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

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave
The contract was never for *only* one final a week, it was for *at least* one final. More than one final also meets the agreement.

Of course. It also exceeds the agreed acceptable minimum.

When another person posted that your approach would hurt victorian clubs and fans, your response was "beautiful". That's a funny term to use about a situation you don't want to see occur.

Told you what that meant. "For you to state what you have means that you are either really stupid or cannot read."

Do you have the same interest in seeing things fixed that victorians think should be fixed? No. You're as selft interested as anyone else.

I don't have the same interest obviously for something I'm not involved in, but I certainly have no objection to seeing any injustice fixed either. Unlike some.

{... blather, more blather & ramble snipped here}

Why should it be the MCC who give way and not the AFL? Why should it be the MCC who are made to suffer and not the AFL? If there is an impasse why is it only one side that you attribute blame to? There's that biggotry again. It must be the evil victorian MCC's fault, not the noble AFL.

The AFL have made three or more offers of compensation. The MCC have given no ground whatsoever. It is the MCC's turn. That is no bigotry. Bigotry is attitudes like "interstate fans don't deserve any finals, Vic is the home of AFL, bleat, blather etc" - apparently where this lack of deserving comes out of having been born in the wrong spot, or something.

Why don't the AFL offer more money? Why is it that not a solution?

It is part of the solution. Or you would think so, wouldn't you ... but the MCC have knocked it back, so now what?

The ends justifies the means eh? For someone claiming to be about fairness that's an interesting stance to take.

No, it is because the reasonable approach has failed that justifies a less reasonable approach. And BTW, what end possibly justifies MCC's means?

The current impasse will continue until the AFL come to the party in terms of money. They are the party at fault.

For the most part. The previous set of jokers anyway, not the current crowd who are merely trying to fix it.

However, the MCC are at fault also. AFL is their #1 customer, and the MCC have done zilch to accomodate their #1 customer's needs.

I have never said, nor implied, that I want to see interstate fans hurt. My contribution to this thread, being an apologist and all, has been to point out that the blackmail approach, aside from being ethically wrong, will only hurt the AFL and it's clubs and their supporters and that the practical solution to the problem is for the AFL to work out how much money it will take for the MCC to change their stance. I believe that the AFL chose to forgoe that chance at the negotiation table last time in the belief that they could blackmail the MCC and in effect get something for nothing.

I understand what you purport to believe, but you make it sound like you decidedly don't want this thing fixed because YOU stand to benefit at the expense of interstate fans. If it sounds like a rat, smells like a rat, acts like a rat ...

For you to state what you have means that you are either really stupid or cannot read. I'll leave it up to others to judge which it is.

Desperation stakes now, Dave? Go for the personal attack?

I would have said unworthy of you, but obviously it isn't.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows

I understand what you purport to believe, but you make it sound like you decidedly don't want this thing fixed because YOU stand to benefit at the expense of interstate fans. If it sounds like a rat, smells like a rat, acts like a rat ...

Originally posted by Dave

For you to state what you have means that you are either really stupid or cannot read. I'll leave it up to others to judge which it is.

Both!

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Dave
Which blockbuster games? Is there a store the AFL can run off to purchase them from?

Well how do they work out what are the 11 games they get now as blockbusters........the same shop should be able to provide another 11 and have it written into the contract like the current 11 are.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
{... blather, more blather & ramble snipped here}

The AFL have made three or more offers of compensation. The MCC have given no ground whatsoever.

The AFL claim they have made three offers. The MCC HAVE given ground wrt banking of finals.

{... blather, more blather & ramble snipped here}

It is part of the solution. Or you would think so, wouldn't you ... but the MCC have knocked it back, so now what?

Offer more?

No, it is because the reasonable approach has failed that justifies a less reasonable approach.

It's interesting that you've decidied that the reasonable approach has failed given you haven't been privy to the negotiations.

And BTW, what end possibly justifies MCC's means?

What means? They signed a contract and they are sticking to it until they get what they believe is fair compensation for it.

For the most part. The previous set of jokers anyway, not the current crowd who are merely trying to fix it.

However, the MCC are at fault also. AFL is their #1 customer, and the MCC have done zilch to accomodate their #1 customer's needs.

Not true.

I understand what you purport to believe, but you make it sound like you decidedly don't want this thing fixed

When have I ever said I don't want it fixed? All I've argued with you about is HOW to do it. I've stated more than once that it should be resolved.

