Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

[The Coon Dog]

Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

Caroline Wilson | February 18, 2009




AFL boss Andrew Demetriou and Telstra Dome chief Ian Collins unofficially shook hands before Christmas last year on a deal that would have resulted in $6 million a season being distributed to the Victorian clubs that played at the Docklands ground.

Demetriou was so confident that he had secured an improved stadium agreement for the struggling clubs that he mentioned it at a meeting of club chiefs soon after.

At least one club — North Melbourne — was so confident of the improved new deal that it included an extra $750,000 in its initial financial estimates for 2009. The multimillion-dollar cash injection would have involved a massive re-writing of the special assistance fund, an annual $3.1 million of which is shared by the Kangaroos and the Western Bulldogs.

However, Collins later told Demetriou that the deal was off after the Telstra Dome chief executive took it to his board and its representatives — which included superannuation funds that, in turn, knocked back the agreement that could have secured the medium-term future of several Victorian clubs.

It was after the deal fell apart that the AFL launched legal action against the board of directors of the stadium it will one day own, claiming Football Federation Australia had been handed a more generous ground agreement than several of the AFL clubs that created Telstra Dome.

Among the AFL's legal grievances was its claim that the new naming-rights sponsor of the stadium, Etihad, contravened the league's deal with its official airline, Qantas.

"We were told by Andrew that he had made a deal with 'Collo'," Bulldogs chairman David Smorgon confirmed to The Age. "However, Collo came back and said that after consulting with others — I can only assume he meant his board — that the deal was off."

The Kangaroos now face a budget shortfall of $750,000 for 2009 — exactly the amount it had hoped to reap from the new Telstra Dome deal. Of the five home clubs, the Bulldogs fare the worst out of their ground agreement, followed by North, St Kilda, Carlton and anchor tenant Essendon.

Those five clubs would have secured the lion's share of the $6 million, a portion of which would have been handed to all the Victorian clubs that play home games at Telstra Dome, which will have its name changed next month.

While Demetriou and Collins — the latter was Demetriou's immediate predecessor as the AFL's football operations manager — have continued to meet and attempted to negotiate, the relationship between the Docklands stadium and its major tenant remains strained.

When the $6 million deal was rejected the AFL established a working party consisting of three club presidents — Smorgon, Collingwood's Eddie McGuire and Geelong's Frank Costa — along with two Victorian club chief executives in Carlton's Greg Swann and Richmond's Steve Wright to represent the clubs.

The group has already met once with the Victorian Government in an attempt to state its case regarding financial returns from the MCG, which the AFL believes is handing a superior financial deal to other football codes despite its total reliance on Australian rules football.

Demetriou refused to comment on the Collins deal when contacted by The Age, while Collins was unavailable for comment.

[KT31]

Collo shows his true clours again.
Could he be the biggest pr#@k ever in footballs history ?
Can't think of anyone who would get close.

[LostDoggy]

Deplorable.

[craigsahibee]

Collo shows his true clours again.
Could he be the biggest pr#@k ever in footballs history ?
Can't think of anyone who would get close.

The day he takes his last breath will be a cause for celebration.

Is it wrong to wish pain and misfortune be inflicted upon someone you have never met?

[Dancin' Douggy]

Never thought I could hate Ian Collins more than I already did.
What a SLIMY $#@%$#&*.

[LostDoggy]

Is it too hard for the AFL to threaten to move games to the G?
Seems like a simple soloution to me.

[ledge]

AFL did the stupid thing by not keeping another ground, even if it was just for bargaining power.
Why in all these years hasnt the AFL built a couple of grounds itself and rented them out over summer for concerts, cricket etc the same as Telstra dome.
AFL park!
Questions need to be asked why they didnt keep it?

[Scraggers]

The day he takes his last breath will be a cause for celebration.
Is it wrong to wish pain and misfortune be inflicted upon someone you have never met?

Whilst I deplore the man and the things he has done for/to football, I think this is a bit harsh

[lemmon]

Is it too hard for the AFL to threaten to move games to the G?
Seems like a simple soloution to me.

