Acdc v afl v docklands

[sportsdarts]

Perhaps study a bit of Contract Law 101 and get back to us. (I'll give you the hint, onus of responsibility of parties to a contract)

Ah ! Legal Eagles , or is that Magpies .

I am not of the legal proffession myself , but i read your comment this way ,

it is up to the eggmen to understand what they are signing , or is it up to the idiotheads to explain what the eggmen are signing , i think the first ???

or are they in it together ,

if the stadium dealers are offering the stadium to the firts gullible taker then that would not be a first , the AFL and the clubs were taken hook line and sinker way back .

i think this makes the stadium dudes , a bunch of crooks , i tell you a bunch of smart crooks .

Stick to the contract AFL and if you get shafted , sue the Bastards , and if that doesn't work , shift the games , take AFL away from the stadium , i'm sure it can be done .

I reckon Etihad would just love that , i wonder what their contract say's , bound to be a shonky one as well .

Cheers

With Out Predjudice Ha!

 

[eb075]

Percentage of Melbourne based AC/DC fans who follow footy; 106%.

Just a bit of political point scoring methinks.

Ha! Collingwood supporter's maths

 

[Kahn]

- The concerts are on the 11th, 13th and 15th of Feb.
- The AFL season normally starts the last week in March (26-28th Mar 2010).

For there to be a clash, the AFL must be either planning on starting the h&a season a week early (19th-21st Mar) or are going to have a 5 week pre-season comp.

If they have the normal start to the season, and a 4 week pre-season comp, then the first week of the pre-season would be the weekend of the 20th Feb - no issue.

 

[Kahn]

OK people are going to say that we had a 6 week pre-season comp this year, but that was due to the game planned for South Africa.

But looking at this years pre-season draw, there were only 2 games at the docklands in the first round and they were all in the last week.

If they kept it like this for 2010, there will be no clash.

 

[BIGBEZ]

Let there be rock...!!!

 

[FrangaRoo]

shambles.

Time for Docklands to pay the AFL some compo and keep the concert where it is, no one gives a stuff about the nab cup.

Typical Collo stupidity though.

 

[Chris_Finch]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
........says the fat, unco-ordinated gentleman.
.

Nice one, tosser.

Music is the universal language, music is everything, music is untouchable.

But no doubt you think that 44 bogans running around a grass oval chasing a piece of leather is what life is about.

 

[Underdog]

OK people are going to say that we had a 6 week pre-season comp this year, but that was due to the game planned for South Africa.

But looking at this years pre-season draw, there were only 2 games at the docklands in the first round and they were all in the last week.

If they kept it like this for 2010, there will be no clash.

The AFL could;
a ) want to fixture a game that weekend there
b ) be concerned over turf damage
c ) not want their contract infringed upon
d ) want some form of compensation
e ) something else...

Ultimately, the AFL contractually have the rights to the ground that weekend so it's irrelevant anyways.

 

[Kahn]

The AFL could;
a ) want to fixture a game that weekend there
b ) be concerned over turf damage
c ) not want their contract infringed upon
d ) want some form of compensation
e ) something else...

Ultimately, the AFL contractually have the rights to the ground that weekend so it's irrelevant anyways.

What is exactly in the contract? Have you read it?

 

[Kahn]

My guess is that it will be like the A-League finals.

The AFL will complain for a couple of days, then say that they have decided to "come to terms" with the stadium to let the concerts go ahead... All praise the AFL board for letting the concerts go ahead.

Where would we be without the AFL board.

 

[arden st army]

Aker Daker all the way.

 

[BarneyBent]

Nice one, tosser.

Music is the universal language, music is everything, music is untouchable.

But no doubt you think that 44 bogans running around a grass oval chasing a piece of leather is what life is about.

Get your hand off it. I'm a musician myself and I still think that's a wank. Especially when talking about ACDC. Great band in their early days, have gone massively downhill since 1980, but never amongst the true geniuses.

