So Agro is now saying that the reason why TC'ers "like" Etihad is because of the happenings of the past and that the reasons that TC 'ers were previously stating (such as liking the view, liking the roof and the car parking etc) are now not valid.

The Club has to stop playing the victim card of the past and press hard for the future...

I notice that Richmond in today's paper are cancelling their deal with the AFL for $500K to play Darwin games because they value football performance over this financial benefit.

From my understanding, Geelong have stated publicly that each home game at Kardina Park brings in about $450 K to the Club.

So, if you have a home ground advantage at Princes Park plus the financial benefit of gate receits, you are in a better position than Etihad.

So you are suggesting we play in front of 10,000 at princes park? Or perhaps building a new Elliott stand. We're rich again, we can afford to service that loan right?

_________________
The only way for some people to understand is for them to be on the receiving end

Left wing moralists
In self serving denial
They shit me no end

All I was trying to do was outline the history and background of why we are no longer playing games at Princes Park.

I disagree with what the AFL did in selling VFL (Waverley) Park and creating the stadium at Docklands - how they created it and justified it was disingenuous and full of duplicity. Elliott was planning a 45,000 seat stadium at Princes Park and these plans were torpedoed by Graeme Samuel who didnt want this development to proceed as it was going to mean his planned Dockland Stadium would have a competitor.

Look I go to the Dockland Stadium to watch Carlton play - and have to admit its not a bad place to watch football and to get too (I live in the North of Melbourne so its much easier to get to than VFL Park ever was) - but for people out in the Eastern Suburbs it must be a nightmare.

Diehard supporters will go and watch their team play out in the middle of the Simpson Desert if that was the only option - so when the AFL crow about how successful the Dockland Stadium is it really is a crock because AFL crowds go to Docklands in spite of it not because of it.

But the simple fact of the matter is that Princes Park is no longer and never will again be an AFL venue.

The reality is that we will play all our future Melbourne games at either MCG or the stadium at Docklands - for those supporters that have a strong view on where we negotiate our next stadium contract I suggest you make your feelings known to the club.

For those that harbour desires of AFL games at Princes Park I suggest you check yourselves in to the nearest Mental Health Facility .

Alternatively if you want to see a Navy Blue guernsey run around Princes Park I suggest you buy Northern Blues Membership for season 2012 and you will certainly see the Northern Blues play VFL games there.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

Unfortunately the official attendances don't support the theory or agenda from posters that hate docklands.

1999-2003 home attendances average per year 379,967
2005-2009 home attendances average per year 459,069

So on average, there are 80,000 extra supporters attending games at docklands rather than princess park, so can we now stop the bullsh1t that the people don't like docklands and accept that if we can make money out of the extra attendances, then it will be a great move.

P.S, I picked the 5 years immediately after the deal as we were still crap and the period before when we played in finals & GF so as to give every benefit to PP, if we take the last 5 years we averaged 544,000 or 164,000 more per year than when we were at PP.

Some-one needs to count heads correctly @ ET and also put up a comparison of $$$ for say Geelong's crowds @ KP.

This is a good contribution.

If someone could provide the source for these figures, the actual playing teams, the result of that game, a financial statement as to what Carlton receives per game, then we can all learn a bit more...

Why?

1. I think you'll find crowd figures advertised by Etihad aren't correct.
2. I think you'll find Geelong make more money with less crowd @ KP
4. I think you'll find Geelong make more money from less membership due to stadium seating.

I could continue with advertising, etc but I really am getting tired of this again and will finish off with this; as MF mentioned in his last post

1. Why doesn't the AFL come out and give everyone a "TRUE" indication of all and sundry with Etihad Stadium vs MCG vs Kardinia Park/Football Park/Subiaco!
2. Since the AFL want "ALL" teams to become "SELF SUFFICIENT" why doesn't the AFL support teams making their own "VENUE" choices and let them either "SWIM" or "SINK"?
3. What is the AFL hiding or more importantly, what are they scared off?

End of Rant!

1. The crow figures advertised for Etihad are for true attendances with the exception of Medallion club members which are all counted whether the seat is occupied or not. The reason for this is that the ticket is sold and whether the person turns up or not, the club receives the income from that seat, therefore even if there is less people than what is stated, it doesn't affect the finacial outcome. For what it's worth, there are only 5,000 medallion club seats and I read somewhere that we have the highest fill rate for the medallion club at 90-95% for we are only talking about 500 people.
The MCG doesn't include MCC members in it's attendances (as far as I Know) because if that seat is not occupied the club does not receive income from the MCG.

2. Read my post again. I said that the argument that supporters don't like Etihad is complete crap and that our attendances had increased dramatically since our move to Etihad. I also stated that if we could make more money from the extra attendances, then it would be a great move.

3. Geelong made $12mil 2010 finanacial year, we made $11mil from membership, seating and gate receipts. Hardly a huge discrepancy considering we had an interstate final versus geelong going to the prelim at home, so gate receipts and reserved seating for the finals alone will take up some of that.


It's very simple to look at other clubs and blame everything on Etihad. Go back a couple of years before they won the flag, Collingwood made $17mil from sponsorship and marketing compared to our $10mil. Surely this is where we should be focusing our attention to rather than a less than perfect stadium deal, and I haven't included social club revenue in this so it has nothing to do with membership.
We have the second highest attendances in the AFL, a huge supporter base with lots to corporate supporters around the country, yet we are miles behind Collingwood in turning that into cash. Put simply we have FAILED to market ourselves to both the supporters and corporates and this is where our board and CEO (and posters here) need to focus their attention to!

