the $problems at Etihad continue

[Kwality]

Seems the so called fix at Etihad has done nothing to help those clubs stitched up into dud deals - time the AFL did what it can, that is take money from the clubs making big profits at the stadium & distribute them to the clubs needing more handouts.

Looking at the article in todays News Ltd press there may be a problem at the G too - if there is, the AFL should use the same approach.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...oos-and-bulldogs/story-e6frf9jf-1226170142737

 

[Tassieboy]

It's bad I know. But you can't take money away from clubs like Essendon because they signed a lucrative deal to play at the dome instead of MCG.

 

[ManWithNoName]

"Everyone is aware there is a problem," Kangaroos chief executive Eugene Arocca said yesterday.

"In the simplest terms, a home team playing a single MCG blockbuster almost nets the same profit as we do from our 11 home games at Etihad, even with the $100,000 bonus per match factored in.

So get more than 15,000 people to your home games Eugene...

 

[Munro_Mick]

Remembering back to the late '90s, the lead in to Docklands being built and opened - a club like North was sitting in the top bracket on the AFL ladder - playing the 'minor' games in places like Canberra having previous played interstate teams at Princes Park. The Doggies were doing that in '99. That was a logical structure.

Who knew the AFL was going to have a bare knuckles fight with Collo over broadcast rights at Princes Park? How much did that stuff it up for clubs like North Melbourne?

Granted, the AFL got lured into Docklands, and signed contracts ensuring X number of games whilst having simliar contracts at the MCG. The galling thing there being that it's structure for the AFL to pay off the MCC's debt on the MCG, and to pay off the private investors in Docklands. Stuff all Govt money involved. About 3 times the amount of Govt investment in both the MCG and Docklands was pumped into the MRS (AAMI park) - - which turned out a white elephant back during the FIFA WC bid.

Any chance supporters of clubs like the Doggies and North could petition Spring St and AFL HQ to do the right thing - a Govt/AFL shared buy out of Docklands.

Sadly - the private investors, such as super funds - the AFL is a rock solid investment and they wouldn't want to get out super fast (so to speak!).

 

[GarnerSmash]

So get more than 28,000 people to your home games Eugene...

Fixed that up for you

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

How would Arocca create a blockbuster of his own accord?

 

[ManWithNoName]

Fixed that up for you

We're turning a very tidy profit whilst building an entirely new facility without having to borrow anything.

Thank you for your concern.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Seems you may have missed the point.

 

[neroblack]

Seems the so called fix at Etihad has done nothing to help those clubs stitched up into dud deals - time the AFL did what it can, that is take money from the clubs making big profits at the stadium & distribute them to the clubs needing more handouts.

Looking at the article in todays News Ltd press there may be a problem at the G too - if there is, the AFL should use the same approach.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...oos-and-bulldogs/story-e6frf9jf-1226170142737

It should be done with the TV rights $$, which I believe is what is happening. The AFL would not have the ability to take profits from clubs and redistribute them. You can't penalise clubs for being financially successful.

 

[Pessimistic]

Oakley, Collins, the AFL commission at the time, Jeff Kennett and his government

Hang your heas in shame. the current sdmins are doing the best they can and clubs are making up the shortfall with low moral pokies venues.

If Oakley and co had spent less time trying to kill clubs and more on doing thier own jobs right the AFL would be better off now.

Hawks presiednet Ian Dicker took one look at the stadium deal and shifted Hawks games to Tasmania. So even then it was just the fools who got sucked in.

It was obvious even then there would still be smaleer games - and now with GWS and GCS we have many more of those

Peanuts telling arocca to increase his crowds by 15,000 have no idea

 

[RoyalBlue]

Would Port be dead if they played at Etihad?

 

[theyellowsash]

i dont know why people are complaining. yeah the deals are crap, but the afl have been handing out money to the clubs effected every year. as long as the afl keeps doing this it will effect the afl more than the clubs, cause theyre the ones losing the money.

when does the afl own the stadium?

 

[Tas]

So get more than 15,000 people to your home games Eugene...

When 3/4 of our games are sunday twilight games live on foxtel against interstate clubs during a rebuild phase?

Carlton couldn't crack 20k in the same period.

Ultimately, moving up the ladder will improve our schedule and will improve the crowds.

Profitability is really having the right stadium suited for the size of your club. Us playing at a 55k stadium doesn't help our profitability, Geelong is just fortunate they can play games at their stadium, AFL has bent the rules by allowing them to sell memberships beyond the stadium's capacity and not following the ground equalisation policy which requires matches that would draw a crowd in excess of the capacity have to be shifted to a more suitable stadium.

Geelong should realistically not be allowed to sell more memberships than the capacity of their stadium or to host a game at Geelong against a Victorian club but it is these games which sell out all the reserved seating and all the corporate boxes which make Geelong a mint of money despite the crowd realistically being poor by comparison to a Collingwood or Essendon game.

Essendon should also pay their way at Docklands and not rely on being subsidised by smaller clubs.

 

[Portia]

Would Port be dead if they played at Etihad?

Nope, because our crowds would be heavily inflated by playing a local rival every second week.

