Homebush to be renamed AFL Park

[cos789]

With the AFL attempting to buy Homebush stadium , obviously they will try to maximise return by sheduling as many WS and Swans AFL games there as possible .They certainly would look at hosting as many other games there as possible , as long as they didn't interfere with AFL .
Even cricket would be a possibility .
As well as that there would be certain other tangibles and intangibles .
Like the naming rights to the stadium .
The AFL would own the stadium and it's naming rights .
Would the AFL be content with just naming Homebush "AFL Park" ?
Australian Football Park , Aussie Rules Rules ,the list is long .

:thumbsu:

[St Specky]

Don't ANZ have the naming rights?

[cos789]

Basically ANZ own the stadium because they own the debt .
Sell the stadium , sell the rights with it .!!

.:cool:

[FootyJunkie]

We already had an "AFL Park"...it was called Waverley, often hosting two games each weekend, although only one each weekend in its twilight years in the 90s when it turned from a neutral venue to an exclusive home ground for Hawthorn and St.Kilda. Only a stadium in Melbourne would be worthy enough to be labelled "AFL Park".

I still can't picture the new West Sydney club playing all its home games at Stadium Australia. WS vs Freo on a Satuday Night....crowd please? Surely that Blacktown Oval that is supposed to be built for West Sydney's home base will have to take a few of the smaller drawing games. Swans will play a few games at Stadium Australia though. I'm sure the two derbies, blockbusters and finals will be played there with the Swans involved.

ANZ Stadium becomes something generic like "Sydney AFL Stadium"...abbreviated to be SAFLS.

Telstra Dome would become "AFL Dome"...abbreivated to D on fixtures.

[gostk86]

glad this is happening, nrl, union and soccer need a purpose built ground

[genghiskhan]

glad this is happening, nrl, union and soccer need a purpose built ground

The Sydney Football Stadium is purpose built and even its capacity is too large for soccer, union and league.

The AFL would be silly to buy now. On recent trends, the appeal of the stadium to rugby league and union diminishes each year. If the trend continues, they will abandon it completely a few years from now leaving the AFL as the only possible user. The AFL would be able to get it for a bargain.

[littleduck]

AFL being the landlord at Stadium Australian to rival brands of football would really put a spanner in the works wouldn't it !!!!

Offering $200mil for an asset that cost $1bil was a good strategic move for AFL, but clearly the offer was a pretty ordinary one for the current owners.

It might have cost $1bil to build and proven to be a raging success in 2000 but since then its proven to be a dud of a stadium that has tried to cater for too many sports but in the end caters for none of them all that well, save for the big event matches in all codes.

It was meant to be a rectangular stadium post-2000 and if so it would have been closer to the benchmark atmosphere of Lang Park with stands closer to the field of play and fans on top of the action. Sydney may have embraced the venue as its own and been justifiably proud of a purpose-built (rectangular) football venue. The reality is Sydney hates the joint and its become another QEII Stadium viewing-wise.

It turns out that the $1mil the AFL chipped on to keep it suitable for AFL is probably the best investment AFL has ever made in Sydney because it not only gave the Swans somewhere to get crowds beyond the capacity of the SCG and a ready-made venue for a future western Sydney AFL team, but it also fcuked up every other code at the same time.

[littleduck]

The Sydney Football Stadium is purpose built and even its capacity is too large for soccer, union and league. Pretty clearly its far too small for Grand Finals, Bledisloe Cups, Waratahs big games, Socceroos, World Cups in all codes, and blockbuster club games in all codes.

[Rob]

Pretty clearly its far too small for Grand Finals, Bledisloe Cups, Waratahs big games, Socceroos, World Cups in all codes, and blockbuster club games in all codes.

The Waratahs couldn't even sell it out last night in arguably the biggest game they've ever hosted in Sydney. What was the crowd, 7k below capacity?

The few other events arent enough to justify a bigger stadium being built.

[littleduck]

The Waratahs couldn't even sell it out last night in arguably the biggest game they've ever hosted in Sydney. What was the crowd, 7k below capacity?

The few other events arent enough to justify a bigger stadium being built.
Fair point, however how do you justifiy the 98,000 capacity of the MCG when its less than half full for the majority of games and the number of games attracting in excess of 80,00o you could count on your fingers with a few left over???

[Rob]

Fair point, however how do you justifiy the 98,000 capacity of the MCG when its less than half full for the majority of games and the number of games attracting in excess of 80,00o you could count on your fingers with a few left over???

Simple. It's profitable, and MCC membership has a 287 year waiting list. And the AFL averages over 50,000 a game there this year.

The place pays for itself.

[Professor Knowall]

Fair point, however how do you justifiy the 98,000 capacity of the MCG when its less than half full for the majority of games and the number of games attracting in excess of 80,00o you could count on your fingers with a few left over???
Rubbish - You forget it needs to be that big because Collingwood play there (Docklands is now way too small for the Pie army).

Three times already this year the public section has sold out, and only the lack of capacity combined with the way too large area set aside for AFL members stopped the crowds exceeding 100,000 for those games.

Average Collingwood MCG crowd this year so far (8 games) - 65,421! (which includes the low drawing Freo game).

[hammo_cheersquad]

NOO!!!!!!!
YOU CANT TAKE THE SWANS AWAY FROM THE SCG

homebush is too hard to get to for me lol
and all swans offices/facilities are in/around the scg...

[littleduck]

Three times already this year the public section has sold out, and only the lack of capacity combined with the way too large area set aside for AFL members stopped the crowds exceeding 100,000 for those games. 3 games out say 100 AFL games at the G already this year?

Average Collingwood MCG crowd this year so far (8 games) - 65,421! Yeah, so why do they need 98,000 available seats again?

