Best news is that Victory will now be playing it's games at AAMI park, much better atmosphere. Too bad now the finals won't be in a bigger stadium.
Are you assuming that simply because the AFL will own the stadium (i.e. anti A-League), or was it stated somewhere?
I’m sure they will still use it for concerts, etc, so why not Victory games?
Best news is that Victory will now be playing it's games at AAMI park, much better atmosphere. Too bad now the finals won't be in a bigger stadium.Are you assuming that simply because the AFL will own the stadium (i.e. anti A-League), or was it stated somewhere?
I’m sure they will still use it for concerts, etc, so why not Victory games?
Frankston Dolphins finished, but YES let's spend $220m on a stadium we can get for one single farking dollar in less than 10 years, and why not throw another million at sting for a GF performance nobody gives a **** aboutGOVERNANCE
I hate most things the corrupt carnts do but buying Etihad earlier is very smart.
Clubs are losing a mint there and it’s coming out of AFL coffers. By spending $200m they should save on handouts to clubs over the next 9 years. Saints lost $100k in 1 game there this year where do you think that money comes from?
Best news is that Victory will now be playing it's games at AAMI park, much better atmosphere. Too bad now the finals won't be in a bigger stadium.Not sure about that. There is a contract in place for playing games at the venue
F*** the A-League. Take their 20,000 crowds to AAMI Park and keep Etihad for footy and big bash cricket only.
F*** the A-League. Take their 20,000 crowds to AAMI Park and keep Etihad for footy and big bash cricket only.
Zero interest in “Big Bash” (LOL) cricket.
Is this going to make it harder for us to move even if we wait till the contract expires? Does the AFL not have a vested interest in keeping us - a big earner - at Etihad now? And even if we get the all clear with the G to move in we might find the fixtures “don’t allow” us to have the MCG as our home?
Frankston Dolphins finished, but YES let's spend $220m on a stadium we can get for one single farking dollar in less than 10 years, and why not throw another million at sting for a GF performance nobody gives a **** aboutGOVERNANCE
I hate most things the corrupt carnts do but buying Etihad earlier is very smart.
Clubs are losing a mint there and it’s coming out of AFL coffers. By spending $200m they should save on handouts to clubs over the next 9 years. Saints lost $100k in 1 game there this year where do you think that money comes from?
At that rate Saints will have lost $200m by 2216
Frankston Dolphins finished, but YES let's spend $220m on a stadium we can get for one single farking dollar in less than 10 years, and why not throw another million at sting for a GF performance nobody gives a **** aboutGOVERNANCE
I hate most things the corrupt carnts do but buying Etihad earlier is very smart.
Clubs are losing a mint there and it’s coming out of AFL coffers. By spending $200m they should save on handouts to clubs over the next 9 years. Saints lost $100k in 1 game there this year where do you think that money comes from?At that rate Saints will have lost $200m by 2216
I have no issue with it as the AFL are as cunning as ****house rats and it will be to their advantage. It will however have zero to do with better deals for clubs and be linked to zoning or developer interest.
Frankston Dolphins finished, but YES let's spend $220m on a stadium we can get for one single farking dollar in less than 10 years, and why not throw another million at sting for a GF performance nobody gives a **** aboutIs this Fitzpatrick’s package?GOVERNANCE
Is this going to make it harder for us to move even if we wait till the contract expires? Does the AFL not have a vested interest in keeping us - a big earner - at Etihad now? And even if we get the all clear with the G to move in we might find the fixtures "don't allow" us to have the MCG as our home?At a guess, EFC and all Melbourne clubs for that matter, wont have a "home" ground anymore, as games will simply be scheduled where ever the biggest crowd is likely to attend.
Anchor tenants of either ground will a thing of the past methinks.
Is this going to make it harder for us to move even if we wait till the contract expires? Does the AFL not have a vested interest in keeping us - a big earner - at Etihad now? And even if we get the all clear with the G to move in we might find the fixtures "don't allow" us to have the MCG as our home?
I wouldn’t think so. To me this will give them greater flexibility in ensuring maximum attendance at the G.
For example moving a low attendance FC vs Melbourne game from the G to Etihad to accommodate a sold out Cats vs Essendon game
Is this going to make it harder for us to move even if we wait till the contract expires? Does the AFL not have a vested interest in keeping us - a big earner - at Etihad now? And even if we get the all clear with the G to move in we might find the fixtures "don't allow" us to have the MCG as our home?I wouldn’t think so. To me this will give them greater flexibility in ensuring maximum attendance at the G.
For example moving a low attendance FC vs Melbourne game from the G to Etihad to accommodate a sold out Cats vs Essendon game
Not sure about that, remembering that the AFL owns the joint now so they would make more money out of a Cats/EFC 48,000 at Etihad than a MFC/GWS game at the MCG where the MCC is paying the costs
Logic would suggest they would have the high drawing games at the MCG and lower attendance games at Etihad, but that would financially benefit the MCC more than the AFL, so perhaps expect more soldout blockbusters at Etihad and GWS/GCFC **** kicker games at the G
delete
"Essendon wins the toss and will kick to the Fitzpatrick end."Did you mean - up his end?
Would prefer Essendon tossed Fitz… out on his end.
Our deal there was already pretty favourable being the first tenant club, hopefully now since we have been doing as we are told we will be able to better it.Will certainly be a happy day for WB, North & St Kilda whose deals are rubbish there.
There was a clause in our contract with the stadium that no other club could get a better deal, and if they were then we must be offered the same. Will that still be the case?
Almost certainly, unless we didn’t do our negotiating properly.
The AFL will be pretty keen for us to stay at Etihad, so I’d be reasonably comfortable we’ll do ok out of this if we stay.
Of course, I’d personally much prefer we went back to the G.
On the transmission of business, contracts that exist remain valid and in force. So unless there is a specific clause in the contract allowing unilateral re-negotiation of the contract upon change of ownership (which EFC would have been mad to have agreed to), the tenancy contract should remain exactly as it is now (including the clause that no-one else can get a better deal).
Of course, if the AFL really wants to renegotiate, and EFC does not agree, we may find all games are scheduled for Sunday twilight until the end of time…
I gather all the Etihad signage got covered recently? Possibly related?
We're prob not going to be able to move back but if we can negotiate a home game split of 6 at MCG and 5 at Etihad instead of currently 4 at the MCG that would be perfect.
This. Can handle playing gwis, GC, Brisbane and Fremantle (jokes, never play them in Melbourne) at etihad, but surely now we don’t play Geelong and Hawthorn at etihad.
"Essendon wins the toss and will kick to the Fitzpatrick end."
Either kick to the Gil McLachlan end or the Hamish McLachlan end?
Or instead of kicking it up the guts you could go wide and kick it to the Mel McLaughlin wing?