Don't get me wrong, the ACDC concerts are far more important than a NAB Cup match. Nobody in their right mind would argue that. But the point is that Etihad Stadium collectively have shafted the AFL over too many times in the past, and it's time the the AFL took a stand. The fact is that they had booked it, and Etihad Stadium are trying to go back on their deal, which is simply unacceptable.

Now, what I'm hoping happens is that Etihad break their contract and let ACDC play, AFL takes advantage of the broken contract to sign a new, much more equitable (and hopefully flexible) one (I'm not sure of the nature of the contracts, but this has been mentioned before as possible, so I'm just assuming it is). That way, ACDC fans get their way, the AFL dig themselves out of a hole earlier than expected, struggling clubs benefit, and Etihad's hold over the AFL is relaxed. Win-win for all involved (except Etihad Stadium, but who gives a shit about them?).

 

[CroftyV1]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with the AFL playing hardball on this one. But realistically, theres no reason why they can't take the game to Vic country that weekend, or play at Princess Park if they must have a game in Melbourne. Yes i know it must be deemed to be of AFL standard, but they still play practice matches there every year since its last offical H&A game in 2005.

 

[randyzany]

I oppose the stance from the AFL.

Etihad is owned by institutional investors like superannuation funds. Collo is employed to maximise the profits of these investors in Etihad.

My superannuatyion fund is an investor in Etihad, like millions of other Australians. The reality is many of us own little bits of Etihad through our superannuation funds, and we want it to perform well.

I want my super money maximised b/c I am greedy. I want Etihad to maximise its profit, which means getting 80K in for the ACDC concert at $200 a head. If AFL wins, 11K will turn up at $10 a head. My investment (via my super) is negatively affected.

ACDC should go ahead b/c it means the super funds get more money. You probably will as well through your super.

I hate ACDC and AFL can get stuffed. If you want to support the profits of AFL over Etihad go donate your own money to Andrew D at AFL house.

Strange our AFL-obsessed media never give you this angle. Don't fall for all the media hype.

A one-off concert doesn't generate the same amount of profit that footy games provide on a yearly basis. Without these clubs the revenue stream is significantly reduced. A savvy shareholder/investor would realise that welfare of these clubs is top priority and doing everything possible for them to survive and not to go under in is their best interest.

 

[Valve Bounce]

nice one, tosser.

Music is the universal language, music is everything, music is untouchable.

But no doubt you think that 44 bogans running around a grass oval chasing a piece of leather is what life is about.

yes

 

[Valve Bounce]

Get your hand off it. I'm a musician myself and I still think that's a wank. Especially when talking about ACDC. Great band in their early days, have gone massively downhill since 1980, but never amongst the true geniuses.

Don't get me wrong, the ACDC concerts are far more important than a NAB Cup match. Nobody in their right mind would argue that. But the point is that Etihad Stadium collectively have shafted the AFL over too many times in the past, and it's time the the AFL took a stand. The fact is that they had booked it, and Etihad Stadium are trying to go back on their deal, which is simply unacceptable.

Now, what I'm hoping happens is that Etihad break their contract and let ACDC play, AFL takes advantage of the broken contract to sign a new, much more equitable (and hopefully flexible) one (I'm not sure of the nature of the contracts, but this has been mentioned before as possible, so I'm just assuming it is). That way, ACDC fans get their way, the AFL dig themselves out of a hole earlier than expected, struggling clubs benefit, and Etihad's hold over the AFL is relaxed. Win-win for all involved (except Etihad Stadium, but who gives a shit about them?).

Hey!! this is good. This guy is really , really good.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I can't believe people in this thread are seriously telling the AFL to allow it! Have they been living in a cave under a rock on mars?

The stadium deals at Etihad need changing. Just like with the Commonwealth games and the MCG, this is the perfect time to force their hand. The AFL should not relent until they are given adequate compensation in the form of better stadium deals for the clubs that play there.

 

[McCrann]

Re: AFL v AC/DC (aka serves Etihad right!)