Desperation stakes now, Dave? Go for the personal attack?

Ah, you've been studying Dan again. Claiming that I hold a position that I don't and then deriding me for it and saying that I don't mind seeing people hurt when I haven't isn't a personal attack?

I would have said unworthy of you, but obviously it isn't.

Sauce for the goose and all ozman.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Well how do they work out what are the 11 games they get now as blockbusters

They get 10 of the best 12 games. Funnily enough they usually involve 4 teams. Unless you can magic up some more with the same level of support you aint going to get any more "blockbusters".

The cannot promise the MCG 20 of the best games as they have a deal with Coloicol wrt to crowds there as well.

Great deal makers the AFL.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave
Offer more?

That is precisely what they just did. For the third time. It didn't work. Do try to keep up.

So now what? How about give less, hmmm?

What means? They signed a contract and they are sticking to it until they get what they believe is fair compensation for it.

So it is OK if what they happen to believe it is worth is many times what it really is worth. The rest of Australia must pay ?

Those are the MCC "means", Dave. Call it blackmail, call it ransom, whatever you like, but I can't see how you could possibly believe it is the moral high ground position. Quite the reverse.

Not true.

I don't really feel like playin is/is not/is/is not games Dave, but if it amuses you...

Is true.

All I've argued with you about is HOW to do it. I've stated more than once that it should be resolved.

Actually, all you have lumped for is "give the MCC fat cats more money" time & time again. Three times is enough.

Claiming that I hold a position that I don't and then deriding me for it and saying that I don't mind seeing people hurt when I haven't isn't a personal attack?

Your insisting that the only "honourable" approach foir AFL is to offer the MCC yet more money, again and again, yet turning a blind eye to the MCC holding everyone else to ransom ... well I can't say exactly why you would want to do that but your own self-interest sure looms as a strong likely motive.

Sauce for the goose and all ozman.

Ever heard someone playing a piano and one of the keys doesn't work?

That seems to be what we have here.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Ever heard someone playing a piano and one of the keys doesn't work?

That seems to be what we have here.

Wouldn't matter. I heard you can't play anyway.

Even "Chopsticks"...

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows

Your insisting that the only "honourable" approach foir AFL is to offer the MCC yet more money, again and again, yet turning a blind eye to the MCC holding everyone else to ransom ... well I can't say exactly why you would want to do that but your own self-interest sure looms as a strong likely motive.

Huh? IIRC Dave isn't an MCC member.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Yes and no......contract negotiation/changes/settlement's occur every day in the business world this isn't any different to them in that reagrd

And this is not an increasingly litigous world and country because lawyers are beloved by all.

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Are you saying there are only 11 big Melbourne based games on a footy calender each year - Eddie tells us differently every week on his show. Remember the MCG have said they make money on any game that has over 25,000 (I'm sure it was less than this but can't find the article).

Eddie hosts a footy show. It's his job to say it's been a big week in football and there are plenty of exciting games to discuss this week.

The MCC make money on most games because they get ground rental regardless of the match. I would assume that is a big part of what has been negotiated - ie the price.

The genuine blockbusters - at least that is the term that was used - amount to 4 teams playing a maximum of 12 games each year but they don't all play twice so it's actually less (not much less). The next level of games involve these 4 clubs and the QB clash is the only real guranteed big crowd puller. Call it a dozen games for FWIW. There will be other matches but the point of the blockbusters is that they get the crowd every time regardless of ladder or weather factors. That is precicely why the MCC and the TV netwroks want them and they effect the price in both cases.

People have been talking about more than this anyway. I read on here about transferring other big matches away from the G. Likely they will be Collingwood and to a lesser extent Richmond home games. It's not relevant who the team is but it is relevant what that would do to the supporters, sponsors etc. It's also relevant what this would do to the relationship between the MCC and the AFL and how the AFL would be viwed as a business partner by other contracting parties. I can only imagine future contract breaking penalties that would be insisted upon.

Originally posted by dreamkillers
I'm sure the MCC/MCG would be happy to up that number to around 20 or more and the AFL have already said they are prepared to do that.

But if as you say the MCC would be happy and the AFL have offered then what the f**k are we arguing about? Isn't the problem solved?

I am sure this would be part of a solution as I have said in the past. There aren't many better games that could be scheduled to the G than what they already get though so from the MCC's perspective what is the real incremental worth of the offer? More to the point, I don't know that the offer has been made. Certainly AD on MMM before the Saturday game said they had offered nothing and didn't need to. That is the attitude that has me concerned and if I were the MCC would steel my resolve.

