TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Stadium deals... we are getting flowered!

The clubs were as one in their outrage at the figures that showed the Melbourne stadiums retained about 70 per cent of revenue from a match and returned 30 per cent to clubs.

In all other stadia around the country, the balance was almost the opposite.

Those figures are exemplified by the fact that West Coast averages $34 a head from its games, while Carlton returns about $13 a head.

$13 a head is pretty cheap.

I thought the Telstra Dome deal was the bees knees and was going to save us and make us a powerhouse again. :wink:

I'm

and

Stadium deals... we are getting flowered!

$13 a head is pretty cheap.

Its the AFL's problem. They wanted to rationalise the grounds. The problem all Melbourne clubs have got is there are only 2 grounds. A phone call here and there between Gough and Collins and there's a nice way to price fix. Hey Samuel you slimy piece of dog excrement where are you :roll:

West Coke and Freo could choose to play at the WACA if they wanted to.

The brilliant thing about our resurgence is when the time does come we can negotiate a cracker of a deal. Until then i'm happy to sell a game or two interstate to make up the shortfall as long as they're on free to air telly.

I thought the WACA had been altered so that football could not be played there.
The chooks are coming home to roost.
The idea of VFL Park was so the League would not have it's hands tied by the MCC, and that it had some leverage.
Now they are back to square one and with Telstra Dome to deal with.
The Government should take the winter running of MCG out of the hands of the MCC.
The Olympics apart, AFL clubs built the MCG and if it wasn't for football it would be like the Adelaide CG.
Cricket is played only a handful of occasions there.
The MCC have always had far too much influence in AFL affairs.

The other thing is that by the time the AFL takes ownership of docklands it might be due for demolition. These covered stadia sometimes have a limited shelf life as they are just a single structure and cannot be easily updated piece by piece like for example the MCG. Plenty of examples of covered stadia overseas that have lasted less than 30 years before becoming outdated and in need of demolition.

Jarusa wrote:

There are basketball stadiums in the US that have been outdated and replaced after about 25 years. Teams will move cities unless they're provided with a modern facility.

Author:	kaxsta [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:45 am ]
Post subject:	Stadium deals... we are getting flowered!
Article in The Age about Stadium deals: Call for state help on venue deals Given that AFL football is the lifeline of the MCG and the Dome this is pretty damning: Quote: The clubs were as one in their outrage at the figures that showed the Melbourne stadiums retained about 70 per cent of revenue from a match and returned 30 per cent to clubs. In all other stadia around the country, the balance was almost the opposite. Quote: Those figures are exemplified by the fact that West Coast averages $34 a head from its games, while Carlton returns about $13 a head.

Author:	Jarusa [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:18 am ]
Post subject:
$13 a head is pretty cheap.

Author:	DownUnderChick [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:21 am ]
Post subject:
Jarusa wrote: $13 a head is pretty cheap. Looking at our members alone - $13 = $520,000 vs $34 = $1,360,000!

Author:	SurreyBlue [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:38 am ]
Post subject:
I thought the Telstra Dome deal was the bees knees and was going to save us and make us a powerhouse again. I'm and .

Author:	blueboy8 [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:13 am ]
Post subject:
SurreyBlue wrote: I thought the Telstra Dome deal was the bees knees and was going to save us and make us a powerhouse again. I'm and . MCG is screwing the clubs also

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Stadium deals... we are getting flowered! http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23416	Page 1 of 1

Author:	teagueyubeauty [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:33 am ]
Post subject:
Its the AFL's problem. They wanted to rationalise the grounds. The problem all Melbourne clubs have got is there are only 2 grounds. A phone call here and there between Gough and Collins and there's a nice way to price fix. Hey Samuel you slimy piece of dog excrement where are you West Coke and Freo could choose to play at the WACA if they wanted to. The brilliant thing about our resurgence is when the time does come we can negotiate a cracker of a deal. Until then i'm happy to sell a game or two interstate to make up the shortfall as long as they're on free to air telly.

Author:	SparkyBlue [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:38 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Stadium deals... we are getting flowered! YA RECKON! Nice to see that the papers are getting on to it - many, many years we've been getting reamed now...

Author:	Big Kahuna Boot [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Jarusa wrote: $13 a head is pretty cheap. ..very cheap you dirty dirty boy..

