Bulldogs push for NT deal & Dogs chasing interstate cash for home games (3 articles)

Interesting times....

Bulldogs push for NT deal
The Age
Caroline Wilson | May 26, 2009

THE Western Bulldogs have emerged as key players in a potential multimillion-dollar, Tassie Hawks-style deal with the Northern Territory.

Darwin is the latest battleground for struggling AFL clubs desperate to escape poor stadium arrangements, with the Bulldogs confirming last night they were back in negotiations with the NT Government for a five-year, 10-match deal, despite suggestions that the club had hoped to remain in Victoria for home games beyond 2009.

Despite strong misgivings from coach Rodney Eade, chief executive Campbell Rose confirmed the Bulldogs were looking at a two-game-a-year package, something it had pushed for but was overruled on by the AFL, in its last deal that expires at the end of this season.

Melbourne and Port Adelaide are also in the mix to sell home games and play twice each season at Darwin's TIO Stadium. AFL Northern Territory boss Tony Frawley confirmed the push for a five-year deal had support from the AFL and the NT Government, which had four departments looking to help fund a new agreement.

The Bulldogs are understood to be pushing for up to $1.5 million a year for a two-game deal along with sponsorship, and The Age understands that the NT Government has raised its offer to an estimated $1.2 million annually. Hawthorn receives $3 million a year for its four-game deal and jumper sponsorship with Tasmania, an agreement that had its future thrown into question yesterday by the Tasmanian premier.

Rose said the Bulldogs had not abandoned other options such as Geelong or even striking its own deal with the Tasmanian Government.

"We will need to make a decision in the next four weeks," he said. "It's fair to say we're reviewing all of our options including a significantly improved and more complex involvement in Darwin."

Port Adelaide chief Mark Haysman confirmed his club had held preliminary talks with AFL NT. "Port have significant issues with our stadium arrangement at AAMI and that's something we're hoping to review with the SANFL over the coming months," said Haysman.

Frawley said: "We're looking at a long-term agreement similar to the one the Tasmania Government has with Hawthorn. The Western Bulldogs are back in the mix and we are talking to several clubs who have put their hands up.

"Ideally we would look at two home-and-away games each year, along with one NAB Cup game in Alice Springs, along with the indigenous All-Stars game every two years."

Frawley indicated the new deal could include a jumper sponsorship featuring an iconic Northern Territory landmark.

While Rose was cautious about a jumper sponsorship, pointing out the Bulldogs already had a major sponsorship deal with Mission Foods, Port Adelaide and Melbourne could be looking for new jumper sponsors beyond this season.

The Bulldogs would also push for greater independence in any new agreement, having been quashed in their two-game mid-year proposal last time, which had looked at consecutive home games with the mid-season break allowing the club to undertake community work.

AFL executive Gillon McLachlan confirmed the league would consider doubling its home-and-away commitment in the NT next season.

"We like the idea of a long-term commitment and we wouldn't rule out two games," McLachlan said.

Added game development chief David Matthews: "It's a priority market for us. 'The strong indigenous links in the NT mean it is just critical we have a presence."

Another article...

Bulldogs again chasing interstate cash for home games
The Herald Sun
Jon Ralph | May 26, 2009

DAVID Smorgon says the Bulldogs will again have to sell home games interstate next year, and is open to offers to play in Tasmania. The Dogs' three-season deal to play home games in Canberra and Darwin expires this year, but their Etihad Stadium deal means they must continue to pursue lucrative interstate offers.

The Dogs could not have picked a worse time to play their home game against Sydney at Canberra's Manuka Oval, with the Swans in white-hot form.

In Round 12 the Dogs take on Port Adelaide in Darwin, with the two interstate home games reaping them a total of $700,000.

The Dogs would only break even if they played Sydney at Etihad Stadium in front of a crowd of 30,000, so selling home games is the difference between a year-end profit or loss.

With an imminent breakthrough over the club's Etihad Stadium deal unlikely, Smorgon yesterday conceded the club would have to sell home games again next year.

But he is open to offers across Australia, including from Tasmania, western Sydney, and Darwin. The offer to play games at Launceston's Aurora Stadium might rile the Hawks, who believe they have that market cornered.

The Tasmanian Government said yesterday it might throw open its multi-million dollar sponsorship deal once its contract with Hawthorn expired, in the hope of enticing a range of Melbourne clubs to Launceston.

Smorgon said the club's supporters, coaches and players understood the need to play home games interstate, even if it was far from ideal.

The Swans play 11 home games in Sydney and two away games in Canberra -- with one against Melbourne -- while the Bulldogs play only nine home games in Victoria this year.

"Obviously the reason we have had to sell games interstate for the last 12-13 years is to maximise our returns," Smorgon said.

"But our objective is to play as many games in Melbourne as home games as we can," Smorgon said.

"At this stage we haven't had any discussions with the AFL about where we go to from here, given our deals at Canberra and the Northern Territory end this year.

"The AFL do the fixture and at the moment everything is up in the air. We have to be a bit patient until we work out where to next."

