Two interstate prelim finals likely - The Age

[No 1 Draft Pick]

lets hope this gets signed off sooner rather than later

By Caroline Wilson
July 12, 2005


The prospect of two interstate preliminary finals this season now looms as a reality with the AFL and the MCG close to a new 27-year agreement that will see the stadium guaranteed an increased number of better quality home-and-away games, along with an increased quota of Friday nights from 2006.

With West Coast and Adelaide first and second on the ladder and Brisbane looming as a top-four threat, the AFL has already put in train a plan to make refunds to finals series ticket-holders should the MCG lose its contracted right to a 2005 preliminary final.

· The MCG will be guaranteed a minimum 45 home-and-away games each season, four more than its current deal.

· The stadium will be allocated at least 10 of the best 12 home-and-away games.

· More Friday night fixtures will be held at the MCG during the warmer months.

· All Victorian preliminary finals must be played at the MCG.

· The current "banking" of finals played in the first two weeks of September will extend from a three-year to a five-year system.

Collingwood, now an MCG tenant that helped broker early talks between the two parties this season, is expected to be guaranteed at least 14 of the 18 games it is scheduled to play in Victoria will be held at the MCG.

The prospect of a resolution to the contract, most recently agreed to by the AFL in 2002, has been applauded by the non-Victorian clubs. Last year Brisbane was forced to host its "home" preliminary final against Geelong at the MCG because Port Adelaide finished top and hosted its final at AAMI Stadium.

Adelaide chief executive Steven Trigg admitted last night that his club had been a little concerned that the positive noises from the AFL had not yet achieved a resolution.

"Regardless of where we've been sitting (on the ladder) we've seen it as a major issue for a number of years. We've brought it up at every commission meeting we've attended and we've brought it up at every meeting with the AFL," Trigg said.

The current contract, in place until 2032, states that the AFL would use its "best endeavours" to underwrite a guaranteed annual MCG attendance of 1.7 million and adds it would use only "reasonable endeavours" to draw 2.1 million to the ground each season.

The MCC and an even more determined MCG Trust has pushed for the words "best endeavours" to precede the 2.1 million guarantee, but the AFL has refused.

However, the MCG seems close to accepting that a minimum 2.1 million - including finals - could usually be achieved with all the other guarantees listed above.

 

[DaveW]

I'll believe it when I see it.

The AFL has consistently disappointed us on this issue. I say we shouldn't get our hopes up.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

What would really stuff them up would be all 4 teams who play in the PFs come from outside of Vic. No one from Melbourne would turn up.

 

[GoSarge]

I'll believe it when I see it.

The AFL has consistently disappointed us on this issue. I say we shouldn't get our hopes up.

Exactly. I'm not excited one bit, and I would seriously doubt that this would come to fruition.

What would really stuff them up would be all 4 teams who play in the PFs come from outside of Vic. No one from Melbourne would turn up.

Would be funny, but still no reward for the team finishing higher getting the HOME final.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I have a feeling someone will be getting screwed come September. Unfortunately, it looks like it could be us. National competition my as#.

 

[- PC -]

Like most I am in the ''believe it when I see it'' camp.

But

The AFC havent finished or guaranteed finishing second ......... yet

And I was a bit disturbed about this.

· All Victorian preliminary finals must be played at the MCG

.What exactly does that mean? And isnt that going to happen anyway if Geelong/Melbourne finish higher? This is the clause that has claws.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Fingers crossed but I will believe it when I see it.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Like most I am in the ''believe it when I see it'' camp.

Me too.

And I was a bit disturbed about this.

Quote:
· All Victorian preliminary finals must be played at the MCG

.What exactly does that mean? And isnt that going to happen anyway if Geelong/Melbourne finish higher? This is the clause that has claws.

I interpret it as meaning if there is a preliminary final where the home team is Victorian, the game must be played at the MCG as opposed to the Dome or anywhere else.

 

[- PC -]

I interpret it as meaning if there is a preliminary final where the home team is Victorian, the game must be played at the MCG as opposed to the Dome or anywhere else.

Wasnt that guaranteed anyway? Or was it mentioned to strengthen the article. It sounds logical

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Wasnt that guaranteed anyway? Or was it mentioned to strengthen the article. It sounds logical

It is at the moment. ie/ The proposal is to change from the MCG being guaranteed a preliminary final full stop, to them being guaranteed the game if there is a Victorian home game.

 

[outback jack]

the bad thing is collingwood which potentially faces a limited membership (like us) at the TD, so they are the real ones winning out of the deal. By getting their home games at the MCG they have an unlimited membership capacity, which with ed's blatant advertising campaigns will be a worry.

 

[tribey]

· All Victorian preliminary finals must be played at the MCG.

As opposed to Kardinia Park?

 

[Chops18]

I'll believe it when I see it.

The AFL has consistently disappointed us on this issue. I say we shouldn't get our hopes up.

Couldnt say it any better myself.