Preliminary Finals Deal

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:14 pm

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.

yep - 24 looks awesome

probably made more interesting considering the events of the last few years as well.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:35 pm

Eagerly awaiting fevolaaaa's quotes from Malouf.

My "sauce" told me this, Carlton did not make any offer to the AFL in regards to a deal helping the AFL with a get out clause for compulsory Preliminary Finals at the MCG. This was because it was a matter between the MCC and the AFL. It is also believed that a Prelim Final "deal" was not offered by the MCC to the AFL in exchange for a certain number of Carlton home games as if it was, the AFL would have accepted gleefully.

On that basis all this speculation of what CFC/MCC/AFL could/should have done is just that, speculation based on pie in the sky ideas with little understanding of reality.

I can understand the frustration as it appears that Collingwood has been able to get the MCC to alter it's position. But as I see it a prelim deal in exchange for Carlton games was never offered to us, or the AFL, so how can we accept an offer that simply didn't exist? And while the board can make suggestions to the MCC and the AFL they were in no position to be playing hard ball with either party. Collingwood, as an existing tenant with a substantial interest in the redevelopment of the ground may well have had more sway than us. On the surface of it that appears to be the case.

We're not the bullyboys we once were and we have to work like buggery to earn that position back, instead of expecting things to go our way.

KERMIT · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:39 pm

I have had two telephone conversations with Stephen Gough over the past 12 month and one in person at the Richmond game this year and I can assure you that the MCC did offer to negotiate on the PF in exchange for Carlton's home games at the MCG.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:41 pm

Who did they offer that to, CFC or the AFL?

I'm not denying your claims Kermit, but I certainly have evidence to suggest that nothing official was ever pursued, whether Gough's comments were made after I received my information I cannot say.

Suffice to say I'm sure all three parties discussed the matter, off the record, at some stage, but I don't believe any concrete discussions eventuated.

budzy · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 8128

My hunch is that from day one the CFC board (Collo) always had the Dome as their preferred home ground option but appeased the members (who wanted MCG home games) with a 6-5 share arrangement.
The members were lucky to get 5 games at the "G" imo.

Dawson · **Joined:** Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:31 pm **Posts:** 13

Camel Boy,

Although im not privvy to insider info at Carlton, i remember reading on numerous occasions that Carlton games were willing to be exchanged for a Prelim final at the MCG.

In fact, I even remember reading this on the MCC website while the furore around Brisbane playing an away prelim was developing last year.

KERMIT · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:48 pm

They were offered to the AFL in attempt to make them see reason.

Naturally with the wait of vested interests against the MCG TD was always to prevail. I doubt the club was unaware of this but you have to question a process that involves Ian Collins being our President and CEO at TD. There is no way I believe he was not fully up to speed on all aspects of the deal. Mike Fitzpatrick is another interesting angle I had never really thought about but I think he went onto the Commission after this was all done and dusted.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:01 pm

KERMIT wrote:

...Mike Fitzpatrick is another interesting angle I had never really thought about but I think he went onto the Commission after this was all done and dusted.

Yep, think you're right on that one.

Dawson, I too remember what was reported, but what gets reported is not always fact, or not always what gets discussed officially. I got my info at the end of August last year and it could have been dumbed down for public consumption I don't know, but it came from someone who would have known what the situation was at that point in time.

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:01 pm

camelboy wrote:

Eagerly awaiting fevolaaaa's quotes from Malouf.

My "sauce" told me this, Carlton did not make any offer to the AFL in regards to a deal helping the AFL with a get out clause for compulsory Preliminary Finals at the MCG. This was because it was a matter between the MCC and the AFL. It is also believed that a Prelim Final "deal" was not offered by the MCC to the AFL in exchange for a certain number of Carlton home games as if it was, the AFL would have accepted gleefully.

On that basis all this speculation of what CFC/MCC/AFL could/should have done is just that, speculation based on pie in the sky ideas with little understanding of reality.

I can understand the frustration as it appears that Collingwood has been able to get the MCC to alter it's position. But as I see it a prelim deal in exchange for Carlton games was never offered to us, or the AFL, so how can we accept an offer that simply didn't exist? And while the board can make suggestions to the MCC and the AFL they were in no position to be playing hard ball with either party. Collingwood, as an existing tenant with a substantial interest in the redevelopment of the ground may well have had more sway than us. On the surface of it that appears to be the case.

We're not the bullyboys we once were and we have to work like buggery to earn that position back, instead of expecting things to go our way.

even if that is the case cb - that goes to prove the point - that the club didnt go about securing the best possible deal - they didnt pursue the preferred option of the vast majority of members and that was to have more home games at the MCG if not all of them.

either way - be that what you suggest, or what i suggest, the club comes across as not pursuing every option it had available.

but - from my memory i recall reading that the club was accepting "tenders" from both venues i.e. TD and MCC and that the MCC tender did include their willingness to remove their requirement of a preliminary final if it meant they would get a certain amount of carlton games.

