The Great Injustice - The Grand Final Contract thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
70,724
129,531
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
The AFL should start a system like the NFL. State Governments should get a chance to bid for the grand final at their chosen stadium.
That's not how the NFL works

The reason it moves from city to city is because the cost of hosting is so high, and they have a tonne of cities chancing the chance to host. Reality is we have two stadium that are bidding with 60k+ , which significantly downplays the competitive tension to juice a price for a one of event.

The USA stadium model isn't one to copy, as it's just private owners and the NFL ******* over stupid city councils
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
33,437
32,578
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
The AFL should start a system like the NFL. State Governments should get a chance to bid for the grand final at their chosen stadium.
Trouble is, if they did that, Vic/Melbourne/MCG would be miles ahead every time.

~40K extra seats on GF day would mean around over $10Million just in ticket sales. An extra 40,000 people would also mean a lot more 'economic activity', meaning the government would be inclined to chip in more as well.

So you're talking about $15M before you're even getting to the point where Vic thinks there is any competition.

Just how much do you think other cities would bid?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JackBero

champ
Jul 22, 2019
3,670
3,829
JORDON BUTTS
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Fighting Furies and North Adelaide
Trouble is, if they did that, Vic/Melbourne/MCG would be miles ahead every time.

~40K extra seats on GF day would mean around over $10Million just in ticket sales. An extra 40,000 people would also mean a lot more 'economic activity', meaning the government would be inclined to chip in more as well.

So you're talking about $15M before you're even getting to the point where Vic thinks there is any competition.

Just how much do you think other cities would bid?
For the past 10 years, there has been a Victorian in the Grand Final. If the Grannie goes interstate then fans of the teams that are in the GF will go as well giving a good reason for stadiums, state governments or cities to put a good bid in as it will bring in big $$$.
 

Rob

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2000
30,443
17,873
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Trouble is, if they did that, Vic/Melbourne/MCG would be miles ahead every time.

~40K extra seats on GF day would mean around over $10Million just in ticket sales. An extra 40,000 people would also mean a lot more 'economic activity', meaning the government would be inclined to chip in more as well.

So you're talking about $15M before you're even getting to the point where Vic thinks there is any competition.

Just how much do you think other cities would bid?
You're probably right, which makes it even more ridiculous that the AFL would entertain a long term contract and lock it in.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
33,437
32,578
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
You're probably right, which makes it even more ridiculous that the AFL would entertain a long term contract and lock it in.
Long term contract really is just a bidding system, just that rather than bidding for 1 year, the Vic government 'bid' for a much longer run, and the AFL figured it was as good a deal as they were likely to get so didn't bother going through a big formal process.
 

Rob

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2000
30,443
17,873
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Long term contract really is just a bidding system, just that rather than bidding for 1 year, the Vic government 'bid' for a much longer run, and the AFL figured it was as good a deal as they were likely to get so didn't bother going through a big formal process.
A bidding system implies multiple parties competing against each other. The AFL didn't even try.

Even something as simple as saying to the WA government "you know that stadium you're building? Make it 80k and you're a chance" would have helped the league get a better deal. It was at best incompetent from the AFL, at worst corrupt.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
33,437
32,578
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
For the past 10 years, there has been a Victorian in the Grand Final. If the Grannie goes interstate then fans of the teams that are in the GF will go as well giving a good reason for stadiums, state governments or cities to put a good bid in as it will bring in big $$$.
And when there has been a non-Vic team (without looking, that's pretty often), the Vic government would see similar effects, just bigger (bigger ground, bigger crowd, particularly ore travellers, and thus bigger $$$), so would presumably be willing to pay more to get/keep the game. (unless another government goes for a bid that defies economics, presumably for domestic political gain...AKA buying votes).

Also, as mentioned elsewhere, events like that create issues with infrastructure limits. If no local team is playing, you'd be looking at 40-50,000 visitors, which really stretches any cities limitations on airports and hotels (even restaurants, etc) and as a result you'd be squeezing out other (much smaller) events, so the benefits wouldn't be as great.

