Changes Required

[lachy]

In response to a poster talking about the $1m+ benefit to the club you simply referred to the City of Ballarat component.

If we are low balled by both governments, we should be prepared to walk away. It will have to happen soon though as the club will be shortly selling memberships, corporate packages and the like for 2025.

That was more referring to that particular poster assertion that the deal is worth $1m without any recognition of how that is put together. Our benefit from the State Government was significantly more when you look at the Whitten oval development.

Absolutely we should walk away if we are lowballed, on top of that $1m today is not the same $1m agreed to in 2015

 

[Custard Guts]

Having being unceremoniously turfed out of our fifth elimination final in a decade this thread should be re-titled "Changes of underwear Required".

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Not sure the relationship between games at the MCG vs Melbourne clubs either home or away (as this would currently be our only opponent at this stadium) really has to do with Ballarat where we play our lowest drawing opponents there.

The unfairness in the number of away games that we've played vs. the main MCG tenants (or even the big club tenants at Docklands) over recent years is as much as an issue of the AFL being unfair to us as much as not giving us more games at the MCG in general

There's a reason Gold Coast and GWS are scheduled at Ballarat - because these games have gotten under 20,000 fans at Docklands and it's both a loss-making match to be played there (even under the new ownership), that we financially have to receive top-up money from somewhere, in the past being Canberra, Cairns and Darwin, and that not that many people are actually missing out, given the low crowds anyway - there is no doubt in my mind that many people whining about the Ballarat games don't have a leg to stand on because they themselves didn't attend the equivalent games in Docklands when they had the opportunity to do so as evidenced by the lower crowd numbers (e.g. three consecutive crowds of 17, 17k, 19k vs Adelaide in 2013-14-15 at Docklands)

 

[lachy]

Not sure the relationship between games at the MCG vs Melbourne clubs either home or away (as this would currently be our only opponent at this stadium) really has to do with Ballarat where we play our lowest drawing opponents there.

The unfairness in the number of away games that we've played vs. the main MCG tenants (or even the big club tenants at Docklands) over recent years is as much as an issue of the AFL being unfair to us as much as not giving us more games at the MCG in general

There's a reason Gold Coast and GWS are scheduled at Ballarat - because these games have gotten under 20,000 fans at Docklands and it's both a loss-making match to be played there (even under the new ownership), that we financially have to receive top-up money from somewhere, in the past being Canberra, Cairns and Darwin, and that not that many people are actually missing out, given the low crowds anyway - there is no doubt in my mind that many people whining about the Ballarat games don't have a leg to stand on because they themselves didn't attend the equivalent games in Docklands when they had the opportunity to do so as evidenced by the lower crowd numbers (e.g. three consecutive crowds of 17, 17k, 19k vs Adelaide in 2013-14-15 at Docklands)

But this is where I get frustrated with the argument.

That time frame is a long time ago, particularly not reflective of any crowds since covid.

It is hard to argue factually that we would have lost money since the AFL took over which was for the 2020 season, whilst the crowd was below 20,000 in 2022 v the Giants the crowd was 18,301 which is a break even crowd under AFL Management AND ownership. 2019 the first time we played the Suns under the new AFL structure there were 22,499 in attendance coming off our rubbish 2018 season. So how outdated are your suppositions?

And the last time we played Adelaide at Docklands we drew 26,984, 2016 round 7.

 

[SonOfScray]

While we are at it, change of head coach.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

This way I've thinking gets you no-where and will keep us as a minnow.

Imagine two or three home game against Pies / Dons / Carlton or whoever is flying at the time, like Hawthorn. 25k Dogs fans, 25k away fans, 10k MCG and 10k AFL fans, there is 70k fans.

MCG is where the finals and Grand Final are played, we simply need more exposure. It helps in so many ways, players want big games, they want the exposure, sponsors, coteries groups. We need to think bigger as a club. I loved the atmosphere of friday night and want more of it.

We really missed a boat as a club when we dropped the Ballarat replacement games. These should have been big marketed games as the MCG. If we don't act now and get some more MCG games other clubs will take them. St Kilda, Essendon and Carlton are already requesting more "home" MCG games. Why we are making finals is our best chance to argue the push.

We'd be extraordinarly lucky to get 20k neutrals to a mid season game against any of those clubs (esp. if both teams arent flying)

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

But this is where I get frustrated with the argument.