Do you remember that quotes from both Gough and Demetriou - basically saying that Gough said they have submitted that offer to the AFL and that Demetriou flatley rejected it as they couldnt (i.e. didnt want to) schedule more than 42 games a year at the MCG? And then 2 or 3 days later Demetriou denied ever getting such a proposal?

I do - its what set me off and from the moment after that i was questioning everything about the deal as it sounded like all bullshit.

Again, which this is going over old ground - but i dont think anyone was wanting to stay at OO becuase everyone realised the benefits of moving, but the preferred option of everyone im aware of was to play the majority of home games at MCG and interestate teams at TD but that wasnt even given to us as an option to vote on "becuase the AFL said it was not possible"

Either way - it all sucks.

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:05 pm

ThePrez wrote:

Do you remember that quotes from both Gough and Demetriou - basically saying that Gough said they have submitted that offer to the AFL and that Demetriou flatley rejected it as they couldnt (i.e. didnt want to) schedule more than 42 games a year at the MCG? And then 2 or 3 days later Demetriou denied ever getting such a proposal?

My information came after I asked a direct question to that effect, ie, "Did the club, or the MCC, make an offer to the AFL to remove the MCG's claim on at least one preliminary final per year in exchange for a certain number of Carlton home games? (I thought this was the case, but according to recent media reports Andrew Demetriou has denied this happened.)"

The answer I got to that question was "No."

Even though by distance I am largely unaffected by any deal, I would say that I am not as happy with what we got as I would have liked. I just don't believe the frustration or anger should be directed to the club that's all.

I would even be willing to theorise that we simply got a better financial deal at the Dome and that this was far more important to us at the time, keeping in mind BV's comments a few posts ago, and that the MCC could not match the full financial offer that the Dome could. If you have an empty pot with a few holes in it and one person offers you a pot of gold and one a pot of silver, you'd take the gold wouldn't you. But that is just speculation on my point.

The Vet · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:18 pm

ThePrez wrote:

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?

The problem with a restraint of trade argument, in our case, was that no-one forced us to do anything. We made a choice, leaving PP and going to the Dome. You will recall that we had the option of going to the MCG, but the AFL chose not to offer to pay out our contracts in that instance, and this was despite the MCC offering to relinquish its preliminary finals arrangement (must admit I thought that was pretty starnge at the time).

In order to succeed on a restraint of trade argument, the CFC would need to assert that they were given no choice, move or don't play in the competition, not that any choice we had was unpalatable.

The Silvio Foscini case, for example, involved the AFL saying he had to play in Sydney, and could not play anywhere else. The Courts held that was a restraint of trade, as it clearly was about Foschini being given no choice. Play in Sydney or not at all.

That is not the CFC position. We could always have carried on at PP, we just decided to move. having so decided, the AFL did its best to ensure that the incentive was for us to move to the Dome.

Unfortunately, there is no case in a bad decison.

Now Misrepresentation.....that's a different story.

CarltonClem · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:21 pm

ThePrez wrote:

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.

Wrong. A contract is a contract and undoubtedly terms of the contract would have involved the words "Optus Oval" - therefore still enforceable.

The problem that you can't circumvent is the AFL. If the AFL won't schedule us at the G, then it doesn't matter, because we'd be shafted.

Blame the AFL instead.

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:20 pm

By the way camelboy I can't find the quote, though I've read it numerous times. I can only find the statement

Quote:

Former Carlton board members say the Blues need a crowd of 18,000 to break even at Optus Oval, while 35,000 is required at the Dome and 23,000 at the MCG.

Can't find any of Malouf's comments on the matter. However I think this in today's paper would agree with this statement:

Quote:

But despite the fact MCG tenant Hawthorn is strangely playing a home game across town at the Telstra Dome on the same day, the Blues have no complaints.

Carlton chief executive Michael Malouf yesterday said the club was better off playing low-drawing games at the MCG than the Dome, run by Blues president Ian Collins.

"Our view is that with the smaller crowds, we're better off playing them at the MCG," Malouf said.

Just imagine how much we'd make if we played all of them at the G!

Effes · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:40 pm

Doesnt the break even figure depend on the proportion of members to those who purchase a ticket at the gate?

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:58 pm

Effes wrote:

Doesnt the break even figure depend on the proportion of members to those who purchase a ticket at the gate?