[littleduck]

Simple. It's profitable, and MCC membership has a 287 year waiting list. And the AFL averages over 50,000 a game there this year.

The place pays for itself.
Despite AFL averaging just 50% of seats sold per game, the capacity of the MCG is more than justified. I understand all that, but I'm using the same arguments by some on here to justify the SFS capacity as sufficient for RL, RU and Soccer and an 80,000 seater in Sydney being too big. SFS capacity is not sufficient and Sydney requires an 80,000+ seat stadium.

[Reggi05]

3 games out say 100 AFL games at the G already this year?

Yeah, so why do they need 98,000 available seats again?

Because that's the average, some games are above some below the average.

Was sold out ANZAC day at least, not full Collingwood not a big drawcard amongst MCC members

Should never forget Boxing day test and one day cricket at MCG

[Doctor Jolly]

NOO!!!!!!!
YOU CANT TAKE THE SWANS AWAY FROM THE SCG

homebush is too hard to get to for me lol
and all swans offices/facilities are in/around the scg...

They wont take the swans out of the SCG, but the AFL/Swans will have massive bargaining power when then next SCG contract comes up.

If the AFL owns homebush, then the SCG will need AFL far more than the AFL needs the SCG.

[Rob]

Despite AFL averaging just 50% of seats sold per game, the capacity of the MCG is more than justified. I understand all that, but I'm using the same arguments by some on here to justify the SFS capacity as sufficient for RL, RU and Soccer and an 80,000 seater in Sydney being too big. SFS capacity is not sufficient and Sydney requires an 80,000+ seat stadium.

You're using the same argument that an 80,000 seat stadium in Sydney would pay for itself?

Pretty weak argument, otherwise Homebush wouldn't be sold for about 1/5th of what it's replacement cost would be.

[cos789]

Yeah, so why do they need 98,000 available seats again?



FFS , you keep dragging out the same old questions .
You keep on getting answered and defeated yet
you keep dragging out the same old questions .
Without quoting the exact satistics everybody knows
the capacity of the MCG is well justified and that
another stadium in Sydney (except an AFL standard one )
is not.

:thumbsd:

[littleduck]

You're using the same argument that an 80,000 seat stadium in Sydney would pay for itself?I'm saying there are enough big events in a season to justify 80-100k capacity venues in both Sydney and Melbourne.

Pretty weak argument, Exactly my point.

otherwise Homebush wouldn't be sold for about 1/5th of what it's replacement cost would be.It's not being sold for $200mil.

[littleduck]

Without quoting the exact satistics everybody knows
the capacity of the MCG is well justified.. I agree.

and that another stadium in Sydney (except an AFL standard one )
is not.

:thumbsd:An 80k capacity stadium purpose-built for 3 brands of football (RL, RU and Soccer) is justified!

Homebush is not ideally suited to RL, RU or Soccer and arguably not entirely suited to AFL either. In its attempt to cater for everybody, its ultimately proven to cater adequately for nobody.

[genghiskhan]

Pretty clearly its far too small for Grand Finals, Bledisloe Cups, Waratahs big games, Socceroos, World Cups in all codes, and blockbuster club games in all codes.

You can't justify spending $1,000,000,000 on a new purpose built stadium that will only be used once a year by rugby league, once a year by union and once every four years by soccer. If homebush is unsuitable for these fans then they just don't care enough about sport. I've watched State of Origin at Homebush. It is no worse than rugby league at any purpose built ground. Admittedly, I was further from the action but that's because there was about 60,000 people between me and the playing surface.

[littleduck]

You can't justify spending $1,000,000,000 on a new purpose built stadium ... Who says it has to cost $1billy? The Lang Park upgrade cost $300mil and that was only 3/4 of the ground entry and exit points in the vicinity of the ground.

that will only be used once a year by rugby league, Are you serious?

once a year by union Are you serious?

and once every four years by soccer. Are you serious?

If homebush is unsuitable for these fans then they just don't care enough about sport. It's second rate compared to a purpose-built football stadium.

I've watched State of Origin at Homebush. It is no worse than rugby league at any purpose built ground. Admittedly, I was further from the action but that's because there was about 60,000 people between me and the playing surface.

How can you say "I was further from the action" but that it was "no worse" than a purpose-built venue?

[genghiskhan]

Who says it has to cost $1billy? The Lang Park upgrade cost $300mil and that was only 3/4 of the ground entry and exit points in the vicinity of the ground.

Are you serious?

Are you serious?

Are you serious?

It's second rate compared to a purpose-built football stadium.



How can you say "I was further from the action" but that it was "no worse" than a purpose-built venue?

let's make this first point very clear. If you have 80,000 people in a ground, the majority of them are going to be a long way from the playing surface. As nice as it may sound, you can't have 80,000 people on the boundary line. They just wont fit, no matter how hard the architect tries to make them fit.

Presently, Sydney has a purpose built football stadium. Its called the Sydney Football Stadium. Prior to the construction of Homebush, it was only sold out for the Grand Final and up to two State of Origins. Now Rugby union has come onto the scene, as has soccer, but the prospects of union are looking shaky, and soccer has yet to prove itself across time. Neither code has outgrown the SFS yet.

In most of the soccer and rugby playing world, 50,000 seat stadiums are more than adequate. Current crowds suggest that small stadiums are also adequate for soccer, and the rugby codes in Australia.

[littleduck]

let's make this first point very clear. If you have 80,000 people in a ground, the majority of them are going to be a long way from the playing surface. As nice as it may sound, you can't have 80,000 people on the boundary line. They just wont fit, no matter how hard the architect tries to make them fit. Exactly right, which just goes to show that when its not purpose-built even the close seats are a bit far away and the nose bleeds are bloody.

