sonnywalters
Cancelled
What is the go with Mike Fitzpatricks conflict of interest with ANZ Stadium?Stadium Australia is literally paying NRL clubs to play there. The AFl goes there of its own accord so it can have a foothold on new stadiums.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is the go with Mike Fitzpatricks conflict of interest with ANZ Stadium?Stadium Australia is literally paying NRL clubs to play there. The AFl goes there of its own accord so it can have a foothold on new stadiums.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONMore like basking in the glory of the stadium envy you have.
Still trying to buy one aren't you?
Oh, and as for the 250k loss - i'll enjoy watching you top up the equalisation fund as we wont be paying as much.
Keep laughing… and we'll take our Stage 4 stadium upgrade too thanks.
Go Catters
What is the go with Mike Fitzpatricks conflict of interest with ANZ Stadium?
Unfortunately a train line. I liked VFL park(am still a member) more than the MCG.To this day, I'd like to know what on earth Wayne Jackson was thinking when he sold off Waverley and created this mess in the first place.
Can somebody please point out just ONE tiny little advantage that came from Etihad? Apart from "fancy TV screens" and "the seats aren't wood", both of which could have easily been fixed at a much lower cost at Waverley.
Can I ask, when the ownership changes hands, doesn't the agreement become between the then 2 parties become null and void? The only reason why I ask this, as I know with building contractors( in this case lifts), when the ownership changes the contracts are voided. The new owners can abide by the original contracts but they don't have too.You say this all the time, but the fact is the AFL cant change the terms of Essendons deal, since that deal is not an AFL negotiated deal, similar to the Magpies at the MCG. The AFL could screw around with its fixture, but not the terms of the deal itself.
Can I ask, when the ownership changes hands, doesn't the agreement become between the then 2 parties become null and void? The only reason why I ask this, as I know with building contractors( in this case lifts), when the ownership changes the contracts are voided. The new owners can abide by the original contracts but they don't have too.
The AFL would be forced to honour A-League soccer club Melbourne Victory’s lucrative tenancy deal at Etihad Stadium should the league move to buy the stadium before 2025, when it inherits it for a token $30.
The Victory have one of the most generous stadium deals at Etihad, signed in the second season of the A-League in 2006. The club receives a fee based on attendance, where it receives a percentage of gate revenue starting at zero and going up. Other clubs usually only start receiving income once the crowd reaches a certain figure, such as 15,000 people.
Melbourne Victory chief executive Richard Wilson said the club’s contract at Etihad Stadium, which lasts for at least another decade, would stay in place even if there is a change of ownership at Etihad Stadium.
“We have a contract in place and we would expect the AFL to honour that, at the current terms, should they become owners.”
To me that is just saying the Victory 'hope' to 'continue' existing contracts but that's all.Im not a real estate expert, but I believe in this case the Victory expects its contract has to be honored even if the AFL buys it early.
http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/victory_in_strong_spot_at_etihad_gkHIiAMQuO6Xo9MwXhnppM
To me that is just saying the Victory 'hope' to 'continue' existing contracts but that's all.
To me that is just saying the Victory 'hope' to 'continue' existing contracts but that's all.
AFL will definately want to keep Victory playing at Etihad. But you watch the first time they try to increase the rent in line with inflation the headlines about the AFL 'attacking' the A-league because they're 'threatened' by the rise of the 'sleeping giant'. Craig Foster will have a field day.
I agree, but it is relevant to the footy club contracts re: the bombers more lucrative contract, than the other clubs.Why would the AFL want to have reduced income over summer - I'd think they see the growing Victory crowds as manna from heaven.
I agree, but it is relevant to the footy club contracts re: the bombers more lucrative contract, than the other clubs.
how so? more games at the MCG, larger crowdsHow so?
The AFL need to run the place at a profit. The Bombers are the ones with the most to lose
That was my point. I just wanted clarification regarding existing contracts when/if a sale went through. Its still up in the air.How so?
The AFL need to run the place at a profit. The Bombers are the ones with the most to lose
How so?
The AFL need to run the place at a profit. The Bombers are the ones with the most to lose
AFL will definately want to keep Victory playing at Etihad. But you watch the first time they try to increase the rent in line with inflation the headlines about the AFL 'attacking' the A-league because they're 'threatened' by the rise of the 'sleeping giant'. Craig Foster will have a field day.
Victory don't need Etihad Stadium. If the AFL try to dick them around they'll just play all their home games at AAMI Park.
Anyway I would LOL if the AFL took over and gave every tenant club a better deal than Essendon have.
Victory don't need Etihad Stadium. If the AFL try to dick them around they'll just play all their home games at AAMI Park.
One would hope that all the AFL clubs get as good a deal, if not better, than what the Victory have.
Time will tell.
Victory are icing as far as the stadium operator is concerned. When the ground was built and the contracts drawn up, there was no A-League. 5 years after the first game at Etihad Stadium, Victory came along and started to attract a following so a potential new client emerged. With clubs like North already "paying it off" they could afford to offer Victory a good deal to play some games there. If the AFL try to gouge them going forward they'll just play every game at AAMI Park which rarely sells out anyway.
Works for the AFL...What better way to limit the growth of soccer than ensuring lots of people don't get into the ground?
A fairly petty attitude, but once the ground belongs to the AFL they can do what they like with it.
If the Victory host finals they'll just be looking for a venue that holds more than AAMI Park's 30,000. There's one of them 5 minutes away from Etihad Stadium that the AFL don't own, and I doubt the MCC will actively push away a potential crowd of 50,000+ for the sake of pettiness.
I agree there is an argument for generating revenue over the off-season by allowing the victory to play games (as long as its full commercial rates), but equally, the AFL has other options:
etc
- an expanded BBL
- future national women's league
- small-sided competitions
- expanded pre-season competition
AFL exists for the benefit of the competition, the clubs and the game generally, so it follows that the only way the Victory's interests would ever be considered is if they aligned with the aforementioned interests.
It's nothing personal.
As my kin are wont to say: it's bissinissi.