AFL likely to buy Etihad stadium in the next 12 months - Brian Cook

[Gigantor]

The AFL is the competition.

'Keeping soccer down' isn't business, it's pettiness.

The AFL are money hungry, so if they can see a way to make a buck out of Melbourne Victory playing at Etihad Stadium they'll take it.

I didn't say anything about "keeping soccer down".

I said the AFL would not consider the Victory's interests unless they aligned with the AFL's priorities.

 

[telsor]

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.

If the AFL doesn't do what soccer wants, it's 'pettiness' and 'due to fear'.
If soccer doesn't do what AFL wants, it's 'just business' and 'looking after it's own interests'.

 

[telsor]

The AFL is the competition.

'Keeping soccer down' isn't business, it's pettiness.

The AFL are money hungry, so if they can see a way to make a buck out of Melbourne Victory playing at Etihad Stadium they'll take it.

Soccer fans keep telling us how much they're growing, and how they're taking over, etc etc...Why wouldn't the AFL work to prevent/limit that?

Ultimately, there is only so much money Australians will spend on sport, and the AFL (like every other sport) wants to ensure it gets as much of that as possible.

 

[Scotland]

The AFL has a different mindset to the other codes.

There is an A-League team in Western Sydney because the region wanted and can support a team.

There is an AFL team in Western Sydney because the AFL insists on having one there to hurt rugby league heartland etc.

Personally I couldn't give a s**t about any code wars, I think it's childish. If people want to watch WSW or Penrith or Parramatta or whoever instead of GWS then let them.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL has a different mindset to the other codes.

There is an A-League team in Western Sydney because the region wanted and can support a team.

There is an AFL team in Western Sydney because the AFL insists on having one there to hurt rugby league heartland etc.

Personally I couldn't give a s**t about any code wars, I think it's childish. If people want to watch WSW or Penrith or Parramatta or whoever instead of GWS then let them.

IF you have any aspiration to maintain the AFLs position in Australian sport we can not ignore millions of people as you seem to suggest. We need the national sponsors. The NRL already dominate the top 10 TV audiences.

Like it or not our game is Melbourne centric - you may not give a continental about code wars but the custodians of our game cannot put their head in the sand, & not just because yours is already there. We need to be proactive lest we fall off the pace in Australian sport.

Your example of Western Sydney is an example of the failure of a sport to act in a timely fashion preferring to protect an incumbent club, when it did it paid off in spades.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL has a different mindset to the other codes.

There is an A-League team in Western Sydney because the region wanted and can support a team.

There is an AFL team in Western Sydney because the AFL insists on having one there to hurt rugby league heartland etc.

Personally I couldn't give a s**t about any code wars, I think it's childish. If people want to watch WSW or Penrith or Parramatta or whoever instead of GWS then let them.

Theres an AFL team in Western Sydney for three reasons.

1. There wasnt a team there already
2. Demographically its one of the largest population areas in urban australia and expected to keep growing.
3. The AFL could afford it at the time and they were able to gain government support for the project to make it viable

Rugby league and "hurting it" was well down the list.

 

[theflea]

AFL would want a profit, but not necessarily a big one, and without having to pay back the debts/secure a big profit, there would be a significant amount more money available.

If they buy out the stadium early, wouldn't the price be debt or at least a pseudo 1 if they have the cash?

 

[telsor]

If they buy out the stadium early, wouldn't the price be debt or at least a pseudo 1 if they have the cash?

fair point.

 

[theflea]

The AFL is the competition.

'Keeping soccer down' isn't business, it's pettiness.

The AFL are money hungry, so if they can see a way to make a buck out of Melbourne Victory playing at Etihad Stadium they'll take it.

I agree, but they may water down the good deal they have a bit.

 

[theflea]

Soccer fans keep telling us how much they're growing, and how they're taking over, etc etc...Why wouldn't the AFL work to prevent/limit that?

Ultimately, there is only so much money Australians will spend on sport, and the AFL (like every other sport) wants to ensure it gets as much of that as possible.

Imo they can work together at the stadium but I wouldn't be surprised if the AAFL divert some of the 'good' deals into more revenue for the clubs with the poor returns.

 

[ManOfClay]

Gil has had a look at the books and knows that the Saints and the Dogs are unlikely to last the next five years unless something miraculous happens.

No really valuable secondary markets, massive rebuilds, culture issues, dwindling memberships.

Just to make sure you are across it all my friend

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2014-12-15/dogs-recrod-profit

The Western Bulldogs Football Club has reported a statutory profit for the 2014 financial year of $329k.
This result was underpinned by a significant increase in revenue of $3.5m or 10% growth on last financial year. Key drivers of Club revenue were an increase in membership to almost 32,000 members, increased support from our sponsors and a significant fundraising effort.

...

Club President Peter Gordon said that while 2014 presented a number of challenges, further foundation for growth had been established.
“The Club produced a sound financial result whilst continuing to invest in football and further reducing debt. I would like to thank our loyal members, sponsors and corporate partners for their ongoing support in 2014. We would particularly like to acknowledge Mission Foods who this year committed to the Club again in a deal that will make them the longest Major Partner in our Club’s history.”
“I would also like to pay tribute to our staff for their hard work and dedication in 2014. 2015 will bring its own set of challenges but also significant opportunity and we commit to doing all we can to continue to grow our revenue, control costs and invest in developing our football department.”
Notable achievements in 2014 for the Western Bulldogs included;
1.) The Club recorded its highest ever revenue.
2.) Club membership grew by 5%.
3.) Spending in the football department increased by $1.7m.
4.) The Footscray VFL team was successfully re-introduced into the Club’s operations.
5.) The Club has reached agreement-in-principle to play some future home games in Ballarat, hopefully from 2017 when the new Eureka Stadium is built.

