Analysis Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happening

[Hellgood]

Perth's new stadium going thru all the sort of BS AO went thru. Any furher thoughts Kwality ??


View attachment 147238

Well you already know that whatever his opinion is it will be anti AFL or Australian football.

It's pretty crucial for the WAFC to obtain as great a stake as possible in the stadium because the move away from Subi takes away a massive source of their income. Whilst the AFL would prefer to have control themselves, a situation where the WAFC misses out too would be a terrible outcome for them as they would subsequently have to pick up the slack and start providing funding for the game at grassroots level in WA.

I think the status quo is a reasonably good thing for WA. The WAFC, whilst not faultless do seem on top of things and manage to keep things relatively amicable between the two AFL clubs and I feel they do quite a fair job in looking after the game at local level. There certainly is not the hostility towards the AFL that is inherent in the SANFL organisation. I don't think it will be a **** up like the transition to Adelaide Oval, because there isn't a 'rogue' stakeholder like the SANFL involved to pull in the opposite direction out of self-interest/spite. Whilst opinons no doubt differ between the AFL, WAFC, the clubs and the state government, ultimately they all know that a healthy football is a very good thing for WA so they are rowing towards the same finish line just slightly out of sync.

 

[Papa G]

Why does Galligan even mention that both WA teams would play preliminary finals at Subiaco if they earn them? Is this still an issue? I thought this had been sorted out a decade ago?

 

[Quadzilla]

Why does Galligan even mention that both WA teams would play preliminary finals at Subiaco if they earn them? Is this still an issue? I thought this had been sorted out a decade ago?

Is there still a requirement for certain number of MCG finals?

 

[Jim Dixon]

Is there still a requirement for certain number of MCG finals?

REH would have the exact facts, but there does have to be a certain number of finals over time. If there's elimination finals in Melbourne it does make it easier for the AFL to satisfy the MCG contract.

If there were 2 prelims in Perth this year and 2 prelims outside of Victoria in 2016, I think there could be some problems if there were 2 more prelims outside of Victoria in 2017. I could be mistaken however.

 

[The_Wookie]

Is there still a requirement for certain number of MCG finals?

10 finals, not including the Grand Final must be played every 5 years. The AFL is way ahead at the moment (4 in 2014, 5 in 2013, 4 in 2012). The preliminary final requirement was taken out in 2009.

So yes, both prelims could be played at Subiaco.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Well you already know that whatever his opinion is it will be anti AFL or Australian football..

Bullshit!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

10 finals, not including the Grand Final must be played every 5 years. The AFL is way ahead at the moment (4 in 2014, 5 in 2013, 4 in 2012). The preliminary final requirement was taken out in 2009.

So yes, both prelims could be played at Subiaco.

So what was the rules post 2004 GF when Eddie did the deal with MCC and AFL re more Collingwood games both home and away to be played at MCG, and 2009?? I thought the PF was 100% free to be played anywhere given Port and Brisbane finished 1st and 2nd in 2002 and 2004.

 

[The_Wookie]

sorry I should have said 2005, the deal was in place for the 2006 season - both prelims were played interstate (Adelaide and Sydney). Before that at least one preliminary final was required at the MCG - Brisbane were forced to play their home prelim against Geelong at the MCG in 2004 - the only one after 2000 that this affected.

The 2002 Annual Report states on page 25 -

During negotiations with the MCC and MCG Trust we were not able to substantially change the condition of the 1989 agreement between our organisation that requires one final to be played at the MCG during each of the four weeks of the finals.

The new agreement does however allow us to bank finals so that during any three year period, we will average four finals at the MCG each year including a preliminary final and a Grand Final.

