Relocated Home Games for $$$$$

[Roost It 1,434]

That would be the best outcome and the most preferred. But if you had the choice of selling home games at Canberra or Geelong, and the AFL gave approval, where would you rather the team go?

No offence HT but I doubt very much whether we'll ever play a home game in Geelong. As for Canberra I don't think it's part of Jim's vision. Casey would be great but I'm starting to think that that's probably a pipe dream, albeit a good one. I for one would love to head down there for one game a year and watch us roll some shabby interstate side.

If I had to vote because you were really big and twisting my arm, I'd vote for Canberra so I could travel somewhere worth visiting!

[beelzebub 23,392]

Casey!!!

........................

It would also reinforce even more a relationship between the Casey community and MFC.

Yes.. I like the idea...far too logical for many though. I miss that particular KB show..who was the nong who suggested Geelong ? A prize idiot if ever one !!

I really like the idea of pursuig some low attnedance games at a venue that suits us..( and us in all our longer term goals )

why stuff around with 10000 or so ( if that ) at Manuka.. when we can get more to a boutique venue of our own ?..

[titan_uranus 25,230]

How about none of the above?

This is just a personal thing, and I know it's better financially to sell a home game (or two), but I would prefer to see all our home games at the MCG. I would assume that if we wanted to play a couple in Canberra or Geelong or Casey or wherever then we'd have to sign a contract for x years, thereby consigning us to that location (regardless of how well it works) for x years (a la our Brisbane games). If and when we begin to challenge for the flag (the emphasis being on 'if'), I'd reckon we'd all be complaining about how we'd sold a game to Geelong (practically giving up the 4 points). Maybe it costs us a spot in the 8, or top 4. Yes, I know that's not looking too likely the way it's going, but, for mine, I'd prefer not to see Melbourne selling home games.

[rusty_kingswood 0]

If I had to vote because you were really big and twisting my arm, I'd vote for Canberra so I could travel somewhere worth visiting!

HAHHAHAHA, Canberra is worth visiting? Theres only 3 good things about Canberra. Porn, Weed and Fireworks.

[dee-luded 2,959]

The same mob who pay the same for selling a game to Canberra.

'High Tower', will you give Geelong city council a quick call & ask them if they'll be prepared to pay us to come down & play a couple of games down there.

then we might actually know just how feasible this Idea is.

[nomed 113]

'High Tower', will you give Geelong city council a quick call & ask them if they'll be prepared to pay us to come down & play a couple of games down there.

then we might actually know just how feasible this Idea is.

So here's the thing to think about: BARE STADIUM.

Geelong council own Kardinia Park, outright. That means a team could lease it cheap or even get paid to play there.

A couple of years ago, Frank Costs noted that it could be leased as a "bare stadium". This means you get the ground with all advertising rights, so rather than having to shell out maximum dollars to fund the development of the TELSTRA Dome, or support a mass of staff at the MCG, you get a stadium for which you can sell all the advertising, which breaks even at about, say, the 5,000 mark (a guess).

You need 20,000 plus to break even at the MCG, 30,000 at Telstra Dome.

So if you are playing an interstate team, like Adelaide or Port Adelaide who are poor drawcards in Melbourne, you play them in Geelong, sell the advertising and need fewer bums on seats. Would the Geelong Council fund this, you bet, more footy in Geelong has got to be good for the city.

Check out the comments made by Geelong CEO Brian Cook, regarding profits at Kardinia Park. Friday night at the MCG, Geelong versus Hawthorn, 85,000 people, netted $770K profit. A crowd of 22,000 at Kardinia Park nets $637K. More money per head attendance!

Why? Cheaper stadium, better income stream, lower costs to open the gates, all development costs amortised, not run for profit.

And why didn't it work at Princes Park?

Because it was not made available as a clean stadium, CFC were so far in debt for the redevelopment that they insisted on locking in all the advertising revenue and the AFL condoned this. A good idea , killed by the sheer greed and incompetance by Carlton (The redevelopment nearly sent them broke).

Selling a game interstate to Canberra for $250K makes sense, selling one to Geelong Council may also make sense, and long term Casey could be a goer.

See: http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/articl...6/7861_gfc.html

"Chief executive Brian Cook yesterday said Geelong made $770,000 profit from the game that drew 85,000 to the MCG, including gate receipts, coteries and catering rights."