Melbourne gets around this both by being bigger generally (and thus, the same number is a smaller % of the total) and by having lots of big events all through the year (Australian Open, F1 grand prix, spring racing, etc etc) which means there is a larger degree of surplus capacity already in place.

Conversely, the city most likely to host the GF apart from Melbourne would be Perth, which is the most isolated city on earth, making all the infrastructure problems even greater (particularly the travel related ones) due to lack of options.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
33,437
32,578
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
A bidding system implies multiple parties competing against each other. The AFL didn't even try.

Even something as simple as saying to the WA government "you know that stadium you're building? Make it 80k and you're a chance" would have helped the league get a better deal. It was at best incompetent from the AFL, at worst corrupt.
I think it's more a matter of them realising that the effort wasn't worth the reward.

A formal/serious bidding process costs $$$ (think Olympics, although obviously much smaller) and if you think it's the likelihood of a second bidder having a winning bid is particularly small, it's not really worth the effort, or the risk of alienating the likely winning bidder with their 9 figure multi-year 'bid'.
 
Last edited:

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
12,980
8,007
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
since when do the afl give a toss about the growth of the game? run by victorians for victorians
If that was the case we'd still have the VFL before it was nationalised and no WC, Freo, Ade, Bris, Syd, GC and GWS. and you'd be happy.

If they didn't give a toss about growing the game why would they bother siphoning endless amounts of cash into the northern states?, why bother sending teams to China or NZ?

As incompetent as they are what you claim could not be further from the truth, they're hell bent come hell or high-water to make this code the most popular in rl states. So yeah it's run by a South Australian who has fantastical ideas about it taking over the country if not the world.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
34,686
32,500
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
A bidding system implies multiple parties competing against each other. The AFL didn't even try.

Even something as simple as saying to the WA government "you know that stadium you're building? Make it 80k and you're a chance" would have helped the league get a better deal. It was at best incompetent from the AFL, at worst corrupt.
There wasnt a bidding system for one primary reason: the AFL wanted money to upgrade Docklands and it needed it now.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
34,686
32,500
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
The 1980's
In 1981, after a unanimous vote of the VFL Board, the League announced the Grand Final would move to VFL Park for 1984[2] as the VFL set about its $14 million plan to expand and inprove the facilities at Waverly Park[3]. As 1983 approached the premier was threatening to force the Trust to intervene, and the MCC was flat out refusing to lease the ground to the VFL instead offering to waive a $250,000 rental fee[4]. The Government also declined to approve the VFL plan to extend the seating capacity at VFL Park to 104,000. The plan had the support of the then PM, Malcom Fraser who felt the VFL should be able to spend their money on their own facilities.[5]

According to The Phoenix Rises (Ross Oakley)

Matters that had festered for 20 years had come to a head over the VFL’s determination to hold the 1984 Grand Final at VFL Park. The government of John Cain junior wasn’t having a bar of it, and the MCG trustees and the MCC were digging in on a VFL claim for a better financial deal on the use of the MCG by football. Dr John Lill, former secretary of the MCC, told me that at one stage Aylett — who was quite correctly pushing for a reduction in the percentage of gate receipts paid to the Trust, from 17.5 to 15 per cent—had been confronted with a “dead bat” from Trust chair and former premier Sir Henry Bolte. Aylett stated that if the Trust would not move, then the next game between Collingwood and Melbourne would not be played at the MCG. Bolte, in typical style, said, “That’s a chance I’m prepared to take.”

But the Grand Final discussion was at a stalemate, as Aylett recalls, and the VFL offered a“compromise": “Late in 1983, when the matter was deadlocked, the League said we would consider the MCG as the 1984 Grand Final venue if we could lease the entire ground (including the MCC Members’ section) for the Grand Final day … VFL Park members would have had exclusive use of the MCC Members’ reserve.”

