Perth Stadium

[D-N-R]

What would you suggest needs to be done to Geelong? Empty seats put aside for people who might decide to go or not but don't want to pay is a recipe for increased costs.

No reason why the Eagles could not offer a 2, or 4 game seating package for those who don't have a reserved seat currently.

Geelong have the problem that Subicao has at the moment - too many fans, not enough seats.

I would think that when the packages are released, there will be a lot more 3 game packages. At the moment, there are hardly any kids that go to the footy, there is a 15,000 strong waiting list of people who are willing to pay $50 a year just to be on a list (this doesn't include anyone who wants to go but doesn't want to stump up the cash), then there is the opportunity to attract opposition members in large numbers, who currently make trips to all the other venues where there is ample room. Plus, this stadium should be looked at as being something which will be in Perth for 100 years. How big will Perth be in 20 years?

It wouldn't bother me if they built an 80,000 seat stadium and then closed the sections when they didn't need to use them. Sell tickets in the upper tier only when all the others are sold out. They would still have to build it, but they wouldn't always need to provide cleaning and catering and security for those parts. The MCG is never full and often runs at 40-60% capacity. If you own a restaurant, you have to take into account times when you open, but aren't full. If you started a restaurant business with the business model that it would have to be 90% full each time you opened, you'd go broke, because this wouldn't happen.

If they build a new stadium, and in a few years it is full of paid up members, we will just be back to where we are now. That would be a disaster. WCE management want their fans over a barrel - and it is them that want this. They've had it easy for years and haven't had to do anything to grow membership or interest in the game. Anyway, WCE make a good profit each year - perhaps they can reduce this profit by allowing more fans the chance to see the game live.

 

[D-N-R]

Why didn't you just say that then?

I was referring to the pictures you posted when explaining it, I thought you might have been able to follow it. I'll write it in crayon next time.

 

[Kram]

80k would just be silly, it would almost be half empty a lot of the time.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I was referring to the pictures you posted when explaining it, I thought you might have been able to follow it. I'll write it in crayon next time.

No need to write in crayon just address the question directly would have done the job rather than talking about cricket field. You talked about 142.6m when the diagram doesn't show that. I saw your response on my phone so I accepted it was that, but the image says the cricket field is 137.16m. I couldn't see all those lines on my phone- wouldn't let me expand my screen when I read your reply last night.

 

[Kwality]

Geelong have the problem that Subicao has at the moment - too many fans, not enough seats.

I would think that when the packages are released, there will be a lot more 3 game packages. At the moment, there are hardly any kids that go to the footy, there is a 15,000 strong waiting list of people who are willing to pay $50 a year just to be on a list (this doesn't include anyone who wants to go but doesn't want to stump up the cash), then there is the opportunity to attract opposition members in large numbers, who currently make trips to all the other venues where there is ample room. Plus, this stadium should be looked at as being something which will be in Perth for 100 years. How big will Perth be in 20 years?

It wouldn't bother me if they built an 80,000 seat stadium and then closed the sections when they didn't need to use them. Sell tickets in the upper tier only when all the others are sold out. They would still have to build it, but they wouldn't always need to provide cleaning and catering and security for those parts. The MCG is never full and often runs at 40-60% capacity. If you own a restaurant, you have to take into account times when you open, but aren't full. If you started a restaurant business with the business model that it would have to be 90% full each time you opened, you'd go broke, because this wouldn't happen.

If they build a new stadium, and in a few years it is full of paid up members, we will just be back to where we are now. That would be a disaster. WCE management want their fans over a barrel - and it is them that want this. They've had it easy for years and haven't had to do anything to grow membership or interest in the game. Anyway, WCE make a good profit each year - perhaps they can reduce this profit by allowing more fans the chance to see the game live.

You appear to understand that the new facility will be used for footy only 25 times a year.

 

[Kwality]

Kwality you are probably the person most likely to know the following. Has any of the following been settled yet?

1. Who is going to own the stadium? A government trust?
2. Who is going to manage the day to day running of the stadium? a goverment trust? A management firm eg Packer/Ticketek - the Superdome at Olympic Park in Sydney? the WAFC?
3. If the WAFC aren't involved how will they accept the move and be reimbursed for shifting footy there?
4. Will there be a substantial amount of venue memberships? ie normal person type memberships like MCC type and corporate Medallion club type like Docklands?
5. will all hirers be offered a clean or relatively clean stadium deal?

