SB the residents ruined the original plans to expand the ground, once they won that battle P.P was 'gone'.

If the ground was to operate now it would not be as Carlton's home ground. We'd be at the MCG and smaller clubs would play at P.P.

_________________
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!

But Synners it`s the AFL looking at a third ground. If they are serious,refurbishing PP would cost far less than building a new stadium. If the AFL weren`t so hell bent on vengeance we could have had the Dogs as co tennants and played all the interstate games there.

Dannyboy whilst hoping that we would play some games there,any footy played at PP would be a good thing.

In politics, it isn't sufficient to be right - you have to be able to sell your policy.

When he was facing court over the allegations made by the NCA, he retained Robert Richter QC who skillfully exploited Justice Vincent's antipathy towards the NCA. If he'd represented himself, no doubt he would have got up the nose of the Judge and the point would have been lost.

Similarly, there was a number of different interests arrayed against us regarding the use of Princes Park as a boutique AFL stadium. He was never going to be able to do a deal with the AFL - all he could ever hope for was to be seen as the thwarted visionary. If he really wanted to see Princes Park entrenched as a home of AFL footy, he needed to leave it to someone else to do as he did with his own case.

We had to win over the AFL. There was no point retaining the ground in a configuration that might be used for AFL footy. That costs a lot of money, and that wasn't feasible unless we had the income from AFL matches. The AFL was in a position to move games away from Princes Park and it made it clear that would happen as soon as the then current agreement expired. But Elliott was so far up the AFL's nose, he'd almost made his way out the other end. He was a forthright critic of the AFL and he tried to create a coalition of powerful AFL clubs which would provide an alternative centre of power. Indeed, he even suggested a break-away league. Whatever the merits of this strategy, it was always going to scupper any deal to preserve Princes Park's status as an AFL ground. Elliott's attempts to secure broadcasting rights over Princes Park and other revenues, while commendable in some ways, was also destined to limit our chances of a deal. The salary cap fiasco was just the last nail in the coffin. It was only when we sold the management rights of the ground to the AFL that it was used for TAC games.

To win over the AFL, we also had to win over the clubs. The clubs were always going to be hostile to Carlton receiving a huge revenue stream from ground management. In the AFL world, it's a case of beggar thy neighbour rather than helping each other win big deals. If it had been Essendon* or Collingwood which was in a position to provide the boutique stadium, would we have supported it? We needed to sell the idea to the clubs by pointing out the savings they could make, but instead they became vocal critics when their supporters whinged. Was that because of their hostility to sharing the gate takings with Carlton, or were we price gouging back then? As a result of that hostility, the AFL bought out a number of games and that was the beginning of the end.

The local residents formed a natural opposition. I'd imagine that property values have increased now that the ground doesn't host AFL games. We needed to keep the MCC onside as they had the ability to thwart our ambitions. But despite securing Michael Malouf, they remained opposed. First, when we redeveloped the ground, they killed off our desire to build a 2nd level and restricted the extent of the Hawthorn Stand. Secondly, they killed off our proposal for lighting towers to equip it for night games. Unfortunately, the MCC was a perfect vehicle for the Docklands site to destroy competition from us. Graeme Samuels was then in charge of the Docklands development, and pressured the MCC to make life hard for us. Again, this gets back to keeping the AFL onside, because I'd imagine that the AFL could have forced Samuel to pull his head in at that stage and if the AFL had lobbied on our behalf with the MCC then things might have gone our way. It's obvious that residents often lose out to commercial lobbyists at this level of government.

Given all of those intractable problems, what was the sense of holding out? If we'd done that, we would have borne huge costs without recompense. The AFL could have ensured that the ground was never used for AFL footy.

Indeed, we would have been presented with a galling prospect. The AFL would have been able to gain a free ride from our retention of the ground. It would have been able to threaten the MCC and Docklands management that it would fixture games at Princes Park. That would have given the AFL leverage to get a better deal without ever having to foot the bill for maintaining Princes Park.