The 2005 Annual Report states on page 28 -

Finals scheduling

After lengthy negotiations, we successfully concluded a new agreement with the Melbourne Cricket Club and the MCG Trust regarding the scheduling of finals at the MCG. The key elements were:

• Removing the requirement to play one preliminary final per year at the MCG in the event that two non-Victorian teams earn the right to host a preliminary final in their home states.
• Ensuring all preliminary finals in Victoria are played at the MCG.
• Allowing greater flexibility to bank finals in weeks one and two, with the clause amended to ensure that 10 matches are played over five years.
• Delivering an additional four premiership season games to the MCG each year, taking the number of matches played to 45.
• Delivering 14 Collingwood home and away games to the MCG
• The AFL making the MCG available for other major sporting events on a limited basis.
• Scheduling any representative football matches in Melbourne at the MCG.
• Provision to review the agreement every five years, but only to the mutual benefit of both parties.
• The AFL also reconfirmed that the Grand Final would remain at the MCG until 2032, when the current contract expires.
• The AFL and the MCG tenant clubs are looking forward to the completion of the $450 million redevelopment of the MCG for the 2006 Commonwealth Games. Work began in September 2002 and ground capacity was reduced over the past three seasons. When the MCG reopens for the 2006 Anzac Day match between Collingwood and Essendon, capacity will be 100,000.
• The AFL contributes $7.14 million per year to the MCG, excluding ground rental and hiring charges for fi nals matches, and similar charges are paid by AFL clubs for premiership season games at the stadium.

The AFLs 2009 Report states on page 31 -

In September, the Melbourne Cricket Club and Victorian Government announced a new agreement for Victorian-based AFL clubs playing at the MCG. AFL clubs playing home games at the MCG will receive a minimum of $100,000 per game, backdated to the start of the 2009 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. The AFL has extended its agreement to play the Grand Final at the MCG until 2037 and will schedule at least 10 of the 12 best attended home and away matches in Melbourne at the MCG.

The Victorian Government will also contribute $30 million towards a major refurbishment of the AFL Members’ Reserve in the Great Southern Stand. The AFL and Melbourne Stadiums Ltd (MSL), the owner of Etihad Stadium, also reached a new agreement that will provide a major financial boost to Victorian AFL clubs playing home matches at the stadium. MSL has agreed to provide AFL clubs an additional $5.5 million per year from 2010 until the expiration of its lease in March 2025. In return, the AFL has agreed that the minimum number of contracted home and away games scheduled at Etihad Stadium will increase by at least 130 during the term of the lease.

 

[Hellgood]

Bullshit!

Really? I have not seen one post where he has said anything vaguely positive about anything to do with the game or those involved with running it at all levels. Please direct me to where he has and I will reconsider.

 

[The_Wookie]

RussellEbertHandball - this should give you all the information you need. Maybe more lol.
http://www.footyindustry.com/wiki/index.php/AFL_MCG_deal

 

[Kwality]

Perth's new stadium going thru all the sort of BS AO went thru. Any furher thoughts Kwality ??


View attachment 147238

All very predictable ... the current phase I call the polly waffle phase, wanting to be everything to everyone ... the faciity needs to be viable, there are fans who feel entitiled to 'walk up' seating', the market place can handle seasonal sell outs, there are alternative seating arrangements i.e 3 game.

As I've long called for, the WAFC consortium needs to win (on its merits) the stadium management rights OR footy at every level across the country will feel the shortfall.

Time the AFL Commission & the WAFC put together a winner for our game, given footy is the new stadium cash cow, & the AFL FIXture the games.

Way to go yet #7.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Having a great stadium deal is bloody important but its not the be all and end all as Geelong have found out this year. Also as I have written before the economic down turn of Geelong and surrounding area will probably impact Geelong FC more than their premiership greats retiring. People are buying cheaper memberships as the jobs leave Geelong.

Cats plea to AFL for financial help
Geelong have approached the AFL Commission for financial relief with the club revealing it will lose close to half a million dollars this season. The suddenly cash-strapped Geelong has asked the commission to lower the burden of its equalisation tax after significant membership and gaming shortfalls see the Cats headed for its second successive six-figure loss. And Carlton is expected to follow suit after a number of unforeseen financial burdens see the Blues headed for another significant loss.

Like Geelong, Essendon, Fremantle, Richmond and Sydney; Carlton remains perplexed at the disproportionate nature of the AFL's wealth tax.Geelong contributed $300,000 to the equalisation fund this year and has been instructed to contribute $400,000 in 2016 compared with the capped $500,000 contributions respectively from the wealthy triumvirate of Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast.

