Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:29 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Preliminary Finals Deal
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:01 pm 
Offline
Rod McGregor

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:38 am
Posts: 163
Location: MELBOURNE
Interesting how a deal can be done this year involving Collingwood but our Board told us they had done all they could to achieve the prefered option of playing our home games at the MCG.

We were screwed over last year. Not only was the club too weak to stand up to the AFL (unlike Collingwood) but we now have to play our home games at a venue that is clearly not up to AFL level.

Congratulations CFC. You are the laughing stock both on and off the field.


http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news ... 87187.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:07 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:29 am
Posts: 6418
Location: Casa Da Carlton - The Place to Be
if anyone wants to know what i think of this flower deal let me know and i will post something here.

otherwise i think everyone knows how i feel about this and there is no need to go over it all again.

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:12 pm 
Offline
Bruce Comben

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:31 pm
Posts: 13
Ditto to what the Prez said.

God i hate the dome!!!!!

And it still miffs me how we had to move out of Optus to get more exposure, yet the Cats seem to have a mortgage on the Sunday 1pm slots on free to air from Skilled Stadium.

What F#cking gives????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:12 pm 
Offline
Bert Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:59 am
Posts: 547
Location: Urban Wasteland
Make no mistake - money was the issue at play regarding CFC. We got paid a significant sum to go to Telstra Dome. The club knew we weren't going to be challenging for anything remotely like finals for some years and we had a debt problem of African proportions.

The Elliot administration bet the farm building the legends stand and we rolled the dice and lost. Considering all this and the lack of FTA coverage we'd get at Optus whilst I like Optus Oval, the smart money was Telstra Dome.

In a lot of ways once the AFL became "the product" rather than the clubs, the Optus Oval experiment was always going to fail. Geelong survive only because of their location. The fact that Hawthorn, Essendon*, Carlton and Collingwood (power sides of the 80's - 90's) are holding up the ladder is seen as a success at AFL HQ. The AFL wanted and got their national competition and the CFC would go out of business now before the AFL would allow Brisbane or Sydney to.

Football is a product and tribalisim is dead or only exists in the minds of older supporters or here in Cyberspace. That's probably why I still read these forums.

_________________
The great are great to us only because we are on our knees. Let us arise.
--Robert Collier


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:17 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:29 am
Posts: 6418
Location: Casa Da Carlton - The Place to Be
point out something.

the money we got from the AFL To move to TD was to pay out existing contracts that we had in place at OO and anything left we could have.

The MCG offered us, well as far as im aware and have been informed, the same monye, yet becuase the people that handle the catering at OO also do the catering at the MCG we would not need to pay them out. We still would have had to pay out the security etc.. but the vast majority we would have got for the move would have gone to the club - not the contactors we had in place.

look - the deal was bad for the club IMO and am yet to see any reason or positive to suggest otherwise.

I will be looking forward to seeing us get 45k at our Home Game at the MCG against Fremantle this year.

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:26 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 2585
Location: Hoppers Crossing
Yep this made me fume as well. The weakest thing we could is what we did, went to the Dome without a whimper.

What a shit stadium it is, I think we witnessed that on Sunday when they had the roof open???? What the hell's with that? I don't know if anyone else had problems with the shadows if you were out of the sun and could actually see the game. It's a hole and now Collingwood only have to play a maximum 4 games there a year, the first time I've ever been jealous of them. We'll play about a dozen at the shitbox instead, what a @#$%&! joy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:35 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:23 am
Posts: 48684
Location: Canberra
spf wrote:
Make no mistake - money was the issue at play regarding CFC. We got paid a significant sum to go to Telstra Dome. The club knew we weren't going to be challenging for anything remotely like finals for some years and we had a debt problem of African proportions.

The Elliot administration bet the farm building the legends stand and we rolled the dice and lost. Considering all this and the lack of FTA coverage we'd get at Optus whilst I like Optus Oval, the smart money was Telstra Dome.

In a lot of ways once the AFL became "the product" rather than the clubs, the Optus Oval experiment was always going to fail. Geelong survive only because of their location. The fact that Hawthorn, Essendon*, Carlton and Collingwood (power sides of the 80's - 90's) are holding up the ladder is seen as a success at AFL HQ. The AFL wanted and got their national competition and the CFC would go out of business now before the AFL would allow Brisbane or Sydney to.

