One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on May 13, 2006, 03:12:50 AM
-
March eyes Tigers at MCG
13 May 2006 Herald Sun
Jon Pierik
RICHMOND president Gary March will today announce he wants the Tigers to play more home games at the MCG from next year and call for the special distribution fund to be scrapped.
March will tell guests at his president's address at Telstra Dome before the clash against the Swans that the Tigers want to play only two of their 11 home games at the Dome next year – down from four in 2006 – with the rest at the MCG.
He will also stress the points at a meeting between the Tigers and AFL on Thursday.
"We were forced to play four games at Telstra Dome this year. Our home ground is the MCG, always has been," March said yesterday.
"With the stadium (MCG) redeveloped, we sort of agreed to go to Telstra Dome.
"We are desperately trying to increase our membership like all clubs are. We are coming off three wins, trying to get to 30,000 members, and our next two home games are at Telstra Dome where our members clearly don't want to go.
"We are playing the reigning premiers coming off three wins. We would get 55,000 at the MCG but we will go to Telstra Dome, we might get 35,000 because our members don't like going there.
"The amount of stuff and emails the club gets, they just do not like going to Telstra Dome. If they (the AFL) are going to force clubs to play there, they have got to find an equalisation method."
March said the AFL should terminate the special distribution fund, which is given to the Western Bulldogs, Kangaroos and Melbourne, in preference for a fairer distribution of gate receipts to all clubs.
The three clubs receive a collective total of more than $4 million a year from the fund, which partly covers a lack of profitability from their home games.
"It's finding a mechanism that evens up the net receipts from stadia which is the one area that none of us has complete control over," March said.
"What we are saying is rather than have a system of special distribution fund which they have now, it's better to have a benchmark distribution fund against gate receipts."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,19115948%255E19742,00.html
-
Our four game per year deal with the Dome must end this year if we want to reduce it down to two matches. Technically we're forced to play three games at the Dome not four. The four comes about from that deal that guarantees $$$ independent of our crowd numbers.
In any case, well done to March for speaking out. Whether the AFL listens is another question. Our crowds speak for themselves as was shown in the other thread.
-
Best thing I have read in years, when I read that this morning.
Looks like my yearly biatch to Richmond at athe start of each year about Telstra wasn't a total waste of time.
I wouldn't care if we played no games there. :thumbsup
Off to the footy :gotigers
-
A timely message given the alleged game there today. I wonder if the accountants factor in the thrashing factor.
-
Ive never seen the premiership handed out on the last day in September at the dome. We cant play there all our games should be at the G.
-
Tigers' MCG hope
2:03:28 PM Sat 13 May, 2006
Scott Spits
Sportal for afl.com.au
Richmond will ask the AFL for more home matches at the MCG from next season in a move to appease its members.
As a long-time tenant club at the MCG, the Tigers are seeking nine home games at the revamped venue, along with just two home games at Telstra Dome.
Richmond president Gary March says the club is on the verge of breaking the 30,000-member barrier and most of those were behind more games at the MCG.
"Our members have clearly indicated to us that they want to go to the MCG," March said on Saturday after his pre-match address before the Richmond-Sydney clash at Telstra Dome.
"We've played St Kilda and now the Swans here (at Telstra Dome) as home games. Both those games would have been 50,000 plus (crowds at the MCG)."
March said the club is confident that even with a slightly less lucrative deal with gate takings at the MCG, the Tigers would be compensated by more members signing with the club.
"This is a great facility. St Kilda and the other tenant clubs here get great crowds. (But) our members treat it as an alternative venue. It's not our home ground. We're next to the MCG. Punt Road's our spiritual home. We've got to get back to playing games there. It's as simple as that."
March said the club is confident of achieving a record membership this year, exceeding the figure of 29,350 members set in 1999.
http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=265237
-
I'm going to throw a spanner in here lads. The Pres is talking nonsense clainming we would have got 50 to 55,000 V Sydney at the G. We never have before and wouldn't have today. Possibly at the G the attendance would have hit 40,000 but no more
Let's be honest. How many home inter state games at either venue have hit 50,000 in the past decade? I can't remember but one or two at most.
A really competitive Richmond would pull huge crowds and we all know that but the way to get the AFL to treat us seriously - the way they treat Collingwood - is to turn up regularly wherever we go.
Had there been 50,000 there today March could turn around and say to them "look we are a major draw and we want the G" They would have to listen. Unfortunatley they will now say to themselves that we are bullsh1tt1ng and bragging as usual and will fade away now that the train has hit the buffer with a thud. They are probably right as well. WE HAVE TO COME OUT ADN SUPPORT AND THEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO DEMAND.
-
Here are the stats lads. The reality
In the 6 seasons 2000 to 2005 inclusive we played 24 home inter state games with average attendance as folllows
11 at the" G" with an average attendance of 26,920
13 at the Dome with average attendance of 26,744.
Average benefit from being at "G" exactly 176.
V Swans
3 at "G" average attendance 32,973
3 at Dome average attendance 34,059. This includes the biggest interstate crowd of the decade at either ground in 2001.
The "G" only has a very marginal impact on Richmond inter state attendances and in truth those supporters who want to come out might prefer the "G" as everyone really does but no point pretending the "G" adds to attendances as March has done. It simply doesn't and wild exaggerations don't help.
-
That's true tiogar. A bit of an exaggeration by March.
