Rumour Collingwood FC Selling Home Games

[parano1a]

Id be all for selling a game if it could get us away from playing homegames at Docklands!!

What do people have against Docklands? Sure it doesn't have the history and atmosphere of the MCG but it's a modern, conveniently located stadium with excellent views and facilities.
I'd much rather keep the 2 home games at Docklands where I can easily attend than play interstate.

 

[Tippy78]

What do people have against Docklands? Sure it doesn't have the history and atmosphere of the MCG but it's a modern, conveniently located stadium with excellent views and facilities.
I'd much rather keep the 2 home games at Docklands where I can easily attend than play interstate.

It’s soulless, echoey and only conveniently located if you catch public transport.

And we play poorly there.

 

[sideswipe]

The AFL own the MCC??

And don’t forget that Collingwood “negotiates” with the MCC. Quality thread.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DERKADERRR]

It’s soulless, echoey and only conveniently located if you catch public transport.

And we play poorly there.

I love how they added this new extra wide screen, yet they only play 10 seconds of ultra wide screen vision of the game at the start of each quarter, then switch the sides to ads for the rest of it. What a pointless endeavour.

 

[3066]

This is a such a non-story. The way I heard it, it's purely taking advantage of a situation where we would play 2 games in the same interstate location back to back, that would have been scheduled at different points in the calendar. Is it ideal? ... personally no, not really. But if it means we need to rejig for a bit to get more $$$ and stop any sight of salary cap issues then IMO it's worth exploring.

If it got up, would I want it long term? $hit no! But for a short term measure .... and .....be transparent to us members on what this all means $$$ wise for the club, then I'm all ears.

Everyone understands that the ENTIRE league is about to do this for the Gather round yeah!?! .... what do the AFL and clubs get $$$ wise for this move? No doubt the AFL and clubs saw the $$$ from the NRL Magic Round formula because there is zero reason for it (other than if you lived in SA). It has to SA GOV kick back right? Didn't the SA Premier Peter Malinauskas physically troll at AFL corp events for yonks pitching ideas like making the AFL GF in SA? Nice move, because that trolling got this thing up.... and I must admit I totally missed it when announced in, what Dec last year? .... only noticed it when I saw the Pies vs Saints playing in SA and thought WTF!?!?!?!

 

[76woodenspooners]

If Kelly does this we riot.

If it meant we still play 14 H&A games at the MCG, and your membership gave you entry to the same number of games, why would you care?

 

[Do_Beta_Rapport]

We have some of the most commercial and strategic brains in the game leading this club in Kelly and Browne.

I back their lead and direction on this.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

This is a such a non-story. The way I heard it, it's purely taking advantage of a situation where we would play 2 games in the same interstate location back to back, that would have been scheduled at different points in the calendar. Is it ideal? ... personally no, not really. But if it means we need to rejig for a bit to get more $$$ and stop any sight of salary cap issues then IMO it's worth exploring.

WTF does any of this have to do with our salary cap?

 

[barrackers]

Offset lost away membership dollars with ticketed interstate memberships. Clever negotiating tactic.

 

[doppleganger]

Didn’t we only play 2 games at Docklands in 2013?

Round 1 vs North “away”
Round 12 vs Dogs “home”

Another one

Round 6 vs Saints "home".

Get the same fixture every season.

My prefence would be play it at the G.

But if not an option, get $1m to play Dogs, Saints or Kangas on the Gold Coast instead of Etihad...why not?

 

[parano1a]

But if not an option, get $1m to play Dogs, Saints or Kangas on the Gold Coast instead of Etihad...why not?

The team is Collingwood. All of our home games should be within close distance (i.e. <10km) of the suburb of Collingwood.

 

[KinderSmock]

What if this is a careful ploy to grow interstate supporter numbers. Say we played in NSW or QLD. Still untapped markets that haven't all started following the sport. Offer a good membership package, merch, send a few players around the schools - that has the potential for strong returns.

 

[jmac70]

I will be very disappointed if this rumour turns out to be true.