The reality is Homebush does not provide the full rectnagular football stadium experience, even when the full house sign goes up.

Presently, Sydney has a purpose built football stadium. Its called the Sydney Football Stadium. Prior to the construction of Homebush, it was only sold out for the Grand Final and up to two State of Origins. Now Rugby union has come onto the scene, as has soccer, but the prospects of union are looking shaky, and soccer has yet to prove itself across time. Neither code has outgrown the SFS yet. I don't agree. It was even too small when it was built.

A 3-fingered man could count on 1-hand the number of times per season the MCG is sold out and even then he might have 1-finger left over. This fact does not alter my view that 98000 capacity is justified in Melbourne.

In most of the soccer and rugby playing world, 50,000 seat stadiums are more than adequate. Current crowds suggest that small stadiums are also adequate for soccer, and the rugby codes in Australia.Except Sydney does not even have a purpose-built 50,000+ capacity football stadium.

I believe the only opportunity on the horizon for Sydney to have its own suitably-sized purpose-built football stadium is the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

If Australia hosts this event, expect good things to happen on the stadium front. If not, expect nothing to happen and the current stand-off to continue.

[zero]

seems like league is in a bit of a catch 22, namely, "they would get good crowds if they had a decent purpose built stadium", and "they will get a decent purpose built stadium as soon as their crowds get to a level where they need it"

[littleduck]

seems like league is in a bit of a catch 22, namely, "they would get good crowds if they had a decent purpose built stadium", and "they will get a decent purpose built stadium as soon as their crowds get to a level where they need it"

Yeah, but what is deemed to be "a good crowd" ???

Regardless where you build in Sydney, it won't be accessible from all points of Sydney as the MCG and TD are easily accessible by all in Melbourne. Further, NRL embraces a number of regional teams whereas AFL remains a competition played at large neutral inner metropolitan city colloseums. This means AFL crowds are not a useful comparison for what might be deemed "a good crowd" in RL.

My view is that its only a matter of time before average NRL crowds surpass 20,000 following the 10s of millions spent recently on upgrading almost every ground. 25,000 minimum capacity suburban/regional boutique venues plus switching blockbusters to bigger venues will see all teams averaging 20,000+. I believe this is realistic and achievable for all NRL clubs. Blockbuster crowds at Homebush are slowly building into the mid to high 30's at Homebush which is a positive sign.

[zero]

i think theres little doubt the NRL games would continue at the stadium, they really need each other.

you gotta wonder at the cross promotional oppurtunities though...ANZ stadium and its 38 NRL + SOO + finals, + wallabies and socceroos games, would be the focus of the western sydney AFL teams promotion...lots of advertising at every game, swans and western sydney memberships and merchandise always available, cheap and giveaway western sydney tickets

and it really changes the whole dynamic of the stadiums relationship to AFL, now instead of trying to make as much money as possible, its trying to promote the code as much as possible.

plus, once the WS side comes in, there will be 2 derbies and other games like collingwood and brisbane and such that will be added to the calendar.

[genghiskhan]

Exactly right, which just goes to show that when its not purpose-built even the close seats are a bit far away and the nose bleeds are bloody.

The reality is Homebush does not provide the full rectnagular football stadium experience, even when the full house sign goes up.

I don't agree. It was even too small when it was built.

A 3-fingered man could count on 1-hand the number of times per season the MCG is sold out and even then he might have 1-finger left over. This fact does not alter my view that 98000 capacity is justified in Melbourne.

Except Sydney does not even have a purpose-built 50,000+ capacity football stadium.

I believe the only opportunity on the horizon for Sydney to have its own suitably-sized purpose-built football stadium is the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

If Australia hosts this event, expect good things to happen on the stadium front. If not, expect nothing to happen and the current stand-off to continue.

From your words, rugby league fans don't like being far from the action therefore no large stadiums should ever be built for them. As for a purpose built rectangular stadium making much difference, I went to some Canberra Raiders games at Bruce when it was an oval and also as a rectangle after the redevelopment. Crowds stayed the same, and personally I don't think it made much difference to the overall experience.

There is nothing wrong with Homebush as a stadium. It is only in the last year as crowds have dropped that excuses have been made that it is no good. John Singleton was criticising it the other day, but he was criticising the design, he was criticising the fact that its empty and being empty creates a bad feel.

[littleduck]

From your words, rugby league fans don't like being far from the action therefore no large stadiums should ever be built for them. As for a purpose built rectangular stadium making much difference, I went to some Canberra Raiders games at Bruce when it was an oval and also as a rectangle after the redevelopment. Crowds stayed the same, and personally I don't think it made much difference to the overall experience.

There is nothing wrong with Homebush as a stadium. It is only in the last year as crowds have dropped that excuses have been made that it is no good. John Singleton was criticising it the other day, but he was criticising the design, he was criticising the fact that its empty and being empty creates a bad feel.

Lang Park is the premier (rectangular and non-rectangular) football stadium in this country for a good reason. It provides the ultimate experience for patrons in terms of atmosphere. There is nothing better. The reason is obvious: it's a purpose-built venue and its design is second2none.

I firmly believe the reason why Lions crowds did so well in the early 00's just prior to them winning their first premiership was due to the "Gabba experience". The atmosphere at the newly renovated ground was first class and made the Broncos QEII game day experience look like the second-rate substandard shemozzle it was. I believe the atmosphere allowed Brisbane born and bred people who were otherwise AFL football virgins a great first-time experience and the battle was immediately won for repeat patronage to Lions games based solely on the game-day atmosphere of the new Gabba ground.

On-field spectacle and team performance is only half the battle. If you don't provide patrons with the optimum level of comfort and game-day experience, then repeat patronage is more difficult. This applies to RL played on oval-shaped grounds. Despite the on-field entertainment, its far form the optimum game-day experience that can and should be provided.

