Selling home games to Canberra in 09?

[Roost It 1,434]

The MFC needs to convince the AFL that Casey Fields is worth investing in. The capacity realsitically only needs to be around 15,000 to begin with.Even 1 game could be played in the next fewyears against an interstate club, as it has held an NAB cup match before. As the team improves and if we can generate enough support hopefully we can draw 20 - 25,000. The bottom line for this club is we need more supporters payiny to see us play in Melbourne! Playing in Canberra might just weaken our club even more. Maybe OK for a few years but we have to get the AFL to back us into Casey. If they will help then It's probably the best option for this club. Also, I'm really not sure about the Olympic Park area. What do we get from it besides being closer to the MCG. I'm not sure how we can afford to run 1 training facility let alone 2. Maybe it's best we concentrate on Casey and really develop a connection to that community. It's time to bite the bullet, draw in some corporate dollars(I think Jim's on to this), get supporters to chip in some more money and stay right here in Melbourne. The only way to survive is to draw in more support right here in our home, Melbourne. This is going to be really tough to do but the Casey option sounds like our best hope.

[Weedster 174]

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.

This would be a disaster - we always invariably get allocated every possible interstate game as it is through the "fair & unbiased" process administered by the fat greek false teeth salesman - travelling interstate 9 or 10 times in a season is a recipe for disaster - we need to find other ways to raise funds from our own resourcefulness

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

we need to find other ways to raise funds from our own resourcefulness

How many times has this statement been rolled out by those who dont like selling home games interstate? No one likes doing it and its not a preference but a necessity forced upon us by financial difficulties.

The Board has for many years canvassed and explored options to provide alternative sustainable funding to MFC to allow it to repay debt and provide a commercially viable basis of income. There is no obvious silver bullet nor are there any low lying fruit options to take on this.

The suggestions of Casey fields are fraught with risk and uncertainty. I just cannot see the AFL supporting games at another Melbourne based venue besides MCG, Dome (and Kardinia Park at a stretch) which requires significant development to get it into AFL standard venue for football located in the outskirts of the city with limited public transport for a Club whose supporters dont turn up to games (particularly its "home" MCG) and who cannot readily secure an alliance with the resident club to run a VFL team.

I can barely see Vlad holding a straight face on this one. He may as well re build the stands at Waverley and have games there.

Playing games in Tasmania is only viable due to the considerable largesse that the Tasmanian Government tip in. Without it the whole venture financially does not stack up for one AFL club. Let alone two clubs operating down there. Vlad seems lukewarm on the Tasmanian developments.

Given these are some of the solutions being embraced by well meaning (but extremely hopeful) supporters gives you an indication of the difficult parameters MFC has to work in going forward.

[Gouga 570]

If we have to sell home games I'd prefer to return to the Brisbane deal. We net $400,000 and are guaranteed to only go to Brisbane once. We could extend this deal to Sydney as well. Chances are we'll have to travel there anyway. Why not profit?

Breakdown:

- 9 home games @ MCG

- 1 home game @ Gabba v Brisbane

- 1 home game @ SCG v Sydney

- 1 away game @ Kardinia Park

- 3 away games @ MCG

- 3 away games @ Telstra Dome

- 2 away games @ Football Park

- 2 away games @ Subiaco

[Roost It 1,434]

The suggestions of Casey fields are fraught with risk and uncertainty. I just cannot see the AFL supporting games at another Melbourne based venue besides MCG, Dome (and Kardinia Park at a stretch) which requires significant development to get it into AFL standard venue for football located in the outskirts of the city with limited public transport for a Club whose supporters dont turn up to games (particularly its "home" MCG) and who cannot readily secure an alliance with the resident club to run a VFL team.

I can barely see Vlad holding a straight face on this one. He may as well re build the stands at Waverley and have games there.