Actually Agro, Etihad is really easy to get to from anywhere I think, certainly in comparison with PP (slowest tram ride in the world) or VFL Park. When I lived at North Balwyn, tram dropped me at the door of Etihad, now I am in Mt Waverley and the train drops me at the door.

To an extent it is not just about how much money you make. If we have 40,000 members they have paid anyway so any home game you have in effect 40,000 paying customers no matter where you play. But you need as many of those to turn up at every game to give you something to build on. If you have 40-50k members and you cater for crowds of 15k at PP you are going to have a membership dropping rather than rising. Also, for each individual game, you make your money out of the people who pay at the gate (given members have already paid whether they are there or not). I can't believe anyone would think 'pay at the gaters' are more likely to come to PP than Etihad. The other way you make money at small grounds like Kardinia Park and PP is that by having limited capacity you sell a lot more reserved seats and thereby charge people double (which was Elliotts idea). That is outrageous. I'd rather just walk up at Etihad as I can do for most games, than have to buy a reserved seat at PP. Itr was different when it was mainly standing room, but Elliott wanted it to be a reserved seating stadium.

Look like everyone, I'd love to play a few games at PP. I was there when we kicked 1:11 ag the Dons on Anzac day 68; 30:30 ag Hawks in 69; saw Sticks, Jezza, Rob Walls kick 10 and Greg Kennedy kick 12. It was great in the days of suburban footy and as much as I miss that, it is a time that is gone. We need as many people watching us as often as possible or we run the risk of losing young supporters.

We need to play hardball and get the best deal for the club and all the supporters, wherever they live. If PP could be used for boutique games, that's great, but no other club wanted to play there and I can't see it happening.

Please do not place me with the "Luddites" advocating us moving back to Princes Park.

I have never ever advocated that and in fact was campaigning vigourously for us to move from Princes Park back at the time (I have witnesses who can verify that ).

Our deal at Etihad (sucks and could be much better) but at the time we had no alternative.

However I do want to point out that the AFL and powers that be at the time Wayne Jackson, Graeme Samuel, Ron Evans et al were lying through their teeth at the time of Docklands development (I am talking late 1990s here) about the benefits of Docklands to the average supporter.

As I said Etihad is fine for us Northern Suburbs people to get to and if you people from the Eastern Suburbs say its easier to get to than VFL Park then I am not going to argue with you.

With regards to walk up - I dont think you can make an argument that walking up to a 55,000 seat stadium in Etihad is a better proposition than walking up to an 80,000 seat stadium in Waverley.

The simple fact of the matter is that the average AFL supporter is worse off going to the football with the MCG/Etihad ground mix than he was with the MCG/VFL Park ground mix (with the occassional game at Princes Park for 'boutique games'). And clearly most clubs are worse off with the current mix.

The funding for Etihad would fall over like the Greek economy if it wasnt screwing the likes of North Melbourne, Footscray, St. Kilda and to a lesser extent us with the arse raping deals that it has put into place.

As far as Carlton is concerned we will be much better placed when we negotiate our next stadium deal and hopefully that will be far more financially beneficial in our favour with more home games at the MCG.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

I think that Carlton are in a very strong position to negotiate this time around as we are clearly the highest attended team at Etihad, so if we couldn't get the same or better deal than Essendon* then questions need to be asked about Swann and his ability to negotiate with business

With respect to Etihad screwing the small fish, then I couldn't agree with you more, but am afraid that this is a function of modern stadiums and services provided. If waverly was still used, then the amount of money required to get the facilities up to an acceptable standard for AFL games would make for similar deals unless the government pays for the bulk of the costs. The end result is someone has to pay and whilst a stadium is privately owned, shareholder also need a return on investment.

Personally I would like a change in the way gate receipts are handled in the AFL. My preferred option would be that all gate receipts between MCG and Etihad are pooled together and then split to the home games teams based on a per person basis. This way the AFL will be the chief negotiator between the stadiums and should achieve a better deal and all clubs will get the same income based on attendances. So if the deal works out to $2 per head, then if you get 80,000 you get a cheque for $160,000. North get 20,000 to Etihad, then they will get $40,000.

Surely Carlton are firmly placed to get the best deal possible at Etihad? ... Collo would have a soft spot for Carlton, surely?

Thiro I think we actually get one of the better deals at etihad now
I understand that it is second only to bummers who were an anchor tenant
Thats not to say we shouldnt push hard for better deal

Not sure I share the love for Waverley - always rained out there and remember 1988 PF - where the wind was with dees for 3 quarters

Im a G man but dont mind etihad but reckon afl members get a rough deal there - dont like playing hawks or cats there should always be at the G

Sums up the situation pretty well.

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

I've been told that Essendon*'s deal with Etihad stipulates that nobody can get a better deal than they do. Any truth in that?

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

yes Wojee as I understand that was the basis of their anchor tenancy -having said that ours is the next best and obviously better than dogs roos aints et al
IIRC bummers deal involves an excellent deal on proceeds of merchandising bought at etihad

Knock me over with a feather!!

Could have sworn you'd be a Bond's Y fronts man like me Frank.

Each to their own I guess.

Thanks Rick
Im the only G man at the nursing home -is the only thing that sets me apart from the other old buggars here

Yeah, if I buy a Carlton beanie part of the proceeds go to Essendon* don't they?
Which is why I'll never buy merchandise there.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa