Author Topic: March wants our home games at the 'G  (Read 5972 times)

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40319
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: March wants our home games at the 'G
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2006, 09:17:03 PM »
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
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline julzqld

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: March wants our home games at the 'G
« Reply #46 on: June 05, 2006, 07:27:08 AM »
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.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58597
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: March wants our home games at the 'G
« Reply #47 on: June 05, 2006, 04:55:33 PM »
Here, here!  Why doesn't anyone remind Eddie of Vic Park?

Because Collingwood values its traditions  :chuck.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98251
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Hawthorn now wants more games at the MCG
« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2006, 04:06:36 AM »
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.   

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98251
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Windfall for clubs like Richmond without stadium deals (The Age)
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2006, 05:12:22 AM »
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

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58597
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Windfall for clubs like Richmond without stadium deals (The Age)
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2006, 06:11:13 PM »
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.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98251
    • One-Eyed Richmond
87% of Tiger fans favour MCG (Herald-Sun)
« Reply #51 on: September 22, 2006, 03:03:33 AM »
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.

Quote
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