Etihad for years has asked the AFL to accomodate whatever other event the grounds managers want to have, whether it be WWE, Bledisloe Cup, A-League, RL State-Of-Origin, Robbie Williams etc. Everytime the AFL, despite having the first rights to the grounds during footy season, have done what everyone has wanted them to do and stood aside, even though they didn't have to. Again and again, Etihad have expected the AFL to take second-place, even though they have first rights. Now, Etihad want the AFL to move again, and they put their foot down, the AFL are cast as the bad guys. Why?

Other than signing a dogdy contract, the AFL have been above reproach in their contract with Ethiad. They have a right to re-negotiate a contract, to seek a better deal for their clubs. Yet Etihad have screwed them over, again and again, and love to pull out their contract, and use it against the AFL. All the AFL have done is use Etihad's rhetoric against it.

The public have said that the bad deals are the AFL's fault, and that Etihad have a right to screw them and their clubs over, because the AFL allowed them too. Why then is the AFL not allowed, in the eyes of the public, to use the same contract to enforce their rights? No matter what happens, people like to make the AFL the "bad guy".

I think I know why. It seems to me that there is a mentality in Australia that it is wrong to be successful. Australians, who claim to "give everyone a fair go" (what a laugh) resent a body like the AFL making millions of dollars. It doesn't matter that they didn't get their money by scamming people, ripping people off or through some criminal activity. The AFL raised their millions the good old decent way, by offering a product people are willing to pay for, which is extremely popular, and TV stations and sponsors are willing to throw millions of dollars at. Why is this wrong? Is it that in this country, people are just jealous of anyone who actually works to make their fortune, while the poor Aussie battler struggles, but blames everyone else but themselves for their plight? Just because the AFL is rich, doesn't mean that they deserve to be treated shabbily.

The fact is that Etihad is run by idiots who sign a contract with both the AFL and the promoters of AC/DC, which contradict each other. What idiot did that? But if you people who bag the AFL in their war against the stadium are consistent, then you must agree with the AFL enforcing their contractural rights. Otherwise you show yourself to be a jealous hypocrite.

Etihad Stadium owners should bow on their knees every night and thank the Lord above for the AFL, or they wouldn't have ever had their stupid stadium built, and AC/DC would have to play at Rod Laver Arena (where they should have been to begin with). Etihad had better stop biting the hand that feeds it, or it will lose out on more than AC/DC revenue.

I hope the AFL sues them for breach of contract, and then settles out of court, by forcing Etihad to offer a new stadium deal, favourable to clubs, which include a good return from AFL games, food and drink, and even from non-AFL events at the ground. This is the caviat that the AFL finally need to turn the tables. But some weak compromise, like sharing the AC/DC money, or moving St. Kilda/Geelong won't suffice. I say go for the jugular, and make them bleed. I think that AC/DC will end up playing at Etihad, but hopefully the AFL has the ground deal solved and then Etihad will see that they need the AFL as much as AFL needs them, and treats them accordingly.

Your thoughts?

1000% Agree

AFL better not stuff this opportunity up - like they seem to have done when they rolled over for the A-League earlier this year.

 

[McCrann]

This is my train of thought on this exactly, everybody paints collo in a bad light here but at the end of the day its his board that wont deal with the AFL, as you said collo was and probably still is happy to come to an arrangement on the issue of percentages for clubs, but his board couldn't care less about the clubs.

This is a well thought out plan by Collo imo, at the end of the day he's a football person and i'm sure it will keep him awake at night knowing that some clubs could go to the wall should nothing happen with the deals that are in place currently. He's also well into his 60's and nearing retirement, he'd have plenty of money and i believe he would rather look out for the betterment of the game than his current employer. Remembering its the game that has given him everything really.

This is a big mistake to allow the booking of ACDC when the AFL had the right to use it ahead of the promoter, as CEO Collo would've signed off on that. The AFL has the right to take them to court over it and they'll probably win, that is of course if they cant come to an out of court settlement which will no doubt involve better deals for the clubs. Now its a question of whether Etihad will bend over or if they risk taking the AFL to court, losing, in the process throwing 150,000 off with ACDC plans (which i'm one of). On the other hand the AFL could suffer some bad PR if they take this all the way also, NAB Cup is no comparison to 150,000 ppl for acdc, however a contract is a contract.