"MAXIMISING profit at Skilled Stadium to about $637,000 a game, depending on crowds of about 22,000 "

And then the alternative:

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/no-c...l?page=fullpage

"Some matches at the MCG last year were so poorly attended the club lost money. Only 16,266 turned up for the game against Port Adelaide. Against Fremantle there were 16,654. It was a long way from break-even. Melbourne had to send cheques to the AFL totalling more than $100,000 to make up the shortfall in meeting match day costs."

Backed up with these comments from North Melbourne CEO Eugene Arocca :

http://202.58.37.74/articles/2008/04/11/No..._against_Demons

"Arocca said the club would break even if 30,000 turned up tomorrow (at the MCG)"

So the comments about playing in Geelong aren't so outrageous, neither are those regarding Casey. How do you spell “boutique stadium”, and we aren’t the only ones who need it, think about North, Richmond, Bulldogs when they play interstate teams.

We could be onto something at Casey?

[H_T 3,049]

You missed the most pertinent bit:

"Why???"

Time to acknowledge this poll wasn't one of your finest moments on these Boards

Ok, maybe its not the best of polls, but after 40 votes, its nevertheless interesting to hear peoples voices on the topic.

Why?

Relocating a game to Skilled - look when Geelong get around 20,000 at their ground, they make a decent profit. Alot more than Melbourne makes at the G in some games ie Fremantle and Kangaroos games.

It was an idea mooted on SEN which sparked interest with discussion and a number of callers rang up.

Try not to be so negative, if you have nothing positive to post, post nothing. Its worth considering options for discussion that may or may not benefit the MFC. That should be the one thing we all have in common.

And if it can fast track success, it may be worth exploring - even if it doesn't come to fruition.

[harry 1]

Teams like Melbourne move home games to other places because the AFL gives them money to do so. The AFL gives them money to do so because they want to promote the game in those places. The AFL doesn't need to grow the game in Geelong because Geelong is already a football stronghold. Therefore, they won't pay any club to play there. Therefore, Melbourne won't play home games there. Therefore, this topic is a complete waste of time.

[H_T 3,049]

This is what I mean.....thanks nomed:-

Geelong council own Kardinia Park, outright. That means a team could lease it cheap or even get paid to play there.

A couple of years ago, Frank Costs noted that it could be leased as a "bare stadium". This means you get the ground with all advertising rights, so rather than having to shell out maximum dollars to fund the development of the TELSTRA Dome, or support a mass of staff at the MCG, you get a stadium for which you can sell all the advertising, which breaks even at about, say, the 5,000 mark (a guess).

You need 20,000 plus to break even at the MCG, 30,000 at Telstra Dome.

So if you are playing an interstate team, like Adelaide or Port Adelaide who are poor drawcards in Melbourne, you play them in Geelong, sell the advertising and need fewer bums on seats. Would the Geelong Council fund this, you bet, more footy in Geelong has got to be good for the city.

Check out the comments made by Geelong CEO Brian Cook, regarding profits at Kardinia Park. Friday night at the MCG, Geelong versus Hawthorn, 85,000 people, netted $770K profit. A crowd of 22,000 at Kardinia Park nets $637K. More money per head attendance!

Why? Cheaper stadium, better income stream, lower costs to open the gates, all development costs amortised, not run for profit.

And why didn't it work at Princes Park?

Because it was not made available as a clean stadium, CFC were so far in debt for the redevelopment that they insisted on locking in all the advertising revenue and the AFL condoned this. A good idea , killed by the sheer greed and incompetance by Carlton (The redevelopment nearly sent them broke).

Selling a game interstate to Canberra for $250K makes sense, selling one to Geelong Council may also make sense, and long term Casey could be a goer.

See: http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/articl...6/7861_gfc.html

"Chief executive Brian Cook yesterday said Geelong made $770,000 profit from the game that drew 85,000 to the MCG, including gate receipts, coteries and catering rights."

"MAXIMISING profit at Skilled Stadium to about $637,000 a game, depending on crowds of about 22,000 "

And then the alternative:

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/no-c...l?page=fullpage

"Some matches at the MCG last year were so poorly attended the club lost money. Only 16,266 turned up for the game against Port Adelaide. Against Fremantle there were 16,654. It was a long way from break-even. Melbourne had to send cheques to the AFL totalling more than $100,000 to make up the shortfall in meeting match day costs."

