-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Financial Crisis : At last 2 Melbourne teams fold?
- Thread starter Memories
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #402
Not our problem ...sell us your home game if you can't accomodate us - we don't have to rely on away supporters to fill our seats ..we can do it ourselves. You will make some cash and we will get an extra 3 home games
Serious question - if the Docklands deal was so bad .....why the &*(&*% did your clubs sign it?
Surely your issue is with your Board/President/CEO of the time?
I never see members say gees our club made a bad choice ...I only ever see members blame the AFL and Collins?
Am I missing something - were clubs signed on by the AFL without their consent?
While butane does have a point, I do recall the Dogs spinning their deal at telstra as a good thing - claiming they had a good deal because they'd never lose on a game.
Brayshaw said tonight after our membership vote that the AFL had been making very encouraging noises regarding stadia in melbourne for the smaller clubs.
Once again North fights and innovates and sausage clubs like Footscray reap the benefit.
Bullshit you didn't have a choice, you left Optus Oval to play there. At the time, the AFL was contractually obliged to play just 22 games a year there and no such obligation to sign a deal with Docklands was imposed on the Bulldogs.
You were well within your rights to continue playing your home games at OO in 2000.
Hawthorn have a crap stadium deal and a get an annual crap draw too...with the lowest face value membership in the league.
Giving background to why crowds were low at the end of the 2004 season. Despite this our membership and finances were healthy that year and the following year...
Bit of a difference there. Hawthorn and St Kilda had a legally binding deal with the AFL re Waverley. Hawthorn ended up getting far less than legal advice suggested they were entitled to.
As for stadium deals Melbourne have in recent years got a better deal than both Hawthorn and Richmond at the MCG.
Not really, the point is that other clubs have just as bad, if not worse inequalities then the clubs on the packages
When was the last time Hawthorn or Richmond played 13 games at the MCG or 5 Friday Night games for the season?
When was the last time Fremantle or Port Adelaide had more then 10 games on FTA networks nationally?
The problem with the system is that its one rule for one and another for others
If the clubs collectively didn't agree to the closure of Waverley Park, we would have that 3rd Melbourne Stadium and the poorer clubs would have alot more clout with the TD and MCG then they do today.
Problem was, the clubs at the time were desperate for the proceeds from the sale and didn’t see the long term implications of only having 2 stadiums (expensive) in Melbourne and a stadium in Carlton who traditionally screwed tenants over
Problem was, the clubs at the time were desperate for the proceeds from the sale and didn’t see the long term implications of only having 2 stadiums (expensive) in Melbourne and a stadium in Carlton who traditionally screwed tenants over
Merger would have been the death of our club. I saw it as an insult that you believed that Hawthorn supporters wanted their club to die. Yes, some saw it as the only way any of Hawthorn's history could survive.
We were lucky, in that we were jolted in to action. This was the big warning by the AFL that it was willing to destroy clubs. All Victorian clubs, esspecially the "weaker ones" were put on notice.
The Hawthorn board then put in mountains of work to get us to where we are today, that wasn't through luck or fortune, it was hard work. We were well outta trouble before we ever showed anything onfield.
Costa has done a similar job with Geelong bringing them back from massive debt.
We fought back through some of our worst on field results (1997 - 15th).
At the time clubs that were struggling - Melbourne, Bulldogs and Kangas. All were mentioned in merger talks. Kangas and Melbourne tried to save themselves by suggesting mergers with weaker clubs, both of which fell through.
Hopefully not the Dees, Doggies and Kangas all have a board and structure that will see them build their strength. The only one out of these that really concerns me is the Dogs. They have had the same president for years and are still struggling. After their performances this year they must get 33,000 + members next year, no excuses. If you can not get this many members after finishing 3rd and having a Brownlow medal winner you probably never will.
I want all 10 vic clubs to survive, I can't stand these Freo nothings talking about Melbourne clubs folding and they should all be given every chance, but they've gotta start showing something soon. Hawks were a weak club for less than 5 years, the Dogs have been struggling for 20.
Oh yea, because Optus Oval was offering us such a better deal
I dunno - what was the deal? You couldn't draw crowds there, it probably wouldn't have mattered what your deal was anyway.
Not the point - the fact remains you had a choice. You could have even moved back to Whitten Oval if you got it up to scratch. Your management wasn't good enough to negotiate a favourable deal when you had leverage - and now it's the AFL's fault? Bullshit. I'm pretty sure Smorgon was your president back then as well - ask him why a good deal couldn't be done instead of blaming others.
Darwi
Rookie
The AFL is playing a giant game of musical chairs.
Unfortunately there are only 16 chairs.
You just have to pray that your side has it's shit together when the music stops.
It will be useless whinging about the cyclical nature of off-field fortunes when the hammer falls. And no, the AFL won't play fair - the goal posts will be moved; rostering will be harsh, assistance funding will dry up, and when the AFL wants to pull out the coup de gras... the salary cap will be jacked up.
And I don't think the AFL has given up on another attempt at sending a Victorian side to the Gold Coast. Why else would they choose such a versatile group of colours... and leave the mascot option vacant?
Unfortunately there are only 16 chairs.
You just have to pray that your side has it's shit together when the music stops.
It will be useless whinging about the cyclical nature of off-field fortunes when the hammer falls. And no, the AFL won't play fair - the goal posts will be moved; rostering will be harsh, assistance funding will dry up, and when the AFL wants to pull out the coup de gras... the salary cap will be jacked up.
