MCC Deal Question

[LegalEagle]

I hope someone can answer this question. We all know that the AFL promised the MCC that a certain number of finals will be played at the MCG. My question is, what does the AFL get in return? I mean, why did the AFL sign up to this in the first place?

 

[Karbo]

southern stand?

 

[pfinn]

In exchange the AFL get to use the MCG.

 

[LegalEagle]

southern stand?

it was already built when the last deal was signed?

 

[LegalEagle]

In exchange the AFL get to use the MCG.

So if the AFL didn't sign the MCC wouldntve let the AFL to schedule any games there? your kidding right?

 

[MarkT]

As I understand the finals issue is part of the overall deal that covers ground rental and everything else. The bottom line is that it is all financial from the AFL's perspective. I suspect that part of the issue in the beginning was securing a GF (and big game) venue before Waverley was sold off. The AFL gave certain guarantees that would have impacted the MCC revenue from the deal and one of those would have been finals scheduling. Don't forget these things go further then just who plays when and where from the perspective of both the AFL and the MCC. The catering deal is a huge part of the revenue stream. The caterers pay for the rights based on perceived crowds and minimum guarantees.

IMO the AFL could renegotiate the deal with more big drawing games but then we get more locked into draw rigging arguments and/or impinging on the Telstra Dome deals.

 

[Steve Dore]

The original deal (1990) involved the Great Southern Stand. This deal was renegotiated by the AFL in August 2002 to cater for the current ground redevelopment work being undertaken for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

Of course in August 2002 no one in the AFL administration saw the likely hood of there ever being a case where 2 non-Victorian clubs would earn the right to home state Preliminary Finals

 

[Count Zero]

It's an excellent question and one that I would love to see the AFL address. If the AFL get little or no benefit from the deal then what, if any, fiduciary duty has been abrogated?

 

[Jabso]

maybe theres some loophole where the AFL can get the bottom 8 teams to play in "finals" and it will not breach the contract.

 

[littleduck]

maybe theres some loophole where the AFL can get the bottom 8 teams to play in "finals" and it will not breach the contract.

Yeah, good thinking.. very sneaky.. but I'm sure the AFL/MCC contract has a definitions clause spelling out exactly what is meant by the term "finals" throughout the rest of the agreement.

 

[Steve Dore]

..........IMO the AFL could renegotiate the deal with more big drawing games but then we get more locked into draw rigging arguments and/or impinging on the Telstra Dome deals.

When the deal was renegotiated in August 2002 the MCC were concerned about smaller crowds due to the AFL's new media deal with games being shown live into Melbourne. My understanding is that the contract was varied in the MCC's favour to provide "guarantees" of aggregate attendances over the season. The AFL faces penalties if these "guarantees" are not met.

The AFL negotiating team takes its own tube of KY jelly to meetings with the MCC

 

[MaccasNeighbour]

Can someone tell me if the AFL made cash offers to compensate the MCC when Adelaide, West Coast or any other club beside Brisbane was forced to play a 'home' final at the MCG?

 

[Row_z]

Yeah, i've thought of that too. The deal states there must be 12 finals there every 3 years, so why not just make up more finals, make the losers play off for 3rd 4th 5th and 6th prize and call them "Preliminary finals 3 and 4".

 

[mango]

Yeah, i've thought of that too. The deal states there must be 12 finals there every 3 years, so why not just make up more finals, make the losers play off for 3rd 4th 5th and 6th prize and call them "Preliminary finals 3 and 4".

oh probably for reasons so inane such as 'integrity of the competition'

 

[scarecrow2k1]

The MCG cant simply give up the game, they have deals with caterers and the likes, aswell as MCC members who PAY to see a preliminary final ever year. Im a restriceted MCC member, and cant get into a grand final, so the preliminary final i see every year is important to me. But if the game was shifted off to brisbane, and the (very expensive) mcc fees lowered slightly, id be more than happy.

Ive heard the issue about other finals renamed preliminary and consist of 15 and 16 playing off for the wooden spoon, etc, tossed up on radio, legal experts say it wouldnt hold up in court with the contracts wording

 

[Row_z]

oh probably for reasons so inane such as 'integrity of the competition'

so you're respect the 'integrity of the competition' you'd agree that Brisbane deserves to have this final at their home ground eh? So whats your moral solution?

