Did anybody else catch undertones of "no more blockbusters at the G"?

[grayham]

Re: Re: No

Originally posted by Khan
Did you read this graham.

Wait until the draw come out before congratulating OC


Lets Roar

Khan

Anzac day they will keep, and maybe another blockbuster. But the dome will get Rich v Haw, while St Kilda play Freo at the MCG.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by mantis
We are only talking about supporters, so where players come from is irrelevant, also you have to remember that a lot of people outside of Victoria, also support Victorian teams, so you can't say that everyone in certain states follow Non Vic teams, I know that a huge number of people interstate, are actually Victorian teams member, and or supporters, there goes your 52%.

So what?

A huge number of people in Victoria support sides from states other than Victoria.

The 52% (approximate) figure is the generally accepted one, by everybody but mantis it would seem.

Except (as I point out) for attendence at games. That is strictly due to the fact that only average 3 out of 8 games are allowed to be played outside Victoria, and the games that are played outside Victoria are generally one-sided crowds with the Victorian side drawing significantly fewer people to the game than the home side, making the crowd potentially only half what it could have been if all fans were able to attend.

 

[Portia]

Call me the Super Cynic if you will, but how exactly will relocating high-drawing games to Docklands convince the AFL to hurry up and fix the contract?

The AFL have wanted to schedule high drawing games at the Dome since it was built, but because of its capacity, public opinion has had them give in and play the big ones at the MCG.

Now they have a great excuse to do exactly what they want to do, and blame it on the interstate clubs and the MCG.....where is the impetus on the AFL to see that this state of affairs doesn't continue?

 

[understudy]

Re: Re: Re: No

Originally posted by grayham
Anzac day they will keep, and maybe another blockbuster. But the dome will get Rich v Haw, while St Kilda play Freo at the MCG.

This reminds me of the AFL scheduling Carltons blockbusters at Optus Oval in 2000. Carlton called their bluff and it achieved nothing.

Just like this will.

 

[Joffaboy]

Re: Re: Re: No

Originally posted by grayham
Anzac day they will keep, and maybe another blockbuster. But the dome will get Rich v Haw, while St Kilda play Freo at the MCG.

Fantastic!!! The Saints may make some money out of the game instead of having to make a loss at Disconnect Dome.

 

[ok.crows]

More undertones:

From The Australian

Jackson warns of AFL reprisals
By Greg Denham, AFL
June 25, 2003

...

But the league has threatened the MCG with the bare minimum of home-and-away games (41) for the second year running, as well as scheduling more low-drawing matches.

The AFL has also threatened to not move fixtures from the MCG during the season to accommodate feature and international games of other football codes as they have in the past.

See? Threats apparently.

It was predictable, really.

 

[ok.crows]

Incidentally Dan

... from the same article,

MCC secretary Stephen Gough yesterday dismissed the AFL's anti-MCG threat. "I'm sure they will honour their agreement with us with the best of intentions," Gough said.

Under the agreement, the MCG is guaranteed 10 of the best 12 drawing games each season as well as a financial compensation formula should falling attendances be attributed to increased television ratings.

So there it is. The question I have is why say "agreement" rather than "contract".

If it is not in a contract, then I strongly doubt what Gough claims will happen.

 

[Khan]

The agreement part I find interesting is the one based on TV . Does this mean that the AFL have done another dumb thing by agreeing to pay the MCG if total crowd figures drop below a certain level.


An aggreement if written and signed is quiet binding as well. We need full details.


Lets Roar

Khan

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Dave
$$$$$$18 million reasons.

Be more specific.

It would be nice to play Grand Finals at the MCG, at least for the near future, but that is all.
The AFL does not need the MCG to survive.

Some Victorian clubs may want to overstate it's appeal to gain whatever advantage they can, but that has nothing to do with the game itself needing the MCG.
The MCG is but one stadium in Australia. The best in Victoria, but only one of a number in the Country.

 

[morgoth]

No Cigar

It is written into the agreement with the MCC that x of the biggest drawing games wil be played at the G, that the G will be compensated for falling crowds due to TV etc etc.

Put simply the AFL was bent over and you know what. I do not agree with the MCC finals but it is pretty obvious that the MCC was correctly advised about how to structure the contract whilst the AFL was not. It does not surprise me the Jackson comes across as a soft fool.

Must have been hard for Evans and Samuels to say no to the MCC also, after all there precious networks in the Melbourne club etc would have been hurt if they had knocked back the G.

Absolute joke, disgusting, and to think they sold Waverly and lost thier bargaining power. Bad Business decision.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
The AFL publish a draw. Write it down, send it out. It has heaps of poor games at the G. Lots of furore, lots of wailing & gnashing of teeth, including by the MCC. So negotiations happen, and the rotten draw is made defunct along with the poxy-odd-final-must-be-at-MCG-anyway-because-Vics-are-dog-in-manger deal.

Then a new draw is published that has everyone happy.

The AFL are two tight-fisted and cheap to do that.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Jars458
Football Park would be happy to host the Collingwood v Essendon game

Given that you guys say these games are neutral why would either side care whether they travel to Adelaide.

Better lock your houses up then.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
Be more specific.

I think you'll find David was reffering to th $18million that comes in as a result of big games at the MCG.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Holding the MCC to ransom is less despicable than holding 52% of AFL supporters to ransom.

One hell of a lot less despicable.

Where do you pull this stat from?

"The Dan School of International Statistics"?

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Ahah - that 70,000 afl owned stadium looks very appealing now

Indeed. It would make okcrows theory more realistic if they still had the dump.

At least that ****hole could put up with 3 games a weekend. Probably the only thing it ever had going for it, the surface.

Colonial can barely handle 2 a week. Then of course, the AFL would have to work around the concerts and other rugby games that are held there.