I'd have to check it up but when you consider all games at both grounds, the blockbuster matches against the Blues, Bombers and Pies would make our average crowds at the 'G higher by a few thousand than at the Dome. Perhaps March was going by that. The period 2000-2005 was also mostly Spud's reign who turned fans away ;). We only got 15,000 to the Port game after Jack Dyer just died :(.
IMO playing interstate sides at the Dome advantages them. The conditions are more like their grounds than traditional Victorian ones. It would have been interesting what would have happened if Melbourne played Freo at the Dome and we played the Swans at the 'G. Would the Swannies have kicked 8 straight in swirly conditions at the 'G? Would have the hard fast track at the Dome suited Freo more?
Also how quiet was it yesterday before the game. Give me the atmosphere at the 'G anyday.
-
Adelaide here always say they don't mind going to the Dome, they consider it their home away from home. That's what we give up.
-
I absolutely agree that we should be at he MCG all the time. 11 games if I had my way and we feel at home there even when officially away as in the Essendon last week and the G does advantage us. No question. However the way to get out of the Dome strangely enough is to fill it if you see what I mean. Big big attendances give a club muscle and power.
Unless working or whatever every tiger should be at every game cos I know how it is. The AFL think we bullsh1t and swagger that we are as big as Collingwood but don't deliver the crowds Collingwood do. Now there are enough Tigers out there to do it but they have to come out. That is my point. It's not Collingwood that have the power and influence. it is their support that gives it to them.
No point waiting for a team in the top 4. Our young team need to ride the wave of our support not feel it hanging about their neck like a stone waiting to pounce like so often in the past.
-
I absolutely agree that we should be at he MCG all the time. 11 games if I had my way and we feel at home there even when officially away as in the Essendon last week and the G does advantage us. No question. However the way to get out of the Dome strangely enough is to fill it if you see what I mean. Big big attendances give a club muscle and power.
:clapping :clapping spot on tiogar.
What we need at the dome whether we like it or not is sell-outs, people missing out on getting in then the AFL will have no choice but to give more games at the MCG. Having said that results like last Saturday do not doo our cause any good what so ever - that's the harsh reality of the business of footy
The other thing to remember is the poor deal we get from the MCC at the moment. We had to do the deal with the dome to make a guaranteed sum of money
Our four game per year deal with the Dome must end this year if we want to reduce it down to two matches. Technically we're forced to play three games at the Dome not four. The four comes about from that deal that guarantees $$$ independent of our crowd numbers.
Yeah the deal with the Dome ends this year. We are forced to play 3 games there with no guarantee but like I've said above have a few sellouts/lockouts and I reckon you'll find the AFL giving us more at the MCG.
The AFL don't want people not being able to get into grounds because they are too small
-
I absolutely agree that we should be at he MCG all the time. 11 games if I had my way and we feel at home there even when officially away as in the Essendon last week and the G does advantage us. No question. However the way to get out of the Dome strangely enough is to fill it if you see what I mean. Big big attendances give a club muscle and power.
That's true too tiogar. It's a catch 22. Many of our fans have been burnt by too many false dawns in the past so they'll probably only hop on board when we return to being a big club but to be a big club we need them to start coming back now.
We only seem to fill the Dome when we are the away team. I remember people being locked out on Easter Monday a few years back against the Saints (the last time we defeated them).
-
Tiger plan to scrap inequity in AFL funds
By Michael Gleeson
The Age
May 18, 2006
RICHMOND yesterday delivered a radical proposal to the AFL to overhaul the special distribution fund in a shake-up that would provide more money to more clubs and try to remove the inequities confronting the poorest teams.
The Tigers claim the current system is arbitrary and does not provide a stuff for arriving at an amount to be paid to clubs.
The Richmond model presented to the AFL Commission and chief executive Andrew Demetriou yesterday claims that because clubs did not play each other twice and could not decide where games were played, the poorest clubs could not negotiate beneficial stadium deals. "Now is the time, when (the AFL) have this big war chest, to find a system that is equitable," Richmond president Gary March said.
"At the moment they award money under the special distribution fund and no one knows why a club gets the money, or how they decide who gets it and how much they should get.
"Why did Melbourne get a million last year and therefore made a million profit while others who made losses got nothing?
"When you look at sponsorship and all of those things, everyone is on a level playing field.
"At the moment I will sit down with (MCG chief executive) Stephen Gough and he will say, 'I can't offer you a bigger cut of catering or whatever because you can't tell me who you are going to be playing next year and you can't tell me if you are going to play seven, nine or 11 games here. If you tell me you are going to play nine games here and you will play Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon twice then I can negotiate a much better deal, but you can't'. "
Richmond went through the net return of all clubs last year from stadium deals — which includes gate receipts, reserved seats, catering and signs — and ranked them. An average was reached for the Victorian clubs and the Tigers believe clubs earning less than the average should be paid a dividend. On those figures, six clubs would have been paid some form of compensation — instead of three — and a total of $6.5 million would be paid instead of $4 million this year.
The Western Bulldogs fared the worst from their stadiums deal and would, under the Richmond system, receive $1.9 million instead of the $1.5 million they now get.
The proposed changes are on top of the $2 million per club per year sought from the broadcast agreement.
"That's about $3.8 million for the Bulldogs," March said. "If the Bulldogs — for the sake of the example — cannot manage their books with an additional $2.3 million on top of what they get now then they shouldn't be in the competition long term."
