Western Bulldogs and the MCG factor

[lachy]

You said:
"Yes the AFL has those commitments, we chose to play 2 home games at Ballarat, those could be at the MCG opening up greater opportunities for the AFL"

If we weren't playing games at Ballarat we'd be playing in Cairns or some other location that makes it financially attractive. If not, we'd play the two games at Marvel because the AFL NEVER fixtures a Bulldogs home game at the MCG. That was my point. We are not giving up playing games at the MCG to play in Ballarat or anywhere else.

Thats because we don't ask

 

[lachy]

I think that the better solution for us is to play our finals at the MCG and also some of our home games against larger drawing teams at the G—for example, our home games against Collingwood, Essendon, and Carlton should be played at the G. You could make a case that our home games against Hawthorn and Geelong could also be at the G if the game would be a sellout at Marvel.

The point I was originally making was that the AFL prevents us from playing home games at the G except for finals, where it prevents us from playing them at our home ground. Doubly screwed over by the AFL.

When we did ask to play some home games at the G we were given them. Unfortunately other off field issues ensured we were unable to take advantage. That was a generation ago

 

[Struggle]

Thats because we don't ask

Saints get a home game at the G against Collingwood because they asked for it
We lock out 15k+ of our fans who want to attend our first and last home games of the year

 

[lachy]

Saints get a home game at the G against Collingwood because they asked for it
We lock out 15k+ of our fans who want to attend our first and last home games of the year

It's amazing the naivety on this board, buying into the spin we get from the club at times.

Its pretty simple, all arguments about selling games due to the costs of Docklands have been null and void since the AFL firstly brought the place and a couple of years later took over the running of it.

As owners and landlords they want a certain amount of games played, 46 from memory. As it is our home ground we are scheduled for 9 of them as part of the re negotiated agreement. Therefore, from 11 home games we choose where the other 2 are played, which up to this year was Ballarat due to the financial incentives from the State Government.

St.Kilda were able to and were granted an MCG home game as they are meeting their 9 game allocation. I believe they have now asked for 2 home MCG games, see how that goes.

Essendon's godfather offer to be the Anchor tenant is up so they are now asking for more MCG home games as though they made money from being the docklands home tenant, their peers have outgrown them over that time.

The Hawks were smart in their negotiations in Tasmania. They knew the AFL wanted a presence there and also sold off their home ground at Waverly. So they were able to negotiate away replacement games at the G to compensate their fans for the Tasmanian component.

We now have a choice, continue with the Ballarat experiment, locking out the majority of our own fans as you have stated and is a fact not an opinion, and hope the compensation makes up for the opportunity cost to really grow the club and majority supporter engagement.

We only need ask, the worst the AFL could do is say no, but would they really not want the code to continue to grow

 

[Mutt]

It's amazing the naivety on this board, buying into the spin we get from the club at times.

Its pretty simple, all arguments about selling games due to the costs of Docklands have been null and void since the AFL firstly brought the place and a couple of years later took over the running of it.

As owners and landlords they want a certain amount of games played, 46 from memory. As it is our home ground we are scheduled for 9 of them as part of the re negotiated agreement. Therefore, from 11 home games we choose where the other 2 are played, which up to this year was Ballarat due to the financial incentives from the State Government.

St.Kilda were able to and were granted an MCG home game as they are meeting their 9 game allocation. I believe they have now asked for 2 home MCG games, see how that goes.

Essendon's godfather offer to be the Anchor tenant is up so they are now asking for more MCG home games as though they made money from being the docklands home tenant, their peers have outgrown them over that time.

The Hawks were smart in their negotiations in Tasmania. They knew the AFL wanted a presence there and also sold off their home ground at Waverly. So they were able to negotiate away replacement games at the G to compensate their fans for the Tasmanian component.

We now have a choice, continue with the Ballarat experiment, locking out the majority of our own fans as you have stated and is a fact not an opinion, and hope the compensation makes up for the opportunity cost to really grow the club and majority supporter engagement.

We only need ask, the worst the AFL could do is say no, but would they really not want the code to continue to grow

I agree that we should ask. I'd love us to play multiple home games each season at the G.

 

[lachy]

I agree that we should ask. I'd love us to play multiple home games each season at the G.