In the end Cain drew a line in the sand and threatened to prevent the Grand Final moving through legislation if he had to. The thing was a mess, but in many ways summed up the state of play and the strange, obstinate alternative realities inhabited by the MCC and the VFL. In truth, each needed the other and both could claim, with good reason, strong bonds to the MCG turf.

Our estimate was that football accounted for more than 70 per cent of revenues at the MCG, and yet the calendar of usage of the ground was split 50-50 between cricket and football and we had to put up with a wicket in the middle of the ground that routinely reduced the place to a mud heap in a wet winter. As we saw it, most cricket matches other than Tests and international one-day games could be played at smaller venues (John Lill told me money was spent on Punt Road Oval for this purpose64).

In all the research it was very clear that the majority of our supporters saw the MCG as the home of football. They weren’t too keen on Waverley. So it was clear that if we pushed on with Waverley we were making a rod for our backs. It would have been a total disaster. Waverley had a great surface and good corporate facilities, but it was in the wrong location for transport, and wasn’t a pleasant place to visit as it was in Melbourne’s rain belt.

Two things dominated our focus. First, we needed to lock in the Grand Final at the MCG on favourable terms, and we might need to sign a very long-term deal in order to do that. Second, we needed to gain rights for our VFL members and provide them with appropriate facilities at the G.

In early April 1987, Browne and I met with Cordner and Lill with the specific intention of getting the sticking-point issues formally on the table. Browne was a great sounding board in all the negotiations; he played a big part in what was eventually achieved. I reported back to the commission at the meeting of 7 April. As recorded in the minutes, “Chairman advised that the purpose of the meeting was to determine the areas of common interest between the MCC and the VFL … it was agreed this objective was now more approachable after the meeting.” There were seven key points to the discussion:

  • The general accommodation of 32,000 VFL Park full members at the MCG and the availability of acceptable seating and dining facilities
  • Future development plans for the Melbourne Cricket Ground and their impact on VFL involvement/tenancy
  • The issue of splitting the available accommodation for members between VFL Park and MCC members, i.e. MCC Members—traditional area, VFL Park Members—Northern Stand
  • Available advertising exposure for the VFL on fences and matrix screen
  • Season starting time, noting present occupancy arrangements in favour of cricket in February, and the availability of the ground for pre-season night series to be conducted by the League
  • Reciprocal membership arrangements between VFL Park and the MCC and the availability of rights during cricket season to VFL Park members
  • Length of tenure of any agreement to be entered into between the two parties.
There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. Accommodating the VFL Park members was a critical issue for the League, one of both finance and good faith. It all came down to which stand, and that came down to a narrow choice from the poor options available. We were offered the Olympic Stand. Nope, it was a hideous concrete wasteland. The Ponsford Stand? No, it was behind the goals and had no dining facilities. All that was left was the old Southern Stand, that long sweeping shed that filled half the ground. It wasn’t acceptable, either. It had no facilities of any sort—well, none that would be worth paying a membership to enjoy—and that was a deficiency that went further than simply satisfying the needs of the VFL.

This was a turning point. What emerged through our negotiations with the MCC was the pressing need for a refurbishment of the ground. It wasn’t spoken about at first but soon became increasingly apparent, in large part through one of those strange mergings of fate and common interest that played such a big part in the story of football through these tricky and eventful years.

In 1988, with negotiations between the League and the MCC progressing but really no closer to a firm and mutually agreeable conclusion—an impasse caused by the ground’s physical limitations as much as anything — a routine inspection of the structure of the 50-year-old Southern Stand found “concrete cancer”.

A disaster? No, a blessing. The balance between the MCC and the VFL shifted subtly. They had a major $150 million project to undertake, and to get it done they needed our help. An offer came from the MCC (how things had changed!): if we rebuild it, will you be involved? The conversation started along those lines. A letter from me to Cordner dated 8 June 1988 set out the deal. The League agreed to pay $1 million a year during the building process, and a section of the new Daryl Jackson-designed stand would be set aside for our members.

