Extra $90,000 per game for Dees -AFL says NO

[darkhorse72 1,925]

Just read this article:

EXTRA $90,000 PER GAME NOT ENOUGH TO SEAL STADIUM DEAL

The first offer was for us to get an extra 90,000 per game, which is almost another million dollars, in game day revenue. The AFL has rejected this so it looks like we get a much better deal. For once I'm happy to say they are going into to bat for us. An extra $1m+ per year would certainly come in handy and solves our cash flow issues for the moment.

[Gorgoroth 13,021]

Yeah but Vlad is letting Smorgon and Eddie do all the work.

[mo64 5,881]

I wonder how much involvement the MFC would be having in these discussions given that we are trying to align ourselves with the MCC, and already receive a payout from them.

[Gorgoroth 13,021]

Yeah we are a compromised party here, we want money from all

[H_T 3,049]

I wonder how much involvement the MFC would be having in these discussions given that we are trying to align ourselves with the MCC, and already receive a payout from them.

Ol' Jimma could be taking a back seat to this one.....Hazy would like to think so.

[John Dee 445]

We are in a bit of a cleft stick here. We are getting closer aligned with the MCC and we are an integral member of the AFL. I heard Stephen Gough on SEN last night and the chairman of the MCG trustees, John Wylie. They both said that the offer from the MCG was pretty much their bottom line and that the AFL, and the clubs, had not as yet officially rejected it. The main thing here is that the MCG trustees are appointed by the State Government and, as such, the MCG Trust is a quasi Government body. That they have broken ranks and made an offer to the AFL indicates that the Government has some sympathy with the AFL stance and creates more pressure on the Dump.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Ol' Jimma could be taking a back seat to this one.....Hazy would like to think so.

This is an issue between the MCC and the AFL (on behalf of a number of clubs).

Its important that two of the major financial backers of MFC can work this out sensibly. Hopefully for the good future of the AFL.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Im fairly sure Jimma is astute enough to sit on the outer and say little. Not a lot to gain for us to do so really. More a case of if we say nothing... we can hardly say anything wrong !! lol Hopefully at the fall out we will gain by associations without actually committing to a view;)

[drdrake 3,187]

The AFL clubs are working together for this deal, the MFC would love to get the extra 900,000 this year but we need to unite with the other clubs. Unfortunately this is the start, they need to MCG to offer a better package to apply presure on the Telstra dome.

Next Question is then if the AFL accepts the new offer would the MFC play 11 home games at the MCG?

[sylvinator 96]

If the first offer they were able to come back with was for an extra $900,000 per season, then onewould expect the final agreement to be more than that.

Surely to MCG will eventually budge, because lets face it, they aren't relying on cricket crowds for their revenue. AFL needs MCG as much as MCG needs AFL.

This should eventually means ATLEAST an extra $1m for the demons per season. Perhaps this could mean we can make operating profits without the assistance of the afl. If we could do this it would get a lot of clubs off our backs. Plus, one of the conditions for getting afl assistance is to only use 92.5% of the salary cap. that's ok for now, but we'll never win a premiership only using 92.5%!!!

Good news keep coming in!!!

[45HG 1,559]

Sylv, the Hawks only use 92.5% I believe.

Probably most teams do

[mo64 5,881]

Surely to MCG will eventually budge, because lets face it, they aren't relying on cricket crowds for their revenue. AFL needs MCG as much as MCG needs AFL.

There are already long term contracts in place between the clubs and the MCC, so the MCC doesn't have to offer the AFL a cent.

[sylvinator 96]

There are already long term contracts in place between the clubs and the MCC, so the MCC doesn't have to offer the AFL a cent.

Something will be worked out in favour of the clubs.

Most likely it would involve giving the clubs a better deal, while extending the contract by another 10 years. win-win

[e25 5]

I actually don't quite like the idea -- an extra $90,000 on match day for EVERY CLUB ?

I'd much prefer every club to get closer to the same percentage of the match day revenue.

If Collingwood get ANOTHER $90,000 per match day when we are just getting enough to keep our heads above water... they will have 27 coaching staff and waiters bringing out each players' individual gold-plated water bottles.

Its about equity here - if they can get the numbers through the gates then they will get more, fair enough, but just tacking a number onto what they already get doesn't sit well with me.

Of course, I could have completely misunderstood the situation... anyone care to enlighten me?

(And I understand it is hard with our relationship with the MCC for us to have any major hand in negotiations -- I have no solutions, just complaints)

[H_T 3,049]

There are already long term contracts in place between the clubs and the MCC, so the MCC doesn't have to offer the AFL a cent.

You're quite right, the MCC doesn't. But in the view of the clubs the contract is ancient now, the landscape has changed. The MCC could sit back and just keep paying off their debt and look to upgrade the Southern Stand soon. However, the MCC/MCG Trust acknowledge that - confirmed by their offer - the clubs of the AFL underwrite the financial gain the MCC/MCG Trust(Government) and Dome receives. They (clubs) are somewhat stakeholders in all this. If there was no AFL, how would these stadiums survive and maintain themselves. There is some obligation to the clubs receiving their slice of the pie.