Yes, there is some risk involved and yes it does need AFL support. But the growth corridor argument is a sound one, 3rd only to West Sydney and Gold Coast. The Bulldogs secured $25 Million to redevelop from the government. What's to say the same applies to Casey fields. Money for a the community benefit thus helping to tie us with the community. How far short of AFL standard is it anyway if NAB cup matches can be played there? What I'm saying is that we need more supporters for the long term and I'm not sure how playing games in Canberra is going to give us anymore paid up supprters. I don't think it's helped North or the Dogs except maybe some short term money. You're right in saying that our current MCG supporters aren't going to travel there, I mean they don't travel to the Dome. This is why we need new supporters. We need a community and I think Casey gives us that. Yes it will take time but it just might work.

[Guest unstable punt]

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.

seems to work for Hawthorn, play the interstate teams in Canberra, regardless of crowds we probably get heaps of money out of it

[Rogue 585]

seems to work for Hawthorn, play the interstate teams in Canberra, regardless of crowds we probably get heaps of money out of it

Hawthorn aren't sitting on the bottom, so I doubt the disincentive of x number of games in Tas is a powerful one, when compared to the entertainment value of an exciting team + the added incentive of access to finals tickets (and potentially a grand final). However, we're struggling on-field, and thus the entertainment value of a MFC membership is lessened (most don't enjoy going to the footy to see us get smashed), and there's no finals ticket carrot to lure fans to sign on as members.

In a time when we're facing the real threat of relocation, we need to galvanise support in this city - not sell off a large number of games. After committing to Melbourne, and asking fans to get behind the Club, it'd be a slap in the face to then move a substantial number of home games to Canberra.

It's also been reported that the Hawks are tapping into the Apple Isle when it comes to fans and members. How many of those in Canberra are going to embrace us coming up for a few years, if it's a smash-and-grab to remove our debt? What links do we have with Canberra, aka Hudson and Tas/Hawks? Zilch and zilch.

Quite different scenarios, IMO.

Edit: Not to mention the cash the Tas government has given the Hawks.

How far short of AFL standard is it anyway if NAB cup matches can be played there?

I'd say it's a long way off.

I'm not sure about facilities for the players, but for spectators, there's only one very small stand, and a few park benches scattered around the 'outer'. The fence around the ground is about waist height, and (most of) the toilets were 'porta-loos' placed outside the ground's perimeter.

I heard it's a fair walk to the ground from the nearest station, and the road out to the ground is one lane IIRC. There was enough parking for the NAB Cup game, and there's plenty of room out at the Casey Fields 'precint', so that may not be an issue.

[The Cold Hard Truth 0]

If we have to sell home games I'd prefer to return to the Brisbane deal. We net $400,000 and are guaranteed to only go to Brisbane once. We could extend this deal to Sydney as well. Chances are we'll have to travel there anyway. Why not profit?

Breakdown:

- 9 home games @ MCG

- 1 home game @ Gabba v Brisbane

- 1 home game @ SCG v Sydney

- 1 away game @ Kardinia Park

- 3 away games @ MCG

- 3 away games @ Telstra Dome

- 2 away games @ Football Park

- 2 away games @ Subiaco

Selling games to Brisbane and Sydney will give them a home ground advantage. If played at Canberra at least we will be playing at a neutral venue.

But it doesn't solve our problems of playing interstate teams in Melbourne (or even Bulldogs and Kangaroos for that matter) where our crowd numbers are low and we loose money.

Personally, I would sell home games to Sydney and Brisbane as well as playing 3 home games a year at Canberra for games against interstate clubs or low crowd drawing clubs. That means our remaining 6 home games at the MCG will be against Melbourne clubs like Collingwood, Hawthorn, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond or Geelong where we can expect crowds of at least 40,000+.

That leaves us with 5 home games sold, which over say a five years can not only eliminate our debt but begin financing a new training base in the city as well for the future home of our club.

[Gouga 570]

Selling home games to Canberra is only a solution if we are serious about developing AFL in the city. Are we? Or are we just looking for a financial windfall?

If it is purely a financial decision then selling games to Brisbane and Sydney is the best way to go. Yes they effectively have the home ground advantage but we also gain the advantage of making an interstate trip we'd probably have to make anyway but we get paid!

Brisbane and Sydney are happy because they have 12 home games instead of 11, AFL are happy because there is more football in the northern states and we get the $$$. The deal works because it is Brisbane and Sydney opening their wallets, not the AFL. It just needs AFL approval and with the club's finances as they are why would they not approve it?

When it comes to playing the South and Western Australian teams at the MCG we should strike a similar deal with the MCC we did for the Fremantle game where the top tier of the stands don't operate.

[Gouga 570]

Alternatively we go full bore into Canberra with camps, promotions etc. etc. A risk considering it is a small market and we are at the same time trying to establish a relationship with Casey.-

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

......

Well summarised

If the Hawks werent getting the Tas Government largesse they would be ambivalent about continuing there.

No likes selling home games. We do so because we need the short term funding. Its not a long term solution. But we have a serious funding hole.

Also our ability to sell an AFL game anywhere other than a preferred destination of the MFC will hopefully involved some extra AFL incentive. Canberra is only an option if the money is there. Its not big enough to support or provide meaningful sustainable $$$ to MFC.

As for Casey, I think you will have better chances of getting the World Cup soccer to Australia before the AFL commits to Casey in any meaningful manner. Its a generation away from being sustainable and given the AFL is focussed on going into the W Sydney and Gold Coast frontier they are not going to invest in a 3rd infrastructure long term project for a minnow side with an apathetic and small supporter base.

[Roost It 1,434]

As for Casey, I think you will have better chances of getting the World Cup soccer to Australia before the AFL commits to Casey in any meaningful manner. Its a generation away from being sustainable and given the AFL is focussed on going into the W Sydney and Gold Coast frontier they are not going to invest in a 3rd infrastructure long term project for a minnow side with an apathetic and small supporter base.

Sure. But it's government that will need to commit to Casey and as a growth corridor this is a real possibiltiy. I'm talking about training all year there and playing one or two games a year so as to try and involve us with a community who may just one day down the track end up with kids supporting the local team - Melbourne. I just can't see how playing games elsewhere brings us anymore supporters. Nor can I see the point in being part of 2 training facilities.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Sure. But it's government that will need to commit to Casey and as a growth corridor this is a real possibiltiy. I'm talking about training all year there and playing one or two games a year so as to try and involve us with a community who may just one day down the track end up with kids supporting the local team - Melbourne. I just can't see how playing games elsewhere brings us anymore supporters. Nor can I see the point in being part of 2 training facilities.

The Federal Government committed to the Western Suburbs as part of an election pledge...to gain votes and provide facilities that were not there in any way shape or form for the rest of the community. WB's benefited as part of that.

Casey is different. Its very well set up to serve the community now as it stands. There is no business case that would drive or support the allocation of more money to that facility to prop it up for an ailing minnow club.

Playing games interstate gives us short term funding which is critical..that's all. Maybe some exposure for certain sponsors but little else.

At best Casey is a generation away with nothing more than a wish and a pipedream to support the notion of ever playing AFL football there.

[Roost It 1,434]

The Federal Government committed to the Western Suburbs as part of an election pledge...to gain votes and provide facilities that were not there in any way shape or form for the rest of the community. WB's benefited as part of that.

Casey is different. Its very well set up to serve the community now as it stands. There is no business case that would drive or support the allocation of more money to that facility to prop it up for an ailing minnow club.

Playing games interstate gives us short term funding which is critical..that's all. Maybe some exposure for certain sponsors but little else.

At best Casey is a generation away with nothing more than a wish and a pipedream to support the notion of ever playing AFL football there.

OK that's all well and good. However it still leaves our club with nowhere to call Home. I think we'll find the club's new direction is going to involve Casey. To quote Chris Connolly, "We'll be in Casey in a big way" There's other ways to fund this and government will be involved, along with the VFL and AFL. Football is very important to communities and I'm not talking about building the The Telstra Dome at Casey. One or Two games to a year as well as training links us to a community. It also keeps the AFL ahead in all areas of Melbourne. We've been calling on this club to think outside the box. Playing in Canberra gives us nothing but short term money. We can use a well planned Casey involvement, bringing together the Scorpions, the Demons as well as other community groups to sell a message to the local area that we're in for the long haul and that we want to be part of the growth of the region. Surely that's better than flying off to Canberra with our hands out. We're not going to pull in too many big sponsors we need to go local and call on an area to back us and Casey could well be this area.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

OK that's all well and good. However it still leaves our club with nowhere to call Home. I think we'll find the club's new direction is going to involve Casey. To quote Chris Connolly, "We'll be in Casey in a big way" There's other ways to fund this and government will be involved, along with the VFL and AFL. Football is very important to communities and I'm not talking about building the The Telstra Dome at Casey. One or Two games to a year as well as training links us to a community. It also keeps the AFL ahead in all areas of Melbourne. We've been calling on this club to think outside the box. Playing in Canberra gives us nothing but short term money. We can use a well planned Casey involvement, bringing together the Scorpions, the Demons as well as other community groups to sell a message to the local area that we're in for the long haul and that we want to be part of the growth of the region. Surely that's better than flying off to Canberra with our hands out. We're not going to pull in too many big sponsors we need to go local and call on an area to back us and Casey could well be this area.

Canberra and Casey are two completely different propositions and the use of one does not prevent the development of the site.

MFC has no other option to explore Casey as the training and community base it lacks.

Playing AFL matches there is a completely different matter. I cant see any obvious business/political need for either the AFL or the Government to essentially fund infrastructure for a minnow club that has no connection with the electorate or the area. Nor does there seem any political/community drivers to do so.

Is the AFL going to facilitate Richmond to play games out at Craigieburn and the WBs at their big development? There case is as plausible as MFC's. I think not. Why would the AFL commit such funds for a such a small uncertain dividend in a State which is satuarated with the football teams and the ability to grwo the popularity of the code further is limited?

The pipedream reality of the plan is a reflection of part of the very difficult situation MFC finds itself in.

[Roost It 1,434]

Canberra and Casey are two completely different propositions and the use of one does not prevent the development of the site.

MFC has no other option to explore Casey as the training and community base it lacks.

Playing AFL matches there is a completely different matter. I cant see any obvious business/political need for either the AFL or the Government to essentially fund infrastructure for a minnow club that has no connection with the electorate or the area. Nor does there seem any political/community drivers to do so.

Is the AFL going to facilitate Richmond to play games out at Craigieburn and the WBs at their big development? There case is as plausible as MFC's. I think not. Why would the AFL commit such funds for a such a small uncertain dividend in a State which is satuarated with the football teams and the ability to grwo the popularity of the code further is limited?

The pipedream reality of the plan is a reflection of part of the very difficult situation MFC finds itself in.

For Melbourne to survive and grow playing at a smaller venue may be just the answer. We have watched as the AFL has reduced the stadiums to 2 in Melbourne. This has been great for the big drawing clubs, the AFL anf the TV but as for the average supporter- What a joke. The club is talking about an idea that helps it to take control of it's destiny back. I've noticed that AD hasn't canned the idea in public so it's fair to say he's waiting on more information from our club. The time has come to return Football to the community. Melbourne Footy club can be at the forefront of a new frontier- the return of Big Football to the Suburbs. With the growing size of this city I'd be very surprised if this didn't happen in the near future anyway.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

For Melbourne to survive and grow playing at a smaller venue may be just the answer. We have watched as the AFL has reduced the stadiums to 2 in Melbourne. This has been great for the big drawing clubs, the AFL anf the TV but as for the average supporter- What a joke. The club is talking about an idea that helps it to take control of it's destiny back. I've noticed that AD hasn't canned the idea in public so it's fair to say he's waiting on more information from our club. The time has come to return Football to the community. Melbourne Footy club can be at the forefront of a new frontier- the return of Big Football to the Suburbs. With the growing size of this city I'd be very surprised if this didn't happen in the near future anyway.

So the proposal is good for MFC but is it good for the AFL as opposed to its other ambitions? Why should Government fund this endeavour as opposed to shortages in teaching, health, welfare and public transport?

