Hawthorn v West Coast at Etihad - Strange venue choice

[SJ]

Last years game against WCE in Round 23 on a Friday Night we got 50,000. Now it's Etihad for some unknown reason. Nice one Demetriou you fat Tub of Goo.

Stop selling your low-drawing matches to Tasmania and maybe it wouldn't happen.

 

[SJ]

Our game's on Friday, it could still be at the G. Etihad has some sort of 'blockbuster games' requirement, which is why I believe we're playing there.

It will hurt us financially. Last year against West Coast at the MCG the crowd was over 50,000. I don't think we'll get 40,000 on Friday.

I thought given our 4 home games in Tassie would stop us from ever having to play a home game at Etihad.

We only have 6 home games at the MCG this year.

You know it's the opposite?

Etihad has contractual arrangements requiring x games and y high-profile games each year.

Every time Hawthorn, the Bulldogs or other clubs play their low-drawing games interstate (and not at Etihad), then more 'bigger' games are forced to be played at Etihad.

This year Geelong hosted North at Etihad for goodness' sake.

 

[Roobs321]

Suburban grounds stopped in about 1999 didn't they? So as much as 4 games against them in Victoria since then is odd. 2008 & 2012 were two of the games, cant remember the others.

We have played Hawthorn more in Tasmania than Melbourne since the 90s. Also funny that a likely MCG clash ('91 GF, only Victorian-based finals clash) was played at Waverly, spooky.

 

[Mateyman]

This isn't as stupid as when an MCG tenant has to host an Etihad tenant at Etihad

 

[gaelictiogar]

This isn't as stupid as when an MCG tenant has to host an Etihad tenant at Etihad

We hosted the Dogs there as well mate. Everyone has to play there now and again and that is just how it is.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

But Buddy if you accept as more or less everyone does that no one wants to play there if the G is a possibility can you explain why Hawthrom should always avoid the place. Richmond prefer the G as well but we get stuck in the place.

Fact is that everyone - even Collingwood - gets lumbered with a dose of the Domes every year. Why not Hawks as well. I'm sure you'd prefer the G. So would we. However the attendance is not going to stetch the Dome's capacity and its only one a year. I know you play games in Tassie but that is your own business. Why should you be absolved from having to fill the Dome rota when no one else wants to do it either?

Because it can easily be avoided. A dome tenant is playing a home game at the MCG on the same weekend! They can still meet their dome games quota without.

If all the dome tenants were playing all their home games there and they were still falling short then id say "sure, we can take a hit". But this is completely avoidable, yet they choose not to avoid it.

Makes no sense at all.

 

[TigersBoy]

Collingwood are contracted to 2 Home Games at Docklands.

Richmond, Melbourne, Hawthorn are now just making up the numbers at the Venue.

I remember couple seasons ago Richmond tried to get out of playing any home games at Docklands but that backfired and we got that horrid Carins game and still end up playing a home game across town.

 

[lmach]

Obviously another West Coast conspiracy.

I'm making my way down to Melb for this game, and to be honest, I'd rather watch the footy at Etihad instead of the G.

 

[Scodog10]

We hosted the Dogs there as well mate. Everyone has to play there now and again and that is just how it is.

That's not the point Mateyman was making. I don't think any MCG tenant club should be playing home games at Etihad against Etihad tenants. For some reason Collingwood had two this year and they will just about be our two lowest drawing home games all year. Yesterdays game against the Bulldogs and the round 6 match against the Saints were both in standalone slots with the MCG available.

Neither was big enough to fit the AFL's Etihad blockbuster quota so why couldn't allowances be made so that our games against Adelaide and GWS be our two home games at Etihad instead to maximise attendance? The Adelaide game is scheduled to be played at the G in a standalone slot on the Friday night and the GWS game is played at the G on the same day that Melbourne host an Etihad tenant (North Melbourne) at Etihad, it's just illogical...

 

[walhawk]

Logically the AFL should only schedule the minimum 40 games there next year.
Dogs 10
Saints 9
Roos 9
Bombers 7
Blues 6.
That more than covers it.
The problem is that 30 of these need to be 'capable' of drawing 40K.
Which is why they have to schedule Hawks, Pies, Cats & Tigers there.
Ridiculous.

 

[Scodog10]

Collingwood are contracted to 4 Home Games at Docklands.

Richmond, Melbourne, Hawthorn are now just making up the numbers at the Venue.

I remember couple seasons ago Richmond tried to get out of playing any home games at Docklands but that backfired and we got that horrid Carins game and still end up playing a home game across town.

We're contracted to 2 not 4.

 

[Vince12]

Because it can easily be avoided. A dome tenant is playing a home game at the MCG on the same weekend! They can still meet their dome games quota without.

If all the dome tenants were playing all their home games there and they were still falling short then id say "sure, we can take a hit". But this is completely avoidable, yet they choose not to avoid it.

Makes no sense at all.

Maybe some dome tennants would like a few hitouts at the MCG?

Last year we played Collingwood at the G I am 99% sure... Went down by a couple points...

