Interesting reading guys. I will try and straighten out a few things as honestly as I can without breaching confidentiality remembering I was not privy to any discussions when decisions were made to move home games.

Firstly I am not sure where the number $5M comes from regarding what we make out of our stadium deal. I think it has been selectively chosen as some have suggested on here to suit the author's arguements.

What I know to be true is when the decision was reached to move to TD there was NO deal on the table from the MCG. Whether that is because of external influences is subject to speculation but there was no opportunity to consider a 9/2 or 10/1 or 11/0 split because we were offered no incentive to do so.

At TD the break even point is higher than the MCG - no doubt. We can break even at the G in the teens and at TD in the mid 20s. BUT at TD, we get an excellent deal on reserved seat sales - as I understand it, the same as Essendon*. The issue of course is that over the past 4 years we have struggled to pull a crowd. Last year some of our games - from memory against Port and Freo drew a crowd equivalent to around 50% of our membership. Therefore, last year not even our members wanted to watch us, let alone the cash paying public. When our supporter base stirs as it is starting to do and members and importantly opposition supporters need to buy a reserved seat to guarantee entry the numbers multiply significantly.

Remembering that at the G you don't need to buy a seat for games that attract up to 55 - 60,000.

As far as I am aware the only difference between our deal at TD and Essendon* is that they control all the permanent merchandising stands so DON'T BUY ANYTHING at TD.

Our move to TD has nothing to do with how much FTA coverage we get. I would argue that if we were at PP we would get less. Our FTA coverage is simply related to our on field performance. And you guys would know as well as I how poor it has been. We have practically rewritten the record books in biggest losing margins against various teams in recent years - Kangaroos and St Kilda, Collingwood, WC come to mind. I recall losing by more than 100 on multiple occasions.

The other massive driver related to our on field performance is gate receipts. We have been terrible in this area. I have done an analysis on this one and again, once we improve the numbers change significantly. I had a look at the financials from that game in 2000 when we played Essendon* in about Rd 20 - there were 90,000 people. I can't disclose the number but our take was well over half a mil. That is what starts to happen when the Blues improve - not many can match our drawing power which it why we should compare ourselves to Ess and Coll.

What I will concede is the following:

Our social club has been decimated by the move to TD but the same would have happened at the G. We were NOT afforded the same deal as Collingwood. They got there first on that one. Our socialclub is something we are mindful of ressurecting.

Our corporate support has been in massive decline before this year but I am pleased to report this trend has changed. I do intend to post an update soon, as promised preseason. It would be safe to assume the $1M talked about preseason and pre-election has been well and truly surpassed- even excluding the Raheen night last week.

Our top tier sponsors, contrary to what I may have said earlier on this site are delivering under what our great club should be getting. We may rank just below mid - pitch as far as the AFL clubs are concerned but in my view and the Board's we are not interested in comparing ourselves to most of them. This is now a huge focus.

Whether previous presidents pushed us one way or another is not that relevant to the arguement of why we are in debt or why our revenue is so much below other clubs.

And finally, regarding Greg Swann, I sat with him personally before he signed with the Club and went through all our numbers, budgets etc. For Patrick Smith to suggest he may not have been aware of the real position prior to arriving is simply false. I reckon some journos think there has been far too much positivityabout Carlton lately.

Mark

don't read smithy and co - for the bluebagger truth read Einstein, Mike and Dan (not that mad graph bloke though) and co! Go Blues!

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Thank you very much for that Mark. A lot of food for thought there. It's all common sense stuff really, but the thing that really annoys me is this:

That seems a bit elitist of both Essendon* - for doing it - and the AFL - for allowing it. Surely all profits from merchandising should go to the home team regardless of who it is and then venue at which the merchandise is sold. I simply can't understand why Essendon* would get profits from merchandise sold at a Carlton-Collingwood game, for example. I really don't like that arrangement.

Yep.

_________________
Cer 'ch 'n alluog Blues

Cheers Mark !!!

I placed a fair amount of emphasis on my concerns during the election campaign on our status with major/top tier sponsorships and them being too low - good to hear this is a current focus.

Thanks for your transparency and keep up the good work

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

QFT

Thanks for that Mark - it really helps to get an idea about where we stand financially given the tripe that is been thrown around by the media.



I haven't bought a thing at the Dome but this will ensure that no-one I know buys a thing either! Extraordinary that such a deal could exist - surely some of the merchandise revenue goes to the clubs!

_________________
“It is a state of mind, a system of belief, a way of seeing the world, a deep faith that, because you are Carlton, you belong to something great.” - Mike Fitzpatrick articulating what Out of the Blue means.

Cheers Mark. Facts often make for better reading.

Thanks Mark - very interesting read and good to see some analysis being done of our performance. A question - did the Board ever get to see the Watts Report and has that been of any help if you did so

Some food for thought for those who think we can afford to spend another year on the bottom playing for priority picks.

Following your logic then if the club finishes bottom this year it will go out of business.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

It's a shame about the social club, I was a member since 96 and it was the place to be back at Princes Park. This year I got a Gold Premium membership for the same price and I must say the seats on SUnday (Level 2 Olympic stand) at the G were fantastic. It's even got a bar with an awesome view of the ground which is what the Social club should have.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

Did you all hear that

DONT BUY MERCHANDISE AT THE DOME


Should prinit in the club magazine the do's and dont's of spending your buck so the club gets biggest bang for its buck. Memeberships, merchandise, sponsors etc

If thats politically incorrect post a sticky here. What do you say Mods ?

Yep we now have the list to take us to the top - the stats show that clearly. We now have a list that is strong enough for 5 years of sustainable finals football.

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

Winston Churchill

Cheers Mark.

Lets not let facts get in the way of a good story Fatprick, or in your case a crap story.

_________________
T E A M

Mark,

Thanks for setting the record straight.

It's always nice to see those who make up numbers to suit their agenda get sat on their arse.

But Fatprick was the AFL's most outstanding columnist in 2006.

Great post Mark.

Top post Mark, thank you.

Not sure whether it was Caro or another writer in The Age, but when the whole Dome-MCG-Princes Park issue was going on, I'm sure they ran an article about how the MCC wanted to use a deal with getting Carlton to the G as trade-off for the Preliminary Final.

It would be incredibly interesting to see whether that was poor reporting also, or whether it had some truth to it. If it does have merit, then it looks like other offers were in fact on the table (other than the Dome deal, as Mark has been told) and that motives (AFL and Collins) were in play, which is what I and a few others suspected all along.

Be great if Mark can find about that proposed deal, or whether it never actually got off the ground with the MCC.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

K

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.