Club chief Brian Cook said the projected $500,000 2015 loss comes after the Cats at the start of the year forecast a $600,000 profit. The disappointing shortfall of more than $1 million comes with Geelong's membership up by about two percent but with an unprecedented number of supporters downscaling from 11-game memberships to the lower-priced three-game packages.Cook said that membership downturn alone has seen a budget shortfall of about $500,000. Added to which Geelong's attendances are down this season and gaming profits have also significantly fallen.......
Cats plea to AFL for financial help

The new Vic Labor government promised $70mil of the next $90mil development stage. I wrote about this development and the issues for Geelong back on page 177 of this thread in late December at this post which includes quotes and link to The Age article at the time. LINK

But it meant the Cats had to go find $15mil. It looks like this wont happen now or at least delayed for awhile. Looks like the Vic government is going to take over the management of an MCG Trust type body to run the stadium

He pointed out that while the Cats' stadium deal was much-envied the club had contributed $14 million into the ground's upgrade and was servicing $4 million worth of total debt on its stadium and gaming. With Geelong prioritising football while still managing its stadium and gaming facilities Cook said the club would change course come the end of 2015 by "trying to get other groups to manage things for us".

The Cats' chief said the club was awaiting ratification from the Victorian government to appoint a stadium trust to take over the management of Simonds and would soon move into partnership with Tabcorp to run its gambling operation.

And Triggy finding the boys at AFL house tougher than the SANFL boys at West Lakes
The AFL response was reportedly "lukewarm". Carlton chief Steven Trigg said he had discussed the Blues' wealth tax obligations with the AFL executive and did not rule out approaching the commission for tax relief.

 

[tribey]

Having a great stadium is bloody important but its not the be all and end all as Geelong have found out this year. Also as I have written before the economic down turn of Geelong and surrounding area will probably impact Geelong FC more than their premiership greats retiring. People are buying cheaper memberships as the jobs leave Geelong.

Cats plea to AFL for financial help
Geelong have approached the AFL Commission for financial relief with the club revealing it will lose close to half a million dollars this season. The suddenly cash-strapped Geelong has asked the commission to lower the burden of its equalisation tax after significant membership and gaming shortfalls see the Cats headed for its second successive six-figure loss. And Carlton is expected to follow suit after a number of unforeseen financial burdens see the Blues headed for another significant loss.

Like Geelong, Essendon, Fremantle, Richmond and Sydney; Carlton remains perplexed at the disproportionate nature of the AFL's wealth tax.Geelong contributed $300,000 to the equalisation fund this year and has been instructed to contribute $400,000 in 2016 compared with the capped $500,000 contributions respectively from the wealthy triumvirate of Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast.

Club chief Brian Cook said the projected $500,000 2015 loss comes after the Cats at the start of the year forecast a $600,000 profit. The disappointing shortfall of more than $1 million comes with Geelong's membership up by about two percent but with an unprecedented number of supporters downscaling from 11-game memberships to the lower-priced three-game packages.Cook said that membership downturn alone has seen a budget shortfall of about $500,000. Added to which Geelong's attendances are down this season and gaming profits have also significantly fallen.......
Cats plea to AFL for financial help

The new Vic Labor government promised $70mil of the next $90mil development stage. I wrote about this development and the issues for Geelong back on page 177 of this thread in late December at this post which includes quotes and link to The Age article at the time. LINK

But it meant the Cats had to go find $15mil. It looks like this wont happen now or at least delayed for awhile. Looks like the Vic government is going to take over the management of an MCG Trust type body to run the stadium


And Triggy finding the boys at AFL house tougher than the SANFL boys at West Lakes
The AFL response was reportedly "lukewarm". Carlton chief Steven Trigg said he had discussed the Blues' wealth tax obligations with the AFL executive and did not rule out approaching the commission for tax relief.

Could be a deliberate writedown to force the luxury tax grievances to a head. Cook's a smart fellow.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Could be a deliberate writedown to force the luxury tax grievances to a head. Cook's a smart fellow.

A $1.1mil drop in real cash is different to accelerated write off of assets. Iassume that $600k profit turning into a $500k loss is real cash difference. I have noted this year crowds are down at Kardinia Park, if the $500k figure drop in membership revenue is correct with more 3 gamers being bought instead of 11 gamers , and gaming revenue down by $500k, then that is suggesting the economic downturn in Geelong is hitting hard. I have no doubt Cook will massage things but it sounds like their issues are real.