 

[Crow-mosone]

The original deal (1990) involved the Great Southern Stand. This deal was renegotiated by the AFL in August 2002 to cater for the current ground redevelopment work being undertaken for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

Of course in August 2002 no one in the AFL administration saw the likely hood of there ever being a case where 2 non-Victorian clubs would earn the right to home state Preliminary Finals

In any renegotiation, both parties have to be willing to amend certain elements of it. You cannot just say since we are changing some of it, I don't like this bit.

The AFL commitment to these games would have formed part of the pilot study determining whether the great southern stand was a viable project.

"if we build it, will you come?"

 

[Crow-mosone]

It's an excellent question and one that I would love to see the AFL address. If the AFL get little or no benefit from the deal then what, if any, fiduciary duty has been abrogated?

yeah good one. if the AFL didn't properly benefit, it wouldn't be a contract at all.

 

[Jabso]

I don't know if there would be proper wording I mean look at the Brown rough play case.

 

[Crow-mosone]

I don't know if there would be proper wording I mean look at the Brown rough play case.

the problem wasn't the wording, it was the wrong charge.

 

[Row_z]

it was both really. It was wrong wording in the rough play charge, but a wrestling charge would have been successful.

but you are right, I'd love to get a copy of this contract, I'm sure even I could see some way around it to honour the contract and keep the "integrity of the game"

 

[FootyFan33]

The original deal (1990) involved the Great Southern Stand. This deal was renegotiated by the AFL in August 2002 to cater for the current ground redevelopment work being undertaken for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

Of course in August 2002 no one in the AFL administration saw the likely hood of there ever being a case where 2 non-Victorian clubs would earn the right to home state Preliminary Finals

Your kidding right nearly ever year for the last 10 there
has been at least one I/State side in a Prelim.

For mine we should follow the League and both Prelims
should be played at the G.

 

[Tas]

MCC needs AFL football as much as AFL needs the MCG. It is the premier venue, it is the largest capacity venue outside the sparsely used Telstra Stadium and at the time of the agreement AFL wanted to get out of Arctic Park.

The issue we have in Melbourne are the sheer quantity of games we have to play, it is difficult to squeeze them in to the other stadiums. If the AFL didn't want to support he MCC then they might have got support from the NRL or somewhere else, some other sport might have access to the best stadium instead of AFL football.

The AFL does not want to open the door for any other winter sport, not in Victoria. Why doesn't the AFL concern itself with venues in other states? They are not as important to the competition. It is all about economics.

AFL football will live or die based on the strength of the code in Victoria. It is not the same thing in the other state. You have smaller stadiums and the bulk of the supporters of football are members so what money you make in the game largely goes to your own club and not to the AFL and thus divided amongst all clubs.

No other state makes money from H&A games like it is made here. It wouldn't happen if we didn't have the facilities. It doesn't matter how financially successful your cub is, the distrbution to clubs from the ALF is a major part of the income and a lot of it is generated by gate sales.

What does the AFL do if it can't play at the MCG? Play games at Optus Oval? AFL would be dead in 3 years if that happened. I rather go to a suburban stadium and watch a bunch of amateurs play than go to OO.

 

[telsor]

As has been mentioned, the MCC made the deal because they wanted to build new stands, which costs a hell of a lot, and wanted to lock in it's best revenue stream for the time required to pay the stand off....Also worth noting that a lot of this payment for stands comes from the MCC members who pay a lot of money knowing that they get to see the finals.

Whats in it for the AFL?

Money!

Well, in the original deal was the AFL members..they now have their own area at the 'G, meaning major revenue for the AFL.

Also, the regular punters get better seats/facilities so again, more money is gained. ( along with happier supporters ).

The other factor is the sheer number of people the MCG holds. When the current works are completed, it will hold 100,000 people! These are paying customers ( The MCC members pay indirectly..the ground is cheaper for letting them in ).

A major part of the AFLs revenue comes from finals..This money goes back to the clubs, so the clubs get paid to play finals at the 'G.

How much? Well, I'd guess the next biggest ground can take ~50-60,000 people..say $100/person and you're talking 4 or 5 Million extra the AFL gets *per final*. OK, there are expenses, but tickets also cost more than $100.

So the AFL signed the deal to lock in it's revenue...sounds like a fair deal to me.

 

[Dave]

Well, in the original deal was the AFL members..they now have their own area at the 'G, meaning major revenue for the AFL.

$200 million + and counting......