4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

it's not worth arguing, however i think you'll find that technically the mfc is defined as a tenant club of the mcg

i could provide links but it's not worth getting into a drawn out argument

We are tenants but unlike the other three clubs we have a spiritual link to the MCG and the MCC.  We are, after all, the only one out of any club in the AFL, an affiliate of the MCC.  This is duly recognised by the MCC.

 

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No they were the first. We are not a tenant, we are the home club. The rest are tenants.

Richmond would have something to say about that, I'm sure!!  They've been tenants a lot longer than Collingwood!

5 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Honestly, asides from the Collingwood arrogance about this issue, I'm not really that bothered as it hardly impacts me and I suspect it doesn't really impact our members.

The bigger issue for me is how the MFC has decided to manage it's allocation of seating during our home games.  I resent that the club took away the premium seating area on the wing/half forward ground level of the Northern Stand which use to be the MFC members ' Red Seats ' area open to all MFC members and made it into an exclusive MFC reserve seating area.  I get the finacial imperatives the club operates under, but I actually think this move was somewhat corrosive to the fabric of the club from a supporters perspective.

I reestablished my MFC membership since around 2011 back when we were rubbish, so think I hace contributed reasonablely to the club over recient history.

The way the MFC reserve seat area on the wing is managed is [censored]:

1. For a family it would cost me excessively for everyone to purchase reserve seats in the area;

2.  Even if I could afford it, it's difficult to get enough seats in a block together and almost impossible to also be allocated next to/near my old man's reserved seat in this area;

3.  The other issue with perminantly reserved seats is that when people don't rock up, they go vacant, per the Collingwood home game issue.  Having vacant seats in premium viewing positions is bad business and bad for footy culture in my view and bring a real finacial eliteisim to the game that erodes it.

Please bring back the old MFC members Red Seat area (Even if they are now grey!).  Perhaps Kate can champion that cause for the average MFC punter.

I fully empathise with you on this. I almost invariably disregard my MFC membership and sit in the MCC, on the wing, middle level, but I remember in pre-redevelopment times the atmosphere in that northern wing area comparable to where I sit now was sensational. 

4 hours ago, old dee said:

I don't have any problem with that. He helped when we needed it most. 

My point is that Eddie's decision was not one of unalloyed generosity...there was a hefty dose of self-interest, but you never heard that from Eddie.

We don't need to be naive mugs and think he did us some extraordinary favour solely out of the goodness of his black and white heart.

2 hours ago, cookieboc said:

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT ALSO MEANT ANOTHER GUARANTEED WEEK DURING THE SEASON WHERE COLLINGWOOD DINT HAVE TO TRAVEL. AT THEIR HOME GROUND IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME CROWD IN THEIR PRE PAID SEATS. CLUB DIDNT LOSE A THING, AND ADRE I SAY IT, WE DIDNT MAKE THAT MUCH BECAUSE OF IT

I embrace your passion but you are wrong on the last point. QB was our biggest money spinner for many years and would still be about so now, rivalled only by Anzac Eve..

Edited February 23, 20232 yr by pitmaster

4 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

My point is that Eddie's decision was not one of unalloyed generosity...there was a hefty dose of self-interest, but you never heard that from Eddie.

We don't need to be naive mugs and think he did us some extraordinary favour solely out of the goodness of his black and white heart.

absolutely

with eddie there is always a quid pro quo

3 hours ago, layzie said:

Or Duck Dodgers claiming this planet in the name of the Earth. Then seconds later Marvin the Martian arrives and "claiming this planet in the name of Mars, isn't that lovely?"

“Where’s the Kaboom…”

37 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

absolutely

with eddie there is always a quid pro quo

IMPEACH !!!

46 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

I fully empathise with you on this. I almost invariably disregard my MFC membership and sit in the MCC, on the wing, middle level, but I remember in pre-redevelopment times the atmosphere in that northern wing area comparable to where I sit now was sensational. 

I somewhat miss the 90s MFC/MCG experience. 

Red Seats MFC members for the game and Demons Club in the room under the Northern Stand afterwards. 

There was a number of MCC members that use to come across the divide and attend the Demons Club functions rather than the Red Legs, because they preferred 'the vibe' of the Demons Club.  If only we'd won a premership in that era.

Edited February 23, 20232 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

2 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Richmond would have something to say about that, I'm sure!!  They've been tenants a lot longer than Collingwood!

  My version of "claiming it back" would be to have Richmond and Magpies be made to wear white shorts at any MCG game whether it was a home game or not-and Melbourne wearing black shorts at any "G" appearance! Picketing AFL HQ is appealing except that I'm too old for that sort of thing these days! :)

5 hours ago, Deebauched said:

Collingwood can afford to be arrogant and always get what they want. They have a massive following due to bogans having lots of kids. 

Collingwood would fill a stadium in the African Congo if they were scheduled there.

They'll pull 80,000 R1 against the spoilt kittens.  Geelong supporters may not even turn up but the pies will. 