The eventual deal on the construction of the Great Southern Stand between the League and the MCC was for 30 years, and saw us in the new stand and pretty much looking at a new future for the game in 1992. Indeed, the capital payback had been budgeted at 27 years—which, with the increased crowds and more games at the ground, was achieved in about 17 years.


According to Football Limited (Gary Linell)

By 1988, the Melbourne Cricket Club and the MCG Trust was facing a delicate problem. The Souther Stand, completed in 1937, had developed a form of concrete cancer. Workers at the ground would able around it and discover large chunks of concrete on the ground. The stand, a sweeping to level viewing area that spanned much of the outer side of the ground, was falling apart.

Its condition was regarded as terminal, repair work could be carried out but there was no guarantee the cancer would not reappear elsewhere. It was a shame but also a blessing. The Southern Stand had been the true home to the people for half a century. Bay 13 at ground level had become an institution of its own, playing host to countless generations of barechested, beer-swilling Australian men who chanted during the dull moments in Test matches and entertained the rest of the crowd with their banners and wit. But, as the decade drew toward a close, Bay 13 had deteriorated along with the rest of the stand, the wit and repartee replaced by abuse and profanity.

The stand too had never kept pace with modern life. The toilet facilities had been abominal for many years whenever a big crowd was present, and food outlets were also scares or barely worth visiting.

The cricket club and the trust commissioned several reports into the problem. They all reported back that to scrap the stand and build a new one, which seemed the only feasible long term solution, about $100 million would be required. The cricket club required a partner, it had to chance of raising that sort of cash because it had no assets.

In early June, an envelope arrived at the MCC addressed to Donald Cordner. Lill, who had been granted permission as secretary to sort through Cordneres mail, opened it and began reading a letter many thought would have been impossible a few years before. Oakley was proposing a long term arrangement that would see football and cricket share the MCG for 30 years.


2000 Broadcast Rights and MCG Development

The AFL 2000 Annual Report

Negotiations continued during the past year with the Melbourne Cricket Ground and the MCG Trust following claims by those bodies for a share of the AFL's broadcasting rights. The issue first arose in 1998 when the MCC indicated that it did not recognise the Leagues exclusive rights with the Seven Network and the MCC intended to deal in on the AFL's broadcast rights from 2001. This siutation arose despite a 40 year agreement from 1992.

Some two years ago, discussions started between the AFL and the MCC and MCG Trust as to how the AFL might be able to assist the MCC and MCG Trust with the continued development of the MCG. It soon became clear, however, that the MCC and MCG Trust were still demanding a share of the AFL's broadcasting rights and their demands were not linked to any particular re-development plan for the ground.

The AFL's position in relation to the MCG is as follows:
  • The AFL is committed to the MCG as the primary venue for AFL matches including all Victorian 'big games' and the long-term home of the Grand Final.
  • Directly and indirectly, the AFL, our clubs and supporters contribute between $33 million and $38 million of the Melbourne Cricket Club's annual revenue of about $48 million.
  • Current AFL related direct annual payments to the MCC are about $5.8 million, plus match day costs of, on average, $60,500 per game.
  • Re-development of the Northern Stand, Ponsford Stand and the MCC members' pavilion at the MCG is not critical for football, but the AFL recognises that major stadia require regular upgrading to provide first-class facilities now demanded by attendees at sporting events.
  • The AFL, therefore, supports the re-development of the Northern Stand at this time. •
  • The public capacity of the stadium should not be reduced.
The logical steps for the project are:
  • Establish a partnership between the AFL, Victorian Government, Melbourne Cricket Club and MCG Trust as occurred with the construction of the Great Southern Stand.
  • Establish the scope and cost of the project.
  • Establish a business plan for the project.
  • Establish the financial contribution from each participant.
Further
  • During 2000, the AFL indicated it was prepared to contribute $4 million per year made up of a capital contribution of $1 million per year for the next 32 years from the AFL with the balance coming from a user-pays levy on adults attending matches at the MCG. This equates to a present day value of $90 million to $100 million.
  • The user-pays principle for stadia development applies at all other AFL venues via seat premiums and from 2001, a $2 levy at Optus Oval. Adopting this approach at the MCG was therefore consistent with what is happening at all other stadia in Australia where AFL matches are played.
  • The offer of $4 million was made without any precise advice as to the extent of the project. The AFL is also the only organisation associated with the MCG which has indicated a willingness to contribute.
  • The AFL will not link any contribution to the cricket club and trust to our broadcasting rights at the MCG or any other stadium where AFL matches are played.
  • The AFL has 32 years to run on an existing contract which the MCC and MCG Trust have sought to break by their demand for a share of our broadcasting revenue.
  • We also believe it is reasonable for the AFL to not be expected to contribute to the cost of facilities for MCC members or what is required for the Commonwealth Games in 2006. The AFL's focus is on facilities for our AFL clubs and their supporters and our need to invest in grassroots football.
The 2001 AFL Annual Report

