Heard a whisper from a friend in the media that MFC are looking at selling 3-4 home games to Canberra in 2009, has anyone else heard anything about it?

I'd be pretty disappointed if it's true. Canberra has been trialled and failed with clubs before, and with the Dogs getting out of Darwin, us getting out of Brisbane and Rhino's Kangaroos getting out of the Gold Coast I think we need to do the same and focus on generating support in Melbourne.

I hope the days of selling four points for cash are over. We are in a terrible financial state, but selling games and thereby limiting our impact in the Melbourne market is a band aid over a bullet wound. We must find a way to survive in Melbourne if we want to get out of debt, stay here long term and rebuild this footy club.

you can sell all the Dome games you like lol. I mean we hardly go to them anyways..

Living in Canberra, Canberrans are very fickle. Just look at the Brumbies crowds this year. They are performing poorly and crowds have dropped by 10,000 per game.

There is no positive for us selling our games here.

It would be blatant money raising thats all. Im not particularly for it.. but in all seriousness next year you could play the dome games thier..lol Cant really see teh AwFuL letting us have that though.

Strangely enough Melbourne and Canberra do share something... Something Sydney never will. lol

While we're struggling on-field, 'selling' the four points isn't really a terrible thing football-wise.

Melb-based 11-game members haven't lost out this year, with the 'designated' home game versus Hawks in lieu of the Sydney game that's to be played at Manuka.

However, four games interstate would be terrible for fans. Regardless, I can't see it happening.

it is not a terrible thing in the short term...id be happy to play all of our home games in camberra/gold coast if it cleared us of our debt and insured our long term future in melbourne with a little bit of revenue to play with

im all for melbourne, but something drastic needs to happen in the short term

If it means survival then I'm all for it.

If we can get $500,000 per game, then it's something we will have to do, unfortunately.

Better there than Brisbane - would rather the players go to Fyshwick than Jupiter's Casino!

Moose

Heard a whisper from a friend in the media that MFC are looking at selling 3-4 home games to Canberra in 2009, has anyone else heard anything about it?

I'd be pretty disappointed if it's true. Canberra has been trialled and failed with clubs before, and with the Dogs getting out of Darwin, us getting out of Brisbane and Rhino's Kangaroos getting out of the Gold Coast I think we need to do the same and focus on generating support in Melbourne.

I hope the days of selling four points for cash are over. We are in a terrible financial state, but selling games and thereby limiting our impact in the Melbourne market is a band aid over a bullet wound. We must find a way to survive in Melbourne if we want to get out of debt, stay here long term and rebuild this footy club.

4 games would bring in close to 1.5 million.

Got any better ideas to bring in that sort of dough?

We could break even!

it is not a terrible thing in the short term...id be happy to play all of our home games in camberra/gold coast if it cleared us of our debt and insured our long term future in melbourne with a little bit of revenue to play with

im all for melbourne, but something drastic needs to happen in the short term

You're probably being a little facetious, but playing a large number of home games in Melbourne would kill the enthusiasm generated on the back of Stynes' return to the Club, CC working on getting past players back to the Dees, the 150 dinner etc, IMHO.

It's no good getting a short-term windfall if we don't take this opportunity to galvanise and rejuvenate our supporter base.

It's a backward step to play more games in Canberra than we already do.

But there's no problem selling a game against say, Freo or Port.

That's where the greatest financial difference is made - and where the fewest suporters will be annoyed.

I think one should be it though. We have to assert ourselves in Melbourne and make our homes games work for us, not avoid the issue.

Living in Canberra, Canberrans are very fickle. Just look at the Brumbies crowds this year. They are performing poorly and crowds have dropped by 10,000 per game.

There is no positive for us selling our games here.

I disagree, I understand what you're saying, but it's not about crowds for us, it's about actually turning games we lose money on (ie home games against interstate sides) into games we're we can be guaranteed 500k regardless of the size of the crowd that will turn up and their general ambivalence to support anyone other than probably the Swans.

