus cricket for $650 is still absurd value.

Yeah it looks good on paper from a ‘value’ perspective.

And with people already ponying up the $1100 joining many would keep paying.

But football isn’t about value, it is about emotion. People wait 30-40 years and pay the 1100 joining fee and then their membership fee every year often just to give them that better chance of seeing their club make a GF.

If you didn’t want to wait, and don’t pony up the close to $1k for the club member package with GF access just in case, then pay the $1500 for a corporate ticket and be done with it.

 

[Sterge]

Lol. Isn't the Sporting Capital of the Universe nearly 4 times the size of Adelaide? If there was no GF as part of the ticket I'd hazard a guess there would still be 100,000 plus members of the MCC. 45 plus games of football plus cricket for $650 is still absurd value.

50% of the mcc members I know would be lucky to attend 1 game per year, 2 of them don't even live in Victoria.