 

[barrackers]

At least 70% of the crowd at Adelaide oval were Collingwood for our game, so it’s likely we’d come close to selling out interstate stadiums.

 

[brysie]

The other aspect that clubs might start exploring for an idea like this is to sandwich a home game between two away games in the same state (if the AFL would agree to it). The team would set up camp for 3 weeks in the one state, thereby reducing their travel requirements. Alternatively it could be just one side but we'd spend 2 weeks there.

i.e. we'd play West Coast and Fremantle in weeks 1 and 3, with a home game against a Docklands tenant in week 2.

I'm not against selling a Docklands home game interstate if it meant we travelled to Perth to play at Optus Stadium or Adelaide for the Adelaide Oval. We could maximise our attendance at two world class facilities, neutralise any home ground advantage the opposition may have and in the process give back to members in Perth or Adelaide while reducing our travel load.

In terms of members and games in Melbourne, the club could (not saying it would) offset the cost of membership through profit it makes by selling a game interstate.

 

[Masked Magician]

New Collingwood deal with Melbourne Cricket Club inching closer
Peter Ryan
ByPeter Ryan
June 7, 2023 — 7.32pm
Save

Share
Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size
Advertisement

Collingwood and the MCC are inching close to finalising a new agreement over the ticketing and seating allocations for Magpie members at the MCG from 2024.

The agreement will see the Magpies retain their status as the preferred major tenant at the ground while satisfying other tenant clubs who have been seeking greater access at home games for their members at the city end of the MCG, according to sources of two tenant clubs who remained anonymous because the negotiations had not concluded.

Collingwood played a home game against Richmond at the MCG in round two
Collingwood played a home game against Richmond at the MCG in round twoCREDIT:GETTY

While remaining strong for Collingwood, the deal, which may not be signed off officially until late July, is expected to be a compromise arrangement that concedes the drawing power of the Magpies for both home and away games at the MCG. However, it gives tenant clubs, Richmond, Melbourne and Hawthorn greater access to seats and other commercial assets within the Ponsford Stand.

A club source speaking anonymously because of the delicate nature of negotiations said the Tigers position remained that they would like access to all relevant inventory for all 11 games. However, they also understand it’s better for all clubs to come to fair arrangements rather than digging their heels in over small details given the positive manner Collingwood has handled negotiations.

Collingwood and Richmond also understand that there will be times when each team is drawing bigger crowds than the other depending on performance, with a club source confirming negotiations have been professional.

RELATED ARTICLE
Craig McRae

Craig Mcrae

Age

51

Ht

176cm

Wt

73kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.9

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.9

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.9

4star

G

1.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

16.2

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

5.6

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.2

3star

G

1.4

5star

with Jordan De Goey

2

Jordan De Goey

Age

28

Ht

188cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.7

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.7

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

3.1

5star

CL

2.3

4star

D

15.8

4star

K

9.7

4star

HB

6.2

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

1.7

3star

CL

2.3

4star

D

11.6

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

1.4

2star

T

4.8

5star

CL

2.6

5star

after Collingwood’s win over West Coast.
AFL 2023
‘Absolute trust in Jordy’: McRae backs banned De Goey to take break before mini pre-season
The issue came to a head in February when The Age revealed that Richmond, Hawthorn and Melbourne were agitating for a deal between Collingwood and the MCC to be struck by the mid-year so they could begin to develop packages for their members for 2024.

Collingwood CEO Craig Kelly had only just started in the role and has been engaging in constructive dialogue with Melbourne Cricket Club CEO Stuart Fox over updating the deal, which was due to expire at the end of 2023.

“Discussions with the MCG tenant clubs in regards to their agreements at the ground are progressing really well and we hope to finalise them in the coming months. While negotiations are still underway, everything is being held in commercial confidence. However, our collective focus remains achieving the best financial model and match-day experience for members and fans,” Fox said.

Advertisement

Collingwood have had an agreement with the MCC since 1998 when they became the first tenant club to lock in long term. Their partnership with the MCC also underpinned the redevelopment of the Ponsford Stand.


