Reluctant Tigers to keep selling gamesCaroline Wilson
May 31, 2011RICHMOND president Gary March said he looked forward to the day his club was no longer forced to sell home games outside Victoria but added the Tigers "would not have won in a car park" the way they played on Saturday night.
March was bitterly disappointed with Richmond's unexpected loss to Port Adelaide, but refused to blame the result — which cost the young team a place in the eight — on the unfamiliar conditions at Darwin's TIO Stadium.
"Until we get our financial position rectified it's inevitable we're going to have to sell games," he said.
"Do we want to sell home games interstate? In an ideal world we don't. But I don't think if we'd played that game anywhere we would have won it the way we played. We put ourselves in a position to make the eight and we let ourselves down."
Last week Richmond was the toast of the competition after its impressive victory over the highly fancied Essendon in front of more than 83,000 at the MCG for the annual Dreamtime clash. One week later it moves into the club's first bye for 2011 having conceded a scrappy loss to the struggling Port Adelaide in a miserable night for both the club and the under-equipped stadium, where two light towers failed before the game and during half-time, with the game at one stage almost called off.
The Tigers have one more year on their contract with the Northern Territory government and will host Port at the stadium again next season. The three-year deal — which also involves Melbourne — will ultimately reap the club $1 million for two games.
The Richmond board is understood to have been divided over the decision to sell a further home game each year for the next three seasons to play the Gold Coast in Cairns in another major financial boost for the club, which still remains $2.5 million in debt. The deal with Gold Coast meant the 2011 fixture was rearranged so that Richmond now plays the Suns only once — in Cairns in late July — rather than once at the Gabba early in the season and once in Melbourne.
"If we don't sell those games we don't sufficiently fund the footy department," said March. "All the dollars we are making we are investing straight into footy, and we make no excuses. We stand by our decision because it allows us to improve our football department in terms of personnel and salary cap spending.
"You've got to win games wherever, whatever and as a young side we've got to come to terms with this. We can't be clutching at straws to make the eight. If we're good enough to make the eight we will. On Saturday night we didn't play with nearly enough intensity and we couldn't put the score on the board when we had momentum. St Kilda travelled as far as we did on the weekend and won a game people thought it would lose."
March would not commit to Darwin beyond next season, simply pointing out: "It's well documented we were, up until recently, the club with the lowest return per person through the gate with our stadium deals. That's the problem with the system. Everything else, sponsorship, membership, is a competition between the clubs and all is fair in love and war, but there's probably seven or eight of us clubs without a clean stadium and who didn't come into new home stadiums and get positive new deals who do a lot worse than the others.
"We know the AFL is looking at a more equal distribution of funds and hopefully that will be rectified next year."
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/reluctant-tigers-to-keep-selling-games-20110530-1fcri.html#ixzz1Nqea5wNK