Under the model, the Tigers would have received $900,000 this year, but a better blend of venues and games this season would likely get a smaller payment next year.
"That's fair — if we get three blockbusters one year and two the next, or our gate receipts improve and the stadiums deal is better, then we don't deserve the payment. But because we might get three, another club won't and therefore they would be entitled to it."
Under Richmond's plan, Carlton, on last year's figures, would get nothing.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/05/17/1147545392051.html
-
Gotta love the last sentence of that article :thumbsup
-
Yes. But its still too much.
-
"Why did Melbourne get a million last year and therefore made a million profit while others who made losses got nothing?
Bloody good question Gary :help :thumbsup
"At the moment I will sit down with (MCG chief executive) Stephen Gough and he will say, 'I can't offer you a bigger cut of catering or whatever because you can't tell me who you are going to be playing next year and you can't tell me if you are going to play seven, nine or 11 games here. If you tell me you are going to play nine games here and you will play Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon twice then I can negotiate a much better deal, but you can't'. "
Very good point he makes here.
The Western Bulldogs fared the worst from their stadiums deal and would, under the Richmond system, receive $1.9 million instead of the $1.5 million they now get.
The proposed changes are on top of the $2 million per club per year sought from the broadcast agreement.
"That's about $3.8 million for the Bulldogs," March said. "If the Bulldogs — for the sake of the example — cannot manage their books with an additional $2.3 million on top of what they get now then they shouldn't be in the competition long term."
Fair call - I reckon. How long do you prop clubs up for?
Under the model, the Tigers would have received $900,000 this year, but a better blend of venues and games this season would likely get a smaller payment next year.
"That's fair — if we get three blockbusters one year and two the next, or our gate receipts improve and the stadiums deal is better, then we don't deserve the payment. But because we might get three, another club won't and therefore they would be entitled to it."
Seems they've put alot of effort into this submission and done their sums really well.
It seems like a fair an equitable way of doing things
With this....
Under Richmond's plan, Carlton, on last year's figures, would get nothing.
being an added bonus :rollin ;D :clapping :thumbsup
Love your thinking Tigers
:gotigers ;D
-
Tigers eye double Pie
18 May 2006 Herald Sun
Jon Pierik
RICHMOND will lobby the AFL next week to schedule two matches against Collingwood next season, including the season opener at the MCG.
Tigers president Gary March said last night it was time the clubs, who had a falling out over gate receipts in 2004, again clashed twice a year.
March said the plan was again to split gate receipts, as the Tigers would do in their two matches against Essendon this year.
"We are both very big drawing clubs at the MCG, we would like to go back to playing Collingwood twice a year," March said.
"We would also like to play our big arch rivals Carlton and Essendon twice a year."
The Magpies and Tigers last met twice in 2004, including the season opener.
As revealed in Saturday's Herald Sun, the Tigers will also ask for nine home matches at the MCG next season, up from seven this year.
The Tigers met the AFL Commission and executive yesterday and addressed several issues, including providing clubs with a better overall financial return from their home-ground deals.
The AFL was happy the Tigers expect to post a $350,000 profit this season, the second straight year the club will be in the black.
"Today was about us presenting where the Richmond Football Club is at, from where we came from two of three years ago," March said.
"Obviously we are travelling a lot better now, heading towards another profitable year. There seems to be a much better level of
confidence in Richmond than maybe there was a couple of years ago."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,19172298%255E19742,00.html
-
RICHMOND will lobby the AFL next week to schedule two matches against Collingwood next season, including the season opener at the MCG.
Tigers president Gary March said last night it was time the clubs, who had a falling out over gate receipts in 2004, again clashed twice a year.
March said the plan was again to split gate receipts, as the Tigers would do in their two matches against Essendon this year.
:clapping :clapping - with proper planning we can do these sort of deals with other clubs
The AFL was happy the Tigers expect to post a $350,000 profit this season, the second straight year the club will be in the black.
"Today was about us presenting where the Richmond Football Club is at, from where we came from two of three years ago," March said.
"Obviously we are travelling a lot better now, heading towards another profitable year. There seems to be a much better level of
confidence in Richmond than maybe there was a couple of years ago."
:clapping :clapping :clapping Although we still have an overdraft at least our balance sheet will be closer to being in the black (assets over liabilities) if we make a $350k profit (down from ($704k to $354K)
:gotigers :gotigers
-
The AFL was happy the Tigers expect to post a $350,000 profit this season, the second straight year the club will be in the black.
Great news. Good to see the Club be so proactive too :clapping.
As we're making profits now under the current stadia situation, if the AFL accepts our suggestion then we can use the extra $500-900k or whatever to eat into our overdraft.
-
Tigers homesick
30 May 2006 Herald Sun
Mark Stevens
RICHMOND is preparing to step up its bid for more home games at the MCG.
The Tigers would dearly love at least 10 matches at their spiritual home – and could even be prepared to consider moving a game interstate.
Club president Gary March yesterday said the Tigers expect to meet the AFL in the next fortnight in an aggressive push for fewer games at Telstra Dome.
And March is prepared to think left-field to treat his members to more MCG action.
He said yesterday a mix of 10 games at the MCG and one interstate was more palatable to the Tigers than the current schedule of seven matches at the MCG and four at Telstra Dome.
