One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: cub on August 16, 2005, 09:53:42 AM
-
Now everyone here that reads regulary should know my loathing of the place. Can anyone answer me this.
Our home game is transferred as per agreement with AFL from MCG to Scum Dome. Which we are supposedly subsidised - The Bulldogs members are getting in for free (As a return for playing away "Marrara"). Do we or did we get any extra for this money we did not get ?
I will be sending this to Richmond in my never ending campaign to have all our HOME games at the MCG :thumbsup
-
Looking at the ground on tv on Sunday, it looked shocking. Very patchy. Someone needs to lift their game.
-
Apparently we make more money on small crowds at the Dome.
I wonder if those clever accountants have worked out that we'd make even more money by winning.
-
Looking at the ground on tv on Sunday, it looked shocking. Very patchy. Someone needs to lift their game.
Looks can be deceiving Julz - they reckon although it looks patchy it's playing the best it has in months because it's been dried out - players can keep their feet and are not slipping over all the time. Tezza said after teh carlton game when asked about it that our blokes had said it was very good compared to what it was like before
-
If the club is genuine about winning premierships then they will ensure that we play as many games as possible at the MCG.
If they are all about money, well, they won't changed a dam thing!
Like i've said before we play poo at the TD, our record this year speaks for itself (another thread somewhere here!)
-
If the club is genuine about winning premierships then they will ensure that we play as many games as possible at the MCG.
If they are all about money, well, they won't changed a dam thing!
Like i've said before we play pooh at the TD, our record this year speaks for itself (another thread somewhere here!)
I've said this a number of times before but....
If the Club could play all their home games at the MCG they would but they have to play a minimum of 3 games a year at Telstra as directed by the AFL with no guarantee against the gate. We have to play there whether we like it or not so...
We have a an arrangement where we play 4 to guarantee a financial return. That's smart business
I reckon eveyone would agree we should play ALL HOME games at the MCG but that is not possible so it is in the Clubs best interest to have an arrangement that isn't going to cost us financially. Or to put it another way if we have to play games at Telstra and a financail guarantee means we are able to take 3-4 rookies next season instead of 2 then it's a win for the Club in the long run
-
i hate the dome,always have always will, but i am pretty sure that our profits and all clubs profits are much less at the dome as overheads are higher their
-
stuffen Dome.....biggest poohole of a ground.
-
i hate the dome,always have always will, but i am pretty sure that our profits and all clubs profits are much less at the dome as overheads are higher their
Not so X - as I mentioned we have a deal to play 4 games a year that guarantees us a set figure despite the crowd numbers.
-
Well then the club will never win a premiership unless they get out of that contract.
They have a choice, profit or premierships!
-
As many advantages as TD may have as an AFL venue, it has just as many disadvantages, which seem to outweigh the good.
It may say something that clubs need added financial incentives to schedule games there, rather than agreeing to them because that’s their first choice. If there was nothing in it for the AFL then you could doubt that they would offer these financial lures to certain clubs.
Given the constant criticism of the surface, and the potential long term effects on players who regularly play at the ground, if Clubs asked themselves what they would do in a perfect world, how many of them would agree to play there as often as they do? If they were honest about it, I doubt there could be many.
And that probably says a lot about where the competition has been headed. Money is and has been running – or should that be ‘ruining’ – the competition, ever since the AFL came into being. It’s not all that bad, but it seems that any and every decision clubs (particularly Victorian clubs) now make is based around what will make the most money. And players and supporters are often the ones who pay the price.
But it’s understandable that the AFL doesn’t seem to worry too much about the welfare of players or the inconvenience to supporters that any mind boggling decisions may cause because, in the overall scheme of things, they don’t really matter all that much anyway.
Common sense and logic are a bit overrated too, which is probably why the AFL got involved in a ground that wasn’t even built for Aussie Rules in the first place, or big enough to hold our crowds? Now that they have, they have to make it work financially. So don’t try and reason why things happen, they just do. As long as the AFL’s making money out of all this then we shouldn’t complain. Crowds are up you know. ::)
-
Well then the club will never win a premiership unless they get out of that contract.
They have a choice, profit or premierships!
Blade - we have to play there whether we like it or not - minimum 3 games a season. That isn't going to change in the short term - not for Richmond or a number of other teams. So there is no choice
So I pose this question:
Would you rather we play 3 games a season there probably make no money doing that (remembering at all times like it or not we have to play a minimum of 3 games) or play 4 games there a year make a guaranteed six figure sum and use that money on say, increasing the number of rookies on our list.
I would love nothing more that to play all our home games at the MCG but it aint going to happen in the foreseeable future so the Club has make the best of a ordinary situation
-
Well then the club will never win a premiership unless they get out of that contract.
They have a choice, profit or premierships!
As WP said there's no real choice. The AFL forces us to play 3 games there anyway - contract or no contract. Don't blame the RFC; blame the AFL for that >:(.
