Saints moving to the MCG?

[sainter]

We don't have a contract at Ethiad now according to the article, so why doesn't MN get down and dirty and demand more from Ethiad? Why doesn't he get down and dirty and kick up a hell of a stink with the AFL. In essence StKilda is paying for the Ethiad Stadium by fulfilling the AFL's contractual requirements to attempt to get at least 30 40,000+ crowds to Ethiad. I bet at least a quarter of them would include StKilda games.
We cannot afford these losses, within three years we will be stuffed, simply because of the fixture arrangements of the AFL. We cannot hang on until Ethiad is owned by the AFL.
Kudos for the admin in wringing maximum value out of the money they have, maybe this is MN opening gambit with the AFL, at the least he should be aiming for what The Bumbers get, less one dollar, as apparently The Bumbers have it written in that they are to be the top remunerated team at Ethiad.

That's exactly what we're doing.

Nettlefold acknowledged a number of times during the interview that the players, coaches and supporters love Etihad Stadium. Our supporters clear preference for Etihad is reflected in our poor attendances (home and away) at the MCG.

It's an untenable situation and while I agree with Squizzy that this should have happened earlier it's better late than never.

Etihad is contracted to host 46 games and as a loyal tenant that does provide very healthy crowds they need us.

 

[sauce_head]

It was mentioned elsewhere that the AfL will own Docklands by 2018(?) so in effect the low returns are paying for the stadium. StKildah and the other tenants are being screwed because of this. The AFL needs to wake up to this fact and buy the asset themselves or allow equal access to all clubs not in a tenancy agreement to all grounds.

Just another subtle advantage to their favorite clubs allowing them to easily hit their bonus targets.

 

[sainter]

It was mentioned elsewhere that the AfL will own Docklands by 2018(?) so in effect the low returns are paying for the stadium. StKildah and the other tenants are being screwed because of this. The AFL needs to wake up to this fact and buy the asset themselves or allow equal access to all clubs not in a tenancy agreement to all grounds.

Just another subtle advantage to their favorite clubs allowing them to easily hit their bonus targets.

That's a point Nettlefold made in the interview.

 

[Simple Jack]

Etihad is contracted to host 46 games and as a loyal tenant that does provide very healthy crowds they need us.

Yes but they don't have to give up anything to force us to play there. The AFL just won't fixture more than 2 home games for us at the MCG. No matter how much we complain. Corruption is rife in the AFL but this is nothing new or surprising.

 

[StFly]

It was mentioned elsewhere that the AfL will own Docklands by 2018(?) so in effect the low returns are paying for the stadium. StKildah and the other tenants are being screwed because of this. The AFL needs to wake up to this fact and buy the asset themselves or allow equal access to all clubs not in a tenancy agreement to all grounds.

Just another subtle advantage to their favorite clubs allowing them to easily hit their bonus targets.

2025, the date may have been moved forward if both sides seek it to be and a new contract entered into but effectively it's 2025 when the AFL assume 100% ownership of the lease. But recent efforts only go so far to prove that they really could give a shit and are merely waiting for the handover period unless the match (singular) is a dead wringer for selling out the MCG in comparison, then they'll huff & puff some.

In effect when the AFL does assume ownership of the lease the stadium will be managing a substantial profit on the back of MSL (Melbourne Stadiums Limited) and Collos price gouging during the initial tenancy period where it's basically run like a conglomerate only answerable to shareholders.

Corporate Info

Now sure, price gouging will be less under the AFL since it'll effectively be them out pricing themselves and shooting themselves in the foot if they did, but that's still 14 years away, or in the very least a decade.

 

[Squizz]

I do wonder whether the AFL is quite happy for us to be forced into a situation where we have to sell home games interstate, which helps them "develop" the game. A home game at Etihad against the Gold Coast would cost us plenty.

 

[SamFisher25]

I say we win the flag and then we can talk

 

[_Maximus_12]

I've been of the opinion for a long time now that for us to become a true power house of the competition and win multiple premierships, we have to make the G our home.
It's where the big dance is played every year and if we can turn it into a fortress like we've done with etihad then we'll be more likely to bring home flags.
I think that while we might play well at Etihad now, we would be better off sacrificing a good record for 12 months in order to adapt to the G and make it our new home and fortress.

 

[hayes]

I've been of the opinion for a long time now that for us to become a true power house of the competition and win multiple premierships, we have to make the G our home.
It's where the big dance is played every year and if we can turn it into a fortress like we've done with etihad then we'll be more likely to bring home flags.
I think that while we might play well at Etihad now, we would be better off sacrificing a good record for 12 months in order to adapt to the G and make it our new home and fortress.

+1

Completely agree. Add the fact that it would increase revenue and it's almost a no brainer.