In a perfect world, the Tigers want 11 games at the MCG and none at Telstra Dome. They are hoping for at least nine at the MCG next year.
But March said the Tigers are prepared to consider other options if the AFL could guarantee 10 games at their traditional home.
"We're prepared to be flexible for one game if it means getting 10 at the MCG," March said.
"We'd have to discuss it as a board because as a board we don't want to go interstate, but if we got 10 games at the MCG we'd seriously have to consider it," March said.
"That's more palatable to us than playing seven home games at the MCG."
In an in-depth interview with the Herald Sun, the Tigers president also said:
THE club is predicting a profit of $350,000 – but is hopeful it will be better if on-field performance continues to improve.
THE media rights bonanza should be split equally – and if the Tigers reap $2 million it will be used to pay off their debt, which is about $4.4 million.
IF the new media deal provides a significant distribution, any trading profits will be pumped into the Tigers' football department – with plans afoot for a new full-time development coach and an expanded recruiting team.
THE long-term future of the Tigers and six or seven other clubs is still in jeopardy unless the AFL can equalise stadium deals.
THE club hoped to wipe out its debt in two years.
March said Richmond members "scream" about playing games at Telstra Dome because they don't like the reserved seating and can't go to the social club at Punt Rd.
He is confident the Tigers could lift membership by about 2000 by playing more games at the MCG.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,19300765%255E19742,00.html
-
"We're prepared to be flexible for one game if it means getting 10 at the MCG," March said.
"We'd have to discuss it as a board because as a board we don't want to go interstate, but if we got 10 games at the MCG we'd seriously have to consider it," March said.
"That's more palatable to us than playing seven home games at the MCG."
I'm all for more home games at the 'G but say no way to playing any interstate. We're a Victorian club not a nomadic one like the Roos and our home ground has always been in Yarra Park. If we want to make a deal with the AFL then play our away games against the Dees and Roos and even the Doggies at Carrara with Southport's financial support.
THE club is predicting a profit of $350,000 – but is hopeful it will be better if on-field performance continues to improve.
THE media rights bonanza should be split equally – and if the Tigers reap $2 million it will be used to pay off their debt, which is about $4.4 million.
IF the new media deal provides a significant distribution, any trading profits will be pumped into the Tigers' football department – with plans afoot for a new full-time development coach and an expanded recruiting team.
THE club hoped to wipe out its debt in two years.
All great news :clapping
-
I can see Gary March's logic that to get something you need to trade something for it. My problem with it is that the MCG is our home ground so we shouldn't have to trade anything to play our home games there.
I'd be happy with 9 MCG and 2 TD. For now, anyway. That's because it'd be a big improvement on what we've got now.
11 home games at the MCG, like it used to be, would be ideal. It would also be better for me financially as an MCC member. I like TD though. From what I read, it seems I'm the only Richmond supporter who does.
Having 1 or 2 home games there plus whatever away games there are means the ground stays neutral for us against sides who are tenants there. Now the team is becoming skillful I think the supporters will warm to the ground when we cease being constantly spanked there.
As an aside, it would be harder for the club to market an MCC Tigers package without entry to 1 or 2 TD games.
-
As a spectator I like the Dome too FF and I understand for financial reasons why we play 4 home games there. However from a winning games point of view it's annoying playing "home" games there against Dome tenants and interstate sides that struggle at the 'G. From an injury/player management p.o.v. the surface is also too hard. I read the Advertiser this morning and Port players were complaining about being sorer than usual after just one match at the Dome.
In the VFL days we played 9 or 10 home games at the 'G and the remaining 1 or 2 at Waverley. So 9 'G/2 Dome home games would be an improvement.
-
"We're prepared to be flexible for one game if it means getting 10 at the MCG," March said.
"We'd have to discuss it as a board because as a board we don't want to go interstate, but if we got 10 games at the MCG we'd seriously have to consider it," March said.
"That's more palatable to us than playing seven home games at the MCG."
I'm all for more home games at the 'G but say no way to playing any interstate. We're a Victorian club not a nomadic one like the Roos and our home ground has always been in Yarra Park. If we want to make a deal with the AFL then play our away games against the Dees and Roos and even the Doggies at Carrara with Southport's financial support.
Have to agree there MT. As it is, I’ll be lucky to get to 13 games this year, for various reasons. I partly moved to Melbourne so I could watch my team play and each season it seems I get to see them less and less. The way things are going, may as well have moved to Timbucktoo.
Maybe that’s a selfish attitude to have, but whatever direction the AFL is taking the game in, they need to realise that supporters are being asked for a far greater financial outlay, as well as time commitment than has been expected from members and supporters in the past. Yet the AFL and clubs just seem to expect that people can and will continue to follow their team week after week, season after season without any impact on people’s ability to attend games and also purchase memberships.
The flexible lifestyle supporters need to have, and the number of interstate games clubs play, means Clubs need to be careful not erode the footy culture that has existed in Melbourne. And no way known is taking more of our games outside of Melbourne palatable. If playing at TD keeps us in Melbourne then so be it. Why we’re playing Hawthorn in Tasmania this year is beyond me. It’s their home game, I know, and they can do what they like, but it seems a strange game to take there when you could anticipate a half decent crowd in Melbourne.