Re: Melbourne Storm. While their brand of football is exciting and entertaining and they are the competition benchmark in terms of performance, the game-day atmosphere of being there is 2nd-rate and substandard and repeat patronage is made all the more difficult.

It's a fact of life that the Melbourne public has never experienced the optimum game-day experience for a Storm home game. This will change when the new beaut 30k seat purpose-built football stadium is open for business in a year or so.

I firmly believe that crowds will increase overnight by virtue of the fact of the better game-day experience in a purpose-built venue. Further, this never before experience game-day atmosphere will greatly increase repeat patronage to Storm home games and any other team who plays there regularly including Victory FC and the likely S16 team and perhaps the 2nd A-League team (although I think it will be a Geelong team playing at Geelong Stadium).

[genghiskhan]

Lang Park is the premier (rectangular and non-rectangular) football stadium in this country for a good reason. It provides the ultimate experience for patrons in terms of atmosphere. There is nothing better. The reason is obvious: it's a purpose-built venue and its design is second2none.

I firmly believe the reason why Lions crowds did so well in the early 00's just prior to them winning their first premiership was due to the "Gabba experience". The atmosphere at the newly renovated ground was first class and made the Broncos QEII game day experience look like the second-rate substandard shemozzle it was. I believe the atmosphere allowed Brisbane born and bred people who were otherwise AFL football virgins a great first-time experience and the battle was immediately won for repeat patronage to Lions games based solely on the game-day atmosphere of the new Gabba ground.

On-field spectacle and team performance is only half the battle. If you don't provide patrons with the optimum level of comfort and game-day experience, then repeat patronage is more difficult. This applies to RL played on oval-shaped grounds. Despite the on-field entertainment, its far form the optimum game-day experience that can and should be provided.

Re: Melbourne Storm. While their brand of football is exciting and entertaining and they are the competition benchmark in terms of performance, the game-day atmosphere of being there is 2nd-rate and substandard and repeat patronage is made all the more difficult.

It's a fact of life that the Melbourne public has never experienced the optimum game-day experience for a Storm home game. This will change when the new beaut 30k seat purpose-built football stadium is open for business in a year or so.

I firmly believe that crowds will increase overnight by virtue of the fact of the better game-day experience in a purpose-built venue. Further, this never before experience game-day atmosphere will greatly increase repeat patronage to Storm home games and any other team who plays there regularly including Victory FC and the likely S16 team and perhaps the 2nd A-League team (although I think it will be a Geelong team playing at Geelong Stadium).

As I said with Bruce, purpose-built for the rugby league experience but the result was the same if not worse. Instead of sitting on grass 20 meters from the action, people had a seat 20 meters from the action. Personally, I preferred the grass. You could put down a blanket, and people would sit around it. The chairs felt sterile.

As for comfort, personally I think too much comfort is sometimes provided. The worst AFL game I've even been to was at the Docklands in the medallion club. The game itelf was close. The Bulldogs beat Essendon by a point in their premiership year, but the whole feel was awful. I couldn't stand it. I went to the bar, drank boags and talked to the barmaid. For me, everything was sterile and wrong.

The best games I've been to include a rugby league state of origin at Homebush, sitting in the rain with a plastic bag over my head. I've also had some good times booing the Swans at the SCG in the rain.

I never saw Storm games at Docklands, but from what I've seen of the stadium, it would have been fine from a viewing point of view. Its close, sound can be trapped indoors, and there is even little TVs where you can watch the action. For me though, its too sterile and I would guess many rugby league fans felt the same way.

In Sydney, these moves back to Leichart, Brookvale, Belmore etc aren't driven by a desire for better viewing, or to have more comfort. Predominantly, they are driven by the overall feel the old grounds provide. They are not new, flash, huge and modern. They are quaint, and have character, and more in keeping with the mythology of rugby league.

[cos789]

As for comfort, personally I think too much comfort is sometimes provided.


Have to agree with you there .
I find it disappointing that the codes make make more money and thus prefer
corporate boxes with few and infrequent visitors to cramming in the faithful .

.

[littleduck]

As I said with Bruce, purpose-built for the rugby league experience but the result was the same if not worse. Instead of sitting on grass 20 meters from the action, people had a seat 20 meters from the action. Personally, I preferred the grass. You could put down a blanket, and people would sit around it. The chairs felt sterile.

As for comfort, personally I think too much comfort is sometimes provided. The worst AFL game I've even been to was at the Docklands in the medallion club. The game itelf was close. The Bulldogs beat Essendon by a point in their premiership year, but the whole feel was awful. I couldn't stand it. I went to the bar, drank boags and talked to the barmaid. For me, everything was sterile and wrong.

The best games I've been to include a rugby league state of origin at Homebush, sitting in the rain with a plastic bag over my head. I've also had some good times booing the Swans at the SCG in the rain.

I never saw Storm games at Docklands, but from what I've seen of the stadium, it would have been fine from a viewing point of view. Its close, sound can be trapped indoors, and there is even little TVs where you can watch the action. For me though, its too sterile and I would guess many rugby league fans felt the same way. You make fair points, however you must admit that you are arguing the case for second best being acceptable.

In Sydney, these moves back to Leichart, Brookvale, Belmore etc aren't driven by a desire for better viewing, or to have more comfort. Predominantly, they are driven by the overall feel the old grounds provide. They are not new, flash, huge and modern. They are quaint, and have character, and more in keeping with the mythology of rugby league.The fans have shown they love the old fashioned suburban grounds of the past. However, they can't be the future for Sydney based teams. Patrons today require a greater level of comfort and amenity than a slab of timber, a piece of grass, antiquated boghouses and dodgy food outlets.

