GWS Adult membership costs $185 for 8 games.

[Ned_Flanders]

It seems the link to the afl presentation to the clubs no longer works, but here is the table they used to show the variance:

 

[TheFVK]

It seems the link to the afl presentation to the clubs no longer works, but here is the table they used to show the variance:

I'd say the link doesn't work for a reason; the comparison was made on assumptions which are now 5 years old, and whats more don't appear to be supported by reality. Even if they were, the chart on the right shows that the MCG/Etihad deals still yield a positive match return in the advent of a crowd of 20,000, whereas Footy Park for example required a breakeven of 35K in latter showdowns to draw even. Unless by "match return" the chart author means revenue, and has not included maintenance costs etc, in which case these will differ between stadia and so the comparison is disingenous. RussellEbertHandball or The_Wookie are much more educated in the black science of the stadium deal than I am so may be able to elucidate and make sense of this strange chart which doesn't appear supported by reality.

At any rate, I think the comments by the Chairman of Port Adelaide and the CEO of the AFL this year that the intention of the stadium deal renegotiation was for "both clubs to get 70 cents from every dollar made on match days, which was what AFL clubs got from the MCG" are a pretty clear indicator of the relative stadium deals.

 

[The_Wookie]

I'd say the link doesn't work for a reason; the comparison was made on assumptions which are now 5 years old, and whats more don't appear to be supported by reality. Even if they were, the chart on the right shows that the MCG/Etihad deals still yield a positive match return in the advent of a crowd of 20,000, whereas Footy Park for example required a breakeven of 35K in latter showdowns to draw even. Unless by "match return" the chart author means revenue, and has not included maintenance costs etc, in which case these will differ between stadia and so the comparison is disingenous. RussellEbertHandball or The_Wookie are much more educated in the black science of the stadium deal than I am so may be able to elucidate the situation and make sense of what you've posted.

At any rate, I think the comments by the Chairman of Port Adelaide and the CEO of the AFL this year that the intention of the stadium deal renegotiation was for "both clubs to get 70 cents from every dollar made on match days, which was what AFL clubs got from the MCG" are a pretty clear indicator of the relative stadium deals.

And this is why I routinely archive AFL documents on my one drive since 2012. They disappear after a certain period of time. Presentation is here.

 

[TheFVK]

And this is why I routinely archive AFL documents on my one drive since 2012. They disappear after a certain period of time. Presentation is here.

Any comments on the stadium deal chart to the left? It appears at total odds with Koch, Fagan and Gill repeatedly stating they seek a stadium deal of "70 cents in the dollar as the MCG clubs get". It's an almost useless comparison without stating the underpinning assumptions.

 

[The_Wookie]

Any comments on the stadium deal chart to the left? It appears at total odds with Koch, Fagan and Gill repeatedly stating they seek a stadium deal of "70 cents in the dollar as the MCG clubs get". It's an almost useless comparison without stating the underpinning assumptions.

At the MCG its a little confusing because its the AFL recieves 70c in the dollar, not the clubs, although it would include MCG Club returns.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I'd say the link doesn't work for a reason; the comparison was made on assumptions which are now 5 years old, and whats more don't appear to be supported by reality. Even if they were, the chart on the right shows that the MCG/Etihad deals still yield a positive match return in the advent of a crowd of 20,000, whereas Footy Park for example required a breakeven of 35K in latter showdowns to draw even. Unless by "match return" the chart author means revenue, and has not included maintenance costs etc, in which case these will differ between stadia and so the comparison is disingenous. RussellEbertHandball or The_Wookie are much more educated in the black science of the stadium deal than I am so may be able to elucidate and make sense of this strange chart which doesn't appear supported by reality.

At any rate, I think the comments by the Chairman of Port Adelaide and the CEO of the AFL this year that the intention of the stadium deal renegotiation was for "both clubs to get 70 cents from every dollar made on match days, which was what AFL clubs got from the MCG" are a pretty clear indicator of the relative stadium deals.

It's still relevant because we have the same deal now as we did then

We don't receive any pourage or catering revenue

We receive minimal signage

We have the lesser volume of corporate boxes

And we don't get the AFL reserve or MCC gate

Not bagging the sa clubs for fighting for more btw, more power to you. Just correcting the notion clubs like Richmond take home 70% of MGC match day revenues

 

[TheFVK]

It's still relevant because we have the same deal now as we did then

We don't receive any pourage or catering revenue

We receive minimal signage

We have the lesser volume of corporate boxes

And we don't get the AFL reserve or MCC gate

Not bagging the sa clubs for fighting for more btw, more power to you. Just correcting the notion clubs like Richmond take home 70% of MGC match day revenues

Thing is it's not a notion to correct.