-
Ive thought alot about this today. In the end, I understand that people dont want any home games interstate but for mine if Gary March can get us 10 home games at the MCG per season and he can get a deal where that is guaranteed for say 5 years then I wouldnt be against having 1 game in say Tassie.
You win premierships at the G. 10 home MCG Games + probably 2 or 3 MCG Away games + 2 or 3 away games at Telstra Dome would gives more than enough games in Melbourne. The trade off of 1 game shouldnt really be seen in a negative light i dont reckon if we end up with that type of Deal.
-
10+1 may be OK if we can get a members recognition in lieu of the 1 game (as I believe the Hawks do), so you can still use the ticket for 11 games. However, maybe we could do an 11+0, 10+1, or at worst 9+2 (MCG/TD) in return for offering to play away games anywhere anytime. Hence we play 11 homes games where we want (MCG), but are also happy to play the 6 standard interstate games and any others (North-Canberra, Hawks-Tas, Demons-Qld) or whatever the draw asks in a particular year. My theory is, own your home games and defend them to the last, but then accept whatever away games you get. And remember, while the flag is won at the G, there's a fair chance some of your finals will be played out of Vic.
-
He said yesterday a mix of 10 games at the MCG and one interstate was more palatable to the Tigers than the current schedule of seven matches at the MCG and four at Telstra Dome......
"We're prepared to be flexible for one game if it means getting 10 at the MCG," March said.
:banghead
The Club may be prepared to flexible but I am not
I'm all for more home games at the 'G but say no way to playing any interstate. We're a Victorian club not a nomadic one like the Roos and our home ground has always been in Yarra Park.
I always had the view and I'll never change it that we should not play any home games interstate.
I am fortunate that I can go to interstate games but what about those who cannot. >:(
Other clubs sell home games out of necessity I don't think we are in that position yet and cannot see us needing to in the future.
On the contrary we are showing that through hardwork and proper planning and management you can turn your finances around without selling games
TS makes an excellent point every year we asked to pay more and more and we receive less.
I know people hate Telstra Dome, understand it and accept it but .....
If it comes down to a choice between 11 home games in Melbourne shared between the MCG and Telstra (9-2 or 8-3) or selling one off interstate to guarantee 10 MCG games then I'd take the 11 home games in Melbourne any day
-
I actually agree that our membership and reserve seat ticket prices are getting to stage where the club needs to give consideration to the clubs supporters many of whom are still salaried people and not corporate types. Theres been an exponential increase for mine in costs over the past 5 years or so.
-
If it comes down to a choice between 11 home games in Melbourne shared between the MCG and Telstra (9-2 or 8-3) or selling one off interstate to guarantee 10 MCG games then I'd take the 11 home games in Melbourne any day
I hate telstra - but yeah your'e right.
Ohh to turn the clock back and go exploring the suburbs every second week.
-
If you have a successful team that draws the crowds then the AFL will schedule games at the appropriate venue (i.e. the MCG). Don’t see Coll giving up much, if anything, to play heaps of games there. There’s no guarantee that our team will continue to play well, but why would we now want to tie ourselves into some deal, when there’s the potential for things to continue to improve on the field and we may not need to trade away anything?
I get a bit nervous when I hear the dreaded ‘it’s only one game’ line. And because it is ‘only’ one game, there’s the temptation to do that sort of deal, but I wouldn’t like to see it happen for a number of reasons. As it is, the Saints are looking to get out of their Tassie games, and if they don’t see any benefit in continuing to play there you could think that the benefits they receive from those games are limited.
In any case, those sorts of deals would seem to be for struggling clubs and if we can get things together on the field then I reckon there’s greater scope for bigger and better benefits and financial rewards by taking our chances in Melbourne and not tying ourselves into any potentially limiting deals.
-
However, maybe we could do an 11+0, 10+1, or at worst 9+2 (MCG/TD) in return for offering to play away games anywhere anytime. Hence we play 11 homes games where we want (MCG), but are also happy to play the 6 standard interstate games and any others (North-Canberra, Hawks-Tas, Demons-Qld) or whatever the draw asks in a particular year. My theory is, own your home games and defend them to the last, but then accept whatever away games you get. And remember, while the flag is won at the G, there's a fair chance some of your finals will be played out of Vic.
Interstate away games I have no problem with. Having two Vic clubs playing would also mean the game will be telecasted back into Melbourne live on FTA TV which is good for our exposure (sponsors).
-
Clubs concerned over returns at revamped MCG
By Jake Niall
The Age
May 31, 2006
The redevelopment of the MCG could be costing tenant clubs as much as $30,000-$40,000 a game, with lavish new facilities in the Melbourne Cricket Club competing with those of the clubs.
Melbourne, Richmond and Hawthorn are collectively seeking a better deal at the MCG, with tenant clubs, besides Collingwood, having received lower returns to date on the equivalent crowds as last year.
While Melbourne, Hawthorn and Richmond have asked the AFL to win them a better deal at the MCG - asking the league to negotiate collectively on their behalf - the league has put its talks on hold until it works out how much money it will allocate to the players and clubs under the new television rights deal.
Melbourne chief executive Steve Harris said last night that the redevelopment was hurting the returns of the tenant clubs, besides Collingwood.
"I think you'll find the tenant clubs, based on similar crowds and attendances to last year, are something like $30,000-$40,000 worse off per game," Harris said.
"You multiple that by eight or nine games at the 'G and it really becomes serious money."
