So The Age reports that the difference between the best stadium deal (West Coast's) and the worst stadium deal (Melbourne's) is $11.1 million (based on net returns). That's an awful lot of money ... think what we could do with it!

West Coast's total attendance at home games in 2008 was 414,188, while Melbourne's was 338,551. West Coast got a better net return from their average home game attendance of 37,653 than the three highest Victorian clubs: Collingwood (59,213 ave), Carlton (48,589 ave) and Essendon (46,336 ave).

Bring on a boutique stadium at Casey Fields.

EDIT: As well as a better stadium deal at the MCG.

What about playing a couple of games against interstate clubs down at Hobart (Bellerieve Oval), Tasmanian's love their footy and the people from Hobart would attend in numbers if an AFL game was to be played there. We would make far more money than we would at the G from these games and we can also add to our membership as Hawthorn do with the people from Launceston.

  Strawbsodwyer said:

What about playing a couple of games against interstate clubs down at Hobart (Bellerieve Oval), Tasmanian's love their footy and the people from Hobart would attend in numbers if an AFL game was to be played there. We would make far more money than we would at the G from these games and we can also add to our membership as Hawthorn do with the people from Launceston.

Casey Fields would be a better option IMO.

  Strawbsodwyer said:

What about playing a couple of games against interstate clubs down at Hobart (Bellerieve Oval), Tasmanian's love their footy and the people from Hobart would attend in numbers if an AFL game was to be played there. We would make far more money than we would at the G from these games and we can also add to our membership as Hawthorn do with the people from Launceston.

well..as an interim to getting Casey up tlo some sought of acceptable spec , and if we're guaranteed a decent purse.. maybe worth a serious ponder.

Still prefer the idea of pursuing a sweetheart deal with the MCC..and ideally we develop Casey as a second home ground

All the talk of Casey is out of the question if my understanding is correct.

One of the points in the contract with the MCC and Etihad is that the AFL, and in turn Melbourne, can't use a new AFL ground - which Casey would be, which is why the talk of the return of Vi$y is coming into play as this ground was being used for games when the current contract was signed

princes park is no longer an AFL ground either

  belzebub59 said:

princes park is no longer an AFL ground either

But was when the contract was signed with the MCC, which is why there is talks of redevelopment as it still falls within that contract.

No NEW stadium can be built or introduced to cater for smaller games, but an existing (such as Vi$y/Vic Park) can be redeveloped up to AFL standards and used as an AFL ground

When does this contract expire?

  the_russian said:

All the talk of Casey is out of the question if my understanding is correct.

One of the points in the contract with the MCC and Etihad is that the AFL, and in turn Melbourne, can't use a new AFL ground - which Casey would be, which is why the talk of the return of Vi$y is coming into play as this ground was being used for games when the current contract was signed

Hence why in 2010 Geelong is a real option for all Vic Clubs

What do people think about playing our low drawing games at Geelong?

I heard that break even is 10K people, the AFL and Geelong might chip in to make this even better .

The ground is available every weekend now, is not that far away by train and the new highway (not much further from the CBD than Casey), and has a unique shape that would give us a home ground advantage over time.

  45hotgod said:

When does this contract expire?

2025.

From the Age article

  Quote

The AFL is set to fund a feasibility study into the redevelopment of Visy Park because, under its contract with the Docklands venue, it cannot schedule matches anywhere but the existing stadiums before 2025

Sorry, a slight error on my memory, it's nothing to do with the MCC, only the docklands

If I had a crystal ball.( and I dont unfortunately ) then I would profer the following.

ALL ideas towards a third stadium whether utterances out of Demitiou's mouth or allusions from State governement viability studies are simply blinds intended to suggest a pretended leverage. At some stage I suspect whther its behind closed doors or in the public domain ( courts ) the Governemnt via an onbudsman will have all current contracts put aside and a new sheet brought forth , all in the name of public interest.

What were seeing now is all a song and dance routine by the involved parties...jockeying for the best seat come 'settlement"

Once again, pushing my memory here, but the reason the 2025 deadline is set is because that is when the AFL take over the management of the Docklands stadium, so if history is anything to go by, the AFL will want to retain games there in an attempt to pull in more money for the game

Deal with the MCC ends 2032. So no Casey AFL games.

Although, surely individual clubs should be able to negotiate a better deal.

No reason for the MCC to give us a better deal other than wishy-washy ones I'm afraid...

  rpfc said:

Deal with the MCC ends 2032. So no Casey AFL games.

Although, surely individual clubs should be able to negotiate a better deal.

No reason for the MCC to give us a better deal other than wishy-washy ones I'm afraid...

We could leave them again if they don't. lol

  the_russian said:

But was when the contract was signed with the MCC, which is why there is talks of redevelopment as it still falls within that contract.

No NEW stadium can be built or introduced to cater for smaller games, but an existing (such as Vi$y/Vic Park) can be redeveloped up to AFL standards and used as an AFL ground

Also, surely any contract would relate only to the current 16 teams.

