Round 23

[tigs2010]

You will find that when MCG tenants play away from the MCG with it's 100k MCC members and 50k AFL members (and sole access to half the stadium) their own numbers to games aren't that Herculean, even Collingwood pulls mediocre numbers to Docklands away from the MCG.

As is typified whenever we play finals at the MCG; 78,559 vs Essendon and 65,963 vs Cats last year while had 77,630 vs Geelong and 74,981 vs Hawks in 2007, those are the last four finals we played in Melbourne, all at the MCG with the extra neutrals.

The excuses you hear form Richmond and Hawthorn fans that 'they don't like going to a world class stadium' are pretty idiotic. What is horrible about it? Not being blinded by the sun? Not having god urinate on you during the match? It's got grass, goal posts and seats, it has all it ever needs to get fans to games. We just don't have the largest supporter base going around at present. The only thing it lacks is padding on about 20-30k neutral supporters to game to make tenants look better than they are.

Why are you comparing regular games with finals? We played a final there and had like 96k there

 

[Mile High Tiger]

You will find that when MCG tenants play away from the MCG with it's 100k MCC members and 50k AFL members (and sole access to half the stadium) their own numbers to games aren't that Herculean, even Collingwood pulls mediocre numbers to Docklands away from the MCG.

As is typified whenever we play finals at the MCG; 78,559 vs Essendon and 65,963 vs Cats last year while had 77,630 vs Geelong and 74,981 vs Hawks in 2007, those are the last four finals we played in Melbourne, all at the MCG with the extra neutrals.

The excuses you hear form Richmond and Hawthorn fans that 'they don't like going to a world class stadium' are pretty idiotic. What is horrible about it? Not being blinded by the sun? Not having god urinate on you during the match? It's got grass, goal posts and seats, it has all it ever needs to get fans to games. We just don't have the largest supporter base going around at present. The only thing it lacks is padding on about 20-30k neutral supporters to game to make tenants look better than they are.

World class... you can't be serious. It's not even close. Have a look at some of the new ones in the US if you want to see world class. Etihad is a dingy piece of crap. They couldn't even design the goals to face east/west which reduces the sun issue. Remember how they hung 48cm colour TVs from the rafters on level 3 for about the first 12 years? Remember the surface for the first 5 years because they'd messed up the design regarding sun exposure? Remember how they had to widen the access walkway to Southern Cross because of the crush? That place is a world class joke.

 

[Tas]

Why are you comparing regular games with finals? We played a final there and had like 96k there

That is the point, anyone can attract a decent crowd at the MCG if there is enough interest in the game due to the access neutrals have to the stadium, MCC and AFL members have sole access to about 40,000 seats. If they wanted to and the MCC allowed the 250,000 people currently on the MCC waiting list to have access to the stadium then teams could probably sell out games without any of their non-MCC/AFL members getting into the stadium. It wouldn't be a reflection of the pulling power of teams, but of the stadium itself.

Teams like Richmond, Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton have larger supporter bases, but none of them can sell out Docklands against an interstate team, even in a highly anticipated game and it has nothing to do with supporters not like Docklands, that is just a BigFooty excuse. If you loved watching your team play you would go watch them play in a swamp.

 

[tigs2010]

That is the point, anyone can attract a decent crowd at the MCG if there is enough interest in the game due to the access neutrals have to the stadium, MCC and AFL members have sole access to about 40,000 seats. If they wanted to and the MCC allowed the 250,000 people currently on the MCC waiting list to have access to the stadium then teams could probably sell out games without any of their non-MCC/AFL members getting into the stadium. It wouldn't be a reflection of the pulling power of teams, but of the stadium itself.

Teams like Richmond, Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton have larger supporter bases, but none of them can sell out Docklands against an interstate team, even in a highly anticipated game and it has nothing to do with supporters not like Docklands, that is just a BigFooty excuse. If you loved watching your team play you would go watch them play in a swamp.

So North games are only interesting if its a final? Of course that's going to inflate the numbers.

As for the MCG v Etihad debate, I guarantee we'd pull more at the MCG playing the same opponent in the same situation. Etihad is a pain in the arse to get to, pain in the arse to park, no free parking etc. I still go regardless but much prefer the G. The ones that won't go are the more casual fans that will be put off by Etihad being a pain in the arse.

Edit: I'm an AFL member and I have equal access to Etihad as I do the MCG so not sure why that's used as an excuse tbh.

 

[tigerdan]

Etihad is shit. I hate it.

Anyway the root cause of this ****ed up deal is not Richmond or North.

It's those pin-dicked dweebs at Essendon and Carlton who chose to make their home ground at Shitihad and then convinced the AFL to play home games at the MCG due to supposedly being 'marquee games'.

