Should both teams from same state play GF in Home state

[Ashton Hams]

That is not entirely true, WA football received a grant of 1.9 Million to future proof football and thats when the WAFC was formed. The WAFL clubs themselves were all struggling financially just as the VFL clubs were, they probably were not in anywhere near the debt that VFL clubs were in though. The VFL went national to save their league and their clubs otherwise they would not have done so. Without national expansion at a minimum half the VFL clubs would of folded unless they had changed their financial ways or moved to a league better suited to their financial clout.
At some point pretty much every footy club in Australia has needed to be helped out. The AFL does it to this minute by topping up AFL clubs who can't afford to operate in this system. I think they call it the competitive balance fund. It's a bail out on a yearly basis. Call it whatever you like.
The WAFL and the VFL had no future continuing as they were, the VFL being the biggest league was the only one that could go national and hence here we are today.

Exactly, it makes sense to not have a suburban competition anymore, AFL couldn't have become a professional game like that.

To the original question, ideally we'd have a system like the NFL where we could rotate between several 100,000 seater stadiums. Until then though we have to keep it at the MCG, it's too big an event to be seen by only 70,000 which is the capacity at Optus.

 

[Senor M]

NFL Super Bowl style rotation is something that should have been looked at.

Rotate the Gf every three years out of Victoria and make this a truly national game.

So short sighted to sign a 50 year contract at a rapidly ageing stadium.

Soccer is coming (just look at junior participation rates) and we have locked ourselves out of utilising our biggest promotional tool.

The AFL only signed the 50-year contract because the MCC and the Victorian Government demanded that the Grand Final stays at the MCG. How is the 'rapidly ageing stadium' (that is between 12-25 years old depending on the stands) that the AFL wants upgraded for it's benefit supposed to get funding for upgrades if they don't agree to the terms of the Victorian state government??

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The AFL only signed the 50-year contract because the MCC and the Victorian Government demanded that the Grand Final stays at the MCG. How is the 'rapidly ageing stadium' (that is between 12-25 years old depending on the stands) that the AFL wants upgraded for it's benefit supposed to get funding for upgrades if they don't agree to the terms of the Victorian state government??

The AFL had much more power than that, the MCG goes broke without footy. The AFL should of said the game is now national and it would be derelict for us to sign an extension of this GF agreement. The Government and the MCG then can do whatever they want to do. You reckon they are going to say don't play games here?

Now I love the GF at the G and I think until other stadiums can hold 75-80k then it's not even a discussion but the AFL did the wrong thing here by the national game and the right thing by Victorian footy. And it is these stupid decisions that are the reason people outside of Victoria get up in arms over. When is the national concept going to be embraced by Victoria.

 

[00Stinger]

West coast v Freo
Adelaide v Port
Swans v GWS
Lion v Suns

I know MCG is contracted for GF but wouldn't it be a greater promotion if teams from same state play at home

What happens if Gold Coast were on top of the ladder all year, hell say they go through to the final undefeated and meet Brisbane in the final.

Do they play the game at Metricon in front of 25,000 fans?

 

[telsor]

False.

You think there would be fewer corporates at other grounds?

Or that the AFL would suddenly ditch it's cash cow (AFL members) if the game was at AO?

Even if you take out MCC members (and the money they pay), the remainder of the MCG is still bigger than any other option.

 

[bh90210fan]

You think there would be fewer corporates at other grounds?

Or that the AFL would suddenly ditch it's cash cow (AFL members) if the game was at AO?

Even if you take out MCC members (and the money they pay), the remainder of the MCG is still bigger than any other option.

You think all of the mcc members would just disappear? Hmm, don’t think so

 

[scarecrow2k1]

If we're allowed to just ditch contracts and facts when developing new ideas for the GF- I have a much more exciting option. The week after the GF, we should resurrect the players from the premiers 100 years earlier, and see who wins. Would have go 2017 Tiges vs 1917 Magpies.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

You think there would be fewer corporates at other grounds?

