Doggies 'home' game

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Mark
Errr it is directly above this one ?

Apologies for that..been edited now just play the ball not the man

[Mark]

Originally posted by Glenn
Apologies for that..been edited now just play the ball not the man

No problem, suggest you remind the moderators of that too !!!

[Glenn]

Has been done..

Back on topic any benefit the Dogs got by moving the game (ie financial), surely is out weighed by playing it at the SCG.
If they do play two homes games Interstate, would be better off
doing it at Darwin, Launceston/GC

[Mike_B]

I think the bottom line here is that the Dogs won't be playing a home game vs Sydney in Sydney. It may be a game v Sydney elsewhere, or it may be that they don't have a home game vs the Swans, and move one they get in return for losing that one to another venue.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Mike_B
I think the bottom line here is that the Dogs won't be playing a home game vs Sydney in Sydney. It may be a game v Sydney elsewhere, or it may be that they don't have a home game vs the Swans, and move one they get in return for losing that one to another venue.

This was my point originally !

So the Swans lose a 'home' game, and i fail to see any benefit of this whatsoever to the 'Swans'

What a few people would not recognise previously was that (despite the vagaries of the draw) if the doggies are scheduled to play the Swans 'at home' it is very unlikely that will be in Melbourne for financial reasons.

Hence the longer the game was held in Sydney the better for the Swans.

What individuals would like for their own benefit is really not that relevant

[Benevolent Ert]

Originally posted by Mark

What a few people would not recognise previously was that (despite the vagaries of the draw) if the doggies are scheduled to play the Swans 'at home' it is very unlikely that will be in Melbourne for financial reasons.

Actually I doubt this very much

If the Dogs pull out of the Sydney home game, then I think it's very likely that in future Bulldogs would host the Swans in Melbourne - I think it would be very unlikely for the Swans to be shipped off to Darwin or Launceston - Canberra however would be a different matter

Among the Swans many fixture requests each year is "at least 6 games in Melbourne" and the Swans administration wouldn't be impressed about a potential trip to Tassie or the NT as opposed to a Melbourne trip

I'd be willing to bet that the Dogs would not be considering hosting Sydney in their alternative "interstate home game"

[Schneiderman]

I am extremely confused by how people have been seeing this issue.

FACT: Sydney (not the AFL) currently pay the Doggies to play a "home" game at the SCG.

FACT: The Doggies have said that they will not give up the $500k they get per year to play two "home" games interstate.

So if the Doggies want to move their "home" game away from the SCG they will need to find the $300k or so the Swans currently pay them. They will also need to find a team that they can play who is willing to play a "home" game in a more foreign area. You cant simply move one of your "home" games (against say the Lions) to some place that only benefits you (like the Antarctic or the top of Everest) without their agreement. The AFL wont allow it.

If they play at Carrara, I would suggest the Lions would agree to it (possibly with some other small concession in the draw). If it is in Darwin or Launceston, they would have to negotiate with another team, but again the AFL would have to be willing to give up something else to arrange the draw.

Whether the Swans are involved once the Dogs stop playing the SCG "Home" game is a complete moot point for now. If it does eventuate, we will get something in return for sure (like another Melbourne game, more Friday night games, or no trips to Perth for example). So just chill

[SXP]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
I am extremely confused by how people have been seeing this issue.

FACT: Sydney (not the AFL) currently pay the Doggies to play a "home" game at the SCG.

FACT: The Doggies have said that they will not give up the $500k they get per year to play two "home" games interstate.

So if the Doggies want to move their "home" game away from the SCG they will need to find the $300k or so the Swans currently pay them. They will also need to find a team that they can play who is willing to play a "home" game in a more foreign area. You cant simply move one of your "home" games (against say the Lions) to some place that only benefits you (like the Antarctic or the top of Everest) without their agreement. The AFL wont allow it.

If they play at Carrara, I would suggest the Lions would agree to it (possibly with some other small concession in the draw). If it is in Darwin or Launceston, they would have to negotiate with another team, but again the AFL would have to be willing to give up something else to arrange the draw.

Whether the Swans are involved once the Dogs stop playing the SCG "Home" game is a complete moot point for now. If it does eventuate, we will get something in return for sure (like another Melbourne game, more Friday night games, or no trips to Perth for example). So just chill

I agree with you 100%. All this discussion was pointless. Some people just forgot about the initial arrangement that had been made between the Doggies and the Swans. Some people have such a short memory span.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by SXP
I agree with you 100%. All this discussion was pointless. Some people just forgot about the initial arrangement that had been made between the Doggies and the Swans. Some people have such a short memory span.

what did you say???

