Analysis Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happening

[Lockhart Road]

NFI

If as someone posted that Olsen is in NY and/or extended his visit that might have been a factor.

This rumour would be a humdinger if was in fact no more than a rumour (at least it was yesterday when I checked with the Club).

Don't forget Premier Jay - Labor & PAFC - made Xmas his deadline for a resolution.
What would be a better way of flicking him, and us, the bird than for Olsen - Liberal & all things anti-Port - to ooze out of town for the festive period.

Have my ears fine-tuned, listening for the clump of hooves on the roof, for something heavy slithering down the chimney, for a white knight to appear just in the Saint Nick of time --- !!!

No shortage of imagination in the Road household.

 

[OneGreatClub]

This rumour would be a humdinger if was in fact no more than a rumour (at least it was yesterday when I checked with the Club).

Don't forget Premier Jay - Labor & PAFC - made Xmas his deadline for a resolution.
What would be a better way of flicking him, and us, the bird than for Olsen - Liberal & all things anti-Port - to ooze out of town for the festive period.

Have my ears fine-tuned, listening for the clump of hooves on the roof, for something heavy slithering down the chimney, for a white knight to appear just in the Saint Nick of time --- !!!

No shortage of imagination in the Road household.

Maybe while the Crook er Cat's away the mice can play.

 

[*PAF]

Probably went there to study their grass roots program.

 

[Quadzilla]

Probably went there to study their grass roots program.

Nah ... he can just ask marty36?

 

[western royboy]

No! Match day costs are a minor part of the whole equation.

AO was modeled incorrectly first with only 20 people in the SMA then as all involved woke up and realised that it needed approx 90 people as it was going to be used as a 365 day a year venue and not just for sport. They can serve 2,000 lunch meals and 2,000 at dinner everyday of the week.

Through this 4 years of modeling and negotiations there were known unkowns, and unkown unkowns, and that's why the deal was signed with a review clause to try to sort out was a fair and reasonable situation once the oval had been used and put through its paces. As KT said this is a complex set up - most stadiums are when they start new.

The modelling was done on Port averaging crowds of 32k and crows 40k and the revenue splits were done on those numbers being achieved. The main gripe is about what happens to the split of extra revenue generated by getting 250,000 people more than budgeted thru the gate this year. Its about a fair and equitable split of this catering revenue. Cateriring revenue was one of the items opened up for negotiation in the review process. The government said that the clubs should benefit the most but that was not spelt out crystal clear in the lease agreement.



Think about it for a second or two. We could get 10,000 extra people between game A and game B and none of those extra people have paid at the gate, ie are all members rocking up, but there are extra match day costs involved with them showing up. If WCE - at a clean stadium - get 30,000 to a game and 27,000 are members and 3,000 have bought game day tickets then they have to cover match day costs. If at the next game they get 40,000 to a game and 37,000 are members and 3,000 have bought game day tickets then they have to cover the increased match day costs. They have to write the WAFC a bigger cheque.



There are fixed costs and variable costs. to clean up after 10,000 people, means you say have 20 cleaners have to work X hours and the cost is their rate x hours worked. If 40,000 turn up then those same 20 cleaners will have to work more hours to clean the stadium or you will need more people to clean it in the same time as before - once again a pretty bassik concept. Its a variable cost - as output increases so do you variable costs. Its not fixed.

I love your work Management Accounting 101.

 

[AdsGoNads]

I doubt it would be an unpopular opinion here, what with Norwood being our traditional rival for 130 years and all... too bad most Norwood supporters are too blinded to realise Crows have their spot in the top league.

The Port v Crows showdown would pale into insignificance if the Port v Norwood rivalry was to happen at AFL level.. IMO.

 

[FPPF]

If you're not pulling my chain here then I am so angry right about now but not surprised.

About Andrew Daniels being in charge of the SMA or him having a brand new Jaguar?
Both a true. The Jaguar is maroon.
He's the bloke who used to run the Motorsport Board.

 

[AdsGoNads]

Day 157 - Due to popular opinion, Norwood are now expected to announce their bid for the 3rd SA licence in the AFL..

 

[Ford Fairlane]

NFI

events in Sydney may have been considered especially if a joint attack on the sanfl was to be the theme. If as someone posted that Olsen is in NY and/or extended his visit that might have been a factor.

