MCG Home Ground

St.Walker · Post: # 926285Post **St.Walker** » Tue 18 May 2010 5:49pm

Ill prob get smoked here but i don't know the situation.

Why do we chose the DOME over MCG for our home ground/ agreement?

Given concerns over the playing surface and question marks like limited time at the G, wet weather footy ect can someone help?

Mr Magic · Post: # 926303Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 18 May 2010 6:23pm

The AFL 'suggested' we move there when they closed down Waverley.
Since our initial agreement the MCG has becme 'full' of tennant Clubs.

saintlee · Post: # 926306Post **saintlee** » Tue 18 May 2010 6:27pm

I'd love St Kilda to be a MCG tenant, but my understanding is they didn't want us....I could be wrong tho

plugger66 · Post: # 926309Post **plugger66** » Tue 18 May 2010 6:29pm

saintlee wrote:I'd love St Kilda to be a MCG tenant, but my understanding is they didn't want us....I could be wrong tho

That is correct. The dome did so we did the deal and yes MM with the help or hurt of the AFL.

Mr Magic · Post: # 926313Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 18 May 2010 6:34pm

plugger66 wrote:
saintlee wrote:I'd love St Kilda to be a MCG tenant, but my understanding is they didn't want us....I could be wrong tho
That is correct. The dome did so we did the deal and yes MM with the help or hurt of the AFL.

Certainly their help (to the tune of 500k per season over 5years?) to compensate us for the closure of Waverley.

At the time the deal seemed marvellous on papaer.

Subsequently it ahsn't turned out that way (coinciding with Collo becoming CEO?).
Apparently a new deal has now been struck making it more profitable for us (and other CLubs who call it home).

St.Walker · Post: # 926322Post **St.Walker** » Tue 18 May 2010 6:50pm

could we look at a future split similar to geelong has with bigger games at the G, but our others indoor

I cant believe in this day we put players, our best resources at risk with whats supposed to be a greater risk by playing at the dome (harder to recover cause of the surface).

they players are number one. a few less games at the dome and more at the G might help.

Stephen Theodore · Tue 18 May 2010 6:56pm

St.Walker wrote: I cant believe in this day we put players, our best resources at risk with whats supposed to be a greater risk by playing at the dome (harder to recover cause of the surface).

The hard ground at Jihad didnt seem to hinder our recoveries last year when we went through the majority of the season undefeated