New Tasmania games deal almost done

[Procrastinator35]

When the AFL own etihad, we will all be getting used to more games there.

When will that happen Pessi?....Has a date been set in concrete as yet?

Fantastic, but a totally different topic to what I was discissing, oxcept i didnt go the ridiculous graphic when you went off topic

You are acting as if I am anti tassie, but thers no evidence of that

Heres a tip, you cant flaunt premierships to win some argument against people supporting the same team

3 Cheers 4 the tip.....Bees in the bonnet?....Thought you'd appreciate the comic relief of the graphic....OH WELLS

 

[Pessimistic]

When will that happen Pessi?....Has a date been set in concrete as yet?



3 Cheers 4 the tip.....Bees in the bonnet?....Thought you'd appreciate the comic relief of the graphic....OH WELLS

Its your turn to do your own research, the Dicker stuff took about 30 seconds to find.

Id just apreciate if you refrained for attacking me for views you think I hold, but actually don't.

All I said was some dude somewhere pointed out the actual numbers of tourists the official reports about economic benefits claimed was impossible given the available sea and air schedules. Its embellishment and it goes on all the time. Clearly there is some benefit to the actual deal or they wouldnt do it.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Plenty of big 6 firms handed over reports saying hawthorn should merge or perish back in 96

We are still here and the big 6 is now the big 4

yeah, and part of how that happened was how the hawks tapped into their supporter base and righted the ship. the goodwill built in tassie will likewise be impressive.

All im saying is a dude claimed it was impossible for the number of tourists claimed to actually travel to tassie, just as conversation. Im not pushing one agenda or the other.

Its not unusual though, isnt the fifa world cup watched by twice the worlds population each time ? Hype is rife

yeah for sure, and much of my argument was general and not necessarily at you. i really don't care about what the LCC or KPMG think anyway. the club clearly thinks it's worthwhile and results on-field and off seem pretty good!

 

[Procrastinator35]

Its your turn to do your own research, the Dicker stuff took about 30 seconds to find.

Id just apreciate if you refrained for attacking me for views you think I hold, but actually don't.

All I said was some dude somewhere pointed out the actual numbers of tourists the official reports about economic benefits claimed was impossible given the available sea and air schedules. Its embellishment and it goes on all the time. Clearly there is some benefit to the actual deal or they wouldnt do it.

Seems I've riled you up too much already for one day.

Etihad Stadium and AFL can't agree on price for early sale
Date
March 19, 2013

Jon Pierik
Sports writer with The Age
View more articles from Jon Pierik

As it emerged that AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou was paid almost $2 million last year, the league has revealed the opportunity to buy Etihad Stadium ahead of schedule is closing.

AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick said the league remained keen to take hold of the stadium and its lucrative management rights - a move that would allow greater funds to be distributed to clubs.

This would also solve the problem of poor venue returns for Etihad Stadium tenants the Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and St Kilda, although stadium bosses say they are tired of the criticism and maintain there is more to the story.

Saints president Greg Westaway recently led a renewed call for the stadium to be bought by the AFL - but only if the Bulldogs, Saints and Kangaroos would largely share in the spoils.

The AFL will take ownership of the stadium on March 8, 2025, for $1, so a deal to buy the stadium would need to be done soon.

However, Fitzpatrick said he could not agree with the price Melbourne Stadiums Ltd, acting on behalf of the five superannuation stakeholders in Etihad, had been asking.

''We have had ongoing negotiations over several years on Etihad. I think the base issue has simply been a matter of price,'' he said.

''Strategically, we would quite like to own it but we haven't been able to reach agreement with the institutional owners.''

Fitzpatrick would not disclose what the AFL thought was a fair price. But it's understood Melbourne Stadiums Ltd wants more than $250 million for the remaining 12 years.

Etihad Stadium spokesman Bill Lane said discussions were ongoing and management would continue to work in the ''best interests of the sports codes who use the venue and its four million superannuants who have an interest in the venue''.

