Carrrlton's stated drive to force the AFL into giving them additional games at the MCG concerns me. Does this mean that we despite being the original team whose home was/is the MCG will be forced to play more games at Etihad. This would jeopardise our membership numbers even more given that so many of the MCG members support MFC. Will we get shafted again by the AFL?

Exactly!

They shafted us too many times starting back in the 60's, & now see us as the weak link in the MCG tenure.

They want Us gone, so they can slide in, like E'd did under our short sighted guards, moving into the Olympic park precinct.

Beware of the blue bayou in the Commission who already has some ownership of Sydneys 'Stadium Australia'.

imo, the commission would like nothing better than to move us west to docklands & have us eventually merge with either Roos or Dogs.

...the 'if the cap fitz' one, is well aware that Melbourne cannot house 9 clubs in an expanding competition.

How are Carlton going to "force" the AFL in to giving them home games at the MCG? What do they hold over the AFL that gives them bargaining power? My understanding is that they signed a deal to play their home games at Etihad and get paid a fat sum each year as a result, so I can't see how their demands are going to fly other than via AFL corruption.

My undertsanding is that their Etihad deal ends in 2015 and they will seek to return to the MCG at that time. Consistent with the greedy nature of the AFL and unless the MCC step in (but what power do they have to tell the AFL they want the MFC playing at the G?) so I can see this having teh potential to force us off the MCG for low drawing games. I'm not bullish about the solution that we simply "win games"

Perhaps the QB game in the future will be like our 'homecoming' ?

or it could be a tactic to get a better deal from Darklands (or both)

Once Carlton have over 60,000 members they will want the 'G. Simple.

Will the AFL agree?

Of course they will. This has to be seen as our final wake up call.

We have 2 years to become competitive and relevant in the eyes of the AFL.

Wake up & Smell the roses.

the blues want to play at the 'G', to develop their game style & to increase their membership numbers & revenues.

not all clubs can play at the 'G' & we will lose out, & they will take our new supporters/members.

that whiteant on the front of their jumper is their motto.

Once Carlton have over 60,000 members they will want the 'G. Simple.

Will the AFL agree?

Of course they will. This has to be seen as our final wake up call.

We have 2 years to become competitive and relevant in the eyes of the AFL.

That covers it wyl.

If it does not happen start thinking about 5 games at the dome of death

Once Carlton have over 60,000 members they will want the 'G. Simple.

Will the AFL agree?

Of course they will. This has to be seen as our final wake up call.

We have 2 years to become competitive and relevant in the eyes of the AFL.

Yep. We're definitely on notice it would seem. The plans might have already been unofficially discussed by unseen men in unseen places in a preliminary sense.

That covers it wyl.

If it does not happen start thinking about 5 games at the dome of death

And not just 5 normal games OD. It'll be against the heavy hitters, like Port, Freeo and the 2 new franchises. Spectacular stuff. If we're lucky we might manage 15,000 - 17,000 on average against these teams if we start winning some games from here. Maybe 10,000 - 12,000 or so if we don't by 2015, and a third of those will probably be opposition supporters.

Already we are being overlooked for any official radio/tv coverage in the NAB cup, and try to get a review on any radio station post match on local Vic radio sport channels! Zilch, Zip, Nada. All we get now is a final score lol. And as for a retail recruiting drive (excluding to existing/lapsed members to renew) i can't say i've seen or heard anything in the media/billboards/net by the club to this point.

We are on the brink of becoming the forgotten AFL club if we don't start to win a decent number of games this year and keep improving from then on. We also need to uncover a few "real" superstars and soon. We're such a non saleable product in terms of TV/Radio coverage at this point. Hec, even Foxtel might have second thoughts about broadcasting some of our matches if we don't get a move on.

Edited March 16, 201312 yr by Rusty Nails

Hmmn, the Melbourne Roos, bounding away from a 'G' near you... with a hop in their skip? straight to Vlads Dorklands.

...or, does Fitz have a steak in that to?

Edited March 16, 201312 yr by dee-luded

Once Carlton have over 60,000 members they will want the 'G. Simple.

Will the AFL agree?

Of course they will. This has to be seen as our final wake up call.

We have 2 years to become competitive and relevant in the eyes of the AFL.