He said playing home games in Launceston, western Sydney, Darwin or even Geelong's Skilled Stadium was possible.

"I wouldn't want to speculate on whether one is more of an option than the other," Smorgon said.

"There is a big demand for AFL games around the nation. We are one of the clubs that for many years have always played interstate games, and our fans have got used to it because of the financial benefit they give us."

He hoped the club may one day be able to play low-drawing games at Etihad Stadium and still make money.

"Maybe it could run as a low-cost stadium (for interstate rivals) and we might be able to play those games there, but it's not up to us," he said.

Smorgon is the spokesman for the AFL working party pushing for better deals at the MCG and Etihad Stadium.

The group met Victorian Premier John Brumby on Thursday to discuss their concerns.

"We had a cordial discussion with the Premier, who I believe understands the issue," Smorgon said.

"We weren't seeking a resolution. That would have been unrealistic, but we are keeping the lines of communication open and pushing our case."

Until we get a better deal with ES or are able to move games to another Vic venue I have no problem with us selling games interstate.

Much prefer watching the games on TV than the alternative of the club going bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mantis

Until we get a better deal with ES or are able to move games to another Vic venue I have no problem with us selling games interstate.

Much prefer watching the games on TV than the alternative of the club going bust.

---

Couldn't have said it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mantis

Until we get a better deal with ES or are able to move games to another Vic venue I have no problem with us selling games interstate.

Much prefer watching the games on TV than the alternative of the club going bust.

---

Im not so sure Mantis, my initial reaction is no. What has changed from approx 5 odd weeks ago when the club was saying this is our last year of selling games? 5 years is a long time to enter into an agreement such as this. Im also concerned with our on field results in Darwin and the few weeks afterwards.
It is so frustrating that we are continueally in this position of needing to sell home games. I'd prefer to play home games at Kardina Park if we need to sell games.

I am really disapointed that we have to do this again. Darwin takes a huge physical toll on the players, and IMHO is one of the reasons we drop off at the second half of the season.

I think the real reason is that our membership is so pathetic this year, we just have too many sit on the fence supporters, it is really disappointing:(

Selling games to Skill Stadium would be a compromise I could live with.:)

It is the lesser of two evils. But it is still evil. I would prefer to play at Kardinia park (not against Geelong though).

I have no problem with this, provided the club gets the deal that it wants.

That is, 2 games in a row in Darwin, followed by the week off after that (split round).

Also, my request would be not to play Port Adeliade there.

Give us a true home ground advantage and play another Melbourne team up there.

Would prefer 1 game in Darwin, 2 at Skilled, or 3 at Skilled against interstate sides.

We should still have a home ground advantage of sorts at Skilled against interstate sides, especially after we play ther a couple of times.

Does this mean we have will have a big ugly NT logo on our jumpers? :S

Other than that, we need $$$ and this is a great alternative than getting nada off ES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aker39

I have no problem with this, provided the club gets the deal that it wants.

That is, 2 games in a row in Darwin, followed by the week off after that (split round).

Also, my request would be not to play Port Adeliade there.

Give us a true home ground advantage and play another Melbourne team up there.

---

We sell the interstate games so we don't lose money to ES. Playing a Melbourne club would be a financially ridiculous decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobmurphy

Im not so sure Mantis, my initial reaction is no. What has changed from approx 5 odd weeks ago when the club was saying this is our last year of selling games? 5 years is a long time to enter into an agreement such as this. Im also concerned with our on field results in Darwin and the few weeks afterwards.
It is so frustrating that we are continueally in this position of needing to sell home games. I'd prefer to play home games at Kardina Park if we need to sell games.

---

5 weeks ago we'd make a $15,000 profit playing Port at ES. Now we'd lose about $135,000 isn't it?

Um, Caroline Wilson, where in all of the interviews did Rodney Eade say that he had 'strong misgivings'? If you're pulling together inferences from half-lines from previous interviews I would suggest that you take a leaf out of Jon Ralph's book and actually interview the protaganists now and use up-to-date quotes.

I just can't believe the rubbish level of journalism involved. I didn't read the article with any preconceptions -- I hadn't noticed who the reporter was, but I jumped when I read that line because it was so obviously a shit-stir, and then immediately knew who wrote it, which was confirmed when I looked at the byline. So, so predictable.

Might just be me but I quite like the NT games. The crowds always fun. If it's going to help keep the club alive I don't really mind. The two games in a row in Darwin with the week off afterwards for community work is the ideal deal. I've noticed more and more doggies supporters there each year on tv as well. Can only be a good thing until the Etihad stadium deals can be worked out. (which I don't believe is possible for a good while yet)

I don't really like this. Doesn't it make it harder for our club every season having to travel to Darwin and play in such extreme heat?

Does that mean I'll lose another game of sitting in my reserved seat at Etihad and be forced into general admission at an away game? If so, I don't really like it. We will probably lose members in Melbourne or people reducing their memberships to cheaper ones. Sure it's going to help the club financially, but why can't we just get a better deal at Etihad?