Although it is clear that clubs like North and the Dogs are getting ripped off by Eatyourhat Stadium, I think they are massive whingers. They both chose to move from the MCG to the inferior stadium down the road. They willingly signed agreements and knew full well what the deal was. Now Brayshaw says it's the "single biggest issue". Well, if it's the single biggest issue, then you have been the single most negligent Board agreeing to move in the first place. A poor deal at the MCG is different, because of the history of the stadium and the different relationship it has to clubs. But really, if you don't like it, don't agree to it.

Although it is clear that clubs like North and the Dogs are getting ripped off by Eatyourhat Stadium, I think they are massive whingers. They both chose to move from the MCG to the inferior stadium down the road. They willingly signed agreements and knew full well what the deal was. Now Brayshaw says it's the "single biggest issue". Well, if it's the single biggest issue, then you have been the single most negligent Board agreeing to move in the first place. A poor deal at the MCG is different, because of the history of the stadium and the different relationship it has to clubs. But really, if you don't like it, don't agree to it.

While I take your point regarding them signing up to a deal they now regret I cannot agree with you. The system is broken, it needs to be fixed and if 'whinging' is the way to get there then whinge away.

While I take your point regarding them signing up to a deal they now regret I cannot agree with you. The system is broken, it needs to be fixed and if 'whinging' is the way to get there then whinge away.

You are correct - the massive differences between the "haves and the have-nots", and the "Victorian and non-Victorian" club finances are inextricably linked to the deals they get from their stadiums. Memberships & Sponsorships are obviously important as well, but the discrepancies in stadium deals are hugely significant. James Brayshaw has every right to raise this issue.

The staidum deals are unfair as they stand.

Several clubs, including ours, but most visibly North Melbourne whose deal is appaling, are campaging to change the arangements to something resembling fair deals.

To say it is whinging is kind of like saying 'well, you didn't stop global warming twenty years ago, why are you whinging about stopping it now?'. Frankly, weird.

The staidum deals are unfair as they stand.

Several clubs, including ours, but most visibly North Melbourne whose deal is appaling, are campaging to change the arangements to something resembling fair deals.

To say it is whinging is kind of like saying 'well, you didn't stop global warming twenty years ago, why are you whinging about stopping it now?'. Frankly, weird.

North and the dogs thought colonial was going to be there saviour, well they were wrong,fancy signing a deal were you get 2dollars a head,the eagles get 13dollars for every person,its a big margin,as far as im concerned get mission foods or mazda to make the difference up,its a dog eat dog comp,and as long as we dont get eaten who cares,its out of our 3 CLUBS whoever folds first allows goldcoast to come in,and anyone who thinks different is kidding themselves,cant wait to they name the sponsors so our great club can get on with WINNING FLAGS.

...its out of our 3 CLUBS whoever folds first allows goldcoast to come in....

You're a hard man JTR, but you must remember that this competition is about the 16 clubs & not the stadiums OR the AFL. If it wasn't for the clubs, there would be no competition & no need for stadiums. If the stadiums don't learn to share the wealth, the clubs will go elsehwere & find someone that will.

North and the dogs thought colonial was going to be there saviour, well they were wrong,fancy signing a deal were you get 2dollars a head,the eagles get 13dollars for every person,its a big margin,as far as im concerned get mission foods or mazda to make the difference up,its a dog eat dog comp,and as long as we dont get eaten who cares,its out of our 3 CLUBS whoever folds first allows goldcoast to come in,and anyone who thinks different is kidding themselves,cant wait to they name the sponsors so our great club can get on with WINNING FLAGS.

I Have to agree with you Jack. Anybody who signs a deal worth $2 a head is a fool, if Melbourne FC has the same style arrangement with the MCG i would say the same to our club. But i still believe that something has to be done right now. The amount of cash going through each club is spiralling up each year, and yes it is between 3 clubs as to who will survive so we as custodians of the "G" MUST get the best deal possible otherwise the Filth will take over.

I really don't know all that much about the issue, but both stadium deals seem very unfair.

I just don't see how we can attract 20,000 people to the MCG, and still lose money (I can't remember what the break-even figure is).

