Western Bulldogs sniff around for home ground as Ethihad isn't viable

[Greystache]

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/01/10/1226551/518155-simon-garlick.jpg

WESTERN Bulldogs will look at playing home games at grounds other than Etihad Stadium if they cannot maximise gate returns at the indoor venue.
Demon tapes may explain tactics
Crows go in to bat for Bailey

Ballarat's Eureka Stadium and Geelong's Simonds Stadium could host Dogs' home games against low-drawing interstate teams.

The Dogs would prefer to play 11 games a season at Etihad to keep growing support in Melbourne's west, one of the country's fastest growth corridors.

But crowds less than 25,000 at Etihad Stadium put financial strain on clubs, forcing the Dogs to consider more profitable options.

Dogs chief executive Simon Garlick said he had had brief talks with the AFL about looking into Ballarat as an alternative venue, but he was adamant Etihad Stadium was the priority.

"Ballarat is one which potentially might be worth us looking at down the track," he said yesterday.

"We've had a few discussions in passing with them (AFL) about it.

"There is a bit of a synergy there - it is west of Melbourne.

"We want to play as many as we can at Etihad and preferably get to 11 (a season).

"But when we get less than 25,000 - which at the moment happens for us if you are playing a low-drawing interstate team or when our on-field (performance) isn't good - then it impacts us.

"We just don't get the return on the seat that you would get if you were at Simonds or at the MCG.

"For that reason we do run numbers and have a look at alternative venues.

"That's something we will continue to do."

Eureka Stadium so far has failed to secure the Government funding it requires to become a suitable regular-season AFL venue.

It hosts NAB Challenge games between the Bulldogs and North Melbourne, which has lobbied hard to play home games in Ballarat.

Geelong also has pushed for other clubs such as the Bulldogs to use Simonds Stadium.

"We would be quite happy if another club wanted to play a couple of games, but the (Geelong) council owns the ground," Geelong president Colin Carter said.

"The AFL is not supportive as far as I am aware.

"They've got fixturing responsibilities at Etihad and MCG.

"The Doggies, I understand, expressed some interest, but I don't think it went any further."

LINK (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/western-bulldogs-sniff-around-for-home-ground/story-e6frexx0-1226551529125)

[bornadog]

I would really hate for this to happen, although I understand the clubs financial position.

Last season we had the worst average crowds attend our games since 1996 and the AFL overall attendance was down around one million. I think live TV has impacted attendances dramatically, but the AFL won't admit it.

If we continue to play rubbish football, the long term consequences may effect our viability.

Out of Geelong and Ballarat, I think Geelong would be a better venue with some great facilities being built.

[LostDoggy]

It's staggering to think. Any other nation wide sport would be thrilled to get 25000 spectators to their stadium (a-league, BBL, NBL, even NRL!). But our AFL club has to get over that before any money is made.
Maybe they should leave the Docklands if it is that much of a fiscal parasite.

[Ghost Dog]

When do we get to renegotiate a new deal?

[Cyberdoggie]

I hope this I just talk to try and sway a better deal.

I'd hate to see us become the nomad's of the AFL, that only leads to talk about moving interstate or mergers.

We need stability and direction, not Band-Aid fixes that will reveal a bigger scab later on.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

We don't have to still deal with Ian Collins do we? Who owns Etihad Stadium and why do we have to lose money in using it? Surely it is there for the AFL and its clubs not vica versa.

[Greystache]

I hope this I just talk to try and sway a better deal.

I'd hate to see us become the nomad's of the AFL, that only leads to talk about moving interstate or mergers.

We need stability and direction, not Band-Aid fixes that will reveal a bigger scab later on.

I think that's exactly what it is.

We're trying to threaten Etihad to give us a better deal or we'll go elsewhere. It's no co-incident that Melbourne Victory had the choice to play at Etihad or not and therefore were able to make a tidy profit from 15,000 at a game, yet being locked into a non-negotiable contract we can't even break even from 25,000.

The problem is we don't really have a viable alternative option to back up the threat. Ballarat is a pipe dream, and Geelong has been brought up and knocked back before. It's worth making some noise but I don't Etihad management will blink first.

[bornadog]

We don't have to still deal with Ian Collins do we? Who owns Etihad Stadium and why do we have to lose money in using it? Surely it is there for the AFL and its clubs not vica versa.

In answer to your questions:

* Collins retired.

* The stadium is owned privately and they have shareholders who need to make money. They are not a charity.

* The stadium will be owned by the AFL in 2020 (from memory), hopefully we still exist.

As I said in my post above, if we dish out rubbish like last season, we won't attract anyone to our games, no matter where its played.

[AndrewP6]

We don't have to still deal with Ian Collins do we? Who owns Etihad Stadium and why do we have to lose money in using it? Surely it is there for the AFL and its clubs not vica versa.

Once owned by Channel 7, it's currently owned by James Fielding Funds Management. As per the terms when it was built, the AFL assumes ownership in 2025.

[bornadog]

If you look at last years attendances we couldn't even get 25,000 to the Hawks, Carlton, Sydney, North, Saints games in the second half.

There were 40,000 for the Essendon game, but is was their home game, and I think myself and 10 other doggies supporters were there.

[Greystache]

We don't have to still deal with Ian Collins do we? Who owns Etihad Stadium and why do we have to lose money in using it? Surely it is there for the AFL and its clubs not vica versa.

Stadiums Management Limited own Etihad Stadium, they are controlled predominantly by superannuation funds.

Stadium Management Limited has created a highly complex subsidiary structure that prevents aspects of game day revenue being counted under the existing contract between the club and the stadium.

[Ghost Dog]

Lobby their board. Shame them into giving us a better deal. Greedy bunch.

[Eastdog]

Could play some home games at the MCG against the higher drawing clubs. It's a shame we can't get a better deal at Etihad and frustrating we don't make revenue from there.

[Throughandthrough]

Lobby their board. Shame them into giving us a better deal. Greedy bunch.

Its the duty of the Directors of that company to maximise and sustain profits.

But yep this is simply us crying Wolf.

And I hope something better comes out of it for the Dogs.

Silly question, but if we were playing Gold Coast, Power etc how much fixing up would Whitten Oval need?

And would we make more $$ from 10,000 there then 15,000 at Etihad?


Would we make more $$$ playing at WO vs Nallarat?

[bornadog]

Lobby their board. Shame them into giving us a better deal. Greedy bunch.

They are not a charity.

Here is a list of homes games last season at Eithad

Collingwood... 38155
Geelong... 29118
St Kilda... 28971
West Coast... 24977
Hawthorn... 24754
Carlton... 24615
North Melbourne... 21599
Brisbane Lions... 20146
Sydney... 19396
Port Adelaide... 16036

10 home games and only three above 25k - piss poor.

We donot have any bargaining power.

[Eastdog]

They are not a charity.

Here is a list of homes games last season at Eithad

Collingwood... 38155
Geelong... 29118
St Kilda... 28971
West Coast... 24977
Hawthorn... 24754
Carlton... 24615
North Melbourne... 21599
Brisbane Lions... 20146
Sydney... 19396
Port Adelaide... 16036

10 home games and only three above 25k - piss poor.

We donot have any bargaining power.

Those crowd attendances have to improve even if we aren't doing well but that is easier said than done.

[Pickenitup]

I reckon we should play those Games against GWS GC and Port and Freo at skilled.
We play the ground well not far at all to travel and we would make cash lets do it!

[Eastdog]

I reckon we should play those Games against GWS GC and Port and Freo at skilled.
We play the ground well not far at all to travel and we would make cash lets do it!

Maybe we could play those games in the future against those teams if they build a new stadium at the showgrounds.

[Ozza]

Its the duty of the Directors of that company to maximise and sustain profits.



...maximising profits for their investors...who are primarily superannuation companies that many many WOOF members quite probably have their super tied up in!

[jeemak]

I tend to agree with BAD.

We are in an incredibly weak position. We know it, Stadium Management know it and the AFL knows it.

I just hope that when the stadium is handed over for $1.00 in 2025, and it is eventually sold the clubs whose supporters subsidised its purchase extremely heavily since it was built enjoy the profits.

That ain't gonna happen though.

[bulldogtragic]

First bit of negative preseason news. Hopefully the club can sort something out and continue to turn us around financially.

[Eastdog]

Is there like a crowd figure threshold we have to reach in order to make a profit? Even if we are below that threshold why don't we still make a bit of profit still.

[Remi Moses]

Whatever way you look it stinks that a team in the same comp can get less attendees at their venue and make more money.
Good luck to them but really it stinks to high heaven.

[Hotdog60]

Its the duty of the Directors of that company to maximise and sustain profits.

But yep this is simply us crying Wolf.

And I hope something better comes out of it for the Dogs.

Silly question, but if we were playing Gold Coast, Power etc how much fixing up would Whitten Oval need?

And would we make more $$ from 10,000 there then 15,000 at Etihad?


Would we make more $$$ playing at WO vs Nallarat?

This might be a option for low attendance games, might be worth taking out the calculator and having a look.

[bulldogtragic]

Its the duty of the Directors of that company to maximise and sustain profits.

But yep this is simply us crying Wolf.

And I hope something better comes out of it for the Dogs.

Silly question, but if we were playing Gold Coast, Power etc how much fixing up would Whitten Oval need?

And would we make more $$ from 10,000 there then 15,000 at Etihad?


Would we make more $$$ playing at WO vs Nallarat?
I emailed Cam Rose a Few years back with a proposal of playing games at WO. He said each venue has to be approved by the league and thy o that by assessing the facilities etc. he said even with the development we were not close to meeting the standards and that it was cost prohibitive to go down this path.

I doubt things have changed, so i Can assume this will never happen. Pity really, although we get to see Footscray at the WO next year. Yeh!

[Eastdog]

Whatever way you look it stinks that a team in the same comp can get less attendees at their venue and make more money.
Good luck to them but really it stinks to high heaven.

As I said in my post yeah you make a very good point Remi in that certain teams who don't get many supporters to the game make a profit and we lose out. These must be teams who don't play home games at Etihad. Why is Etihad so bad for clubs?

[Hotdog60]

As I said in my post yeah you make a very good point Remi in that certain teams who don't get many supporters to the game make a profit and we lose out. These must be teams who don't play home games at Etihad. Why is Etihad so bad for clubs?

I don't think it's bad for clubs, just ones with a low supporter base.

[GVGjr]

Eureka isn't an AFL standard venue in fact it's just an average VFL stadium.

My understanding is that you can only sell home games to emerging football areas so even Geelong doesn't fit the requirements.

[Eastdog]

I don't think it's bad for clubs, just ones with a low supporter base.

Pretty much clubs with healthy supporter bases at Etihad get a profit and club like us with a low supporter base have to increase it to get revenue. But Remi made point that some clubs with home games at their venue with low supporter bases still make profit. Why is Etihad different to other venues.

[jeemak]

Whatever way you look it stinks that a team in the same comp can get less attendees at their venue and make more money.
Good luck to them but really it stinks to high heaven.

This is the elephant in the room, and I suspect, the reason why most clubs are for equalisation to some extent.

It would be completely foolish for any club administration to argue that this inequity is how things should be, and how they should remain.


Eastdog - Docklands was constructed as a means to rationalise (strip back, or reduce) the number of teams within Melbourne on a long term basis, and take football from a suburban game to a more commercial venture.

The AFL decided it could have marquee clubs play at Docklands, and make a profit, while clubs with lesser support could subsidise its fixed costs and help pay the bills. It was never the intention of the AFL to create a level playing field (revenue generation and profit) among the clubs that were selected and or forced into tennancy at Docklands. Which is why they mandated that each club should strike its own deal with the stadium.

The result was marquee clubs receiving a beneficial deal from the stadium, and clubs along for the ride (like the Bulldogs and North) received poor deals. I think perhaps you could question the negotiation tactics of our club during this process, but ultimately it's hard to negotiate a deal when you have a gun to your head, which we effectively had because we wouldn't have been able to play at the MCG, and there were no other grounds available.

[Ghost Dog]

Eureka isn't an AFL standard venue in fact it's just an average VFL stadium.

My understanding is that you can only sell home games to emerging football areas so even Geelong doesn't fit the requirements.

Its horrible there. You can't see anything. Have to be right on the fence.

[jeemak]

Eureka isn't an AFL standard venue in fact it's just an average VFL stadium.

My understanding is that you can only sell home games to emerging football areas so even Geelong doesn't fit the requirements.

That's precisely the (public) reason we were given the last time we ran with this. More to the point, the AFL has a vested interest in ensuring Docklands is paid off as quickly and efficiently as possible.

They minimise bad press about the place, and they do very little to reduce the overall cost for clubs to play there, and for their fans to attend games there.

Considering how much of a horrible situaiton this is for a few of the lesser supported clubs, you'd think there'd be significantly more bad press about the situation and more action from the administration, wouldn't you?

[Eastdog]

This is the elephant in the room, and I suspect, the reason why most clubs are for equalisation to some extent.

It would be completely foolish for any club administration to argue that this inequity is how things should be, and how they should remain.