However, the Tigers had become frustrated with the deal that required their members to move to different seats when they played Collingwood at the MCG regardless of whether it was a Richmond home game.

 

[Doc1763]

"A club source speaking anonymously because of the delicate nature of negotiations said the Tigers position remained that they would like access to all relevant inventory for all 11 games. However, they also understand it’s better for all clubs to come to fair arrangements rather than digging their heels in over small details given the positive manner Collingwood has handled negotiations.

Collingwood and Richmond also understand that there will be times when each team is drawing bigger crowds than the other depending on performance, with a club source confirming negotiations have been professional."

This is what happens when adults are involved in the negotiations.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

As an interstate supporter (Sydney) I’d like the club to prioritise playing one match in each state outside Victoria as a starting point. The club could then get creative with what’s left over. For instance this year we have no games in Sydney though we will play 6 games interstate in total.

 

[Prexm]

As an interstate supporter (Sydney) I’d like the club to prioritise playing one match in each state outside Victoria as a starting point. The club could then get creative with what’s left over. For instance this year we have no games in Sydney though we will play 6 games interstate in total.

After the booing of Buddy , it will be probably be another 10 years before we play Sydney in Melbourne again. But yes it does make sense that we play in all states that have teams.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

After the booing of Buddy , it will be probably be another 10 years before we play Sydney in Melbourne again. But yes it does make sense that we play in all states that have teams.

Yeah. I prefer to go and watch GWS to be honest. If the AFL want to grow the game in each state they’d probably be best off using the growth hormone that is Collingwood FC. Guarantees a crowd and return on investment for all parties so we should be right.

 

[brysie]

Yeah. I prefer to go and watch GWS to be honest. If the AFL want to grow the game in each state they’d probably be best off using the growth hormone that is Collingwood FC. Guarantees a crowd and return on investment for all parties so we should be right.

If we do agree to playing at least one game in each State every year, I can't see why the AFL can't just alternate the team we play (i.e. GWS this year, Sydney the next, GWS the following etc.)

The only consideration that then needs to be taken into account is whether we should play any of the interstate sides as a double-up, which is generally (although not always) dictated by the 6-6-6 fixture.

 

[Markfs]

Collingwood should play both WA teams in WA....and get the WA labor gov't to pay them $10m. One game should be considered a home game alternating each year between the WA sides and pie supporters should be able to buy seats on the wing in the rich seats - which they will fill either by local people or people coming via plane. Virgin should put on 20 planes and the game should be scheduled to beam back to eastern states in prime time. I should be given free tickets and a buffet.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Surely the boys haven't racked up that much in coke debts

Just those in administration apparently.

 

[magpielicious]

No issue playing a "home" game interstate, on one condition....it is NOT against a side from that state. If you want us to play a home game at the gold coast before an away game against GC, then we play Norf Melb. NOT Brisbane in QLD.

On SM-N986B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[doppleganger]

"A club source speaking anonymously because of the delicate nature of negotiations said the Tigers position remained that they would like access to all relevant inventory for all 11 games. However, they also understand it’s better for all clubs to come to fair arrangements rather than digging their heels in over small details given the positive manner Collingwood has handled negotiations.

Collingwood and Richmond also understand that there will be times when each team is drawing bigger crowds than the other depending on performance, with a club source confirming negotiations have been professional."

This is what happens when adults are involved in the negotiations.

Pfffft adults.

Lets get what is best for Collingwood.

The other tenant clubs

The Tigers pull out of a gate sharing agreement that the two clubs had a while back? And they dominate the punt road end. So why do we want to play an away game against them??

Is Queen / King bday still always a Dees home game? Surely that is a big enough free kick to let our members stay in the Ponsford.

The Hawks, they only play 6 home games at the G anyway with Tassie. Why cant their members use Southern stand / Olympic stand?

Why cant Collingwood retain our exact same deal, and request to never play "away" games against Richmond at the G?