The AFL has revealed that Demetriou pocketed $1.88million last year, in a season the league posted record revenue. He was paid a base of $1.44million, including superannuation, and a performance bonus of more than $400,000.

This was an increase on his salary of $1.8million in 2011, but still below the $2.2million he received in 2010.

The AFL said revenue for 2012 had been $425million, up from $343million. Operating profit was $296million, with net profit $6.7million after distributions.

The AFL had lost $23.6million in 2011, largely due to its expansion plans.

Expenditure in 2012 was $130 million, with the league revealing it was introducing cost-cutting measures this year, saving about $6million.

Attendances fell slightly, with the AFL citing the growing pains of expansion clubs Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney for this.

The release of financial details comes as the AFL executive, club chief executives and presidents prepare to meet on Wednesday to discuss equalisation issues.

■Chris Lynch, the chief financial officer of Rio Tinto, will become the first AFL commissioner to be based outside of the country when he shifts to London.

Looks likely to be another decade yet Pessi, If I'm reading between the lines correctly.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-early-sale-20130318-2gad9.html#ixzz3faKezvmc

 

[Procrastinator35]

AFL News
AFL baulks at price for acquisition of Etihad Stadium, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire says better deals a must

• by: Jon Ralph
• From: Herald Sun
• April 10, 2014 8:45PM

THE AFL’s bid to buy Etihad Stadium to gain better stadium deals for battling clubs has run aground.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire again called for a speedy resolution this week, saying clubs such as St Kilda and North Melbourne needed better stadium deals.

“Whoever becomes the CEO of the AFL, there is one job that is to be done in this town, that is to fix the stadium deals,’’ McGuire said.

But Etihad Stadium’s asking price to hand over ownership to the AFL earlier than the contracted 2025 is believed to be as high as $270 million.

The AFL’s offer is understood to be $25 million-$30 million below that sum.

But there has been no recent progress and none seems likely in the near future.

The AFL would effectively need to make more than $20 million a year from the deal for the next decade given ownership of the stadium transfers to the AFL on March 8, 2025, for a $1 fee.

The league believes Etihad Stadium’s growth projections are not as optimistic as the venue suggests so is baulking at that price.

But Etihad’s management believes the league would shy away from lucrative concerts and hosting rival sports, so could not maximise the venue’s potential.

It means those clubs scheduled to play at Etihad Stadium will need to continue enduring stadium deals that sees them lose money on middling crowds.

Etihad Stadium is also required to spend money on the venue in coming years to hand it over as a state-of-the-art stadium as stipulated in its contract with the AFL.

Carlton is determined to move more of its games from the Docklands venue to the MCG next year, with a midyear deadline to make that call.

The Blues set a 50,000 membership goal for this year which, after a poor 0-3 start, is yet to be reached.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Docklands Stadium (Etihad)

Club Stadium Arrangements

• Carlton are contracted to play 6 games a year, deal ends in 2014. Etihad management aretrying to convince them to stay. Carlton recieved 2.5 million up front to move, however this has meant lower returns since. Carltons deal is apparently set to its gate reciepts.
• Essendon are contracted to play 7 games a year, deal ends in 2025. Widely reputed to be the best deal of the docklands clubs.
• St Kilda hasnt had a deal since 2008 and would like to play at the MCG.
• North Melbourne may not have had a deal at Docklands since 2007.

North, St Kilda and the Bulldogs have complained for years that Docklands does not generate anywhere near the financial returns they expected. St Kilda demanded more games at the MCG and will move several games to New Zealand, North have relocated several games a year to Bellerive Oval in Tasmania, and the Bulldogs play a game a year in Darwin. Carlton are actively seeking to reduce the number of games played at the stadium.

Stadium management have explained that since Etihad recieves no government funding, the rent is higher than that expected at the MCG, limiting returns. Management also point out that scoreboard advertising at Docklands is paid to the AFL whereas at the MCG advertising is paid to the MCC.

In response to club and AFL concerns, a new deal was negotiated where all clubs recieve a guaranteed $100,000 per match.