Eastdog - Docklands was constructed as a means to rationalise (strip back, or reduce) the number of teams within Melbourne on a long term basis, and take football from a suburban game to a more commercial venture.

The AFL decided it could have marquee clubs play at Docklands, and make a profit, while clubs with lesser support could subsidise its fixed costs and help pay the bills. It was never the intention of the AFL to create a level playing field (revenue generation and profit) among the clubs that were selected and or forced into tennancy at Docklands. Which is why they mandated that each club should strike its own deal with the stadium.

The result was marquee clubs receiving a beneficial deal from the stadium, and clubs along for the ride (like the Bulldogs and North) received poor deals. I think perhaps you could question the negotiation tactics of our club during this process, but ultimately it's hard to negotiate a deal when you have a gun to your head, which we effectively had because we wouldn't have been able to play at the MCG, and there were no other grounds available.

Good post jeemak. If we did strike some sort of deal to play only a few home games at the MCG let's say against higher drawing clubs would that be beneficial for us.

[jeemak]

Good post jeemak. If we did strike some sort of deal to play only a few home games at the MCG let's say against higher drawing clubs would that be beneficial for us.

It would, but we wouldn't be presented with a chance to do so.

The MCG doesn't have the capacity to take on another tennant and still maintain its current fixture. Plus, if we were to be given that opportunity, why wouldn't North or the Saints be given the same opportunity?

Remember, the AFL needs Docklands to be paid off quickly and efficiently. To do this they can't have too many games removed from its schedule. If games were removed they'd have to be done with the goal of developing the game (in areas like Darwin, Sydney, Queensland and Canberra etc.) so the AFL can see some benefit to offset the loss of revenue to Docklands.

[Eastdog]

It would, but we wouldn't be presented with a chance to do so.

The MCG doesn't have the capacity to take on another tennant and still maintain its current fixture. Plus, if we were to be given that opportunity, why wouldn't North or the Saints be given the same opportunity?

Remember, the AFL needs Docklands to be paid off quickly and efficiently. To do this they can't have too many games removed from its schedule. If games were removed they'd have to be done with the goal of developing the game (in areas like Darwin, Sydney, Queensland and Canberra etc.) so the AFL can see some benefit to offset the loss of revenue to Docklands.

So the AFL are using some clubs who are tenants at Etihad to help pay off Etihad.

[jeemak]

The higher drawing clubs which are tennats, like Essendon and Carlton for instance pay the bulk of the bills due to the numbers they generate, though they also get better returns for each supporter that comes through the gate.

Stadiums like Docklands don't make any money if there's nobody playing at them, and with the AFL fixture being so erratic and constructed to maximise commercial revenue, there would often be times when those high drawing clubs won't be playing a home game (or blockbuster at the MCG).

To ensure the cost of maintaining the stadium (up-keep of turf, rent, electricity etc) is minimised for stadium management and the AFL there needs to be other clubs playing there to fill the gaps between the high drawing clubs playing there, and generating revenue.

From a commercial point of view I can completely understand why the stadium management behaves the way it does. Why would it give good deals to clubs that don't draw high numbers? It doesn't make sense for them to do that.

However, the AFL does not allow clubs to explore alternatives. Which means they are forced into playing at Docklands with poor returns. Subsequently, the stadium management is able to distribute poor terms to the lower drawing clubs because the lower drawing clubs have no bargaining power.

[jeemak]

So the AFL are using some clubs who are tenants at Etihad to help pay off Etihad.

See above post for context.

The answer to your question, is yes. :)

[Eastdog]

We are really stuck in that we aren't really able to look for alternatives which we should be able to to boost revenue.

[Remi Moses]

What gets my blood boiling is the term" Handouts".
I detest that derogatory word!
:mad:

[Remi Moses]

We are really stuck in that we aren't really able to look for alternatives which we should be able to to boost revenue.

Everyone talks about us now as a low drawing club , but we weren't in the 08 to 10 period and we made a pittance out of the joint.

[Eastdog]

Everyone talks about us now as a low drawing club , but we weren't in the 08 to 10 period and we made a pittance out of the joint.

Very true Remi. Between 2008 and 2010 when will doing very well our crowd attendances were great (eg: 49,000 at Etihad at home against Collingwood Round 1 2010). The trick is can we get the same when we aren't doing well and unfortunately it's proven from last season we can't. Hopefully that can change.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

This is the elephant in the room, and I suspect, the reason why most clubs are for equalisation to some extent.

It would be completely foolish for any club administration to argue that this inequity is how things should be, and how they should remain.


Eastdog - Docklands was constructed as a means to rationalise (strip back, or reduce) the number of teams within Melbourne on a long term basis, and take football from a suburban game to a more commercial venture.

The AFL decided it could have marquee clubs play at Docklands, and make a profit, while clubs with lesser support could subsidise its fixed costs and help pay the bills. It was never the intention of the AFL to create a level playing field (revenue generation and profit) among the clubs that were selected and or forced into tennancy at Docklands. Which is why they mandated that each club should strike its own deal with the stadium.

The result was marquee clubs receiving a beneficial deal from the stadium, and clubs along for the ride (like the Bulldogs and North) received poor deals. I think perhaps you could question the negotiation tactics of our club during this process, but ultimately it's hard to negotiate a deal when you have a gun to your head, which we effectively had because we wouldn't have been able to play at the MCG, and there were no other grounds available.

That's the mother of all elephants. Good luck to Peter Gordon and the club rectifying this one. The club has always been on its knees financially and survived despite the odds. You have to be an optimist. The way we played last year we couldn't attract our own supporters to a game let alone unbiased ones.
Red, white and blue power draping Stringer and McCrae and McCartney forming us into the Roman Legion will do the trick!

[LostDoggy]

Eureka isn't an AFL standard venue in fact it's just an average VFL stadium.

My understanding is that you can only sell home games to emerging football areas so even Geelong doesn't fit the requirements.

I think we should challenge the fact that Geelong is not an option. We have the ability to better serve Western Victoria through providing a second team presence in the second largest city in the most afl-centric State in the land. If we are savvy the club can build more of a rivalry with the cats as a "battle of west Vic" type of game. If we played games at skilled we could offer a Geelong resident membership (much like hawks do in tassie) and capture Geelong residents who don't go for cats.

[Ghost Dog]

I think we should challenge the fact that Geelong is not an option. We have the ability to better serve Western Victoria through providing a second team presence in the second largest city in the most afl-centric State in the land. If we are savvy the club can build more of a rivalry with the cats as a "battle of west Vic" type of game. If we played games at skilled we could offer a Geelong resident membership (much like hawks do in tassie) and capture Geelong residents who don't go for cats.