The contract was only entered into as WP explained to safeguard our finances. If the RFC hadn't done a deal (one extra home game in exchange for guaranteed dollars independent of attendance figures), the AFL could of scheduled our home games at Dome against Freo, Port and the Eagles say where we'd be lucky to get a crowd of 20,000-25,000 turning up to each and we'd be stuffed financially as the break even crowd figure is around 30,000.
As I said - blame the AFL. They will give the Pies 14 MCG games next year but will still punish the RFC - a 40-year tenant of the 'G >:(.
-
I would love nothing more that to play all our home games at the MCG but it aint going to happen in the foreseeable future so the Club has make the best of a ordinary situation
That’s the thing WP. If it was only a short term situation you could learn to live with it, but with only two AFL venues in Melbourne, it’s very unlikely we’ll get to play all our games at the MCG very often, if ever again.
Victorian clubs have made a rod for their own backs by giving up their suburban home venues, as the AFL can now dictate terms as they like. Clubs would have given up their grounds for economic reasons, but what they also seem to have done is render themselves all but powerless. That’s the way I see it.
-
I would love nothing more that to play all our home games at the MCG but it aint going to happen in the foreseeable future so the Club has make the best of a ordinary situation
That’s the thing WP. If it was only a short term situation you could learn to live with it, but with only two AFL venues in Melbourne, it’s very unlikely we’ll get to play all our games at the MCG very often, if ever again.
The problem is the AFL no longer schedules games at the 'G (except for that Pies vs Dons one). So although there are 4 times - Fri. night, Sat arvo, Sat. night and Sun - available each week, only on Sat. and Sun afternoons will matches now be played at the 'G.
-
The problem is the AFL no longer schedules games at the 'G (except for that Pies vs Dons one). So although there are 4 times - Fri. night, Sat arvo, Sat. night and Sun - available each week, only on Sat. and Sun afternoons will matches now be played at the 'G.
Earlier this season, Essendon and Carlton also played at the ‘G’ on a Friday night, IIRC?
It seems that the AFL will schedule games there when it suits. There’s no valid explanation why games aren’t able to be scheduled there on a Friday night. If they won’t schedule games there in the middle of winter, there’s no reason not to either early or towards the end of a season.
-
The problem is the AFL no longer schedules games at the 'G (except for that Pies vs Dons one). So although there are 4 times - Fri. night, Sat arvo, Sat. night and Sun - available each week, only on Sat. and Sun afternoons will matches now be played at the 'G.
Earlier this season, Essendon and Carlton also played at the ‘G’ on a Friday night, IIRC?
It seems that the AFL will schedule games there when it suits. There’s no valid explanation why games aren’t able to be scheduled there on a Friday night. If they won’t schedule games there in the middle of winter, there’s no reason not to either early or towards the end of a season.
I totally agree TS. It also flies in the face of the AFL claiming it wants to maximise attendances as WP mentioned in the Geelong thread. I don't have the stats on me but I'd reckon our home crowds are roughly around 5,000 higher when we play at the 'G compared to the Dome. Not to mention IMO the atmosphere at the game is better.
-
I totally agree TS. It also flies in the face of the AFL claiming it wants to maximise attendances as WP mentioned in the Geelong thread. I don't have the stats on me but I'd reckon our home crowds are roughly around 5,000 higher when we play at the 'G compared to the Dome. Not to mention IMO the atmosphere at the game is better.
Actually IIRC (from the AFL's official fixture book) in 2004 our average crowds at Telstra where higher than the MCG. I'll double check that tonight :thumbsup
-
I totally agree TS. It also flies in the face of the AFL claiming it wants to maximise attendances as WP mentioned in the Geelong thread. I don't have the stats on me but I'd reckon our home crowds are roughly around 5,000 higher when we play at the 'G compared to the Dome. Not to mention IMO the atmosphere at the game is better.
Actually IIRC (from the AFL's official fixture book) in 2004 our average crowds at Telstra where higher than the MCG. I'll double check that tonight :thumbsup
LOL (takes foot our of mouth ;D). Nah what I meant was to compare since 2000 (first year of the Dome) how the average crowds at the Dome compared over that time to the 'G figures for each opponent (i.e. Hawks, Dogs, etc..). I know timing and form can inflate or in our case for most of that time deflate crowd figures but I had a feeling it was roughly 5,000. I could be totally off the mark mind you :-\.
-
Here are the Tigers 2004 attendance stats from the AFL Official 2005 fixture (page 73 to be precise ;D)
Total H&A Attendances = 751,982
Total Home game aggregate = 389,161 - Average home crowd = 35,378. Average away crowd 34,181. Average H&A crowd 34,181
MCG Average Home Crowd = 34,957 (Highest agsainst the Pies in rd 1 was 55,622)
Telstra Dome average home crowd = 36,116 (highest was against Carlton 46,618)
=========
Just as a footnote: Out of the Victorian Clubs the Tigers came in 4th in total crowd numbers behind Bombers & Pies equal 1st,
Carlton 2nd, and St Kilda 3rd.