[45HG 1,559]

Enforcer, if it's about equity, then wouldn't each club simply receive the same amount?

If the bigger clubs draw bigger crowds and therefore receive more money, then good on them. Why should clubs who draw smaller amounts of people to the ground (=less money for the ground) be entitled to receive more than the clubs who are bringing in most of the dosh?

[e25 5]

Enforcer, if it's about equity, then wouldn't each club simply receive the same amount?

If the bigger clubs draw bigger crowds and therefore receive more money, then good on them. Why should clubs who draw smaller amounts of people to the ground (=less money for the ground) be entitled to receive more than the clubs who are bringing in most of the dosh?

Well thats what i said - it should be a percentage of the gate receipts, not just an arbitrary number tacked on to the end figure.

Maybe that DOES work in our favour, but it doesn't seem equitable.

[e25 5]

You're quite right, the MCC doesn't. But in the view of the clubs the contract is ancient now, the landscape has changed. The MCC could sit back and just keep paying off their debt and look to upgrade the Southern Stand soon. However, the MCC/MCG Trust acknowledge that - confirmed by their offer - the clubs of the AFL underwrite the financial gain the MCC/MCG Trust(Government) and Dome receives. They (clubs) are somewhat stakeholders in all this. If there was no AFL, how would these stadiums survive and maintain themselves. There is some obligation to the clubs receiving their slice of the pie.

If clubs fold because they are not getting enough money from the MCC, then the MCC in turn gets less revenue as it means less games played at the G.

Its actually in the MCC's interest to pay the clubs more to ensure their survival, the question is - how much more?

[H_T 3,049]

If clubs fold because they are not getting enough money from the MCC, then the MCC in turn gets less revenue as it means less games played at the G.

Its actually in the MCC's interest to pay the clubs more to ensure their survival, the question is - how much more?

Correct, obviously the MCC thinks $90,000 per match each is enough. The AFL and clubs think $200 K. Will the AFL and clubs negotiate a better deal or will they accept the MCC's offer? From what I heard on SEN from the MCC, they've put on the table what they believe is a fair offer and are unlikely to budge...

From the clubs and AFL's stance they would believe they can get a better deal. By mentioning possibly a 3rd stadium for better returns for clubs would be of some concern to the current two stadium administrations in Melbourne. Even if it's not at the blueprint stage. Vlad has mentioned it a while back.

[John Dee 445]

Of course, I could have completely misunderstood the situation... anyone care to enlighten me?

Mate, an extra $90K for each game is far better for us than for the Filth. It is like raising the basic wage as opposed to a percentage rise across the board. If, say, the MCC gave each club an extra $2 per person, then the Filth would get a lot more out of it than us. Raising the floor with a set increase advantages the poorer drawing clubs, and can be seen to actually disadvantage the clubs drawing the bigger crowds.

[The Emblem 1]

Well thats what i said - it should be a percentage of the gate receipts, not just an arbitrary number tacked on to the end figure.

Maybe that DOES work in our favour, but it doesn't seem equitable.

Perhaps it goes some way to redressing crappy fixturing and time slots?

[e25 5]

Perhaps it goes some way to redressing crappy fixturing and time slots?

touch'e

[beelzebub 23,383]

This a bit of a swamp come time to rationale as to whats apples and apples.

All teams are deserving of better deals. They also ought to be weighted to some degree in terms of marketability etc and taken into context of the overvew as to revenues able to be garnerned by the respective teams on these occasions.

By this I suggest that teams playing in prime times etc and able to pull better crownds because of 'time' might not get quite the same compensation as others ( such as it happens..US !! ) who get shoved to the back of the queue and find it harder to muster monies of our own back.

If 900k/season is the openig bid then its not too unreasonable to think another 1/2 mill per team per season might end up the deal...or some package similar.

To be honest another Mill and a half added to our bottom line isnt going to do us any harm is it !! Certainly relieve a bit of fiscal pressure

[e25 5]

Maybe, on second thought, it is equitable.

Right now we'll get the same pay rise as Collingwood on top of the current deals both clubs have, which I imagine is a percentage of gate receipts (why our return is so poor)

Collingwood, in effect, will be subsidising our poor crowds. For now.

Maybe in 5 years time when we are top of the ladder and drawing 70K to games, we will be subsidising their poor crowds as the pies languish at the bottom of the ladder, their supporters finally lose interest, and they struggle to climb back up as the draft has been raped & pillaged by GC / WS.

(hey, I can dream guys... :D )

[Sir Why You Little 37,130]

The MFC must take a slight Back seat on this, Whatever is the final deal we should look at it very closely & depending on the time frame. Take it, as we are already negotiating our own deal with the MCC. For quite a while the heat is off us. This deal will signal the survival or not of the Bulldogs & Kangaroos.