Harris said there was "a range of issues" tenant clubs had raised with the MCC and the AFL, with the redevelopment having created competition for the clubs.
"There's more competition now from the MCC itself, in terms of its improved facilities and the quality of the those facilities and the totality of them.
"I think you'll find both the MCC and the AFL and all clubs are not exactly selling out the same number of rooms at the same sort of margins that they used to because of that competition.
"And there's been some changes in the way the return to the clubs from gate takings and food and beverage and other things has been calculated from last year, which I think has taken some of the clubs by surprise, and I think there's some work going on to clarify what's already going on there."
The AFL is trying to close the vast gap between the massive returns that Collingwood receives under its deal and those that of the other three tenants.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/05/30/1148956350575.html
-
Eddie slams rivals over MCG
foxsports.com.au
June 3, 2006
COLLINGWOOD president Eddie McGuire has warned off the Magpies' Victorian AFL rivals on squealing over the draw by accusing them of turning their backs on the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
McGuire's Magpies have easily been the highest-drawing club this season and before tonight's round 10 match against Brisbane Lions were averaging crowds of more than 54,000 a game in 2006.
Collingwood's drawing power has its benefits for clubs which play home games against the Magpies, although Richmond president Gary March recently called on the AFL to compensate clubs which missed out on big-drawing games, particularly against Collingwood.
Richmond plays Collingwood only once this season, but the round 13 fixture is the Tigers' home game.
McGuire said Collingwood took exception to its rivals believing the AFL gave it a good draw because of its strong drawing power in Melbourne.
He said every other Melbourne-based side had "turned its back on the MCG" during the redevelopment (2003-2005) period of the ground by switching home games to Telstra Dome or selling them interstate.
A lot of McGuire's annoyance was directed at the Tigers.
"We remember keenly at Collingwood that they dudded us when we offered them the hand of friendship to be able to play round one each year and get a share of the gate until they got greedy and decided to keep the gate all one year, so we won't forget that," McGuire said.
"We think it is a little bit galling that some of these people are now starting to clamour on, having jumped off the lily pad of life over the duration.
"We do take a little bit of exception to the point that's being made in recent times, or intimated at least, that Collingwood just turns up and it all happens.
"We've worked very hard and we're very proud of our results."
McGuire cited Carlton and Essendon's switching of games from the MCG to Telstra Dome and Melbourne and Hawthorn selling them interstate, but said Collingwood had waited patiently for the MCG to be redeveloped.
AAP
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,19355042-23211,00.html
-
Loyalty pays for Pies: McGuire
6:55:50 PM Sat 3 June, 2006
Andrew Wu
Sportal for afl.com.au
Collingwood president Eddie McGuire has fired a shot at clubs that have left the MCG, saying the Magpies were now starting to reap the rewards at the newly-developed stadium.
Averaging more than 72,000 at the MCG this year, Collingwood is now starting to benefit from showing loyalty to the stadium during its redevelopment stage, McGuire said.
"A little bit of a history lesson for some of our colleagues at some of the other clubs. Every other team in Victoria has at some stage over that period of time turned their back on the MCG," said McGuire at his president's dinner on Saturday night.
"Whether it was Essendon and Carlton doing their deals at the Telstra Dome, Melbourne and Hawthorn selling games away form the MCG, Richmond doing a deal at Telstra."
"So we think it's a little bit galling that some of these people are now starting to clamour on having jumped off the lily pad of life in the duration."
McGuire was also incensed Richmond wanted the AFL to start underwriting Collingwood deals at the MCG.
"And I see the Tigers arguing about the fixture at the moment," he said.
"We remember keenly at Collingwood that they dudded us after we offered them the hand of friendship to be able to play round one each year and share the gate until they got greedy and decided to keep the gate all one year, so we won't forget that."
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=271009
-
Every other team in Victoria has at some stage over that period of time turned their back on the MCG," said McGuire at his president's dinner on Saturday night.
"Whether it was ..... Richmond doing a deal at Telstra."
What utter crap Eddie ::).
The AFL forced us to play 3 home games at the Dome to fulfil their agreement to play the X number of games there. We only did a deal for 4 home games afterwards for financial security (i.e. a guaranteed return independent of crowd numbers) when we played poor crowd pulling clubs like Freo and Port. Collingwood also played home games the Dome but somehow that "not turning your back on the 'G" Eddie ::).
How about this for a stat Eddie: 122 seasons of having our home ground in Yarra Park (Punt Rd/MCG) compard to newbies who deserted their traditional home ground and suburb for good for $$$ leaving it in ruin. But of course Collingwood values its traditions (when it suits them) :sleep.
-
We had to do a deal at TD that helped financially because our finances were in bad shape and not helped by the "hand of friendship gate sharing" deal which I believe was heavily stacked in Collingwood's favour. Who do we think we are wanting a fairer deal, Ed?
Were the home games "sold" interstate by Melbourne and Hawthorn TD games and not MCG games? I thought they were but I'm not sure.
-
Eddie seems to get away with these things because people let him. If he had to be picked up on things such as this all the time, that are factually incorrect, we'd never hear about anything else.
I think people just let him go and he tries to build up this perception of an impenetrable fortress that is the CFC, which is mostly based on what he wants people to think, rather than what is fact. But no one speaks up for themselves and he gets away with it.
