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

I don't know if many Demonlanders would have the contract handy, but it is my understanding...

AFL cannot be played at a new venue in Melbourne. When it was written Princes/Visy Park was an AFL venue, Victoria Park may also have been one (?).

The government is wasting a $1m on a study of the Showgrounds. The million will probably be given to whoever tells Brumby the clause in the AFL-Docklands contract.

The AFL believe there is a clause in their contract that says no other code can get a better deal than the AFL. And with the Victory deal they believe the clubs are owed a sh!tload of money.

I don't know about the AFL not being able to play 'another' ground owned by the AFL. They don't even own Docklands yet.

2025 can not come quick enough for the Kangas, Dogs, and Saints. Which, if I recall correctly, will be a hundred years in the VFL/AFL for the Dogs and Kangas.

And, finally, Ian Collins is one of the slimiest businessmen around. Shafted the Blues aswell so he doesn't play favourites.

I guess if someone has a bias they have to have human emotions, something Collins doesn't have to worry about...

Is an AFL venue any ground that has hosted an AFL sanctioned and fixtured event ??

Is an AFL venue any ground that has hosted an AFL sanctioned and fixtured event ??

A place where AFL was played at the time the contract was signed. So both I guess.

And don't wink at me...

lol.. the wink was to infer there is more to the question than appears.

Where Im heading in this thinking is : Is it not unreasonable to include any venue that was called upon to host NAB cup matches then or even greater a stratch any AFL sanctioned pre season matches etc.

Whilst I appreciate this is probably a stretch to far it might be the sort of ambit posturing that could be adopted in spiteful negotiating etc.

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

Correct. Casey will never be used, by the time the current contract with the Docklands runs out in 2025 The MFC will be a powerhouse of Australian sport or we will be gone.

You would like to think that our recent move back to being aligned with the MCC will see our financial arrangement eventually improve.

It annoys me knowing that Collingwood gets a better stadium deal from the MCC than we do!

You would like to think that our recent move back to being aligned with the MCC will see our financial arrangement eventually improve.

It annoys me knowing that Collingwood gets a better stadium deal from the MCC than we do!

It annoys me too but we have to earn that Stadium deal back, by being a team that people want to watch.

This club has been off the Radar for so long as a Powerhouse, apart from a few Northerly years and a few glimpses under ND.

Hate 'em Loath them whatever, but the Filth have been consistently up thereabouts (only one flag since the Demons) But Collingwood give their fans value for the dollar. (If you enjoy watching B & W) We must earn our Status back.

I'd hardly say powerhouse has much to do with it. Magpies one Premiership in 50 years

I'd hardly say powerhouse has much to do with it. Magpies one Premiership in 50 years

Collingwood have always been around the mark consistantly without the ultimate success. They have been a marketing powerhouse Like it or not ever since Peter McKenna did spots on Hey Hey it's saturday (In the mornings!). If we could get 60% of the Filth's Marketing Power i would be stoked.

I mean look at the Herald Sun!

Hate 'em Loath them whatever, but the Filth have been consistently up thereabouts (only one flag since the Demons) But Collingwood give their fans value for the dollar.

Value in disappointing their fans time and time again.

Would have preferred a separate thread as this si slightly different slant , but it is in the mix of discussions regarding stadia.

Without a doubt the whole fiasco of Stadia inadequacies and inequalities lays squarely at the feet of the AFL. More the point is the nature of the AFL and its misguided approach to its own purpose and importance. In a logical and sound creature the body wags the tail however with the beast that is the AFL the Tail well and truly whips the body !!

Since the advent of the singular enity of the CEO at the AFL Commission there has been the opportunity for a single persons vision ( or lack of ) and more poignantly myopic bias to take a strangelhold on the development of the game and its particiapnts. There has never been any real argument against the continuing development of the game and environs ut the angst stems from whos template and ideal scenario is being employed.

Any rational discussion and appreciation of the game will acknowlwdge that the games league could not continue in the form it was as it morphed from the VFL to AFL. As the game went national there was always going to be tears and heartache as new teams emerged and some others failed to progress into the future. As with any change there are good and bad methods and strategems that can be employed. We seem to be in the midst of a debacle brought about by poor choices and determinedly unfair deals.

If we , for the moment put aside any need for the inclusion of some teams and folding of others and look to how particular teams have become hamstrung with respect to venues and returns we can see there is simply one rule for some and bugger the rest.