Home grounds such as Skilled Park and Canberra Stadium are the perfect size and shape for most NRL teams. Most grounds have received significant upgrades in recent years and continue to be upgraded.

However, both Sydney and Brisbane still also require a much larger venue for the bigger event games.

[genghiskhan]

Have to agree with you there .
I find it disappointing that the codes make make more money and thus prefer
corporate boxes with few and infrequent visitors to cramming in the faithful .

.

It's short sighted really. If you are too biased to the corporates at the expense of the faithful, then the faithful stop coming. Then the corporates stop coming. Corporates only care about their boxes if there are the ground is well attended and there is status associated with it. A corporate saying "come watch the rabbitohs in my box at Stadium Australia " doesn't inspire the same sense of excitement as "come watch Magpies at in my box at the MCG "

[genghiskhan]

You make fair points, however you must admit that you are arguing the case for second best being acceptable.

The fans have shown they love the old fashioned suburban grounds of the past. However, they can't be the future for Sydney based teams. Patrons today require a greater level of comfort and amenity than a slab of timber, a piece of grass, antiquated boghouses and dodgy food outlets.

Home grounds such as Skilled Park and Canberra Stadium are the perfect size and shape for most NRL teams. Most grounds have received significant upgrades in recent years and continue to be upgraded.

However, both Sydney and Brisbane still also require a much larger venue for the bigger event games.

As for second best being acceptable, that's life. You can't sit there whinging because you don't have the best of everything. You make do with what you've got. You can't be there at home saying you wont go to the Sydney Football Stadium because it only holds 40,000 people, but that you won't go to Homebush either because you are too far from the action. People who think that way will soon start complaining about not going because they have to sit next to ruffians making a spectacle out of themselves.

You might think modern stadiums with a McDonalds outlet, 500 corporate boxes, and plastic seats all round are the way of the future, but I don't agree with you. There is something to be said for a ground that has character. I remember when the Bears were still around and playing at Nth Sydney oval. I never heard Bears fan complain that it was a shit ground. Their only real concern was that it was a hard ground and the players got injured too readily. I guess in Brisbane you've grown up with the Broncos so you've never really had an opportunity to come to appreciate character, soul, and culture. The Broncos are just a corporation, and it was the corporate goals of the Broncos that messed up rugby league's mythology and created Super League where it sold its soul.

[woosh_era]

Patrons today require a greater level of comfort and amenity than a slab of timber, a piece of grass, antiquated boghouses and dodgy food outlets.

You havent been to subi eh? Has everything you list, quite literally, and the place is packed to the rafters every weekend... and 60k would queue up for an hour if we could fit them into the squalor.

...why is that?

[THRILLHO]

I dare say that the administrators of Stadium Australia will look closely at having the AFL as a principal tenant of the stadium in 2011 simply because of all the bad press that the ANZ Stadium has copped this year from everyone associated with the NRL. Media, players, coaches and even Gallop have expressed concern about ANZ.

I firmly believe that crowds will increase overnight by virtue of the fact of the better game-day experience in a purpose-built venue. Further, this never before experience game-day atmosphere will greatly increase repeat patronage to Storm home games and any other team who plays there regularly including Victory FC and the likely S16 team and perhaps the 2nd A-League team (although I think it will be a Geelong team playing at Geelong Stadium).

Lol, Ill tell you right now, it's not the lack of a purpose built stadium holding the crowds back, it's the product. Victory have no trouble getting people through the doors ar TD and that aint no purpose built stadium.


My view is that its only a matter of time before average NRL crowds surpass 20,000 following the 10s of millions spent recently on upgrading almost every ground. 25,000 minimum capacity suburban/regional boutique venues plus switching blockbusters to bigger venues will see all teams averaging 20,000+. I believe this is realistic and achievable for all NRL clubs.

20 000 for all NRL clubs is a long way off. NRL average about 17k for crowds in '07, and that figure was bolstered significantly by the Queensland teams. Would love to see what the average crowd figures for Sydney clubs are.

Blockbuster crowds at Homebush are slowly building into the mid to high 30's at Homebush which is a positive sign.

Sounds good for the game. When was the last time it happened though?


EDIT: just checked. It's happened once (http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/2008.html) this year

[littleduck]

I dare say that the administrators of Stadium Australia will look closely at having the AFL as a principal tenant of the stadium in 2011 simply because of all the bad press that the ANZ Stadium has copped this year from everyone associated with the NRL. Media, players, coaches and even Gallop have expressed concern about ANZ. Well it is far from the ideal game-day experience for an ordinary home n away game.

Lol, Ill tell you right now, it's not the lack of a purpose built stadium holding the crowds back, it's the product. Yeah, its the product in the sense that its better viewing on television that live at the venue.

What do you think par for the course crowds should be in RL????

Victory have no trouble getting people through the doors ar TD and that aint no purpose built stadium. Yeah, soccer has a long history in Melbourne whereas RL does not. Maybe that is a prime reason for discrepancy in Victory and Storm crowds?

20 000 for all NRL clubs is a long way off. NRL average about 17k for crowds in '07, and that figure was bolstered significantly by the Queensland teams. Yeah, Sydney lets the game down crowd-wise. Both AFL crowds and QLD NRL crowds make them look bad.

Would love to see what the average crowd figures for Sydney clubs are. They are improving across the board.

Sounds good for the game. When was the last time it happened though? Canterbury v Eatern Suburbs.

[cos789]

Yeah, soccer has a long history in Melbourne whereas RL does not. Maybe that is a prime reason for discrepancy in Victory and Storm crowds?



Sounds a bit like an excuse .

Can we add it to the list please ?

