Could interstate clubs sell games to the MCG?

Remove this Banner Ad

Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
So the AFL pays for Victorian assets, but doesn't put it's hand in its pocket to pay for infrastructure elsewhere outside of token amounts?

The MCG is still running on the same contract the VFL was effectively bullied into by the Cain Government in 1989. Docklands is the natural replacement for a stadium the VFL owned outright, and in the city that the League will most benefit from.

Most leagues in Australia dont put in anything at all. Take the SANFL and WAFL for example, and yet one has a 50% ownership/management stake in the stadium - and total control for 6 months of the year - and the other is likely to get almost full control over the new Perth one, as it has at Subiaco. The AFL wasnt going to put millions into a stadium to have the SANFL do whatever the hell it wants and reap all the benefits. You'll find the same in Perth. Again, these leagues want their independence, thats great, but the AFL is going to do a minimum to keep that going.

The AFL put 20 million into Metricon and has total management control over the stadium. Similar amounts were put into Blacktown Oval/Spotless Stadium.

Elsewhere the NRL, ARU and FFA have never put a cent in to stadium and facility development.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
The reason we are on fta in wa is because ****tonnes of people watch - prime time or shittime - doesnt matter - no excuses people rock up to the game and people watch on tv

The reason you are on FTA in WA is because the AFL allows it. If they chose to under the next deal they could sell those rights to Fox too. And Its a rare Perth rating that exceeds a Victorian saturday afternoon broadcast, it almost never gets the same numbers in prime time, regardless of the team playing.

The reason this happens is because we have a large fanbase - the reason we have a large fanbase is because there isnt too nany ****in teams in one city - it also mean we have the political clout to get a good stadium without a s**t stadium deal

Frankly, you've no idea what the new stadium deal will be like.

But having said that - we would still make money out of an etihad type deal - because we'd fill the place every week.

Filling Etihad isnt what makes the money, it makes some sure, its the corporate revenue that the Eagles and Dockers would notice straight away, especially when they lose millions to the stadium manager. See also catering, signage, car parking, gate reciepts etc etc.
 
Oct 3, 2007
16,084
17,344
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
The MCG is still running on the same contract the VFL was effectively bullied into by the Cain Government in 1989. Docklands is the natural replacement for a stadium the VFL owned outright, and in the city that the League will most benefit from.

Most leagues in Australia dont put in anything at all. Take the SANFL and WAFL for example, and yet one has a 50% ownership/management stake in the stadium - and total control for 6 months of the year - and the other is likely to get almost full control over the new Perth one, as it has at Subiaco. The AFL wasnt going to put millions into a stadium to have the SANFL do whatever the hell it wants and reap all the benefits. You'll find the same in Perth. Again, these leagues want their independence, thats great, but the AFL is going to do a minimum to keep that going.

The AFL put 20 million into Metricon and has total management control over the stadium. Similar amounts were put into Blacktown Oval/Spotless Stadium.

Elsewhere the NRL, ARU and FFA have never put a cent in to stadium and facility development.

That's all well and good Wookie but that again was a choice of the AFL and obviously the Victorian clubs agreed. The downside however is the clubs get ripped off which they also agreed to.
Not sure what is the best way but I would not be expecting much of a reduction in stadium costs once the AFL own it, they love profit!!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
With all due respect Telsor the clubs chose the s**t stadium deal, they never even put up a fight for a better deal. Not as if any of the clubs were going to be thrown out. Bad business is bad business they all agreed we will have s**t stadium deals so the AFL own the stadium in 20 years. It was their choice. Did any of them ask how about we own the stadium in 50 years and every year we can mange our finances?

The clubs have no cards to play here. As mentioned earlier, they clubs literally have no say in where they play games. They signed a deal based on what the AFL told them would be a profitable venture, and at the time it looked quite promising, but turned out to have higher stadium costs than predicted in 1997.

Can I also ask why are memberships so cheap for Victorian clubs? Putting membership cost is the first thing they should do if they want more income. I think our membership cost is to excessive and clearly based on supply and demand but it brings extraordinary income for the club in the doors.

