AFL's ground rationalisation costs clubs
Jake Niall | April 16, 2009
A GENERATION of kids never had the privilege of standing near the "animal enclosure" at Moorabbin. They haven't jostled for a spot under the windsock at Windy Hill, haven't experienced the unique hospitality, and saliva, that Victoria Park extended to visitors from other clubs.
If they're lucky, they might have caught a game at the most pristine of the old fortresses, Princes Park, before it was closed as an AFL venue.
Some would say good riddance to suburban grounds, which were antiquated hovels in comparison with the comfortable, shiny Docklands, the refurbished MCG and the modern interstate venues. These local grounds, symbols of the old Victorian order, were sacrificed on the altar of progress and the national competition.
We were told that these grounds had to go, for the sake of the game and the economic future of the clubs, which were better off closing the run-down family home and renting either at the MCG or what is now known as Etihad Stadium.
Ground rationalisation, the '80s agenda pushed by the current Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel, was an example of the AFL's willingness to make the tough business decisions in the game's long-term interest.
Those who had misgivings about jettisoning all the old grounds were merely foolish romantics who didn't understand the AFL's hard-headed wisdom.
These sentimental Luddites were blind to the dollars and sense of ground rationalisation. Preserving club histories and identities was just narrow parochialism.
Funny how ideologies get mugged by reality and history bends in an unexpected direction.
As the AFL struggles to obtain a fair deal for its clubs at the MCG and Docklands, it's become apparent that these old grounds were over-rationalised. How much better off would the clubs be financially if the AFL had kept at least one of its suburban grounds?
The AFL has huffed and puffed about shifting games interstate, tried to get the State Government to heavy the MCG Trust, and yet negotiations remain mired in Middle Eastern mode. The MCG has a contract and doesn't need to budge. What the AFL doesn't have — and even delusional romantics understand this — is leverage.
There is no third ground, because, in its sociopathic drive to remove all vestiges of suburbanism from an expanding competition, past AFL administrations forced the closing of the smaller grounds. A policy that made a certain amount of economic sense, was over-cooked and the clubs have been badly burnt.
Consider the negotiating tactics available to Andrew Demetriou and co, who, to be fair, inherited the two-stadium agenda. "If you don't give the clubs a better deal, we'll …" Build another stadium? Move games to Geelong or Canberra? It's not easy to complete that sentence with a feasible threat. The MCG is controlled by a trust, Etihad is privately owned and its shareholders want the best possible return.
The logical ground to have remained open for business was Princes Park, which, until recent renovations, could still accommodate 35,000 in relative comfort. It would have required relatively few dollars to upgrade to AFL standard — Carlton went broke building the ground, in the belief that it would find a niche as Melbourne's third (or more optimistically, second) stadium once Waverley was turned into real estate.
Clubs have, belatedly, woken to the fact that bums on seats doesn't necessarily translate into dollars. Geelong makes about as much from a typical home game as Richmond earned from a sold-out MCG in round one. Had the AFL sufficient foresight to keep a 25,000-35,000 boutique ground, the low-drawing games against Freo, West Coast, Port et al — some of which are sold off to other states — would earn a pretty penny.
The AFL, sadly, failed to heed its own dysfunctional history with the MCG. The league created Waverley, in part because it was sick of being ripped off and dictated to by the Melbourne Cricket Club.
How did the AFL's decision makers, otherwise pretty astute, fail to read the play? Well, the obvious point is that they envisaged fewer Victorian clubs — at least two and maybe three teams were expected to merge or relocate. But, instead, we've seen the birth of new clubs, with the 17th and 18th babies on the way. The additional games won't draw many fans in Melbourne. Ideally, they'd be hosted by a low-cost, smallish capacity ground.
They call it a boutique stadium. I call it a suburban ground.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/no-way-home/2009/04/15/1239474935832.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
