GEELONG has revealed the controversial AFL decision to fixture last year’s qualifying final at Simonds Stadium will cost the club $500,000 this year.

Cats president Colin Carter says that bold call — and the lack of a home game against Collingwood — will affect the Cats bottom line by up to $1 million this year.

But while some clubs would be up in arms about those two decisions, Carter says there are other clubs which must be handed fixturing advantages before Geelong.

St Kilda made as much money from a one-off Wellington game last year as it did from all of their Etihad Stadium games.

GUMBY OUT FOR 12

FRANKLIN WILL BE OK: PICKERING

SUPERCOACH SCORES: DEES v CATS

The Cats are instead intent on supporting equalisation measures to help clubs with terrible stadium deals drag themselves out of the financial mire.

Not even Geelong believed it was a chance to host a Simonds Stadium game amid outcry from Fremantle about the decision.

Carter says that call means the Cats only receive seven home games at Simonds Stadium this year, not their preferred eight.

“We make more money out of a game at Geelong than we do at Etihad Stadium, and because the AFL played that final at Simonds out of which we got no money, to square the fixture with Etihad we only got seven games at Geelong this year,’’ he said.

“That is half a million dollars, and for the second year in a row we haven’t got a home game against Collingwood, which is pretty hard to justify statistically. But that is part of the give and take of the fixture.

“Every club and particularly stronger clubs are on the receiving end of benefits. We have the benefit of our own stadium.

‘’But the reality is smaller clubs have been disadvantaged by both the fixture and stadium economics.”

Carter says the big difference between the AFL and codes like the English Premier League and NFL is that Australian football clubs are forced into ill-fitting stadiums.

“Because of the nature of the competition we share stadiums, and smaller clubs are in stadiums that are larger than suit. In an ideal world which was fair the Doggies and North would play at a ground the size of Simonds Stadium but nobody is interested in spending another $500 million on another stadium. So if we make them play at grounds which are not suited to their economics, they should be compensated for it.”

Carter said Simonds Stadium, which now has lights and is being continually redeveloped with state and federal government funding, had been offered to clubs like the Bulldogs for home games.

But the AFL’s contracts with Etihad Stadium mean that will not happen.

“So for example if the Dogs are not allowed to play some home games where they would make more money, doesn’t it seem self-evident that they should be compensated?”