Tell me the football public would actually believe they'd see 3 games each week at colonial. It would last 2 weeks before the ground would need to be resurfaced.

 

[M29]

Re: No Cigar

Originally posted by morgoth
It is written into the agreement with the MCC that x of the biggest drawing games wil be played at the G, that the G will be compensated for falling crowds due to TV etc etc.

Put simply the AFL was bent over and you know what. I do not agree with the MCC finals but it is pretty obvious that the MCC was correctly advised about how to structure the contract whilst the AFL was not. It does not surprise me the Jackson comes across as a soft fool.

Absolute joke, disgusting, and to think they sold Waverly and lost thier bargaining power. Bad Business decision.

Not only a soft fool, but a moronic business man.

 

[milo]

Equity and fairness – often mentioned but not addressed by the AFL.

Forget all these solutions, just put someone in Jackson’s position who has the balls to fix the problem.

It’s not rocket science – there’s a problem, fix it.

Eyebrows isn’t the man.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by M29
Where do you pull this stat from?

It is my understanding that that is where certain statistics such as TV audience and memberships and merchandise sales & the like would estimate the level of support of the six non-Victorian clubs.

It is a statistic mentioned often enough, and not really disputed by many AFAIK.

Just because you didn't know about it M29 doesn't mean it is not so.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Nothing about John Elliott theories at all but doing business isn't about just being nice it's about getting the best deal you can through any legal method available........unlike the Victorian you mentioned who's business ideas appear to be stuck in the 70's

Not about just being nice but not being nice and especially when nice means have not been exhausted is hardly any way to run a busieness with a business partner you are going to be in business with for somewhere between 30 years and eternity. Business is not screw or be screwed because operating with that mentality means you will ultimately be screwed yourself. It's preccely the attitude the AFL is acused of having toward it's supporter base and here we are discussing taking further with a great many of those supporters plus adding clubs and the main footy ground business partners to the equation of srewers and screwees.

That is not smart business.

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Maybe or maybe not but only 1 side at the moment is really using their leverage with the other appearing (in public) to be too weak to do so.

That one side is not using anything as such. They are saying we have a contract that was fairly negotiated and we intend it to be upheld. The other side is saying we want a unilateral change to some conditions and we are not prepared to offer anything for that. The AFL have done little or nothing to redress what they say is a fundamental inequity, let alone one they willingly and knowing created and ratified.

I am not an MCC member and I don't particularly have any sympathy for the MCC. The fact is, though, that the AFL created this problem and will not do anything to fix it. Andrew Demitriou said they will not ioffer anything to the MCC because they shouldn't have to. How that can be the right mentality for a bloke after the CEO job I cannot understand.

The fault lies with the AFL. That fault is for both the problem and it's lack of resolution.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by M29
Indeed. It would make okcrows theory more realistic if they still had the dump.

At least that ****hole could put up with 3 games a weekend. Probably the only thing it ever had going for it, the surface.

Colonial can barely handle 2 a week. Then of course, the AFL would have to work around the concerts and other rugby games that are held there.

Tell me the football public would actually believe they'd see 3 games each week at colonial. It would last 2 weeks before the ground would need to be resurfaced.

It is not a theory any more. Threats about low-attraction games to be given to MCG next season have actually surfaced.

Yet AGAIN I need to point out, do try to stick to the topic. We are talking about trying to put pressure on the MCC to get the finals deal changed.

We are not talking at all about actually having to play extra games at Colonial.

Who said ANYTHING about that?

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
It is my understanding that that is where certain statistics such as TV audience and memberships and merchandise sales & the like would estimate the level of support of the six non-Victorian clubs.

It is a statistic mentioned often enough, and not really disputed by many AFAIK.

Just because you didn't know about it M29 doesn't mean it is not so.

So you did pull it from Dan's school of stats.

Secondly, if two teams are at least going to be home finals, it won't be all 52% apprx fans that are upset.

Only the fans of the clubs that have to play their home finals, (lets say Port and Sydney) at the mcg. Do they make up 52% of fans? I think not.

I don't think Adelaide fans would care if Port had to play their home final at the MCG.

Nor would Fremantle fans, if west coast were made to play their home final at the MCG.

So you may have 52% of all AFL fans, but I strongly doubt that ALL 52% of them would be ****ed off by this.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Threats about low-attraction games to be given to MCG next season have actually surfaced.

Threats? They won't fall for that one.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by M29
I think you'll find David was reffering to th $18million that comes in as a result of big games at the MCG.

In that case it is $18M minus whatever would come in from Telstra.
Since Telstra would be a sellout for those games, then with lower outgoings the figure would not be anywhere near that amount.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Jars458
Football Park would be happy to host the Collingwood v Essendon game

Given that you guys say these games are neutral why would either side care whether they travel to Adelaide.

Sponsors who have spent money on a scheduled game, supporters of two teams who have already paid for the game and some plain old common sense.

You are talking about a game that has arrangements put in place for more than a year in advnace, that raises a large amount of money for both clubs and the equalisation fund, that impacts the AFL catering contrcats and that fans of both sides love.

Since Collingwood can't play 11 home games at their home ground I propose that equity dictates that no other club can either. Since Non Victorian clubs travell 11 times a year I propose all Victorian clubs do the same. Never mind there are only 22 rounds and 10 teams cant play interstate against 6 opponents 11 times. Hell what's good for one is good for all and hang common sense.

Lets just take everything that's wrong with the AFL and compound it so not one person connected with any club is happy.

WHAT A ****ING GREAT IDEA. LETS ENSURE THE DEATH OF THE AFL.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
In that case it is $18M minus whatever would come in from Telstra.

That wouldn't be alot. Even if they did sell it out.