I'd support it as a short term measure (3-4 Years) until we had eliminated our debt and were able to generate enough onfield success to boost our support, longer term hopefully it would mean our Casey venture was able to attract supporters and perhaps PGs vision of a boutique stadium come to fruition.

People shouldn't forget that

i) our drawing power in Melbourne at the Dome is pitiful and we will lose money hand over fist if we are forced to play our home games there against interstate sides

ii) this may very well be a measure we need to take to satisfy our major benefactor (the AFL) into assuring our survival ie extra funding for the short term.

I live in Canberra, so it's in my interest to see the Dees establish a presence here, but I believe their rightful home is in Melbourne. The one advantage is that Canberra will never be a big enough market to sustain an AFL side - whereas the Gold Coast was the thin end of the wedge for the Kangaroos, this I believe would simply be an expedient measure to help the club get back on it's feet.

I'd rather see us utilize Casey to play interstate teams such as Port and Freo, however I don't know whether this can be organised in the short term given that I have never been to Casey so am not aware of the set-up and stadium capabilities.

I want to play every home game at the MCG, but that's not going to help us financially. Selling home games is a crap solution, but if it's a solution than we should do it. Just make sure we play Freo and Port etc...

Casey is a better long-term solution though. Or alternatively the rectangular stadium?

Casey is a better long-term solution though. Or alternatively the rectangular stadium?

Absolutely Jaded, the problem for the club is how can it actually do that if it's starting 4.5 million in the hole? It needs to eliminate it's debt and work to a position where it can get enough liquidity to fund the project.

Absolutely Jaded, the problem for the club is how can it actually do that if it's starting 4.5 million in the hole? It needs to eliminate it's debt and work to a position where it can get enough liquidity to fund the project.

Unless it can get the council and/or the Victorian government to fund whatever redevelopment is necessary to play games at Casey.

Given it's the fastest growing corridor in Australia, I'd imagine the council would be quite keen to get some AFL matches there.

You'd need a seating capacity of say 30,000. Then you can add a membership premium to get a reserved seat at both the MCG and Casey, giving more money to the club and ensuring supporters don't miss out on a seat. Best of all it will give us a true home ground advantage.

it may be something we need to do to ensure our future in the short term...

a 30,000 seat stadium isn't going to appear at casey overnight... if the hawks can do it in tasmania, then we can give it a go in canberra... we might not be as successful as hawthorn, but if it brings the money in, all well and good... much better than relocating to western sydney...

You'd need a seating capacity of say 30,000.

That's fairly big. You'd want the stadium to be sold out each game, so that people need to reserve seats.

Its sad to see us sell more home games but one of the key elements to surviving - sacrifice.

We can either battle to survive financially trying to fight for a stronger hold in Melbourne or we can cop it on the chin, loose a little membership, but gain a lot more revenue by selling games not to mention most likely generating bigger crowds when we do play again in Melbourne due to the more limited options supporters will have to see us.

Playing a 3-4 games in Canberra, Tasmania or NT (neutral venues) a year for the next say 5 years could be necessary to build weatlh so, as North Melbourne stated, we can 'thrive' and not just 'survive' in the years to come.

I hate the idea of selling home games interstate, as i buy a home & away membership, but if it has to be done to increase revenue then so be it. So long as you can see the big picture it shouldn't be a problem. I beleve many people (mainly those that just go to games, not forums like this) will not see the big picture and will get [censored] off at the lack of Melbourne games and decide not to buy a membership. Can you imagine the media when we sell these games and lose 5000 members?

Casey is a better long-term solution though. Or alternatively the rectangular stadium?

Casey yes, but I don't see how they can play AFL football on a rectangular oval thats only 100-odd metres long and 60 wide...

Imagine taking a set-shot from the corner post!

I disagree, I understand what you're saying, but it's not about crowds for us, it's about actually turning games we lose money on (ie home games against interstate sides) into games we're we can be guaranteed 500k regardless of the size of the crowd that will turn up and their general ambivalence to support anyone other than probably the Swans.

