and it looks like the AFL is a little too far to the total freedom side of things, whilst I still reckon soccer could become really intriguing with a little more freedom via limited interchange……i.e. Pim could’ve run Harry Kewell for 15 mins at a time as an ‘impact player’ mebbe in the 1st half and in the 2nd half……..and in b/w run the taller Kennedy to try to stretch the defence………

ah well. It’s the clear and distinct differences that make the games so different……which again I reckon is an aspect the AFL has to keep mindful of.

fussball – please see reply on the AFL tab.

perhaps the curse of Docklands,

I’d content Carlton are about 10K down on what they’d do if they were playing the ‘G instead of Docklands.

A huge good luck to the fellow – – a lot of top flight sports people (heck, local hacks too) can really struggle post career – – Cousins obviously has an ‘addictive’ personality and will have to manage himself very carefully.

and re Nathan Bock – – it seems certain he’ll go to GCFC even though he can’t sign up just yet. The Crows have announced that he won’t play the last 2 games as it’s in their interests (with no chance of finals) to give those games to younger developing players.

This now becomes a form of ‘tanking’. In reality, it’s list management and a future focus.

although I reckon ‘tanking’ is way too broad a term!!!!

Fussball ist unser leben –

it seems I’m unable to reply to you on the soccer tab,

so, re the ‘significant’ investment by the AFL,
I was referring to the 30 odd year commitment to the index $5 million per year estimated at that point at about $160 mill over 32 years.

Note from your own linked MCC report that in the revenue declarations, there was about $48 million combined of ‘event revenue’ and ‘commercial operations’.
If the AFL were ‘just’ a renter, then that would about take care of it. The 2 soccer matches in that accounting time frame would be accounted in there.
However, above the AFL generated revenue via events/operations, there is a stand alone ‘AFL revenues’ line item and that listed just over $8million for the financial year.

This MCG information kit also describes the MCC’s role in the MCG overall (distancing the ‘peoples ground’ from Government), and also highlights the ‘special arrangements’ required for the Great Southern Stand back around 1990-92.

Apart from the Northern (now Olympic) Stand, towards which £100,000 was advanced by the State
Government as an Olympic Games commitment, all grandstands at the MCG were financed entirely by
Melbourne Cricket Club members’ subscriptions, until the advent of the Great Southern Stand in 1992
when revenue from corporate entertainment facilities also became an important income stream.
The massive $150 million Great Southern Stand project required special financial arrangements
based on a long-term contract with the MCG Trust, the Australian Football League and the State
Government.

The AFL is not just a renter. The AFL is signed on to effectively cover a goodly portion of the MCG construction cost.
If the AFL were just a renter, then, they wouldn’t have a stand alone line item in that revenue summary. Sure, they might be broken down individually in the ‘events revenue’ along with cricket and soccer and any other events.

Part of the ‘arrangement’ is the AFL’s ‘exclusive’ rights across the ‘footy season’ and that is because it’s more of a licensing agreement. Not just an event by event sports venue tenancy. This is what a lot of anti-AFL folk didn’t comprehend with respect to the World Cup bid. The AFL has a purchased position, has paid for rights at the venue. If they were just a tenant, then it’d be rather different. (likewise at Docklands).

as a matter of interest, comparing so far 2010 to 2007,

% games below 10 pts margin 2010, 19%, 2007, 16%
% games 4 goals or less, 2010, 40%, 2007, 47%
so, we’ve had more close one’s inside 10 pts, but, less inside 4 goals.

Avg margin in 2010=35.9 , 2007= 32.02

Games OVER 80 pt margin, 2010, 8%, 2007, 5%.

if inside 48 pts, or an 8 goals margin is deemed a not too attrocious – then,
2010, 69% vs 2007, 78%.
this means an extra 9% of games this year compared to 2007 have ‘blown out’ above 8 goals.

btw – most common margins (mode) – –
2010, 6 occurrences of 36, 9 and 3 pt margins. 5 occurrences of 19 and 8 pts, and 4 occurrences of 1 pt margins (plus 4 each of 26, 29, 35, 38, 50)
2007, 9 occurrences of 17 and 31, 7 of 16, 6 of 24 and 25, and down to 5 of 1 pt margins, and 5 of 8, 10, 23 and 27.

