R6 v Hawks: 49,018 -- Move to TD fully supported

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 12:54 pm

the indications are that is going to be a roring success and i hope it is.

jsut IMO i think its a little cheeky to declare the TD success for a game that was played their last year as well.

like i said, when we get 50k aginst freo, port etc.. at the MCG, which otherwise would be played at OO, i will be the first person on here saying its been a great success for the club.

until then - i dont think anyone can say one way or the other

camel · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 12:54 pm

ThePrez wrote:

...but declaring that the TD is a success becuase we got 49k in attendance is a little far fetched in my opinion...

Last year we were struggling for sponsors. Last year membership figures dropped from the previous year. Last year we had less FTA games than Fremantle for God's sake. Last year we did indeed have good attendance figures.

This year our attendance figures are still good. This year we have more sponsors than you can poke and blank footy jumper at. This year our FTA games are on the up. And this year memberships look like posting an improvement on last year's figures, albeit a modest improvement.

Too early to label a success. Probably. Any signs to suggest the move has NOT been successful? NO!

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 12:59 pm

camelboy wrote:

This year our FTA games are on the up.

are they?

i dont recall the actual figues but when compared to last year and the games we had on FTA last year we are only 1 or 2 games better off this year. Hardly an amount to write home about.

But - i must add, IMO alot of success with sponsors lies partially with where we are based but more so the performance on the field last year. We have argued this before and i think we all know where i stand on that issue so no need to go over it again.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18078

ThePrez wrote:

now considering all that

only the games that we can judge that "are different from last year"

are

Rd 8 against Geelong - Friday Night game at TD
Rd 12 against Brisbane - Saturday Night game at TD
Rd 16 against Fremantle - Sunday Afternoon at MCG
Rd 19 against Port Adelaice - Sunday Afternoon at MCG

now, when we get 50k plus to all of those game i will consider the move a success, every other game is basically where it was last year, and thats my point.

When you sit down and work it out, the move isnt all that fantastic for the club.

Why not round 11 which was at OO and will be at TD?
And Round 15 against St Kilda was transferred to TD last year because OO wouldnt go close to handling the crowd.
These issues should also come into calculation.

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 1:03 pm

we are talking about attendances and where we played certain teams last year and how they compared to this year.

if the club transferred a game from OO to TD - then so be it, it was a TD home game and not an OO home game.

plus we also got a cash injection didnt we for moving a couple of games plus the extra attendance would have surely helped the bottom line of the club. We cant do that this year.

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 1:05 pm

Blue Vain wrote:

ThePrez wrote:

now considering all that

only the games that we can judge that "are different from last year"

are

Rd 8 against Geelong - Friday Night game at TD
Rd 12 against Brisbane - Saturday Night game at TD
Rd 16 against Fremantle - Sunday Afternoon at MCG
Rd 19 against Port Adelaice - Sunday Afternoon at MCG

now, when we get 50k plus to all of those game i will consider the move a success, every other game is basically where it was last year, and thats my point.

When you sit down and work it out, the move isnt all that fantastic for the club.

Why not round 11 which was at OO and will be at TD?
And Round 15 against St Kilda was transferred to TD last year because OO wouldnt go close to handling the crowd.
These issues should also come into calculation.

my bad - missed that game :oops:

Bluebernz · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 1:11 pm

Deano Supremo wrote:

DE JA VU

Parlez vous de ja vu?

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 2:41 pm

ThePrez wrote:

camelboy wrote:

This year our FTA games are on the up.

are they?

i dont recall the actual figues but when compared to last year and the games we had on FTA last year we are only 1 or 2 games better off this year. Hardly an amount to write home about..

Correct Prez we've had no games televised that weren't (or wouldn't have been) last year, and if you include this week we have less.

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 2:47 pm

in defence of camel - i do think we actually play in more FTA games this year but most of them are "away" games for us.

so not sure how that works with sponsorships etc.. but we certainly have a home and an away sponsor

camel · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 3:16 pm

Sponsors just want to be on telly, I don't think they care who has the home game. That said with our double barrel approach to sponsors it probably does affect this in some way. Although I think Optus and Dan Murphy are just going to alternate front to back on our jumpers every week, and not dependent on whether the games are home or away, but I could be wrong on that detail???

The biggest plus for home games though is the ability for our sponsors to be able to have signage around the grounds.

Of our games on FTA last year, how many were played at Optus?

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 3:18 pm

camelboy wrote:

Of our games on FTA last year, how many were played at Optus?

You can't ask questions like this until the end of this year and we see how many of the games we've transferred over are televised. So far this year they haven't televised any game by choice except the Collingwood one which is self explanatory

camel · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 3:23 pm

Well, I don't have the figures at hand, but I've got my money on zero FTA games televised from Optus last year. So even if one game extra is televised it is an improvement on our previous year.