Author:	TruBlueBrad [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:
teagueyubeauty wrote: Its the AFL's problem. They wanted to rationalise the grounds. The problem all Melbourne clubs have got is there are only 2 grounds. A phone call here and there between Gough and Collins and there's a nice way to price fix. Hey Samuel you slimy piece of dog excrement where are you West Coke and Freo could choose to play at the WACA if they wanted to. The brilliant thing about our resurgence is when the time does come we can negotiate a cracker of a deal. Until then i'm happy to sell a game or two interstate to make up the shortfall as long as they're on free to air telly. So what you're saying is that Melbourne clubs only have two grounds to choose from, but West Coast and Fremantle have the option to play at the WACA...so that gives them...2 grounds to choose from?

Author:	teagueyubeauty [ Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:
Correct. Balance of power is with the West Australian clubs. Subi can't afford both not to be there, hence the excellent deal. The WACA would probably like them both there but the deal to trump Subi would have to be ridiculously good. Telstra Dome and MCG don't really care, they have on average 5 teams each. If one fooks off to the G or vice versa it won't hurt that much. It'll only hurt if one of the grounds gets all 4 big Melbourne clubs. And the AFL won't let that happen Melbourne clubs have fook all bargaining power and that's the problem. One the AFL created themselves again with absolutely NO forward thinking. And i will say this, the rest of the Melbourne teams can go and get fooked as far as i'm concerned. If they had of backed Princess Park instead of bitching and bloody moaning about it then they'd probably be getting a crap load more money from their gate receipts. Yes you doggies, Melbourne, Kangas, Aints.

Author:	blueycarlton [ Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:
I thought the WACA had been altered so that football could not be played there. The chooks are coming home to roost. The idea of VFL Park was so the League would not have it's hands tied by the MCC, and that it had some leverage. Now they are back to square one and with Telstra Dome to deal with. The Government should take the winter running of MCG out of the hands of the MCC. The Olympics apart, AFL clubs built the MCG and if it wasn't for football it would be like the Adelaide CG. Cricket is played only a handful of occasions there. The MCC have always had far too much influence in AFL affairs.

Author:	bondiblue [ Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:35 am ]
Post subject:
blueycarlton wrote: I thought the WACA had been altered so that football could not be played there. The chooks are coming home to roost. The idea of VFL Park was so the League would not have it's hands tied by the MCC, and that it had some leverage. Now they are back to square one and with Telstra Dome to deal with. The Government should take the winter running of MCG out of the hands of the MCC. The Olympics apart, AFL clubs built the MCG and if it wasn't for football it would be like the Adelaide CG. Cricket is played only a handful of occasions there. The MCC have always had far too much influence in AFL affairs. Agreed

Author:	Jarusa [ Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:55 am ]
Post subject:
The other thing is that by the time the AFL takes ownership of docklands it might be due for demolition. These covered stadia sometimes have a limited shelf life as they are just a single structure and cannot be easily updated piece by piece like for example the MCG. Plenty of examples of covered stadia overseas that have lasted less than 30 years before becoming outdated and in need of demolition.

Author:	TruBlueBrad [ Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:17 am ]
Post subject:
Jarusa wrote: The other thing is that by the time the AFL takes ownership of docklands it might be due for demolition. These covered stadia sometimes have a limited shelf life as they are just a single structure and cannot be easily updated piece by piece like for example the MCG. Plenty of examples of covered stadia overseas that have lasted less than 30 years before becoming outdated and in need of demolition. There are basketball stadiums in the US that have been outdated and replaced after about 25 years. Teams will move cities unless they're provided with a modern facility.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	The_Cranium [ Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:44 am ]
Post subject:
I wonder if the dome has a reduced shelf life given that it is right on the doorstep of the docks with plenty of saltwater around?

Author:	AGRO [ Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:
TruBlueBrad wrote: Jarusa wrote: The other thing is that by the time the AFL takes ownership of docklands it might be due for demolition. These covered stadia sometimes have a limited shelf life as they are just a single structure and cannot be easily updated piece by piece like for example the MCG. Plenty of examples of covered stadia overseas that have lasted less than 30 years before becoming outdated and in need of demolition. There are basketball stadiums in the US that have been outdated and replaced after about 25 years. Teams will move cities unless they're provided with a modern facility. I am guessing that in 2034 when ownership of Docklands reverts to the AFL - that it WILL be due for demolition and that the real estate will be TOO valuable to be again utilized as a Sports Stadium and that the AFL will be looking to build a stadium in the population centre of Melbourne somewhere around Waverley - at this point in time they are going to exhume the body of Sir Kenneth Luke take some DNA from the corpse - creating a clone then the fwits who call themselves AFL Commissioners will bow down before him beg his forgiveness and then bend themselves over to the reamed up the clacker by some development company to buy 200 acres of land somewhere in the Eastern Suburbs to build a Football Stadium.