This is a brilliant suggestion. Firstly, it broadens the idea of what 'west is'. I actually think it would be good for Geelong as well. People have to be reminded of being involved in a comp. Even if they hate having us down here, it will increase their loyalty to the Cats. The rivalry is good for all involved, and strengthens our brand.

Secondly, it also allows us to reach out a bit more to the Western District. We used to have AFL exhibition matches in the VFL in smaller towns more often. Less frequent now. While the ground at Ballarat is not much chop, the game we played there was well attended. Rural Victorians would love better access to AFL games, and playing in Geelong would allow that for our fans in regional areas.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

This is a brilliant suggestion. Firstly, it broadens the idea of what 'west is'. I actually think it would be good for Geelong as well. People have to be reminded of being involved in a comp. Even if they hate having us down here, it will increase their loyalty to the Cats. The rivalry is good for all involved, and strengthens our brand.

Secondly, it also allows us to reach out a bit more to the Western District. We used to have AFL exhibition matches in the VFL in smaller towns more often. Less frequent now. While the ground at Ballarat is not much chop, the game we played there was well attended. Rural Victorians would love better access to AFL games, and playing in Geelong would allow that for our fans in regional areas.

I agree brilliant suggestion. Gary Dempsey came from Lara, or at least got burnt there. Geelong is not so far away as it used to be and there must be many a kid there and in between who want an alternative to the Cats.
They have our colours minus the red; mums could just die a red line or two on the old jumpers.

[w3design]

Look Ballarat and Geelong may be all very well for those from the Western Dist. and Melb's. outer west. But I am a life time supporter, and a long time member who lives in Gippsland. It is already a 270+km round trip for me to attend the docklands now. Those options would be a move to far for me, and many others who live down my way.

I have long wondered given how far through the contract between the League and the Stadium owners we must be by now, why the league don't simply buy out the balance of the contract. Surely if the owners can get a high % of the potential earnings over say a 5 year period, rather than having to wait 12-13 more years they would jump at the offer. Andrew D. aught to be able to fund it out of the small change in his pocket given his salary !!!

Failing a complete early buy out, couldn't the League buy out the individual contracts of those clubs for whom the present arrangement is strangling them, then renegotiate a more equitable deal with the clubs directly between the AFL and clubs?

Given all the interstate and new expansion clubs now playing matches in Melb. who are now, and likely to remain for the foreseeable future drawers of poor crowds, isn't it time the league bit the bullet and set up a boutique stadium that can hold just 25-30K. Surely for TV purposes alone it looks a hell of a lot better for the game to have the stadiums look crowded rather than showing vast swathes of vacant seats in the larger venues.
Plus it would surely be more economically viable.
It would seem a central location,access to public transport, viable road access, and sufficient car parking options are perhaps the main requirements.

Our match day attendances will no doubt grow when we start to climb the ladder so long as we play an attractive brand of football. But we are likely to remain a small supporter base club in the short to medium term, and I worry for our survival given the next media deal is unlikely to be as good as the present one. Thus there is likely to be far less cash to splash about on clubs who are unable to fund their own existence from their own revenue sources.

[Eastdog]

Look Ballarat and Geelong may be all very well for those from the Western Dist. and Melb's. outer west. But I am a life time supporter, and a long time member who lives in Gippsland. It is already a 270+km round trip for me to attend the docklands now. Those options would be a move to far for me, and many others who live down my way.

I have long wondered given how far through the contract between the League and the Stadium owners we must be by now, why the league don't simply buy out the balance of the contract. Surely if the owners can get a high % of the potential earnings over say a 5 year period, rather than having to wait 12-13 more years they would jump at the offer. Andrew D. aught to be able to fund it out of the small change in his pocket given his salary !!!

Failing a complete early buy out, couldn't the League buy out the individual contracts of those clubs for whom the present arrangement is strangling them, then renegotiate a more equitable deal with the clubs directly between the AFL and clubs?

Given all the interstate and new expansion clubs now playing matches in Melb. who are now, and likely to remain for the foreseeable future drawers of poor crowds, isn't it time the league bit the bullet and set up a boutique stadium that can hold just 25-30K. Surely for TV purposes alone it looks a hell of a lot better for the game to have the stadiums look crowded rather than showing vast swathes of vacant seats in the larger venues.
Plus it would surely be more economically viable.
It would seem a central location,access to public transport, viable road access, and sufficient car parking options are perhaps the main requirements.

Our match day attendances will no doubt grow when we start to climb the ladder so long as we play an attractive brand of football. But we are likely to remain a small supporter base club in the short to medium term, and I worry for our survival given the next media deal is unlikely to be as good as the present one. Thus there is likely to be far less cash to splash about on clubs who are unable to fund their own existence from their own revenue sources.

Good points paulv. Im a Dogs supporter based in the Eastern suburbs and I agree Geelong and Ballarat are very far away to travel from where I live. If Waverley Park was still to AFL standard we could play some home games there but once again it's not central. Hopefully there are future plans to build a 3rd stadium in a central location (eg: Showgrounds) close to the city for these kind of games that get lower crowds.

[Ghost Dog]

The AFL have to do something about this. Surely there is no advantage for them if a large chunk of our earnings is lining the pockets of some super fund group and not feeding back into the game.

[LostDoggy]

Good points paulv. Im a Dogs supporter based in the Eastern suburbs and I agree Geelong and Ballarat are very far away to travel from where I live. If Waverley Park was still to AFL standard we could play some home games there but once again it's not central. Hopefully there are future plans to build a 3rd stadium in a central location (eg: Showgrounds) close to the city for these kind of games that get lower crowds.

It's even further to go to Canberra and Darwin. I think 3 games a year in Geelong against interstate teams is preferrable to the current arrangements. I think there would still be ample opportunities to play at etihad - I'm not suggesting we ditch etihad completely, just add a bit of competitive tension to discussions. Just would work so much better financially. I understand that Geelong makes $600k+ per game. We would struggle to make that amount from all our interstate games a year. From a pure travel perspective it makes much more sense also. Let the expansion teams play in Darwin and Canberra from now on. We've done our bit for growing the game nationally. Now is our opportunity to grow the game in our own State, closer to home. Isn't it still the fastest growing area in Australia?

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Good points paulv. Im a Dogs supporter based in the Eastern suburbs and I agree Geelong and Ballarat are very far away to travel from where I live. If Waverley Park was still to AFL standard we could play some home games there but once again it's not central. Hopefully there are future plans to build a 3rd stadium in a central location (eg: Showgrounds) close to the city for these kind of games that get lower crowds.