Theres two reasons. Admission prices in Victoria for the AFL have to be approved by the Victorian Government, in particular at the MCG. The second is the competition, number of games available, and the number of seats available for walk ups.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
That's all well and good Wookie but that again was a choice of the AFL and obviously the Victorian clubs agreed. The downside however is the clubs get ripped off which they also agreed to.
Not sure what is the best way but I would not be expecting much of a reduction in stadium costs once the AFL own it, they love profit!!

Some clubs didnt agree to anything though. Essendon signed its deal as a foundation member, Carlton went in part because Docklands paid 2 million up front to fix Carltons debt issues at the time. Collingwood had their deal at the MCG, as did Richmond, and Melbourne, through legacy arrangements, and after the sale of Waverly, Hawthorn. The other clubs like the Dogs, Saints and North were sent to Docklands whether they liked it or not. They werent given the option.

Theres considerable revenues now that the AFL and its clubs dont have access to. That includes car parking, catering, corporate boxes, Stadium membership, external signage, naming rights, and revenue from off season and non AFL events, including cricket, soccer, rugby and concerts, conferences and the like. Theres a LOT of revenue the AFL currently doesnt get.

In addition, the stadium has to be handed over debt free and in state of the art condition in 2025 - which is why the AFL wont buy it early IMO.
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,295
21,790
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Rubbish. Victorian clubs and football supporters paid and pay their way at the stadiums.

Just who do you think paid for Waverly and in turn the 30 million laid down on the Doclands free hold (not to mention the money non victorian clubs recieved from that sale)?

The AFL.

Just who do you think is paying the rent on this rent-to-own lease on Docklands?

Good question. I'm yet to see a significant rental expense in any Docklands tenant club's P&L. The only one i've seen is in Essendon's, and it's pretty small.

What is the answer?

AFL members cover the AFLs 7 million a year payment to the MCC - thats not the match day hire cost, thats the AFLs share of the Southern/Northern Stand redevelopment costs, as well as the money the AFL had to pay to compensate the MCC for the loss of finals revenue in order for those games to be moved out of the state as needed. Total AFL income at the stadium last year was nearly 9 million dollars, .

But no the Victorians dont cough up s**t right?

The clubs? Not seemingly.
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,295
21,790
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Really?

Let's see...up front costs paid for by sale of VFL park (paid for by Vics), and the debts are being paid for by Vic teams...sounds a lot like a mortgage to me. Do you think people who mortgage their home aren't buying/paying for it?

A mortgage requires a debt. No Victorian AFL club has a single dollar of debt attributable to the building of either the MCG or Etihad.

How much have/will you pay for Perth stadium?

Hard to say, the deal hasn't been finalised, let alone publicised. But there were rumours going around of an $8 million rental charge per club per year (I doubt it will be that much). Every single Victorian club's annual rental charge combined wouldn't be that much.

But one thing is for sure - irrespective of what the arrangement is, it is not something other clubs should be concerned with, or have to pay compensation for.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton

Sure. Im yet to see the AFL executive play a single game at the venues though.

Good question. I'm yet to see a significant rental expense in any Docklands tenant club's P&L. The only one i've seen is in Essendon's, and it's pretty small.

What is the answer?

Depends what it comes under in the clubs annual reports. Theres no rental expense in the AFLs annual reports either. We know that clubs pay match costs out of gate receipts so I suspect that match revenue in the reports is net, not gross.

The clubs? Not seemingly.

The AFL doesnt create the money from nowhere. The AFL derives its income from the clubs and players.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
A mortgage requires a debt. No Victorian AFL club has a single dollar of debt attributable to the building of either the MCG or Etihad.

No club anywhere, except Geelong, has a dollar of debt towards the stadium. It doesnt mean the clubs arent contributing to the cost, its a factor in the way these deals are structured.

But one thing is for sure - irrespective of what the arrangement is, it is not something other clubs should be concerned with, or have to pay compensation for.