In the tunnels uptown, the Rat's own dream guns him down

 

[raptalia]

The Port v Crows showdown would pale into insignificance if the Port v Norwood rivalry was to happen at AFL level.. IMO.

Don't you believe it. Non Norwood supporters would not flock to see Port V Norwood. The Crows draw on the nine anti Port Clubs and they all have one thing in mind to see Port get beaten. Like it or not the Port v Crow rivalry has split at least 95% of the South Australian football public. Port v Norwood would never have achieved that. if Port could not draw 30,000 to AAMI what hope would Norwood have had? I think you over rate Norwood.

 

[finbarr]

* Norwood.

 

[raptalia]

This rumour would be a humdinger if was in fact no more than a rumour (at least it was yesterday when I checked with the Club).

Don't forget Premier Jay - Labor & PAFC - made Xmas his deadline for a resolution.
What would be a better way of flicking him, and us, the bird than for Olsen - Liberal & all things anti-Port - to ooze out of town for the festive period.

Have my ears fine-tuned, listening for the clump of hooves on the roof, for something heavy slithering down the chimney, for a white knight to appear just in the Saint Nick of time --- !!!

No shortage of imagination in the Road household.

If you read what Jay Wetherill had to say in the press he didn't actually give Olsen an ultimatum for a Christmas deadline. I have to admit that I quoted that in one of my posts and I got it from SEVEN or TEN News who interpreted what Whetherill said. Subsequent research shows that Wetherill may have, 'asked the SMA to table before Christmas a full report on the state of negotiations between the SANFL, AFL and Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs'. That is not quite the same as a, 'work it out by Christmas or else' deadline. It has to said though that from the tenure of the press reports the Premier and Cabinet are becoming increasingly frustrated at the delay and the Premier has used the, 'get it done or we will' stick.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...-fight-for-money/story-fnia3v71-1227129786328
http://indaily.com.au/news/2014/11/20/adelaide-oval-governance-set-shake/

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

In the tunnels uptown, the Rat's own dream guns him down

SA footy politics and this stadium deal - one big jungleland.

 

[Jojay]

This rumour would be a humdinger if was in fact no more than a rumour (at least it was yesterday when I checked with the Club).

Don't forget Premier Jay - Labor & PAFC - made Xmas his deadline for a resolution.
What would be a better way of flicking him, and us, the bird than for Olsen - Liberal & all things anti-Port - to ooze out of town for the festive period.

Have my ears fine-tuned, listening for the clump of hooves on the roof, for something heavy slithering down the chimney, for a white knight to appear just in the Saint Nick of time --- !!!

No shortage of imagination in the Road household.

So what are you saying?... if you aren't Labor (or to the left) you can't be a PAFC supporter???

Give us a break ffs.

 

[jakey]

Dont reckon he's saying anything of the sort. Rather that Jay and John are on opposite sides of the fence in every sense, so there's unlikely to be any love lost.

Our biggest hope in all this is that Jay sees a political imperative in this battle. I'm not 100% sure there is one, but we live in hope.

 

[Steve Dore]

...... If as someone posted that Olsen is in NY and/or extended his visit that might have been a factor.

SNAFL funded fact finding mission?

 

[Jello_B]

No! Match day costs are a minor part of the whole equation.

AO was modeled incorrectly first with only 20 people in the SMA then as all involved woke up and realised that it needed approx 90 people as it was going to be used as a 365 day a year venue and not just for sport. They can serve 2,000 lunch meals and 2,000 at dinner everyday of the week.

Through this 4 years of modeling and negotiations there were known unkowns, and unkown unkowns, and that's why the deal was signed with a review clause to try to sort out was a fair and reasonable situation once the oval had been used and put through its paces. As KT said this is a complex set up - most stadiums are when they start new.

The modelling was done on Port averaging crowds of 32k and crows 40k and the revenue splits were done on those numbers being achieved. The main gripe is about what happens to the split of extra revenue generated by getting 250,000 people more than budgeted thru the gate this year. Its about a fair and equitable split of this catering revenue. Cateriring revenue was one of the items opened up for negotiation in the review process. The government said that the clubs should benefit the most but that was not spelt out crystal clear in the lease agreement.



Think about it for a second or two. We could get 10,000 extra people between game A and game B and none of those extra people have paid at the gate, ie are all members rocking up, but there are extra match day costs involved with them showing up. If WCE - at a clean stadium - get 30,000 to a game and 27,000 are members and 3,000 have bought game day tickets then they have to cover match day costs. If at the next game they get 40,000 to a game and 37,000 are members and 3,000 have bought game day tickets then they have to cover the increased match day costs. They have to write the WAFC a bigger cheque.



