That is unbelievable and a total disgrace.

I realise Collins supposedly absented himself from the committee vote, but it appears we have been royally screwed by someone taking advantage of our predicament at the time.

_________________
"You can't polish a James Hird"

Is anyone surprised.......does anyone think that Collins ever considered CFCs long term interests??

I'm STUNNED at that figure. 40 cents a head? Dead set disgrace. Visy Park is no longer an option, it's a must. Go Swanny. Do your damnedest. Just make sure the AFL pays for the upgrade.

_________________
Dut, de dut, de daaa!

Take a bow all you supporters who argued so hard for the club to move to the Dome. Anyone with any commercial nouse could have told you we were being shafted back then signing a 10 year deal. The club has only itself to blame (along with around 75% of the memebers who supported the move at the time).

Nice bit of revisionism there.

You've conveniently left out that we were a dead club walking at the time, and had little to no bargaining power whatsoever.

But if it makes you feel good to re-write history and post I-told-you-so rubbish then so be it.

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

I don't like Etihad stadium and the current deal we have stinks but can anyone confirm whether we got 3 million dollars up front to sign the deal and move?
If so, is this money being incorporated into the current return figures?

A conundrum for the AFL. Surely they can't let this mess continue. So what are their options.
Build a new stadium from scratch, ala Footscray Rd, the Thunderdome, or wherever ?
Methinks the situation they have found themselves in re financing the Gold Coast and Western
Sydney expansions would make a new Melbourne stadium unlikely.
If Demetriou and cohorts can put politics aside and start afresh in their thought processes, Visy Park
may well be a viable option.
Greg Swann's timing is impeccable, Dick would be pleased

_________________
The problem with Socialism is, you eventually run out of other people's money.

Well bugger me drunk who would have thought that - you could have knock me over with a feather when I read that

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

Well they're not allowed to build a new stadium for 15 years...

Ahh early morning sarcasm. Gotta love it As for you ''offer'' , NO Thank You.

_________________
The problem with Socialism is, you eventually run out of other people's money.

The fact the AFL shoved this deal down our throats shows amazing arrogance and incompetence.

We can blame Collo for his treasonous behaviour, but he's like the scorpion stinging the frog - it's in his nature. Wow how loathsome to stab the club you're president of in the back.

This was the club announcement of the review of the time:

The Carlton Football Club Limited (Carlton) holds one of 16 licences in the Australian Football League (AFL). The AFL sets the football fixture and under the terms of its licence agreement with the AFL, the AFL and Carlton must reach agreement on where it is to play its home games, with the exception of two ¡§block buster¡¨ games which are played at the MCG.

Carlton is currently undertaking a strategic review of all its home ground playing alternatives with a view to securing its long-term viability. There are three (3) alternative home venue options available to it:


1.To remain at Optus Oval; or

2.Move to Telstra Dome; or

3.Move to MCG.

An additional possibility is for the Club to play a combination of games at all three venues.

If the Optus Oval alternative is to be a viable option however, the ground will require a major financial injection to bring the facilities up to an appropriate standard to accommodate AFL football on an ongoing basis. Also, significant annual funds will be required to maintain the facilities ¡V if games are to be played there for the next 10 years. These funds have not been provided for a number of years and the facility has accordingly deteriorated.


The Carlton Group comprises Carlton and The Carlton Cricket & Football Social Club Limited (Social Club), which holds the ground rights at Optus Oval, ie: the Social Club manages Optus Oval.

The decision as to where Carlton plays its home games is a decision for the Board of the Carlton Football Club however it must take into account the impact of whatever decision it makes on the Social Club. Therefore there will be close liaison between the Boards of both the Social Club and the Football Club.

A Sub Committee of the Football Club, the Future Homes Games Sub Committee, has been formed to manage this process. The Vice President of Carlton, Mr Graham Smorgon, chairs the Sub-Committee. Carlton¡¦s President Mr Ian Collins, who is also CEO of Telstra Dome (a competing alternative venue), has stood aside from the process and all decision-making.

The Sub-Committee¡¦s primary function is to establish the evaluation process to a high level of due diligence, engage the appropriate expert advice, collate all information and to forward it to the Board for a decision.