Yeah you're right it was 2010 I was thinking of when I went over to watch us get murdered at Etihad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_AFL_season#Round_14

 

[walhawk]

Neither was big enough to fit the AFL's Etihad blockbuster quota so why couldn't allowances be made so that our games against Adelaide and GWS be our two home games at Etihad instead to maximise attendance? The Adelaide game is scheduled to be played at the G in a standalone slot on the Friday night and the GWS game is played at the G on the same day that Melbourne host an Etihad tenant (North Melbourne) at Etihad, it's just illogical...

No they do fit the criteria - both games were 'capable' of drawing 40K.
It is a best endeavours clause.
Doesn't matter what the actual attendance is.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Maybe some dome tennants would like a few hitouts at the MCG

What's that got to do with anything?

 

[Vince12]

What's that got to do with anything?

You're basically saying "why should Hawthorn ever play at Etihad when we can just make Carlton, Essendon, Saints, Dogs play there every single week?"

Those teams probably want a couple of games at the MCG.

Seeing as Hawthorns last 2 games at the MCG only got 28000, I don't think they really need to have the MCG every week.

 

[Scodog10]

No they do fit the criteria - both games were 'capable' of drawing 40K.
It is a best endeavours clause.
Doesn't matter what the actual attendance is.

You mean like yesterdays game which drew a poultry 32,253? Collingwood home games at Etihad are just as likely to draw 40,000 whether we're playing an interstate team or Etihad tenant because of our AFL member numbers and Legends members without reciprocal rights.

That's 10,000-15,000 people from our core attendance base that won't attend Etihad because they don't want to purchase tickets on top of their already expensive membership. Like I said it just isn't logical to fixture MCG tenants as the home team against Etihad tenants just because on paper it looks a match capable of drawing 40,000.

FWIW I completely understand your argument and its a legitimate one, however you've simply overlooked the fickleness of the Collingwood supporter base which plays a big part in Etihad games being able to draw 40,000.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Dogs only play at the MCG when we play Melbourne twice. We always get Collingwood\Richmond and the like at Ethiad even with there home games.

AFL contract is complete trash. Also stopping us from playing at Geelong or West Melbourne.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Regular Subi patrons would be thrilled to be able to go to the footy at a venue like Etihad.

Its laughable isn't it. I'm just hoping the new stadium has the same great views as Etihad

 

[onthemoney]

You're basically saying "why should Hawthorn ever play at Etihad when we can just make Carlton, Essendon, Saints, Dogs play there every single week?"

Those teams probably want a couple of games at the MCG.

Seeing as Hawthorns last 2 games at the MCG only got 28000, I don't think they really need to have the MCG every week.

But all of the teams you've listed are tenants of Etihad, Hawthorn are not.

 

[Richo83]

Can't be the case that they just, you know, fell over?

This, Scotland just lost his balance, can happen anywhere.

My problem with the protests about scheduling is that this game is unlikely to get 50k+. West Coast aren't in the form of last year and I'd expect a crowd of more 40-45k, which seems perfect for Etihad.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Last years game against WCE in Round 23 on a Friday Night we got 50,000. Now it's Etihad for some unknown reason. Nice one Demetriou you fat Tub of Goo.

If it got 50k last season, then it goes into the potential "greater than 40k" attendance pot when planning the fixture for this season which the AFL contract with Docklands Stadium requires a certain number of, irrespective of whether the club's home ground is the MCG.

It's a requirement for the AFL's eventual ownership of the facility in 2025. Playing potentially high drawing matches at the venue in the years to the lead-up of eventual ownership is kind of the contracted consideration for the transfer.

 

[Jack Lord]

Is it just me, or has there been a glut of dodgy scheduling this year? Sheesh.

 

[HappyChappy35]

We play our etihad home games in launceston

Why should that entitle you to special treatment over other MCG tenants? Collingwood, Richmond, and Melbourne all have to play home games at Etihad. Even we had 3 home games there this season.

Hawthorn decide to play 4 home games a year in Launceston. If you want more MCG home games, then move 1-2 away from Tassie. Simple as that. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Matt Stevic]

Perhaps because Hawthorn had a long term contract at Waverley Park which the AFL sold against Hawthorn's wishes, and a large reason for Hawthorn moving games to Tasmania is to avoid home matches scheduled at the Docklands?

At the time of the AFL proposing to sell off Waverley, StKilda left us for dead and signed a stadium deal at the Docklands. Why should the saints be scheduled any MCG home games at the expense of Hawthorn who were intelligent enough to shun this stadium?

However this is all part of the AFL's plan to take away from Hawthorn the advantages of playing home games in Tasmania. It will force their hand to give up the games to North when the current deal expires.

at it's worth I don't believe Richmond should be playing any home games at Etihad Stadium either

Couldn't have said it better. I came in to post the exact same thing. I'm an early 90s child and my best memories come from watching the hawks at Wavo Park as a youngster. I still have never gone to Etihad and never will, if that makes me a bad fan then so be it, I've already paid my 11 game membership anyway.

And you hit the nail on the head regarding why I despise St. Kilda.
Regarding my feelings on moving there in the first place, just look at my avatar. The AFL used excuses saying Waverley was uncomfortable, but in that case why not just upgrade to bucket seats and a colour TV screen? There was NO REASON WHATSOEVER to move to Etihad except to line Collo's pockets.

 

[Mateyman]

We hosted the Dogs there as well mate. Everyone has to play there now and again and that is just how it is.

I know. That's my point, but you still have more reason to complain about that rather than one vs an interstate team.