Agree. If someone/club tries to move in on Eddie and the filth, Eddie tells them to F off very quickly. The filth have member numbers, sponsors, patrons and clout to do this. Carlton are also a very powerful player in the AFL. It is all about pulling power and money. Unless we establish some street cred very soon we will pushed/shoved/jerked over to whatever tune Dumbetriou chooses. We need more members, rating power and influential sponsors. Only success draws these things.

That covers it wyl.

If it does not happen start thinking about 5 games at the dome of death

Or a couple at Princes Park !

... & while the Blues are away, the mice, they will play.... & get smaller & smaller comparatively.

Princes Park is one of the grounds the AFL is considering restoring. Photo: Craig Abraham'

The AFL is open to restoring one of Melbourne's disused suburban stadiums to help poorer clubs make money from games that draw small crowds.

Chief executive Andrew Demetriou says Carlton's training base, Princes Park, and Richmond's Punt Rd Oval are both options.

The AFL and all clubs met last week met to discuss ways to counter a growing gap between the AFL's rich and poor clubs.

The inability of the smaller Melbourne-based clubs, such as the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne, to compete financially is exacerbated by poor deals at Etihad Stadium.

There have been calls for the AFL to help by buying that venue early, rather than wait until 2025 when it's due to take ownership under its existing contract.

But with the AFL unwilling to meet the current asking price, Demetriou says there is a realistic prospect of refurbishing a third Melbourne venue.

"There is. Particularly when you consider that our commitment to the number of games at (Etihad Stadium) goes down in 2014," he said.

"We have got a number of games that would be attractive in an 18-20,000 seat venue, games we know we're not going to get more than that. "But if you've got a full house in a ground you can get a great atmosphere."

Three of the Kangaroos' home games at Etihad last season drew less than 20,000 spectators, while the Bulldogs had two such matches, all of which would have cost the clubs money.

The league has conducted a feasibility study on Princes Park and found restoration to be a viable option.

It is the most recently-used suburban stadium for AFL home and away games, the last of those in 2005, and is still used for pre-season matches.

The Kangaroos, who already play two home games in Hobart, have also pushed to play games in Ballarat.

But while the AFL is open to that, the Victorian Government's unwillingness to help fund a stadium upgrade is a sticking point.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-considers-restoring-suburban-stadium-20130325-2gpyd.html#ixzz2OXCbYmFo

Or a couple at Princes Park !

... & while the Blues are away, the mice, they will play.... & get smaller & smaller comparatively.

Princes Park is one of the grounds the AFL is considering restoring. Photo: Craig Abraham'

The AFL is open to restoring one of Melbourne's disused suburban stadiums to help poorer clubs make money from games that draw small crowds.

Chief executive Andrew Demetriou says Carlton's training base, Princes Park, and Richmond's Punt Rd Oval are both options.

The AFL and all clubs met last week met to discuss ways to counter a growing gap between the AFL's rich and poor clubs.

The inability of the smaller Melbourne-based clubs, such as the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne, to compete financially is exacerbated by poor deals at Etihad Stadium.

There have been calls for the AFL to help by buying that venue early, rather than wait until 2025 when it's due to take ownership under its existing contract.

But with the AFL unwilling to meet the current asking price, Demetriou says there is a realistic prospect of refurbishing a third Melbourne venue.

"There is. Particularly when you consider that our commitment to the number of games at (Etihad Stadium) goes down in 2014," he said.

"We have got a number of games that would be attractive in an 18-20,000 seat venue, games we know we're not going to get more than that. "But if you've got a full house in a ground you can get a great atmosphere."

Three of the Kangaroos' home games at Etihad last season drew less than 20,000 spectators, while the Bulldogs had two such matches, all of which would have cost the clubs money.

The league has conducted a feasibility study on Princes Park and found restoration to be a viable option.

It is the most recently-used suburban stadium for AFL home and away games, the last of those in 2005, and is still used for pre-season matches.

The Kangaroos, who already play two home games in Hobart, have also pushed to play games in Ballarat.

But while the AFL is open to that, the Victorian Government's unwillingness to help fund a stadium upgrade is a sticking point.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-considers-restoring-suburban-stadium-20130325-2gpyd.html#ixzz2OXCbYmFo

Unfortunately dee-luded it is a ploy by the AFL to squeeze a better deal out of the dome of death.

