March wants our home games at the 'G

[Tiger Spirit]

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.

[mightytiges]

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). 

[one-eyed]

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

[one-eyed]

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

[one-eyed]

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

[mightytiges]

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) .

[Fishfinger]

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.

[Tiger Spirit]

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.

[mightytiges]

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.

[Ox]

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

[Fishfinger]

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.

[mightytiges]

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  .

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  .

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  . Heaven forbid the RFC try and get the best possible deal for itself  .

[Fishfinger]

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.

[WilliamPowell]

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  .

 

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

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

 

back to this now 

[Fishfinger]

Sorry to wake you up.  Sweet dreams (I'm sure Eddie won't feature).