Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

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.

I apologise for the perception of abuse. I assure you that was never the intention. I simply have a personal dislike for those that view the successful with jealousy.

You claim my arguement re: public transport is a furphy yet offer no comment as to how I would have got to the ground by public transport? Presumably there were buses, how was one to catch one? From where? At what time? Buses only hold 45 people, would I get a seat? What about after the game getting home?

Fact: Waverley was bloody hard to get to and from if you didn't own a car (actually, it was bloody hard to get home from if you did have a car).

You also didn't address the issue re: how hard it was to watch footy from. When I was young and my eyes were still good I struggled to see the other side of the ground. Now I'm a bit older and my eyes aren't what they once were I would have no chance. Half your crowd would be over 40 and most of those couldn't see what was going on!

On to the 'pincer movement' you refered to. How could it be used against the MCG? Are you suggesting the ANZAC day might be moved to Docklands? Docklands isn't big enough to host the bigger games or the vast majority of finals, the AFL could never use this card against the MCG. In the short term, though, the MCG could make a killing at Docklands expense. How would the MCG trustees not allow themselves to be used in this way anyway?

AFL : Here's the draw guys
MCG: Hey, we get a decent go with the games this year. Cool.
TD: We get Freo or Port every week!
MCG: Bummer, dude.



I absolutely agree Collins would call the AFL's bluff. So don't make it a bluff - go ahead and do it, let him whinge until he's blue in the face and then ask what he's going to do about it.

[alwaysadog]

Re: Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

I apologise for the perception of abuse. I assure you that was never the intention. I simply have a personal dislike for those that view the successful with jealousy.

Why would you assume that I view the successful with jealousy, why would I be jealous of myself or yourself, as I assume you are successful?

No matter how successful or unsuccessful I might be I reserve my right to be critical of those who think they are better than others and so deserve special treatment, because they aren’t and they don’t.

As for the rest we could argue it endlessly. There are clearly two very different viewpoints and neither of us is likely to budge. I'm happy to call it a draw if you are, and to catch up for a beer at a Doggies game early in the season. I'll buy the first round.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

Why would you assume that I view the successful with jealousy, why would I be jealous of myself or yourself, as I assume you are successful?

No matter how successful or unsuccessful I might be I reserve my right to be critical of those who think they are better than others and so deserve special treatment, because they aren’t and they don’t.

As for the rest we could argue it endlessly. There are clearly two very different viewpoints and neither of us is likely to budge. I'm happy to call it a draw if you are, and to catch up for a beer at a Doggies game early in the season. I'll buy the first round.

Of course.

You buy the first round and I'll drink it!

[alwaysadog]

Re: Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

Of course.

You buy the first round and I'll drink it!

PM me likely early season games you'll be at and we'll arrange to see that it gets a proper start.

[alwaysadog]

Re: Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

Problem with waiting 25 yrs to take over the docklands is it will be so out of date and why would the people in control of it do it up if they know the AFL are going to take it?
AFL parks lifespan was only about 30 years.

A very good point; it will be interesting to see how much ongoing maintenance and refurbishment takes place over the years. I suspect you're right there will be very little. They'll screw us both ways.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Re: Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

...Collo knows all about the problems at the cemetery

Pardon my ill education on the matter, but what are the shortcomings of the ground? Didn't they spend a whole lot of coin on it in the 90's putting in new stands and such?

The whole stadium debacle has left me scratching my head for a few years now and I enjoyed reading all of the toing and froing on this thread with the situation with Waverly etc. However moving away from the AFL needing a bargaining chip idea, I read some ridiculous figures that when Geelong attracts x amount of supporters at the Cattery they make $500k but when North Melbourne attract that same figure at the Dome they actually lose money. Would spending some cash on PP be worth it to make it a boutique sized stadium (like Skilled) that would allow Melbourne clubs to make significant coin on low pulling games such as those against interstate clubs? I understand the facilities are never going to be quite as good as the G or the Dome no matter how much cash you throw at it, but surely it couldn't be worse than some of the stadiums, such as in Canberra and NT, that get used for a few fixtures each year.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

Pardon my ill education on the matter, but what are the shortcomings of the ground? Didn't they spend a whole lot of coin on it in the 90's putting in new stands and such?

The whole stadium debacle has left me scratching my head for a few years now and I enjoyed reading all of the toing and froing on this thread with the situation with Waverly etc. However moving away from the AFL needing a bargaining chip idea, I read some ridiculous figures that when Geelong attracts x amount of supporters at the Cattery they make $500k but when North Melbourne attract that same figure at the Dome they actually lose money. Would spending some cash on PP be worth it to make it a boutique sized stadium (like Skilled) that would allow Melbourne clubs to make significant coin on low pulling games such as those against interstate clubs? I understand the facilities are never going to be quite as good as the G or the Dome no matter how much cash you throw at it, but surely it couldn't be worse than some of the stadiums, such as in Canberra and NT, that get used for a few fixtures each year.

We tried that for a few years, so did Hawthorn and Fitzroy, and we all ended up getting screwed by Carlton.

[alwaysadog]

Re: Ground deal dispute causes club ructions

Pardon my ill education on the matter, but what are the shortcomings of the ground? Didn't they spend a whole lot of coin on it in the 90's putting in new stands and such?

The whole stadium debacle has left me scratching my head for a few years now and I enjoyed reading all of the toing and froing on this thread with the situation with Waverly etc. However moving away from the AFL needing a bargaining chip idea, I read some ridiculous figures that when Geelong attracts x amount of supporters at the Cattery they make $500k but when North Melbourne attract that same figure at the Dome they actually lose money. Would spending some cash on PP be worth it to make it a boutique sized stadium (like Skilled) that would allow Melbourne clubs to make significant coin on low pulling games such as those against interstate clubs? I understand the facilities are never going to be quite as good as the G or the Dome no matter how much cash you throw at it, but surely it couldn't be worse than some of the stadiums, such as in Canberra and NT, that get used for a few fixtures each year.

The real problem is that the neighbours in Princes Hill don't like their weekends disturbed by the traffic, the noise and the inconvenience and they are pretty influential with the City Council. A boutique stadium close to transport and with good parking would be a great idea. PP has access to public transport but the parking will always be a problem. I just can't think of a suitable site unless crocklands got bombed.

Apart from that the supposed developments at PP are a gigantic white elephant; they built a mausoleum to a past president's ego. When the rest of the comp was acknowledging that ground rationalisation was upon us he built useless stands and kept saying Pigs Arse.

When eventually he fell on his the AFL had to find a way to pay off the debt without appearing to as the bluebaggers had been fined for salary cap breaches. They did as one would expect. For some the saying goes, the lord giveth and the lord taketh away, for them that has it works in reverse.

As far as their stadium goes if you go past it or Google Earth it you will see that the whole of their social facilities have been razed to the ground, and the social club is finally getting the development that should have happened a couple of decades ago. The Pigs Arse of a president let them fall into total disrepair. I never ceased to be amazed how the licensing Authorities allowed the social club bar to remain open. The carpet was not just an OH&S issue it was a positive health hazard for patrons. They made our facilities from the era that the Doggies Social Club was known as the pig pen, look real good.