I think it's fair to say that the Blues and Bummers will be getting the rough end of the pineapple next year and our home games will be at the MCG where they should be.

 

[Rezza Tiger]

Hate the **** out of shittyhad - I would punch it in the campaigner if that was possible. Nothing we can do about it unfortunately so let's just get in there get the points (or tank it if situation warrants it) and get the **** out of that hell hole.

By the way can we just scan in on our memberships or will GA be severely limited?

 

[Tas]

So North games are only interesting if its a final? Of course that's going to inflate the numbers.

It is important to compare apples with apples, not apples vs oranges. The only time we can compare teams that are based at the MCG with teams that are not is when they play at the MCG so you can discount the neutral factor, the only time this can be done is with finals attendances at the MCG.

Victorian teams come in 3 tiers, T1= Collingwood, Richmond, Essendon and Carlton. T2 = Hawthorn and Geelong and T3 = North, Dogs and Saints. This is the general supporter base size groupings. When you look at finals crowd at the MCG from 2000-2014 (excluding GFs because clubs limited access to those), then T1 vs T1 games average 86,241, T1 vs T2 average 84,723, T2 vs T2 average 77,403, T1 vs T3 average 74,403, T2 vs T3 average 69,706 and lastly T3 vs T3 average 65,274.

There are no real surprises in those crowd numbers. Looking at the best case scenario, two tier one clubs playing each other in a final at the MCG vs the worst case scenario, two tier three clubs playing each other in a final at the MCG then the difference in averages is 20,967, or 10,483 per club. That in essence is the difference between the big clubs and the small clubs in terms of pulling power when you exclude the neutral factor, around 10k. For clubs that have around double the members and probably 3x or more in terms of supporter base. It isn't significant.

As for the MCG v Etihad debate, I guarantee we'd pull more at the MCG playing the same opponent in the same situation.

Of course you will, MCC has 100k members, with 250k on a waiting list, with an average waiting time of 41 years, there is high demand for those memberships and people clutch onto them with cold icy fingers until they die. AFL has around 40-50k members or so? They have exclusive access combined to about 40,000 seats at the MCG which they don't at Docklands. AFL members have access to 2k seats at Docklands and I am not sure what Medallion Club/Access One has access to, but it is not remotely close and these are typically very expensive corporate memberships.

Etihad is a pain in the arse to get to, pain in the arse to park, no free parking etc. I still go regardless but much prefer the G. The ones that won't go are the more casual fans that will be put off by Etihad being a pain in the arse.

I agree to some extent, MCG can be more painful depending on which side of the city you come from, either stadium is pretty easy to get to by train. For those used to travelling to the CBD, both stations are pretty easy to access. The major difference is driving to Docklands, it is a pita.

Edit: I'm an AFL member and I have equal access to Etihad as I do the MCG so not sure why that's used as an excuse tbh.

There are 2,000 seats that are first come, first served. AFL members have a lot more access to the MCG. My comparison of MCG finals eliminates the neutral factor and compares the real difference between smaller, medium and larger clubs.

 

[guruisatiger]

Get a message to Isis that will sort that stadium

ive got better contacts than that much better ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

agree with the sentiment, the G rocks, Etihad not as good. But being from country Vic, the access isnt an issue for me. We drive from our town to Seymour and then train it to the front door. I understand location wise for Melb peeps it sux. Prefer G every day of the week, but if at Etihad it doesnt stop us from going. Main issue is we dont play it as well as Kangas do.

 

[SplintWhisky]

You will find that when MCG tenants play away from the MCG with it's 100k MCC members and 50k AFL members (and sole access to half the stadium) their own numbers to games aren't that Herculean, even Collingwood pulls mediocre numbers to Docklands away from the MCG.

As is typified whenever we play finals at the MCG; 78,559 vs Essendon and 65,963 vs Cats last year while had 77,630 vs Geelong and 74,981 vs Hawks in 2007, those are the last four finals we played in Melbourne, all at the MCG with the extra neutrals.

The excuses you hear form Richmond and Hawthorn fans that 'they don't like going to a world class stadium' are pretty idiotic. What is horrible about it? Not being blinded by the sun? Not having god urinate on you during the match? It's got grass, goal posts and seats, it has all it ever needs to get fans to games. We just don't have the largest supporter base going around at present. The only thing it lacks is padding on about 20-30k neutral supporters to game to make tenants look better than they are.

