On 6/7/03 4:10 AM, JohnD bleated:
> "Sanctify" <sancters@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1057386394.422692@no-spam
>
>> Nope - thanks to the AFL not giving a fuck about any non Victorian teams
>> they couldn't get a direct flight.
>
> Surely it's not the AFL's fault that unaffiliated airlines don't offer
> direct flights from Perth to Tassie ? If Freo (or WC) thought it was that
> important they could always charter a plane. Selling packages to travelling
> fans would offset the cost easily enough I'd have thought.
Charter a plane? You're kidding, right? Pulling our strings?
Who's going to pay for the charter- the club? The AFL? The club that wants
to have a home game at Manuka or York Park?
You say selling travelling packages to fans (or members) would offset the
cost. Yes, well. It's easy to see you're not Richard Branson using a
psuedonym. Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because clearly you
haven't.
Just quickly, a Boeing 737-x00 can fly quite easilly from Perth to Hobart.
Passenger costs would be approx $250 per person one way. This covers the
team not paying their way, airport fees etc. Where do I get this figure
from? Go to Qantas or Virgin online and look at their Perth-Melb-Hobart one
way. Now of course, the aircraft would have to stay in Hobart, being a
charter, for the return trip.
So a return trip would be approx $500, plus accomadation, food, etc, plus
purchase of a game ticket. I estimate a return could be reduced to approx
$420 if every seat was occupied.
Simply, it's too expensive to contemplate just for a H&A game for the member
who is on a "Standard Seating" or less package, since membership for that
person is about $200 for membership plus seating for 10 games. Paying at
lest double that for 1 H&A game is at best silly, because paying for $600
membership package gets you an excellant seat under cover, plus a room
behind you with a monitor and staff waiting on you for 10 games.
Пока!
"It's times like this I wish I listened to my mother."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know! I didn't listen!"
ICQ 17561990
On 7/7/03 7:56 AM, Sanctify bleated:
> "Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB2F397A.295C%atg@no-spam
>> On 6/7/03 4:10 AM, JohnD bleated:
>>
>>> "Sanctify" <sancters@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:1057386394.422692@no-spam
>>>
>>>> Nope - thanks to the AFL not giving a fuck about any non Victorian teams
>>>> they couldn't get a direct flight.
>>>
>>> Surely it's not the AFL's fault that unaffiliated airlines don't offer
>>> direct flights from Perth to Tassie ? If Freo (or WC) thought it was that
>>> important they could always charter a plane. Selling packages to travelling
>>> fans would offset the cost easily enough I'd have thought.
>>
>> Charter a plane? You're kidding, right? Pulling our strings?
>> Who's going to pay for the charter- the club? The AFL? The club that wants
>> to have a home game at Manuka or York Park?
>>
>> You say selling travelling packages to fans (or members) would offset the
>> cost. Yes, well. It's easy to see you're not Richard Branson using a
>> psuedonym. Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because clearly you
>> haven't.
>
> Odd you say all of this because a few years back the Crows wanted to buy their
> own plane in conjunction with Port. Port said that they didn't have the cash
> required, so the Crows said that they'd put up the majority and allow Port to
> pay them back. All was well until the AFL said that it couldn't be done as
> the deals were in place with Ansett - the bastards.
If corporate sponsorship was disallowed on this scale, memberships would be
unaffordable to most fans. It's a case of 1 in all in for the clubs, since
the AFL does the bargining.
I can't see how AFC + PAFC could afford a suitable aircraft, either
purchasing outright or leasing. More importantly, I can't see how they can
justify it.
Пока!
"It's times like this I wish I listened to my mother."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know! I didn't listen!"
ICQ 17561990
On 8/7/03 3:48 AM, JohnD. bleated:
>
> "Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB3000D7.29AE%atg@no-spam
>> On 7/7/03 12:09 PM, JohnD. bleated:
>>
>>> "Epigram" <atg@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:BB2F397A.295C%atg@no-spam
>>>> On 6/7/03 4:10 AM, JohnD bleated:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sanctify" <sancters@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1057386394.422692@no-spam
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope - thanks to the AFL not giving a fuck about any non Victorian
>>> teams
>>>>>> they couldn't get a direct flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely it's not the AFL's fault that unaffiliated airlines don't offer
>>>>> direct flights from Perth to Tassie ? If Freo (or WC) thought it was
>>> that
>>>>> important they could always charter a plane. Selling packages to
>>> travelling
>>>>> fans would offset the cost easily enough I'd have thought.
>>>>
>>>> Charter a plane? You're kidding, right? Pulling our strings?