I'd support it as a short term measure (3-4 Years) until we had eliminated our debt and were able to generate enough onfield success to boost our support, longer term hopefully it would mean our Casey venture was able to attract supporters and perhaps PGs vision of a boutique stadium come to fruition.

People shouldn't forget that

i) our drawing power in Melbourne at the Dome is pitiful and we will lose money hand over fist if we are forced to play our home games there against interstate sides

ii) this may very well be a measure we need to take to satisfy our major benefactor (the AFL) into assuring our survival ie extra funding for the short term.

I live in Canberra, so it's in my interest to see the Dees establish a presence here, but I believe their rightful home is in Melbourne. The one advantage is that Canberra will never be a big enough market to sustain an AFL side - whereas the Gold Coast was the thin end of the wedge for the Kangaroos, this I believe would simply be an expedient measure to help the club get back on it's feet.

Spot on Graz on both posts.

I hate the idea of selling home games interstate, as i buy a home & away membership, but if it has to be done to increase revenue then so be it. So long as you can see the big picture it shouldn't be a problem. I beleve many people (mainly those that just go to games, not forums like this) will not see the big picture and will get [censored] off at the lack of Melbourne games and decide not to buy a membership. Can you imagine the media when we sell these games and lose 5000 members?

It shouldn’t impact greatly on membership. The current arrangements give full members access to 11 H&A matches a year. So Rd 1 was the compensatory match for our match in Manuka this year. Members would still get the opportunity to see 11 matches in Melbourne in a given year regardless of their designation as Home matches.

For example We play four Home matches at Manuka a year one against the Swans, and three of the Crows, Power, Eagles or Dockers, keep 7 matches at the MCG including the QB weekend against the bigger drawing Melbourne clubs as well as four compensatory matches. It means we have 4 ACT matches, 11 MCG matches which leaves 7 Away matches at the rest of the venues. This narrows down matches we need to play at the dome and other interstate venues.

It shouldn’t impact greatly on membership. The current arrangements give full members access to 11 H&A matches a year. So Rd 1 was the compensatory match for our match in Manuka this year. Members would still get the opportunity to see 11 matches in Melbourne in a given year regardless of their designation as Home matches.

For example We play four Home matches at Manuka a year one against the Swans, and three of the Crows, Power, Eagles or Dockers, keep 7 matches at the MCG including the QB weekend against the bigger drawing Melbourne clubs as well as four compensatory matches. It means we have 4 ACT matches, 11 MCG matches which leaves 7 Away matches at the rest of the venues. This narrows down matches we need to play at the dome and other interstate venues.

I'd rather have games were we get $500,000 than play any home or away games at Telstra Dome at all.

To be frank, Telstra Dome sucks.

You're probably being a little facetious, but playing a large number of home games in Melbourne would kill the enthusiasm generated on the back of Stynes' return to the Club, CC working on getting past players back to the Dees, the 150 dinner etc, IMHO.

It's no good getting a short-term windfall if we don't take this opportunity to galvanise and rejuvenate our supporter base.

As for the short-term windfall - Needs must when the devil vomits on your doorstep!

But I think Hobart would be a much better option for the MFC as I think there would be a far greater probability of generating new members from there. With the Dorks based out of Launceston we would be tapping into Tassie football's traditional North / South rivalry.

I suspect though that the AFL would not be too supportive as they seem more interested in expanding the football market, as opposed to looking after the fans that already exist.

Selling games isn't ideal, but at then end of the day, if we're able to get $500,000 for a game that'd we'd lose money for in Melbourne then it's an option we must consider.

Thet only thing i'd say is make the contract as short term as possible, ie two years or less. If we get stuck into something for too long the AFL may use it as leverage in the future.

Another thought, not so much an option, is that why didn't we look at making Olympic park a boutique stadium? All it would need is a bit of an upgrade on the city end pavillion and obviously converting the race track to grass (which they are doing for the Pies now).