As a North supporter we’ve either been competitive against most teams around us and below,….or blown out of the water by the top sides. I guess we are symbolic. Is it simply that a few sides went hard on young drafted talent in the lead in to GCFC and GWS?? That a lot of clubs let go more mature ‘fringe’ players sooner than they might have?? And that perhaps 2010 illustrates this. It may just be a temporary phenomenon.

The irony is that I think it was Tim Lane who towards the end of the first qtr on Saturday night predicted the downfall of Geelong with the Doggies 3.1.19 to Geelong 1.0.6. My how that game turned on its head.

Ironically, 4 teams scored about 60 to lose. Port lost by 1 pt. North by 50ish, Essendon near enough to 100 and the Doggies by 100. The Doggies though must surely still have been impacted by the flu that had swept through the club the previous week. You don’t over come it and regain all your energy within just a couple of days.

However, this time of year, clubs like Essendon and Richmond will tend to be getting games into youngsters with no hope of making the finals, and sending other players off early for end of season surgery. Richmond blooded another 2 first games including the 22 yo Irish rookie Jamie O’Reilly.
Alas, the AFL were no doubt hoping back at fixturing time last year that Firday night Coll v Essendon WOULD be a ‘blockbuster’ leading into the finals. It wasn’t, with top vs bottomish. Perhaps the AFL does need a more flexible Friday night slot, as Melb vs Hawthorn on Friday night would’ve been far more worthy.

The main issue for crowd attendances appear to be:
1. a variety of time slots allowing for TV, this issue impacts all codes – the AFL is tracking pretty well overall this year given the compromises. The NRL knows all about this.

2. the need to host ‘low drawing’ away teams (esp, for example, North Melb hosting all 6 interstate sides), and then getting StKilda on a twilight slot (see issue 1 above). This WILL only get worse with GWS and GCFC.

3. Port Power,…..’nuff said. Although Sat night in Adelaide was pretty ugly weather and very little ‘attraction’ to 13th (?) vs 16th. I don’t blame ’em. Especially with the game on 30 min delay on Ch.10 into Adelaide, and LIVE on Fox into Adelaide……..questions surely must be asked on that front.

4. clubs for whom the season is effectively over about 6 weeks out from end of season, however, the AFL season is the shortest of the NRL and HAL as comparisons. The HAL over 30 weeks risks having teams well out of contention about 10 weeks out from finals, possibly injury riddled and getting smashed more often than not. With no P&R system,……it’ll be hard to retain crowds. A common enough problem.

In the chase for $1 billion broadcast rights……..which of the issues above will become worse??

btw – with the massive high rotations of I/C, blowouts are risked when sides lose 1 or 2 to injury relatively early on. The AFL IS looking at something from that front. The irony again is that seemingly most fans who have responded would prefer no change. Me thinx people need to consider all the implications. Would 2+2 (I/C + subs) or 3+2 be a large part of the answer. Ensuring that teams are less likely to lose out on the ‘rotation’ capacity and retain injury cover.

No worries – firstly the 2006 completed works in time for the C’wealth Games.

Welcome to the new MCG

the Melbourne landmark’s $434 million facelift is complete and it will consequently offer a capacity crowd of 100,000 – plus standing room

and earlier in the article :

The state government contributed $77 million to the cause and the AFL chipped in with $5 million while the MCC will continue to make an annual contribution of $29 million.

I’m being a little lazy – but, this one has a full extract of an article that quotes the following:

The Melbourne Cricket Club is committed to pay $A580 million over 20 years to fund loans for the major share of the MCG works. Membership fees will jump from $A336 to $A501 over five years and about 13,000 new members will be admitted.
The Victorian Government had earlier rejected a $A90 million funding from the federal government into the MCG redevelopment because of a prolonged dispute with Canberra over funding conditions, and would now inject $A77 million from its own coffers into the project.
The money was available only if the State Government agreed to impose a National Code of Conduct on unions working at the redevelopment site, and if the Federal Office of the Employment Advocate was allowed unlimited access to the site.