There are fixed costs and variable costs. to clean up after 10,000 people, means you say have 20 cleaners have to work X hours and the cost is their rate x hours worked. If 40,000 turn up then those same 20 cleaners will have to work more hours to clean the stadium or you will need more people to clean it in the same time as before - once again a pretty bassik concept. Its a variable cost - as output increases so do you variable costs. Its not fixed.

Seems strange that the Government didn't derisk and fix a lot of these prices like they do with other large contracts. For example, the maintenance contract at the new nRAH is fixed for multiple years beyond handover. Think about the variables associated with that contract and it is still fixed.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Seems strange that the Government didn't derisk and fix a lot of these prices like they do with other large contracts. For example, the maintenance contract at the new nRAH is fixed for multiple years beyond handover. Think about the variables associated with that contract and it is still fixed.

thats because its part of the whole Macquarie bank funding model. Plus capital maintenance is more predictable overtime than one week getting 50,000 to AO and the next 20,000.

Those long term contracts would have contigencies built in as well as cpi type increase for costs especially labour and then fixed price given. A hospital is used close to 100% capicity everyday. that helps in the modelling.

 

[Jello_B]

thats because its part of the whole Macquarie bank funding model. Plus capital maintenance is more predictable overtime than one week getting 50,000 to AO and the next 20,000.

Those long term contracts would have contigencies built in as well as cpi type increase for costs especially labour and then fixed price given. A hospital is used close to 100% capicity everyday. that helps in the modelling.

Acknowledge your points but I will respectfully disagree on this one.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Acknowledge your points but I will respectfully disagree on this one.

You also gotta look at the practical politics of this - hospital maintenance is on budget. AO maintence isnt. The government has150 years experience of trying to control hospital expenses. It has bugger all experince running a 50k stadium. It gave the SMA the lease as they have the exlerience so its the SMA's responsibility. The MCG Trust doesnt orgnnise the cleaning contract on behalf of the MCC.

 

[Lockhart Road]

So what are you saying?... if you aren't Labor (or to the left) you can't be a PAFC supporter???

Give us a break ffs.

Dont reckon he's saying anything of the sort. Rather that Jay and John are on opposite sides of the fence in every sense, so there's unlikely to be any love lost.

Our biggest hope in all this is that Jay sees a political imperative in this battle. I'm not 100% sure there is one, but we live in hope.

Asked and answered.

 

[Malibu#27]

You also gotta look at the practical politics of this - hospital maintenance is on budget. AO maintence isnt. The government has150 years experience of trying to control hospital expenses. It has bugger all experince running a 50k stadium. It gave the SMA the lease as they have the exlerience so its the SMA's responsibility. The MCG Trust doesnt orgnnise the cleaning contract on behalf of the MCC.

I wouldn't hold up SA health as a role model for efficient management

 

[Grave Danger]

Don't you believe it. Non Norwood supporters would not flock to see Port V Norwood. The Crows draw on the nine anti Port Clubs and they all have one thing in mind to see Port get beaten. Like it or not the Port v Crow rivalry has split at least 95% of the South Australian football public. Port v Norwood would never have achieved that. if Port could not draw 30,000 to AAMI what hope would Norwood have had? I think you over rate Norwood.

They were the Port Adelaide of the 19th century.

 

[Jello_B]

You also gotta look at the practical politics of this - hospital maintenance is on budget. AO maintence isnt. The government has150 years experience of trying to control hospital expenses. It has bugger all experince running a 50k stadium. It gave the SMA the lease as they have the exlerience so its the SMA's responsibility. The MCG Trust doesnt orgnnise the cleaning contract on behalf of the MCC.

Spotless are running the nRAH post handover, no different to AO as far as I'm aware.
I don't want to around in circles mate, but I believe a fixed price contract could have been agreed.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Spotless are running the nRAH post handover, no different to AO as far as I'm aware.
I don't want to around in circles mate, but I believe a fixed price contract could have been agreed.

So the SMA in February go to Spotless and say we want you to tender a fixed contract cleaning and we reckon the average crowds will be 32k for Port games and 40k for the crows. Spotless probably would have said no way.

Anyway cleaning would make up less than 3% of revenue generated during f