Until the clubs have power to negotiate their own deals and arent restrained by the AFLs own deals, then they should get all the compensation they can.
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,853
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Yes, it must be tough when you're being subsidised so heavily. What's it like being a charity case?

In Vic we pay for our grounds (and you get the benefits). Pay your fair share of the new Perth stadium and get back to us.

We also have to compete with the AFL for members...With you getting paid out of from the money they collect.

The Vic Govt subsidise the MCC, not footy- that the Melb clubs deals at the MCG are not as good as Subi for the WAFC (aka WA footy*) is a problem worn nationally.
*e.g:https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/afl/a/29780391/kimberley-talent-spills-over/

That the AFL subsidise clubs with dud stadium deals in Melbourne is a matter of fact & this is reflected in distributions to all clubs. - the money lost thru Vic stadium deals adds to the suggestion that supply & demand principles are a solution to that cash drain.

Strange way of supporting the game nationally wanting an end to a favourable stadium deal in WA - imagine IF the AFL were to carry similar costs in WA to those in Vic, the loser is the game ....
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,295
21,790
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Sure. Im yet to see the AFL executive play a single game at the venues though.

So why do they get involved in signing stadium deals then? Facilitate, sure. But the AFL should never have been involved in actually doing the deal.

Depends what it comes under in the clubs annual reports. Theres no rental expense in the AFLs annual reports either. We know that clubs pay match costs out of gate receipts so I suspect that match revenue in the reports is net, not gross.

I think you're probably right. But match costs are a different to stadium rent. And in any case, neither you nor me know really how much it is. The best we can do is make educated guesses, and that's not really a basis for sweeping statements about unfair deals.

The AFL doesnt create the money from nowhere. The AFL derives its income from the clubs and players.

Yes.
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,295
21,790
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
No club anywhere, except Geelong, has a dollar of debt towards the stadium. It doesnt mean the clubs arent contributing to the cost, its a factor in the way these deals are structured.



Until the clubs have power to negotiate their own deals and arent restrained by the AFLs own deals, then they should get all the compensation they can.

So by the same token, if the AFL negotiate a favourable deal, then they should have to pay millions to the AFL? And how this can be measured?

I'd be interested in your thoughts as to what sort of deal (let's say) the Dogs would have negotiated if left completely to themselves in comparison to what they've got now.

My guess is that they'd probably be playing out of a hovel to crowds of less than 10k most weeks, losing a lot more money than what they are now. Meanwhile their larger, more popular direct competitors are playing out of world class stadia. But that's just a guess.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
So effectively too many clubs in the one market and not enough demand.

No. Its simply an artificially regulated and restrained market that isnt in effect anywhere else in the country.

So why do they get involved in signing stadium deals then? Facilitate, sure. But the AFL should never have been involved in actually doing the deal.

Couldnt agree more. However, this goes back to the deal struck with the Cain Government in the mid 80's which started ending suburban stadiums and moved games to central locations. I believe its the only way that all parties felt that the games contract and thus the financial viability of the MCG upgrades, and the payoff on Etihad Stadium, could be met.

I think you're probably right. But match costs are a different to stadium rent. And in any case, neither you nor me know really how much it is. The best we can do is make educated guesses, and that's not really a basis for sweeping statements about unfair deals.

Stadium rental is match cost. Its actually defined in the AFL annual reports prior to 2000.

So by the same token, if the AFL negotiate a favourable deal, then they should have to pay millions to the AFL? And how this can be measured?

I dont get what you are asking here.

I'd be interested in your thoughts as to what sort of deal (let's say) the Dogs would have negotiated if left completely to themselves in comparison to what they've got now.

No idea. Theres very little room to move though when they cant negotiate blockbuster games or timeslots or anything - its all controlled by the AFL.

My guess is that they'd probably be playing out of a hovel to crowds of less than 10k most weeks, losing a lot more money than what they are now. Meanwhile their larger, more popular direct competitors are playing out of world class stadia. But that's just a guess.

They'd have been forced to move anyway. Successive Victorian Governments in the 80s and 90s made it clear that money wasnt there to renovate suburban stadiums. Then agan, the AFL has a minimum standard for premiership games, and the Western Oval doesnt meet that standard.

