Western Bulldogs sniff around for home ground as Ethihad isn't viable

[Ghost Dog]

Eureka isn't an AFL standard venue in fact it's just an average VFL stadium.

My understanding is that you can only sell home games to emerging football areas so even Geelong doesn't fit the requirements.

Its horrible there. You can't see anything. Have to be right on the fence.

[jeemak]

Eureka isn't an AFL standard venue in fact it's just an average VFL stadium.

My understanding is that you can only sell home games to emerging football areas so even Geelong doesn't fit the requirements.

That's precisely the (public) reason we were given the last time we ran with this. More to the point, the AFL has a vested interest in ensuring Docklands is paid off as quickly and efficiently as possible.

They minimise bad press about the place, and they do very little to reduce the overall cost for clubs to play there, and for their fans to attend games there.

Considering how much of a horrible situaiton this is for a few of the lesser supported clubs, you'd think there'd be significantly more bad press about the situation and more action from the administration, wouldn't you?

[Eastdog]

This is the elephant in the room, and I suspect, the reason why most clubs are for equalisation to some extent.

It would be completely foolish for any club administration to argue that this inequity is how things should be, and how they should remain.


Eastdog - Docklands was constructed as a means to rationalise (strip back, or reduce) the number of teams within Melbourne on a long term basis, and take football from a suburban game to a more commercial venture.

The AFL decided it could have marquee clubs play at Docklands, and make a profit, while clubs with lesser support could subsidise its fixed costs and help pay the bills. It was never the intention of the AFL to create a level playing field (revenue generation and profit) among the clubs that were selected and or forced into tennancy at Docklands. Which is why they mandated that each club should strike its own deal with the stadium.

The result was marquee clubs receiving a beneficial deal from the stadium, and clubs along for the ride (like the Bulldogs and North) received poor deals. I think perhaps you could question the negotiation tactics of our club during this process, but ultimately it's hard to negotiate a deal when you have a gun to your head, which we effectively had because we wouldn't have been able to play at the MCG, and there were no other grounds available.

Good post jeemak. If we did strike some sort of deal to play only a few home games at the MCG let's say against higher drawing clubs would that be beneficial for us.

[jeemak]

Good post jeemak. If we did strike some sort of deal to play only a few home games at the MCG let's say against higher drawing clubs would that be beneficial for us.

It would, but we wouldn't be presented with a chance to do so.

The MCG doesn't have the capacity to take on another tennant and still maintain its current fixture. Plus, if we were to be given that opportunity, why wouldn't North or the Saints be given the same opportunity?

Remember, the AFL needs Docklands to be paid off quickly and efficiently. To do this they can't have too many games removed from its schedule. If games were removed they'd have to be done with the goal of developing the game (in areas like Darwin, Sydney, Queensland and Canberra etc.) so the AFL can see some benefit to offset the loss of revenue to Docklands.

[Eastdog]

It would, but we wouldn't be presented with a chance to do so.

The MCG doesn't have the capacity to take on another tennant and still maintain its current fixture. Plus, if we were to be given that opportunity, why wouldn't North or the Saints be given the same opportunity?

Remember, the AFL needs Docklands to be paid off quickly and efficiently. To do this they can't have too many games removed from its schedule. If games were removed they'd have to be done with the goal of developing the game (in areas like Darwin, Sydney, Queensland and Canberra etc.) so the AFL can see some benefit to offset the loss of revenue to Docklands.

So the AFL are using some clubs who are tenants at Etihad to help pay off Etihad.

[jeemak]

The higher drawing clubs which are tennats, like Essendon and Carlton for instance pay the bulk of the bills due to the numbers they generate, though they also get better returns for each supporter that comes through the gate.

Stadiums like Docklands don't make any money if there's nobody playing at them, and with the AFL fixture being so erratic and constructed to maximise commercial revenue, there would often be times when those high drawing clubs won't be playing a home game (or blockbuster at the MCG).

To ensure the cost of maintaining the stadium (up-keep of turf, rent, electricity etc) is minimised for stadium management and the AFL there needs to be other clubs playing there to fill the gaps between the high drawing clubs playing there, and generating revenue.

From a commercial point of view I can completely understand why the stadium management behaves the way it does. Why would it give good deals to clubs that don't draw high numbers? It doesn't make sense for them to do that.

However, the AFL does not allow clubs to explore alternatives. Which means they are forced into playing at Docklands with poor returns. Subsequently, the stadium management is able to distribute poor terms to the lower drawing clubs because the lower drawing clubs have no bargaining power.

[jeemak]

So the AFL are using some clubs who are tenants at Etihad to help pay off Etihad.

See above post for context.