[BonBon]

Scott, that was pretty sad.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
I am extremely confused by how people have been seeing this issue.

Not surprised about that.

FACT: Sydney (not the AFL) currently pay the Doggies to play a "home" game at the SCG.

Correct

FACT: The Doggies have said that they will not give up the $500k they get per year to play two "home" games interstate.

Correct

So if the Doggies want to move their "home" game away from the SCG they will need to find the $300k or so the Swans currently pay them.

Correct

They will also need to find a team that they can play who is willing to play a "home" game in a more foreign area. You cant simply move one of your "home" games (against say the Lions) to some place that only benefits you (like the Antarctic or the top of Everest) without their agreement.

Wrong. Unlike the deals in place with the Swans and Lions with clubs like the Dogs and the Demons to play "home" games at the away teams home ground, a club doesn't need permission from the away club to play their home game in a different market. For example the Dogs didn't need the permission of Port Adelaide or Carlton to play in Darwin the past two years and Hawthorn and St Kilda don't need permission from the clubs they play in Tassie to play these home matches in Tasmania.

If they play at Carrara, I would suggest the Lions would agree to it (possibly with some other small concession in the draw). If it is in Darwin or Launceston, they would have to negotiate with another team, but again the AFL would have to be willing to give up something else to arrange the draw.

That hasn't been the case with the matches played in Darwin, Canberra and Tassie. For example what have the Swans received for playing North in Canberra the past 3 years??? Nothing that I'm aware of.

But your right if the Bulldogs pull out, then they have to find that money elsewhere, but that money doesn't have to come from another club. For example the ACT government pay the Kangaroos to play 3 home matches in Canberra and the 3 clubs that the Roos play there don't contribute to the money the Roos get nor do they receive any money in return. In fact the away team has no say in where the game is played.

Deals that are in place at the moment include Hawthorn and St Kilda with the Tasmanian Government to play 2 home games each in Tassie, North with the ACT Government to play 3 matches in Canberra and the Bulldogs with the NT Government to play one game in Darwin for 3 years. These governments pay these clubs to play their home games in their cities like we pay the Bulldogs at present to play us at the SCG.

Whether the Swans are involved once the Dogs stop playing the SCG "Home" game is a complete moot point for now.

Agreed

If it does eventuate, we will get something in return for sure (like another Melbourne game, more Friday night games, or no trips to Perth for example).

You mean like what we get now from playing a game in Canberra against North???? ie. Nothing

[Mark]

Originally posted by robbieando
You mean like what we get now from playing a game in Canberra against North???? ie. Nothing

I am glad you now agree there is nothing to be gained from losing a nominal 'home' game.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by robbieando
For example what have the Swans received for playing North in Canberra the past 3 years??? Nothing that I'm aware of.

...

You mean like what we get now from playing a game in Canberra against North???? ie. Nothing

Err... dont we have our reserves playing in a league around that area?? And isn't the crowd that attends those games a majority Swans crowd??

Hardly "nothing". Any game in NSW or ACT increases awareness of the Swans. I doubt the board have any complaints at all about playing the Roos in Canberra, regardless of the result.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Err... dont we have our reserves playing in a league around that area??

That has nothing to do with us playing North in Canberra and we certainly didn't get permission to join the Canberra League just because we play North in Canberra once a year nor would the Swans Reserves be kicked out of the Canberra League with we didn't play in Canberra next year or any other year for that matter.

And isn't the crowd that attends those games a majority Swans crowd??

Mostly Swans members on a day trip down from Sydney or people living in the Canberra area that were already Swans supporters and get the bonus of handing over money to North for the honor of watching the Swans play.

Hardly "nothing".

But nothing that the Swans benefit from financially or get that they already didn't have or were in the process of getting.

Any game in NSW or ACT increases awareness of the Swans. I doubt the board have any complaints at all about playing the Roos in Canberra, regardless of the result.

The board doesn't have any complaints because they have no say in the fixture in Canberra being made, that was an AFL, North, ACT Government deal.

Regardless of the deal North has with the ACT Government, one thing is for sure, the Swans didn't have any imput into the deal, nor did they receive anything in return, except for the fact they get an extra game in NSW/ACT that they otherwise wouldn't get, you might call that an advantage but at the end of the day North didn't need our permission to play their Home game against us in Canberra. Same as Carlton last night didn't have any say in play the Bulldogs in Darwin.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Mark
I am glad you now agree there is nothing to be gained from losing a nominal 'home' game.

Where did I say there wasn't?