 

[Kwality]

Just to make sure you are across it all my friend

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2014-12-15/dogs-recrod-profit

Such blind faith ...

 

[ManOfClay]

Such blind faith ...

Hey, after being told we're not likely to last the next five years to show results like that is quite positive. Especially the part about lowering debt, increasing FD spend and membership increasing.

Not that you'd ever look at it objectively either. Just another stone for you to grind your trivial too many Melbourne clubs axe on

 

[Kwality]

Hey, after being told we're not likely to last the next five years to show results like that is quite positive. Especially the part about lowering debt, increasing FD spend and membership increasing.

Not that you'd ever look at it objectively either. Just another stone for you to grind your trivial too many Melbourne clubs axe on

I'd have a look at the Financials, have you? PR releases are just spin.

 

[ManOfClay]

I'd have a look at the Financials, have you? PR releases are just spin.

Tell me about the financials then. Aside from the asset part it is pretty good reading all things considered.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

. Not sure I understand your point

They'd continue to play them at their home grounds; or wherever the AFL decided to play them, but as always in negotiation with the clubs.
Pretty much same as now.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The AFL has a contract with Docklands to play a certain amount of games there each year (40 or so). At the time the clubs moved to Docklands the only other grounds in Melbourne were Waverley (which was sold off), Princes Park and the MCG. Considering the AFL already had a contract to play a certain number of games at Docklands and knowing the AFL sets the fixture and the clubs have no say about where they are scheduled to play what leverage exactly did these clubs have to negotiate stadium deals?

As far as I'm aware the Saints, North & Dogs currently have no agreement as it wasn't renewed after 2009 (I could be wrong?) and are working on the old agreement. However they keep getting scheduled home games there and requests to play home games at other venues (North in WA and Dogs in Geelong) have been rebuffed by the AFL.

 

[Kwality]

Tell me about the financials then. Aside from the asset part it is pretty good reading all things considered.

Interesting take ...

 

[ManOfClay]

Interesting take ...

Put up or shut up. Other clubs in our position are losing millions everywhere. We're not out of the woods but we have something to build on.

 

[telsor]

Put up or shut up. Other clubs in our position are losing millions everywhere. We're not out of the woods but we have something to build on.

Just remember that only one club that starts with W has a history of going broke.

 

[Kwality]

Put up or shut up. Other clubs in our position are losing millions everywhere. We're not out of the woods but we have something to build on.

Thats all you've got & I'm not about to do the work for you ...

 

[Kwality]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The AFL has a contract with Docklands to play a certain amount of games there each year (40 or so). At the time the clubs moved to Docklands the only other grounds in Melbourne were Waverley (which was sold off), Princes Park and the MCG. Considering the AFL already had a contract to play a certain number of games at Docklands and knowing the AFL sets the fixture and the clubs have no say about where they are scheduled to play what leverage exactly did these clubs have to negotiate stadium deals?

As far as I'm aware the Saints, North & Dogs currently have no agreement as it wasn't renewed after 2009 (I could be wrong?) and are working on the old agreement. However they keep getting scheduled home games there and requests to play home games at other venues (North in WA and Dogs in Geelong) have been rebuffed by the AFL.

The AFL also have a contract with the MCG that locks them in, the clubs are just pawns.

 

[Gigantor]

The AFL also have a contract with the MCG that locks them in, the clubs are just pawns.

If the MCC continue to look for ways to pretend as if the AFL doesn't matter, I wonder if opportunities will open up for the AFL to wind back its commitement to the MCG.

 

[bombersfan4000]

If the MCC continue to look for ways to pretend as if the AFL doesn't matter, I wonder if opportunities will open up for the AFL to wind back its commitement to the MCG.

Like the afl buying etihad? Owning that they will be able to set the returns the clubs make

 

[telsor]

Like the afl buying etihad? Owning that they will be able to set the returns the clubs make

Exactly, if the MCG wants more than <minimum contractual requirements>, they'll need to play ball.

 

[The_Wookie]

If the MCC continue to look for ways to pretend as if the AFL doesn't matter, I wonder if opportunities will open up for the AFL to wind back its commitement to the MCG.

Ive no doubt that from to time we'll get negotiotions. Especially if the AFL opt to only hold to the mimimums in the contract (a minimum of 1.5 million attendees over the season including finals), 10 of the top 12 drawing games in Melbourne, and a minimum of 40 games a season. By staging all the traditional blockbusters and playing Melbourne home and away games at the MCG (as the AFL seem to be doing now for some reason), they could pretty easily meet the terms of the contract.

Last season the AFL pulled 2.1 million from regular season (45 matches) and another 390,000 from finals. The AFL receives a 1.50 per head bonus between 2.1 and 3 million.

Its quite easy to see the AFL moving a LOT of big games to Docklands when it takes over, while leaving the biggest games + Melbourne games at the MCG. This in turn affects the costs and profit of the stadium, its attractiveness to sponsors and corporates.