And they made more money from one preseason game at the Western Oval this year than they did at Etihad in 2014, according to Peter Gordon.
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,295
21,790
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Stadium rental is match cost. Its actually defined in the AFL annual reports prior to 2000.

Pretty big difference between the 2. Rent is something you pay regardless - a fixed cost. Match day costs are the variable costs you incur for things like security, ticketing, cleaning, ushers, police, that sort of thing. You probably know that already though.


I dont get what you are asking here.

Well, if clubs get compensated because of AFL dud deals, surely they should have to pay if the AFL do a good deal on their behalf?

Of course, that comes down to how that is measured. How can we tell the difference between a dud deal and simply a club not having the business acumen or supporter base to make a good deal successful?

No idea. Theres very little room to move though when they cant negotiate blockbuster games or timeslots or anything - its all controlled by the AFL.

They'd have been forced to move anyway. Successive Victorian Governments in the 80s and 90s made it clear that money wasnt there to renovate suburban stadiums. Then agan, the AFL has a minimum standard for premiership games, and the Western Oval doesnt meet that standard.

And they made more money from one preseason game at the Western Oval this year than they did at Etihad in 2014, according to Peter Gordon.

Yeah, I don't buy that - I reckon they're using the same old rubbish economics by disregarding all membership and prepaid income from the match day return calculation.

But all clubs are operating under the same uncertainty re: the fixture. If it's such a problem, then the AFL should start giving compensation based on the fixture using objective criteria.

I think deep down you know the answer to my question - if the Dogs were forced to negotiate their own deal, they'd get utterly shafted. No stadium would really want them playing there, and the big Vic clubs would get all sorts of inducements to play with the smaller clubs getting a crappy offer that they could either take or leave.
Whilst i'm not in favour of the AFL signing stadium deals, one thing them doing so on behalf of many clubs does is ensure some level of equality.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Pretty big difference between the 2. Rent is something you pay regardless - a fixed cost. Match day costs are the variable costs you incur for things like security, ticketing, cleaning, ushers, police, that sort of thing. You probably know that already though.

I dont make the definitions, Im just telling you how they were last time they were itemised by anyone.

Well, if clubs get compensated because of AFL dud deals, surely they should have to pay if the AFL do a good deal on their behalf?

You mean like the Blockbuster and equalisation taxes?

Of course, that comes down to how that is measured. How can we tell the difference between a dud deal and simply a club not having the business acumen or supporter base to make a good deal successful?

Ive no idea, but apparently its all the rage west of Victoria.

Yeah, I don't buy that - I reckon they're using the same old rubbish economics by disregarding all membership and prepaid income from the match day return calculation.

Just the messenger my friend. The clubs believe games at etihad cost them 2 million in potential profit (the saints believe its the difference between Etihad and the MCG, the the Dogs believe its the difference between Etihad and the Western Oval.

But all clubs are operating under the same uncertainty re: the fixture. If it's such a problem, then the AFL should start giving compensation based on the fixture using objective criteria.

They already give compensation to clubs for this purpose.

I think deep down you know the answer to my question

I think deep down Id prefer if people on the other side of this argument would stop telling me how i really think.

if the Dogs were forced to negotiate their own deal, they'd get utterly shafted. No stadium would really want them playing there, and the big Vic clubs would get all sorts of inducements to play with the smaller clubs getting a crappy offer that they could either take or leave.

Rubbish. As long as Docklands is offering money to lesser drawing clubs and events to play there, they'd want an AFL club. And they did get crappy offers. Its literally a percentage of the gate, while the AFL refunds signage and pourage to clubs that play there as part of the overall package deal.

Whilst i'm not in favour of the AFL signing stadium deals, one thing them doing so on behalf of many clubs does is ensure some level of equality.

True.
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,295
21,790
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
I dont make the definitions, Im just telling you how they were last time they were itemised by anyone.



You mean like the Blockbuster and equalisation taxes?

They tax financial success, nothing to do with the stadium deal. The stadium deal isn't even a consideration in how this is calculated.