I heard Mike Hussey on Melbourne radio before the last Big Bash & he said he had a role on an advisory or management board with Eventscorp (in answer to a question about what he was doing since retiring from Test cricket). He talked about the new stadium indicating management arrangements were still to be decided but did point out that Eventscorp did manage some facilities. He also indicated it would be a clean stadium, nothing more.

As for the WAFC leaving Subi I recall reports that they would not suffer financially by leaving Subi - remembering that whilst the SANFL own Footy Park, the WAFC don't own Subi. Interestingly the WAFC have increased writing off assets at Subi.

Venue membership - I feel like a lone voice on this issue noting that joining your footy club is the way to get to the footy in WA, no MCC freeloaders, no AFL Members Club or SANFL/SACA competing with club membership. I do understand the business case for Medallion Club style dollars, but understand it fell flat at Adelaide Oval.

No links, sorry.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I heard Mike Hussey on Melbourne radio before the last Big Bash & he said he had a role on an advisory or management board with Eventscorp (in answer to a question about what he was doing since retiring from Test cricket). He talked about the new stadium indicating management arrangements were still to be decided but did point out that Eventscorp did manage some facilities. He also indicated it would be a clean stadium, nothing more.

As for the WAFC leaving Subi I recall reports that they would not suffer financially by leaving Subi - remembering that whilst the SANFL own Footy Park, the WAFC don't own Subi. Interestingly the WAFC have increased writing off assets at Subi.

Venue membership - I feel like a lone voice on this issue noting that joining your footy club is the way to get to the footy in WA, no MCC freeloaders, no AFL Members Club or SANFL/SACA competing with club membership. I do understand the business case for Medallion Club style dollars, but understand it fell flat at Adelaide Oval.

No links, sorry.

Thanks Kwality. Sounds a bit like the Adelaide Oval process. First make the decision to go ahead with it - in SA's case get the SANFL and SACA to get over their 40 year cold war - then sort out the rest closer to when everything is completed.

It took me a good deal of digging around after months bagging the SA government for not setting up an MCG Trust like arrangement, but all the buildings and structures at Adelaide Oval actually sit in the balance sheet of the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, so
1. the land at AO is owned by the Adelaide City Council -
2. the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act said that the Adelaide City Council had to give the Minister an 80 year lease of the land -the AOSMA Ltd - the joint venture company between the SANFL and SACA (SMA = Stadium Management Authority) had to sign several leases and licences between that company and the minister and in return they got management rights at AO, and
3. the structures on the land belong to the state government.

 

[Kwality]

Thanks Kwality. Sounds a bit like the Adelaide Oval process. First make the decision to go ahead with it - in SA's case get the SANFL and SACA to get over their 40 year cold war - then sort out the rest closer to when everything is completed.

It took me a good deal of digging around after months bagging the SA government for not setting up an MCG Trust like arrangement, but all the buildings and structures at Adelaide Oval actually sit in the balance sheet of the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, so
1. the land at AO is owned by the Adelaide City Council -
2. the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act said that the Adelaide City Council had to give the Minister an 80 year lease of the land -the AOSMA Ltd - the joint venture company between the SANFL and SACA (SMA = Stadium Management Authority) had to sign several leases and licences between that company and the minister and in return they got management rights at AO, and
3. the structures on the land belong to the state government.

Agree totally.
Digressing but some years back I was involved in a tender for the MCG submitted to the MCC. One John Wiley, chief of the MCG Trust at the time, sat in on the tender interview with MCC CEO Steve Gough - the MCG Trust donate the equivalent of the annual rent back to the MCC. Arms length relationship?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Agree totally.
Digressing but some years back I was involved in a tender for the MCG submitted to the MCC. One John Wiley, chief of the MCG Trust at the time, sat in on the tender interview with MCC CEO Steve Gough - the MCG Trust donate the equivalent of the annual rent back to the MCC. Arms length relationship?

Yes when i first started looking at stadium deals in 2008 and started downloading annual reports that one of the first things I picked up when comparing what sits in the MCG Trust's books and what sits in the MCC's books.

The good thing about the MCG Trust is that even though they have no say in the way the MCC manage things, they have stepped in a couple of times to help change the lease between the MCC and AFL. That's better than nothing.

Best case in the stupid MCG preliminary final rule that one had to be played there every year for 40 years. Its probably why after signing the 40 year deal in 1992 the AFL introduced 2 prelim finals in 1994 to try to get around it. The Trust lent on the MCC as well as public opinion after the potential farce of 2002 and 2003 - Port losing a home QF saved the AFL embarrassment until Brisbane were forced to play Geelong there in 2004 - but the MCC extended from 2032 to 2037 the right to host GF's at the MCG and other things that were negotiated in the original 40 year deal.