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

[El_Scorcho]

As I said in my last post in this thread, the SANFL is basically Hyacinth Bucket.

They take as much money as any other state league from the AFL, but because it's channeled through the AFL clubs as opposed to a direct grant, the SANFL can keep up the appearance of being independent. They have their snouts in the trough as much as the VFL or the WAFL or the NEAFL or any other league.

We just need to remove the middle man, in this case, us. Hopefully Ricciuto making a bit of noise can make this happen. The SANFL will fight so they can keep their stupid salary cap and recruit all the finest hacks each year so we can be the 2nd best league (as evidenced by Norwood getting ******* destroyed by a WAFL side), but how about the AFL just grants directly to the SANFL and we stay out of it altogether?

 

[I Dont Care]

As I said in my last post in this thread, the SANFL is basically Hyacinth Bucket.

I wished it was Kicked The Bucket...

 

[jakey]

Even if he is right - $130000 for 50000 people is still shithouse.

Yeah, lets assume we are able to max out the stadium for 11 games per season. That gives us a thigh slapping, 1800's gold rush style bonanza of $1.4m for the season.

The best lie that weevil can come up with is still ludicrously below par.

 

[Portology]

Yeah, lets assume we are able to max out the stadium for 11 games per season. That gives us a thigh slapping, 1800's gold rush style bonanza of $1.4m for the season.

The best lie that weevil can come up with is still ludicrously below par.

You forgot two sold out and fully attended home finals, of which at least one is reasonably likely.

Higher actual attendance => maximum match day catering revenues, etc. Straight to the SMA's pockets.

I wonder what model covers 'match day costs' in finals for AO, given the normal AFL finals model is that the AFL takes the gate and pays some pre-agreed rental for the stadium ? Part of what may be being negotiated on July 1 is what/how the AFL will be paying in September. That means the AFL do have something to take off the table while bashing it, however thermonuclear the option of removing home finals from Port may seem.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

The AFL should just remove all SANFL funding and fund Adelaide and the PAFC to tune of how much they prop up the VFL and WAFL and call it a propping up the SANFL grant.


Really call out the SANFL for what they are.

 

[mic59]

Apparently additional cleaning charges are incurred at AO because unlike AAMI they "may" have a function on Monday and have to pay penalty rates for cleaning on Saturday or Sunday. Surely they will have to provide proof of that at the review?

 

[Garibaldi Red]

The AFL should just remove all SANFL funding and fund Adelaide and the PAFC to tune of how much they prop up the VFL and WAFL and call it a propping up the SANFL grant.


Really call out the SANFL for what they are.

syd campaigners

 

[Jim Dixon]

I don't care who wrote it. The fact that it's finally a Crows legend saying this stuff instead of staying in line like the rest of the boys club means we might actually finally get the Crows supporters to mobilise with us against the SANFL.

People power will talk, we've just been waiting a decade for someone to come through who isn't tied to an SANFL club and therefore only wants what's best for Adelaide. The wheel might finally start to turn now, but we need the likes of Ricciuto to keep driving this.

Crows supporters have been mobilised for ages against Trigg, and it doesn't do them any good. The Adelaide Football Club will be useless in this fight.

As I said in my last post in this thread, the SANFL is basically Hyacinth Bucket.

They take as much money as any other state league from the AFL, but because it's channeled through the AFL clubs as opposed to a direct grant, the SANFL can keep up the appearance of being independent. They have their snouts in the trough as much as the VFL or the WAFL or the NEAFL or any other league.

We just need to remove the middle man, in this case, us. Hopefully Ricciuto making a bit of noise can make this happen. The SANFL will fight so they can keep their stupid salary cap and recruit all the finest hacks each year so we can be the 2nd best league (as evidenced by Norwood getting ******* destroyed by a WAFL side), but how about the AFL just grants directly to the SANFL and we stay out of it altogether?

I think it's more the exorbitant salaries, the perks and the power to award contracts to cronies and other insider deals that the SANFL want to keep. The fruits of power. They will fight to the last to keep their power. The big cronies in charge of the SANFL don't care about Norwood any more then we do. When did Wee Licker last visit Central District's clubrooms?

 

[Andre]

Apparently additional cleaning charges are incurred at AO because unlike AAMI they "may" have a function on Monday and have to pay penalty rates for cleaning on Saturday or Sunday. Surely they will have to provide proof of that at the review?

The want to keep the extra revenue streams that having nothing to do with the football, but charge us the extra associated expense (penalty rates). Either don't have functions on Monday's or factor it into the prices for functions during the week. Otherwise if they want to charge Port and Adelaide for the cleaning costs, they should give us some of the revenue from functions held on Monday's.

 

[tribey]

Yeah, lets assume we are able to max out the stadium for 11 games per season. That gives us a thigh slapping, 1800's gold rush style bonanza of $1.4m for the season.

Keeping in mind we were given $3,000,000 in grants from 2011-2013 to see us through to the supposed boon that was the Oval.

Wowee! $1,400,000!!

That's what, 10% of the salary cap these days?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Apparently additional cleaning charges are incurred at AO because unlike AAMI they "may" have a function on Monday and have to pay penalty rates for cleaning on Saturday or Sunday. Surely they will have to provide proof of that at the review?

The whole concept of a redeveloped AO is that it is a 365 day a week venue ok 363 take off Xmas and Good Friday, so that it earns other revenue streams so that footy doesn't have to subsidise most of the cost of running the stadium. If that's the case then the SMA should as a minimum split the cost with the two clubs as they are the SMA are ones demanding that its clean. Also its the function rooms and the walk way to them that have to be clean on Monday not the bloody seating area so its no real need to pay people to clean up the seating area on a Sunday, or Sunday night after a game.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Keeping in mind we were given $3,000,000 in grants from 2011-2013 to see us through to the supposed boon that was the Oval.

Wowee! $1,400,000!!

That's what, 10% of the salary cap these days?

We got 3 years x $1mil from the AFL + 3 years x $2mil from the SANFL during 2011-13 period.

 

[GranFormaggi]

The whole concept of a redeveloped AO is that it is a 365 day a week venue ok 363 take off Xmas and Good Friday, so that it earns other revenue streams so that footy doesn't have to subsidise most of the cost of running the stadium. If that's the case then the SMA should as a minimum split the cost with the two clubs as they are the SMA are ones demanding that its clean. Also its the function rooms and the walk way to them that have to be clean on Monday not the bloody seating area so its no real need to pay people to clean up the seating area on a Sunday, or Sunday night after a game.

Bingo. additionally, the SMA has been operating the stadium at far less than full operational efficiency in these early weeks, under the guise of trying to create the right impression. Whilst operationally that may have meant a relatively smooth transition, that learning curve can come out of their own pocket thanks very much.

 

[Phhht]

... Whilst operationally that may have meant a relatively smooth transition, that learning curve can come out of their own pocket thanks very much.

Exactly.

Why do the clubs have to pay extra coz the trainee checkout chick is learning what a barcode is?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If we had a WA style model the 2 clubs could say pay the SANFL say $5mil each, the SMA $3mil each with the SACA paying $3mil to the SMA, reduce the stadium members from 8,000 SMA footy members + 1,455 Stadium Club members to say 3,000 + 1,455 and we would still have to pay the SANFL a licence royalty fee but apart from those stadium members and some corporate boxes for the SMA, SANFL, SACA and 1 permanent 1 for both clubs all other revenue streams would belong to the 2 clubs during footy season and they have to cover matchday expenses just like in WA. It would be interesting to see what that type of modelling would produce.

At the moment
SMA gets
32 x $125k = $4mil less GST = $3.636mil from the 18 seat corporate boxes
1,455 x $4.25k = $6.184mil less GST = $5.621mil from Stadium Club members

So there is your $9mil the SMA is supposed to need. Now there would be costs associated with this but the profit on F&B served there on game day and other times - if you have have a corporate box you have access 24 hours a day every day, and functions the SMA hosts thru the week should meet the $9mil requirement. There is the rent to the government $1mil+CPI after year 5, and the sinking fund, so the $3mil I said the clubs should contribute could actually be reduced to about $1mil-$1.5mil each.

The SANFL gets
8,000 x $475 = $3.8mil less GST = $3.455mil - $475 would be the average price given adults cost $550/$460 concession/$270 junior. The the SANFL would make plenty of $$ from the reserved seating AOSMA footy members can buy.

That would give the clubs the incentive to run the oval as hard as they can and the SMA the incentive to get off their arse and secure other events and the SANFL get a guaranteed NET $10mil + say $1mil from 3,000 footy members + a licence fee which if we could replicate WA footy would be $3mil+$1mil NET. And they could make plenty of $$$ from hosting functions Monday to Friday at AO.

 

[FPPF]

If we had a WA style model the 2 clubs could say pay the SANFL say $5mil each, the SMA $3mil each with the SACA paying $3mil to the SMA, reduce the stadium members from 8,000 SMA footy members + 1,455 Stadium Club members to say 3,000 + 1,455 and we would still have to pay the SANFL a licence royalty fee but apart from those stadium members and some corporate boxes for the SMA, SANFL, SACA and 1 permanent 1 for both clubs all other revenue streams would belong to the 2 clubs during footy season and they have to cover matchday expenses just like in WA. It would be interesting to see what that type of modelling would produce.

I can understand paying the SMA, as they are the "landlord" or whatever.
But why do we have to pay the SANFL at all?

Why should the SANFL get $10 million, or any amount, from Port and/or the Crows?

On the license thing..I may have missed it..but did the SANFL pay for the licenses from the AFL? If not, then why are we paying them off for it?


Is there any way for anyone to find out exactly how much money the SANFL has bled from Port over the years?

 

[Papa G]

I can understand paying the SMA, as they are the "landlord" or whatever.
But why do we have to pay the SANFL at all?

Why should the SANFL get $10 million, or any amount, from Port and/or the Crows?

On the license thing..I may have missed it..but did the SANFL pay for the licenses from the AFL? If not, then why are we paying them off for it?


Is there any way for anyone to find out exactly how much money the SANFL has bled from Port over the years?

The SMA is the SANFL dude.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You forgot two sold out and fully attended home finals, of which at least one is reasonably likely.

Higher actual attendance => maximum match day catering revenues, etc. Straight to the SMA's pockets.

I wonder what model covers 'match day costs' in finals for AO, given the normal AFL finals model is that the AFL takes the gate and pays some pre-agreed rental for the stadium ? Part of what may be being negotiated on July 1 is what/how the AFL will be paying in September. That means the AFL do have something to take off the table while bashing it, however thermonuclear the option of removing home finals from Port may seem.

Now this is where we find out how smart or dumb the 2 AFL clubs are and how hard a bargain they drove. As I showed in this post with putting up the SANFL's 2003-08 financials - The SANFL made their cream when they hosted 2 finals. The SANFL probably netted $1mil+ when a 40,000 crowd showed up. Look at the cash flow portion of the graphic in the following post where I have added crowds and finals crowds.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...m-shift-happening.554729/page-2#post-14560596

A week 1 final the AFL would sell an average ticket in the $60-$70 range based on last years prices. A prelim final would gross them an average of somewhere between $100-$120. So the AFL would collect between $3mil to $6mil for a packed AO for a finals game. They would probably pay the SMA somewhere between $500k and $1mil rent. I assume it would be marginally more for a PF over a QF.

Who gets to make profits on that day? Not the clubs. They would have their corporate and hospitality function and probably advertising but the SMA would keep the rest unless the clubs have put in a finals share of the profits clause.

At the Gabba, Olympic Stadium in Homebush and Subi, the "clean" stadium deal means the clubs get the sort of revenue streams the SANFL got for finals at Footy Park. The deals differ from grounds but basically after the AFL gets the ticket revenue, the clubs get the biggest slice of the revenue generated from the final. Have the 2 AFL clubs been smart enough and played hard ball enough to do this deal with the SMA and SANFL?????

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I can understand paying the SMA, as they are the "landlord" or whatever.
But why do we have to pay the SANFL at all?

Why should the SANFL get $10 million, or any amount, from Port and/or the Crows?

On the license thing..I may have missed it..but did the SANFL pay for the licenses from the AFL? If not, then why are we paying them off for it?


Is there any way for anyone to find out exactly how much money the SANFL has bled from Port over the years?

Are you serious? You can't see it or you don't want to. Remember Power Can't be Given it Must be Taken. The SANFL didn't give away any real rights to stadium income from catering. That was the deal for them to accept a move to AO, they kept access to revenue streams they got at Footy Park.

Why do you think they would have have given that up??

The SANFL paid for the licence $4mil over 6 year to the AFL and the clubs paid $400k over 10 to the SANFL for the sub licence.

The SANFL got the licence to give them an income stream as their competition would be reduced. The clubs paid a sub licence fee to get access to AFL distributions and an interest in Waverley Park.

We are paying the licence fee for the next 15 years to get the SANFL off our back.

 

[Tas]

Clubs don't make anything from the finals tickets outside of the shitty prize money they win, which is shitty compared to the money the finals generate.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Clubs don't make anything from the finals tickets outside of the shitty prize money they win, which is shitty compared to the money the finals generate.