My main point is that AFL don't act in good faith and it is their bloody fault when they f**k things up not someone elses so it is their responsibility to resolve these issues and the onus is on them.

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Of course as soon as one part of a contract changes the deal is different but compensation doesn't always come in the form of actual dollars.........at the moment they have locked in the top 11 games in Melbourne - I have no problem changing that to 20/25/30 and I'm sure those extra games would generate substantial more revenue for the MCC/MCG.

I wouldn't limit the parameters but the reality is that money talks and bullsh*t (especially of the AFL variety) walks. The fall back position is surely that the whole thing can be resolved so what is the price. I gurantee you that if the AFL asked Eddie to do a deal it would get done and it would be at the low end cost wise. It won't happen because the AFL wouldn't ask for such a favour and people would go balistic anyway with their conflict and bias claims but it would work. The fact is Eddie is a negotiator and as far as I can see the AFL aint got may of them.
I have suggested this numerous times as part of the package. I'm not sure it could be enough but it surely wouldn't be that hard to work out the projections. Frankly if the AFL had made the offer and it was genuine they would ahve made projections and they could release them and prove their bona fides.

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Not cave in at all they say they want compensation, the AFL say they won't give monetary compensation. Surely changing the contract to lock in the best 20/25/30 games at the MCG as I suggested earlier is worth a lot more financially to them in so many areas than just dollars themselves.

I have suggested this numerous times as part of the package. I'm not sure it could be enough but it surely wouldn't be that hard to work out the projections. Frankly if the AFL had made the offer and it was genuine they would ahve made projections and they could release them and prove their bona fides.

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Seems more than fair to me..........but as the MCC/MCG don't seem to see it that way that's why the screws need to be applied. It wouldn't take a number cruncher long to come up with the differences financially of current earnings based on 2002 games, minimum contract requirements & the proposed offer by the AFL of increasing the number of big games at the MCG.

I think it's pretty obvious which one gives the MCG/MCC the best deal and it isn't the current one by a long shot.

So what's your theory on why the MCC won't play ball?

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Just a little...........

After Timor was declared independant of Indonesia a new Timor Gap treaty was signed between Timor and Australia. To actually develop and utilise the gas supplies in this area the agreement had to be renegotiated as well as new agreements set up for specific fields.

The Timorese who eagerly need the injection of funds into their almost 3rd world economy had been ready to negotiate this agreement further on the rights of use and subsequent financial settlements for over 18 months.

Meanwhile the Australian Govt held out for as long as possible in the negotiations knowing this would result in Australia getting the best financial result for themselves. Due to holding out Woodside/Shell and other companies threatened to pull out of the area completely which forced the Timor Govt to compromise on what they really wanted/needed financially as it was basically accept the deal or get nothing.

Hardly what you would call fair dealing on our govt's behalf but that's part and parcel of negotiating contracts - especially where we are talking big dollars.

OK I think I am with you now. I am aguing slightly different issues with different issues in different posts so forgive me if I am confusing them with each other. I certainly don't think what you desricbe, which I don't doubt because it mostly pretty public, is particularly friendly behavior toward a nation we sent troops into as a freindly force. Not completely dissimilar in effcet to issues re current contracts being thrown at US companies re Iraq reconstruction. Pigs in the trough and all that.

Fundamentally I agree that this wouldn't be a particularly unusal type of tactic. It isn't what has been suggested though.

Apologies if I have confused your arguments with others but are you saying that what you describe above is the same as breaking an existing contract? It isn't IMO. Nor is it the same as alienating supporters of clubs unneccesarily of causeing great financial loss to clubs and being sued for it all. We have had post after post of people saying the AFL should break the MCC contract because they are in the right or just move games that have been the subject of many forward plans, ticket sales and finacial and marketing arrangements. IMO they are not in the right to start with becuase it is an issue they created and didn't fix. Even if they were in the right, legal contracts cannot be broken without consequences and the potential and likely consequenses concern me greately.

Originally posted by dreamkillers
IMO the poor negotiations are occurring on both sides of the fence as it's not as if the AFL have offered nothing to compensate. As I said in the previous posts the AFL have offered to have more block buster games based at the MCG than is in the current contract. If I was the MCG/MCC I'd be saying ok the current contract is for 11 games lets make that 22 so that the biggest drawing game in Melbourne each week is played at the MCG.