Should Pratt have retained Princes Park or should he have waved the white flag and proceeded with the redevelopment that has destroyed the chances of it returning to its glory days? He didn't have any choice, did he? All he would have done is helped out the AFL at our cost.

Given the problems, Elliott should have secured the best deal possible as he was never going to resign to allow others to do a deal with the AFL. Docklands would have bent over backwards to secure us as a foundation club. But it was Essendon* that won those concessions, and Essendon* is still laughing. Essendon* even has a deal that it will always have as good a deal as any other club at Docklands. If we do a great deal there now, we help them out too. We missed the boat because Elliott was too busy posturing when the political realities meant that he would never be able to retain Princes Park as an AFL ground.

Danny we would still play the likes of Freo - Port - West coast and Sydney there as they dont pull crowds big enough to make any sort of money at the Dome or the G-

What should have happen was the 1.8mill we get a year now to assist with TAC games - Preseason games and a like should have been happening back then- Then the AFL would have had a stick and moved some of the low drawing Dogs and North games there so those side didn't lose money when they played at the G or Dome


It would have been a simple solution but the rest of the league thought that Carlton would be profitting out of games played at PP - The 1.8 mill would have paid for the up keep - We would not lose on those games that draw bugger all - and neither would the dogs and a like - then The dome would have to ask for more off the Wog ball mob instead of their games being propped up by funds generated from the AFL game s

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

The residents had a big influence on the original expansion for Princes Park. They managed to have the Legends stand reduced from a 2 tier stand to a single tier and IIRC completely eliminated expanding car park facilities. They played a big part in the original expansion but it still went ahead.

I don’t think there was other influence from then on as we didn’t apply for any further development.

The latest redevelopment is in the communities favour so I am sure there were no objections there

_________________
C'mon Blueboys!

No no... forget about that.....just tell us how we would crush the local residents interests and development is always the winner.... and re the residents thats the first you have heard of it ..cos thats what happens.. im really interested in your views here....


Your pearls of wisdom i always seek to enrich myself with Sydney....

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

IF (and it's a mighty big IF) the AFL decided to redevelop Princes Park into this mythical boutique third stadium, you know what would happen?

Control would be removed from Carlton... all other clubs would play low-drawing games there, and we'd lose it as our spiritual home.

LOSE PRINCES PARK AS OUR HOME.

As it stands, we're developing it as OUR home... with an elite training facility. Our Premiership cups will forever be on display... we'll always train there... it'll ALWAYS be navy blue. You'll always be able to bring your kids there... go there in your twilight years... and know that you're home.

But if it were to be the 'third venue'... the AFL would insist upon control, and it'd be a smaller version of Docklands. We'd probably be allowed to train there every so often, and maybe keep a small room or two for some memorabilia. But we'd lose our home.

Be careful what you wish for. The last thing I'd want to see now is PP become the third stadium, even if it was feasible.

P.P = 35,000 tops

Carlton membership = 40,000

so we tell 5,000 of our members they cannot go to a game, or we stop selling memberships or what we ticket the games?

_________________
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!

cos every week 40,000 member turn up don't they, lets see how many we get when we play port, we could see us play Freo if we didn't have to sell the game to the GC.

_________________
Between our dreams and actions lies this world

Im sure the local residents don`t want the Amcor site in Fairfield developed either but it will still happen. Our former Premiership ruckman likes the idea of stimulating the economy and providing jobs. Princes Park needs to be sold to the residents. Why not broaden the horizons. Have a "Carlton Community Market" in the surrounding parklands with cafes,bbq`s etc set up in the morning then walk in and watch a game at a fantastic venue to watch AFL. I remember the whole suburb being so energised on match day.

Have you seen the wall of buildings known as the toaster near the Opera house- The whole entire Sydney population was against that it went ahead built on Crown Land- The M5 motor way - the Lane Cove Tunnel . The entire Home Bush bay redevelopment where they held the Olympics they protested there for months something about killing off an endangered Frog - Funny it got built the Olympics were held there . The residents of Chatswod in Sydney all signed a Petition in the 80's that no high rise would be built above 6 storeys in The Chatswood Area - There mus be all of 20 - 20 plus story building there now


Cant let a few locals stand in the way of development

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

40,000 do not turn up but which 40,000?