This is where one asks……what’s the greater value proposition for the MCC membership?? 5 days of test cricket, 2 or 3 ODI’s, 30 days of state cricket?……Boxing Day vs AFL GF? Half a dozen AFL finals? The other 40 odd AFL matches?

Also, MCG Trust chairman John Wylie said of the total project cost, more than $A320 million would come from users of the ground, with the state government providing less than 20 per cent while also guaranteeing the redevelopment. The AFL is contributing about $A160 million, at a rate of $A5 million a year for 32 years, indexed for inflation. A $A1 levy on adult football tickets at the MCG is expected to contribute nearly $A2 million a year to that figure.
MCC president Bruce Church said total members’ subscriptions would increase from $A18 million a year to $A29 million to help fund the redevelopment.

It’s a pretty big investment by the AFL as a ‘project partner’ along with the MCC into a venue that the MCC runs on behalf of the MCG Trust, but does not own, and the AFL does not even run even during it’s 6 months of ‘exclusive’ rights, and has to submit to the MCC to allow Cricket club members access to AFL matches, finals and GF.

Although – do note – the State Govt provided ‘other support’ as per this link which on page 98 which talks of the indemnity cover for the MCC, and compensation to the AFL re interruptions to the AFL GF’s and late start in 2006. (just do a search on ‘MCC’ within the PDF). btw – I hadn’t actually seen this one before, so, enjoy the wonder of shared learning!!! 🙂

I can’t find much detail back to 1992 floating around anymore. Suffice to say, it was mainly taken on as MCC debt, the AFL was signed on to 2032 (40 yrs at that time) with an indexed arrangement again ensuring a portion of the budgeted $150 mill effectively being AFL funded. And State Govt provided indemnity cover.

At the end of the day……it’s a far more complex relationship than merely a rental agreement. The AFL at the MCG is a construction partnership with the MCC and – – again – – niether get’s the benefit of ‘ownership’.

Fussball ist unser leben –

would you care to illustrate your understanding of Govt funding into the MCG??

let me provide you the facts (careful, it’s a 4 letter word….. F.A.C.T.,……don’t let it stop you)

1992 Great Southern Stand opened – cost $142 million (came in below budget). Govt funding. Nil. Project was contingent upon the AFL signing a 40 year contract of minimum number of matches, attendees, and retention of finals and GF.

2006 – Ponsford, Olympic, Northern/Members stands – cost $434 million. Govt funding $77 million (State ONLY, no Fed)

Total cost current config – – $576 million. Govt portion approx 13%. (signficant??).

AFL current contracted across 45 years, 1992-2037.

Please do tell – – – who is paying for the MCG??? Roughly 2.8 million AFL attendees annually, compared to less than 500,000 for cricket and stuff all else.

It’s a nice publicly owned venue though.

It’s a nice process. AFL/VFL were thwarted on expanding their own 100% owned venue and thwarted on holding the GF of their own competition there. They then wanted better facilities at the ageing MCG. State Govt had no money. AFL get’s the facilities, has to commit to 40 years of revenue raising to fund it and at the end of that time frame has nothing but 40 years of Cricket club members attending AFL matches and finals. THose cricketers are ruddy lucky. Otherwise, they’d be like their Kiwi and Saffer counterparts, playing on postage stamp sized fields with a 20K capacity!!!

Fussball –

editors willing, please refer to the AFL tab discussion on Melbourne stadia…..apparently factual discussion is not welcome on the soccer tab.

😉

Fussball –

football at a ground with a running track…….only seen that with exhibition matches in Canada I think it was with the players wearing runners and I think the whole pitch was synthetic anyway…..back in the late 80s.

Hardly ideal.

That’s no concern for football in Melbourne at least.

5 AFL games drawing over 217,000 compared to the 1st HAL MVFC match at the new stadium with ‘only’ 20,000.

It does make you wonder just how much the stadium ‘novelty’ factor was worth!!