In 2001, the AFL Commission reached an in-principle agreement with the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust and Melbourne Cricket Club to contribute an additional $5 million per year - indexed for the next 32 years - for the redevelopment of the MCG. This represents a significant contribution by football and its supporters to the redevelopment of the MCG. The work, scheduled to be completed by 2006, includes the demolition and replacement of the Ponsford and Olympic Stands and will deliver first-class facilities for MCG tenant clubs and supporters. Football's contribution to the redevelopment will be funded, in part, by a user-pays levy of $1 on all adults attending AFL premiership season home and away matches at the MCG, $5 for finals matches and $8 for the Grand Final. The balance will come from consolidated revenue. Between 70 and 80 per cent of the total revenue generated by the operation of the MCG is directly attributable to AFL games.

The 2002 Renegotiation

During the course of negotiation it emerged that the AFL had offered to pay the MCC for the loss of any finals, but for the MCC it was about more than just the money. The Government felt that the economic benefits to having the preliminary final and Grand Final in Victoria outweighed the compensation on offer.

Demetriou said the AFL had offered the MCC financial compensation in return for giving up the automatic preliminary final, but, for the MCC, it was not simply a matter of financial compensation. Demetriou said the preliminary finals were a key to the selling of the MCC's corporate packages and boxes, not to mention its membership, while the Victorian Government - which has a substantial hand in the development of the MCG - believes the preliminary and grand finals have "a massive economic impact" on the Victorian economy and wishes to retain them in the state.[6]

The AFL 2002 Annual Report

The AFL annual Report states that Final Agreement was reached the the MCG Trust and the Melbourne Cricket Club to pay an additional $5 million per year, indexed for 32 years, for the redevelopment of the MCG, a process that will be completed by the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

Between 70 and 80 percent of the total revenue generated by operation of the MCG is directly related to AFL matches held at the Stadium.

The additional $5 million per year is a further investment by football and its supporters. In part the redevelopment is paid for by a user-pays levy of $1 on all adults attending AFL premierships season matches, $5 for finals and $8 for the Grand Final. The balance will come from AFL consolidated revenue.

Finals and the MCG

During negotiations with the MCC we were not able to substantially change the condition of our 1989 agreement between our respective organisations which requires us to play 1 game per week at the MCG during the finals.

The new agreement does, however, allow us to "bank" finals so that during any three year period, we will average four finals at the MCG each year including a Preliminary Final and a grand Final.

This agreement was challenged by the then Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann who complained to the ACCC who advised that since the AFL, MCC and MCG Trust were not competitors they could not be in voliation of competition law.[7]

The 2005 renegotiation
According to the 2005 Annual Report [8]

Finals scheduling

After lengthy negotiations, we successfully concluded a new agreement with the Melbourne Cricket Club and the MCG Trust regarding the scheduling of finals at the MCG. The key elements were:

  • Removing the requirement to play one preliminary final per year at the MCG in the event that two non-Victorian teams earn the right to host a preliminary final in their home states.
  • Ensuring all preliminary finals in Victoria are played at the MCG.
  • Allowing greater flexibility to bank finals in weeks one and two, with the clause amended to ensure that 10 matches are played over five years.
  • Delivering an additional four premiership season games to the MCG each year, taking the number of matches played to 45.
  • Delivering 14 Collingwood home and away games to the MCG
  • The AFL making the MCG available for other major sporting events on a limited basis.
• Scheduling any representative football matches in Melbourne at the MCG. • Provision to review the agreement every five years, but only to the mutual benefi t of both parties.