 

[HFF]

Why is it that every time there is an article relating to stadium deals, you can guarantee a quote or two from North Melbourne hierarchy about their "ordeal"? Also, didn't they just get given a massive slice of the AFL's pie via the distribution of funds?

Stop whinging and do something about it- i.e. get more people to the games.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

No surprises that the so called fix didn't work.
And this new equalisation fundiung the AFL announced last month is just a game of ducks and drakes.

The problem is difficult for clubs to get around because of the AFL's commitment to play 46 games there per year.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It’s the AFL’s fault – they wanted a shiny new stadium to replace Waverley, but couldn’t afford to pay for it. So private investment was required, and now the clubs are repaying those investors.

To add insult to the situation, whenever there’s public debate about the issue, THE AFL are out there pulling the heartstrings about broke clubs and how the big bad investors at Etihad are bleeding the peoples’ clubs dry. The investors who simply want the return on their money that they were promised. But supposedly it’s their fault because the ********s downstairs at the AFL have buyer’s remorse.

Clubs should be fully reimbursed by the AFL (I believe they are to some extent) – the league wanted the stadium, the clubs are paying for it.

I’m generally not as critical of the AFL administration as some, but on this issue their behaviour has been and continues to be ****ing disgraceful.

 

[Tas]

Nope, because our crowds would be heavily inflated by playing a local rival every second week.

Our schedule for this year was 2 home games vs high drawing clubs (Collingwood and Carlton), 1 home game vs a medium drawing club (Richmond), 3 home games vs weak drawing clubs (Melbourne, Saints and Bulldogs) and 5 interstate clubs (Port, Swans, Adelaide, Brisbane and Fremantle).

The benefit of playing Collingwood and Carlton is diminished by having those games at Docklands, AFL wont let us move them to the MCG where more people would go to those games there rather than squeeze into Docklands.

We really only get the benefit of drawing an Adelaide like support that you would get only once or twice a year so we are not much better off, the benefit we get from playing the lower drawing teams is offset by not having a major city and entire state to two clubs, the clubs here need the games against eachother to offset the fact the population is divided ten ways and the stadiums are built for large capacity crowds. It is not an equal division either. It is very lopsided because the AFL pushes a handful of clubs down the market's throat.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

Why is it that every time there is an article relating to stadium deals, you can guarantee a quote or two from North Melbourne hierarchy about their "ordeal"? Also, didn't they just get given a massive slice of the AFL's pie via the distribution of funds?

Stop whinging and do something about it- i.e. get more people to the games.

If the Westpac centre caught fire, don't you think the media would go to the collingwood hierarchy for a comment?

how are the comments from Arocca and bulldog's chief Garlick whinging?

If anything, what is whinging is the line:

"This was meant to be the salvation of all the clubs … we’re just copping it left right and centre."

And that was from Eddie!

 

[Sttew]

Geelong should realistically not be allowed to sell more memberships than the capacity of their stadium or to host a game at Geelong against a Victorian club but it is these games which sell out all the reserved seating and all the corporate boxes which make Geelong a mint of money despite the crowd realistically being poor by comparison to a Collingwood or Essendon game.

I buy a membership to support my club, knowing full well I may not go to all games at Kardinia Park and that there are more members than capacity. This is a small way I can support my club.

 

[trooroo4life]

Stadium deal sucks everyone knows that but I don't think taking money off other clubs and equally distributing it between the smaller clubs is the way to go. I think it should come from the tv rights deal and I think it is over the next few years ain't it ?

And for those saying "Get 15,000 to you games". What the hell do you think our club is doing. You can't demand 30,000 to turn up to your games straight off the bat it's going to take time and the club is working on building the supporter base... But were going to keep seeing low crowds at etihad until we atleast start moving up the ladder and we will get more supporters and more neutrals to come watch our games.

Thank Christ for the Tassie deal though.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

My understanding is that Geelong make a Shit load from the catering at Cardinia Park.
At Etihad and the G SOMEONE is making a shit load but I dont know who it is.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

^ my understanding is that Essendon cut a deal to take a small slice of everything at Etihad (being the first to move there).

However, the stadium deal at Etihad is less of an issue because of their larger membership base and the fact that they get scheduled to play some blockbuster Home games at the MCG (netting them a good return)

 

[Portia]

Our schedule for this year was 2 home games vs high drawing clubs (Collingwood and Carlton), 1 home game vs a medium drawing club (Richmond), 3 home games vs weak drawing clubs (Melbourne, Saints and Bulldogs) and 5 interstate clubs (Port, Swans, Adelaide, Brisbane and Fremantle).

Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Melbourne, Saints, Bulldogs games all would've had more supporters of those teams present than supporters of any team at a Port home game other than Port and Adelaide.

 

[The_Wookie]

hmm why doesnt the AFL just pay the stadium rent for all matches out of the broadcast revenue? It would lessen the overall funds available at the end of the year sure, but would make the stadium equalisation issue much less a bugbear than it is. If the league insists on making clubs play at etihad - and denying them the ability to negotiate matches with the MCG at the same time - then its the least they can do.