Opinion Where it has all gone wrong for Essendon

[ghostdog]

Did Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood and Carlton have better late-90s membership numbers than Essendon?

We were routinely getting crowds of 70,000 plus for Carlton and Colingwood and even in excess of 60,000 for North throughout the 90s. I don't remember the Richmond crowds but I expect they were similar to Carlton and Collingwood crowds.

We went to Docklands because we got a deal which resulted in us getting a ton of cash with built in provisions indexing our deal to those of other clubs (meaning that we were continually getting a better deal as the others renegotiated).

I'd be amazed if we were spooked about our ability to have a viable existence the G (given that Collingwood was on its knees as was Hawthorn and Richmond was irrelevant). I'd be equally as amazed if the quality of the TV product was being considered in the late 90s.

No, there's a difference of around 6000 - 7000 members between those clubs and Essendon from 1995 to 2000, so Essendon clearly leading. Regular crowds of 70 000 makes the Docklands move inexplicable, so the only reason I can surmise is the cash grab. In 2001 the AFL took in $500 million in broadcast rights from Channels 9 & 10, and Fox. I can't find Fox's share of the $500 million, but for that kind of money I'd be amazed if the quality of the TV product was not being considered.

With Foxtel coverage the rise in our membership numbers between 2000 and 2009 is humble, before then skyrocketing over the last decade, so from a membership standpoint the club would have to look at that as a success. But yeah, I don't get why a move back to the MCG isn't on the cards. Bigger crowds and a better ground surely equals a better spectacle. Everyone wins. How long are we locked in to Docklands for?

 

[ant555]

As I remember it with Docklands, it was first in best dressed so the club took the opportunity.

That is what it was. Best deal and guaranteed best deal in the future. Not sure when it or if the best deal part has run out but it was a massive financial win.

 

[Mr Bultitude]

No, there's a difference of around 6000 - 7000 members between those clubs and Essendon from 1995 to 2000, so Essendon clearly leading. Regular crowds of 70 000 makes the Docklands move inexplicable, so the only reason I can surmise is the cash grab. In 2001 the AFL took in $500 million in broadcast rights from Channels 9 & 10, and Fox. I can't find Fox's share of the $500 million, but for that kind of money I'd be amazed if the quality of the TV product was not being considered.

With Foxtel coverage the rise in our membership numbers between 2000 and 2009 is humble, before then skyrocketing over the last decade, so from a membership standpoint the club would have to look at that as a success. But yeah, I don't get why a move back to the MCG isn't on the cards. Bigger crowds and a better ground surely equals a better spectacle. Everyone wins. How long are we locked in to Docklands for?

I believe until end of 2025.

 

[ghostdog]

I believe until end of 2025.

Actually, I retract my 'everyone wins.' I reckon their rationale was, Essendon pulls massive crowds at the G. We offer them money to move to Docklands. That will be at capacity every time they play there, meaning 35000 fans will have to watch on TV. That makes a move to Docklands a win-win for the AFL, EFC, Docklands and the TV broadcasters, and screws the experience of fans. If the surface issues can be conclusively linked to a prevalence of injuries, then we've definitely got a case for why we are mired in mediocrity.

 

[NAB777]

Leaving the MCG, the club has never recoverd from this mind numbing move.

How to take the strongest club in the league and turn it into a middle order team within a few years.

When we could get 75 to100,000 at our games, why swap for a concrete based ground under a roof getting 40k.

Dumbest move in global sport.

I am firmly of the belief that moving to Docklands is one of the main reasons for our lack of success since 2001. The side was pretty much ready to go when we moved there.
Obviously there are many pieces to a puzzle, but the lack of success of the Docklands tenants is - in my opinion - no coincidence.

 

[Darealrath]

I wonder how much the financial issues suffered by other clubs in the 90s played a role in the club taking the $$$ on offer at Docklands. Obviously in hindsight the club would have also made a killing at the G also (and maybe moreso given the potential crowd sizes) but perhaps it was considered a safe option and the decision makers had the recent merger and failed mergers in mind, not to mention even big clubs like Collingwood and Richmond struggling financially.

 

[EnolaGay]

I am firmly of the belief that moving to Docklands is one of the main reasons for our lack of success since 2001. The side was pretty much ready to go when we moved there.
Obviously there are many pieces to a puzzle, but the lack of success of the Docklands tenants is - in my opinion - no coincidence.

One thing about moving to Docklands is, anecdotally, since then we have had a shit run injury-wise.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The move to Docklands was reasonably careful. We retained four games at the G which was smart.