Naming rights issues

Initially the rights to Docklands were sold to Colonial Mutual for 32.5 million over ten years. When Colonial was bought by the Commonwealth Bank, those rights were sold to Telstra for $50 million. Colonial Stadium became Telstra Dome.

In 2009, Etihad Airways paid $25 million for the naming rights to the stadium, triggering legal action by the AFL as this conflicted with its major sponsor, Qantas. The AFL said that its contract gave it veto rights over naming rights sponsorship, and threatened to not allow its various arms to refer to the stadium as Etihad. That legal action is detailed here. The situation was settled out of court, and the deal was renewed in 2012 until 2019.

Early buyout of the stadium

Several prominent AFL persons have suggested that the AFL buyout the remainder of its Docklands contract. The idea first surfaced in 2011 after the AFL signed a record broadcasting contract for 1.25 billion, but has seen a renewed push in recent times. The AFL is understood to be resisting the push as the stadiums current owners want $250 million for the last 12 years of the contract.

Ownership

The AFL contributed $30 million from broadcast revenue, and signed a lengthy contract in order to take ownership in 2025 for just $1.00.

Upon completion Channel 7 took control of the Stadium, before selling out for $330 million in 2006 to a consortium consisting of National Australia Bank Group’s staff super fund and industry funds such as Retail Employees Superannuation Trust, Western Australia’s Westscheme and South Australia’s Statewide, and managed by a joint entity of Mirvac/Leighton Holdings – Melbourne Stadiums Limited.

In the 4 years leading up to 2011, it reported $60 million in losses and paid no dividends to its owners.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

I've changed my mind. Keep the deal going, I say!

 

[Procrastinator35]

I've changed my mind. Keep the deal going, I say!

Now that you've seen the alternatives you mean.

 

[rdhopkins2]

If we keep winning in Hawkceston, it's hard to complain also!

 

[walhawk]

If we keep winning in Hawkceston, it's hard to complain also!

Our record at the MCG and also Etihad is comparable (given we play Geelong and Sydney @ MCG).
The 'home ground advantage' is just club spin to keep us & Tassie on side.
I would prefer to wind back the deal while we still have some leverage.
Less than 15% of our members are in Tassie so I am baffled to see why people think they 'deserve' more games, or better games.
Two matches v interstate clubs would be about right.
If North ever give up on Hobart, we should move a game or two there. Hobart is a million times better than Launceston.

 

[rdhopkins2]

True but clubs like Freo, WC, Brisy & GC hate it and rarely win. Plus the travel factor. Happy if it helps us get those extra premiership points come finals time and percentage.

 

[rdhopkins2]

True but clubs like Freo, WC, Brisy & GC hate it and rarely win. Plus the travel factor. Happy if it helps us get those extra premiership points come finals time and percentage.

 

[rdhopkins2]

True but clubs like Freo, WC, Brisy & GC hate it and rarely win. Plus the travel factor. Happy if it helps us get those extra premiership points come finals time and percentage.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

 

[Noneedforaname]

Beat me to it.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

I could have taken pity on poor rdhopkins2 and deleted the re-posts but I thought it more amusing to post a video clip of Luke Darcy's pinnacle as a journalist instead.

 

[Suntory Boss Coffee]

Our record at the MCG and also Etihad is comparable (given we play Geelong and Sydney @ MCG).
The 'home ground advantage' is just club spin to keep us & Tassie on side.
I would prefer to wind back the deal while we still have some leverage.
Less than 15% of our members are in Tassie so I am baffled to see why people think they 'deserve' more games, or better games.
Two matches v interstate clubs would be about right.
If North ever give up on Hobart, we should move a game or two there. Hobart is a million times better than Launceston.

15% of 22 is 3.3, so 3 games is about right

 

[walhawk]

15% of 22 is 3.3, so 3 games is about right

15% of 11 home games is 1.65. So four is over the top.
Around 75% of our members are in Victoria, so we should have 75% of our games here, like every other Vic club.