The AFL also reconfi rmed that the Grand Final would remain at the MCG until 2032, when the current contract expires.

The 2009 Renegotiation

AFL 2009 Annual Report

Taken from the 2009 AFL Annual Report.[9]

The Victorian Government played a significant role in agreement being reached with the Melbourne Cricket Club and MCG Trust. The government also agreed to provide $36 million to upgrade facilities in the AFL members’ reserve in the Great Southern Stand, which will also boost the financial return for tenant clubs.

In September, the Melbourne Cricket Club and Victorian Government announced a new agreement for Victorian-based AFL clubs playing at the MCG. AFL clubs playing home games at the MCG will receive a minimum of $100,000 per game, backdated to the start of the 2009 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. The AFL has extended its agreement to play the Grand Final at the MCG until 2037 and will schedule at least 10 of the12 best attended home and away matches in Melbourne at the MCG. The Victorian Government will also contribute $30 million towards a major refurbishment of the AFL Members’Reserve in the Great Southern Stand.

MCG Trust 2009 Annual Report

From the 2009 Annual Report [10]

So it is important to explain our approach and principles on this issue.

First, the MCG is and will always remain a public asset. It has belonged to the public of Victoria for over 150 years. It has been the stage for an Olympic Games, a Commonwealth Games, 102 cricket Tests, a World Cup cricket final, wartime troops and a papal gathering as well as 103 AFL Grand Finals and being the birthplace of Australian football.

As a public asset, every cent of cash flow is reinvested in the ground for the benefit of the entire community. The MCG and the cash flow it produces do not belong to any one section of the community, no matter how powerful they may be at any given moment. We therefore do not accept the principle behind the assertion that has been made that “the MCG can afford to pay more to the AFL and the Victorian clubs, so therefore it should”.

Second, the facts behind that assertion are also incorrect. Last year the ground paid $31 million fixed debt servicing costs on our $320 million of ground debt. In contrast, the AFL enjoys the freedom of no debt and last year was able to invest surplus funds of $16 million in a “Future Fund” for unspecified future purposes for the code.

We and the MCC will simply not compromise on our responsibility to manage the finances of the MCG prudently. It would be foolhardy for us, three years into a 30-year debt repayment program for the Northern Stand redevelopment, to take on substantial additional long-term payment obligations without some offsetting additional long-term cash inflow. All the more so given the current economic crisis. That is why we said to the AFL we will need a contract extension beyond 2032 if they want more money for the clubs.

Third, even though we have a long-term contract with the AFL to 2032, we are not intransigent or inflexible in our approach to it. We aim to be a good and responsive partner for the AFL and its clubs and recognise that the circumstances of the competition will change over the life of a long-term contract in ways that might merit reviewing some contract provisions from time to time. We have demonstrated by our actions in the past that we are willing to amend the contract provided there is no fundamental prejudice to the interests of the MCG and if the AFL offers a reasonable exchange of value. In 2005 we agreed to relinquish a guaranteed annual preliminary final in exchange for additional regular season matches.