Contrary to recent media speculation the Carlton Football Club has made no decision on where to play its home games and it has no preconceived views.

On Tuesday, 22 June 2004 the Future Home Games Sub-Committee formally received Expressions of Interest from the MCG and Telstra Dome as well as related correspondence from the AFL in respect to the Telstra Dome proposal. These have been received in addition to the information already gathered in relation to the Optus Oval option.

The role of the AFL in this process extends further than the requirement for it to ultimately endorse any decision. The AFL has several agreements, primarily ending in 2006, with the Social Club relating to Optus Oval that may require unwinding and resolution.

As part of the process Carlton has now engaged Grant Samuel and Associates, a leading financial consultancy to undertake an independent financial assessment and analysis of the options and report their findings to the Board of the Carlton Football Club. It is envisaged this will take 2 to 3 weeks.

The Board will then consider:

„O The financial findings of the Grant Samuel analysis; and

„O A number of non-commercial criteria, such as the ability of Carlton to play prime time night football, national advertising opportunities, future levels of membership, coterie and sponsor facilities as well as where Carlton has had most playing success and where finals football is to be played in the future.

The Board will then agree on an appropriate consultation program, at a Board meeting scheduled at this stage, for the third or fourth week in July.

The Board has requested that an extensive consultation process be developed for a minimum three weeks following this meeting. Comprehensive consultation with all members ¡V Football Club and Social Club, coterie groups, sponsors, contractors, will occur.

The Carlton Football Club Board will not make a final decision until it has received all the inputs it requires, including feedback from the consultation process and the impact any decision will have on the Social Club and particularly its members.

It is envisaged that the final decision would occur in the 3rd week of August 2004.

Carlton recognises that it is making one of the most important decisions in its long history. It will not do so without fully considering all issues. The Club acknowledges the long association and tradition it has at Optus Oval and the loyalty that this much loved venue has with its members and supporters.

A review of where it plays its future home games is both timely and necessary to ensure the Club¡¦s long-term viability ¡V both on and off the field.

And has continued to deteriorate. Clean, working toliets are in the minority. Seating is rotting and falling apart. The surface of the oval, while still being better than most suburban grounds, is not as wonderful as it used to be.

The cost to get it up to anywhere near acceptable standard will be astronomical. If the AFL pays, then fine.

A Caro article from last year confirmed that the club got 3 million dollars up front.
So if we have to play 6 games a year for 10 years that is 60 games over the contract period. So in effect they gave us $50,000 a game to move.
I still hate that ground.

Talk about soft - bring in few unused milk crates give Kenny a call and bobs your uncle

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

The DOME is a WONDERFUL stadium, I've always loved going there.

Easy to get to, good accsess to bars & resteraunts, good viewing areas, always very clean, GREAT for rainy days!............ I personally love it.

But, i have ALWAYS said that Ian Collins is a Cancer and must be removed.

To put in bluntly,................ he is a Knob Head. Plain and Simple.

I remember one time at a Victory match he shut down the entire Gate 8 for Auckland supporters only..................of which there was a grand total of 20! No shit..... you could count them. Meanwhile, THOUSANDS of Victory supporters were forced to wait in line at the other gates, who were CLEARLY in need of more staff, and as a result we missed the first 15min of the game.

What a joke!

And i love the midstrength beer only but the fact that you can get full-strength spirits!

I'd love to know the legal ramifications of getting out of our Dome Contract. I know we;re in a bit of a pickle but what we all need to remember is............... THE DOME NEEDS US MORE THAN WE NEED THEM.

If we can pull out of the deal and play our games at the 'G' or even better, Visy park.......... then do so.
I'd put money on it that the Dome will be quick to re-negotiate if we did threaten a move.

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

Agree about the surface - seemed just ok compared to its previous perfection

Not wanting it to get political but it is quite ironic that the poorer clubs with AFL support are now complaining about the deals they have in place and are now screaming out for an alternative ground to play on where they can make money. If you look at this statement the Carlton Football Club needed the support of the AFL and in effect those poorer clubs to make the stadium viable. The AFL did not want any games played at the ground and those poorer clubs kept complaining about home games being allocated at the ground.
Five years down the track the AFL and those clubs look pretty silly and with all due respect the board at the time look like visionaries. John Elliot as well.