-
Nah what I meant was to compare since 2000 (first year of the Dome) how the average crowds at the Dome compared over that time to the 'G figures for each opponent (i.e. Hawks, Dogs, etc..).
Average Home Attendances (2000-2005)
Opp MCG Dome
Adel 29,073 28,439
Bris 31,688 22,642
Carl 55,926 46,618
Coll 62,065 ------
Ess 56,858 ------
Freo 20,523 23,578
Geel 37,208 38,546
Haw 40,990 37,261
Nth 37,660 ------
Melb 36,003 ------
Port ------- 18,611
St K 37,754 38,072
Syd 32,973 34,065
WCE 27,176 25,680
Dogs 37,883 31,165
Vic: 44,705 38,470
Vic (excluding Big 3): 37,916 36,432
All: 38,841 31,397
All (excluding Big 3): 33,539 29,874
-
Dome still not up to scratch
24 August 2005 Herald Sun
Mark Stevens
Exclusive: THE Telstra Dome surface is under renewed fire, with the AFL's players delivering an overwhelming thumbs down.
Of the 529 players questioned in a Herald Sun-AFL Players' Association survey, 80.9 per cent ranked the turf either "sometimes unsuitable" or "mostly unsuitable" for AFL football.
Only 15.3 per cent gave the surface a tick for being generally suitable and 3.6 per cent dubbed it fantastic.
In other survey findings:
THE players have backed the new tribunal system.
MATTHEW Lloyd has been judged the most reliable set-shot kick for goal.
UMPIRES are still the most favoured people to vote on the Brownlow Medal.
AFLPA president Peter Bell said the players' opinions of the surface had sagged this season.
"Generally speaking, you'd say that players are less happy with the surface," Bell said.
"The various stakeholders are doing what they can, but obviously there's still a fair way to go before it's an acceptable playing field and surface."
Asked if the time would come when the players made a stand, Bell replied: "That may happen."
"I hope this doesn't happen, but perhaps there will be a serious injury that is a result of the surface."
Telstra Dome took another hit in the favourite ground stakes.
Only 6.3 per cent of players named Telstra Dome as their favourite venue overall, down from 16.3 per cent last year.
The MCG has widened the gap in the popularity stakes, lifting its preferred ground rating from 43.8 per cent to 59.6 per cent.
Telstra Dome officials yesterday declined to comment on the results of the survey.
The players have no issue with the facilities at the Dome, but the turf is an issue which won't go away.
AFLPA chief executive Brendon Gale said the problems at the ground were obvious.
"There's concerns with the playability of the surface ... I don't think it's rocket science," Gale said.
"We will keep registering our concerns when we don't think it's up to scratch.
"We've insisted they do look for long-term solutions."
The AFLPA said it found comfort in a recent meeting with Telstra Dome chiefs to discuss long-term solutions.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has expressed surprise at the high negative percentage, but backed the surface.
"We're on public record as saying the ground is absolutely safe for football," Demetriou said. "We stand by that. We wouldn't send anyone out into an unsafe workplace.
"There are mechanisms in place to check and sign off on the suitability of the ground through inspections and the like.
"I'm surprised by the percentage," Demetriou said.
"I know the venue is always looking to improve the surface.
"Overall, up until the laying of new grass about four weeks ago when there was this perceived excess slipping, I think the ground has played very, very well."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,16364298%255E20322,00.html
-
The AFLPA said it found comfort in a recent meeting with Telstra Dome chiefs to discuss long-term solutions.
At least that's something I suppose.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has expressed surprise at the high negative percentage, but backed the surface.
The players are the ones out there, but what would they know whether the surface is good enough to play on or not? :-\
-
Hitler and Mussolini know best.
-
There was almost a 10,000 average crowd difference between our home games at the 'G and the Dome this year :gobdrop
Team.. Aggregate.. Games.. Average
Home at M.C.G. .... 281,021... 7... 40,146
"Home" at Dome ....123,562... 4... 30,891
Richmond Away ..... 398,300.. 11.. 36,209
-
Not suprising, i would rather go to a MCG game then a TD game!
At the G we usually win our games.
At the TD we usually lose, and it takes me way longer to get home then it does from the G (good on ya to the man who decided to design the "timetable" for spencer street!
-
and it takes me way longer to get home then it does from the G (good on ya to the man who decided to design the "timetable" for spencer street!
I like watching footy at the Dome but our home games should be at our home ground which is the 'G.
And as for taking longer to get home - what takes forever is getting past that wedge in the concourse that everyone has to squeeze through to get onto the overpass to the station.
-
And as for taking longer to get home - what takes forever is getting past that wedge in the concourse that everyone has to squeeze through to get onto the overpass to the station.
I don’t understand why they aren’t able to make it so that people can stream out of the area, rather than the shemozzle it usually is. Getting out of the ground itself is ok, but once you’re out of the ground everyone's squeezed together trying to get to where they're going to. Unless there’s some reason that they aren’t able to build other bridges or walkways to Spencer Street, it just doesn’t seem necessary or logical to have such a limited number of ways to get away from the venue.