Cats accuse AFL of caving to big clubs on equalisation (The Age 17/6/14)

[Rob]

You know it's not that simple.

No, but it's a pretty reasonable assumption, give or take.

So? You asked why there aren't $5Million line items for 'rent'.
If a club pays $2Million in 'rent' but gets $3Million less revenue because that gets siphoned off first, it's still $5Million.

I didn't ask why. I know why.

But where do you get the $3 million from? Or the $2 million in 'rent'?

If the AFL didn't force those clubs to play there? Quite well actually.

LOL, rubbish. Those clubs would have no bargaining power, and would probably end up with signficantly worse deals than the big clubs.

Not that i'm in favour of the AFL sorting it out, but you can't say that it definitely leaves clubs worse off. If you leave it up to the clubs to arrange their grounds, you end up with clubs playing out of shitholes like Victoria Park.

But the AFL does force them to play there, and force the costs to be so bad.

Want to fix a big part of the problem for $0? Change the deal with the owners so that they don't have to hand it back until 2035 rather than 2025.

10 more years to repay the loan...instead of $200M over 10 years, they'll have 20 years....and have them put that $10M/year back towards the clubs...A little under $250K/game more to the clubs, or around $2.5M/year. That'd fix a lot of equalisation issues wouldn't it?

But no, because the AFL wants 'their' ground ASAP, owned equally by all the clubs, even those who object to helping those who pay for it.

The AFL are causing this issue (on behalf of clubs like yours), let them pay for it.

That's not fixing the problem for $0. That's subsidising it to the tune of hundreds of millions a year.

BTW, you didn't answer the question. What would you consider a reasonable rental charge (excluding operating costs) per annum for Etihad if they were to get it clean?

 

[telsor]

But where do you get the $3 million from? Or the $2 million in 'rent'?

Made up figures for illustration purposes only.

LOL, rubbish. Those clubs would have no bargaining power, and would probably end up with signficantly worse deals than the big clubs.

If they had options like playing at Geelong, or some other ground that could be fixed up fairly cheaply if there was potential demand like Carlton?

Not that i'm in favour of the AFL sorting it out, but you can't say that it definitely leaves clubs worse off. If you leave it up to the clubs to arrange their grounds, you end up with clubs playing out of shitholes like Victoria Park.

and making a hell of a lot more money from it. It'd also force the 'big' grounds to reevaluate their pricing.

That's not fixing the problem for $0. That's subsidising it to the tune of hundreds of millions a year.

Well, clearly it's not hundreds of millions a year, as it's $100M over 10 years.

But if that's a subsidy, then surely the clubs that play there are subsidising the AFL (and the 18 clubs) for buying the stadium for them.

BTW, you didn't answer the question. What would you consider a reasonable rental charge (excluding operating costs) per annum for Etihad if they were to get it clean?

I don't know. I'd need to know a lot more information than is publicly available. I'm pretty sure that if they got the same deal the WA clubs got ( $3M/year for a clean stadium?) they'd leap at it.

 

[Kwality]

RE Melbourne stadiums.

The AFL clubs management were cherrypicked by the stadiums with the AFL arriving on the scene too late - classic closing the door after the horse had bolted. Only Geelong have been proactive to improve their lot.

The guaranteed # of games now limit the ability of the AFL to act - look at todays game at Etihad, the $ losses to the Saints - who is responsible?

Who is going to pay?
Arguably West Coast thru the equalisation fund, or is that to fine a point to put on it.

West Coast funding a game in Melbourne .... ... get a new spin doctor?

 

[Albert Ross]

Without going too deep into this specific battle, it does highlight one of the intrinsic flaws in the equalization debate.

If a club borrows $5m to spend on facilities, they have to service this debt, their profit goes down (maybe even make a loss) and therefore the contribution to the equalization fund is less. Basically if you don't want to avoid the tax - spend your profit. No different to any other tax system.

Geelong want to retain their profit AND spend money on new infrastructure designed to increase their profits. They are double dipping.

 

[Rob]

Made up figures for illustration purposes only.



If they had options like playing at Geelong, or some other ground that could be fixed up fairly cheaply if there was potential demand like Carlton?

and making a hell of a lot more money from it. It'd also force the 'big' grounds to reevaluate their pricing.

If that were actually true, Carlton (along with the Dogs) would never have left Princes Park. The fact is it's damn expensive to build and maintain stadiums, unless you can get the government to do it. It nearly sent Carlton broke trying to.
In any case, go and have a look at the crowds that went there. They were, in the main, horrible. That's why the Dogs jumped at the chance to move to Docklands, and why Carlton eventually did as well. The big difference is noticeable with memberships. You're kidding yourself if you think clubs would be selling anywhere near as many memberships playing out of some tinpot little ground.

Well, clearly it's not hundreds of millions a year, as it's $100M over 10 years.

But if that's a subsidy, then surely the clubs that play there are subsidising the AFL (and the 18 clubs) for buying the stadium for them.


I don't know. I'd need to know a lot more information than is publicly available. I'm pretty sure that if they got the same deal the WA clubs got ( $3M/year for a clean stadium?) they'd leap at it.

Which would be a bargain in comparison given Etihad is a 8 bedroom house in Toorak compared to the 3 bed fibro shack in Deer Park that is Subiaco.

But I doubt the small clubs would be any better off, because they're unlikely to make $3 million a year from the extra seats given they generally can't sell the existing ones. It's not like the WA clubs get anything out of catering and pourage, and i'm actually not aware of any club in the league that does.
Assuming operating costs remain constant no matter what the deal, it's hard to see where the extra income is going to come from to make up the difference. If you're Essendon sure, you can probably sell those extra seats. But the small clubs hardly have any use for them, they sure as hell couldn't sell many of them.

 

[Modified Dog]

Colin Carter should focus on the more important issues such as getting the AFL to recognise their seven VFA premierships won in 1878, 1879, 1880, 1882, 1883, 1884 and 1886.