That time frame is a long time ago, particularly not reflective of any crowds since covid.

It is hard to argue factually that we would have lost money since the AFL took over which was for the 2020 season, whilst the crowd was below 20,000 in 2022 v the Giants the crowd was 18,301 which is a break even crowd under AFL Management AND ownership. 2019 the first time we played the Suns under the new AFL structure there were 22,499 in attendance coming off our rubbish 2018 season. So how outdated are your suppositions?

And the last time we played Adelaide at Docklands we drew 26,984, 2016 round 7.

is getting 4,000 fans above break even financially worth it vs the $1.4m agreement with Ballarat?

 

[grassman75]

We need new banner makers. Contrast between Hawks and Dogs banners Friday night was as stark as Meek vs English. I’m actually being serious, it was embarrassing.

Danny McGinlay did it (is this you Danny )

As with all things, id say he was hamstrung by the club with what he could write….not like the glory days of ‘16 with free rein

 

[threenewpadlocks]

is getting 4,000 fans above break even financially worth it vs the $1.4m agreement with Ballarat?

And the massess of fans mission out. It's 10,000 fans missing out. Fewer reserved seat holders missing out given that's only a portion of the crowd and they didn't show up anyway.

While I'm empathetic to the view that a reserved seat holder is only getting 9 (as opposed to 10 or 11) games at Docklands, it is only a couple of thousand of them that are going to all or almost all every game and thus miss out when a game is taken to Ballarat. It's not huge numbers of people that are getting angered.

 

[lachy]

is getting 4,000 fans above break even financially worth it vs the $1.4m agreement with Ballarat?

Firstly the $1.4m is over 3 years, not per year.

Its not just the fans it is the memberships and coterie packages. Some simple back of the envelope calculations.

We have approximately 15,000 reserved seat holder members. These are for 9 games. By making them available for 11 games and increasing the cost per year by approximately $80 per member there is an additional $600,000.

The same goes for approximately 2,500 coterie members. There is an additional $150 per member (BTW this is below the current average). That is an additional $375,000.

Now we have more corporate access and corporate boxes. There is an additional $150,000.

Again these are conservative numbers based on where we stand now not what we may grow.

So I ask you is what we are getting from Ballarat worth more than the minimum $1,125,000 we could be getting from our own supporter base with zero growth. Oh and the additional 4,000 if they are non members is an additional gate for general admission of $120,000 more if they purchase premium seats.

The danger of data being used to support staying in Ballarat is it is past data, not representative of post covid growth across the board growth in crowds and memberships nor does it reflect what has actually been occurring with our club

 

[lachy]

And the massess of fans mission out. It's 10,000 fans missing out. Fewer reserved seat holders missing out given that's only a portion of the crowd and they didn't show up anyway.

While I'm empathetic to the view that a reserved seat holder is only getting 9 (as opposed to 10 or 11) games at Docklands, it is only a couple of thousand of them that are going to all or almost all every game and thus miss out when a game is taken to Ballarat. It's not huge numbers of people that are getting angered.

Your evidence that there are not many getting angered or just the vibe.

Secondly reducing the number of games reduces potential revenue whether people turn up to games or not

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Your evidence that there are not many getting angered or just the vibe.

Secondly reducing the number of games reduces potential revenue whether people turn up to games or not

About 20k over the long run average that turn up to those games. (Adelaide/GC/GWS evening out whether we're a good/bad team over the long run)

Majority of crowd sit in general admission, (plus Medallion club etc) meaning that there's few thousand are sitting in their designated reserved seat through buying a Dogs membership for that game.

Many wouldn't care that we go to Ballarat for a game and might enjoy standing in the outer for a random game or an excuse to see Ballarat for the day (I do).

None of this is the benefit that there's the possibility to drive up to Ballarat for a game and that all 11 games remain in a drivable distance (cost aside), rather than one home game in Cairns, Darwin or Canberra. The reserved seating situation might not be ideal but 11 home games are better than 10.

That means, at a rough estimate, there's at most only a few thousand people that can be seen to be a reserved seat holder, would have turned up to every home game in Melbourne, don't see any benefit from the Ballarat game or that there's an additional game in Victoria, yet we're to believe that it's some big controversy for the Dogs fanbase, when those individuals number a few thousand.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Firstly the $1.4m is over 3 years, not per year.

Its not just the fans it is the memberships and coterie packages. Some simple back of the envelope calculations.