And I don't think the AFL has given up on another attempt at sending a Victorian side to the Gold Coast. Why else would they choose such a versatile group of colours... and leave the mascot option vacant?
- Jan 25, 2008
- 5,779
- 8,659
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- StL Cards, THFC, South Sydney
This "crap draw" that you refer to allows you 4 games in Tassie that allows you to fulfill commitments under one of the league's most lucrative sponsorship deals.
No other team in the league is given a draw specifically designed to accomodate their major sponsor.
So how crap really is your draw?
- Banned
- #414
Brayshaw quoted 34,000 on SEN this morning.
The AFL counts 'ticketed' memberships only, or members that get ground access at games
If Brayshaw quoted a different number then the AFL that would include memberships 1-2,000 members 'non ticket' memberships ie. pet memberships, armchair etc.
- Banned
- #416
Pet members? Do North have a pet members option? If so, I am unaware of it.
Crap enough that a club that has access to $1.7m for draw 'inequalities' plays more Friday Night games then us despite getting lower TV ratings across the season last year
FWIW, Geelong also has a requirement to play a minimum of 8 home games in Geelong so I'm sure we're not the only club that has agreements that have to be accomdated in the draw
Yes
That's the AFL's classification for using different member numbers then those posted by the clubs, they were used for grand final allocatoins etc. prior to this season
You'll find Essendon and Carlton also had different tallies posted on their websites compared to what was released by the AFL
- Jan 25, 2008
- 5,779
- 8,659
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- StL Cards, THFC, South Sydney
So you complain about the $1.7m that a certain club gets for draw inequalities, when the same draw delivers you a $4m (correct me if I am wrong) sponsorship deal on a plate?
I know which draw I would rather have.
BTW, if you think Geelong having a minimum requirement to play 8 games a year at their home ground is a concession, then you are dreaming.
Its $3m, inclusive of a $1.5m a year major sponsorship
Yet the W Bulldogs are still looked after with regards to its Darwin and Canberra 'home' games
The difference between the Tasmanian sponsorship and the Gold Coast, Manuka and Darwin arrangements is that the sponsorship is between the club and government without the AFL acting as an offical 3rd party like they do with the Gold Coast, Manuka and Darwin.
Yet playing 4 games in Tasmania - and fulfilling a sponsorship agreement much like Geelong's relationship with the city of Geelong in order to get stadium upgrades, is fundementally a concession.
Double Standards?
A creditable concession would be allowing Hawthorn to play 11 home and away games at the MCG, which in spite of not getting a peice of the CBF pie, has been the request since 2004
Melbourne by contrast have played 11 or more games at the MCG every season bar 2005-06
This 'sponsorship deal handed on a plate' actually has required a significant amount of sacrifice to its core supporter base. Due to this sponsorship members get only 7 genuine home games a year.
A key factor in moving home games was due to the crap draws we were receiving prior to the sponsorship.
1999 - Get kicked out of your home ground
2006 - Get offered 6 home games at the home ground we are moved to
Now in 2009, despite record crowds and winning the flag, we play in melbourne 13 times, play Essendon at the Telstra Dome (locking out Hawthorn and Essendon fans again), and have home games at the MCG against the Port Adelaides and Adelaides with few return games against the higher drawing teams. And the scary thing is, this is our best draw in years!
Whilst the minnows complain about thier stadium deals, the middle tier clubs that are pro-active about the situation are certainly not given any favours.
- Banned
- #422
Yeah, really good points. I must say I do get a bit sick and tired of Melbourne's whinging about their 'shit' stadium deal.
When have we ever whinged about our stadium deal?
It seems to be the Kangaroos supporters doing the whinging about stadium deals around here.
- Banned
- #424
You must be in real crap if you think our list is thin, what, losing to us twice this year.
- Jan 25, 2008
- 5,779
- 8,659
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- StL Cards, THFC, South Sydney
$3million directly to Hawthorn coffers that would not be possible without concessions provided by the AFL in its fixturing. And yet you complain about the draw.
This is exactly my point.
The AFL asked the teams to play games in Darwin, Canberra and GC and compensated these clubs accordingly. No concession from the AFL here, they initiated it and then recruited the clubs to join the arrangement.
The Hawthorn Tasmania arrangement on the other hand was structured by Hawthorn, but relied on the AFL's help to make it happen. The AFL have compromised it's fixture to allow this arrangement to occur.
Every team has a right to play games at their home ground. Geelong's home ground is KP, and thus has a right to play games there. This is not a concession in the slightest.
Is it a concession that WC get 11 home games a year at Subi? Or Adelaide get 11 games a year at Footy Park? Not at all. It is their right.
Unless I am mistaken, Hawthorn's home ground is the MCG. Unless the Hawks commit to Tasmania full time, base themselves there and play a meaningful number of games there, then Tassie is nothing more than a money making venture for the Hawks. One the AFL allows to occur through concessions in the fixturing.
There is nothing even close to a double standard here.
Are you saying that Hawthorn should get 11 MCG home games plus 4 Tassie home games every year? If so, you are dreaming. You can't have it both ways. I would agree that Hawthorn should be allowed 11 home games at the MCG (their home ground). However, you can't expect to be allowed to have these home games and then ask the AFL to restructure the rest of the draw to allow you to whore yourselves out to the Tassie government.
Similar threads
