Melbourne-based clubs secure more money from MCG in new stadium deal

[QueenC 74]

Melbourne-based clubs secure more money from MCG in new stadium deal (September 03, 2009)

Melbourne-based AFL clubs have had a major win in their campaign for better stadium returns, with the confirmation of a new MCG deal.

The AFL, Melbourne Cricket Club, MCG Trust and Victorian Government are involved in the agreement, which has also ensured the ground hosts the grand final until 2037.

Under the terms of the deal, the best news for Victorian AFL fans and their teams is that any club hosting a home and away game at the MCG will receive at least an extra $100,000 per match over the next decade, totalling at least $46 million.

Victorian-based AFL clubs have become increasingly concerned about the terms of the stadium deals at the MCG and Etihad Stadium.

The AFL administration became involved in negotiations in the last year and has taken legal action against Etihad Stadium.

The State Government will also contribute $30 million towards a refurbishment of the MCG's Great Southern Stand.

The management of Yarra Park, where the MCG stands, will switch from the Melbourne City Council to the MCG Trust.

"The MCG is the spiritual home of football and this new arrangement, brokered by our government, will help secure the future for Victorian AFL clubs," said Victorian Premier John Brumby.

"I thank all parties for their determination over a long period of negotiations to deliver a deal that put football fans and clubs first."

AAP

[H_T 3,049]

Now where does this leave Etihad Stadium and Ian Collins....?

[Wolfmother 182]

This adds at least a million dollars to our bottom line which is great

[John Dee 445]

Interesting, the only loser here is the Melbourne City Council as it gives up rights to charge for parking. As an aside here, come back John So; Doyle is barking mad, but I digress...

Could this new pie in the sky Docklands proposal be involved in a bit of quid pro quo from us to the Council?

[e25 5]

Interesting that there is no mention of the monies being paid retroactively as was touted earlier in the discussions.

I hope this is still going to happen - would eliminate MFC's debt in one fell swoop.

[Flying Cloud 152]

My concern is that part of the agreement is to include more block-buster games at the G. Will they balance this by pushing some of our home games to Etihad Stadium.

[darkhorse72 1,926]

Simple solution is to make the Dee's part of the additional blockbuster games as the MCG is our home. More members and hard at it team on the field winning games and therefore bigger crowds. Look at Queens birthday when we play crap, also look at some of our other big games when we were running hot against the tigers. cats, blues and bombers for example. Teams people like to see play. The AFl obvious know they'll never get a blockbuster against an interstate side at the MCG, I think the closet they got were the eagles/bombers in the 90's with sheedy's jacket waving.

[beelzebub 23,390]

My concern is that part of the agreement is to include more block-buster games at the G. Will they balance this by pushing some of our home games to Etihad Stadium.

ye of little faith.....we WILL be the block-buster games !! :D

[drdrake 3,203]

The MCC gave us a special hand out this year, basically this secures that 1 mil every year.

Stuff docklands, I have an idea but it will never happen with the MCC gaining control of the parklands, wouldn't it be great if they developed a training oval on the site where the first game was played just outside of gate 3/4, this would give the MFC somewhere to train, kids to kick a footy, with the development of the Southern Stand allow for increased office space up the Punt Road end for MFC and a social club. The only issue is you will lose space for parking lest say 500 cars/match @ $10/car the MCC will lose about 250K pa of revenue from doing this.

If the MCG trust takes the revenue for the parking from my estimates would equal around 15mil PA just from AFL parking

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Interesting, the only loser here is the Melbourne City Council as it gives up rights to charge for parking. As an aside here, come back John So; Doyle is barking mad, but I digress...

Could this new pie in the sky Docklands proposal be involved in a bit of quid pro quo from us to the Council?

Doyle may be mad but please no more of that iconic gnome John So. MCC ratepayers just cant afford his incompetence.

[John Dee 445]

Doyle may be mad but please no more of that iconic gnome John So. MCC ratepayers just cant afford his incompetence.

It may be the choice between tweedledee and tweedledum, but after listening to that loony Doyle trying to say that the best way to save the trees in Yarra Park was to put the carparks underground, it's my Bro' John So.

[e25 5]

It may be the choice between tweedledee and tweedledum, but after listening to that loony Doyle trying to say that the best way to save the trees in Yarra Park was to put the carparks underground, it's my Bro' John So.

You're kidding... he really said that?

I know he's an imbecile, but Robert Doyle still manages to continually surprise me with his stupidity...

[Rogue 585]

My concern is that part of the agreement is to include more block-buster games at the G. Will they balance this by pushing some of our home games to Etihad Stadium.

This and the fact that teams like North and Carlton(?) are trying to get all/most of their games at the 'G next season is indeed a concern.

[H_T 3,049]

My concern is that part of the agreement is to include more block-buster games at the G. Will they balance this by pushing some of our home games to Etihad Stadium.

Yeah, good point you raise, something has to give you would think. Hopefully it's a tennant and not the club that help cultivate the 'G' 151 years ago.

[e25 5]

Any word on whether it is going to be paid retro-actively?

[Junior 46]

Additional car parking should be constructed on top of Jolimont railyards.

[1858 285]

Just wanted to bump this.

I don't know much about the details of our designated home game in Canberra but does anyone see this changing as a result of the new MCG deal?

[e25 5]

Just wanted to bump this.

I don't know much about the details of our designated home game in Canberra but does anyone see this changing as a result of the new MCG deal?

We probably get more money playing in Canberra, even with the new deal.

I don't mind playing 1 game a season up there until the contract expires.

We made a commitment and it seems to be in our best interests to stick to it.

[beelzebub 23,390]

Just wanted to bump this.

I don't know much about the details of our designated home game in Canberra but does anyone see this changing as a result of the new MCG deal?

The new-deal affects games hosted at the G.. This is not hosted at the G and is not affected. A totally separate arrangement.

[1858 285]

We probably get more money playing in Canberra, even with the new deal.

I don't mind playing 1 game a season up there until the contract expires.

We made a commitment and it seems to be in our best interests to stick to it.

That is what I was getting at. Relatively speaking, the Canberra deal is worth less now so once the contract expires unless we renegotiate a better return I'm just wondering if we are more likely to let it go in favour of playing at the MCG now.

[beelzebub 23,390]

Dont we get something stupid like 300000 to play that Canbera game ?

Wed be doing rather well to get that sort of money at the G ..new deal or not ...unless we put about 50000 bums on seats...and most not being members ( of anything )

[1858 285]

Dont we get something stupid like 300000 to play that Canbera game ?

I beleive that is around the mark.

Wed be doing rather well to get that sort of money at the G ..new deal or not ...unless we put about 50000 bums on seats...and most not being members ( of anything )

I realise that but the club negotiated that figure for a reason. That is the benefit the club is prepared to give away it's home ground advantage for. Now the relative benefit is arguably less than 200k given the MCG benefit as well as hopefully bigger crowds as the team improves in 2010. From a pure total cash in hand pov we still get 300k for playing in Canberra and if the club is looking solely at that then I wouldn't expect them to change anything as you suggest. All I am asking is does anyone think the club will weigh it up now from a relative benefit pov?

[beelzebub 23,390]

short answer

based on 2009 we had 10 home games at the G to which we would in 2010 terms be better off by at least 100000 per

thats $1 Million

add the 300000 from manuka a 1.3 off the bottom line

as compared 1.1 if all at the G.

are we that well off we can sneeze at 200000 ?

Not next year I would suggest. However when all and sundry see us up and firing kicking goals then id be looking at all games at the G in '11

purely my view of course