Yep it would give them a great bargaining chip, definitley a route they should persure. Just a question would anyone know how Melbourne Victory's deal compares with the bulldogs?

[Mofra]

Ian Collins = economic arsonist.

The CBF isn't broad enough to deal with the ineptitude of the AFL's dealings with Herr Satan; we deserve more until a new ground deal is reached.

[The Pie Man]

Yep it would give them a great bargaining chip, definitley a route they should persure. Just a question would anyone know how Melbourne Victory's deal compares with the bulldogs?

I wouldn't have any idea on specifics, I just remember when we/they (I'm also a Victory member) moved from Olympic Park that the deal was described as 'too good to refuse'

Docklands goes largely unused in the summer months MVFC are active, so I can understand a good deal being bandied about given the seasonality of the stadium industry. Personally, I can't wait for them to stop playing there (end of next A-League season) as watching that kind of football there sucks.

I've got a love/hate relationship with docklands - great standing room views and other facilities, too expensive to get a decent seat (compared to the G's general admin in the lower levels of the Southern) and just Ian Collins. Deserves more than the moon slap Turtle gave Dutchy in 97 that's for sure

[LostDoggy]

The day he takes his last breath will be a cause for celebration.

Is it wrong to wish pain and misfortune be inflicted upon someone you have never met?

A mate of mine has a party booked for the day Maggie Thatcher kicks the bucket...might have to do the same for Collo...

[alwaysadog]

Sometimes our glorious leaders are so busy micromanaging the game to the point where they out smart themselves forget their history and get taken for a ride. Trouble is the way things are done they are not the ones who suffer, the clubs do.

The driving force behind the development of Waverley was to have a bargaining tool with ground managers, then the MCC which then controlled the MCG and treated the VFL clubs like second class citizens.

Had they kept Waverley we could be playing the Gee and crocklands off against each other for the best deal.

I know that if we still had Waverley the glitterati would have to travel extra miles from T'rak and when they have finished the Bolly in their private booths they could not just slip straight into their favourite bars and restaurants immediately after a game. Nevertheless the clubs and the playing public deserve better than has been so far delivered.

In spite of the wonderful deals we were promised, the crocklands muck heap has been providing a substandard surface and poor service for years, while giving clubs the run around.

Now what do we have to bargain with? Could we play the games elsewhere? The only grounds available are blue bagger cemetery and cat's pee park. Not very weighty bargaining chips, especially as Collo knows all about the problems at the cemetery.

No we are suffering from the short sighted decision to give Waverley to the Hawks and turn it into a site on which competition football can never be played again.

So what are we doing appealing to Collo's non existent better nature, and even when he has his weaker moments there are his mates to put the lead back in his pencil.

Without AFL football the crocklands would never have been built and it would close tomorrow or the day after if football pulled out. Given their total dependence on us why are we in such a weak bargaining position?

Did I hear a small voice say "They are not strategic thinkers"?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Sometimes our glorious leaders are so busy micromanaging the game to the point where they out smart themselves forget their history and get taken for a ride. Trouble is the way things are done they are not the ones who suffer, the clubs do.

The driving force behind the development of Waverley was to have a bargaining tool with ground managers, then the MCC which then controlled the MCG and treated the VFL clubs like second class citizens.

Had they kept Waverley we could be playing the Gee and crocklands off against each other for the best deal.

I know that if we still had Waverley the glitterati would have to travel extra miles from T'rak and when they have finished the Bolly in their private booths they could not just slip straight into their favourite bars and restaurants immediately after a game. Nevertheless the clubs and the playing public deserve better than has been so far delivered.

In spite of the wonderful deals we were promised, the crocklands muck heap has been providing a substandard surface and poor service for years, while giving clubs the run around.

Now what do we have to bargain with? Could we play the games elsewhere? The only grounds available are blue bagger cemetery and cat's pee park. Not very weighty bargaining chips, especially as Collo knows all about the problems at the cemetery.

No we are suffering from the short sighted decision to give Waverley to the Hawks and turn it into a site on which competition football can never be played again.