Quite literally AD said they had and need offer nothing.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Dave
Which blockbuster games? Is there a store the AFL can run off to purchase them from?

You've never been to blockbuster video?
I hear they have all the big ones.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by M29
Huh? IIRC Dave isn't an MCC member.

So what?

If the finals rule stays, then there could well be an extra finals game in Melbourne that Dave could go to, and Essendon & Essendon fans sure wouldn't be too cut up if they had to play a final at the G instead of AAMI Stadium or Subiaco where they were supposed to.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

It's a bit strange they can promise 10 of the 12 top games to the MCG. They can guess, but can they really predict how many people are going to turn up?
No-one could possibly have predicted that Essendon v Kangaroos at Docklands would draw a bigger crowd than Essendon v Carlton at the MCG. But it did.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
So what?

I fail to see why he'd go and pay $40 odd (unless his an AFL member) to watch a finals match that dosen't involve his team.

Essendon & Essendon fans sure wouldn't be too cut up if they had to play a final at the G instead of AAMI Stadium or Subiaco where they were supposed to.

Of course we wouldn't be.

I do think it's stupid. But the way to go about fixing it certaintly isn't via ransom.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
That is precisely what they just did. For the third time. It didn't work.

Is it? How do you know, were you there? For someone who freely admits he knows little about this situation all of a sudden you seem to know all about it.

So it is OK if what they happen to believe it is worth is many times what it really is worth.

Who decided what it is worth? If the AFL are really serious about how bad the current situation is then obviously it's worth quite a bit to them for it to be changed.

The rest of Australia must pay ?

No, the AFL.

Those are the MCC "means", Dave. Call it blackmail, call it ransom, whatever you like, but I can't see how you could possibly believe it is the moral high ground position. Quite the reverse.

Not at all. The AFL entered into an agreement that saw substantial benefits flow to them. In return the MCC got a deal that allowed them to get the finance they needed to construct the GSS. Now the AFL want to alter that agreement but don't want to pay for that alteration.

I don't really feel like playin is/is not/is/is not games Dave, but if it amuses you...

Is true.

The banking agreement (that bit I've already mentioned that you've ignored) is ground that the MCC have given. Do try to keep up.

Actually, all you have lumped for is "give the MCC fat cats more money" time & time again. Three times is enough.

If you want to break a contract freely entered into why shouldn't you pay?

Your insisting that the only "honourable" approach foir AFL is to offer the MCC yet more money, again and again, yet turning a blind eye to the MCC holding everyone else to ransom ... well I can't say exactly why you would want to do that but your own self-interest sure looms as a strong likely motive.

There's that bigotry raising it's ugly head again. It has to be self interest because I'm one of those evil victorians. The MCC are holding no one to ransom. They are asking that if the AFL want out of a contract they freely entered into that they should pay to do so. That isn't holding anyone to ransom. They aren't withdrawing services from the AFL the way you propose the AFL do to them.

Nice statement too btw, pity it didn't answer the question. You've paid good attention to those lessons from Dan.

Ever heard someone playing a piano and one of the keys doesn't work?

That seems to be what we have here.

So when are you getting your piano fixed?

 

[ok.crows]

Dave, M29

IMO it is clearly not in anyone's interests on Bigfooty to follow this topic further, at risk of boring everyone to tears.

Suffice it to say that when the AFL says it has offerred the MCC extra in an effort to resolve this impasse, and the MCC agrees offers were made but, to the AFL's great indignation, just say (according to the MCC alone) that the amount was not adequate then in my view it is more than probable that it is the MCC holding the AFL to ransom and not the other way around. Further to this consider the AFL has in the past given the MCC packages which exceed the agreed acceptable level, yet the MCC continues to insist on compensation that the AFL clearly thinks is hugely excessive.

Further still, I can't see any way that the AFL in possibly considering the option of just giving the MCC the minimum agreed acceptable package, as opposed to freebie extras currently given, is in any way a "ransom" move itself.

If in order to resolve this issue the MCC do extort their apparently excessive fee (or maybe it is really 'pound of flesh') out of football, then all football followers will pay in the end, not just the body which is the AFL.

But it seems you both are out to hang the AFL (who I agree are not blameless in all this) and you will not wear any criticism of MCC fat cats. The reason for this attitude on your part I cannot fathom, other than the apparent bigotry it implies that you both seemingly harbour against anything non-Victorian.