If Collo has done this on purpose which on the surface it seems as though its a pretty big mistake to make without there being some forces behind it he will no doubt pay the price with his job. Good on him if he's done it to get a better deal for the clubs. I know its a long bow to draw but its even more ridiculous to think a scheduling mistake of this magnitude could've been made by mistake.

Is it really?

Did you hear the one about the manager of the then Telstra Dome double booking AFL pre-season games against an A-League Grand Final?

Would you believe it - the very thing happened this year!

Bunch of incompetents who run that stadium.

 

[McCrann]

Re: AFL v AC/DC (aka serves Etihad right!)

I actually rea all of that , and agree with what you wrote.
Hopefully AC/DC get moved to the MCG, then they can release more tickets so I can get 5 for my family, they've only been my favorite band since 75 and I missed out on tickets, I have seen them several times however.

Heard of the cricket before mate? Its called the Melbourne Cricket Ground for a reason you now.

 

[McCrann]

It looks like Etihad has contracts with both the AC/DC promoter and the AFL. If the AFL is to be believed, Etihad will be in breach of their contract with the AFL if AC/DC play, and Etihad will be in breach of their contract with AC/DC's promoters if AC/DC don't play.

The damages that could be awarded to AC/DC will be WAY more than the damages that could be awarded to the AFL, so AC/DC will certainly play.

It'll be interesting to see whether the AFL sues, but they cannot stop AC/DC playing.

Which contract was signed first? How many games of AFL are played at this place in a year anyway? Few more than AC/DC concerts I can guarantee.

 

[eddiesmith]

Is it really?

Did you hear the one about the manager of the then Telstra Dome double booking AFL pre-season games against an A-League Grand Final?

Would you believe it - the very thing happened this year!

Bunch of incompetents who run that stadium.

No, they are very smart, when more money comes along they know the AFL will move especially as its just some crappy pre season game they may be scheduling, hell they dont even do their fixture for a few more months, then when they realise they dont need the ground that week its too late for Etihad to schedule something else

The AFL is pathetic, for years they refused to move high drawing matches and always had these poor stadium deals yet its only now the pressure is increased on them they are pretending to do something about it

The Geelong v St Kilda stuff was all crap, they come out looking great but never had any intentions of moving it and yet again they will pretend to be talking tough but nothing will happen

Instead of worrying about petty shit like this, people should be demanding new people in charge of the AFL or it will never improve

 

[Hoser]

I can't believe people in this thread are seriously telling the AFL to allow it! Have they been living in a cave under a rock on mars?

The stadium deals at Etihad need changing. Just like with the Commonwealth games and the MCG, this is the perfect time to force their hand. The AFL should not relent until they are given adequate compensation in the form of better stadium deals for the clubs that play there.

Amazing isn't it? Such a simple concept and has been explained by every second poster in the thread, yet some still don't get it. I mean this is not even subtle. The AFL are hitting the stadium operators with a very blunt stick, the message is loud and clear. And it's the right message to be sending.

 

[greenred]

Amazing isn't it? Such a simple concept and has been explained by every second poster in the thread, yet some still don't get it. I mean this is not even subtle. The AFL are hitting the stadium operators with a very blunt stick, the message is loud and clear. And it's the right message to be sending.

Would that be this message?

"This has got nothing to do with AC/DC," McLachlan said. "We've had a contract, it's a long-standing, very clear agreement.

Would that be the same contract, a long-standing, very clear agreement, that the AFL have been whinging about all year?

The contract suits the AFL when they want it to and they'll moan about it when it doesn't. They, like many of the clubs, want their cake and eat it too.

 

[shintemaster]

Would that be this message?



Would that be the same contract, a long-standing, very clear agreement, that the AFL have been whinging about all year?

The contract suits the AFL when they want it to and they'll moan about it when it doesn't. They, like many of the clubs, want their cake and eat it too.

Not really. They want to change their order to a hot chocolate instead but aren't allowed, now Melbourne Stadiums is trying to take the cake away completely without delivering that hot chocolate.