Carlton will not be modernised and the Vic government knows it.

The die was set when the previous AFL chief got conned by the developers.

They sold Waverley and lost there power.

Into the foreseeable future it is the MCG and Etihad.

Big games at the G and smaller at Etihad.

If we do not start winning and drawing bigger crowds it is off to Etihad for us.

And Carlton will get their wish nothing surer.

Sad but IMO true, get used to 5 -6 games at Etihad

Unfortunately dee-luded it is a ploy by the AFL to squeeze a better deal out of the dome of death.

Carlton will not be modernised and the Vic government knows it.

The die was set when the previous AFL chief got conned by the developers.

They sold Waverley and lost there power.

Into the foreseeable future it is the MCG and Etihad.

Big games at the G and smaller at Etihad.

If we do not start winning and drawing bigger crowds it is off to Etihad for us.

And Carlton will get their wish nothing surer.

Sad but IMO true, get used to 5 -6 games at Etihad

I think Carlton will get their wish anyhow, to move the majority of their games to the 'G'.

& if we allow this to happen we will slowly lose our lose grip on the area, homeless as we are. We have slipped to nothing more than another Tenant @ the 'G'...

playing 2 games in Darwin, I don't see as a problem, but if all the power clubs play the majority of games at the 'G', the current bunch of lesser clubs will be consigned to the less popular grounds, which in turn is an anchor around their necks.

with the giants & suns joining port & freo, the boutique grounds will happen.

Just as long as Prices park does not. this will finish the Dogs & Roos if they refurbish it.

It isn't even near to a railway station for peoples easy access.

I would much prefer to see the West get a boutique stadium, shared by Dogs & Roos, & the Punt Rd ground could be used by others when the interstate teams come thru.

The KEY to it IMO is having the trains nearby.

I think Carlton will get their wish anyhow, to move the majority of their games to the 'G'.

& if we allow this to happen we will slowly lose our lose grip on the area, homeless as we are. We have slipped to nothing more than another Tenant @ the 'G'...

playing 2 games in Darwin, I don't see as a problem, but if all the power clubs play the majority of games at the 'G', the current bunch of lesser clubs will be consigned to the less popular grounds, which in turn is an anchor around their necks.

with the giants & suns joining port & freo, the boutique grounds will happen.

Just as long as Prices park does not. this will finish the Dogs & Roos if they refurbish it.

It isn't even near to a railway station for peoples easy access.

I would much prefer to see the West get a boutique stadium, shared by Dogs & Roos, & the Punt Rd ground could be used by others when the interstate teams come thru.

The KEY to it IMO is having the trains nearby.

The only way we can win this is to very quickly start winning games and drawing crowds.

That is become relevant.

Could also be designed to drive a better deal out of Etihad and is good timing as noted by DC above!

There is no room for them at the G unless other clubs move games from there.

....and let me guess who AFL will move from the Melbourne Cricket Ground to some crap suburban stadium?

Pardon my ignorance, or naivety, but doesn't it take two teams to play a game, and thus to attract a crowd?

Since the likes of Colllingwood, Essendrug, Carltank and Hawthorn have abandoned their original home grounds, surely every game should be financed by the two competing clubs and the revenues shared.

Or does that sound too logical?

If it does not happen start thinking about 5 games at the dome of death

If the AFL wants to narrow the gap between rich and poor clubs, I just don't see them giving a rich club more games at the MCG while a poorer team is given more games at Etihad, where the stadium deal is far worse for lowly-attended games. It just runs totally counter to their objective.

I think everyone is off the mark in that regard. It's a typical display of MFCSS.

If the AFL wants to narrow the gap between rich and poor clubs, I just don't see them giving a rich club more games at the MCG while a poorer team is given more games at Etihad, where the stadium deal is far worse for lowly-attended games. It just runs totally counter to their objective.

I think everyone is off the mark in that regard. It's a typical display of MFCSS.

But the AFL aren't that interested in narrowing the gap. What they want is to maximize profits. Which means getting a big club in the big stadium. Plus they can't really control who plays where in regard to Carlton ringing up their old CEO Steven Gough who's head of the MCC and saying lets get a deal done.