The figure you state has an unknown basis and no list of underpinning assumptions- even the y axis "match return " is ambiguous, and furthermore the message it appears to convey is at odds with every common wisdom and statement offered on the relative worth of each stadium deal. As an engineer I put together charts in PowerPoint presentations too, I know how easily statistics and numbers can be used to mislead and support whatever story I am trying to construct. I put absolutely no faith in the validity of that chart as a means to compare the stadium deal.

What I do know, is that the Chairman of an AFL club and the CEO of the AFL itself have repeatedly stated this year that the intention of the renegotiation is to achieve a similarly beneficial stadium deal to what those clubs at the MCG receive. The implication, being that the stadium deal at the MCG was better for the clubs than the stadium deal at AAMI Stadium. If the notion of 70c in the dollar were incorrect, I'm pretty sure that would have come up sometime during the 200+ day negotiations.

I would back the recent word of these two figures (and every other spokesman or commentator on this topic in the past 5 years) over a baseless chart with unknown inputs, every day of the week, twice on Sundays and thrice on the 29th of February.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Thing is it's not a notion to correct.

The figure you state has an unknown basis and no list of underpinning assumptions- even the y axis "match return " is ambiguous, and furthermore the message it appears to convey is at odds with every common wisdom and statement offered on the relative worth of each stadium deal. As an engineer I put together charts in PowerPoint presentations too, I know how easily statistics and numbers can be used to mislead and support whatever story I am trying to construct. I put absolutely no faith in the validity of that chart as a means to compare the stadium deal.

What I do know, is that the Chairman of an AFL club and the CEO of the AFL itself have repeatedly stated this year that the intention of the renegotiation is to achieve a similarly beneficial stadium deal to what those clubs at the MCG receive. The implication, being that the stadium deal at the MCG was better for the clubs than the stadium deal at AAMI Stadium. If the notion of 70c in the dollar were incorrect, I'm pretty sure that would have come up sometime during the 200+ day negotiations.

I would back the recent word of these two figures (and every other spokesman or commentator on this topic in the past 5 years) over a baseless chart with unknown inputs, every day of the week, twice on Sundays and thrice on the 29th of February.

Okay, then answer this. How on earth do Richmond and Melbourne get 70% of match day revenue with no access to seat sales from half the stadium, no access to the catering revenues, limited signage, and limited corporate? Especially in an era when more and more attendees are members, reducing the main match day revenue source for Vic clubs (the gate)

 

[TheFVK]

Okay, then answer this. How on earth do Richmond and Melbourne get 70% of match day revenue with no access to seat sales from half the stadium, no access to the catering revenues, limited signage, and limited corporate? Especially in an era when more and more attendees are members, reducing the main match day revenue source for Vic clubs (the gate)

You're getting hung up about the 70c in the dollar figure. Problem is neither of us know on what basis it is calculated; it would of course change based on what you include as revenue, expenditure etc. So long as we don't have access to the basis for that figure, it is only useful as an apples for apples point of comparison with other stadium deals.

On an apples for apples comparison, no matter which way you spin it the AAMI Stadium and Etihad Stadium deals are always inferior to the MCG deal.

This 70c in the dollar figure is accepted as fact by the people who have access to the actual figures and have an intimate knowledge of stadium deals having spent the better part of 6 months renegotiating one. These subject matter experts have also spent the last 6 months striving to achieve a similar deal as that which the clubs at the MCG receive, bearing in mind that the SA AFL clubs also don't receive any of the catering costs, have the best seats in the stadium reserved for stadium members etc etc. So that would pretty clearly imply that the stadium deal at Adelaide Oval was inferior to that at the MCG.

So with all that in mind, let me ask you- do you still think the MCG clubs are subject to a worse stadium deal than those at Etihad / AAMI Stadium-Adelaide Oval Pre-2015?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You're getting hung up about the 70c in the dollar figure.Problem is neither of us know on what basis it is calculated; it would of course change based on what you include as revenue, expenditure etc. So long as we don't have access to the basis for that figure, it is only useful as an apples for apples point of comparison with other stadium deals.

On apples for apples, no matter which way you spin it the AAMI Stadium and Etihad Stadium Deals are always inferior to the MCG deal.

This 70c in the dollar figure is accepted as fact by the people who have access to the actual figures and have an intimate knowing knowledge of stadium deals having spent the better part of 6 months renegotiating one. These subject matter experts have also spent the last 6 months striving to achieve a similar deal as that which the clubs at the MCG deal, bearing in mind that the SA AFL clubs also don't receive any of the catering costs, have the best seats in the stadium reserved for stadium members etc etc. So that would imply that the stadium deal at Adelaide Oval was inferior to the MCG. Wouldn't you say?