Noting Storm kicked off at the venue back in early May with over 20,000,

and since have done 12,11,11, 10 and 9K returns. Obviously the nil points to earn isn’t helpful……but, it’d suggest there should’ve still been a fair novelty factor out there for Hearts/MVFC to exploit. Perhaps come the warmer weather it’ll happen.

For now though – – – to see any compelling argument for another and a large other stadium……….it just ain’t there.

ah yes – –

a very odd post by this Androo person,

and sadly an anti-AFL regular wasted no time in agreeing with and adding to the irrelevant rant.

some people go x-code all too readily.

agreed – this is eminantly possible.

It’s a whole new ball game come September, and that’s the 4 weeks they need to be ‘up’ for.

For StKilda – – they only need a top 4 finish and need their Riewoldt structures working.

that was my first though too,

that along with that only 2 teams can squeeze into the GF itself.

Ken –

The lack of a dedicated rectangle stadium hasn’t stopped Melbourne (MCG/Docklands) hosting major soccer and rugby (U and L) matches with very big crowds.

re spiritual homes.

Recall that the first ever test match was played at the MCG and just down the road at Sunbury is the Rupertswood estate laying claim as the birth place of the ashes. That alone is a pretty good starting point. btw – Sydney and cricket….was nothing until presented with some real inter colonial rivalry when Melbourne and Victoria got into it proper through the 1850s onwards.
Noting whilst the first fully recorded cricket match in Aust was in Sydney in 1832, that the first inter colonial match was Vic v Tas in 1851. In fact, up to 1855, Vic v Tas occurred 3 times before NSW finally debuted (and defeated Vic) in 1855/56.

In respect to GP racing both via the Tasman series (at Sandown) back to the Albert Park track first being laid out in 1953 when decent or permanent tracks were few and far between to the ‘modern’ F1 GP – – note, I didn’t count Philip Island and the MotoGP, as, that’d be like counting Bathurst for Sydney!!!

re Olympics – – I meant in the Australian context. Why did you talk about Athens re the Olympics whilst not challenging Melbourne and Cricket with Lords and London??

You might’ve taken my up on the Nags. The first racecourse opened in 1806 near the Hawkesbury River, whilst in 1825 the Sydney Turf Club was established. Alas, no one much cares about the Sydney Cup – – it’s the Melbourne Cup that has built the aura and tradition for almost 150 years.

My main point was that Bilbo narrowed his focus way too much.

And that you’ve brought Adelaide, Brisbane and Athens in to support Sydney………me thinx Melbourne wins still!!!

(not that it matters that much – – but, again, back to my point – – Bilbo seemed restricting to codes of football only).

The MCG is run by the MCC. The AFL has a contract to provide X number of patrons through the gates (and thus help the dollars at turnstiles for cash entry and more so the value of the catering contracts).

The MCC has NO benefit in over stating attendances.

The non attending reserved seat holders etc are NOT counted.

Likewise at Docklands. The AFL is contracted likewise to provide X number of patrons.

In fact, the AFL get bonusses for numbers above certain benchmarks.

SO, it’s certainly NOT in the interests of the stadium management to overstate attendees.

ANd do note – – at DOcklands and MCG both – the majority of General Admission seating is up on levels 3 (DOcklands) and level 4 at the MCG. You won’t see much of this region on the TV broadcast.
Note also, in wet shocking conditions such as Sunday arvo – – the undercover seating on the side of the ground NOT facing the wind is going to be most desired. These are big whopping stands.

How is Tasmania relevant to this discussion about Melbourne venues???

bilbo –

sporting capital goes well beyond just football codes……Melbourne Park (Tennis, Netball, Basketball etc etc), Albert Park Grand Prix circuit, Docklands Stadium, the sand belt golf courses, Flemington and the MCG stand out.

Problem is – – some people restrict their notion of ‘sporting capital’ based upon catering to BOTH codes of Rugby!!

btw – Melbourne is sporting capital of Australia because of
A. being the spiritual home of cricket, footy, basketball, Olymipcs, GP racing Golf and Tennis and Nags racing too.
B. people turn up,…..not to just anything as some people once tried to claim……but, people turn up to matches/events.