Or that the AFL would suddenly ditch it's cash cow (AFL members) if the game was at AO?

Even if you take out MCC members (and the money they pay), the remainder of the MCG is still bigger than any other option.

Won't be many AFL Members when they have to pay for flights and accommodation.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

You think all of the mcc members would just disappear? Hmm, don’t think so

Well the MCC wouldn't get tickets at Optus Stadium.

 

[telsor]

That is not entirely true, WA football received a grant of 1.9 Million to future proof football and thats when the WAFC was formed. The WAFL clubs themselves were all struggling financially just as the VFL clubs were, they probably were not in anywhere near the debt that VFL clubs were in though. The VFL went national to save their league and their clubs otherwise they would not have done so. Without national expansion at a minimum half the VFL clubs would of folded unless they had changed their financial ways or moved to a league better suited to their financial clout.
At some point pretty much every footy club in Australia has needed to be helped out. The AFL does it to this minute by topping up AFL clubs who can't afford to operate in this system. I think they call it the competitive balance fund. It's a bail out on a yearly basis. Call it whatever you like.
The WAFL and the VFL had no future continuing as they were, the VFL being the biggest league was the only one that could go national and hence here we are today.

VFL clubs had higher debts, but they also had higher revenues and capacity to sevice those debts. Relatively speaking, they were probably in similar financial condition. Vic clubs had more options...yes they chose to expand, get the new clubs to pay for their share of VFL assets and distribute those funds to help them out, but they did have other options as well (the one most discussed at the time being stopping paying transfer fees, which would have brutalised the WAFL/SANFL/etc, but probably saved the VFL clubs....for a while at least).

The real change however what that TV/media rights were starting to take off, going national maximised that (happening as it did alongside increased media concentration), which made a MUCH bigger difference than the license fees, but even if they hadn't expanded, it would have been a big change to club/league finances, especially for the VFL (having both the biggest local market and the best chance to sell rights interstate).

As you say, VFL expansion was really the only way it was realistically going to happen, but I'd add that if it didn't happen as it did, it would have happened a few years later anyway, probably on the back of expanding media $$$ and driven by the quest for greater market share, and if that had happened, it might well have been even more 'Vic-centric' (think more South Melbourne->Sydney, or Hawthorn-> Tas style 'expansions' than new clubs).

 

[telsor]

You think all of the mcc members would just disappear? Hmm, don’t think so

I don't think that, but that seems to be the belief of those who think you could move the game from a 100K ground to a far smaller ground without losing a significant number of seats that would have gone to the participating clubs.

My point was that even if they did disappear, the rest is still bigger than the other ground options.

 

[telsor]

Won't be many AFL Members when they have to pay for flights and accommodation.

Sounds like another compelling reason why the AFL wouldn't do that then. Both because of all that money they'd lose, and the simple logistic impossibility of having the number of people who would want and expect (contractual obligations with sponsors and Members) to see the game travel on short notice.

But still, there are what, 60,000 AFL members? Don't you think that even 10-15K would make the trek over to Adelaide? That's a lot of seats lost from a 50K ground. Gets even worse when you look at having the game at NSW/QLD grounds.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

But still, there are what, 60,000 AFL members? Don't you think that even 10-15K would make the trek over to Adelaide?

No. They're AFL Members because they live in Melbourne. If the grand final's in another state and they have to give up their weekend the vast majority simply won't go.

 

[bh90210fan]

Well the MCC wouldn't get tickets at Optus Stadium.

How much does a gf ticket cost for a mcc member?

 

[scarecrow2k1]

How much does a gf ticket cost for a mcc member?

Only full Members get access. They can enter the ballot to get a guaranteed ticket- I think the cost is around $20. If they fail, or chose not to enter, they can line up on the day and enter for free.

Having said that, the MCC charge full members around $200 more than a restricted member, and the only difference is a grand final ticket, so it's essentially costing the full members $200 per year whether they chose to use it or not.