2009 Revised stadium user agreement
The following text is from the MCC Fact Sheet
  • The AFL and the MCC today announced they had agreed to a new Stadium Use Agreement, which will see a minimum of $4. 6m distributed annually to AFL clubs for the next 10 years, and the general agreement extend by five years to 2037.
  • The “home” clubs will receive an additional $100,000 per game for the next 10 years ($4.6m per annum) for AFL home and away matches played at the MCG. This figure is capped at 46 games and is indexed against CPI.
  • A new “attendance incentive” arrangement, which will see the AFL clubs receive:
    • $1.50 per head for attendances between 2.1m and 2.5m patrons
    • $2.00 per head for attendances between 2.5m to 3m patrons
    • $3.00 per head for attendances in excess of 3m patrons
  • Based on 2008 crowd figures, this would amount to an additional $1.2 million paid to the AFL.
  • The licence agreement between the MCC and the AFL will be extended for an additional five years, to 2037.
  • The AFL will provide a reasonable endeavours clause to ensure aggregate crowds per annum of 1.5m patrons.
  • The AFL will schedule 10 of the 12 best attended home and away matches at the MCG and current finals agreement will remain in place which includes the Grand Final.
  • The MCC has incurred substantial debt in order to create this great community facility.
  • In the space of 15 years, around $600 million has been invested to rebuild the stadium.
  • Today, the MCC has borrowings of around $320 million as a legacy of this development – equating to $32 million in principal and interest that needs to be paid every year.
  • After debt and interest, the new arrangement will see the MCC retain 31.1 per cent of ground revenues relating to football, which covers all running costs, wages, maintenance and capital works. The remaining 68.9 per cent is distributed to the AFL and its clubs
The 2018 Grand Final Extension

MCC president Steven Smith said the new agreement, which comes into effect from the start of the 2019 AFL season, would provide benefits to all parties, including MCG tenant clubs - namely Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Essendon and Carlton.

The long-term contract to play the grand final at the MCG is a tripartite one between the MCC, the AFL and the Victorian government

KEY POINTS

• The existing agreement between MCC and AFL will be extended for an additional 20 years to 2057.
• The AFL Grand Final will remain at the MCG until at least 2057.
• MCG tenant clubs will receive greater financial returns from their home games at the MCG.
• AFL will continue to schedule 10 of the 12 best attended home and away matches at the MCG.

More detail is found in the Funding Deed for the AFLs Docklands Development

The key terms to be incorporated by the AFL into the MCC Agreement are as follows:
(a) The end of the term of the MCC Agreement is extended from 2037 to 2057(inclusive).
(b) A minimum of 43 Home & Away Matches will be scheduled at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) each Football Season.
(c) The AFL will use its best endeavours to schedule, prior to commencement of the Football Season, at the MCG at least 10 of the 12 Home and Away Matches that the League has a reasonable expectation will be the 12 best-attended Home and Away Matches in Melbourne in that year.
(d) The Grand Final to be scheduled each year at the MCG up to and including 2057.

The 2020 Grand Final Extension

Under the terms of the new agreement between the Government and the AFL confirmed last night, the match will be played at the ground until at least 2058 – a one-year extension on the existing contract.

In addition, the MCG has been guaranteed an extra two contracted games in each of the 2022 and 2023 seasons, taking the minimum number of AFL games at the ground in each year to 45.

The agreement also guarantees that Victoria will host the AFL National Draft in 2021 and 2022, with the Government to determine the venue in one of those years.


Additional References
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kranger

Team Captain
Nov 30, 2006
517
378
Kalamunda
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swan District
That was a great read. Thank you. One thing that I got out of it, is that the agreement can be changed. You just need all the partners to agree to the changes. But the latest agreement is more complicated as it is no longer just the AFL and the MCC, there is now also the Vic Government. And what Vic Gov is going to agree to letting the AFL GF go to a different state?
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
34,801
12,984
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
That was a great read. Thank you. One thing that I got out of it, is that the agreement can be changed. You just need all the partners to agree to the changes. But the latest agreement is more complicated as it is no longer just the AFL and the MCC, there is now also the Vic Government. And what Vic Gov is going to agree to letting the AFL GF go to a different state?
That arrangement suited all those behind the closed doors. Vested interests feathering their own nests.
The AFL Commisioners are 'the villains' here.
 

Greenstar5

All Australian
Jun 21, 2017
657
534
Canberra
AFL Club
Sydney
I'm not Victorian, never lived there, hardly go there. But I love that its the same place every year. It's the home for Australia Rules Football. It's one the the great sporting stadiums in the world. Biggest in the country. The history. Grand Final 2009 I was in Melbourne with some mates, 1 of the great days. Just not sure other cities can provide that. It's an event.