 

[samwise]

...still waiting for a team that has Etihad as its home ground to win a GF

 

[Murraj1966]

...still waiting for a team that has Etihad as its home ground to win a GF

Essendon, first year.

 

[hayes]

Essendon, first year.

Weren't they half MCG half Etihad like they are now?

 

[Murraj1966]

They released the Premiership Flag in 2001 at Etihad so I guess you could call it their home?

 

[redmonkeyman]

They released the Premiership Flag in 2001 at Etihad so I guess you could call it their home?

How many won by MCG tenants for same period = 2.

It's a redundant argument in all seriousness come on.

By the way following a new user agreement at Etihad last year all tenants make money from etihad! Perhaps not as much as the G but we do make money.

Until we start drawing crowds in excess of 50,000 I'd prefer Etihad as the atmosphere is better for 30,000 to 40,000 don't you think?

Stat for you the last team to play and win an Etihad final was Hawthorn and they won the flag the next year. Perhaps an omen for us to win it in 2012?????

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

We haven't won it yet

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

By the way following a new user agreement at Etihad last year all tenants make money from etihad! Perhaps not as much as the G but we do make money.

Only for games that draw close to 30k. Everytime that doesn't happen we lose money.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

To me, Etihad is obvously gouging money out of the clubs. It does not cost the management more to run a game at Etihad than it does at the MCG.

Talk about closing down sections to save operating costs is like selling a 3.0litre car engine cheaper than a 4.0litre car engine ( same number of parts, same cost to produce, they just dont want to sell their top line item for less money ).

The only action I can see that the AFL can take is to schedule as many games away from Etihad as possible, hit them in their pocket until they see reason.
Unfortunately that means less games in Melbourne ( unless we can get extra games in at the G ).
Some short term pain may be needed for the long term gain.

 

[Squizz]

The only action I can see that the AFL can take is to schedule as many games away from Etihad as possible, hit them in their pocket until they see reason.

Ain't gonna happen.

The recent article stated that a minimum of 46 home-and-away games must be played there each year until 2013 (decreasing to 40), with a best-endeavour clause that requires 30 games to have the potential to attract crowds in excess of 40,000.

In fact, the AFL has recently granted more games at Etihad from 2015.

 

[StFly]

Precisely what Squizzy stated, the AFL are contracted to play X amount of games there per season and to do anything less would be a breach of contract, the Geelong v Saints "blockbuster" game is also a highlight of the contract conventions that Etihad were also contractually obligated to have X amount of games which would draw over X amount of gate + telecast goals as well, so there is simply no way the AFL can simply walk away from contractual obligations in its scheduling, at best they can only attempt to create double bookings on specific dates.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Its bloody annoying that Melbourne Victory could afford to play there for a good while, prior to the bubble stadium, but AFL footy clubs attracting far bigger audiences cant.

 

[karmafree]

Precisely what Squizzy stated, the AFL are contracted to play X amount of games there per season and to do anything less would be a breach of contract, the Geelong v Saints "blockbuster" game is also a highlight of the contract conventions that Etihad were also contractually obligated to have X amount of games which would draw over X amount of gate + telecast goals as well, so there is simply no way the AFL can simply walk away from contractual obligations in its scheduling, at best they can only attempt to create double bookings on specific dates.

Well by now everyone knows how much clubs are losing at Etihad the AFL should:
1. Present us a cheque for the difference verses playing at the G or:
2. Give us an equity share of Etihad when it becomes an AFL assett as we are paying for it directly. This would be a great outcome for the home clubs. Norf, Dogs, Saints , Bummers own 49% and AFL 51%. We add to our asset base instantly and have a share of the revenue stream.
The Cats are pampered and the other 4 clubs are well rewarded at the G, plus they get the finals advantage.

 

[StFly]

Whilst I would love for that last bit to happen karma (oh la la to revenue stream of a multipurpose stadium) the AFL will tell you where you can shove it before you could finish the sentence as soon as "equal" came up in the vocabulary. The Vladministration will gobble up any revenue like an eclair sitting on a plate taunting about chocolatey creamy goodness before being backed up by the porterhouse beef & potato.

 

[The Punter]

Vladministration - GOLD.

 

[samwise]

The AFL should equally distribute MCG and Etihad games to all Melbourne clubs. It is stupid to say that the MCG or Etihad is anyone's "home" ground.
Its not like the days of zoning when home grounds were actually home grounds.
AFL needs to take control and make things fair. It makes it worse that interstate clubs make so much money off home games whilst many Melbourne clubs make losses.

 

[karmafree]

Vladministration - GOLD.

Fly your outdoing yourself again. I hope you have followed my advise of a future career in the legal field. You would be a hit with the jurors