 

[telsor]

No. They're AFL Members because they live in Melbourne. If the grand final's in another state and they have to give up their weekend the vast majority simply won't go.

So fans from outside Vic travel in tens of thousands, but AFL members wouldn't? Seems unlikely.

and how much money do you think that would cost the AFL? Both is reduced price for memberships (no GF) and with the many who wouldn't sign up for future years?

 

[bh90210fan]

Only full Members get access. They can enter the ballot to get a guaranteed ticket- I think the cost is around $20. If they fail, or chose not to enter, they can line up on the day and enter for free.

Having said that, the MCC charge full members around $200 more than a restricted member, and the only difference is a grand final ticket, so it's essentially costing the full members $200 per year whether they chose to use it or not.

So unless all of the mcc members decided to give up their memberships, the revenue they generate won’t be affected by moving the grand final

 

[telsor]

Only full Members get access. They can enter the ballot to get a guaranteed ticket- I think the cost is around $20. If they fail, or chose not to enter, they can line up on the day and enter for free.

Having said that, the MCC charge full members around $200 more than a restricted member, and the only difference is a grand final ticket, so it's essentially costing the full members $200 per year whether they chose to use it or not.

Pretty sure the MCC pays the AFL for every attendee...Something like the lowest regular entry price for each, which is 'cheap' but still adds up to a fair amount.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

So unless all of the mcc members decided to give up their memberships, the revenue they generate won’t be affected by moving the grand final

Pretty sure the MCC pays the AFL for every attendee...Something like the lowest regular entry price for each, which is 'cheap' but still adds up to a fair amount.

Yeah- I was also under the impression that the MCC pays the AFL/Tenant/Whoever for attendees for all games.

 

[bh90210fan]

I don't think that, but that seems to be the belief of those who think you could move the game from a 100K ground to a far smaller ground without losing a significant number of seats that would have gone to the participating clubs.

My point was that even if they did disappear, the rest is still bigger than the other ground options.

No. Take out the mcc members and reduce the number of afl members and you’ll end up with a much greater % of competing club members attending. If you take out the mcc members and have a look at the grand final seat allocation you’ll realise that a grand final can be quite easily be held at a 70 000 seat stadium

Going on about lost revenue is not even relevant when half the crowd on gf day get to attend with just the cost of their memberships alone. This revenue will still be there if the grand final were to be moved, Afl members will still get to attend and a 10 year waiting list is enough of a demand to safely suggest that the mcc memberships will remain sold out

 

[garlic munchers]

No. Take out the mcc members and reduce the number of afl members and you’ll end up with a much greater % of competing club members attending. If you take out the mcc members and have a look at the grand final seat allocation you’ll realise that a grand final can be quite easily be held at a 70 000 seat stadium

Going on about lost revenue is not even relevant when half the crowd on gf day get to attend with just the cost of their memberships alone. This revenue will still be there if the grand final were to be moved, Afl members will still get to attend and a 10 year waiting list is enough of a demand to safely suggest that the mcc memberships will remain sold out

Correct.

I love how many defending keeping the GF at the MCG, swing easily between arguing its tradition and/or it would cost too much in lost revenue because apparently now not so passionate AFL members, would give us their memberships.

Firstly, there is nothing traditional about AFL memberships and giving priority to others over competing GF'ists supporters/members, is the very essence of the Corporate Franchise tag leveled against WC, Crows etc.

Further, given the 3 categories of AFL Membership range between $600pa to $250pa, dont tell me you couldn't sell GF package tickets in most years for these amounts and still get the same revenue.

Hell, I suspect you could easily charge a premium of $1000 plus for a fair few seats at a Tigers/collingwood v WC/Demons GF and $250.00 seats would sell out.

