Good to see a team fighting for their rights, but FFS if this impacts on the Dees I'll crack it.

Tigers do battle on fixture

History, emotion behind Tigers MCG demands

Just shows despite poor results if you have a CEO who can be strong with the AFL you get results, Waiting to see what we end up with.

Edited October 27, 200916 yr by Darkhorse72

Nothing more then a fluff piece written by Caro with her tiger beanie on.

Nothing more then a fluff piece written by Caro with her tiger beanie on.

< My thoughts. Pumping the Tigers up. Pumping Gale's first win for the club. Ho Hum.

Nothing more then a fluff piece written by Caro with her tiger beanie on.

and one wonders how many more to come ??

Nothing more then a fluff piece written by Caro with her tiger beanie on.

Caro will try & write one of these at least once a week till she snuffs it.

Somehow people still perceive Richmond to be a "Power Club" so the AFL seem to KowTow to them.

Although i must say Having Benny Gale as CEO is a great move, as he is a Top Operator.

(He & Michael lived just up the road from me back in the'90's, both of them Great Blokes)

Caro will try & write one of these at least once a week till she snuffs it.

Somehow people still perceive Richmond to be a "Power Club" so the AFL seem to KowTow to them.

Although i must say Having Benny Gale as CEO is a great move, as he is a Top Operator.

(He & Michael lived just up the road from me back in the'90's, both of them Great Blokes)

It is fair enough, The Tigers have been tenants at teh 'G since they left Punt Road and then they lost fixtures from the 'G once the 'G guaranteed an extra 100k per home game because clubs like North etc started to request more games moved from teh Dome to the 'G. So why should any on the 'G tenant clubs be punished for stupid deals other clubs did with the Etihad

It is fair enough, The Tigers have been tenants at teh 'G since they left Punt Road and then they lost fixtures from the 'G once the 'G guaranteed an extra 100k per home game because clubs like North etc started to request more games moved from teh Dome to the 'G. So why should any on the 'G tenant clubs be punished for stupid deals other clubs did with the Etihad

There's only one tenant of the G that matters ..the one who's home it really is...all others are guests !!

Its our ground and others can go fumble and fossick for games elsewhere for all I care.

It is fair enough, The Tigers have been tenants at teh 'G since they left Punt Road and then they lost fixtures from the 'G once the 'G guaranteed an extra 100k per home game because clubs like North etc started to request more games moved from teh Dome to the 'G. So why should any on the 'G tenant clubs be punished for stupid deals other clubs did with the Etihad

Who gives a stuff about the Other Tennants at the MCG. The MCG is the home of Melbourne. If Richmond are disgruntled let them sulk back to Punt Road.

I don't feel any sympathy for that Rabble in terms of the MCG

Since the end of the season a bunch of teams have said they want more games at the 'G.

Within a few years I'd be unhappy but not surprised if we got shunted out to TD for a few home games each season, a la Optus Oval etc.

Since the end of the season a bunch of teams have said they want more games at the 'G.

Within a few years I'd be unhappy but not surprised if we got shunted out to TD for a few home games each season, a la Optus Oval etc.

or not !!

Nth will falter badly over the next few years and willin alllikely hood be selling games left right and centre.

Melbourne needs to get bolder and more determined in its approach to the AFL This is our ground..our home. Let others go play elsewhere if you need them to