Collingwood MCG Deal

[stuie 7,374]

Article is a lil short on facts, but wondering what this means for us and the inroads Jim made with the MCC...

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2013-02-13/magpies-multimillion-dollar-mcg-deal

[jnrmac 20,055]

Stopped reading after the first line. Collingwood as the MCG's 'anchor tenant'

FMD [censored] off Eddie we are the ultimate anchor tenant - have been there for 151 years.

[H_T 3,043]

Article is a lil short on facts, but wondering what this means for us and the inroads Jim made with the MCC...

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2013-02-13/magpies-multimillion-dollar-mcg-deal

Geez stuie you could have have warned us that link takes it to the CFC website...I feel dirty now.

Reading the figures that club is dealing with....my kids will be retired I reckon before our club is spruiking those kinds of profits and assets.

Something to aspire to.

[Six6Six 1,507]

I'ld like to know how they get the old Olympic Park all to themselves redeveloped with government money and we get gosch's paddock as their cast off. Some form of nepatism from the Brumby Governement?

[biggestred 5,016]

Meh. They can be the anchor tenant. We own the place.

[P-man 13,366]

Reading the figures that club is dealing with....my kids will be retired I reckon before our club is spruiking those kinds of profits and assets.

Exactly. Makes you realise the gap between the haves and have nots is only widening. A $36m redevelopment of the Westpac Centre with new medicine and sports science facilities. FFS.

No wonder they look like recruiting geniuses with the endless spoils they have to throw at the FD. Would Sidebottom be a star if he played for the Dogs? I have my doubts.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

I'ld like to know how they get the old Olympic Park all to themselves redeveloped with government money and we get gosch's paddock as their cast off. Some form of nepatism from the Brumby Governement?

Actually, it would be ours but declined the offer some year ago if I recall correctly

[45HG 1,539]

Pretty sure that makes them the Fremantle of Victoria.

[Robot Devil 1,895]

They can have the term 'anchor tenant'. Means nothing really.

All I ask in return is that the following occurs:

2013 Grand Final - Melbourne defeats Collingwood by 1 point

2014 Grand Final - Melbourne defeats Collingwood by 30 points

2015 Grand Final - Melbourne defeats Collingwood by 60 points

and so on and so forth....

[stinga81 210]

I'ld like to know how they get the old Olympic Park all to themselves redeveloped with government money and we get gosch's paddock as their cast off. Some form of nepatism from the Brumby Governement?

Brumby's a big Collingwood fan. Bro is or was a Labor MP. Could be onto something there, wouldnt surprise if there was.

Without reading the presser pretty sure they means (w)anchor tenant.

[Dee Dee 1,105]

Article is a lil short on facts, but wondering what this means for us and the inroads Jim made with the MCC...

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2013-02-13/magpies-multimillion-dollar-mcg-deal

It means They are just a tenant, while we are a sporting section of the MCC!

[monoccular 17,413]

The rich get richer and the poor get stuffed!

[monoccular 17,413]

Brumby's a big Collingwood fan. Bro is or was a Labor MP. Could be onto something there, wouldnt surprise if there was.

Without reading the presser pretty sure they means (w)anchor tenant.

That's The Labor way: look at the NSW Party and the Obeids.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

I'ld like to know how they get the old Olympic Park all to themselves redeveloped with government money and we get gosch's paddock as their cast off. Some form of nepatism from the Brumby Governement?

Yes, Brumby is a keen Pie fan. Which made him sympathetic to the "poor us" argument Eddie gave him about running out of space at the underresourced Lexpac Centre.

[mjt 640]

It means They are just a tenant, while we are a sporting section of the MCC!

They draw more people in 4 games at the G than we do in 12, we might be a sporting section but its just a title, sadly these days they own the G.

[Six6Six 1,507]

They draw more people in 4 games at the G than we do in 12, we might be a sporting section but its just a title, sadly these days they own the G.

Yes, but they play Carlton, Essendon, Richmond and Hawkthorn as home games on a Friday night, All we get is Goldcoast, Greater Western Scully and Feemantle mainly on a Sunday and Port thrown in on Mothersday. Go figure who is going to get the bigger crowds.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,027]

It's nothing more than Eddie blowing his own trumpet (and who'd have thought the guy was that flexible?). They are welcome to call themselves "Anchor Tenants" as much as they like. It's still our home, and our home it will remain.

[FireUp 67]

Eddie on Olympic Park Trust and Athletics Trust so major conflict of interest was allowed

[DeeSpencer 25,497]

This is the problem with the inequality in the draw. We dont play on Friday night this year, therefore we don't get exposure to draw new supporters and consolidate current ones. The end result is we get less crowds and therefore a worse stadium deal.

No amount of compensation can adequately compensate for that disadvantage. The AFL must realise they exist for all the clubs and serve the clubs and not be an organization focused on profits and maximum dollars. If we don't get on top of this issue soon then a salary cap and draft won't be enough to keep the competition fair and we will end up with an EPL style completion but it will be a farce.

[darkhorse72 1,906]

Despite the loopsided draw as noted, they do draw more than us to games, somethingI doubt we will ever change. But the difference is how aggressive they are at pushing he club forward since Eddie took over. Before Eddie they were a rabble, not rich, not doing well etc etc. But they harnessed the resources of their supporter base and look what they have become.

I remember reading somewhere that we were offered the westpac/lexus site before the pies and turned down the opportunity to develop that site by a previous board. I don't know which one but maybe due to being risk adverse or thinking our finances at that time couldn't do it we said No! So we have only our self to blame (or that board).

As for govt. funding state or federal, the money is available to all clubs. But the clubs that get it, first develop/propose a project, and then push government for funding citing all the community benefits that will flow from it etc. We have not done that, but the money is there when we do.

Personally I would like us to start with the MCC and its board/trust/state government.

First order of business:

1. Move the store up into the public area of the ground, out of the basement. Our members should walk into the entrance of the MCG and see our shop.

2. Develop a area of the MCG, even to build new buildings for our sports science, gym, pool etc. Maybe share it with Vic cricket and other MCC clubs.

3. Lets us train on our oval for all session that we want!! A pipe dream now but one can only push for it.

4. Be proactive and aggressive and really push the club. Being conservative will kill us in the end.

just some thoughts!

[CBDees 3,167]

Happy for the Pies to play at the MCG as long as they take over our Sunday twighlight spot! Also not adverse to them palying a few 'home games' at Etihad!

[hoopla 418]

It means They are just a tenant, while we are a sporting section of the MCC!

Correct - we are part of the landlord with permanent access rights We've it all over a tenant

It still narks me that Gutnick's Committee allowed McGuire to walk straight past them into the Olympic Park precinct - but Gardiner and Jimmy got us back into bed with the MCC in a way that stands atop any tenancy.