 

[Malibu#27]

A $1.1mil drop in real cash is different to accelerated write off of assets. Iassume that $600k profit turning into a $500k loss is real cash difference. I have noted this year crowds are down at Kardinia Park, if the $500k figure drop in membership revenue is correct with more 3 gamers being bought instead of 11 gamers , and gaming revenue down by $500k, then that is suggesting the economic downturn in Geelong is hitting hard. I have no doubt Cook will massage things but it sounds like their issues are real.

If they want to save $300k-$400k the answer is simple, bring their spending down to the limit requested by the AFL before the luxury tax kicks in.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If they want to save $300k-$400k the answer is simple, bring their spending down to the limit requested by the AFL before the luxury tax kicks in.

No its not that simple. The AFL have locked them in for 3 years and capped the big 3 - Hawks, Pies Eagles at $500k despite how much they spend. Read the article in full.

 

[tribey]

A $1.1mil drop in real cash is different to accelerated write off of assets. Iassume that $600k profit turning into a $500k loss is real cash difference. I have noted this year crowds are down at Kardinia Park, if the $500k figure drop in membership revenue is correct with more 3 gamers being bought instead of 11 gamers , and gaming revenue down by $500k, then that is suggesting the economic downturn in Geelong is hitting hard. I have no doubt Cook will massage things but it sounds like their issues are real.

Well, it's hard to have sympathy. They've got the best stadium deal in the league, with Kardinia Park transformed from a legitimate dump into a thoroughly modern facility fit for a home final - with lights for night games (who the **** could've imagined that 10-15 years ago?!) - thanks largely to the taxpayer.

3 premierships, 4 Grand Finals, a cavalcade of candidates for an AFL Team of the Century let alone a Geelong version and a Carey-Paganesque run of umpteen top-4 finishes. Now they finally look like coming down after going out in straight sets last year and people start to drop off?

If personal austerity is genuinely an issue vis-a-vis the 11-to-3 game ST downgrades, do they not have a scheme similar to our Power Forever program where you can pay your membership in monthly increments? If not, what a goof.

Finding $350-$450 just after Christmas can be a whack, no question. I remember having to delay my Telstra bill deadline and go without beer for a few weeks back in 2009-10 to pay my Platinum membership upfront, but it was a small price to pay to retain my season ticket/support the club - and it is much less of a burden to have $50 come out on the 17th for 7 or 8 months a year.

Admittedly, if you're covering the wife and a couple of kids it'd still be tough, but there would be many an individual who just doesn't want it enough. 2 tickets a month to see your club play in the best Aussie Rules competition on the planet > seeing Ant-Man at the sinnymah sipping an $18 soda.

 

[Papa G]

Send them to Tasmania!!!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Well, it's hard to have sympathy. They've got the best stadium deal in the league, with Kardinia Park transformed from a legitimate dump into a thoroughly modern facility fit for a home final - with lights for night games (who the **** could've imagined that 10-15 years ago?!) - thanks largely to the taxpayer.

3 premierships, 4 Grand Finals, a cavalcade of candidates for an AFL Team of the Century let alone a Geelong version and a Carey-Paganesque run of umpteen top-4 finishes. Now they finally look like coming down after going out in straight sets last year and people start to drop off?

If personal austerity is genuinely an issue vis-a-vis the 11-to-3 game ST downgrades, do they not have a scheme similar to our Power Forever program where you can pay your membership in monthly increments? If not, what a goof.

Finding $350-$450 just after Christmas can be a whack, no question. I remember having to delay my Telstra bill deadline and go without beer for a few weeks back in 2009-10 to pay my Platinum membership upfront, but it was a small price to pay to retain my season ticket/support the club - and it is much less of a burden to have $50 come out on the 17th for 7 or 8 months a year.

Admittedly, if you're covering the wife and a couple of kids it'd still be tough, but there would be many an individual who just doesn't want it enough. 2 tickets a month to see your club play in the best Aussie Rules competition on the planet > seeing Ant-Man at the sinnymah sipping an $18 soda.