The Showgrounds would have been a better option than Etihad which apart from increased funding from the AFL in the past 12 months has been a financial disaster.Some lateral thinking from the powers could have had North, Essendon and the WB sharing new facilities at the Showgrounds but all would now seem lost for this to ever become a reality.As an Outer Eastern fanatic the thought of traveling to Geelong or Ballarat holds little appeal. Both Geelong and Hawthorn have been brilliantly managed in the manner they have successfully secured their long time futures.Being on a constant drip feed from the AFL is a thorn in our side with little prospect of the situation improving in the near future. The huge financial commitment to National expansion eg Gold Coast and GWS has come at a heavy cost to clubs like WB and North Melbourne.

[chef]

Hopefully the AFL lets us play our home games against interstate teams at Kardinia Park and we get the same returns as Geelong. Will go a long way to helping us be self sufficient.

[jeemak]

Hopefully the AFL lets us play our home games against interstate teams at Kardinia Park and we get the same returns as Geelong. Will go a long way to helping us be self sufficient.

Chef, how do we as a club sell the benefits or upside of that to the AFL?

We know the AFL is determined to pay off the stadium as efficiently as possible, and such a move would hamper their ability to do that.

What reasonable angle can we use to make games at Kardinia an attractive option to the league?

We receive special assistance from the AFL due to inequity within the fixture and stadium deals already. A move to Kardinia might reduce the overall amount we receive for that, particularly if we can't offset the losses to the AFL's overall goals of paying the stadium off. In such a scenario any gains we'd experience from improved gate receipts would be offset by the loss of special assistance.

[Rocco Jones]

Seems like a transparent bluff to me. Not blaming the club, our cards aren't great.

[Cyberdoggie]

I reckon we should play those Games against GWS GC and Port and Freo at skilled.
We play the ground well not far at all to travel and we would make cash lets do it!

Maybe not for you but i doubt i'd travel down to Geelong from Boronia when i can go to the pub or watch it from home.

It would probably cost me at least $30 in petrol, plus tolls, add parking, food.
Adds up.

I'd say most eastern suburbs supporters would feel the same.

[Eastdog]

Maybe not for you but i doubt i'd travel down to Geelong from Boronia when i can go to the pub or watch it from home.

It would probably cost me at least $30 in petrol, plus tolls, add parking, food.
Adds up.

I'd say most eastern suburbs supporters would feel the same.

I'm an eastern suburbs supporter too Cyberdoggie and yes it would cost a bit for people who live far away from Geelong and Ballarat like us. As I said in an earlier post the Showgrounds I feel is the future hopefully for our club.

[Rae]

As I live in Ballarat and attend every game the Doggies play in Melbourne, I couldn't see us playing in Ballarat. The cost to bring the ground and facilities up to standard would be massive. I would rather it be spent in getting Whitten Oval up and running.

[BulldogBelle]

Could we give provide discounted tickets, give away tickets, provide buy one get one free offers or do something else to bring the Etihad crowds up to the 25k threshold?

[bornadog]

Could we give provide discounted tickets, give away tickets, provide buy one get one free offers or do something else to bring the Etihad crowds up to the 25k threshold?

We could also work with the stadium to think up ideas on how to reduce costs for these matches. Example, maybe no one sits on the 3rd level for say half the ground as there are costs in providing ushers, security, food stalls etc? Maybe everyone has to sit on level 1 and two? This of course has other implications for reserve seat holders.
Maybe interstate ticket holders have to pay more, say an extra $10 each to help out as well. They will be coming anyway;)

We have to make this stadium work to our benefit. Your ideas should also be considered.

Playing at Geelong and Ballarat to me is a step backwards in our development of the Western Front of Melbourne. I would rather we played at Whitten Oval some how than go to those regional areas.

[bulldogtragic]

We could also work with the stadium to think up ideas on how to reduce costs for these matches. Example, maybe no one sits on the 3rd level for say half the ground as there are costs in providing ushers, security, food stalls etc? Maybe everyone has to sit on level 1 and two? This of course has other implications for reserve seat holders.
Maybe interstate ticket holders have to pay more, say an extra 410 each to help out as well. They will be coming anyway;)

We have to make this stadium work to our benefit. Your ideas should also be considered.

Playing at Geelong and Ballarat to me is a step backwards in our development of the Western Front of Melbourne. I would rather we played at Whitten Oval some how than go to those regional areas.
I agree. We've got to find other avenues to making Ethihad work. If we are the western team, then playing rural wont help the push.

[Eastdog]

We could also work with the stadium to think up ideas on how to reduce costs for these matches. Example, maybe no one sits on the 3rd level for say half the ground as there are costs in providing ushers, security, food stalls etc? Maybe everyone has to sit on level 1 and two? This of course has other implications for reserve seat holders.
Maybe interstate ticket holders have to pay more, say an extra $10 each to help out as well. They will be coming anyway;)

We have to make this stadium work to our benefit. Your ideas should also be considered.

Playing at Geelong and Ballarat to me is a step backwards in our development of the Western Front of Melbourne. I would rather we played at Whitten Oval some how than go to those regional areas.

I agree BAD we need to make Etihad benefit our club somehow. I think with the nature of the competition today clubs won't be going back to their old home grounds as a lot of them are not to AFL standard. Would it really be bad for us if we did play some of our home games at the MCG? If we played there would we really be losing out or would we make some revenue which is a start.

[Mantis]

Could we give provide discounted tickets, give away tickets, provide buy one get one free offers or do something else to bring the Etihad crowds up to the 25k threshold?

Can't work.

Imagine the out-cry - Why should I pay full price for entry when others are getting in for free?

[Ghost Dog]

I like mission, but we need a blue chip sponsor on board who will benefit from the Etihad relationship.

[boydogs]

As I live in Ballarat and attend every game the Doggies play in Melbourne, I couldn't see us playing in Ballarat. The cost to bring the ground and facilities up to standard would be massive. I would rather it be spent in getting Whitten Oval up and running.

Brace yourself for a rates increase, the last proposal in front of the council was from a multi-sport consortium for a $80m cheque.

[jeemak]

I like mission, but we need a blue chip sponsor on board who will benefit from the Etihad relationship.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.

Which Etihad relationship are you talking about aside from the one where we get bent over and cop it where it doesn't tickle? Should we find another company that works in cahoots with Stadium Management just so we can get touched up even more, for the benefit of themselves and Etihad/Stadium Management?

How does a club like ours attract a blue chip sponsor anyway? Mission Foods is a subsidiary of a corporation that turns over $4B annualy. While it's not the most prominent brand on our shelves, it's a brand that is trying to innovate and develop within the Australian market, much like we're trying to do in the west of Melbourne.