My main problem is with the ******** who made the screens protrued out and make about 250 seats not able to see half the ground. Who ever designed the seating and screen placement of that stadium is a moron

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Richmond wanted to play the games in Hobart, and were the club that made that arrangement. AFL said no to your club but said they would allow the games if they could get us to agree to playing there, at the time we were playing 11 games at Docklands but had requested to move all of our home games back to the MCG given the AFL's broken promises with Docklands. AFL refused. So we were left with the option of playing some games at Hobart, or fighting with the AFL on a possible restraint of trade, ask Carlton and Essendon how well it panned out taking the AFL on in the courts. Even if you win, the will screw you constantly.

North, Dogs and Saints have no contractual obligation to play any games there, but the AFL forces us to play the games there. Other Victorian clubs like Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond, etc make up the rest of the shortfall. AFL has agreements with these stadiums, only Essendon as far as I am aware have a contract still in place with the stadium owners.

All of our clubs to some extent are being dicked around by AFL house, some more than others.

If we didn't play any games in Hobart, there would be less pressure on others to fill some of that void, but we are being held hostage by the AFL forced to play there. You might be getting screwed once a year, we were being screwed there 11 times a year before Hobart and are only being screwed 8 times a year now. The commission has ballsed up the entire MCG and Docklands contracts denying clubs the opportunity to make the revenue they need to maintain healthy clubs. You can't really be blaming my club for that.

Frankly I don't care where You play your home games, and was more than happy for us to play you in tassie

It's bullshit you get two home ground advantage games in a single H&R season against us

Oh, and you chose to leave the G for Etihad, don't bitch now just because your management at the time did the math wrong

 

[Tas]

Frankly I don't care where You play your home games, and was more than happy for us to play you in tassie

It's bullshit you get two home ground advantage games in a single H&R season against us

Oh, and you chose to leave the G for Etihad, don't bitch now just because your management at the time did the math wrong

There is a difference between us doing the math wrong and the AFL lying about what they would provide.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

There is a difference between us doing the math wrong and the AFL lying about what they would provide.

Still, you made the call

Why the **** should you get two home games against us?

 

[Tas]

Still, you made the call

Why the **** should you get two home games against us?

We don't, it is your home game.

Games at MCG and Docklands are neutral for Victorian clubs. If a club can't perform at either venue it is just making bad excuses.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

We don't, it is your home game.

Games at MCG and Docklands are neutral for Victorian clubs. If a club can't perform at either venue it is just making bad excuses.

No it's not our home ground

If it was out club would not be saying we want to play ZERO home games there every year

Also don't forget to take groupie with you can to your board, we voted him off the island and he's kone of yours now

 

[Mile High Tiger]

We don't, it is your home game.

Games at MCG and Docklands are neutral for Victorian clubs. If a club can't perform at either venue it is just making bad excuses.

MCG has been our home ground for 50 years. Other clubs using it doesn't change that.

 

[Tas]

No it's not our home ground

If it was out club would not be saying we want to play ZERO home games there every year

Also don't forget to take groupie with you can to your board, we voted him off the island and he's kone of yours now

I said it was your home game, not home ground.

I think it would be reasonable to say that the AFL should make every effort to ensure if you do play at Docklands it is not against a team that plays the majority of their games there.

However, ALL Victorian clubs signed on to the sale of Waverley and the construction of Docklands, that includes facilitating the agreement between the AFL and the stadium owners, clubs who played there only agreed to play there for a fixed term and that term expired for North, Dogs and Saints a long time ago.

If our clubs exercised our legal right to not be forced to play all our Melbourne games there then each club would still be forced to meet the game requirements, that burden would be spread equally though, because all our clubs still have that agreemetn with the AFL to meet the contractual obligations.

Your club 'should' have the right to play your home games wherever you want, however, all of our clubs have to honour the agreements we have made. We have more than honoured ours, our obligations to play a greater number of games there expired in 2007, we have no greater obligation than Richmond or any other Victorian club has of playing games at Docklands, all of our clubs made the same agreement with the AFL.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I said it was your home game, not home ground.

I think it would be reasonable to say that the AFL should make every effort to ensure if you do play at Docklands it is not against a team that plays the majority of their games there.

However, ALL Victorian clubs signed on to the sale of Waverley and the construction of Docklands, that includes facilitating the agreement between the AFL and the stadium owners, clubs who played there only agreed to play there for a fixed term and that term expired for North, Dogs and Saints a long time ago.

If our clubs exercised our legal right to not be forced to play all our Melbourne games there then each club would still be forced to meet the game requirements, that burden would be spread equally though, because all our clubs still have that agreemetn with the AFL to meet the contractual obligations.

Your club 'should' have the right to play your home games wherever you want, however, all of our clubs have to honour the agreements we have made. We have more than honoured ours, our obligations to play a greater number of games there expired in 2007, we have no greater obligation than Richmond or any other Victorian club has of playing games at Docklands, all of our clubs made the same agreement with the AFL.