Just the messenger my friend. The clubs believe games at etihad cost them 2 million in potential profit (the saints believe its the difference between Etihad and the MCG, the the Dogs believe its the difference between Etihad and the Western Oval.

I guess that explains why Melbourne playing nearly all it's games at the MCG has been such a financial succe.......oh wait

It will be interesting to see what happens when the AFL takes it over though.

They already give compensation to clubs for this purpose.

Based on financial basketcase-ness. Nothing to do with the stadium deal.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,958
36,138
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
I guess that explains why Melbourne playing nearly all it's games at the MCG has been such a financial succe.......oh wait

Stadium return isnt Melbournes problem - in fact if memory serves they have the best gate reciepts of all victorian clubs. Lack of almost everything else is. Im not saying there isnt scope for improvement at the financial level of many clubs.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the AFL takes it over though.

Indeed.

Based on financial basketcase-ness. Nothing to do with the stadium deal.

Stadium deals are directly cited in the reasoning for the disequal funding component in the club distributions. The AFL allocated 25 million in its 2012-2016 disequal funding to clubs with - and I quote - "stadia revenue disadvantage".

Clubs included the category "revenue constraints/stadia" in this were
  • Adelaide
  • Port Adelaide
  • Richmond
  • St Kilda
  • Western Bulldogs
  • North Melbourne
  • Melbourne
 
With all due respect Telsor the clubs chose the s**t stadium deal, they never even put up a fight for a better deal. Not as if any of the clubs were going to be thrown out. Bad business is bad business they all agreed we will have s**t stadium deals so the AFL own the stadium in 20 years. It was their choice.

Really? Tell me, where did Richmond 'chose' to host a Docklands tenant at Docklands in round 23 for example. Richmond doesn't even have it's own stadium deal with Docklands, because the stadium knows we don't ever play there by choice, so we get the default 'minimum' deal (why would they sweeten it for us?). The AFL sets where clubs play, we just cop it. You don't notice because there is only one (realistic) location in Perth to play at right now. If the new stadium proves to be financially so much worse than Subi that your club wants to move back, they'll find they can't...The AFL has agreed to play there, and that's that.

Can I also ask why are memberships so cheap for Victorian clubs? Putting membership cost is the first thing they should do if they want more income. I think our membership cost is to excessive and clearly based on supply and demand but it brings extraordinary income for the club in the doors.

Do you have to compete with the AFL selling memberships to a quarter of your ground (including a lot of the best seats, and with finals packages included)? That tends to put an upper limit on prices. Yes, there is also a supply/demand factor, although to be honest, I think the Vic model is better there...Sure, it might be worse financially for the clubs, but the idea that people can actually go to the game easily and affordably isn't something to be discounted.
 
The reason we are on fta in wa is because ****tonnes of people watch - prime time or shittime - doesnt matter - no excuses people rock up to the game and people watch on tv

You might want to go and look at the Ratings thread.

The reason this happens is because we have a large fanbase - the reason we have a large fanbase is because there isnt too nany ****in teams in one city - it also mean we have the political clout to get a good stadium without a s**t stadium deal

But having said that - we would still make money out of an etihad type deal - because we'd fill the place every week.

You would? How come you don't fill Subi every week?

You've got a business model based on denying fans the chance to see their team live...and somehow you think that's a good thing? There is more to life (and sport) than money.
 
yes it coincides with them winning.
See also Carlton prior to Malthouse. St Kilda in 2009 and 10, Brisbane in 2002-4, Port Adelaide 2013-14.

Yes, winning helps, but it mainly coincides with the effects of better management starting to flow through. The upturn happened off field FIRST.


We should actually be the poster child for what equalisation can/should do....It gave us a leg up, which we used to get back to a similar standard to most clubs.

Unlike Papa G , I have no illusions about the finances of my club. We were in trouble, needed help, and now we're roughly average (probably still getting some help due to longer term deals/arrangements that are still flowing through and/or support for plans to stop us dropping back down again).
 
Last edited:
Back