:D

[Ice-Wolf]

Sounds a bit like an excuse .

Can we add it to the list please ?

:D
better make it:

Yeah, soccer has a long history in <insert non RL heartland city> whereas RL does not. Maybe that is a prime reason for discrepancy in <insert soccer club> and <insert rugby league club> crowds?

[cos789]

better make it:

Yeah, soccer has a long history in <insert non RL heartland city> whereas RL does not. Maybe that is a prime reason for discrepancy in <insert soccer club> and <insert rugby league club> crowds?

It's now ...............on the list (sorry if this seems like a plug for a TV show )

Official RL excuses

1 .SL stuffed us up completely and we haven't recovered .

2 .We play to our "heartlands"

3 . It's a television game - couch potatoes count as real interested viewers .

4 .The game is popular but the team isn't

5 .It's the Sydney transport system

6. It's the weather - too hot , too cold or perfect for doing something else .

7. It's the media - too little media , the unfair media , too much AFL media .....Our supporters can't read the media (nice pictures though)

8. It's the lack of developement by the NRL ,ARL , NSWRL and BRL.

9. We're facing development from AFL , FFA and Netball .

10. That popular crowd drawing team is down .

11. That unpopular drawing team is dominating .

12. The mergers put people off , merged teams don't represent their region , merged teams are too powerful ..

13. Dropping South Sydney put people off and put more off by coming back and will lose the rest by relocating..

14. When they gonna build big stadiums at (below) .... the crowds will be enormous
a. Lang Park - now built , no excuses..
b. SFS - long time built not used much .
c. Telstra Dome - state of the art boutique stadium not used as too costly (low crowds)
c . Melbourne Olympic Park - latest holy grail for for crowds
d . Perth MES - now upgraded , latest nrl crowd 1710 .

15. The government won't finance new stadiums .

16 . Our stadiums are too big and look empty deterring more people - never more relevant .

17. When they gonna have double headers , triple headers ...we can then claim the one crowd for both games !

18 . The new pokie tax is gonna kill off the leagues clubs - never more relevant.

19 . We don't have the AFL's draft , management , development , clout , and aggressive approach to expansion ..

20. We don't have a decent game ,(but that's the least of our problems)

21. Sheduled against us was an another big game of .....RU , AFL, AL , NBL , ANL , WNBL.......

21. We sheduled a game against another big game of .....RU , AFL, AL , NBL , ANL , WNBL......

22 . There was a lot of sport on TV. ........golf , tennis , lawn bowls , motorsports , bowling , darts , WWWWE

23 .There was some good shows on TV .
a. Bloke's World returns
b. Iron Chef
c. Bert's big brother idol lost on celebrity dancing singing skating survivor

24. The report is not valid because it only shows interest not real support like ratings where the person
gets off his butt and ............ sorry where the person changes the channel on the remote .

25 .RU is stealing all our players and it looks like AFL is stealing our players as well .

26. The recent WC is grabbing everybody's attention - insert most recent FFA/RU event maybe even the AFL International Cup .

27. You overlook the fact that 25% of all rounds are Origin-affected. While the focus of the season is on State of Origin football,
club football is adversely affected by the best 34 players either unavailable or backing up after State of Origin.

28. Canberra now supports two clubs .

29. It's a bluff because Canberra are renegotiating their stadium deal.

30. It's a bluff because the AFL want some publicity .

31. When looking at NRL averages you cannot look at Sydney in isolation - because they are pathetically low .

32. When looking at NRL averages you cannot look at Melbourne because they have no history there and because they are pathetically low .

.:thumbsu:
cheers

[RussellEbertHandball]

Some of you are going on as if this Stadium Australia story is a done deal. It ain't and the clubs wont let the AFL Commission spend $200mil-$300mil for an ownership of the ground that they have to hand back in 2031.

If the AFL are involved they will be a minor partner and they wont get the naming rights as the organisation who sticks up the real money will want the naming rights.

They also can not piss off the other codes as they are vital for them to make profits out of the venture.

Lets assume that a consortium involving the AFL or the AFL, do buy out the ANZ for $250mil, the mid point, in March 2009. They still have to hand back the stadium to the NSW government in March 2031 for $1.

That means that if they invested $250mil in a bank deposit at 7% compounded and paid no tax, that investment would be worth $1,107,000,000 in March 2031. That means that the consortium would have to make after tax cash profits of $21mil each year and invest these yearly profits at 7% compounded over the period, to be in the same position as sticking it in the bank as at March 2031. The stadium makes such a small profit at the moment how is it going to crank up the results??

Shit even the MCG struggles to make decent profits and they have 59,000 full members, 38,000 restricted members and 164,000 on the waiting list.

http://www.mcc.org.au/default.asp?pg=memberservicesdisplay&articleid=2410

In 2007 the MCC made profits of $27.696 mil but that was boosted by one of capital grants from state and federal governments that went straight to the bottom line:

Commonwealth Games capital contributions and compensation $13.466 mil
Federal government grant – National Sports Museum $15.0 mil
State government grants – Southern Concourse upgrade and heritage projects $8.5m

From the annual report
OPERAT NG RESULT S
The MCC’s net profit for the financial year ending March 31, 2007 was $27.695m. This result is inflated by $23.5m due to the grants from the
Federal and State Governments for the National Sports Museum and other heritage projects

In 2006 they made a profit of $1.316mil.

So if the MCG, which is carrying more debt than any consortium to buy the Stadium would, but with all its other advantages over Stadium Australia, struggles to make more than a few $million profit each year there is bugger all chance that any consortium to buy out the Stadium is going to make the necessary profits to get it's money back.


Mind you if some of you are right and it ends up being called AFL Park and the World Cup was to be played there, especially the final in 2018 or 2022, it would be a nice irony.