I get why there is a quota, but it's absurd we play gws and GC at the g, but we normally play kangas, dogs, and saints at Etihad

Jfyi part of the tiger anger is every year recently at least one of our Etihad home games is against an Etihad tenant club

 

[Tas]

I get why there is a quota, but it's absurd we play gws and GC at the g, but we normally play kangas, dogs, and saints at Etihad

Jfyi part of the tiger anger is every year recently at least one of our Etihad home games is against an Etihad tenant club

Oh, definitely, it is stupid you play us there. However, there are only a certain number of permutations and combinations possible for scheduling once you factor all the manipulation to fill all the desired slots they want. The more they fiddle with the draw the harder it becomes to avoid things like this scheduling issue.

We actually ask for our bigger drawing games to be scheduled at the MCG but they don't do it because they have very limited scope when trying to meet the requirements for Docklands. They need to meet quotas on total games, total attendances and have a certain number of games that have the potential to be sold out. If they don't meet those then there are either fines the AFL must pay or arrangements to give them even more games the following season, either scenario is undesirable.

When the AFL takes ownership of the stadium and clubs will make money playing there (hopefully) then you will likely see the forced games disappear, clubs are shifting a lot of games because our 2 games in Tasmania returned more than 11 games at Docklands. With a bit of luck the AFL will have scope within the next broadcasting deal to acquire the stadium, the asking price for it will decline significantly with each passing year, as the AFL will take ownership for $0 at the end of 2025 if a buyout isn't arranged sooner.

 

[tigerz18]

Richmond are big enough now that we can build and fill out a 70k seat stadium. Build it out at Goshchs Paddock, boot the Demons out of there and we'll build an all purpose stadium, otherwise you could build one down at the end of swan st across from the burnley golf club.
You then hire it out for concerts etc, and allow other clubs to use it instead of etihad, and bingo, we have income as well. This is something the chief would LOVE to do - he can even name a stand after himself.

If doesnt need to rival the G as the afl can still play gfs there.

just spitballing but Richmond are probably the only club that could afford to run their own stadium as the supporter base is good enough to constantly sell out the ground

 

[SpudsLoveChild]

Everyone's a bit harsh on lol norf here.
We're helping them out as the supporters can only cover the cost of fuel for the team bus from Arden St to Docklands.

 

[a_fighting_fury]

By the way can we just scan in on our memberships or will GA be severely limited?

3000 general admission seats allocated for members, and after they're gone you won't be able to scan in. (I think I got this right) Gates open at 5:30pm.

Club recommended upgrading to a reserved seat for about an extra $20-25 on Ticketmaster.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Is it possible for the game to be moved to the G.
No other footy there that day, not sure about anything else though. Our home game so its not being unfair. Only reason it is there because under contract we need to play a certain amount of games there but if the AFL moved it and just paid Ethihad x amount of $, Ethihad wouldn't care.

 

[TiggerMan22]

We don't, it is your home game.

Games at MCG and Docklands are neutral for Victorian clubs. If a club can't perform at either venue it is just making bad excuses.

Its our home game at your home ground.
No way is Ethihad neutral. Clearly somes teams like you and Dogs play better at Ethihad. While others play better at the G (us).
While the fixture says 1 home game each, you might as well get 2.

 

[TiggerMan22]

I said it was your home game, not home ground.

I think it would be reasonable to say that the AFL should make every effort to ensure if you do play at Docklands it is not against a team that plays the majority of their games there.

However, ALL Victorian clubs signed on to the sale of Waverley and the construction of Docklands, that includes facilitating the agreement between the AFL and the stadium owners, clubs who played there only agreed to play there for a fixed term and that term expired for North, Dogs and Saints a long time ago.

If our clubs exercised our legal right to not be forced to play all our Melbourne games there then each club would still be forced to meet the game requirements, that burden would be spread equally though, because all our clubs still have that agreemetn with the AFL to meet the contractual obligations.

Your club 'should' have the right to play your home games wherever you want, however, all of our clubs have to honour the agreements we have made. We have more than honoured ours, our obligations to play a greater number of games there expired in 2007, we have no greater obligation than Richmond or any other Victorian club has of playing games at Docklands, all of our clubs made the same agreement with the AFL.

Sure. We have to play a couple games at Ethihad. Maybe dont fixture them to be against teams whos actual home ground is Ethihiad. Make us play West Coast and Gold Coast there instead of at the G. That way we still kind of get a home ground advantage and then we play North at the G.
The fixturing is bs, you would have to be completely biased to think that its fair we play our home game at your home ground.