Backed up with these comments from North Melbourne CEO Eugene Arocca :

http://202.58.37.74/articles/2008/04/11/No..._against_Demons

"Arocca said the club would break even if 30,000 turned up tomorrow (at the MCG)"

So the comments about playing in Geelong aren't so outrageous, neither are those regarding Casey. How do you spell “boutique stadium”, and we aren’t the only ones who need it, think about North, Richmond, Bulldogs when they play interstate teams.

We could be onto something at Casey?

[harry 1]

High Tower, I see your point about the Boutique Stadiums and I think it's a good one. However, Melbourne would have difficulties making the most of this. Firstly, Casey. The thing people tend to be forgetting is that there isn't a stadium at Casey and it would take tens of millions of dollars to build. Melbourne can't afford this. The AFL would not fund it because they have spent the last 30 years reducing the number of grounds (and teams) in Melbourne. It is extremely unlikely that they would reverse this process for the benefit of only one club, a club that they would be happy to see the back of. They are far more interested in investing in areas that are not traditional football strongholds. The last thing on their agenda is building stadiums in Melbourne. Seriously, a stadium at Casey would be great, but it's not going to happen.

Secondly, Geelong. IF in fact the Geelong council would be happy for us to play there and IF the break even point was 5000 there would still not be much benefit for us. We wouldn't get any more than 5000 so we would probably only break even. This year we got 20,000 for the Freo game. I'd rather break even in front of 20,000 at the G than 5,000 at Geelong. The only way this would make money for us is if the AFL threw money at us to play games there, which of course, would never happen.

To be honest, I think the best way we can enhance our revenues with regards to stadiums is to improve the current deal we have at the G. We must make the AFL make these deals fairer. This is something that is being discussed as we speak at a meeting of the club Presidents. Furthermore, we must become closer to the MCC so that we have more control over the ground on match days e.g. close the top level of stands therefore requiring less staff, having greater scope for advertising and corporate revenue. I'm of the belief that the most important thing that needs to change if we are to become profitable is for an improved stadium deal.

[H_T 3,049]

Secondly, Geelong. IF in fact the Geelong council would be happy for us to play there and IF the break even point was 5000 there would still not be much benefit for us. We wouldn't get any more than 5000 so we would probably only break even. This year we got 20,000 for the Freo game. I'd rather break even in front of 20,000 at the G than 5,000 at Geelong. The only way this would make money for us is if the AFL threw money at us to play games there, which of course, would never happen.

I would prefer the 'G' too personally, and it would take money by the AFL for us to play games there, I agree. Thought I'd just put it out there and generate others opinions.

To be honest, I think the best way we can enhance our revenues with regards to stadiums is to improve the current deal we have at the G. We must make the AFL make these deals fairer. This is something that is being discussed as we speak at a meeting of the club Presidents. Furthermore, we must become closer to the MCC so that we have more control over the ground on match days e.g. close the top level of stands therefore requiring less staff, having greater scope for advertising and corporate revenue. I'm of the belief that the most important thing that needs to change if we are to become profitable is for an improved stadium deal.

I think an improved stadium deal is a must, the MFC MCC relationship should ensure the MFC has the best of stadium deals as its always been our home ground.

[Go the Biff 3,474]

People seem to miss the point about the rivers of gold flowing into Geelong's coffers courtesy of their boutique stadium. Simply put, demand exceeds supply. If you have around 25,000 wanting to get in where only 22,000 can fit, you can snip the 22k for a bit extra for the privelige. Reserved seating etc is where the coin is made.

To suggest Melbourne play games at Geelong is the dumbest of dumb-arse ideas. Second only to the notion that we'd make a quid out of it.

Play anyone else but Geelong at Kat Park & the demand won't exceed the supply. Instead of locking punters out, you'd be trying to sweep them off the street into the ground just to make the crowd look half respectable.

Play Melbourne v Freo at Kat Park & as someone above pointed out, you'd be lucky to get 5000 making the trek down Hwy 1.

The same situation would occur were a 20,000 capacity stadium be built at Casey. To make it work you need more than 20k regularly wanting to get in so that you can charge a premium. Won't happen - not in what's left of my lifetime anyway.

The only way it could work is if a smaller stadium were to be built in the shadows of the CBD. That's not likely to happen either as it would be taking business away from the MCG & Docklands.