For those who said Stadium Australia is a $billion stadium here are the facts that it cost $670mil to build and $80mil to reconfigure.

http://www.anzstadium.com.au/index.aspx?link_id=1.115

Construction

Construction of ANZ Stadium commenced in September 1996 and was completed in March 1999.

The Stadium project cost approximately $670 million. This includes $545 million in design and construction costs, $32m in surrounding precinct works and $93m in development and financing costs.

This $670 million covered the stage 1 Olympic configuration . A further $80 million was invested in the post-Games reconfiguration work involving the installation of an oval arena, moving stands on the east and west, roofing over the north and south stands and a new tier on the north stand.

The Stadium in its final configuration has a capacity of 82,000 for oval sports (AFL and cricket) and a capacity of 83,500 in rectangular mode (for rugby union, league and soccer) and the ability to switch between these modes regularly.

The majority of the construction costs of ANZ Stadium was funded through private debt or equity. Of the $670 million Stage 1 project costs, approximately $555m was funded through private debt or equity and the balance of $115m through the NSW Government.

Upon expiry of the lease in 2031, the Stadium and all property in it reverts to full ownership by the NSW Government, through the Sydney Olympic Park Authority.

And this story tells you why you don't want to load yourself up with debt to buy a stadium.

Debt sinks Stadium Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/debt-sinks-stadium-australia-anz-to-take-control-for-10m/2006/11/15/1163266637056.html)

Both Stadium Australia and Telstra Dome have shown that stadiums aren't great investments especially when they are loaded up with debt. Both these stadiums ended up in Infrastructure funds / Super funds. Super funds can't borrow money so these are the right type of investment structures for these stadiums to end up in because the debt problems are virtually eliminated depending on the structure of the deal and how the existing debt is handled. But in both cases hundreds of millions of dollars of capital value was wiped away and hundreds of millions of dollars of pre tax accumulated losses occured before that reduced valued stadiums were stuck in those debt free funds.

Any decent new stadium built in Oz needs more equity than debt to have the chance to be financially viable in the long run. But even then they are pushing shit up hill especially if they are deals where you have to hand back ownership after X no of years for $1.

[cos789]

Some of you are going on as if this Stadium Australia story is a done deal. It ain't and the clubs wont let the AFL Commission spend $200mil-$300mil for an ownership of the ground that they have to hand back in 2031.


So where does it say it is a lease not a sale ?

22 year lease isn't on average going to be $10 million per year .
The reality is that ANZ owns a debt which is not being paid off .
The stadium , like any real estate is only worth what the market pays .
That's a very narrow market .
And absolutely no one is going to pay anywhere nera the replacement cost .
$200 million is more than enough to entice ANZ to clear the debt .
That's 20% of the cost of building .
You're not going to get a better offer than that .

.

[RussellEbertHandball]

So where does it say it is a lease not a sale ?

22 year lease isn't on average going to be $10 million per year .
The reality is that ANZ owns a debt which is not being paid off .
The stadium , like any real estate is only worth what the market pays .
That's a very narrow market .
And absolutely no one is going to pay anywhere nera the replacement cost .
$200 million is more than enough to entice ANZ to clear the debt .
That's 20% of the cost of building .
You're not going to get a better offer than that .

.

None of us knows what the deal entails. You haven't allowed for the time value of money. If ANZ want $200mil+ today dollars its a lot more than a lease of $10mil x 22 years. The way I read the story was that the consortium made a $200mil bid to buy out everbody else, not any lease.

Does the ANZ own the debt or has it converted it to equity? My understanding is that it now equity not debt.

I never said they would pay near replacement cost. Who knows what the ANZ reckon they can get out of the stadium or if they have long term plans to do a deal with the NSW government.

Bottom line is that you will not see any other BOOT (build, own, operate, then transfer) stadium constructed with private financing in Oz for a long time. They are extremely difficult to make money out of. That's why the deal that Graeme Samuel engineered for the AFL re the Telstra Dome was brilliant as they are the owners in the long run. Stadium Australia is 180 degrees opposite and I reckon it will return a 180 degrees opposite financial result for the AFL compared to Telstra Dome, if they buy into it.

[cos789]

None of us knows what the deal entails. You haven't allowed for the time value of money. If ANZ want $200mil+ today dollars its a lot more than a lease of $10mil x 22 years.


Hello , basically the lease is all it's worth ,
because that's the major income stream .
It certainly isn't worth 22years x $10 million .
However it could be seen as lifetime of stadium x leasing costs .

..

[RussellEbertHandball]

Hello , basically the lease is all it's worth ,
because that's the major income stream .
It certainly isn't worth 22years x $10 million .
However it could be seen as lifetime of stadium x leasing costs .

..

That's your opinion. If as the story I linked is correct and;

ANZ will use the stadium as a seed asset for its social infrastructure trust, Diversified Infrastructure Trust, he said.

It plans to add other infrastructure assets before selling stakes in the trust to wholesale fund managers.

Then the ANZ might want a lot more than a simple lease.

[zero]

quite right, stadiums are very tough things to make money out of, stadium australia is a profit making business, but certainly not by much.

conversely, this makes them cheap to buy once they are built.

the AFL wont necessarily be concerned with making the money back, but the consortium partners will...unless they get something like naming rights and brand visibilty. westpac will be in for many, many millions...what are they expecting for it?

like you say REH, there are just too many unknown details to know whats going on.

[RussellEbertHandball]

Originally Posted by RussellEbertHandball
Some of you are going on as if this Stadium Australia story is a done deal. It ain't and the clubs wont let the AFL Commission spend $200mil-$300mil for an ownership of the ground that they have to hand back in 2031.

So where does it say it is a lease not a sale?.