So what are we doing appealing to Collo's non existent better nature, and even when he has his weaker moments there are his mates to put the lead back in his pencil.

Without AFL football the crocklands would never have been built and it would close tomorrow or the day after if football pulled out. Given their total dependence on us why are we in such a weak bargaining position?

Did I hear a small voice say "They are not strategic thinkers"?

The highlighted bit is populist rhetoric; irrelevant bollocks. They had corporate facilities at Waverley as well.

The single biggest problem with Waverley was no public transport (promised by successive governments dating back to Gough Whitlam, an issue for the unwashed rather than the toffs by the way).

Waverley was also simply a crap place to watch footy. The ground was too big and the stands too shallow. From the back row you were sometimes literally 300m from the play.

The problem was not getting rid of Waverley, it's the way TD has been managed.

Tell Collins that as of next year all interstate sides will play every Melbourne game at TD regardless of who the home team is. The AFL are contracted to play 41 games at TD, pick the 41 worst drawing games and schedule them there. Finals? I don't think so.

Now tell Collins to go to his catering company, signage sponsors and every other mob he leaches money off and explain to them why they should re-sign at his exorbitant rates when their incomes have just been halved.

[alwaysadog]

The highlighted bit is populist rhetoric; irrelevant bollocks. They had corporate facilities at Waverley as well.

The single biggest problem with Waverley was no public transport (promised by successive governments dating back to Gough Whitlam, an issue for the unwashed rather than the toffs by the way).

Waverley was also simply a crap place to watch footy. The ground was too big and the stands too shallow. From the back row you were sometimes literally 300m from the play.

The problem was not getting rid of Waverley, it's the way TD has been managed.

Tell Collins that as of next year all interstate sides will play every Melbourne game at TD regardless of who the home team is. The AFL are contracted to play 41 games at TD, pick the 41 worst drawing games and schedule them there. Finals? I don't think so.

Now tell Collins to go to his catering company, signage sponsors and every other mob he leaches money off and explain to them why they should re-sign at his exorbitant rates when their incomes have just been halved.

Perhaps a litttle more careful reading would help and a little less abuse. You have no difficulty expressing your ideas so why need to resort to that; it usually gets employed by someone who wants to cover a weak argument and you have a valid and well argued position. I don't happen to agree and here are the reasons.

I never implied or stated that Waverley didn't have corporate facilities but that it was distant from where those who used them them wanted to go after the game.

The public transport argument is an old furphy, if you are talking about a rail or light rail link. Melbourne has a radial spoke rail network: the vast majority of football followers don't live on the Waverley line nor do they want to be forced to go home via the city loop. It was no solution when thought through as successive governements did when it came to the time to make budget bids.

On the other hand Waverley is now right at the intersection of two major freeways, as it was always planned to be. The AFL never put up the money for the tunnel that was supposed to link the car park to the Monash Freeway in fact in the latter years the AFL made it as inconvenient as possible to get to and from the ground.

I enjoyed the football there, in spite of the fact that it was a graveyard for us for decades, but it certainly needed a further investment of cash, after all only the first stage was ever built. For all its faults it had a playing surface that was vastly superior to the crocklands offerings until very recently. I do recall in the late 70s when the MCC would not improve the MCG deal we only needed to play the finals once at Waverley to improve the situation.

Your suggestions about how to proceed depend on that strategy not having already been tried and the crocklands board not having called Andrew's bluff, or do you think in the December discussions Collo was auditioning for a role as Father Christmas. Even if it has not been put in those terms, which I very much doubt, do you think that the MCC trustees would allow themselves to be used in this way which offers them nothing long term and is nothing more than a pincer movement which could then be used against them.

I return to my main point, 'til the AFL take ownership of crocklands in about 25 years, the AFL will be at a strategic disadvantage in discussions because the stadium is so basic to its operations that there is only really room to reschedule around the margins. And from the stadium's position why should they care, contracts were entered into on behalf of the clubs that are legal. The stadium is or was until very recently in financial difficulties and its directors are duty bound to look after the interests of the stadium's owners not the users.