Perth Stadium (Optus Stadium)

[Freo Big Fella]

you do realise where that cash return went right...

Yeah, its great the AFL/WAFL clubs got guaranteed money, but it also meant the average punter having to put up with shitful conditions on game day.

 

[Defacto]

Yeah, its great the AFL/WAFL clubs got guaranteed money, but it also meant the average punter having to put up with shitful conditions on game day.

they were going to redevelop subiaco on their own until the state government came in and said they would do it, only for the change of gov to occur and everything to change

 

[telsor]

Dead right mate, the AFL will do the deal with the stadium management and that is where the Eagles and Dockers will play.
How much power the WAFC have I don't know, they would have contracts in place I guess but who really knows other than them and the AFL.
If as the premier has said that nothing will change financially for WA football then I guess we need to take that on face value at the minute. I suspect they will pay a lot more rent though than they currently do at Subiaco so we will have to wait and see.

The new stadium has what, 20,000 more seats (roughly)....Income from 20K seats goes to stadium management and government, while income roughly equivalent to that extracted from Subi goes to WAFC, directly or indirectly (If each club gets $1M less and pays that much less in royalties, but WAFC gets $2M more, then really, who cares, right?).

That said, every big new stadium in recent history has come in with big promises, which have been *massively* off (Docklands, Stadium Australia, AO) I wouldn't be holding my breath about this one being different.

 

[Defacto]

It amazes me that you think i havent read the reports in order to make the table in the first place. In order to actually do it accurately, I would need to be able to separate the consolidated figures from the club figures. I cant do that without the last 10 years of annual reports from those clubs, and since i only have the last three and im not about spend $500 to try and win an argument on the internet i dont give a crap about, its going to have to be what it is.

which means your whole argument that they'd had 10s of millions they could have used to build a strong future null and void. you get that right?

 

[telsor]

they were going to redevelop subiaco on their own until the state government came in and said they would do it, only for the change of gov to occur and everything to change

and how was that going to get paid for?

 

[Defacto]

and how was that going to get paid for?

cant re-call. someone else on here might be able to elaborate

 

[Rob]

This shows how immature and childish the WAFC are. Just because they lost they make comments like this. When the only people to get punished if they don't move are the fans of Football in WA. Also may I mention it is not the first time they have said it.

Yes and no. According to rumour, the stadium deal that was put on the table by the government was batshit insane. The WAFC can't just negotiate from a 'whatever you charge we'll pay' position, they need a fallback if it all turns to s**t. And that has to be remaining at Subiaco. Mind you, the government have a lot more to lose here. The stadium is nothing without football, and if they can't strike a deal to get football played there, then it's going to be the biggest white elephant in WA history.

I am intrigued about all these events that the winning bidder appears to have promised though.

 

[The_Wookie]

which means your whole argument that they'd had 10s of millions they could have used to build a strong future null and void. you get that right?

Not really, but dont stop believing.

 

[telsor]

Yes and no. According to rumour, the stadium deal that was put on the table by the government was batshit insane. The WAFC can't just negotiate from a 'whatever you charge we'll pay' position, they need a fallback if it all turns to s**t. And that has to be remaining at Subiaco. Mind you, the government have a lot more to lose here. The stadium is nothing without football, and if they can't strike a deal to get football played there, then it's going to be the biggest white elephant in WA history.

I am intrigued about all these events that the winning bidder appears to have promised though.

The government/stadium management don't have to involve the WAFC though, they 'only' have to get an agreement with the AFL.

If the AFL says they play there, then they play there, if the AFL says they don't, they don't.

So really, the WAFC is irrelevant to the negotiations, they're just probably the beneficiaries of (some of) the income.

 

[The_Wookie]

cant re-call. someone else on here might be able to elaborate

WA State Government had plans for a $450 million progressive rebuild in 2009.

"It will happen, and we will probably end up spending more than $450 million – it will probably be a progressive rebuild.

"And by a rebuild I mean a complete demolition and rebuild an entirely new stadium."

 

[Defacto]

Not really, but dont stop believing.

Well yeah because you havent factored in costs....

 

[Defacto]

WA State Government had plans for a $450 million progressive rebuild in 2009.

This was before the state gov came in... as i said some may recall it

 

[The_Wookie]

Well yeah because you havent factored in costs....

Im not here to do your homework chief. I did the table that had what you asked once, Im not going to keep doing them for the hell of it.

 

[Whatname]

Have a good look at the SA deal before you rush down that path What0 ....

I agree, the AFL want complete control of all football revenue.