I didnt post that for sympathy for Geelong. More to point out that a great stadium deal isnt the be all and end all. Also as the Oz unemployment figure was released today at a steady 6.1% and South Oz increased to 8.2% it's a bit of a reminder that you cant take anything for granted.

 

[Malibu#27]

No its not that simple. The AFL have locked them in for 3 years and capped the big 3 - Hawks, Pies Eagles at $500k despite how much they spend. Read the article in full.

I did read in full. Three years fixed isn't mentioned, and makes no sense if the goal is to encourage them to reduce their spending, and goes against the original AFL description.

Actually I'm referring to the "luxury" tax rather than the revenue tax, which is the confusion.

 

[Portology]

Could be a deliberate writedown to force the luxury tax grievances to a head. Cook's a smart fellow.

OR, by highlighting it, get more taxpayer subsidised things done for them, which surely can't count as "revenue" for AFL purposes when next they do the bloody calculations. Locking in numbers for three years is idiotic and someone was bound to drive a truck through the system and eddie, kennett or cook were prime candidates. playing the 'economic hardship' card is true and hard nosed at the same time.

put in a "resource super profit tax" and suddenly mining companies are all making a loss. well whaddaya know.

 

[scotty13]

Well, it's hard to have sympathy. They've got the best stadium deal in the league, with Kardinia Park transformed from a legitimate dump into a thoroughly modern facility fit for a home final - with lights for night games (who the **** could've imagined that 10-15 years ago?!) - thanks largely to the taxpayer.

3 premierships, 4 Grand Finals, a cavalcade of candidates for an AFL Team of the Century let alone a Geelong version and a Carey-Paganesque run of umpteen top-4 finishes. Now they finally look like coming down after going out in straight sets last year and people start to drop off?

If personal austerity is genuinely an issue vis-a-vis the 11-to-3 game ST downgrades, do they not have a scheme similar to our Power Forever program where you can pay your membership in monthly increments? If not, what a goof.

Finding $350-$450 just after Christmas can be a whack, no question. I remember having to delay my Telstra bill deadline and go without beer for a few weeks back in 2009-10 to pay my Platinum membership upfront, but it was a small price to pay to retain my season ticket/support the club - and it is much less of a burden to have $50 come out on the 17th for 7 or 8 months a year.

Admittedly, if you're covering the wife and a couple of kids it'd still be tough, but there would be many an individual who just doesn't want it enough. 2 tickets a month to see your club play in the best Aussie Rules competition on the planet > seeing Ant-Man at the sinnymah sipping an $18 soda.

This... they cry poor bugger me cause it looks like they will have a loss after umpteen years of finals? well boo hoo... you have the best stadium deal in the comp, maybe spend a little less money and live within your means, and if you are bottom 4 for a number or years like Melbourne maybe we will give a damn, but i doubt it, cause lets be honest, who doesn't remember them coming to Adelaide DURING the season trying to poach Boak... cant cry poor bugger me now... sorry.

 

[finbarr]

This... they cry poor bugger me cause it looks like they will have a loss after umpteen years of finals? well boo hoo... you have the best stadium deal in the comp, maybe spend a little less money and live within your means, and if you are bottom 4 for a number or years like Melbourne maybe we will give a damn, but i doubt it, cause lets be honest, who doesn't remember them coming to Adelaide DURING the season trying to poach Boak... cant cry poor bugger me now... sorry.

I don't give a damn about Melbourne either.

 

[Andre]

I don't give a damn about Melbourne either.

Melbourne are worse. Geelong got father sons to build their premiership list rather than draft picks, but at least they didn't piss all those artificial handouts down the toilet like Melbourne.

Stadium deals aren't the be all, but given Geelong is now in trouble with a golden stadium deal, and we are now a top 6 club for members, with a stadium deal that is still middle of the road at best, the eulogising of Cook is overrated.

Don't get me wrong he's been good, but with the players falling in their lap outside the normal draft mechanisms and governments falling over themselves to hand them money he hadn't had to off-field do a job anything like KT and Koch have had to do against a spiteful SANFL, antagonistic media and chasing sponsors without a team of priority picks or father son laden top ups to sell.

 

[bomberclifford]

Melbourne should have been relocated/ousted long ago but you know... Melbourne.