Contracts are hardly ever water tight. I'll look at it if the AFL wants?

What's the break even point on games? 20,000 at the G for the Dees, 30,000+ at Docklands for the Dogs?

MCC give us lots of money extra anyway. If we play lots of games away from the G there aint no such desire for them to do that anymore.

MCC want to give more money to the clubs, the AFL with all their cash reserves don't want to share - who's the baddie here?

  Demon Rob said:

What's the break even point on games? 20,000 at the G for the Dees, 30,000+ at Docklands for the Dogs?

MCC give us lots of money extra anyway. If we play lots of games away from the G there aint no such desire for them to do that anymore.

MCC want to give more money to the clubs, the AFL with all their cash reserves don't want to share - who's the baddie here?

I was under the impression that the Bulldogs get only $30 000 whether they get 5000 to a game or 50000.

Again, could be wrong but I recall Smorgon saying that on the radio one day.

Casey won't be a solution to this problem I wouldn't think, as this is a short term problem, and a stadium at Casey is definitely a long term project. Princes Park will be the go.

I heard an interview on SEN the other day between KP and Greg Swan from Carlton. He said that provided the AFL pay for getting Princes Park up to AFL standard, Carlton would offer "Visy Stadium" as a clean stadium to the AFL to host games at.

Meaning clubs playing home matches there could effectively run the stadium themselves. This means they could sell signage at the ground, charge for parking, take percentage of food and bar takings, sell corporate boxes, and of course take all the gate takings for themselves.

When opposition clubs used to play at Princes Park, Carlton were just as bad as the MCG and Docklands are now. They charged clubs a lot to use the venue, didn't make it very appealing as they were paying off the Legends stand. The AFL then forced Carlton to play all the games contracted to Princes park, and they quickly opted out of the contract and moved to Docklands.

But if Carlton are offering the AFL a clean stadium, at very little cost, near the CBD, then I can't see them not taking it as an alternative for clubs to play home matches against low drawing crowds.

  vanlo said:

Casey won't be a solution to this problem I wouldn't think, as this is a short term problem, and a stadium at Casey is definitely a long term project. Princes Park will be the go.

I heard an interview on SEN the other day between KP and Greg Swan from Carlton. He said that provided the AFL pay for getting Princes Park up to AFL standard, Carlton would offer "Visy Stadium" as a clean stadium to the AFL to host games at.

Meaning clubs playing home matches there could effectively run the stadium themselves. This means they could sell signage at the ground, charge for parking, take percentage of food and bar takings, sell corporate boxes, and of course take all the gate takings for themselves.

When opposition clubs used to play at Princes Park, Carlton were just as bad as the MCG and Docklands are now. They charged clubs a lot to use the venue, didn't make it very appealing as they were paying off the Legends stand. The AFL then forced Carlton to play all the games contracted to Princes park, and they quickly opted out of the contract and moved to Docklands.

But if Carlton are offering the AFL a clean stadium, at very little cost, near the CBD, then I can't see them not taking it as an alternative for clubs to play home matches against low drawing crowds.

Only problem is 75% of our most loyal followers are MCC members that don't travel well.

I was there the last time we had a home game there: Craig Ellis played a really good game, just over 9,000 were there and we were laughed at for a few weeks.

It wasn't much fun.

Won the game though...

  rpfc said:

Only problem is 75% of our most loyal followers are MCC members that don't travel well.

I was there the last time we had a home game there: Craig Ellis played a really good game, just over 9,000 were there and we were laughed at for a few weeks.

It wasn't much fun.

Won the game though...

Yeah those games at Carlton in 2002 were great. We spanked the Crows and the Eagles, and yet MFC fans would rather stay at home instead of watching great wins.

I really believe Princes Park should be an option for the Dees. Sack the Canberra option, and play 2 games at Princes Park V's Freo and Port as soon as it's available.

  the_russian said:

But was when the contract was signed with the MCC, which is why there is talks of redevelopment as it still falls within that contract.

No NEW stadium can be built or introduced to cater for smaller games, but an existing (such as Vi$y/Vic Park) can be redeveloped up to AFL standards and used as an AFL ground

That may be what the contract currently says, but I think Collo (as CEO of Docklands) would be prepared to consider a variation which allowed the AFL to develop a small ground at Casey rather than at Princes Park. It might just be better for Docklands to not have any competitor stadium just a few kms away.

  Clint Bizkit said:

Bring on a boutique stadium at Casey Fields. EDIT: As well as a better stadium deal at the MCG.

Yes this needs to be sorted out. First priority the MCG

Can anyone who actually is familiar with the wording and implications of the contract between Docklands and the AFL please convey whether the AFL is only forbidden to play games at another venue of its own control. i.e a purpose built AFL owned ground . Is this why the Gov is murmurring about another multi purpose footy ground , which of course could be "hired " for AFL games ? If this was the instance is it that as long as the AFL doesnt own or control the ground in question then any field could be used ??

Very interested to know the actual cans/can'ts

thanks