The answer to your question, is yes.

[Eastdog]

We are really stuck in that we aren't really able to look for alternatives which we should be able to to boost revenue.

[Remi Moses]

What gets my blood boiling is the term" Handouts".
I detest that derogatory word!

[Remi Moses]

We are really stuck in that we aren't really able to look for alternatives which we should be able to to boost revenue.

Everyone talks about us now as a low drawing club , but we weren't in the 08 to 10 period and we made a pittance out of the joint.

[Eastdog]

Everyone talks about us now as a low drawing club , but we weren't in the 08 to 10 period and we made a pittance out of the joint.

Very true Remi. Between 2008 and 2010 when will doing very well our crowd attendances were great (eg: 49,000 at Etihad at home against Collingwood Round 1 2010). The trick is can we get the same when we aren't doing well and unfortunately it's proven from last season we can't. Hopefully that can change.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

This is the elephant in the room, and I suspect, the reason why most clubs are for equalisation to some extent.

It would be completely foolish for any club administration to argue that this inequity is how things should be, and how they should remain.


Eastdog - Docklands was constructed as a means to rationalise (strip back, or reduce) the number of teams within Melbourne on a long term basis, and take football from a suburban game to a more commercial venture.

The AFL decided it could have marquee clubs play at Docklands, and make a profit, while clubs with lesser support could subsidise its fixed costs and help pay the bills. It was never the intention of the AFL to create a level playing field (revenue generation and profit) among the clubs that were selected and or forced into tennancy at Docklands. Which is why they mandated that each club should strike its own deal with the stadium.

The result was marquee clubs receiving a beneficial deal from the stadium, and clubs along for the ride (like the Bulldogs and North) received poor deals. I think perhaps you could question the negotiation tactics of our club during this process, but ultimately it's hard to negotiate a deal when you have a gun to your head, which we effectively had because we wouldn't have been able to play at the MCG, and there were no other grounds available.

That's the mother of all elephants. Good luck to Peter Gordon and the club rectifying this one. The club has always been on its knees financially and survived despite the odds. You have to be an optimist. The way we played last year we couldn't attract our own supporters to a game let alone unbiased ones.
Red, white and blue power draping Stringer and McCrae and McCartney forming us into the Roman Legion will do the trick!

[LostDoggy]

Eureka isn't an AFL standard venue in fact it's just an average VFL stadium.

My understanding is that you can only sell home games to emerging football areas so even Geelong doesn't fit the requirements.

I think we should challenge the fact that Geelong is not an option. We have the ability to better serve Western Victoria through providing a second team presence in the second largest city in the most afl-centric State in the land. If we are savvy the club can build more of a rivalry with the cats as a "battle of west Vic" type of game. If we played games at skilled we could offer a Geelong resident membership (much like hawks do in tassie) and capture Geelong residents who don't go for cats.

[Ghost Dog]

I think we should challenge the fact that Geelong is not an option. We have the ability to better serve Western Victoria through providing a second team presence in the second largest city in the most afl-centric State in the land. If we are savvy the club can build more of a rivalry with the cats as a "battle of west Vic" type of game. If we played games at skilled we could offer a Geelong resident membership (much like hawks do in tassie) and capture Geelong residents who don't go for cats.

This is a brilliant suggestion. Firstly, it broadens the idea of what 'west is'. I actually think it would be good for Geelong as well. People have to be reminded of being involved in a comp. Even if they hate having us down here, it will increase their loyalty to the Cats. The rivalry is good for all involved, and strengthens our brand.

Secondly, it also allows us to reach out a bit more to the Western District. We used to have AFL exhibition matches in the VFL in smaller towns more often. Less frequent now. While the ground at Ballarat is not much chop, the game we played there was well attended. Rural Victorians would love better access to AFL games, and playing in Geelong would allow that for our fans in regional areas.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

This is a brilliant suggestion. Firstly, it broadens the idea of what 'west is'. I actually think it would be good for Geelong as well. People have to be reminded of being involved in a comp. Even if they hate having us down here, it will increase their loyalty to the Cats. The rivalry is good for all involved, and strengthens our brand.

Secondly, it also allows us to reach out a bit more to the Western District. We used to have AFL exhibition matches in the VFL in smaller towns more often. Less frequent now. While the ground at Ballarat is not much chop, the game we played there was well attended. Rural Victorians would love better access to AFL games, and playing in Geelong would allow that for our fans in regional areas.

I agree brilliant suggestion. Gary Dempsey came from Lara, or at least got burnt there. Geelong is not so far away as it used to be and there must be many a kid there and in between who want an alternative to the Cats.
They have our colours minus the red; mums could just die a red line or two on the old jumpers.