How many other cities in the world tick the following boxes : Olympic city, C’wealth games city, F1 GP city, Tennis Grand Slam city, centre to a national footy code with ~35K avg attendances and hosts a 100K attended annual GF, or runs a Nags racing carnival like the Spring Carnival, and has such a golf reputation that Tiger Woods mad a special effort to get their to pay homage to the sand belt courses. I reckon Melbourne wears it’s crown pretty damn comfortably.

Now, if you’re going to restrict top 10 venues to Socccer/Rugby pitches……then yep, Melbourne doesn’t rate that highly,…….but, the MCG has provided some pretty big crowds to the square sides games rather in the same manner as inappropriate venues in Berlin and Yokohama have hosted FIFA WC finals.

this whole ‘ridiculous’ notion however – – – still annoys me that there don’t appear to have been choruses of ‘ridiculous’ at the FIFA WC final at Yokohama or Berlin Olympic stadium in oval venues with running tracks around them.

I’m not sure what people expect the state of Victoria – – that the game of soccer baulks at the cost of the reconfigure (as NRL has on many occassions) says more for the lack of top down support on event matches at the venue than the venue itself…….surely.

AFterall, if the FFA who run the Grand Final (not the ‘host’ club) really wanted to provide a non-ridiculous venue – – then they’d trade off the 4000 seats and extend the seating and everyone would be happy!!! However – – – strangely enough in a commercial world, they and the ARU and ARL in the past have opted to NOT give up those 4,000 seats and NOT pay extra and NOT excercise the functionality of the venue.

Okay – – the ‘strangely enough’ bit is dripping in sarcasm.

It is the illustration though that multi-purpose might just be over rated when talking about an oval-rectangle configuration. Is it really worthwhile?? It’s one thing to pivot or slide out a lower tier section, but, the top tiers for the ‘big events’ will still see masses of people a long way away.

Isn’t perhaps the money better spent on a decent oval venue, and a decent rectangle venue – – and maybe share a ‘super sport precinct’ with common public transport node and avoid scheduling conflicts and everyone is happy…….(thinking Perth a bit here!!).

Compromise is over rated sometimes.

Correct – Docklands is much more than just a stadium……and that was something that the round ball code supporters seemed consistantly to overlook in the WC debate.

Re HAL, SuperRugby and the Storm……..they have yet to provide a compelling argument for anything.

There’s sufficient room to move for now. MVFC had good numbers back in V2, but, 2 flags later and their average Docklands crowd has dropped from around 30K to 20K and other than local derbies with Hearts……it’s hard to see anything other than a mix of most games at AAMI and a couple at Docklands being perfectly sufficient. (just as the Swans in Sydney play most games at SCG and have to put up with Homebush for the odd ‘bigger’ one). btw – Docklands IS a 50-60K multi purpose venue!!! Just, it costs too much to bring the seats in for soccer……heck,…..it just costs too much full stop when, North Melb lost $1000 for hosting the Swans 2 years back with 28,000 attending…….compared to Geelong clearing $600,000 at Skilled with a 24,000 crowd. There lies the problem………it’s one thing to build it,……but, then, is it economically viable thereafter??

Re unproven attendances of new clubs – you are effectively proposing a ‘build it and they will come’ approach?? That’s a lot of public money to gamble when, the primary argument for the next venue in Melbourne is an upgraded or new 3rd AFL venue……….one hopes (as a North supporter, I wish we could host Freo/Port somewhere like a 25K venue – – Princes Park used to be okay) .
Alas South Africa (a bit like NZ) are poor examples for rectangular codes dominating and cricket suffering with having to play on a postage stamp size field!!!

btw – I must admit, I don’t like that 4 privately owned clubs have been given a massive boost of a publicly funded dedicated stadium whilst the 150 odd year old Melbourne FC is screwed over again and again and the AFL is used to bankroll the MCG and Docklands because State Govt was too broke to build them but suddenly can afford to splash a heap of money on a roof (with some seats under it!!) for the rectangle codes.