I take it you're of the opinion we should have stayed at Optus?

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 3:25 pm

camelboy wrote:

Well, I don't have the figures at hand, but I've got my money on zero FTA games televised from Optus last year. So even if one game extra is televised it is an improvement on our previous year.

I take it you're of the opinion we should have stayed at Optus?

The Melbourne game was televised there and no I'm not of that opinion, however staunchly opposed to the amount of games at The Dome as opposed to the MCG

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 3:44 pm

cb - i dont think anyone wanted to stay at OO

i just think that there are several of us here that think the club could and should have done alot better with the deal.

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

ThePrez wrote:

jbee wrote:

Prez,

How can not be sure that the Telstra Dome move is a success? Where did we move from?
If you look closely at the original post, if the game where played at Optus Oval we would have had about 25,000 to 30,000 fewer people attend.
Last year the club decided to do the same thing and have the Carlton v Hawthorn game at TD rather than OO. Another success which probably cemented why we should move.

25,000 extra people at $15 a head = $375,000.

Thank you very much.

yeah - but the point is this game hasnt been played at OO for years - its been at the TD for the last few years - so i think its a moot point.

I will be interested in the games where we would have otherwise played at OO i.e. Fremantle, Port Adelaide etc.. before i declare the move a success.

we played our home game against the cats last year - so that we could compare but not against the dawks

Last time we played hawks at Optus Oval in 2003 crowd was 27,725- about 22,000 less.

Last time we played Geelong at Optus Oval crowd was 25,037. We should go close to doubling that.

Kangaroos at Optus Oval 2004 20,732. TD 2005 40,345. (That's double)

Port Adelaide 22,507 at Optus Oval 2003. I wouldn't expect a much bigger crowd at the G because you will not get many Port supporters to either venue whereas you will get a lot more opposition supporters from Melb based clubs at TD or MCG compared to OO.

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

camelboy wrote:

Well, I don't have the figures at hand, but I've got my money on zero FTA games televised from Optus last year. So even if one game extra is televised it is an improvement on our previous year.

There were plenty of games televised in 2003 and prior years. It was only last year that FTA TV stations developed a sudden refusal to go to OO (other than for one game when there were no other games on) for reasons I can't explain.

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 4:01 pm

BlueWorld wrote:

Last time we played hawks at Optus Oval in 2003 crowd was 27,725- about 22,000 less.

Last time we played Geelong at Optus Oval crowd was 25,037. We should go close to doubling that.

Kangaroos at Optus Oval 2004 20,732. TD 2005 40,345. (That's double)

Port Adelaide 22,507 at Optus Oval 2003. I wouldn't expect a much bigger crowd at the G because you will not get many Port supporters to either venue whereas you will get a lot more opposition supporters from Melb based clubs at TD or MCG compared to OO.

Last time we played the Hawks while Optus was still our home ground we got 45,000+

Last time we played Geelong it wasn't a Friday night

Kangaroos was their home game

Your figures aren't wrong necessarily but you don't have any valid points until a proper comparison can be made

TruBlueBrad · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 4:04 pm

BlueWorld wrote:

camelboy wrote:

Well, I don't have the figures at hand, but I've got my money on zero FTA games televised from Optus last year. So even if one game extra is televised it is an improvement on our previous year.

I take it you're of the opinion we should have stayed at Optus?

There were plenty of games televised in 2003 and prior years. It was only last year that FTA TV stations developed a sudden refusal to go to OO for reasons I can't explain.

Maybe the fact we'd finished 15th and 16th the previous two seasons.

Its not the attendances which benefit us. Break Even Points are much different. We needs an extra 15,000 people to make the same money at TD as at OO.

Its the exposure of TV that we benefit from.

I think we probably all agree, we're just putting a case forward on different arguments here

camel · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 4:41 pm

TruBlueBrad wrote:

Its not the attendances which benefit us. Break Even Points are much different. We needs an extra 15,000 people to make the same money at TD as at OO.

Are the break even points at TD equal for all tenant clubs?

Agree on your last line too.

Don't make me use AFL and fixturing in the same sentence again! :lol:

TruBlueBrad · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 6:01 pm

camelboy wrote:

TruBlueBrad wrote:

Its not the attendances which benefit us. Break Even Points are much different. We needs an extra 15,000 people to make the same money at TD as at OO.

Are the break even points at TD equal for all tenant clubs?

Agree on your last line too.

Don't make me use AFL and fixturing in the same sentence again! :lol:

Someone else will have to do the sums. I'm commenting purely om heresay, should have mentioned that.

I doubt very much that all clubs operate on the same break even point. Essendon* would have a great deal, our's I reckon would be pretty good, St Kilda and the Bulldog's somewhere after that.

R6 v Hawks: 49,018 -- Move to TD fully supported

Who is online