Economic downturn will sink boot in to clubs

[SweetLeftFoot]

How many home games do those clubs play OUTSIDE of Melbourne?

Is it not almost equivalent to one team not being there?

Indeed. Maybe your members could help the cause by going to Docklands games?

 

[hawker11]

Indeed. Maybe your members could help the cause by going to Docklands games?

Maybe the AFL could allocate Hawthorn 11 MCG home games as promised when they sold our home ground at Waverley Park.

The Docklands are anything but a home ground to the Hawthorn Football Club.

Though our club has the attendance record with Carlton at the venue (your home ground).

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Maybe the AFL could allocate Hawthorn 11 MCG home games as promised when they sold our home ground at Waverley Park.

The Docklands are anything but a home ground to the Hawthorn Football Club.

Though our club has the attendance record with Carlton at the venue (your home ground).

Oh, you got shafted the AFL. Welcome to the club.

I don't see how Tassie is closer than the Docklands for your members.

Anyway ...

 

[gaelictiogar]

Maybe the AFL could allocate Hawthorn 11 MCG home games as promised when they sold our home ground at Waverley Park.

The Docklands are anything but a home ground to the Hawthorn Football Club.

Though our club has the attendance record with Carlton at the venue (your home ground).

Wanting 11 home MCG games is not unique to you Hawker. We want them as well but we shoot ourselves in the foot by not putting bums on seats.

OK we "can" do it as we showed on Thursday, but we were pants onfield and disillusioned our fanbase yet again. You had a home game Premiers V Minor Premiers on a stand alone Friday in a GF replay and fluffed your lined failing to hit 70,000.

We all moan about Collingwood and whinge about preference but fact is we are hamstringing ourselves by onfield failure.

 

[medusala]

Wanting 11 home MCG games is not unique to you Hawker.

The difference is that Hawthorn were "guaranteed" 11 home games at the MCG as part of their compensation for the AFL breaking the legally binding long term deal at Waverley.


However, I do agree with gripes from Richmond.

How can it possibly be that the other two tenants get so much a better deal than the Hawks and Tigers given their membership and attendances.

One can understand (to an extent) the Pies but the other team?

 

[medusala]

So a "good" stadium deal will save clubs?

This from a chap widely regarded as the best administrator in the game (and his club isnt exactly struggling on field)

..

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/big-cats-extinction-worries/2009/03/27/1237657151079.html

Cook was asked by Tasmanian senator Kerry O'Brien whether he regarded the death of at least one Victorian club as inevitable.

"I wouldn't say it was inevitable. I would say it is most likely. There are no guarantees on future television revenue … that is very important," he said

Cook said Geelong supported a team in Tasmania but, in line with the AFL's position, did not want it to happen until after new licences had been granted to Gold Coast and west Sydney teams. He said he did not believe a Melbourne club would voluntarily relocate to Tasmania but that "financial catastrophe" would most likely leave at least one club with no option.

While he said the loss of a Victorian club would have "a dramatic social impact", he said it was to be expected, given the unfolding financial crisis and the uncertainty regarding the next TV broadcast rights deal.

The powerhouse Cats will turn over $40 million this year, he said. "We'll only make a profit of $200,000. It's not a great margin."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The difference is that Hawthorn were "guaranteed" 11 home games at the MCG as part of their compensation for the AFL breaking the legally binding long term deal at Waverley.

What was the length of the long term lease at Waverley? When was St Kilda's term up?

The AFL and long term stadium deals, just don't go together all that well.

 

[Zvim]

So a "good" stadium deal will save clubs?

This from a chap widely regarded as the best administrator in the game (and his club isnt exactly struggling on field)

..

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/big-cats-extinction-worries/2009/03/27/1237657151079.html

Cook was asked by Tasmanian senator Kerry O'Brien whether he regarded the death of at least one Victorian club as inevitable.

"I wouldn't say it was inevitable. I would say it is most likely. There are no guarantees on future television revenue … that is very important," he said

Cook said Geelong supported a team in Tasmania but, in line with the AFL's position, did not want it to happen until after new licences had been granted to Gold Coast and west Sydney teams. He said he did not believe a Melbourne club would voluntarily relocate to Tasmania but that "financial catastrophe" would most likely leave at least one club with no option.

While he said the loss of a Victorian club would have "a dramatic social impact", he said it was to be expected, given the unfolding financial crisis and the uncertainty regarding the next TV broadcast rights deal.

The powerhouse Cats will turn over $40 million this year, he said. "We'll only make a profit of $200,000. It's not a great margin."

He would be basing that assessment on current deals, which I agree with him. It is why the issue needs to be resolved this year, if we can't get decent deals then the AFL MUST begin construction of a 25-30k clean stadium in Melbourne this year and give clubs the option to move all but essential TD/MCG games there if they don't get a proper deal.

Not sure how relevant the turnover figure is, it really depends on where the money is spent chasing revenue. If you spend $100m chasing $100m revenue then you are not going anywhere. Some clubs spend a fortune in marketing chasing corporate dollars which do not make them a great deal of money all up.

 

[Hawkk]

Wanting 11 home MCG games is not unique to you Hawker. We want them as well but we shoot ourselves in the foot by not putting bums on seats.

OK we "can" do it as we showed on Thursday, but we were pants onfield and disillusioned our fanbase yet again. You had a home game Premiers V Minor Premiers on a stand alone Friday in a GF replay and fluffed your lined failing to hit 70,000.

Not really

As I'm sure you are aware - after all you are the self proclaimed crowd 'expert' the 'Tiger Army' have only 70,000 once against Geelong (1980 - 70,068) and never against Hawthorn - just for relevence last nights crowd would place 21st on Richmond's alltime largest home attendances across its 45 years ar the MCG

In all honestly I'd be surprised if the AFL ever give Richmond primetime football again after Thursday Night's 'performance', now that was a flop

What's more the reason why the game last night didn't draw 75-80,000 was because all the AFL members (ie. neutrals) were ripped off from the night before

 

[Hawkk]

So a "good" stadium deal will save clubs?

This from a chap widely regarded as the best administrator in the game (and his club isnt exactly struggling on field)

..

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/big-cats-extinction-worries/2009/03/27/1237657151079.html

Cook was asked by Tasmanian senator Kerry O'Brien whether he regarded the death of at least one Victorian club as inevitable.

"I wouldn't say it was inevitable. I would say it is most likely. There are no guarantees on future television revenue … that is very important," he said

Cook said Geelong supported a team in Tasmania but, in line with the AFL's position, did not want it to happen until after new licences had been granted to Gold Coast and west Sydney teams. He said he did not believe a Melbourne club would voluntarily relocate to Tasmania but that "financial catastrophe" would most likely leave at least one club with no option.

While he said the loss of a Victorian club would have "a dramatic social impact", he said it was to be expected, given the unfolding financial crisis and the uncertainty regarding the next TV broadcast rights deal.

The powerhouse Cats will turn over $40 million this year, he said. "We'll only make a profit of $200,000. It's not a great margin."

Essentially its another example of the Port Adelaide tradeoff

A Tasmanian side that will struggle financially for a traditional Victorian club that is struggling.

The argument against is that another 'franchise club' takes away from the prestige of the competition and its history