So with all that in mind, let me ask you- do you still think the MCG clubs are subject to a worse stadium deal than those at Etihad / AAMI Stadium-Adelaide Oval Pre-2015?

Can you show me one post, one, where I've said the AO deal is superior to the MGC ones?

You keep slamming me on this, but I've not even commented on that. The only thing I have commented on is the notion Richmond and Melbourne get 70c out of every dollar on match day at the g

As wookie indicated, you may be confusing what the afl take is, not the club take

 

[TheFVK]

Can you show me one post, one, where I've said the AO deal is superior to the MGC ones?

You keep slamming me on this, but I've not even commented on that. The only thing I have commented on is the notion Richmond and Melbourne get 70c out of every dollar on match day at the g

As wookie indicated, you may be confusing what the afl take is, not the club take

Ok sorry I thought you were trying to imply that the Tigers were incurring a similarly poor stadium deal. As a member of an SA club which has been bled dry by their stadium deal (and then been blamed for not making more!) you can understand this is a particularly sore point

The 70c figure to meaningless, you're right if you bundle up everything it would change and reduce. No doubt however "stadium deal return " has been simplified by Gill, Koch and Chapman to create a transparent target to work towards during the AO negotiations. Reality is the problem is complex and the comparison will never truly be equal. One thing we do know however is that Geelong should thank heavens their stadium was built in a swing vote electorate

 

[The_Wookie]

Thing is it's not a notion to correct.

The figure you state has an unknown basis and no list of underpinning assumptions- even the y axis "match return " is ambiguous, and furthermore the message it appears to convey is at odds with every common wisdom and statement offered on the relative worth of each stadium deal. As an engineer I put together charts in PowerPoint presentations too, I know how easily statistics and numbers can be used to mislead and support whatever story I am trying to construct. I put absolutely no faith in the validity of that chart as a means to compare the stadium deal.

What I do know, is that the Chairman of an AFL club and the CEO of the AFL itself have repeatedly stated this year that the intention of the renegotiation is to achieve a similarly beneficial stadium deal to what those clubs at the MCG receive. The implication, being that the stadium deal at the MCG was better for the clubs than the stadium deal at AAMI Stadium. If the notion of 70c in the dollar were incorrect, I'm pretty sure that would have come up sometime during the 200+ day negotiations.

I would back the recent word of these two figures (and every other spokesman or commentator on this topic in the past 5 years) over a baseless chart with unknown inputs, every day of the week, twice on Sundays and thrice on the 29th of February.

Football - not limited to the clubs - does recieve almost 70% of revenue from football games at the MCG - nowhere near 70% of stadium revenue ($30 million of a total $130 million in 2014 revenue if you're wondering, 8.6 million in AFL income at that)

According to the MCG-AFL Stadium User Agreement, section 6 -

After debt and interest, the new arrangement will see the MCC retain 31.1 per cent of ground revenues relating to football, which covers all running costs, wages, maintenance and capital works. The remaining 68.9 per cent is distributed to the AFL and its clubs.

The MCC 2014 Annual report notes on page 4

The 2013 season saw the MCC distribute more than $30 million to the AFL clubs and the AFL for the home-and-away and finals matches.

The AFL recieves pourage and signage rights on behalf of the league, all finals revenue, AFL reserve/membership revenues, attendance bonuses and other things not specifically allocated to the clubs. Collingwood apparently has a brilliant deal, as does Hawthorn. Note that the AFL chart specifically cites Melbourne and Richmond at the 41% mark.

The nature of annual reports means we cant simply take match income from the games - not least due to carlton and essendon also playing there and at Etihad.

 

[telsor]

Note that the AFL chart specifically cites Melbourne and Richmond at the 41% mark.

I always took that to mean the average for all clubs/games was 41%, With Collingwood/Hawthorn doing better and Melbourne/Richmond doing worse (As, I assume, do other Vic clubs who host a few games there).

 

[telsor]

I don't know about you but in the competitive market that is Western Sydney the Giants, who are about growing the game, should be by far the cheapest tickets in town.

$23 a game? Should be $10...or even free for the next couple of years.

GWS financials...

Membership &Merchandise revenue: $1,138,279
Membership expenses: $1,551,451
Mechandise (cost of sales): $647,259

GWS LOST over a million last year on members and merch...and the OP thinks it should be cheaper?

 

[SgtSchulz]

GWS LOST over a million last year on members and merch...and the OP thinks it should be cheaper?

The Giants are not about making money at the moment...

 

[telsor]

The Giants are not about making money at the moment...

So you want them to make less?

 

[SgtSchulz]

So you want them to make less?

If it means getting more kids through the gates in Western Sydney then of course!