Don't change It.
 

flamingEMBERS

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 8, 2011
10,178
9,270
AFL Club
West Coast


If this is true, then financial reasons cant be held as a reason to not move the grand final. It comes down to attendance and AFL members. (and obvs the contract itself)
With only 1000 tickets held for AFL Members, if borders were open I wonder what their allocation would have been?
 

kranger

Team Captain
Nov 30, 2006
517
378
Kalamunda
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swan District
Although you might suggest the AFL would take a financial hit with GF’s not always being at the MCG, as some people might let their AFL Memberships lapse, as I suspect the GF tickets would play a big part in getting the membership. With less AFL members, their is less annual income. So this would also have to be factored into the GF not always being at the MCG.

But perhaps changing the contract to the GF is at the MCG every second year, could be enough to keep that AFL membership numbers up.
 

weewilly

Team Captain
Jul 18, 2003
366
167
Other Teams
Swans
I think it strange that WA/Perth opted for a 60,000 cap stadium instead of say 75- 80,000.
When Melbourne had a population of much less than todays Perth during the 1940 =50s they still got crowds of over 85,000 to the MCG!
 

The Tilt

Senior List
Oct 12, 2020
217
228
AFL Club
Sydney
Although you might suggest the AFL would take a financial hit with GF’s not always being at the MCG, as some people might let their AFL Memberships lapse, as I suspect the GF tickets would play a big part in getting the membership. With less AFL members, their is less annual income. So this would also have to be factored into the GF not always being at the MCG.

But perhaps changing the contract to the GF is at the MCG every second year, could be enough to keep that AFL membership numbers up.
I would have thought there's no guarantee the AFL is even allocated an AFL members reserve at the MCG without the GF contract. It's only because they've entered into the contract that they are granted control of roughly 25% of the MCG, allowing them to raise membership revenue that goes with it.
 

flamingEMBERS

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 8, 2011
10,178
9,270
AFL Club
West Coast
I think it strange that WA/Perth opted for a 60,000 cap stadium instead of say 75- 80,000.
When Melbourne had a population of much less than todays Perth during the 1940 =50s they still got crowds of over 85,000 to the MCG!
Whispers are Freo didn’t want it because they were afraid WCE would grow too large in comparisons
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,550
3,056
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Although you might suggest the AFL would take a financial hit with GF's not always being at the MCG, as some people might let their AFL Memberships lapse, as I suspect the GF tickets would play a big part in getting the membership. With less AFL members, their is less annual income. So this would also have to be factored into the GF not always being at the MCG.

But perhaps changing the contract to the GF is at the MCG every second year, could be enough to keep that AFL membership numbers up.
Good point. As much as I'd love to see the grand final rotated equally among five cities every year, it isn't going to happen for this reason, plus 10 out of 18 teams are Vic, so 50/50 is a fair compromise, i.e. MCG, AO, MCG, Optus, MCG, ANZ, MCG, Gabba, and so on.

Even then, there needs to be a standard regarding facilities, accommodation, and infrastructure for pre and post-GF events.

Adelaide Oval needs to increase capacity, Optus maybe, the Gabba's new stadium for the Olympics needs to be at least 60k, ANZ has to upgrade, or NSW builds a new stadium.

Also, the corporates spend big dollars, so each city has to match everything Melbourne can in every capacity except for the crowd, which would be smaller but still good enough to be profitable provided that AFL memberships don't significantly drop.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
13,290
13,995
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Whispers are Freo didn’t want it because they were afraid WCE would grow too large in comparisons
My understanding is the Eagles didn’t want it, they like having a supply/demand issue and the Eagles can continue to over charge their membership base. Remember it was the Eagles who were happy to stay at Subiaco.
The stadium should of been 80k which would of future proofed it for 100 years. As usual we did it wrong here.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad