Selling home games to Canberra in 09?

[Choko 493]

Exactly.

Like most, I don't like having to sell games interstate..... BUT

Of all places, I am really happy to be going to Canberra. Firstly, IMO, we made a huge mistake selling home games to Brisbane. The only model we should pursue is one where we sell home games to a neutral venue. Then, we can turn that venue into a home ground advantage. Canberra gives us that opportunity. We should also get an opportunity to train on the ground, which is better than the chance we get at the 'G! Plus, Manuka is really picturesque and a nice place to watch footy, and it's not hard to get to.

In addition, because Canberra isn't a football zone, you don't have to deal with the parochialism of a state wanting its own team (although Hawthorn has done OK in Tas).

We talk about donating $200 each to the club, and that is a great initiative, but the 620K we get from Canberra is equivalent to 3100 people donating $200. If going to Canberra allows us to set up a hub, pay our full salary cap, and get temporary financial relief so that we can start rebuilding our club into the powerhouse we want it to become, then I say sell 6 games there next year.

[Guest unstable punt]

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

l reckon play Freo, Sydney and Port, 3 games nearly a million$$$

[The Emblem 1]

What do they mean by the "youth blockbuster" game?

[deanox 9,897]

no idea about the youth block buster game. perhaps he is talking about drumming up blockbuster status for games including two very young developing sides (ie bottom of the ladder). along the lines of, 'one team has to win' perhaps?

ie canberra, as much as i dont want to see it, if selling 3 games a year there for the next three years can allow us to effectively wipe out our debt i as a member would agree to it. in return i would hope for reciprocal access to matches, and hopefully the afl can treat us like some of the other big clubs and only give us 2-3 other interstate matches so we can still see the dees in melbourne. (ie hawthron sell 4 to tassie and play 4 other interstate. collingwood play 4 interstate, and amazingly manage 11 in a row in melbourne at one point) if we dont get the reciprocal games everyone should just get out there and buy a 17 game membership to get into the others anyway.

out of interest, how much of the 300k profit would the reciprocal entry cost us do you think?

[Rogue 585]

Two games is acceptable. The five games bandied about on here is far too much.

McNamee stressed the club would only play another game in Canberra if the AFL allowed members a replacement game at the MCG.

But McNamee said the club's No. 1 focus was expanding to the Casey region -- and boosting membership in the Melbourne heartland.

Good to know - we can't afford to alienate our Melbourne-based members and supporters. I wonder if the price of the 'all Melb games' m/ship will be adjusted accordingly. Deanox, there won't be 17 games in Melb if we sell off three.

The Demons will ask for a fairer fixture, pushing strongly for more Friday night games and less Sunday fixtures next season.

Melbourne has only one Friday night match this year -- against Geelong at the MCG in Round 19.

"The schedule is not even," McNamee said.

"Friday nights is something we need to address. It flows through to the commercial value of what you are offering in the market place."

McNamee said too many supporters were involved in community sport on Sunday, curbing the club's crowds.

"We've got too many Sunday games. We want more balance, with more Saturday games as well," McNamee said. "When you look at it compared to the other big Melbourne clubs, we're definitely getting the short straw."

Hopefully something comes of our requests.

[The Cold Hard Truth 0]

But to my understanding, we are already making a loss despite the AFL competitive fund and one game in Canberra.

So really, we are looking at another $300,000 for the extra Canberra game, but loose more then that with the reduction of the competitive fund.

So we are still going to be worse off next year.

2 games in Canberra is a start, but we need more.

"Short term pain for long term gain" is the theme.

We really need to sell home games to Brisbane and Sydney to keep our battle alive.

[deanox 9,897]

Good to know - we can't afford to alienate our Melbourne-based members and supporters. I wonder if the price of the 'all Melb games' m/ship will be adjusted accordingly. Deanox, there won't be 17 games in Melb if we sell off three.

Hopefully something comes of our requests.

you are probably right but i am hopeful! if we could sell 3 interstate and in return only travel 3 or 4 other times that would have to be win win, especially considering we travel 6 times most years anyway, even if we arent playing home games interstate.

as i said, hawthorn sell 4 interstate and only travel another 4 times....pipedream yes. but it would be a lovely option.

[The Emblem 1]

2 games in Canberra is a start, but we need more.

"Short term pain for long term gain" is the theme.

We really need to sell home games to Brisbane and Sydney to keep our battle alive.

CHT, just to clarify your arguement, are you suggesting selling 4 home games in total?

[Demons 32 235]

I could easily deal with playing, Freo, Port and Swans in Canberra.

That would be over 900k for the club.

We currently get 1 million in CBF.

Next season we will get 250k.

We need to gather as much short term profit as possible, the Casey plan is definately a good idea, but we will not see the results for a couple of years. Therefore we need to get something to help us in the short term, this will cover the CBF we are losing plus a tiny bit more.

This mixed with what I believe will be 30k members next season with the excitment generated by Stynes, Mcnamee, Bailey, the young kids, the new captain and hopefully the best young player in the lead and marketing dream Natanui.

Naturally the hype of the number 1 draft pick will wear off on some fickle supporters and they won't re-sign in future years, but this should buy us time in eating away our debt. Hopefully in 3 years when the hype and Canberra games are over the team will be performing enough to boost membership and merchandise sales as well as attendance.

I really hope we can get the extra game and would like the MFC to try to get 3, which will be very hard but I am quite happy with 2.

We need this deal.

[The Emblem 1]

re the Youth Blockbuster

Found the link

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/chai...2863840028.html

[Little Goffy 14,449]

One extra home game to Canberra

On the one hand. it's a commitment to sell one extra home game to Canberra.

On the other hand, it's a commitment to sell just one extra home game to Canberra.

I'm ok with that. An extra $300,000 will take the edge off losing money from the CBF. And I'm sure Port or Freo would be delighted to play in the capital...

Everyone on here from Canberra (there seems to be a few of us) get on down to Manuka this sunday, will friends, if this is happening we've got to make this work for us and bring in a bigger crowd than the Dogs in Darwin to stay ahead of their attendence average!

Meanwhile, on the Youth Blockbuster the National Youth Week 2009 dates are -

Sat, 30th March to Sunday, 5th of April.

Which gives the option of playing a Youth Game as either an opening or closing marquee event for National Youth Week, right at the start of the season to give us some exposure and a boosted crowd. PERFECT. Absolute GOLD!

[Dreamin' Demon 10]

I'de be happy with 3 home games & 1 pre-season game in Canberra. I reckon we should commit to at least 5 years to build up a following (& pay off some debts).

As mentioned in earlier post, they should be against Swans, Power & Dockers etc.

[45HG 1,539]

This may sound like a massively stupid question, and hopefully is, but with Sunday's game, will our membership get us in?

Because round one was free for members in lieu of this game, does this mean our memberships won't get us in, or will it be the first few thousand or what's the go? Just don't want to drive the 8 hours to be dissapointed, thanks in advance

[grazman 7,406]

This may sound like a massively stupid question, and hopefully is, but with Sunday's game, will our membership get us in?

Because round one was free for members in lieu of this game, does this mean our memberships won't get us in, or will it be the first few thousand or what's the go? Just don't want to drive the 8 hours to be dissapointed, thanks in advance

No & Yes. You're membership won't get you in at the gate, but it entitles you to a free ticket. Contact the club.

[45HG 1,539]

Thanks heaps

[Roost It 1,434]

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?

Yes, it is good for the AFL as it secures football in the third srongest growth corridor in Australia and along the way will go along way to securing a future for football's foundation club. Look at it like this, provide extra money now to help us set up in Casey and then less or no money later as the plan comes to fruition and we stand on our own 2 feet, thus helping to continue the growth the AFL so craves. Governments have in the past and are currently funding such projects, I'm not sure why they wouldn't help here. Providing first rate sporting facilities for the benefit of the community as they have done in Footscray. Nth Melb and Richmond

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Yes, it is good for the AFL as it secures football in the third srongest growth corridor in Australia and along the way will go along way to securing a future for football's foundation club. Look at it like this, provide extra money now to help us set up in Casey and then less or no money later as the plan comes to fruition and we stand on our own 2 feet, thus helping to continue the growth the AFL so craves. Governments have in the past and are currently funding such projects, I'm not sure why they wouldn't help here. Providing first rate sporting facilities for the benefit of the community as they have done in Footscray. Nth Melb and Richmond

By seeking to expand the game in Gold Coast and West Sydney, the AFL has already indicated where its growth corridors is. Given the heavy penetration of AFL in Victoria the AFL know they have limited upside in increasing overall spectator numbers. most of the people in Casey region would already have adopted or supporting an AFL team. Not necessarily so with Gold Coast or W Sydney.

Casey already has first rate community facilities for its community. I dont see any benefit for the AFL or State or Federal Government for further funding beyond just helping MFC. Your reasoning is a series non commercial facades.

I haven't presumed or fantasised about his approval. What I said was he hasn't canned it therefore he's probably interested to hear our plan, which I believe we're currently developing. I'm sure the club will be adressing performance criteria and putting a strong case to the AFL regarding this idea.

You can draw no factual conclusion on what Vlad is thinking. Your talking up Vlad's reaction is a fantasy. Whatever MFC put up better have more substance than has been put up so far. McNamee could burn his integrity and credibility with one poor presentation on the basis of what has been argued before

Transport will improve in this fast growing area, that's a given. The reason these grounds were slurry pits was lack of appropriate drainage and poor surfaces, this is no longer a problem with modern turf management.

No its not. Melbourne's outer suburbs are plagued by poor public transport options. It has not improved over the years. In fact the Age has highlighted that our whole public transport system is in meltdown and cannot service demand. Now that an actual given.

No those grounds were slurry pits because there grounds had poor irrigation methods (if at all) and the spectator areas had cramped poor watching venues with poor facilities and many were unable to get public insurance cover that they were so delapidated. Its got little to do with turf. The AFL does not want to fund suburban football venues. Its shown that over the last 20 years and has no appetite to return to it.

A third, quality smaller venue to play NAB Cup matches, VFL matches and 2 - 3 AFL games a year in this area would only enhance community involvement in this game. Allowing the local community to use the facilities, such is the case with the Footscray and Richmond redevelopments would be fantastic for the area and I think you'll find the local council is all for it.

As I keep saying the Casey fields is a wonderful community resource that the community already uses. It does not need a white elephant stadium. They need a stadium as much as Mulgrave did with Waverley.

The AFL dont need another stadium in Melbourne period.

Why wouldn't the numbers grow as the city grows? It is sustainable, the game generates more than enough money to keep all the Melbourne clubs thriving but instead the AFL likes to use some of the smaller clubs as political footballs.

A little tip, only two of the Melbourne Clubs is posting sustainable profits, the others are on some form of AFL life support system. The AFL TV rights is thriving the clubs underneath in MFC are not. Hence the issue of saturation. Melbourne cant sustain 10 teams.

You have got all the sizzle but nothing in the sausage. It would make a most interesting business proposition to the AFL. Just dont start it with "Once a upon a time..." as it will be a dead give away of what is to likely follow.

I'm not suggesting the club build a stadium that big, we're talking using a ground that already exists an increasing it's capacity to around 25,000.

Done the financial numbers on that! From the position Casey fields is in you have got yourself caught on the tip of an iceberg you dont understand.

[Roost It 1,434]

By seeking to expand the game in Gold Coast and West Sydney, the AFL has already indicated where its growth corridors is. Given the heavy penetration of AFL in Victoria the AFL know they have limited upside in increasing overall spectator numbers. most of the people in Casey region would already have adopted or supporting an AFL team. Not necessarily so with Gold Coast or W Sydney.

Actually, as alot of the population growth is from migration(both from within Australia and overseas) there will be a host of new people to not only convert to AFL (To protect it's precious "brand") but to convert to Demons.

Casey already has first rate community facilities for its community. I dont see any benefit for the AFL or State or Federal Government for further funding beyond just helping MFC. Your reasoning is a series non commercial facades.

The area is growing and growing rapidly. A quality sports precinct would fit well within the community and I think you'll find the council is already looking at it that way. You might not see any benefit but I think you'll find future developments prove you wrong.

You can draw no factual conclusion on what Vlad is thinking. Your talking up Vlad's reaction is a fantasy. Whatever MFC put up better have more substance than has been put up so far. McNamee could burn his integrity and credibility with one poor presentation on the basis of what has been argued before

No its not. Melbourne's outer suburbs are plagued by poor public transport options. It has not improved over the years. In fact the Age has highlighted that our whole public transport system is in meltdown and cannot service demand. Now that an actual given.

I didn't talk up his reaction. You need to read what I said. You don't seem to have much faith in the current CEO if you think his and the club's presentation isn't going to be well researched. It's exactly because public transport is in meltdown that Governments will be forced to fix it. - There's your given.

No those grounds were slurry pits because there grounds had poor irrigation methods (if at all) and the spectator areas had cramped poor watching venues with poor facilities and many were unable to get public insurance cover that they were so delapidated. Its got little to do with turf. The AFL does not want to fund suburban football venues. Its shown that over the last 20 years and has no appetite to return to it.

Turf management involves irrigation and drainage so forget that argument. I've not talking about playing at these venues anyway, I'm talking about playing at an improved Casey. If NAB Cup matches are played there I'm sure insurance isn't a problem and as the ground gets upgraded I'm sure we'll all be comfortable watching the footy there. Hell, we might even sit together!

As I keep saying the Casey fields is a wonderful community resource that the community already uses. It does not need a white elephant stadium. They need a stadium as much as Mulgrave did with Waverley.

The AFL dont need another stadium in Melbourne period.

A resource that could well do with an upgrade as the local council also sees. If the AFL are going to have 2 stadiums in QLD and 2 in SYD I think 3rd would do just fine in Melbourne, espcially with the growth of football in and around Casey.

A little tip, only two of the Melbourne Clubs is posting sustainable profits, the others are on some form of AFL life support system. The AFL TV rights is thriving the clubs underneath in MFC are not. Hence the issue of saturation. Melbourne cant sustain 10 teams.

It's not life support it's providing funds to the competition that the competition earns. Without the clubs there is no comp and it's time the economic rationalists amongst us realised this. You no what Rhino, it's ok that not all the teams in Victoria are rolling in money, because as a whole there is enough money, which should be used to grow all teams. And I'm not saying just throw it around but if you want to give all the main games to the big clubs then you need to share that money with the others who don't get that opportunity or do you want to see the AFL go down the path of English soccer. Of course Melbourne can sustain 10 teams, you've been hoodwinked by the AFL on this.

You have got all the sizzle but nothing in the sausage. It would make a most interesting business proposition to the AFL. Just dont start it with "Once a upon a time..." as it will be a dead give away of what is to likely follow.

Done the financial numbers on that! From the position Casey fields is in you have got yourself caught on the tip of an iceberg you dont understand.

It's not me making the proposition, it's our Footy club doing it, and I'm supporting it. Maybe you show me your numbers or haven't you done them? No Iceberg in sight.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Actually, as alot of the population growth is from migration(both from within Australia and overseas) there will be a host of new people to not only convert to AFL (To protect it's precious "brand") but to convert to Demons.

And they wont all be living in Casey and there is no evidence to suggest they will take up support AFL or even further support MFC.

-----------------------------------------------------> Its called a long bow.

The area is growing and growing rapidly. A quality sports precinct would fit well within the community and I think you'll find the council is already looking at it that way. You might not see any benefit but I think you'll find future developments prove you wrong.

As I have had said before the community has those facilities to suit that community. Its already one of the best in the State. What would a community need with a white elephant stadium with carparking structures that take up space that used to be for community actvities.

I didn't talk up his reaction. You need to read what I said. You don't seem to have much faith in the current CEO if you think his and the club's presentation isn't going to be well researched.

Why did you mention it all? It provides no substantive support to your argument. And its got nothing to do with McNamee.

It's exactly because public transport is in meltdown that Governments will be forced to fix it. - There's your given.

Public transport has been a problem for the past 40 years. Its never been fixed and its a bigger problem now and Cranbourne is not a priority issue in the transport debacle. That's your given.

If the AFL are going to have 2 stadiums in QLD and 2 in SYD I think 3rd would do just fine in Melbourne, espcially with the growth of football in and around Casey.

The two grounds in Brisbane and Sydney will reflect sides that are actually there and the AFL committed. There distances apart in time and kms is no different to Melbourne and Geelong. We have a third ground on that basis. We dont need a white elephant fourth stadium.

It's not life support it's providing funds to the competition that the competition earns. Without the clubs there is no comp and it's time the economic rationalists amongst us realised this. You no what Rhino, it's ok that not all the teams in Victoria are rolling in money, because as a whole there is enough money, which should be used to grow all teams. And I'm not saying just throw it around but if you want to give all the main games to the big clubs then you need to share that money with the others who don't get that opportunity or do you want to see the AFL go down the path of English soccer. Of course Melbourne can sustain 10 teams, you've been hoodwinked by the AFL on this.

You really have not got a clue about the economics of the situation. The Clubs dont have the money. The AFL does. And if you think it will be easily allocated to the weaker clubs you are fooling yourself.

It's not me making the proposition, it's our Footy club doing it, and I'm supporting it. Maybe you show me your numbers or haven't you done them?

Great your making the proposal and I have to provide the numbers! If MFC make a presentation with the strength of your arguments then the AFL will be wishing Steve Harris was back as CEO quick smart. The Club will want to have a far better and more commercially orientated proposal otherwise we will look thoroughly stupid.

No Iceberg in sight.

...said the Titanic.

[beelzebub 23,313]

hmm..is the glass half full..or half empty ?? lol. Do you dare..or do you capitulate ?? These ideas are similar in nature to the stances taken..

There are things beyond diuspute. Casey is going to grow like theres no tomorrow. Why..because thats one of the major areas that the gov ( who occasionally like to control such things ) is releasing land. where theres land, there's houses. where houses are people and where people are lots of kids.

Where are they coming from.. as pointed out from the influx of immigration bioth internally and externally. Not all wil lbe new to OZ or inded Melb.

Whats also without argumet, though not all realise it is that CASEY themselves are pushing the barrow for development at the fields and are actively seking a long term partner . Essentially its THEIR idea.

The AFL already embrace the idea of smaller venues.. Aurora, Manuka...even Carrara . The AFL has ideas that longer term all these type venues wil have capacities of 25-30 thou ( but not necessarily tomorrow )

Casey ( council ) is very proactive to transport

Thats a very rough and selective precis of NOW

What is likely.. despite no definitve outlines of transport expansion showing up in even the 20/20 plan there is already allowances for investigatons to reopen the line beyond Cranbourne. A number of posible locatiosn for a new station are all within a decent spit of Casey Fields. Logic says you dont lob 1/2 a million people in a given place and not provide infrastructure. Esp with the greening of thinking.

The AFL has signposted both the west of Sydney and the GC as priorities. Under the auspicies of either developing new frontiers or maintaining old then the SouthEast can not be ignored by the AFL..it does so at its peril.

The closing of such places as Lakeside, Arden St, Victoria Park, Windy Hill, Western Oval and even Linton Ave etc were all part of a reationalisation that suited the times and facilities. Artic park shut because it lacked promised transport , that and the land was worth too much. The AFL was also more interested in managing assetts than owning them. Princes Park remains a curiosity. That and its associated persons have much clout !!

What do we also know. The AFL is taking long term views to the ever presence and viability of its game ( a game by the way entrusted to it by the clubs ) It thinks nothing it seems of laying aside squillions for the propping up of the newby teams WS and GC. It has no problem coughing up for its own faux pas regarding ground contractual arrangemetns for the GC team ( yet to even kick a ball ). So its fair to say the AFL is prepared to spend big bucks on the big picture going foward. There even looking into BUYING Homebush

As has been pointed out. if we arent assisted ( we=mfc) to provide for ourselves then we'll either be a permanent drain on the AAFL or ( as the others will likely to not like that for too long ) we'll fold. I really cant see the AFL or anyone on their watch wanting to be the ones to go down as tehfolk who let teh heart of the game die. Despite much carryings on..and mock protesting the AFL will do what it can to rid itself of a cash-sore. It is likely to do it under the guise of market preservation , it will do it for continued growth it wil ldo it for many reasons..In the end it wont matter. they will have to help us get settled. The AFL wont fund it all. Look for some suitable porking at the onset of next elections.

I think if folk do their maths an interesting aspect arises to the number of games required and venues available. There simply will come about a greater need for gametimes somewhere in Melbourne. The G and Dome can only cater to so many. PP does offer a choice but the AFL would be foolish to dismiss other venues going forward.

The geocentre of Melbourne will shft with the expansion to the South and East then a lot of people may not always want to travel to the big smoke, not all the time There is a case to be mounted for the AFL to invest in this area

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,778]

I hate us having to play away from the MCG because of financial necessity.

BUT........this season's GONE!!!!

Any chance we can sell any games THIS season? This would help us in two ways...(1) We might earn significant money, to reduce our debt , and get Vlad off our backs. (2) It will reduce our chances of an upset-win, which could compromise our chance of a no. 1 draft pick.

If we could sell the games this season, instead of next, it would be far preferable.

I guess it's too late.

By the way, the Manuka scoreboard is from the MCG in our glory days....perhaps it would look kindly down on our boys.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I hate us having to play away from the MCG because of financial necessity.

BUT........this season's GONE!!!!

Any chance we can sell any games THIS season? This would help us in two ways...(1) We might earn significant money, to reduce our debt , and get Vlad off our backs. (2) It will reduce our chances of an upset-win, which could compromise our chance of a no. 1 draft pick.

If we could sell the games this season, instead of next, it would be far preferable.

I guess it's too late.

By the way, the Manuka scoreboard is from the MCG in our glory days....perhaps it would look kindly down on our boys.

No. Too late.

Note: thread merged with another thread on topic

[grazman 7,406]

I'd say the chances of us playing an extra match in Canberra have blown out - unless The Doggies opt out.

The ACT govt won't fund more than two games at Manuka.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/loca...nce/792613.aspx

[beelzebub 23,313]

I dont want to be the harbinger of pessimism but already a trend is apparent and I dont much care for it.

Stynes comes in lauding the new way..the plans he has.. etc etc etc. Then offers that he cant say much til he looks over the books. My god man didnt you have some real idea before taking the torch ?? Then theres a push to go to Canberra, but al the whiles he concedes :

''I'll probably give [North Melbourne chairman] James Brayshaw a ring and talk through some of those issues with him.

''Is it the brand? Has Melbourne got more traction in Canberra, as opposed to the Kangaroos?

''I'd love to know. I have to find out what the support is for footy in the state. I don't know at the moment.''

ffs stop putting the cart before the horse.. Know first..say second !!! <_<

[Roost It 1,434]

And they wont all be living in Casey and there is no evidence to suggest they will take up support AFL or even further support MFC.

-----------------------------------------------------> Its called a long bow.

As I have had said before the community has those facilities to suit that community. Its already one of the best in the State. What would a community need with a white elephant stadium with carparking structures that take up space that used to be for community actvities.

Why did you mention it all? It provides no substantive support to your argument. And its got nothing to do with McNamee.

Public transport has been a problem for the past 40 years. Its never been fixed and its a bigger problem now and Cranbourne is not a priority issue in the transport debacle. That's your given.

The two grounds in Brisbane and Sydney will reflect sides that are actually there and the AFL committed. There distances apart in time and kms is no different to Melbourne and Geelong. We have a third ground on that basis. We dont need a white elephant fourth stadium.

You really have not got a clue about the economics of the situation. The Clubs dont have the money. The AFL does. And if you think it will be easily allocated to the weaker clubs you are fooling yourself.

Great your making the proposal and I have to provide the numbers! If MFC make a presentation with the strength of your arguments then the AFL will be wishing Steve Harris was back as CEO quick smart. The Club will want to have a far better and more commercially orientated proposal otherwise we will look thoroughly stupid.

...said the Titanic.

You need to read carefully what I've written as you seem to be rushing your replies and missing my point. That said, an enjoyable debate it was, but as we're on the same side let's leave it at the fact that we see it differently. Remember, there's one thing we don't see differently, and that's the soon to be mighty again Demons!