A curious trend, feel has occurred in the last 20 or so years,signifacntly the same era of the AFL !!

from 1990,

Collingwood, Hawthorn , West Coast, Essendon ,West Coast , Carlton , North , Adelaide , Adelaide, North , Essendon , Brisbane , Brisbane, Brisbane , Port , Sydney . West Coast , Geelong and Hawthorn

Possibly with the only real exception being North all the other teams benefit from having either their OWN ground and all the benefits associated with that or a very good deal wit that stadium and good revenue streams as a result.

Going forward teams such as Geelong , West Coast , Adelaide, Brisbane , Sydney have certain incomes . Essendon has the best deal by all accounts with Docklands and Hawthorn are no bunnies with their deals either. Carlton until Princess closed for uisness were ok and must be salivating at the prospect of that ground being refurbished and in use. No one for a moment doubts the dealing proess of Collingwood either.

Whilst better access to grounds and associated monies is no guarantee of success ( read Fremantle ) is does provide a basis and allows other developments to happen unhindered.

The League ne Commission, continually bleats it requires a sound and as level a playing field as possible in order to provide a healthy competition and hence highest returns from commercial interests and yet its done is darndest over the years to scuttle teams, force mergers, deny funds treating some teams with disdain whilst fawning over others.

Even now it foolhardly looks to spend countless funds by pouring them into the money pit called West Sydney. The same money could furbish a venue at least into a boutique state until its natural evotion and income could futher develop it.

Its time that Nero like persons stop bleeding this game in order to feed their own egos and truly make themselves accountable and indeed work FOR the very teams that founded this great game.

Time to re-establish the goal posts on an even playing field. Time to scrap the existing contracts by renegotiating better and fairer ones for all concerned.

Would have preferred a separate thread as this si slightly different slant , but it is in the mix of discussions regarding stadia.

Without a doubt the whole fiasco of Stadia inadequacies and inequalities lays squarely at the feet of the AFL. More the point is the nature of the AFL and its misguided approach to its own purpose and importance. In a logical and sound creature the body wags the tail however with the beast that is the AFL the Tail well and truly whips the body !!

Since the advent of the singular enity of the CEO at the AFL Commission there has been the opportunity for a single persons vision ( or lack of ) and more poignantly myopic bias to take a strangelhold on the development of the game and its particiapnts. There has never been any real argument against the continuing development of the game and environs ut the angst stems from whos template and ideal scenario is being employed.

Any rational discussion and appreciation of the game will acknowlwdge that the games league could not continue in the form it was as it morphed from the VFL to AFL. As the game went national there was always going to be tears and heartache as new teams emerged and some others failed to progress into the future. As with any change there are good and bad methods and strategems that can be employed. We seem to be in the midst of a debacle brought about by poor choices and determinedly unfair deals.

If we , for the moment put aside any need for the inclusion of some teams and folding of others and look to how particular teams have become hamstrung with respect to venues and returns we can see there is simply one rule for some and bugger the rest.

A curious trend, feel has occurred in the last 20 or so years,signifacntly the same era of the AFL !!

from 1990,

Collingwood, Hawthorn , West Coast, Essendon ,West Coast , Carlton , North , Adelaide , Adelaide, North , Essendon , Brisbane , Brisbane, Brisbane , Port , Sydney . West Coast , Geelong and Hawthorn

Possibly with the only real exception being North all the other teams benefit from having either their OWN ground and all the benefits associated with that or a very good deal wit that stadium and good revenue streams as a result.

Going forward teams such as Geelong , West Coast , Adelaide, Brisbane , Sydney have certain incomes . Essendon has the best deal by all accounts with Docklands and Hawthorn are no bunnies with their deals either. Carlton until Princess closed for uisness were ok and must be salivating at the prospect of that ground being refurbished and in use. No one for a moment doubts the dealing proess of Collingwood either.

Whilst better access to grounds and associated monies is no guarantee of success ( read Fremantle ) is does provide a basis and allows other developments to happen unhindered.

The League ne Commission, continually bleats it requires a sound and as level a playing field as possible in order to provide a healthy competition and hence highest returns from commercial interests and yet its done is darndest over the years to scuttle teams, force mergers, deny funds treating some teams with disdain whilst fawning over others.

Even now it foolhardly looks to spend countless funds by pouring them into the money pit called West Sydney. The same money could furbish a venue at least into a boutique state until its natural evotion and income could futher develop it.

Its time that Nero like persons stop bleeding this game in order to feed their own egos and truly make themselves accountable and indeed work FOR the very teams that founded this great game.

Time to re-establish the goal posts on an even playing field. Time to scrap the existing contracts by renegotiating better and fairer ones for all concerned.

You have said it all. Personally i would email this into Stynesy & Cameron Schwabb. This issue is the most important agenda. It must be fixed or the whole competition will fold.