We never pulled 50k+ to our smaller games and we still don't.

Last year we pulled 44k vs St Kilda, 29k vs Freo, 44k vs Hawthorn, 25k vs GWS, 46k vs North, 43k vs Port and 42k vs the Dogs.

Docklands is fine for those games. And the numbers vs interstate sides tells you that it's not our fans getting us close to capacity, it's the opposition.

Who cares if they're locked out? It's better for us as it gives us a more genuine home advantage, similar to what interstate clubs have.

Some people "just don't like" Docklands and that's fine but on the objective front, the move was the right one.

 

[faible]

The move to Docklands was reasonably careful. We retained four games at the G which was smart.

We never pulled 50k+ to our smaller games and we still don't.

Last year we pulled 44k vs St Kilda, 29k vs Freo, 44k vs Hawthorn, 25k vs GWS, 46k vs North, 43k vs Port and 42k vs the Dogs.

Docklands is fine for those games. And the numbers vs interstate sides tells you that it's not our fans getting us close to capacity, it's the opposition.

Who cares if they're locked out? It's better for us as it gives us a more genuine home advantage, similar to what interstate clubs have.

Some people "just don't like" Docklands and that's fine but on the objective front, the move was the right one.

We also make bank on our stadium deal by all accounts; so financially it's been a winner.

 

[Burzum]

I like Docklands.

 

[DapperJong]

I like Docklands.

same

 

[eth-dog]

The move to Docklands was reasonably careful. We retained four games at the G which was smart.

We never pulled 50k+ to our smaller games and we still don't.

Last year we pulled 44k vs St Kilda, 29k vs Freo, 44k vs Hawthorn, 25k vs GWS, 46k vs North, 43k vs Port and 42k vs the Dogs.

Docklands is fine for those games. And the numbers vs interstate sides tells you that it's not our fans getting us close to capacity, it's the opposition.

Who cares if they're locked out? It's better for us as it gives us a more genuine home advantage, similar to what interstate clubs have.

Some people "just don't like" Docklands and that's fine but on the objective front, the move was the right one.

Our last 5 games against Hawthorne at the G have a total attendance of 322,535 and an average of 64,507. I'd rather 65k against Hawthorne at the G compared to 48k against Brisbane.

 

[andleanback]

The move to Docklands was reasonably careful. We retained four games at the G which was smart.

We never pulled 50k+ to our smaller games and we still don't.

Last year we pulled 44k vs St Kilda, 29k vs Freo, 44k vs Hawthorn, 25k vs GWS, 46k vs North, 43k vs Port and 42k vs the Dogs.

Docklands is fine for those games. And the numbers vs interstate sides tells you that it's not our fans getting us close to capacity, it's the opposition.

Who cares if they're locked out? It's better for us as it gives us a more genuine home advantage, similar to what interstate clubs have.

Some people "just don't like" Docklands and that's fine but on the objective front, the move was the right one.

I don’t mind Dockland, especially on the days when the weather is putrid outside. Though the statement we don’t pull crowds to our smaller games (interstate clubs etc) is not entirely true, some people don’t like going to marvel, also marvel is a smaller ground so it’s harder to reserve seats. Especially for afl members, there are only 6-7 level 1 bays compared to 20k seats at the MCG which has a huge impact on the amount of people who go. Last year we played two home games against interstate clubs (would be considered smaller games) at the g and pulled 48k against Brisbane and 60k against Sydney, if those games were at marvel they would’ve got 40 odd thousand there. The ground never seems the sell out these days like it did 10-15 years ago. The club should definitely push to get an extra game or 2 at the MCG.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Our last 5 games against Hawthorne at the G have a total attendance of 322,535 and an average of 64,507. I'd rather 65k against Hawthorne at the G compared to 48k against Brisbane.

I reckon the difference is almost all that their supporters don’t go. I’m fine with that. It gives us a greater home ground advantage which was always “the vision” at Docklands.

I don’t mind Dockland, especially on the days when the weather is putrid outside. Though the statement we don’t pull crowds to our smaller games (interstate clubs etc) is not entirely true, some people don’t like going to marvel, also marvel is a smaller ground so it’s harder to reserve seats. Especially for afl members, there are only 6-7 level 1 bays compared to 20k seats at the MCG which has a huge impact on the amount of people who go. Last year we played two home games against interstate clubs (would be considered smaller games) at the g and pulled 48k against Brisbane and 60k against Sydney, if those games were at marvel they would’ve got 40 odd thousand there. The ground never seems the sell out these days like it did 10-15 years ago. The club should definitely push to get an extra game or 2 at the MCG.