We get over a million dollars a year from Mission Foods. I don't think the club cares a great deal if you like it or not, and nor should they. Last time I checked, there wasn't a great deal of suitors willing to bid for our brand, and we're going to be very bloody lucky to strike a deal as lucrative as the Mission Foods deal we've benefited from over the last few years.

Synergies between the interests of those who manage the home stadium we have to play at, and those who are willing to sponsor us are the least of our worries. We need to get people to our games.

[Eastdog]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.

Which Etihad relationship are you talking about aside from the one where we get bent over and cop it where it doesn't tickle? Should we find another company that works in cahoots with Stadium Management just so we can get touched up even more, for the benefit of themselves and Etihad/Stadium Management?

How does a club like ours attract a blue chip sponsor anyway? Mission Foods is a subsidiary of a corporation that turns over $4B annualy. While it's not the most prominent brand on our shelves, it's a brand that is trying to innovate and develop within the Australian market, much like we're trying to do in the west of Melbourne.

We get over a million dollars a year from Mission Foods. I don't think the club cares a great deal if you like it or not, and nor should they. Last time I checked, there wasn't a great deal of suitors willing to bid for our brand, and we're going to be very bloody lucky to strike a deal as lucrative as the Mission Foods deal we've benefited from over the last few years.

Synergies between the interests of those who manage the home stadium we have to play at, and those who are willing to sponsor us are the least of our worries. We need to get people to our games.

Mission I believe are international. There headquarters are in Epping. There partnership with us is important.

[AndrewP6]

Mission I believe are international. There headquarters are in Epping. There partnership with us is important.

Yes, they are international. The company (Gruma) was founded in the U.S. The Epping factory is their Australian base. They've given us a great deal of support since coming on board.

[Eastdog]

Yes, they are international. The company (Gruma) was founded in the U.S. The Epping factory is their Australian base. They've given us a great deal of support since coming on board.

It was important we found them. What happen to the Lease Plan deal from before?

[jeemak]

It was important we found them. What happen to the Lease Plan deal from before?

http://www.leaseplan.com.au/

They're not sponsoring us anymore, and it seems they have Drew Petrie on their web page.

Essentially they didn't want to maintain a tier one sponsorship with a football club.

Hence, we had to find another partner.

[Eastdog]

http://www.leaseplan.com.au/

They're not sponsoring us anymore, and it seems they have Drew Petrie on their web page.

Essentially they didn't want to maintain a tier one sponsorship with a football club.

Hence, we had to find another partner.

I believe Mission is our only sponsor. Do some clubs have more than one sponsor? Maybe revenue could be generated like that.

[AndrewP6]

I believe Mission is our only sponsor. Do some clubs have more than one sponsor? Maybe revenue could be generated like that.

Uh, no, they are our major sponsor. The club website has information on all our other business partners.

[Ghost Dog]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.



How does a club like ours attract a blue chip sponsor anyway? Mission Foods is a subsidiary of a corporation that turns over $4B annualy. While it's not the most prominent brand on our shelves, it's a brand that is trying to innovate and develop within the Australian market, much like we're trying to do in the west of Melbourne.

We get over a million dollars a year from Mission Foods. I don't think the club cares a great deal if you like it or not, and nor should they. Last time I checked, there wasn't a great deal of suitors willing to bid for our brand, and we're going to be very bloody lucky to strike a deal as lucrative as the Mission Foods deal we've benefited from over the last few years.

Synergies between the interests of those who manage the home stadium we have to play at, and those who are willing to sponsor us are the least of our worries. We need to get people to our games.

Howdy Jeemak.
Well, how does North Melbourne attract a blue chip sponsor in Mazda? They have about the same membership base as us, but have a very well known brand. Which do you think is the better brand from a marketing perspective?

As we improve on field, better suitors are going to come along and that's just business. This doesn't devalue the arrangement between ourselves and Mission now; it's a great deal. But a sponsor is not a charity ( the way you write it makes it sound like that). They get something for their cash.
As I said, Mission is good, Mission is a great brand, and an important sponsor. However, we are talking about the future here and if you want to be big you need big ambitions. No need to get all uptight ( re the second part in bold ) I'm not attacking Mission.

Quick question ( don't google ). Who were our sponsors during the 1997, 2008 and 2009 Prelim campaigns? Some supporters could tell you but not all.... it's BUSINESS!

[jeemak]

Howdy Jeemak.
Well, how does North Melbourne attract a blue chip sponsor in Mazda? They have about the same membership base as us, but have a very well known brand. Which do you think is the better brand from a marketing perspective?

As we improve on field, better suitors are going to come along and that's just business. This doesn't devalue the arrangement between ourselves and Mission now; it's a great deal. But a sponsor is not a charity ( the way you write it makes it sound like that). They get something for their cash.
As I said, Mission is good, Mission is a great brand, and an important sponsor. However, we are talking about the future here and if you want to be big you need big ambitions. No need to get all uptight ( re the second part in bold ) I'm not attacking Mission.

Quick question ( don't google ). Who were our sponsors during the 1997, 2008 and 2009 Prelim campaigns? Some supporters could tell you but not all.... it's BUSINESS!

How does Norf's Mazda sponsor improve their relationship with Etihad? Does Norf get the same sponsorship returns from them that we do from Misson?

I thought Orica was our sponsor in 1997, but I could be wrong.

Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you mate. The premise of your post suggested a blue chip sponsor will assist our Etihad deal, and I just can't see it.

[bornadog]

Howdy Jeemak.
Well, how does North Melbourne attract a blue chip sponsor in Mazda? They have about the same membership base as us, but have a very well known brand. Which do you think is the better brand from a marketing perspective?

As we improve on field, better suitors are going to come along and that's just business. This doesn't devalue the arrangement between ourselves and Mission now; it's a great deal. But a sponsor is not a charity ( the way you write it makes it sound like that). They get something for their cash.
As I said, Mission is good, Mission is a great brand, and an important sponsor. However, we are talking about the future here and if you want to be big you need big ambitions. No need to get all uptight ( re the second part in bold ) I'm not attacking Mission.

Quick question ( don't google ). Who were our sponsors during the 1997, 2008 and 2009 Prelim campaigns? Some supporters could tell you but not all.... it's BUSINESS!

Don't understand what your point is. Mission is a global brand and we are currently not looking for a major sponsor?

As I have pointed out and others like Jeemak, our biggest issue is getting people to the game.

Last year was a disgrace with only 3 home games attracting over 25k.

[Mofra]

How does Norf's Mazda sponsor improve their relationship with Etihad? Does Norf get the same sponsorship returns from them that we do from Misson?
Mazda & North is the longest partnership in the AFL, it pre-dates Etihad being open IIRC.

