March wants our home games at the 'G

[one-eyed]

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 feedback 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

[mightytiges]

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. 

[cub]

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.

Off to the footy 

[Piping Shrike]

A timely message given the alleged game there today. I wonder if the accountants factor in the thrashing factor.

[PuntRdRoar]

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.

[one-eyed]

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

[tiogar]

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.

[tiogar]

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.

[mightytiges]

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.

[Piping Shrike]

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.  

[tiogar]

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.

[WilliamPowell]

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.

  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

[mightytiges]

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).

[one-eyed]

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 framework 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

[LondonTiger]

Gotta love the last sentence of that article