Football is a product and tribalisim is dead or only exists in the minds of older supporters or here in Cyberspace. That's probably why I still read these forums.


Nail.Hit.Head.

Good post.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:40 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 2585
Location: Hoppers Crossing
Hit nail head even though we were offered the same money for the MCG and running a game there costs less? Yes indeed :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:41 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:23 am
Posts: 48684
Location: Canberra
ThePrez wrote:
point out something.

the money we got from the AFL To move to TD was to pay out existing contracts that we had in place at OO and anything left we could have.

The MCG offered us, well as far as im aware and have been informed, the same monye, yet becuase the people that handle the catering at OO also do the catering at the MCG we would not need to pay them out. We still would have had to pay out the security etc.. but the vast majority we would have got for the move would have gone to the club - not the contactors we had in place.

look - the deal was bad for the club IMO and am yet to see any reason or positive to suggest otherwise.

I will be looking forward to seeing us get 45k at our Home Game at the MCG against Fremantle this year.


Agree completely about fixturing Freo at the G and Richmond at the Dome in R18 later this year. But I still fail to see how some of these issues are the responsibility of the club and the board?

Just because we didn't get our own way does not mean the board did not do everything in it's power to do so. You guys make it sound so easy to just walk up to Demetriou and expect to tell him what we're getting and that he'll thank us for our time.

Finally, without knowing the final and confidential financial details of what the MCC offered and what the AFL and Telstra Dome offered it is simply pie in the sky speculation to suggest the deals offered by the G and the Dome were of similar merit.

I'm disappointed we didn't get more games at the G too, but, well, you know my thoughts, I'm happy that the club tried to do the best it could in a difficult situation.

Please remember that many of the issues you guys are complaining about are beyond the club's control and instead of continually monaing about it on these forums you may find it more effective to raise your complaints with the relevant bodies; ie, the AFL and the Carlton FC.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:43 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18066
ThePrez wrote:
look - the deal was bad for the club IMO and am yet to see any reason or positive to suggest otherwise.


Carlton football club was losing 2 million dollars a year.
Had we not moved from OO this year and recieved the financial incentive from TD and the AFL, we would not have paid our debts this year.
We didnt have the cash flow or resources to pay our way.

Do you know what it means if a corporate identity can not pay their debts when they fall due?
Close the doors or beg the AFL to pay our way.

I'll take this option everytime thanks.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:44 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:23 am
Posts: 48684
Location: Canberra
fevolaaaa wrote:
Hit nail head even though we were offered the same money for the MCG and running a game there costs less? Yes indeed :roll:


Seeing as you are obviously privy to the financial details and facts of what it is costing Carlton FC to host games at TD and what it costs at the MCG you might like to furnsih me with the infoirmation. Due to its confidential nature I'll be happy for you to send me this detail by PM if you like.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:44 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 24655
Location: Kaloyasena
spf wrote:
Make no mistake - money was the issue at play regarding CFC. We got paid a significant sum to go to Telstra Dome. The club knew we weren't going to be challenging for anything remotely like finals for some years and we had a debt problem of African proportions.

The Elliot administration bet the farm building the legends stand and we rolled the dice and lost. Considering all this and the lack of FTA coverage we'd get at Optus whilst I like Optus Oval, the smart money was Telstra Dome.

In a lot of ways once the AFL became "the product" rather than the clubs, the Optus Oval experiment was always going to fail. Geelong survive only because of their location. The fact that Hawthorn, Essendon*, Carlton and Collingwood (power sides of the 80's - 90's) are holding up the ladder is seen as a success at AFL HQ. The AFL wanted and got their national competition and the CFC would go out of business now before the AFL would allow Brisbane or Sydney to.

Football is a product and tribalisim is dead or only exists in the minds of older supporters or here in Cyberspace. That's probably why I still read these forums.


Your looking good spf.