What annoys me is that a team like Melbourne Victory would have a smaller average crowd than North Melbourne, but they're allowed to thrive.

Opposition supporters scoff at us when our crowds sink to 20 k, but in comparison to codes around Australia and around the world, that's still many, many people.

I recall Smorgon when the Doggies signed with Telstra Dome.......he was very happy with the deal he then signed at the time. No doubt the goal posts have shifted for the Doggies...and other clubs

You're a hard man JTR, but you must remember that this competition is about the 16 clubs & not the stadiums OR the AFL. If it wasn't for the clubs, there would be no competition & no need for stadiums. If the stadiums don't learn to share the wealth, the clubs will go elsehwere & find someone that will.

DD its a 16 team comp and were competing with 16CLUBS, not the AFL, the doggies were stoked when they got mission on board,theres 3clubs in the firing line,better them than us.GO DEMONS

Where can we see the figures for the stadium deals under discussion?

I'd like to see a mini 'strike' by the afl clubs.

Play some free premiership season games out in the regions, or on the metropolitan grounds. Sure, there will be no return for the clubs that play, but if all Victorian clubs hang together, kids in the suburbs and vic country could see their stars and eat cheap pies, and the management of Etihad and the G could re-evaluate where their meal tickets come from.

On the one hand, since we actually have to pay out money to the MCC when the crowd is less than 20,000, it would be quite practical to relocate a game just to stick it up them.

On the other hand, once we pass the 20,000 mark we actually get a reasonably good deal - up around $10 per head per extra person - so it's not so much that our deal sucks as it is arranged to reward us for when we do get a good crowd in. If we grow the attendences but just 5-10% over the next few years, we actually wouldn't have much to complain about - I daresay our particular deal was originally arranged in anticipation of crowd growth.

I'm also not really keen on getting into a bunfight with the MCC right when we seem to have made big progress on refreshing that relationship. The million dollar gift from them would seem to indicate a willingness to work through issues together, no?

But for North and the Dogs, not only do they have losses to pay if they get a small crowd, they actually get slightly rotted peanuts even when they do get a large crowd. Dunno what made them sign the deals in the first place, but it needs to be corrected now, especially if there's going to be another one or two interstate teams meaning an extra home game each year getting a very small crowd.

And just to add (and it's separate point so I think it's worth a new post )

It would be great to see the MCC get behind the clubs, tinker with the deals at the 'G just enough to take the edge off, and put all the pressure on Telstra Dome... sorry... S#$thead stadium.

Telstra Dome, to me, is a monument to the commercial, TV-driven McFootball element which is creeping around the cellers of our game, so they can cop all the misery they've earnt as far as I'm concerned.

And just to add (and it's separate point so I think it's worth a new post )

It would be great to see the MCC get behind the clubs, tinker with the deals at the 'G just enough to take the edge off, and put all the pressure on Telstra Dome... sorry... S#$thead stadium.

Telstra Dome, to me, is a monument to the commercial, TV-driven McFootball element which is creeping around the cellers of our game, so they can cop all the misery they've earnt as far as I'm concerned.

Here Here, They even fully Dictate what food you are permitted to eat. I Hate that little Stadium & refuse to go near it.

It's a crock going there anyway, i have a 16 game membership and when we play at DOCKLANDS I have to sit in the nose bleed section because they make you buy a reserved seat to be able to see the game. And whats with it when the players come near you, towards the boundary line, and they disappear?

North and the dogs thought colonial was going to be there saviour, well they were wrong,fancy signing a deal were you get 2dollars a head,the eagles get 13dollars for every person,its a big margin,as far as im concerned get mission foods or mazda to make the difference up,its a dog eat dog comp,and as long as we dont get eaten who cares,its out of our 3 CLUBS whoever folds first allows goldcoast to come in,and anyone who thinks different is kidding themselves,cant wait to they name the sponsors so our great club can get on with WINNING FLAGS.

I would like to think that we all support a team within the AFL. I love this club but in essence I guess its the game itself I love. And to think that a struggling club like NMFC is getting ripped by a mass corporate entity makes me sick.

North (like it or not) are a very similar club to ours, there doing it tough, with even less members and less general interest than ours.