North have also sold the naming rights to Arden St (Aegis Oval) - is that something we would consider? EJ has stand named after him as well, and North pick up six figure for the ground naming rights.
They partner with the Victorian Fencing Association and we partner with Vic Uni so there are similarities in that we technically share the facilities, although the VFA occupy the entire top floor of their main building and rarely use the oval (whilst we gain sports science benefits to our, obviously superior relationship with Vic Uni :)).

[soupman]

Howdy Jeemak.
Well, how does North Melbourne attract a blue chip sponsor in Mazda? They have about the same membership base as us, but have a very well known brand. Which do you think is the better brand from a marketing perspective?


I don't get the relevance? In what way is Mazda a better sponsor than Mission. Really the benefits a sponsor can give us fall in three categories:
-Financial: How much money we actually get from them. Easiest to measure.
-Ability to let us use their resources: As in the Vic Uni partnership, through that sponsorship we gain access to resources we wouldn't otherwise have.
-Marketing for you: Does the sponsor give your club publicity it wouldn't have otherwise. ie. a partnership with a newspaper (geelong advertiser)

Mazda and Mission both seem to only deliver in the first category, with minor benefits possible in the second (free wraps/discounted cars). Neither advertise their respective clubs in their day to day business.

As for the bolded bit, the whole point of a sponsorship is to raise brand awareness and interest amongst th public, for the sponsoring brand. I fail to see how Mazda is in anyway a better brand to market than Mission, and how this is a problem that we can either fix or even care about.



As we improve on field, better suitors are going to come along and that's just business.

What better sponsors? Mission is an international company with alot of resources to back them up. This statement may be true if we were sponsored by a company with little financial weight behind them, ie. IGA, but Mission is a pretty big brand that will only grow in Australia.


However, we are talking about the future here and if you want to be big you need big ambitions.

I think we are. Our partnership with Vic Uni meets our ambitions, and our financial deal with Mission gives us ome money to achieve them



Quick question ( don't google ). Who were our sponsors during the 1997, 2008 and 2009 Prelim campaigns? Some supporters could tell you but not all.... it's BUSINESS!

1997 was ICI or ORICA (I was 9 so remember those two sponsors being around that period). 08 and 09 were leaseplan. And how is that the clubs problem if people don't remember?

Spoiler Alert: (Just looked it up and it was ICI in 1997).


Mazda & North is the longest partnership in the AFL, it pre-dates Etihad being open IIRC.


Mazda started sponsoring North in 1999. Ford started sponsoring Geelong in 1925. Geelong win.



North have also sold the naming rights to Arden St (Aegis Oval) - is that something we would consider? EJ has stand named after him as well, and North pick up six figure for the ground naming rights.

Last time I checked we train in the "Mission Elite Learning Centre" or something to that effect.

[Ghost Dog]

I don't get the relevance? In what way is Mazda a better sponsor than Mission..

Oh ok. Let me preface this by saying I'm a teacher, a bit left leaning, not a corporate person at all ( although I used to work in corporate events ). So to be blunt, cars are sexier than bread. Stupid, vain, silly I know. We live in a stupid commercial world. To me anyway, bread is sexier than cars, but not to the commercial world. Stadium deals, sponsorship, it's all wrapped up in it ( wrap, get it har )

If it were possible to have two sponsors I would be all for it. However, I would be quite happy for us to stick by Mission as they are going through the hard yards with us. That being said, I have talked to all manner of business types and heard it many times. Bulldogs need some class support, image wise to get to anywhere within cooee of Collingwood or Carlton and negate the financial disadvantage we are facing. It's a lot about perceptions.
I agree, we are lucky to have Mission at this period of our growth. ( thank Eddie McGuire, love him or hate him )
You could counter argue that a food producer is a very good sponsor for the family market. So there are all kinds of arguments.

[AndrewP6]

So to be blunt, cars are sexier than bread. Stupid, vain, silly I know. We live in a stupid commercial world. To me anyway, bread is sexier than cars, but not to the commercial world.
.

Good lord, and I thought I'd heard everything....bread is sexier than cars....

[Greystache]

This is one of the strangest debates I've ever seen. I would think the sexiness of our major sponsor would be the lowest priority of all things faced by the club's management. Also Carlton as sponsored by Mars Bars!!

[Ghost Dog]

Sigh. If Lantern were here, he would get it :)

[jeemak]

Sigh. If Lantern were here, he would get it :)

Get that for no reason you think we need a sexy sponsor?

[Eastdog]

Sigh. If Lantern were here, he would get it :)

Lantern was very good. Hopefully he comes back on to WOOF because his posts were very insightful.

[Ghost Dog]

Get that for no reason you think we need a sexy sponsor?

I must come across as a bit silly. But anyone with corporate marketing experience knows what I am on about. Greystache is exactly right. Mars is a bizarre fit for Carlton.

[Eastdog]

I must come across as a bit silly. But anyone with corporate marketing experience knows what I am on about. Greystache is exactly right. Mars is a bizarre fit for Carlton.

I remember in the EPL Wolverhampton had Doritos chips as its sponsor.

[jeemak]

This is one of the strangest debates I've ever seen. I would think the sexiness of our major sponsor would be the lowest priority of all things faced by the club's management. Also Carlton as sponsored by Mars Bars!!


I must come across as a bit silly. But anyone with corporate marketing experience knows what I am on about. Greystache is exactly right. Mars is a bizarre fit for Carlton.

Come on mate. I have respect for the effort you go to when posting, for sure, but I've had over a decade of corporate experience in a sales or sales marketing capacity, and if anything it has taught me that pragmatism resulting in real outcomes outweighs over-reaching towards a concept.

I'm not really convinced Greystache was backing up your point by outlining what you see as an odd fit for Carlton. If anything, I think he was stating that with Mars being mundane but good enough for the Blues, Mission Foods should be good enough for us. Though, I don't really want to speak for him.

Agree that we should be striving for the best commercial and ethical outcome for our club when it comes to entering a relationship with a major sponsor. Though I think the club and the membership needs to be responsible from a fiscal point of view when selecting a sponsor to engage and to enter a partnership with.

If it happens to be a sexy blue chip business, or a second tier FMCG business it doesn't really matter. Ultimately we need to be realistic about the product or brand we have for sale, and realise that it will take a lot more work than a few bells and whistles to make us an attractive long term sponsorship prospect for major businesses, and to create competition within this group of businesses to secure our signature.

[hujsh]

Sigh. If Lantern were here, he would get it :)

Lantern is in danger of becoming our Martin Luther King.