Is it a case of first served?

Is it a delegated ticket - you know I get to see Port someone gets to see Freo - what?

Its a membership, its a ticket into the ground but that means the ground must be able to hold your members

Can we sell 40,000 tickets to a 35,000 capacity ground?

Or do we change memberships - you know maybe 10 home games a year?

_________________
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!

I think the argument is getting sidetracked.
We all would have loved to see PP developed as the 2nd major stadium, even as the 3rd stadium. To do so needed the co-operation of the AFL with regards to fixturing and the other clubs. If you can remember everytime melbourne or the Roos had a home game at PP, they cried blue murder. For john Elliot to mortgage the club to build a stand where the AFL and clubs were against us, was irresponsible and WRONG.

_________________
T E A M

Dogs supporters loved playing home games at PP. To be fair to Elliott,Docklands wasn`t on the radar when the stand was built and we had an agreement for about another 30 years to play there.

JE always got passed the residents previously. It just took time to grease certain palms.

Princes Park Whistler is on the money. The AFL played dirty in the end and Collo pounced on the opportunity.
We will never forget ... I will never understand how some Carlton supporters refuse to understand this however.

..3rd boutique stadium talk isn't gonna happen.. ..sure, everyone's got views on the matter.. ..some point out PP's 35k seating, yet the huge # of members in the west don't stop subi bein' used.. ..local residents can and do cause a stink, but they don't always get their way..sometimes they win, other times they lose.. ..then there's the history of afl vs clubs, and afl vs govt.. ..remember, waverley park was made with the promised agreement that the glen waverley train line would be extended etc etc.. ..never happened (prolly never will).. ..basically the stadiums and their deals have been a mess for a long long time, and prolly will in the future.. ..i can't see PP becoming a 3rd venue, mostly cos i don;t see any 3rd venue happening.. ..not for AFL games at any rate.. ..cont developing it for our own purposes, and float/sell the idea of more sub-AFL H&A games taking place there.. ..TAC games, ressies, pre-season, exhibition matches etc etc etc..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

May I just remind ppl that there were 43 thousand to the Lions game and I don't think there were much more the about 3000 Lions supporters. So it is correct that if we want to grow membership we cant paly at PP. When we used PP the membership was in the high teens and low twenty thousands. The world has changed and if you dont change with it you are dead.

No matter how much ppl dislike Ethihad - it is a major reason for our increase in membership. Have a look at attendence and membership numbers after we moved. Many ppl like this satium because they can take a train and end up right at the netrance and stay nice and dry and warm. It might be a stadium the purists and traditionalists dont like, but that is not the majority.

The main problem is not the stadium its the scheissenhausen deal we have and btw the deal with the G is not much better.

_________________
TC suffers from the social media illness - the death of respect and constructive discourse by keyboard.

When Carlton are a genuine premiership threat (top 4 at the end of a season) will less than 35,000 turn up to games against Sydnet et al?

How many Collingwood games draw less than 50,000?

A few years back we had 27,000 members. Now it's 40,000 plus. How many will we have when we're winning flags?

I want to see Carlton hit 50,000 - 60,000 members over the next 10 years. And what of other clubs' supporters. Do they just not go to our home games if we play at a small stadium? I actually don't want to go to games where all the crowd are made up of one group of supporters. Might as well sit around and have a circle jerk.

As pointed out by numerous people if PP were to become the 3rd stadium Carlton won't be playing there and we'd lose control of it.

It's like some of you lot just got accepted into Oxford or Cambridge and instead of looking at your bright, bright future you've decided to stay home and argue with your mate over who's got control of the swings down at the local playground.

Amazing.

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

Simply really,

By screwing us, the AFL managed to screw themselves.







Let 'em swing in the wind.

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06