Edit - I meant away from ticket revenue.

Victorian clubs don't and SA clubs didn't at Footy Park, but the stadium deal at Subiaco, the Gabba and Homebush allows those home clubs do so. I reckon Geelong did last year when they hosted their first final at Kardina Park. And I reckon the stadium deal at Carrara and the Sydney Showgrounds is such that those home teams will make $$$ if they host a final as they have clean stadium deals.

 

[GranFormaggi]

Are you serious? You can't see it or you don't want to. Remember Power Can't be Given it Must be Taken. The SANFL didn't give away any real rights to stadium income from catering. That was the deal for them to accept a move to AO, they kept access to revenue streams they got at Footy Park.

Why do you think they would have have given that up??

The SANFL paid for the licence $4mil over 6 year to the AFL and the clubs paid $400k over 10 to the SANFL for the sub licence.

The SANFL got the licence to give them an income stream as their competition would be reduced. The clubs paid a sub licence fee to get access to AFL distributions and an interest in Waverley Park.

We are paying the licence fee for the next 15 years to get the SANFL off our back.

I assume you mean 400k per year over 10 years??

So.....they recovered the license fee costs by charging us the sub license fee, hence we paid the license fees in the first place, without ever controlling them. From a business perspective this is diabolical (unless you're the SANFL). Now, we're paying for them again.

I hope that after not taking the opportunity to de-couple the SANFL from AFL sourced revenue streams over the last 20 years, that they're ready in 15 years time.

EDIT - by which time my eldest son will be 18 and ready to join the AFLs on and off field power-house!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I can understand paying the SMA, as they are the "landlord" or whatever.
But why do we have to pay the SANFL at all?

Why should the SANFL get $10 million, or any amount, from Port and/or the Crows?

On the license thing..I may have missed it..but did the SANFL pay for the licenses from the AFL? If not, then why are we paying them off for it?


Is there any way for anyone to find out exactly how much money the SANFL has bled from Port over the years?

Also I was comparing how a WA clean stadium model could work at AO. The WA clubs are each paying $3.8mil rent for 11 games to the WAFC and they pay 70% of their first million $ profit, 60% of the second million and 50% of the rest.

WAFC / WA footy is making about $12-$13mil NET out of the 2 AFL clubs.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I assume you mean 400k per year over 10 years??

So.....they recovered the license fee costs by charging us the sub license fee, hence we paid the license fees in the first place, without ever controlling them. From a business perspective this is diabolical (unless you're the SANFL). Now, we're paying for them again.

I hope that after not taking the opportunity to de-couple the SANFL from AFL sourced revenue streams over the last 20 years, that they're ready in 15 years time.

EDIT - by which time my eldest son will be 18 and ready to join the AFLs on and off field power-house!

Why is it diabolical? It was a licence granted in perpetuity if the licence conditions were met. You have to be compensated if you give up those rights that are in the licence.

Look at Lang Hancock - he negotiated a deal with Rio Tinto for royalties in perpetuity for his iron ore deposits he discovered in the late 1950's early 1960's in the Pilbara. Rio signed an in perpetuity agreement, so if they want to get rid of this agreement they have to compensate Gina with a massive lump sum.

Same thing happened with the St Lious Spirits of the old ABA when some of the teams merged from that comp with the NBA. The NBA didn't want St Louis, so to get the deal over the line the 4 ABA teams signed over 1/7th of their TV revenue to the owners of St Lious and almost 40 years later they have no team but they are getting a royalty cheque from the 4 teams every year. The NBA have tried to buy this annual royalty stream out with a lump sum but the old owners have said no, its not big enough. I started a thread about it on the BDC board last year -

Greatest sports deal ever

Once again, its why I say I blame Bruce Weber for why we are in the situation we are today. Harsh I know, but failing to get the deal done has given the SANFL monopoly control over us since 1997 and even before that for a few years to a certain degree.

 

[Tas]

Edit - I meant away from ticket revenue.

Victorian clubs don't and SA clubs didn't at Footy Park, but the stadium deal at Subiaco, the Gabba and Homebush allows those home clubs do so. I reckon Geelong did last year when they hosted their first final at Kardina Park. And I reckon the stadium deal at Carrara and the Sydney Showgrounds is such that those home teams will make $$$ if they host a final as they have clean stadium deals.

That is interesting, I wonder if you have been able to find anything written on that because I looked briefly but didn't see anything mentioned in the Victorian media about finals tickets and distribution differences based on state.