[Maddog37]

The best sponsors are ones that are loyal and pays good dollars without massive demands.

Whether it be Kenny's crap farm or BMW as long as they run a reputable business and support the club all is good IMHO.

[bornadog]

The best sponsors are ones that are loyal and pays good dollars without massive demands.

Whether it be Kenny's crap farm or BMW as long as they run a reputable business and support the club all is good IMHO.

Exactly and Mission is a great fit with our club and have been big supporters. They are a huge company and part of the Gruma Group:


GRUMA is the most globalized food company in Mexico, indisputable worldwide leader in corn flour and tortilla production.

It has an international expansion that includes operations in Mexico, United States, Europe, Central America, Venezuela, Asia and Oceania with the presence of our brands maseca and mission, among others. continues here (http://www.gruma.com/vIng/Acerca/acerca_esto.asp)

They have pumped in a lot of money and we should appreciate the support.

[Ghost Dog]

Come on mate. I have respect for the effort you go to when posting, for sure, but I've had over a decade of corporate experience in a sales or sales marketing capacity, and if anything it has taught me that pragmatism resulting in real outcomes outweighs over-reaching towards a concept.

I'm not really convinced Greystache was backing up your point by outlining what you see as an odd fit for Carlton. If anything, I think he was stating that with Mars being mundane but good enough for the Blues, Mission Foods should be good enough for us. Though, I don't really want to speak for him.

Agree that we should be striving for the best commercial and ethical outcome for our club when it comes to entering a relationship with a major sponsor. Though I think the club and the membership needs to be responsible from a fiscal point of view when selecting a sponsor to engage and to enter a partnership with.

If it happens to be a sexy blue chip business, or a second tier FMCG business it doesn't really matter. Ultimately we need to be realistic about the product or brand we have for sale, and realise that it will take a lot more work than a few bells and whistles to make us an attractive long term sponsorship prospect for major businesses, and to create competition within this group of businesses to secure our signature.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. Don't worry/ Greystache always backs me up in everything I post. ^_^
Seriously, a chocolate company to sponsor elite sports. It's all a ruse - In reality they are sponsored by pokies machines anyhow.

[LostDoggy]

We could also work with the stadium to think up ideas on how to reduce costs for these matches. Example, maybe no one sits on the 3rd level for say half the ground as there are costs in providing ushers, security, food stalls etc? Maybe everyone has to sit on level 1 and two? This of course has other implications for reserve seat holders.

I agree. Reduce the actual game day costs. It looks terrible having a small crowd scattered all over level 3 when there are plenty of seats on level one that could be filled. I have a reserved seat in Aisle 28 & there are plenty of empty seats near us. I think last year (Mothers Day v North Melbourne - away game for us) Bulldogs members could go to the ticket box & get a free upgrade to a seat on level one behind the goals, rather than have to go up to level 3. At least close half of level 3 when a small crowd is expected.

[Mofra]

Last time I checked we train in the "Mission Elite Learning Centre" or something to that effect.
Which is not the same as selling the naming rights to the ground which is known at Whitten Oval, hence my question. Would we consider it?

[Greystache]

I'm not really convinced Greystache was backing up your point by outlining what you see as an odd fit for Carlton. If anything, I think he was stating that with Mars being mundane but good enough for the Blues, Mission Foods should be good enough for us. Though, I don't really want to speak for him.

Correct jeemak, that's exactly what I was saying.

[Rocco Jones]

Lantern is in danger of becoming our Martin Luther King.

Remember the time Lantern saved WOOF from Collingwood supporting internet terroist hackers?

[Remi Moses]

The best sponsors are ones that are loyal and pays good dollars without massive demands.

Whether it be Kenny's crap farm or BMW as long as they run a reputable business and support the club all is good IMHO.

Bang on. It's all about the bottom line.
Always notice mission foods signs over Home run fences in the states.
Have bugger all knowledge on marketing strategy, but would think Mission are a growing brand in Oz.Just imagine the carry on if we were fleecing the Tassie tax payer as a sponsor:rolleyes:

[Axe Man]

The best sponsors are ones that are loyal and pays good dollars without massive demands.

Whether it be Kenny's crap farm or BMW as long as they run a reputable business and support the club all is good IMHO.

Agreed. I couldn't care less if we were sponsored by Laxettes, as long as the dollars roll in. In fact that could be a great tag line: The Laxettes Western Bulldogs, giving the opposition the shits since 1877!

[Hotdog60]

Agreed. I couldn't care less if we were sponsored by Laxettes, as long as the dollars roll in. In fact that could be a great tag line: The Laxettes Western Bulldogs, giving the opposition the shits since 1877!

And we'll have the runs on the board.

[KT31]

And we'll have the runs on the board.

Maye Sorbant could be a minor sponsor.;)

[hujsh]

Remember the time Lantern saved WOOF from Collingwood supporting internet terroist hackers?

And it only took his lunch break to do it in.

Although I was more referring to the way people in America have begun to claim they know that MLK would support/oppose abortions, gun rights etc.

But I like this Lantern myth building. We need a Firstdog drawn graphic novel of his various exploits I think. 'Lantern: The Greatest Hero the World Never Knew'

[bornadog]

Bump -

At Geelong Presidents Lunch


Western Bulldogs home at Geelong?

During his pre-match address Geelong president Colin Carter popped the question to Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon, reminding him the Dogs had a standing offer to consider playing a couple of home games at Simonds Stadium in the future. "We would even like to see the Bulldogs playing a few games down here and I know you have been interested in that in the past. Don't lose that idea as you push forward," Carter said. The Cats make about $500,000 at every home game at Simonds and have suggested the Bulldogs could do the same if they took up the offer. Carter also re-affirmed his belief that the Cats should be given eight home games at Simonds Stadium in 2015 rather than helping the AFL fulfill its obligations at Etihad Stadium.

It would be familiar territory for many Bulldogs with its coaching staff consisting of former Cats assistant coach Brendan McCartney and players Ben Graham, Cameron Mooney, Joel Corey and Brent Prismall. The chances of the Bulldogs actually playing home games down at the Cattery are slim as the AFL have rejected previous enquiries.

[Remi Moses]

How is that last paragraph relevant to us playing in Geelong?
So what?

[azabob]

How is that last paragraph relevant to us playing in Geelong?
So what?

They would be able to walk home after the match! :D

[Remi Moses]

They would be able to walk home after the match! :D

Meanwhile the rest of us have an ardous long journey home.

[bornadog]

Meanwhile the rest of us have an ardous long journey home.

Bit shorter than Cairns, Darwin and Canberra

[Twodogs]

They would be able to walk home after the match! :D

They could go home for lunch.