Vlad has not canned the idea (he has not supported it either) because no plausible commercial proposition has been put forward. So no subtle vote of approval can be assumed or fantasised because he has not made a public statement on it. I very much doubt the AFL with or without Government money would sanction such a pipedream given it seems to service MFC interests only with no clear promise of improvement performance criteria that AFL covets. Also other Clubs could mount better financial cases to do the suburban game.

The two stadiums provide supporters with easy access, a seat, normally undercover with better facilities. If you want a joke cast your mind back to the slurry pits that were Arden St, Windy Hill, Western oval, Glenferrie oval, Princes Park and Victoria Park. That was community football. It sucked.

Football is very much part of the community with the development of facilities that allow the community to participate and become involved at their own level. They already have the two main stadiums to see top level football.

The growing city does not necessarily mean similar growth in AFL supporter numbers and with 10 clubs in Melbourne it could be better argued is already saturated and not sustainable in the future.

The AFL learned many hard lessons with Waverley that has driven their strategies with regard to AFL football in Victoria. You have apparently missed them.

[52k2 0]

the vote by the casey council is being held tonight tue 17.

they will vote on the money the council is throwing in.

the vote will preberly be 7-4 in favour according to the councillor i talked to on sunday at the game.

on the question of selling home games wouldnt it be better to sell 2 or 3 a year for 2 years make our money wipe our debt and then return to 11 home games here.

short term pain long term gain.

[caco demon 29]

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.

Can someone show me where it says we get 500K? I think everyone will find it's much less.

I too live in Canberra and it would be great to see them here more than once.

[grazman 7,451]

Can someone show me where it says we get 500K? I think everyone will find it's much less.

I too live in Canberra and it would be great to see them here more than once.

Not sure. Just a guesstimate. The Gabba deal was 300K, and I'm pretty sure the Canberra deal was worth more. I think the Hawks get about 500K a game from Tassie.

[drdrake 3,187]

How about we stop looking for the easy option. How about we get 25,000-30,000 MFC members plus 10,000 MCC members to attend our games, that 35-40K against interstate clubs add another 10K for games against the dogs and roos, 20K Tigers, Bombers, Saints, Hawks, Cats, Blues and 40K Pies. That solves our ground issue we play in front of 35-80K week in week out all home games at the MCG plus we can more than likely get another 3-4 games there as well.

It is up to every MFC supporter not just the board, Admin and football departments but every single one of us. We are a part of this club we get to the games and barrack, we get to cheer the goals boo the umpires yell at our opponents, sing when we win and be upset if we lose. Stuff Canberra and Casey we belong at the MCG, like Jimmy I want to sit in the stands with my kids kids watching the dees at the G and by looking for quick fix solutions like selling home games will not help us to acheive this, short term it will assist with our debt but long term it takes us further away from the MCG.

[grazman 7,451]

How about we stop looking for the easy option. How about we get 25,000-30,000 MFC members plus 10,000 MCC members to attend our games, that 35-40K against interstate clubs add another 10K for games against the dogs and roos, 20K Tigers, Bombers, Saints, Hawks, Cats, Blues and 40K Pies. That solves our ground issue we play in front of 35-80K week in week out all home games at the MCG plus we can more than likely get another 3-4 games there as well.

It is up to every MFC supporter not just the board, Admin and football departments but every single one of us. We are a part of this club we get to the games and barrack, we get to cheer the goals boo the umpires yell at our opponents, sing when we win and be upset if we lose. Stuff Canberra and Casey we belong at the MCG, like Jimmy I want to sit in the stands with my kids kids watching the dees at the G and by looking for quick fix solutions like selling home games will not help us to acheive this, short term it will assist with our debt but long term it takes us further away from the MCG.

Brave sentiments, but if this were the course of action then the board would be fundamentally stupid. How many times have we heard this from supporters, and how many times does it just not happen. I think some people have failed to comprehend some basic facts.

1. We have one of the lowest (if not the lowest) supporter bases of any club.

2. MCC members aside we have one of the highest uptakes of supporters being members.

3. Our supporter base is aging, and have by far the lowest numbers of kids in Auskick, that means our supporter base is shrinking.

4. It's not that our members fail to turn up to Home games, it's that we're reliant on opposition supporters to turn up to get a decent crowd. When we play Interstate teams they simply aren't their and we lose money.