If a similar thing was happening to MFC (which it is) I would hate to think that there arnt other clubs getting behind a long standing struggling club, and trying to crate a better deal for everyone.

Besides, North would have signed the deal whilst it was still Colonial stadium (or what ever corporate giant was on board back then) so would the deal had not been substantially more back then..????

North and the dogs thought colonial was going to be there saviour, well they were wrong,fancy signing a deal were you get 2dollars a head,the eagles get 13dollars for every person,its a big margin,as far as im concerned get mission foods or mazda to make the difference up,its a dog eat dog comp,and as long as we dont get eaten who cares,its out of our 3 CLUBS whoever folds first allows goldcoast to come in,and anyone who thinks different is kidding themselves,cant wait to they name the sponsors so our great club can get on with WINNING FLAGS.

I hate this mentality, I don't see why it has to be that a club folds/merges/moves at all... Nor do I see the benefit for us if one or both of the other small clubs fail. It seems common in the football public to somehow confuse a competitive nature on the field with some desire to "beat" the teams off the field.

I also don't pay that AFL is a business, because ultimately I don't see how the AFL benefits from having fewer Melboure based clubs. In fact I think it would be fantastic to have more clubs, that reach further around Australia. One in Tazzie, one on the gold coast, Western Sydney.....

I hate this mentality, I don't see why it has to be that a club folds/merges/moves at all... Nor do I see the benefit for us if one or both of the other small clubs fail. It seems common in the football public to somehow confuse a competitive nature on the field with some desire to "beat" the teams off the field.

I also don't pay that AFL is a business, because ultimately I don't see how the AFL benefits from having fewer Melboure based clubs. In fact I think it would be fantastic to have more clubs, that reach further around Australia. One in Tazzie, one on the gold coast, Western Sydney.....

Well said.

I hate this mentality, I don't see why it has to be that a club folds/merges/moves at all... Nor do I see the benefit for us if one or both of the other small clubs fail. It seems common in the football public to somehow confuse a competitive nature on the field with some desire to "beat" the teams off the field.

I also don't pay that AFL is a business, because ultimately I don't see how the AFL benefits from having fewer Melboure based clubs. In fact I think it would be fantastic to have more clubs, that reach further around Australia. One in Tazzie, one on the gold coast, Western Sydney.....

theres 10 clubs in victoria,you dont pay that the AFL is a business,your head is that far in the clouds its not funny,the AFL is business, wake up and smell the roses,why did they try and locate NORTH last season,the only clubs that will be reaching FURTHER around AUST will be the ones that fold,if our club had a MENTALITY like yours we wouldv folded in 1996,you dont pay that the AFL is a business,what grade are you in at primary school.

I also don't pay that AFL is a business, because ultimately I don't see how the AFL benefits from having fewer Melboure based clubs. In fact I think it would be fantastic to have more clubs, that reach further around Australia. One in Tazzie, one on the gold coast, Western Sydney.....

I can see exactly where the AFL are coming from and what they think they will achieve.

Unfortunately Vlad and his boys aren't too sentimental about the game & its history, and they tend to overlook a lot of foreseeable problems with their grandiose plans for world domination.

The AFL is in the business of promoting their league and ensuring its long term survival and prosperity. Part of that involves pushing into new markets.

One less club in Victoria would (theoretically) make it easier for the remaining clubs to survive & prosper.

In practice I'm not too sure that it would actually have that affect though.

They are ambitious. They'll either destroy the game or make it greater than we can imagine.

I can see exactly where the AFL are coming from and what they think they will achieve.

Unfortunately Vlad and his boys aren't too sentimental about the game & its history, and they tend to overlook a lot of foreseeable problems with their grandiose plans for world domination.

The AFL is in the business of promoting their league and ensuring its long term survival and prosperity. Part of that involves pushing into new markets.

One less club in Victoria would (theoretically) make it easier for the remaining clubs to survive & prosper.

In practice I'm not too sure that it would actually have that affect though.

They are ambitious. They'll either destroy the game or make it greater than we can imagine.

yeah part of that involves new markets,theres 3markets that are not working in the AFL at the moment, the best way to make our market work we have 22500 members ,if 10000 show UP saturday we mite have a market because this district is the clubs last chance,we need to show the AFL this is our turf.