I don't believe we dudded CFC in any deal, Eddie's just good at turning things around, to his advantage, and making every one else seem like the baddies.
-
From memory Collingwood had/has more reserved seating so when we played each other twice a year we were financially worse off gate-sharing compared to just collecting all of our home game gate. The problem is if we only play the Pies once a year and it's their home game we get nothing even if heaps of Tiger supporters turn up.
It'll be interesting how much Eddie gets away with crap when Ch 7/10 take over the tv rights. Some poorer Vic clubs will probably keep quiet because they want to play home games against Collingwood to get badly needed $$$.
If we can win our next two games then there's likely to be 80,000+ at the 'G for our home game against the Pies. Hope we aren't gate-sharing for that lol.
-
The problem is if we only play the Pies once a year and it's their home game we get nothing even if heaps of Tiger supporters turn up.
Eddie should be thrown in jail
-
McGuire said Collingwood took exception to its rivals believing the AFL gave it a good draw because of its strong drawing power in Melbourne.
He said every other Melbourne-based side had "turned its back on the MCG" during the redevelopment (2003-2005) period of the ground by switching home games to Telstra Dome or selling them interstate.
I decided to check Hawthorn and Melbourne seeing they are the other 2 of the 4 MCG co-tenants.
Hawthorn played 8 home games at the MCG, 2 at Aurora Stadium and 1 at TD in each year 2003-2005.
The 2 games they sold interstate for each year were TD games (played max allowed of 8 at MCG).
Melbourne played 8 home games at the MCG, 1 at the Gabba and 2 at TD in each year 2003-2005.
The 1 game they sold interstate each year was a TD game (played max allowed of 8 at MCG).
The self-appointed AFL minister of misinformation, Mr Eddie McGuire, strikes again.
WP/mt, was the 4 TD games deal struck by Richmond before the 2003 season? If so, that's enough for me to call Eddie an out and out liar.
From memory Collingwood had/has more reserved seating so when we played each other twice a year we were financially worse off gate-sharing compared to just collecting all of our home game gate. The problem is if we only play the Pies once a year and it's their home game we get nothing even if heaps of Tiger supporters turn up.
When we played them in round 1 we always played them twice a year mt, so we were better off financially not doing it. I'd rather lose out when our one meeting a year is an away game than have Eddie giving us a handshake with one hand while he's fleecing our wallets with the other and taking the moral high ground.
Credit to Ian Campbell for seeing the gate-sharing deal was heavily stacked in Collingwood's favour and ditching it.
-
I decided to check Hawthorn and Melbourne seeing they are the other 2 of the 4 MCG co-tenants.
Hawthorn played 8 home games at the MCG, 2 at Aurora Stadium and 1 at TD in each year 2003-2005.
The 2 games they sold interstate for each year were TD games (played max allowed of 8 at MCG).
Melbourne played 8 home games at the MCG, 1 at the Gabba and 2 at TD in each year 2003-2005.
The 1 game they sold interstate each year was a TD game (played max allowed of 8 at MCG).
The self-appointed AFL minister of misinformation, Mr Eddie McGuire, strikes again.
WP/mt, was the 4 TD games deal struck by Richmond before the 2003 season? If so, that's enough for me to call Eddie an out and out liar.
Nicely done FF exposing McCrap ;D.
Not sure when we struck the deal FF. I think we had 3 home games at the Dome in 2003 and 4 in 2004 so perhaps it was before the 2004 season. WP may know but is probably having a bit of shuteye at the minute after travelling back from Perth on the redeye flight to make the Coburg game today :clapping.
When we played them in round 1 we always played them twice a year mt, so we were better off financially not doing it. I'd rather lose out when our one meeting a year is an away game than have Eddie giving us a handshake with one hand while he's fleecing our wallets with the other and taking the moral high ground.
Credit to Ian Campbell for seeing the gate-sharing deal was heavily stacked in Collingwood's favour and ditching it.
Agree FF. We've made profits this year and the last without needing to grovel to the Pies so Eddie can stick his 1 flag in 48 years club up his sponsored altered jumper :thumbsup. Heaven forbid the RFC try and get the best possible deal for itself ::).
-
If the TD deal was struck later it doesn't make Ed right anyway, as you alluded to early on.
We played 4 games at TD so we made a profit as opposed to playing 3 and making a loss. It had absolutely nothing to do with the MCG reconstruction.
-
Not sure when we struck the deal FF. I think we had 3 home games at the Dome in 2003 and 4 in 2004 so perhaps it was before the 2004 season. WP may know but is probably having a bit of shuteye at the minute after travelling back from Perth on the redeye flight to make the Coburg game today :clapping.
:sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep
Hello what time is it, what day is it....
We have a had a 4 game a year deal at Telstra since 2003.
Eddie is talking through his toes again. Gotta love him he never lets the facts get in the way of a terrifc piece of tripe.
Heaven forbid that a Club in this the case the RFC would do a deal with a stadium that gave them a fixed guaranteed amount for playing games there. As MT said we were going to have to play 3 games at the Dome with no guarantee of making any money so our Club being proactive (yes eddie you moron other Clubs know how to do it too) did a deal that guaranteed a fixed income. Struth we should be ashamed shouldn't we :wallywink
As for turning our backs - struth give me a break the RFC has spent the last 10 years trying to get a better deal from the MCC, they are still trying and they been told by the MCC "give a guarantee you're going to be drwon to play here and we'll give you a better deal".