Might be some genuine issues here but I’d be encouraging the club to try to fix them at Docklands rather than moving to the G. We have a enough clout there, particularly as the AFL now own it. We should get things changed for our home games if they want us to play there.

Id add that I’d be fine with a total move to the G if we start consistently pulling 45+ at Docklands. But until then, a full Docklands is loud and very red and black - I wouldn’t be that keen to give it up.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Also, not sure if the club has worked on this but if not, I'd love to know why. These days we have tremendous membership data - they know every game we've all been to since we basically moved to Docklands. If we have a large number of members who almost always go to the G, but never to Docklands, then surely they should be asking them why. A targeted survey on this would be successful I reckon, because it's something people are passionate about. Find out the issues and fix them - the ones you can, anyway.

 

[eth-dog]

I think the big thing about Docklands is that only 2 of it's tenants have won the flag, us in our dominant season and the Dogs, whose seasons since has indicated it was somewhat of a fluke.

 

[Lore]

Also, not sure if the club has worked on this but if not, I'd love to know why. These days we have tremendous membership data - they know every game we've all been to since we basically moved to Docklands. If we have a large number of members who almost always go to the G, but never to Docklands, then surely they should be asking them why. A targeted survey on this would be successful I reckon, because it's something people are passionate about. Find out the issues and fix them - the ones you can, anyway.

I don't think they care about member attendances so much as how many seats are sold overall. If you pay for it and don't sit in it then it's not really a problem.

If you had the time and inclination (and you probably don't but maybe someone does), you could look up all of the attendances generally and see what the difference is in average crowds by venue and by opponent, exclude any finals, Dreamtime & ANZAC Day, which are always at the G anyway, and compare the average attendance at standard home games at both venues.

I'd hazard a guess that the MCG is probably slightly better attended generally, but that Docklands with the financial incentives and being the hub for the north west train lines is probably still better financially. And both of them would beat Windy Hill by miles.

 

[Lore]

I think the big thing about Docklands is that only 2 of it's tenants have won the flag, us in our dominant season and the Dogs, whose seasons since has indicated it was somewhat of a fluke.

Who are the other tenants though, and have they ever been remotely competitive in that timeframe? I think a few flags have been won by teams that weren't tenants at either of the Melbourne stadiums, and tbh it's probably more relevant to look at the ladder after the regular season than the finals series.

 

[eth-dog]

Who are the other tenants though, and have they ever been remotely competitive in that timeframe? I think a few flags have been won by teams that weren't tenants at either of the Melbourne stadiums, and tbh it's probably more relevant to look at the ladder after the regular season than the finals series.

Carlton, Essendon, North, St. Kilda, Western Bulldogs

Three Grand Finals, 1 flag in 20 years.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Carlton, Essendon, North, St. Kilda, Western Bulldogs

Three Grand Finals, 1 flag in 20 years.

Saints played in two

 

[eth-dog]

Saints played in two

I meant apart from our flag. 2001, 2009, 2010, 2016 (flag)

 

[yodellinhank]

The move to Docklands was reasonably careful. We retained four games at the G which was smart.

We never pulled 50k+ to our smaller games and we still don't.

Last year we pulled 44k vs St Kilda, 29k vs Freo, 44k vs Hawthorn, 25k vs GWS, 46k vs North, 43k vs Port and 42k vs the Dogs.

Docklands is fine for those games. And the numbers vs interstate sides tells you that it's not our fans getting us close to capacity, it's the opposition.

Who cares if they're locked out? It's better for us as it gives us a more genuine home advantage, similar to what interstate clubs have.

Some people "just don't like" Docklands and that's fine but on the objective front, the move was the right one.

Essendon was the hot ticket prior to the move. Think 99 might have been the year we had 54k average attendance, highest in the league. My ANZAC day crew often mention how happy they are we moved on from the G and let their magpies take over the priority slot.

 

[boncer34]

Docklands is great. Much prefer it to the G.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I suspect The Speaker and I will for once be in agreement - a roofed stadium reflects everything that is wrong with football today.

 

[The Speaker]

I suspect The Speaker and I will for once be in agreement - a roofed stadium reflects everything that is wrong with football today.

I'm not really an old man yells at cloud type, but I think Docklands Stadium, taken as a whole, is just as emblematic of the problems of modern football as Waverley was when it was emblematic of modern football. The roof is a part of that.

It's not a bad stadium by any means, but it represents an approach to football that I don't think is in the long-term best interests of the sport or the community.