We have approximately 15,000 reserved seat holder members. These are for 9 games. By making them available for 11 games and increasing the cost per year by approximately $80 per member there is an additional $600,000.

The same goes for approximately 2,500 coterie members. There is an additional $150 per member (BTW this is below the current average). That is an additional $375,000.

Now we have more corporate access and corporate boxes. There is an additional $150,000.

Again these are conservative numbers based on where we stand now not what we may grow.

So I ask you is what we are getting from Ballarat worth more than the minimum $1,125,000 we could be getting from our own supporter base with zero growth. Oh and the additional 4,000 if they are non members is an additional gate for general admission of $120,000 more if they purchase premium seats.

The danger of data being used to support staying in Ballarat is it is past data, not representative of post covid growth across the board growth in crowds and memberships nor does it reflect what has actually been occurring with our club

• We sell Ballarat memberships and corporate money that also gathers revenue.
• The comparison isn't the potential gain in money it's the avoidance of the potential loss in money when we reduced from 10 to 9 home games without a decrease in price. Fair to say that reserved seat numbers didn't drop off as a result, in large part, because less than half of the reserved seat holders were turning up to a home Docklands game vs. GC or Adelaide anyway - siimalr to the coterie packages. You can't assume linear growth with 11 games, because it is literally the least desirable games that are being transferred, so nobody is going to pay for a proportional increase to these benefits, espeically as there's not 100% uptake. The value of 11 vs 9 games for those membership categories to access an additional home game to Adelaide or GC is not worth a 22% increase of the value of the membership. Fewer people would buy these memberhips, seats, corporate packages etc. if it was 22% more expensive, even if they got 22% more games to go to.
• The $1.4 million is just the Ballarat council contribution. We receive other benefits such as Vic Government money directly (as explained in this thread) and additional sponsorships such as our Ballarat shorts sponsorship (from Vic Government) and through Ballarat sponsors.
• The fact that we maintained a good relationship with the government has indirect benefits such as contribution to our recent Whitten Oval redevelopment.

 

[lachy]

• We sell Ballarat memberships and corporate money that also gathers revenue.
• The comparison isn't the potential gain in money it's the avoidance of the potential loss in money when we reduced from 10 to 9 home games without a decrease in price. Fair to say that reserved seat numbers didn't drop off as a result, in large part, because less than half of the reserved seat holders were turning up to a home Docklands game vs. GC or Adelaide anyway - siimalr to the coterie packages. You can't assume linear growth with 11 games, because it is literally the least desirable games that are being transferred, so nobody is going to pay for a proportional increase to these benefits, espeically as there's not 100% uptake. The value of 11 vs 9 games for those membership categories to access an additional home game to Adelaide or GC is not worth a 22% increase of the value of the membership. Fewer people would buy these memberhips, seats, corporate packages etc. if it was 22% more expensive, even if they got 22% more games to go to.
• The $1.4 million is just the Ballarat council contribution. We receive other benefits such as Vic Government money directly (as explained in this thread) and additional sponsorships such as our Ballarat shorts sponsorship (from Vic Government) and through Ballarat sponsors.
• The fact that we maintained a good relationship with the government has indirect benefits such as contribution to our recent Whitten Oval redevelopment.

Ballarat only memberships are small in number as is the additional corporate dollar. It is the government and council contributions that gives the venture any semblance of respectability .

Of course reserve ticket holders did not drop off when the price did not drop with one less game, do you believe they would if the price went up to reflect the additional 2 home games?

You cant assume growth with the additional games but you can assume an increase in revenue based on the additional games with the potential for growth. Pricing is based on an average per game as a value preposition for membership, coteries and sponsors. Growth is an opportunity.

Did you know that across the board around 25% of members at all clubs turn up to games. Match day revenue is driving by non members of the home club

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Ballarat only memberships are small in number as is the additional corporate dollar. It is the government and council contributions that gives the venture any semblance of respectability .

Of course reserve ticket holders did not drop off when the price did not drop with one less game, do you believe they would if the price went up to reflect the additional 2 home games?

You cant assume growth with the additional games but you can assume an increase in revenue based on the additional games with the potential for growth. Pricing is based on an average per game as a value preposition for membership, coteries and sponsors. Growth is an opportunity.