>>>> Who's going to pay for the charter- the club? The AFL? The club that
>>> wants
>>>> to have a home game at Manuka or York Park?
>>>
>>> Of course the club would have to shoulder some of the financial burden,
> but
>>> wouldn't the reduced travelling time be worth paying for ?
>>
>> If it guaranteed a win, yes.
>
> Seeing as a fair percentage of Dockers & Eagles supporters reckon the only
> reason the Hawks beat 'em was the travel factor, you'd reckon the clubs
> would just charter a plane. I mean, if it guarenteed a win and all.
And you obviously know what a fair percentage is, since you speak to every
Fremantle and Wiggle supporter on a regular basis.
Chris Connolly says he likes YP. He has no problem playing there. He's a
diplomatic man. He believes we lost the game because of the poor start in
the 1st 1/4. That's his opinion, for *that* particular game.
The powers that be within the club have told the AFL that they aren't so
happy that the short straw is rigged so that WA and SA clubs are the ones to
play Hawthorn in Launceston.
>>>> You say selling travelling packages to fans (or members) would offset
> the
>>>> cost. Yes, well. It's easy to see you're not Richard Branson using a
>>>> psuedonym. Fortutitously you added "I'd have thought.", because
> clearly
>>>> you haven't.
>>>
>>> Well actually, I can't claim to have "invented" the idea because the ACT
>>> Brumbies do exactly that to reduce travelling drama when scheduled to
> play
>>> at some New Zealand venues in the Super 12 competition.
>>>
>>> Of course the downside is that the fans don't get to bitch about how
> unfair
>>> it is.
>>
>> The difference for the Super 12 are that the games are played from RSA to
>> NZ, and it's up to the clubs to organise transport; it's not organised for
>> them by a corporate sponsor that is an airline.
>
> The cost of airline travel is paid for by the tri-nations rugby unions out
> of television rights money from Sir Rupert. The charter flights come out of
> Brumbies coffers. If they can do it in a two-bit town like Canberra with
> 15000 paid-up members then the WA clubs would shit it in.
Canberra chartering a flight to RSA and paying for it themselves? I think
not. Besides, Rup's Fox has enough money to do what it likes- and with the
World Cup and regular Tests between nations, it's possible for RU's
governing body to "manage" money within the clubs that play in the Super12-
after all, it's in their interests.
>>> But clearly, you're right ... it'd be far too hard to think outside the
>>> square and actually provide a solution.
>>
>> "Thinking outside the square" is a wanky phrase invented by people that
>> have nothing better to do with their lives than to tell others how to live
>> theirs by buying a catalogue. It is a fashion, and as such will go out of
>> vogue.
>>
>> Being humble, I suggested a solution, however it seems that it's too hard to
>> organise clubs from capitals that have direct flights to Hobart. What about
>> a Hawks v Swans at YP if the HFC _need_ to play there? Nah! Can't be done
>> because it's too simple.
> Swans draw some sort of crowd in Melb.
So does other non-Victorian clubs, including the Dockers. There's quite a
following for Freo in Geelong.
And they'd draw a crowd at YP. Or are you "captivated" by a sense that it's
the complete generousity of the VFL to become the AFL and allow clubs like
Fremantle to be a part of it? And of course there are more South Melbourne
supporters that pop down to TD or the MCG to see their twice bankrupted team
play than Freo supporters, so it makes it worthwhile.
And this year, the AFL have made sure Carlton play most of their home games
at Princess Park. Bugger me, Melbourne had a home game at the MCG v
Fremantle while Carlton played at their home ground, as it should be. In
previous years, it seemed as if Carlton had a morgage on the MCG, forcing
Melbourne and Richmond to play home games at PP. There was a lot of
complaining from both Melbourne and Richmond supporters on this ng and other
media, and I don't blame them.
> What is this fascination you have with Hobart. York Park is at the other end
> of the state.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the flights the AFL organise go to Hobart
before the team hop on a bus and wander up to Launceston...
Still the point remains- with the deal Hawthorn has with the TFL, it makes
sense to have an away team to travel with Hawthorn to YP, one that doesn't
have to spend 10 hours in the air. A game of Hawks v Dogs would draw a
bigger crowd at YP than at TD. There are other combinations than *only*
Fremantle or Wiggles.
Perhaps you can "think outside the square" and find other clubs that could
play against Hawthorn at YP? Maybe so that in the draw its one flight they
don't have to have to Brisbane or Perth...
Пока!
"It's times like this I wish I listened to my mother."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know! I didn't listen!"
ICQ 17561990