Imagine it would, and it would also be affected by the amount of away members. So when there wont be very many away members going and people buying tickets it would make sense to play games at the grounds that costs us little to hire/run, which are Optus and the MCG

Bort · **Joined:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:38 pm **Posts:** 101

There were some newspaper articles, published 24 August 2004, which discussed the details of the offers made to Carlton. The articles were mainly about the Prelim. Final. At that time that these were published I'd already had heard about the MCC's attempt to link Carlton to a deal involving the Prelim (though I forget where or how I heard this), so this aspect wasn't news to me.

The relevent, to Carlton, bits are:

From The Age:

Quote:

Frustrated at being labelled the villain in the annual debate over finals fixturing, the Melbourne Cricket Club has hit back, saying it did offer the AFL a way out of its current concerns.

MCC chief executive Stephen Gough last night said the club would continue to hold talks with the AFL to find a solution to the issue that is frustrating all levels of football.

The MCC had been prepared to loosen its hold on its absolute right to host a preliminary final in its bid to win the bulk of Carlton home games.

"We have been in discussions between the parties, trying to resolve a way forward. We tried to tie into if Carlton wanted to come here, we could have accommodated that, but that didn't work," said Gough.

and from The Herald-Sun (and close to the same article appeared in Adelaide's The Advetiser and Sydney's The Daily Telegragh):

Quote:

Demetriou and MCC secretary Stephen Gough met socially yesterday, but both said later that negotiations were continuing.

[...]

He [Gough] revealed the MCC had been prepared to drop the preliminary requirement had Carlton chosen to play its home games at the MCG rather than settle on a 6-5 split between Telstra Dome and the MCG.

The MCC believes the AFL has pushed Carlton to TD, despite the suggestion the club's directors preferred the MCG.

It is understood the Blues will net $2.6 million from a move to Telstra Dome, with no financial incentive available from a relocation to the MCG.

The AFL says the money offered to Carlton comes from the TD management.

The second last paragraph is interesting, when read in connection with the line about the club's directors preferring the MCG deal. I assume this meant that while the MCC offer didn't include an up-front payment, it's match-to-match offer was better than the TD's.

A day or two later an article appeared on the AFL's website that denied aspects of these articles. It quotes Andrew D:

Quote:

"I never saw anything that indicated to me they'd let go of the preliminary final. That's simply not correct."

(I suspect AD is splitting hares: he may not have 'seen' anything, but I note he didn't deny 'hearing' anything....)

I've been told that the club's directors were in favour of the MCC offer, but went the other way when the AFL told the club that it does the fixturing and Carlton would be getting six games at the Telstra Dome. I wonder: if our President wasn't also CEO of TD would the club have put in more of an effort to stand up to the AFL?

AGRO · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:04 pm

When Bort speaks I listen. :wink:

TheGame · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:09 pm

Seriously its over. I love Princes Park too but its over. I wanted to play at the G but now I actually prefer the extra 5 degrees on a freezing night. Collingwood are bigger than us and thats why they can do these deals.

AGRO · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:11 pm

3 year deals for 29 year olds are over too - but I'm glad your getting most of the other parts of the big picture. :wink:

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:22 pm

As mentioned I don't deny discussions may have taken place, but in terms of official negotiations involving Carlton and any discussions over the MCC/prelim final I have reason to believe that nothing was presented, despite the speculation in the press.

I also think it presumtious to assume that previous board members quoted figures for break even points are fact, they may have been at one point in time, but I suspect this could have been one of the things to change during negotiations. Although I concede that if Malouf's comment is correct, then that does tend to indicate that lower drawing crowds may be better suited at the G.

However, I would suggest that the break even figures quoted may be incorrect. I don't say this with certainty, but I do believe that the following is taken as fact. Essendon* has, and always will have on account of their contract, the best deal at Telstra Dome, and Collingwood has the best deal at the MCG. By best deal I imagine that the break even figures could actually differ for different clubs depending on their deal, other factors could also come into it, such as signage revenue as noted and also merchandise sales. In that regard my feeling is that what TD offered was superior to what the MCC offered. Forget any initial inducements, I have been led to believe that the overall, bigger picture, deal offered by Telstra was better than what was on the table from the MCC. So much so that our deal at TD is substantially better than every other tenant club at the Dome, barring Essendon*, and what was offered by the G would not be better than any of the other tenant clubs at the G, least of all Collingwood's.

Given our parlous financial state at the time I can see why the board acted in the way they did. Preferring more games at the G is a separate issue to assessing the deals presented to the club by both venues and making the most sensible financial decision.

I also concede that the Ian Collins issue is one that will always have a cloud over it, but equally I don't think his dual roles have hindered our off field success in regards to home ground negotiations.

Preliminary Finals Deal

Who is online