Ok I think I now know what you are getting at. The terms of the original deal was that the NSW government gets ownership of the stadium, lock stock and barrel in March 2031. There has been nothing reported that this will change. The consortium was not going to buy out ANZ as well as the NSW government. That ain't going to happen. The NSW government stuck in $115mil and the land. They want a decent return and they can wait.

The NSW government get the stadium back for a $1 in 2031. Why would they sell out? The NSW public wont let it happen.

[Subprime]

I guess the revenue from a sale outright might be of interest to the NSW government. They could sign over their BOOT rights (i.e. ownership post-2031) for cash now and ensure that the land would always be used to house a stadium by legislation/zoning regulations. I wonder what price would be enough to buy it outright.

[RussellEbertHandball]

I guess the revenue from a sale outright might be of interest to the NSW government. They could sign over their BOOT rights (i.e. ownership post-2031) for cash now and ensure that the land would always be used to house a stadium by legislation/zoning regulations. I wonder what price would be enough to buy it outright.


Correct. But it wouldn't come cheap, which would change the equation for any potential owner. Ie more debt and/or equity up front, but a longer payback period. I just reckon it's to sensitive an issue for the NSW government to worry about selling out. They don't have control of the upper house which is another stumbling block. They are more worried at the moment about electricity privatisation and getting that thru parliament than worrying about selling stadium rights.

[Subprime]

Correct. But it wouldn't come cheap, which would change the equation for any potential owner. Ie more debt and/or equity up front, but a longer payback period. I just reckon it's to sensitive an issue for the NSW government to worry about selling out. They don't have control of the upper house which is another stumbling block. They are more worried at the moment about electricity privatisation and getting that thru parliament than worrying about selling stadium rights.

I haven't really followed this story as it seemed a bit of a furphy but I wonder who drove it and why? Demetriou offered a flat "no comment" when asked about. Usually its the seller who wants to publicise a sale to generate interest in it. Does the NSW government need the money, I mean if they're privatising electricity, why not the stadium rights?

[RussellEbertHandball]

I haven't really followed this story as it seemed a bit of a furphy but I wonder who drove it and why? Demetriou offered a flat "no comment" when asked about. Usually its the seller who wants to publicise a sale to generate interest in it. Does the NSW government need the money, I mean if they're privatising electricity, why not the stadium rights?

Not sure what is driving it. It was on the front page of the Daily Telegraph on Saturday. Might be News Ltd just milking the so called war for all its worth. The government is running a small surplus but it has to spend big on infrastructure if it is to survive the next election. Last years election was a choice between abject failure and gross incompetence. The government should have been kicked out, but the opposition were useless. It shouldn't be the case in 2011. So selling the power assets will bring in $15bil to $20bil to spend on trains, hospitals, infrastructure etc. It's a big political fight internally within the labour government. They are not going to waste time and energy on a couple of hundred million or so when electricity privatisation is the main game.

[Subprime]

Not sure what is driving it. It was on the front page of the Daily Telegraph on Saturday. Might be News Ltd just milking the so called war for all its worth. The government is running a small surplus but it has to spend big on infrastructure if it is to survive the next election. Last years election was a choice between abject failure and gross incompetence. The government should have been kicked out, but the opposition were useless. It shouldn't be the case in 2011. So selling the power assets will bring in $15bil to $20bil to spend on trains, hospitals, infrastructure etc. It's a big political fight internally within the labour government. They are not going to waste time and energy on a couple of hundred million or so when electricity privatisation is the main game.

The stadium proceeds are definately small beer next to the electricity assets but in a particular year they may mean the difference between a small surplus and a deficit. And a small surplus confers "responsible economic manager" status on the government of the day.

[RussellEbertHandball]

The stadium proceeds are definately small beer next to the electricity assets but in a particular year they may mean the difference between a small surplus and a deficit. And a small surplus confers "responsible economic manager" status on the government of the day.

They've been running surpluses of billions and several hundred million dollars for years and expect to continue. The NSW treasury first had a property boom windfall in stamp duty and property taxes, which let them pay for the Olympics infrastructure, then the GST windfall kicked in. They paid for big pay rises, which was fair enough for teachers, cops, hospital workers etc but they have let infrastructure spending stagnate relative to the needs of the community.

They don't need to sell the Stadium. They do need to spend on major infrastructure. Whether it is privatising electricity and or going into debt the money has to be spent and the majority of people wouldn't worry about losing a triple A rating maybe paying 0.5% more on debt because it is double A, but they want decent trains, roads, hospitals etc

From last years June budget speech.
http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/bp07-08/bp1/budspch

This Budget meets that commitment by delivering yet another Labor Budget surplus, protecting the State’s triple A credit rating.
<snip>

Mr Speaker, the Government’s strong financial management means the Budget result for 2007-08 is expected to be a surplus of $376 million, with surpluses averaging $500 million in the following years of the forward estimates period.

http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/6166/bp2_b.pdf

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Budget
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 (a) 2006-07 (a) 2007-08 (a) 2008-09 (a) 2009-10 (a) 2010-11 (a)
$m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m
BUDGET RESULT - SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)
1,038 2,003 1,487 1,566 1,752 1,153 724 994 444 376 482 583 448

[Redb]

Not a great mvoe by the AFL. Homebush has parallels with Waverley Park - great irony in this post's title. :rolleyes:

[cos789]

Not a great mvoe by the AFL. Homebush has parallels with Waverley Park - great irony in this post's title. :rolleyes:

Yes both Waverley and Homebush were designed to be serviced by rail .

Waverley was designed to expand to 200k.
Homebush was designed to contract to 80k.
Political pressure pushed AFL away from Waverley
Financial pressure is attracting AFL to Homebush .

.