virtual ownership. they collected all the revenue. and paid nothing for the privilege. which was used to fund grassroots. which is going to end.
Growing concerns that the new Perth Stadium threatens WA football
- Thread starter Defacto
- Start date
- Tagged users None
virtual ownership. they collected all the revenue. and paid nothing for the privilege. which was used to fund grassroots. which is going to end.
and what was the result to SA state footy funding? not the clubs / stadium deals etc. how did the grass roots funding end up? we rely pretty heavily on the existing funding model of profiting like buggery on subiaco to fuel our local footy.
direct state govt contributions to the SA version of wafc?
genuinely curious
remember that the wafc stands to lose out on every large event that was held at subiaco, which they profited from and was used to pay for grassroots footy. that wont happen at the new stadium. not to mention internalised (zero cost) renting of the stadium to the clubs, 40k people catering deals that went straight to junior footy etc. these will all change over to pay-to-use... without the revenues to support that.
In all honesty I'd trust the AFL to do a better job at grassroots than the SANFL. It is in the AFL's interest to have strong grassroots football. The SANFL is run by a cartel of corporate lawyers in Adelaide and they treat it as a play thing, siphoning off millions.
absolutely agree the AFL have the strongest vested interest in funding juniors / state leagues. but i doubt they are prepared to invest to the level that we have been accustomed to over here with the money the two clubs and a free stadium generate.
hell, they are carrying on like they havent got any money at all to give us.
which is ludicrous because they have hundreds and hundreds of millions and need to invest in junior footy to save the long term strength of the code.
They care about it but obviously with the WAFL cartel over there they have little inventive. AFL officials are shitting themselves over grassroots participation levels, where it is lacking they will be there.
- Moderator
- #157
yes. All threads are eventually sorted into the appropriate subforum.
- Moderator
- #158
The SANFL effectively own most of the stadium revenue from Adelaide Oval from March to September. They are also being compensated for their licenses over 15 years by the AFL, and receiving additional funds from the AFL for development in that time. The WAFC haven't handed over licenses to the AFL and they make millions in royalties from the WA clubs which the SANFL didnt, so its hard to see a similar deal being struck here.
When you have 2 strong financial clubs with membership waiting lists, a burgeoning population and a new stadium not yet even opened that is proclaimed as to small, a economy that as sure as night becomes day will turn around then a 3rd club is needed.
IMO you will have 3 strong clubs, i remember when Freo was going to destroy the foundations of WA football, even WCE initially was bad for WA football.
I would be interested in knowing what the population of metro Perth and indeed WA itself was prior to the formation of WCE and then Freo.
WA will have a 3rd club, there is nothing surer IMO.
WHEN CLUB MEMBERSHIP ENTAILS SOMEONE BASICALLY DYING BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE CAN GO AND SEE THE FOOTY COMMON SENSE DICTATES THAT MORE TEAMS ARE NEEDED
AND YES I AM SHOUTING
There is a lower standard of footy already on offer, the WAFL - no need to lower the standard of AFL footy.
Just so its clear, the members of the Crows & Port are paying for the licences.
& the Hawks have the highest childrens membership & it is an irrelevant stat going anywhere.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Actually it's not
Kids are your next generation of support
Hawthorn has a whole army of kids who have been exposed to regular games in person. The odds of most of these being bolted on financial contributors to the club as adults are pretty good, because they are basically being taught that active engagement with their club is the norm
The Eagles kids for the most part watch at home on TV, because they don't have access to the reserved seats which the senior supporters of the club are (as is their right) holding on till death.
So an Eagles kid has the opportunity to watch on TV, and pay money to join a queue, which might see them actually see a game live in 10+ years
Do you honestly believe a millennial eagle has the same level of engagement and likely financial commitment as a result of this?
Sorry but I completely disagree here.
The AFL are heavily focussed on elite development. Thats where they really invest their money. Its grass roots footy clubs, with their volunteers, who do the vast bulk of the work at 'grass roots' or 'community' level football. They fund raise to pay for grounds & umpires & uniforms etc etc. The money spent on sending players & others into schools is mainly funded by State Gument, at least here anyway.
I'd be surprised if the AFL do much more than superficial help. It nearly all relies on Volunteers who care about the game.
Our Game
Club Legend
By the way how is the stadium works going?
Drove past them yesterday .... slowly.
Kids sometimes go to Eagles games, granny and poppy might be on a cruise and lend some tickets out.
this pic is about a month old. there are 3 cranes on site now and the piles are progressing around nicely. lift shafts have topped out and the next lot are underway. structural bearers are being installed.
its going full steam ahead.
the sanfl couldnt possibly own the stadium revenue. surely most of that would be going to the sa government to pay back construction costs and all the sanfl do is hire the stadium.
that is the point of the wa situation. the wafc (at subiaco) takes in every cent from matchday as pure revenue. there are no outgoings.
this is what was being spent on wa football, and is about to vanish leaving god know who to cover the difference. hence the outcry.
awesome contribution, troll
it was a bit of a joke, one that is actually based in reality, i have seen it, but probably not the norm
you are a bit to serious, if you don't like my posts don't respond.
you would be really lonely if only people who liked your posts were allowed to respond
- Moderator
- #173
The Governmetngets a tiny amount. A small amount goes to the stadium sinking fund for maintenance - and everything else is taken by the SANFL in the winter months.
in that case the sa government isnt interested in chasing proper returns on a near billion dolllar investment. payments on that, even over a protracted period like 50 years, are substantially more than 'a tiny amount'. i doubt that our wa government will go for that kind of subsidisation, barnett is a cagey dealer and wont be party to what amounts to a 1.5 billion dollar handout to aussie rules.
Similar threads