The fact is Collingwood gets a better deal because they can guaratee that they will play x amount of games at the MCC every season because of the favourable draw it receives you know 18 games in Melb etc. Fair dinkum Eddie stick to facts
:chuck :chuck
back to this now :sleep :sleep
-
Sorry to wake you up. ;D Sweet dreams (I'm sure Eddie won't feature).
-
Sorry to wake you up. ;D Sweet dreams (I'm sure Eddie won't feature).
thanks FF. Actually I'm not sure what would be a worse nightmare. Eddie or re-living the last 7 minutes of the Freo game :banghead
-
Eddie seems to get away with these things because people let him. If he had to be picked up on things such as this all the time, that are factually incorrect, we'd never hear about anything else.
I think people just let him go and he tries to build up this perception of an impenetrable fortress that is the CFC, which is mostly based on what he wants people to think, rather than what is fact. But no one speaks up for themselves and he gets away with it.
I don't believe we dudded CFC in any deal, Eddie's just good at turning things around, to his advantage, and making every one else seem like the baddies.
Here, here! Why doesn't anyone remind Eddie of Vic Park?
And good on Fish for actually looking into the Hawthorn/Melbourne games.
At least at Richmond we stick to the facts and not make up dribble.
-
Here, here! Why doesn't anyone remind Eddie of Vic Park?
Because Collingwood values its traditions :chuck.
-
The Hawks want more games at the 'G too on top of more games in tassie.
http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200607/s1696232.htm
You would think in the RFC's case that 41 years, wanting a sole home game commitment with the MCG and delivering 55,000 crowds on average this year would count for something but we won't hold our breath :P.
-
Windfall for clubs without stadium deals
Jake Niall
The Age
August 2, 2006
THE AFL is set to provide more financial assistance to Victorian clubs, equalising the competition further by "topping up" the returns of clubs that do not have favourable stadium deals.
While the Kangaroos, Western Bulldogs and Melbourne already receive millions in special assistance — known as the annual special distribution (ASD) — the AFL is believed to have accepted the argument that other clubs, too, might be entitled to help if they have poor stadium deals that make it harder for them to make money.
The clubs likely to benefit from a topping-up strategy are MCG tenants Hawthorn, Richmond, Melbourne, Telstra Dome tenant St Kilda and possibly even Port Adelaide, the most financially precarious of the non-Victorian clubs.
Whether a particular club would benefit would hinge on the kind of returns it was receiving in a given year and would take into account returns from home games played interstate, such as in Tasmania.
In essence, the AFL has accepted the case put by Richmond that stadium deals can be more closely tied to the annual special distribution, and that the league should provide assistance to clubs that fall below certain financial levels — the Tigers proposed that any club that did not reach the Victorian average of about $6.5 million for "match day income" should receive a top-up.
In practice, this would mean that the Tigers, for instance, might receive $200,000-$400,000 following a poor season in which their match day returns were below par, but they might not receive any additional funds if their match-day returns — a combination of membership, gate receipts, reserve seating, signage and corporate hospitality — were above a certain level.
The same would apply to Hawthorn and St Kilda, and it might change the formula for payments to the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne and Kangaroos. Geelong, with its own ground, would be ineligible, while Carlton, despite its struggles, has excellent stadium deals with Telstra Dome and the MCG.
While the AFL, including the commission, is believed to favour a broader assistance system that would help what one might call the competition's lower middle-class — and not simply the poor — details have not been finalised.
The funds are part of the distribution of the $780 million television rights deal, with the new collective bargaining agreement with the players now settled and to be announced today.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou, when asked whether the league would assist more clubs by equalising stadium deals to some degree, said: "It is true that a few months ago that we did some analysis on clubs that have had poor stadium deals — particularly Melbourne clubs — and that work was done prior to the work we started to do on … the bonus distribution to clubs, you know, the distribution we planned to give to clubs.
"What we've done is we've continued to do work on one pie, or one pool, to distribute to the clubs, which takes into account all those factors — ASDs, poor stadium deals, the bonus pool."
But Demetriou made clear that any distribution — including what he called imminent "bonus distribution" to all clubs — would come from the same pool, in effect the TV rights windfall.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/08/01/1154198139886.html
-
In essence, the AFL has accepted the case put by Richmond that stadium deals can be more closely tied to the annual special distribution, and that the league should provide assistance to clubs that fall below certain financial levels — the Tigers proposed that any club that did not reach the Victorian average of about $6.5 million for "match day income" should receive a top-up.
In practice, this would mean that the Tigers, for instance, might receive $200,000-$400,000 following a poor season in which their match day returns were below par, but they might not receive any additional funds if their match-day returns — a combination of membership, gate receipts, reserve seating, signage and corporate hospitality — were above a certain level.[/color]
It's a good sign when the AFL listen and take up an idea proposed by the RFC. Wright will be happy as he can now budget for a guaranteed $6.5m from matchday income in 2007. Makes his job easier.
-
How much more convincing does the AFL and MCC need to give us 11 home games at the 'G and more games at the 'G full stop.
The MCG was the top choice for 94 per cent of Melbourne fans, who also represent the largest block of MCC members. Richmond (87 per cent), Hawthorn (85) and Collingwood (82) fans also threw their weight behind the G.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,20448777%255E19742,00.html