Did you know that across the board around 25% of members at all clubs turn up to games. Match day revenue is driving by non members of the home club

If you're assuming growth and the potential for growth then you have to equally be fair that we would also have genuine growth in the Ballarat and Western Region anyway to be the main team for people living in that area (I have my doubts about this but it's still a fair argument).

If the price went up 2/9ths for 2 additional home games (22%) I believe that we would sell less reserved seat memberships because I do not believe that people perceive themselves to be getting 22% more value for a 22% increase in price, as evidenced by the fact that these people don't turn up to these games anyway, as shown by the fact that attendance figures are lower. Or if you want to go by 3/6/whatever game reserved seat holders, there would not be an increase of 22% in total reserved seats sold with those two games, following a similar argument.

 

[lachy]

If you're assuming growth and the potential for growth then you have to equally be fair that we would also have genuine growth in the Ballarat and Western Region anyway to be the main team for people living in that area (I have my doubts about this but it's still a fair argument).

If the price went up 2/9ths for 2 additional home games (22%) I believe that we would sell less reserved seat memberships because I do not believe that people perceive themselves to be getting 22% more value for a 22% increase in price, as evidenced by the fact that these people don't turn up to these games anyway, as shown by the fact that attendance figures are lower. Or if you want to go by 3/6/whatever game reserved seat holders, there would not be an increase of 22% in total reserved seats sold with those two games, following a similar argument.

Not about being fair, the Western region is 10 times the size of Ballarat which already has a football background. It is naive to believe it will ever move the needle. A decade later and our growth is less than all other Melbourne clubs and we have won a flag.

However, we can postulate as much as we like. Reality is no agreement has been reached and we are within 2 months of the 2025 season.

Despite appearances I actually believe our club is actually pretty well run and clearly also have run the numbers. There is hesitancy at council level, certainly local opposition and a government struggling financially. I am sure that the club will only sign off on a substantially improved financial offer

On SM-S926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

it seems that everybody is expendable but not the coach...

 

[St 07]

it seems that everybody is expendable but not the coach...

Who else though? Who would be better than Bevo?

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

Who else though? Who would be better than Bevo?

rewind back to 2014, most of us didn't know who bevo was.

they'll always be coaches.

we are in a precarious position, midfield is old. we are in no mans land - middle of the road team with no progress

 

[Dogs 13]

rewind back to 2014, most of us didn't know who bevo was.

they'll always be coaches.

we are in a precarious position, midfield is old. we are in no mans land - middle of the road team with no progress

It is scary though when you see the names the Eagles are sifting through.

 

[Dazb86]

Time for a rebuild

 

[fred cook]

Time for a rebuild

Darcy JUH Naughton Sanders Treloar Richards. Say no

 

[lachy]

Time for a rebuild

Because 2 players expected to ask for a trade asked for a trade. Who when we were playing well weren't or were not much involved.

Develop 6 to 8 of.our current players, draft amd trade in some speed we will be thereabouts

On SM-S926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DoggieStyle07]

On the MCG games it’s just maths really:

MCG
Pies
Rich
Hawks
Dees

MARVEL/MCG
Blues
Dons

MARVEL
Us
St K
North

Our problem is that Essendon and Carlton who share between the stadiums will always choose to play us at marvel, the Pies made this worse by playing their 1 marvel home game against us.

That leaves 3/4 MCG teams and chances are you don’t get one of those games away due to the uneven fixture (gather round has made this worse also). What we’re left with is only Melbourne and Richmond there the past 2 seasons.

We should try to use the leverage of being forced to play a home final at the ‘G (a highly freaking profitable one for the AFL at that) into playing either Carlton or Essendon at the G next year either Home or Away.

Then make Collingwood play their Marvel game against someone else and play them at the G.

Also offering to host a prime time Friday night Hawks rematch early next year (hyping up both teams 100th year in the league) wouldn’t be a bad idea either and would prob draw a decent crowd (let’s at least profit of the Hawks bandwagon if we can’t beat em ).

That gets us up to 4-5 MCG games which puts us in decent stead come finals.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

grant needs to go

a mate spoke to rohan smith

Rohan Smith

Age

51

Ht

184cm

Wt

80kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.2

4star

K

11.9

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.5

4star

T

1.2

3star

No current season stats available

D

11.8

3star

K

8.2

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

1.4

2star

T

1.2

3star

at a local footy match last year - he said a lot of players dont get along with grant, he is an issue