So, forgive me if I figure the rectangle codes need to be content for a while and the next big spend had ruddy well better be for the benefit of the AFL. Because, as is, the AFL is probably 90% bankrolling the MCG over 45 years and yet it’s run by the MCC and allows cricket club members to attend the AFL matches including finals and GF. And at Docklands, 25 years the AFL is used to pay it off for the benefit of private investors and yet the private management continually double book over the AFL in favour of HAL GF and AC/DC concerts and the like. That’s my position on this. So, for me, multi-purpose be buggered – – if a stadium comes into E-Gate – then, make it 25-30K oval.

btw – the big spend currently from state govt on sport is the $336mill or so upgrade at the Tennis centre.

Just been watching the Coburg Tigers vs Bendigo Bombers at Coburg City oval with the muddy cricket pitch in the middle and one recalls that players having loose footing, slipping over and the like used to be par for the course in certain parts of a ground. And that it was not unusual that your choice of stops would be guided more by what position you played and whether you envisaged yourself at any time having to traverse the cricket pitch in the middle.

Gav –

join with me in lobbying for a true ‘cross code’ tab,

one where real x-code topics can be explored without a single code tab based sense of ownership often prevailing upon the sensitivities of posters.

🙂

Gavin –

The E-Gate option was first really floated when the AFL was in serious negotiations with Docklands management and MCG management over stadium deals.

The next we heard of E-Gate was when the FFA tried to suggest it as a WC option to make Docklands available.

Premier Brumby put Geelong (Skilled Stadium) up as an alternative.

I’m not sure where Brumby is an advocate of a new multi purpose stadium??

The main options look more like –

A. expanded AAMI park to it’s 50,000 capacity for the rectangle codes………but this got parked due to the rool.

B. a 15K – 25K boutique arrangement somewhere…..even Ballarat? the Showgrounds?…..but, normally these suggestions are club based and not publicly supported by AFL HQ itself.

Now, Brumby did commission a $2million feasibility study around E-Gate, but, not just a stadium, but also residential and office development. People have to be clear that this $2million study isn’t directly geared to a installing a 40,000 capacity stadium. Yes, it has been reported that Brumby would prefer a stadium of sorts within the precinct re-development come 2014 when the rail land is surplus.

However, it isn’t really worth while if the AFL don’t want to schedule matches there.

Now – the wild card is Eddie McGuire suggesting that Docklands (Etihad) is just too flawed a design and should be scrapped – – and perhaps build a proper design a few hundred meters up the road at E-Gate.

Now – – Docklands is still privately managed and awaiting 2025 when the AFL is able to take full ownership and rights to the venue, it’s management and the land as well. It’s a great location though right beside Southern Cross. It’d be a shame for the AFL to pre-sell the rights to the land and walk away. It’d be a shame if Docklands were just turned into high rise appartments. One wonders whether the AFL should then be expected to pump their funds into E-Gate if it’s to be a ‘true’ MPV when other codes have a very ordinary track record of investment in major projects.

Back to your original article –

How does a 2nd HAL club and Melb Rebels provide a case for anything other than extra tenants at AAMI park?? And an extension if required within the parameters of the venue’s 50,000 capacity foundations. I don’t see Melb Hearts or Rebels anytime real soon outgrowing that venue.

No one is forcing the ARU or ARL to schedule Wallabies or SoO matches at Docklands……and yet they do. Obviously the venue is fine enough. How would a 40,000 or so venue down the road be any better with a 10,000 or so less capacity?? Again – – if they (ARU/ARL) care so much, then help fund the expansion of AAMI park.
MCG has hosted big socceroos game now and then for more than just the last couple of years. It’s fine. Aust v Iran, Aust v Greece,……whomever. What do you want?? A 100,000 rectangular stadium?? Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. Look at the Berlin Olympic Stadium that hosted the FIFA WC 2006 final, or the Yokohama stadium that hosted the 2002 final. For big one off games and they were effectively oval with runnings tracks around the field. And that’s in non-footy cities. If Germany as a major soccer nation doesn’t mind holding the FIFA WC final in such a venue…….then why the heck should Melbourne???