Also to the other doubting Mustafa's out, you fail to realize that the AFL controls the fixture, and held us over a barrel. Demetrispew is a vindictive bastard and we could have been playing Saturday Afternoon from now until Domesday (our Domesday that is), without any FTA exposure.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:51 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 2585
Location: Hoppers Crossing
camelboy wrote:
fevolaaaa wrote:
Hit nail head even though we were offered the same money for the MCG and running a game there costs less? Yes indeed :roll:


Seeing as you are obviously privy to the financial details and facts of what it is costing Carlton FC to host games at TD and what it costs at the MCG you might like to furnsih me with the infoirmation. Due to its confidential nature I'll be happy for you to send me this detail by PM if you like.


Not confidential at all camelboy, not my fault you pay no attention :) I'll find you the Michael Malouf quotes in recent articles when I get home


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:57 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:50 am
Posts: 1238
guys, the cost of staging a game at the MCG and TD is almost identical. At TD, the ground rental is higher, but this is compensated for by higher signage revenue at the Dome.

CFC receive over $2.5 million to move its games to TD (from Ch 7). This was not offered at the MCG.

Good move, great crowds, record membership. Yes, it is dissapointing that our FTA coverage is down, but you can't complain too much - not even I want to watch CFC these days!

_________________
Go Blues


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:02 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:43 am
Posts: 5175
Location: Corner of Queen and Collins
And please, based on previous posts it is clear that SAS87 knows what he is talking about... can we just postmark this post for all future ground arguments?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:06 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 2585
Location: Hoppers Crossing
molsey wrote:
And please, based on previous posts it is clear that SAS87 knows what he is talking about... can we just postmark this post for all future ground arguments?


He's just quoted channel 7..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:25 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:29 am
Posts: 6418
Location: Casa Da Carlton - The Place to Be
will some one with a legal back ground answer this for me.

Considering - the AFL is not privately owned, meaning the AFL is its own corporation, does that not make the deal, which was supposedly not possible last year when the MCC and the CFC supposedly asked the AFL if they would permit what appears to be almost exactly the same proposal that Collingwood and the MCC has proposed this year.

Is that a blatant "restraint of trade" and would the Carlton FC not have grounds to sue on "loss revenue" becuase of playing at a ground and being tied to said ground for 10 years when compared to the possible revenue the CFC could possibly make if playing at a stadium that holds twice as much attendance?

Thats a serious question - not getting pissed off, just a genuine question to see if the club would have some ground to stand on if it took it to the AFL.

In a business sense - that is "supposed" to be fair on all 16 clubs in the competition i fail to see how anyone can consider the deal fair for all parties involved, considering we supposidly asked for the same deal (if not the same very similair) last year but where denied due to "scheduling constraints" that no longer "appear" to be a problem

or

and this is the bigger problem for me. Were we denied the deal becuase the people in the know, knew that the TD would be losing a tennant (i.e. collingwood) and where trying to secure another high drawing tenant (i.e. carlton) so as to ensure they didnt lose any money? If that is the case could that not be considered "Insider Trading" which has a whole host of problems and legal rammifications associated to it as well.

This whole deal stinks IMO - and the board, the afl and TD are all tainted becuase of the apparent double standards or "conflicts of interest" that seem very apparent to most people.

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:48 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 21078
Location: Missing Kouta
FitzPatrick should be questioned about the deal regarding a COI with the funding of the Stadium and his role with the AFL.And I know he wants us at that stadium despite it not being in the best interests of the club. :evil:
A bit rich from a man who wasn't an Elliott man and a huge critic of Jack faults. :x


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:53 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:43 am
Posts: 5175
Location: Corner of Queen and Collins
fevolaaaa wrote:
molsey wrote:
And please, based on previous posts it is clear that SAS87 knows what he is talking about... can we just postmark this post for all future ground arguments?


He's just quoted channel 7..


Well Channel 7 isn't always wrong - they were right about last night's episodes of 24 being good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:53 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 2585
Location: Hoppers Crossing
molsey wrote:
fevolaaaa wrote:
molsey wrote:
And please, based on previous posts it is clear that SAS87 knows what he is talking about... can we just postmark this post for all future ground arguments?


He's just quoted channel 7..


Well Channel 7 isn't always wrong - they were right about last night's episodes of 24 being good.


Just wait, I watched up to ep 18 then I fell behind, I love how they can work so many plot lines in


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group