And for those waxing lyrical about Geelong's financial performance, don't forget they were in worse [censored] than we have ever been in. Whatever his subsequent achievements, the best thing Cook ever did for Geelong was to convince the (National ?) bank to take a three million dollar loan write-off up the arse. Without that, they'd have gone the way of another Bellarine Peninsula icon - Pyramid.

[Rogue 585]

People seem to miss the point about the rivers of gold flowing into Geelong's coffers courtesy of their boutique stadium. Simply put, demand exceeds supply. If you have around 25,000 wanting to get in where only 22,000 can fit, you can snip the 22k for a bit extra for the privelige. Reserved seating etc is where the coin is made.

Correct.

The same situation would occur were a 20,000 capacity stadium be built at Casey. To make it work you need more than 20k regularly wanting to get in so that you can charge a premium. Won't happen - not in what's left of my lifetime anyway.

I'm not sure how much time you have left, so it's hard to say. However, you don't necessarily need to build a 20K stadium initially

The only way it could work is if a smaller stadium were to be built in the shadows of the CBD. That's not likely to happen either as it would be taking business away from the MCG & Docklands.

I think PG was pushing the idea of the MCC building a boutique stadium.

[nomed 113]

To suggest Melbourne play games at Geelong is the dumbest of dumb-arse ideas. Second only to the notion that we'd make a quid out of it.

........

And for those waxing lyrical about Geelong's financial performance, don't forget they were in worse [censored] than we have ever been in.

Dumb idea? The definition of dumb is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different outcome. MFC is in deep, deep trouble and we will be lucky to see out another 5 years. And you missed a key point, which you alluded to in your own post "they were in worse [censored] than we have ever been in", they aren't in the [censored] now are they?

We need to innovate or perish. What did Geelong do that we aren't doing? Released from debt by NAB? Could be classed as a great strategic move.

Why not develop "weekend away" packages to Geelong? Get a deal going with V-Line for free travel from the CBD to Geelong?

Clinging to our "traditional home" at the MCG is sending us broke, the gate doesn't matter if someone else funds us say $250K to play at another location, are you really suggesting we are better off losing $100K on a crowd of 15,000 at the MCG?

The big money is in selling advertising into national media, getting a better stadium deal is absolutely vital, but what can we offer the market that has not yet been done?

Why not become the first truly "national" team and play home games in all the capitals, returning home only for blockbuster games?

[harry 1]

Clinging to our "traditional home" at the MCG is sending us broke, the gate doesn't matter if someone else funds us say $250K to play at another location, are you really suggesting we are better off losing $100K on a crowd of 15,000 at the MCG?

No-one is going to pay us to play at Kardinia Park.

Why not become the first truly "national" team and play home games in all the capitals, returning home only for blockbuster games?

[do it 4 robbie 1]

We are not going to fill Skilled Stadium like Geelong do.

Might be lucky to get 15,000 down there.

Can`t see the sense in it

If the ACT continue to offer the $$$. I say take it for a few more years ( or until debt free).

At least it`s nuetral territory for our opposition.

[H_T 3,049]

At least it`s nuetral territory for our opposition.

And Skilled isn't neutral territory for our opposition if its not Geelong?

[H_T 3,049]

Anyway. Looks as though Canberra gets the nod. A worthwhile exercise nontheless

[nomed 113]

Interesting idea but would be tantamount to relocating.

Well, yes and no. Its something to think about.

It’s a digital age, when is the last time you went into the EBay office to buy something? Had the Google rep. knock on your door lately? MFC could get involved with some new technology for streaming media, play games in interesting places every week. You could have a "Digital Demon" membership package, which entitles you to access to pay TV for just Demon games (TiVo?).

Home base at the Olympic Park Development or Casey, set up local bases around the country aligned with powerful local clubs, put up a business case to the AFL outlining the way we will develop AFL in "away" markets, pitched at those who aren't part of the local, parochial, mind set. (And scout out the local junior talent at the same time), I'm sure this is an untapped market.

Here’s an idea. Every kids football clinic in Perth is either hosted by the Eagles or Dockers, nice if you are a supporter, but what if you aren’t? Are real turn off.

So MFC turns up, trots out a player or two from the other "away" playing the Dees that week and hey presto, we don't just appeal to Melbourne Auskick kids, but the other clubs that don't have local representation.

Do deal with Richmond, North Melbourne and Footscray to shift Telstra Dome games to the other capitals, and only play MFC home games at the MCG. We could be the first "digital" football club. And don't forget, the digital world has no boundaries.