 

[Suntory Boss Coffee]

15% of 11 home games is 1.65. So four is over the top.
Around 75% of our members are in Victoria, so we should have 75% of our games here, like every other Vic club.

Oh yeah, jesus, brain fart by me there sorry xD

 

[Hawkk]

15% of 11 home games is 1.65. So four is over the top.
Around 75% of our members are in Victoria, so we should have 75% of our games here, like every other Vic club.

So much this.

Our Tasmanian membership is so greatly overstated it's ridiculous.

Check the HFC AGM's, we had 3000 Tasmanian members out of 28000 in 2006. Last year 8700 of our 68000 'and change membership base were Tasmanian (with the percentage of Tasmanian members shrinking in proportion to our overall membership in every season since 2009 - the zenith of the agreement, 7500 out of 52000 members)

This year we have played 4 MCG home games and drawn a 60,350 average with games against Richmond, Port (ES) and Carlton to follow (53,000 average over the last 6 years), we've played 3 games in Tasmania and drawn 14,489 with a game against the Lions to follow - for all talk of our great support down in Tasmania our crowds have definitely plateaued since 2008/09)

...and yet the Launceston City Council requested more games

We should have all the power at the negotiation table here, our bargaining position will never be stronger than it is this year (we would have cracked 1,000,000 for h/a attendances in 2008, 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 if not for Tasmania)

 

[walhawk]

With Essendon and Carlton's woes, right now we have the potential to set ourselves up (along with Richmond) as the second most popular club in Victoria for the next generation.
With more Vic games we could be up there with Tigers & Pies for attendances.
Without high attendances, we will find ourselves at Etihad more often once the AFL take ownership.
We could end up with 4 MCG, 3 Etihad, 4 Tas.
Next time the rights are up we need to work with AFL to guarantee us more MCG if we acquiesce to their Tassie plans.

 

[Procrastinator35]

So much this.

Our Tasmanian membership is so greatly overstated it's ridiculous.

Check the HFC AGM's, we had 3000 Tasmanian members out of 28000 in 2006. Last year 8700 of our 68000 'and change membership base were Tasmanian (with the percentage of Tasmanian members shrinking in proportion to our overall membership in every season since 2009 - the zenith of the agreement, 7500 out of 52000 members)

This year we have played 4 MCG home games and drawn a 60,350 average with games against Richmond, Port (ES) and Carlton to follow (53,000 average over the last 6 years), we've played 3 games in Tasmania and drawn 14,489 with a game against the Lions to follow - for all talk of our great support down in Tasmania our crowds have definitely plateaued since 2008/09)

...and yet the Launceston City Council requested more games

We should have all the power at the negotiation table here, our bargaining position will never be stronger than it is this year (we would have cracked 1,000,000 for h/a attendances in 2008, 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 if not for Tasmania)

Yes but....What would be the alternative?....More games at Etihad for a pittance in return, that's what.

We will earn a $mill per game in Tassie from the sponsorsip, plus all the gate receipts/returns which means close to another 1.5 $mill

Deduct those sums & we no longer make a profit....That's how significant the Tassie partnership is.

 

[Long Live HFC]

...and yet the Launceston City Council requested more games

which goes to show what, exactly? that they see a real benefit to the city? isn't that expected?

 

[Hawkk]

Yes but....What would be the alternative?....More games at Etihad for a pittance in return, that's what.

We will earn a $mill per game in Tassie from the sponsorsip, plus all the gate receipts/returns which means close to another 1.5 $mill

Deduct those sums & we no longer make a profit....That's how significant the Tassie partnership is.

Very simplistic argument.

You assume that Hawthorn wouldn't attract another major sponsor, could not charge more for Melbourne membership and wouldn't make money / would lose money on all four of our fixtures down there...

Then there is the assumption that Hawthorn (who currently have the 2nd largest turnover in the game) wouldn't readjust their business model to suit the shortfall

 

[BobHawk]

We should be negotiating for more money after yesterday's game.