 

[telsor]

No. Take out the mcc members and reduce the number of afl members and you’ll end up with a much greater % of competing club members attending. If you take out the mcc members and have a look at the grand final seat allocation you’ll realise that a grand final can be quite easily be held at a 70 000 seat stadium

Going on about lost revenue is not even relevant when half the crowd on gf day get to attend with just the cost of their memberships alone. This revenue will still be there if the grand final were to be moved, Afl members will still get to attend and a 10 year waiting list is enough of a demand to safely suggest that the mcc memberships will remain sold out

Not a lot of 70,000 seat stadia around (indeed, now that ANZ has been reshaped, there is only 1...the MCG). What about for smaller grounds...those grand finals at Metricon wont have a lot of fans after all.

How many of those members who 'don't pay' wouldn't buy memberships if the GF wasn't part of their package? Lose 5,000 members and a fair bit of coin is lost. Cut the MCC out and not only is money lost on the day, but the people who pay for building and upgrading the ground are fewer, which would mean the stadium deal would be less lucrative for...the AFL (who make roughly as much as the clubs combined out of that deal).

 

[telsor]

Correct.

I love how many defending keeping the GF at the MCG, swing easily between arguing its tradition and/or it would cost too much in lost revenue because apparently now not so passionate AFL members, would give us their memberships.

Firstly, there is nothing traditional about AFL memberships and giving priority to others over competing GF'ists supporters/members, is the very essence of the Corporate Franchise tag leveled against WC, Crows etc.

Further, given the 3 categories of AFL Membership range between $600pa to $250pa, dont tell me you couldn't sell GF package tickets in most years for these amounts and still get the same revenue.

Hell, I suspect you could easily charge a premium of $1000 plus for a fair few seats at a Tigers/collingwood v WC/Demons GF and $250.00 seats would sell out.

Personally, I'd love for them to get rid of AFL members. They're yet another tax on Vic clubs after all, and Vic clubs have tried to get rid of them several times over the years.

But if you think the money grubbing AFL hasn't done the numbers and decided that they make significantly more money from their existence than from getting rid of them, then you're an idiot. Why else would they keep them?


BTW...When you say there is nothing traditional about them, they have more 'tradition' (or at least, a longer history) than any non Vic clubs, having been around since before any of them (except Sydney...if you include their Sth Melbourne days) having been around since the construction of VFL park Waverley.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not a lot of 70,000 seat stadia around (indeed, now that ANZ has been reshaped, there is only 1...the MCG). What about for smaller grounds...those grand finals at Metricon wont have a lot of fans after all.

How many of those members who 'don't pay' wouldn't buy memberships if the GF wasn't part of their package? Lose 5,000 members and a fair bit of coin is lost. Cut the MCC out and not only is money lost on the day, but the people who pay for building and upgrading the ground are fewer, which would mean the stadium deal would be less lucrative for...the AFL (who make roughly as much as the clubs combined out of that deal).

This old chestnut!!!!!! It must be September.

There are approx 100,000 MCC Members who spend approx $60 mil in fees every year, not to mention money on drink and food. The Members reserve is 22,000 capacity so each seat is paid for five times over. This money pays for ground maintenance, security and and ground development.

And unlike club supporters, they dont have the luxury of opting in and out on a whim from year to year depending on how their team goes. If you dont renew your membership you lose it forever.

 

[bh90210fan]

Not a lot of 70,000 seat stadia around (indeed, now that ANZ has been reshaped, there is only 1...the MCG). What about for smaller grounds...those grand finals at Metricon wont have a lot of fans after all.

How many of those members who 'don't pay' wouldn't buy memberships if the GF wasn't part of their package? Lose 5,000 members and a fair bit of coin is lost. Cut the MCC out and not only is money lost on the day, but the people who pay for building and upgrading the ground are fewer, which would mean the stadium deal would be less lucrative for...the AFL (who make roughly as much as the clubs combined out of that deal).

Afl members would still get gf privileges in a 70 000 seat stadium so the AFL wouldn’t lose out there first off and i think you are underselling the extraordinary value that a mcc membership would still represent without the grand final access every year. I’d buy a membership if I didn’t have to wait a lifetime and I could go to any game, finals, test matches, get the best seats and drink full strength beer all day in a glass all for the same cost as watching 11 games of regular season footy over here