I think we are right to be concerned, that's not MFCSS. The real shame of MFCSS is we see threats ahead and become pessimistic and don't actually do anything. We as supporters should buy memberships and attend all games, without fail or excuse. We have an advantage of strong MCC membership within our club that gets us leverage with regards to playing there. The MCC would certainly have a tough time pushing us out and upset a lot of members, but if we start averaging better crowds and then we take it to the next level. It's something to think about when its raining and we are struggling and you are tossing up whether to go the game. The AFL is only going to be more ruthless when Demetriou leaves and McLaughlin comes in and starts his dealmaking regime.

It will help Calton that MCC Secretary Steven Gough is still a dyed in the wool Blues man. I know he'd be rapt if they played at the MCG more often.

The only way we can win this is to very quickly start winning games and drawing crowds.
That is become relevant.

Yes, we have to start winning, but thats not enough as we've done this before.

As Vlad said, what do we stand for?

We don't have a home but we are full of heritage. We lack a Soul. In that we don;'t have a home base, a Social base where everyone & anyone can come in & feel at home sit & have a drink or have a meal, or watch a MFC video of a Famous win playing on the screen. With the merchandise shop, etc there.

Its the same reason we don't yell much at games unless well ontop. Our supporters are too polite & reserved. We lack enough spirited supporters to make our noise for us.

A social base would help to grow our weaker parts of our club & give us some soul, some depth & some despair. The desperation thats lacking from outside the Arena.

Edited March 25, 201312 yr by dee-luded

Money will decide the issue, Carlton playing at the G more regularly will get a bigger crowd than us which will make Carlton, AFL and MCC all very happy and rich. Melbourne and smaller clubs will be pushed to docklands or possible Princes park. The AFL may bring Princess park up to scratch just so that it has leverage over the docklands and MCG. By upto scratch I mean up to scratch by smaller clubs standards not bigger clubs standards. Unfortunately we need loyalty from the MCC to protect the MFC.

If the AFL wants to narrow the gap between rich and poor clubs, I just don't see them giving a rich club more games at the MCG while a poorer team is given more games at Etihad, where the stadium deal is far worse for lowly-attended games. It just runs totally counter to their objective.

I think everyone is off the mark in that regard. It's a typical display of MFCSS.

They're past ideas have shown the way they are likely to continue.

They just don't learn, or don't want to admit they had it wrong all along.

Handouts & welfare only helps keep the wolf from the door. It doesn't build a strong club, so rationalizing the monies & the draft are not enough by themselves.

.... Only equal billing & the same amount of big games on the big stage will even out the competition.

This is what it will take to make a strong club.

The game itself may have grown over the last 10 years, but no doubt the new people have flocked to the clubs like the Hawks, Bombers, Pies & Blues...

The AFL has stolen our ground & our business of making new supporters into members. And now the Blues want to become a major tenant.

If we go to the west end of Melbourne it will weaken our position in our heritage areas, & over time will undermine Us @ the MCG.

When Carlton went to the Telstra Dome, they were on they're knees, now they are growing again & on the verge of being a power team, they want to move into our territory whilst we are still on our knees.

Mike Fitzpatrick should excuse himself from all debate over the "Boutique ground" debate within the AFL commission.

We cannot let them redevelop their pricefix park, & have us & others play our smaller games they're, in which the Blues will profit from.

Build a boutique ground out west where it can help @ least 2 other teams to regain some finances & grow the Western Suburbs area into a footy powerhouse area.

Money will decide the issue, Carlton playing at the G more regularly will get a bigger crowd than us which will make Carlton, AFL and MCC all very happy and rich. Melbourne and smaller clubs will be pushed to docklands or possible Princes park. The AFL may bring Princess park up to scratch just so that it has leverage over the docklands and MCG. By upto scratch I mean up to scratch by smaller clubs standards not bigger clubs standards. Unfortunately we need loyalty from the MCC to protect the MFC.

Don't hold your breath there are far more non MFC supporters as members of the MCC than those that support the Dees.

Money talks all languages and understands no boundaries.

Carlton will get its extra games because it makes financial sense.

Edited March 25, 201312 yr by old dee

as ive said before. the solution is to have th AFL take all the gate recipts and divide them by 18 at the end of the year. thats the fairest system and the one most likely to keep all clubs in a solid financial position

Funny how Princes Park now being looked at as a boutique option. The league really stuffed up with concrete dome.