All I am asking for Mutt, a bit of ambition from the club so that we don't end up playing more games at the Adelaide Oval than the MCG

 

[LondonBulldog]

It’s all coming back to what I originally suggested, the concept of a Melbourne home ground needs to change. It needs to be spilt between the grounds pending the crowds. I’m sure it will happen eventually just slow to happen. For example why should Richmond next year play the Gold Coast at the G and we play Essendon at Marvel. Just should not happened all because of some outdated mentality of home grounds. The suburban home grounds days are over, no more vic park, windy hill etc. schedule the games as the crowds predict, it’s common sense, wonder when the afl will wake up and join the party.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Next Waiting]

I think that the better solution for us is to play our finals at the MCG and also some of our home games against larger drawing teams at the G—for example, our home games against Collingwood, Essendon, and Carlton should be played at the G. You could make a case that our home games against Hawthorn and Geelong could also be at the G if the game would be a sellout at Marvel.

The point I was originally making was that the AFL prevents us from playing home games at the G except for finals, where it prevents us from playing them at our home ground. Doubly screwed over by the AFL.

I'm well on board with this. TBH, I'm not sure who, if anyone, it benefits to play those games at Marvel. You're gonna draw a crowd.

 

[Mutt]

All I am asking for Mutt, a bit of ambition from the club so that we don't end up playing more games at the Adelaide Oval than the MCG

I'm with you Lachy.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Not a great record against other Vic sides at the G.

 

[dogwatch]

It's amazing the naivety on this board, buying into the spin we get from the club at times.

Its pretty simple, all arguments about selling games due to the costs of Docklands have been null and void since the AFL firstly brought the place and a couple of years later took over the running of it.

...

OK, in the interests of transparency and fact-based arguments, can you provide some evidence (links) for the bolded statement please?

I honestly don't know if you are wrong or right, but you provide no evidence on a pivotal point in the debate.

I made a longish post on this topic last night and only had hard evidence for some of it. But I do always try to state where I'm working on assumed, outdated or unverified data. We can't have a properly reasoned debate if it's based on bluff, bluster or patronising put downs.

 

[lachy]

OK, in the interests of transparency and fact-based arguments, can you provide some evidence (links) for the bolded statement please?

I honestly don't know if you are wrong or right, but you provide no evidence on a pivotal point in the debate.

I made a longish post on this topic last night and only had hard evidence for some of it. But I do always try to state where I'm working on assumed, outdated or unverified data. We can't have a properly reasoned debate if it's based on bluff, bluster or patronising put downs.

All contracts were re negotiated with Tennant clubs not just when the AFL purchased the ground, but the reason they took over running it early to ensure Tennant clubs had a better deal.

There are more detailed figures than below, but it does set out the facts have significantly changed twice in regards to the stadium

Under the terms of the agreement governing construction and operation of the venue, in 2025 the AFL was to win ownership of the stadium for a nominal $30 fee;[30] but the AFL Commission opted to purchase exclusive ownership of the stadium earlier than this, in October 2016, for approximately $200 million.[7] This purchase left the stadium's tenant AFL clubs millions of dollars better off, as they and the AFL arranged more favourable tenancy agreements;[24] although clubs continue to make more money at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, leading to a push from tenant clubs Carlton, Essendon and St Kilda to reduce their annual matches at the ground.[31] The stadium was eventually integrated into the AFL structure several years later, ending the independent management of the venue by Melbourne Stadiums Limited.[28]

On SM-S926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[lachy]

OK, in the interests of transparency and fact-based arguments, can you provide some evidence (links) for the bolded statement please?

I honestly don't know if you are wrong or right, but you provide no evidence on a pivotal point in the debate.

I made a longish post on this topic last night and only had hard evidence for some of it. But I do always try to state where I'm working on assumed, outdated or unverified data. We can't have a properly reasoned debate if it's based on bluff, bluster or patronising put downs.

Firstly the post above covers off that our clubs arguments for decisions have not been updated though other clubs positions changed with facts in 2016 and 2019.

Apologies if I came accross badly as your information provided was well researched, and accurate, however like alot of things with our club, based on spin put out by our club after circumstances have changed.

It is the same with our name change, frustrating to see what our club puts out to our members but never supported by actual facts or evolving circumstances. It is like they are always trying to justify average to poor decisions and then double down on them.

Anyway, I cannot see us doing anything about it so we just have to live with our clubs decisions

On SM-S926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Freshwater]

I reckon every single time we get a ‘home’ final at the MCG, that compensation should be a home game there the next season. If we have 2 or 3, that’s 2or 3 the next season. Surely that is the least the AFL could do? And at least 3 away games there each season. Hawthorn get a guaranteed 4 away games there each year!

 

[H Dolphin]

If you want to pay Andrew Dillon $1 mil per year and the other execs a touch less, after all, it's a tough gig running a footy competition in the southern states, then pony up before you worry about outmoded concepts such as level playing field and random draw.