Melb v Bulldogs  maybe 45k mostly dees supporters. Doubt if their supporters will turn up in numbers. 

Deary me. And they thought Belgian colonisation was bad!

Pointless to get stressed about this.

The filth are [censored], always have been [censored] .... and always will be [censored].

9 hours ago, BangBnagBang said:

 

SNAP

 

For goodness sake they were not the the first. Richmond were. Why is that not so hard to establish.

4 hours ago, pitmaster said:

I embrace your passion but you are wrong on the last point. QB was our biggest money spinner for many years and would still be about so now, rivalled only by Anzac Eve..

yes, QB was our biggest earner, not hard to do when we were lucky to get 25K to the majority of home games. what I was trying to say was that the money may not have been as much as it could have if Collingwood didnt have paid up members sitting in the stands as the majority of people in the stadium. 

What amazes me is that they haven't worked out how to make our home games on the royal birthday and Anzac eve on opposite years - we currently have 2 massive money spinners in one year and zip in the next makes absolutely no sense

Edited February 23, 20232 yr by Sideshow Bob

11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

it's not worth arguing, however i think you'll find that technically the mfc is defined as a tenant club of the mcg

i could provide links but it's not worth getting into a drawn out argument

And we haven't always had the MCG as our home ground as pointed out by @No. 31

We played our home games at a ground called 'The Metropolitan Ground' situated between the MCG & Wellington Rd (between the years 1865 to 1885) 

To be more precise, Yarra Park which probably included Yarra Park No.1 Oval.  Ironically, an area previously discussed as a new home base

From 1885 to 1890 we played our home games at what is now known as the Lexus centre (on & off)

Carlton played their home games at the MCG between 1885 & 1890.  Who knew? Blueseum has more details if interested

Obviously Richmond became a 'Co-Tenant' in the early 1960's so they were 2nd (actually 3rd if we count Carlton as the first tenant from the olden days)

But the MCG is probably seen as our ground by most (aside from Tiger supporters and now, Pie supporters) 

Essendon play at the MCG a lot as well so they could even lay claim

But these days the MCG is often dubbed the people's ground and that's probably a more apt description

Personally, I call it our home ground and all the rest are just interlopers!!

Edited February 23, 20232 yr by Macca

12 minutes ago, Macca said:

And we haven't always had the MCG as our home ground

We played our home games at a ground called 'The Metropolitan Ground' situated between the MCG & Wellington Rd (between the years 1865 to 1890)

Carlton played their home games at the MCG between 1885 & 1890.  Who knew? Blueseum has more details if interested

Obviously Richmond became a 'Co-Tenant' in the early 1960's so they were 2nd (actually 3rd if we count Carlton as the first tenant from the olden days)

But the MCG is probably seen as our ground by most (aside from Tiger supporters and now, Pie supporters) 

Essendon play at the MCG a lot as well.  They're a part of it too

It's now dubbed the people's ground and that's probably a more apt description

Personally, I call it our home ground and all the rest are just interlopers!!

more trivia

carlton and essendon also had it as their home ground for quite a few games during the transition time from their traditional grounds to when they signed contracts with docklands as their home ground. 

and as you alluded to blockbuster home games of docklands tenant clubs sometimes get shifted to the mcg

Just now, daisycutter said:

more trivia

carlton and essendon also had it as their home ground for quite a few games during the transition time from their traditional grounds to when they signed contracts with docklands as their home ground. 

and as you alluded to blockbuster home games of docklands tenant clubs sometimes get shifted to the mcg

And the U.S Army had the MCG as their home away from home during the 2nd World War!  haha

Interlopers!!!

19 minutes ago, Macca said:

And the U.S Army had the MCG as their home away from home during the 2nd World War!  haha

Interlopers!!!

sole tennants too

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

sole tennants too

they never joined the vfl or played a single game there, but still managed to root the merri creek cricket pitch.

the mcc must have been apoplectic

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

they never joined the vfl or played a single game there, but still managed to root the merri creek cricket pitch.

the mcc must have been apoplectic

Cricket was bigger than baseball in the US pre-civil war…

2 hours ago, cookieboc said:

yes, QB was our biggest earner, not hard to do when we were lucky to get 25K to the majority of home games. what I was trying to say was that the money may not have been as much as it could have if Collingwood didnt have paid up members sitting in the stands as the majority of people in the stadium. 

Gotcha.

3 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Pointless to get stressed about this.

The filth are [censored], always have been [censored] .... and always will be [censored].

So succinctly put BBO

Everything looks good when you remember it though. 

8 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Richmond would have something to say about that, I'm sure!!  They've been tenants a lot longer than Collingwood!

Yep I was talking about Richmond - sorry for the confusion.

On another note I had to educate a Richmond supporter at work a year or so back when she was going on about the MCG and didn't even realise that we had been there well before Richmond! She wasn't a young lass either, I mean Punt Rd is right there, did she think it was just a training venue??