5. Moving home games is not a quick fix or an easy option, it maybe the only option we have if we are to stop the club going down the tubes financially.

Tough talk about where we belong and pissing grounds etc is just that, tough talk, it doesn't put bums on seats or pay the bills.

[w00dy 146]

we're looking to sell just 1 more game to canberra next year for a total of 2, which will bring in another 300,000 like the game this weekend is doing...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl...3-19742,00.html

play freo there whilst we only broke even against them this year, 300 grand in the sky rocket

[beelzebub 23,383]

Canberra and Casey are two completely different propositions and the use of one does not prevent the development of the site.

MFC has no other option to explore Casey as the training and community base it lacks.

Halelujah brother and praise the demons... lol

The very fact you have to announce this , to me typifies the notion that so many just dont get it.

there is something called the big picture..and its called teh big one so as to diferentiate it from teh smaller ones.

Canberra and casey are not co dependent, mutually inclusive or even necessarily aimed at teh same notion. They are two ideas about two possibilities.

Part of the reason ol' squawking Jeff is so keen on Tassie not getting up is because he understands the notion of a cash cow. He also knows the way to use your strengths to monise your weaknesses.

Im glad to see Macnamee also understands this. There are games we lose money. Thats a reality. These can be turned on their head and made to become earners. That for the fiscally challenged, is a GOOD thing !!

I sense MacNamee like some here understand that teh current AFL market is beig divvied up again. You better get in line early with a plan or you will miss out big time.

Its sound practice when building a stool to utilise three legs. This method provides for options regarding your position on the day.

we have our first. Describe it however yo like but for the moment we'l cal it our legacy psotion. i.e We are what we are and where we are. We are Melbourne. Introduce leg #2 We'l call it...umm.. we'll call it Casey !! This is an opportunity to grow the brand and probably at minimal cost as we'll be partnered in the cause. Ladies and gentlemen I introduce leg numer Threeeeeeee....and for arguments sake we'l cal it Canberra...just came into my head..lol.

Canberra isnt really about growing any allegiances but we might pick up a few over time. Do we dare sneeze at 2-3000 potentials that might join up with even a country membership say over the next 5 years. It wil start slowly...dont all things ? But the real value is we actually add some numbers to the bottom line instead of spending it.

I see no reason why this might diminish the brand in Melbourne itself. To tell the truth id rather watch it on telly ( from canberra ) than go to the dome. ( I love teh G.. noy keep on that other sandpit..first impressions and all that ) .

The real issue is Id rather see a game from Canberra with Melbourne participating than us not !!.

In business when you know your revenue is crashing and your expenses are piling up you have to rejig the nature of what yo do...or perish.

So the questions that are really being sought answeers for are : How can we make more money? How can we stop spending some needlessly?

Two games at Manuka works for both....and... there might be a little cream long term. I hinted at a shared heritage before that could be used to 'capitalise" our presence and for marketing. We've both been /are national cpaitals.. Something could be made of that...well could be.

Long term you could have a situation where 2 games annually are played in ACT.. 2 games played at a refurbished Casey..7 games as home at the G...possibly 2 others as visitors at the G and the rest whereever. The important thing is none of those games ought to cost us money, all should make some.

I see merit in this.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

How many times have we heard this from supporters, and how many times does it just not happen. I think some people have failed to comprehend some basic facts.

1. We have one of the lowest (if not the lowest) supporter bases of any club.

2. MCC members aside we have one of the highest uptakes of supporters being members.

3. Our supporter base is aging, and have by far the lowest numbers of kids in Auskick, that means our supporter base is shrinking.

4. It's not that our members fail to turn up to Home games, it's that we're reliant on opposition supporters to turn up to get a decent crowd. When we play Interstate teams they simply aren't their and we lose money.

5. Moving home games is not a quick fix or an easy option, it maybe the only option we have if we are to stop the club going down the tubes financially.

Tough talk about where we belong and pissing grounds etc is just that, tough talk, it doesn't put bums on seats or pay the bills.

Exactly.