SA and WA football will suffer because of this.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Yes and no. According to rumour, the stadium deal that was put on the table by the government was batshit insane. The WAFC can't just negotiate from a 'whatever you charge we'll pay' position, they need a fallback if it all turns to s**t. And that has to be remaining at Subiaco. Mind you, the government have a lot more to lose here. The stadium is nothing without football, and if they can't strike a deal to get football played there, then it's going to be the biggest white elephant in WA history.

I am intrigued about all these events that the winning bidder appears to have promised though.

the State Government could make remaining at Subiaco almost unviable if they so choose. They could direct the PTA not to provide any public transport services for starters. Then when the inevitable complaints start coming in from residents they could take their side and impose more and more restrictions on the operations there.

 

[Garlic muncher]

This was before the state gov came in... as i said some may recall it

I personally would have preferred a Subi rebuild, i think the character, benefits to locals via business etc of Subiaco both suburb and ground far outweigh a stadium where the Casino is a big winner.

That is not to say that the new stadium will fail, but if we compared Stadium Australia, Docklands, the Sydney football stadium to the MCG, SCG, Gabba and Adelaide Oval what do the punters prefer ?.

 

[Defacto]

the State Government could make remaining at Subiaco almost unviable if they so choose. They could direct the PTA not to provide any public transport services for starters. Then when the inevitable complaints start coming in from residents they could take their side and impose more and more restrictions on the operations there.

You realise the WAFC pays the state gov for transport on game day...

 

[FootyFan96]

You realise the WAFC pays the state gov for transport on game day...

Firstly, it's the clubs that pay for it and secondly the PTA doesn't have to give them the option.

 

[Admiral Byng]

You realise the WAFC pays the state gov for transport on game day...

I think you misunderstand. The government could direct the PTA not to provide such services beyond 2017, even if the WAFC offers to pay.

 

[Kappa]

Fitzpatrick's company wins the rights to manage the stadium?

Who woulda seen that coming?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

So WAFC will miss out on making any food and beverage revenue and profit like they have at Subiaco for years even after selling rights to an outside group in the earlier years as caterer eg Spotless as per page 23 of 2006 WAFC Annual Report.

What about rent? I assume the government via the Perth Stadium Trust or what ever structure it sets up, will collect that and nothing goes to the WAFC? What about the clubs will they get charged rent or will the corporate inventory mix - which will be greater than Subi be a replacement for that? The 2 clubs might have to pay bigger licence fees to the WAFC. Kwality

There are lots of ways of structuring up Rent for the 2 clubs and for the body managing the stadium.

At Adelaide Oval the joint venture between SACA and SANFL ie Stadium Management Authority (SMA), run the stadium which is owned by the SA government and sits in the books of the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure. The SMA did not have to pay the government a rent for 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial year and then between 2015/16 rent starts at $200k and increases by $200k per year and it hits $1mil rent in 2019/20. After that it goes up by CPI. The rent is then paid into the government's Sport and Recreation Fund. This is in The Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act 2011.

There also is a compulsory Sinking Fund that has to be established and maintained by the SMA for future Capital equipment purchases and Capital repairs and maintenance. The SMA has to tell the government what has happened in the previous year and what will be spent in the current year by 1st September each year. The SMA and government have agreed $2.7mil has to banked into the Sinking Fund by 1st September 2016. So this is an effective rent as the 2 footy clubs will have to cover this is the SMA dont get a lot of other events and make profits from them and bank them into the Sinking Funds. After this first payment I would expect a regular annual payment to be made. This is an effective rent.

The 2 SA Clubs dont get charged a rent, but they have the right to sell a shitload of corporate inventory and advertising and signage rights. There are 32 x 18 people super boxes that cost $125,500 inc GST and are sold for 12 months rights which the SMA collects and pass it straight through to the SANFL 77.0% and the rest 23.0% to the SACA. The same with the 12 month Stadium Club memberships 1,455 that cost $4,250 inc GST and the SANFL gets 69.70% of those monies and the SACA gets 30.30% of these monies. The SANFL's share net of GST of these 2 revenue streams was $6.73mil and the SACA got $2.54mil. These are the cost figures for these memberships for 2014 and 2015. All 32 super boxes and all Stadium Club memberships were sold out for both 2014 and 2015. So the SACA and SANFL would have got the same amounts in 2014 and 2015.

The SMA sold Football memberships for the SANFL in 2014 and the SANFL kept 100% of these monies and 8,206 memberships in 2014 and I guestimated that to be $3.78mil net of GST with a split for adults, concession and kids being in line with the 2 SA clubs for 2014. The prices went up in 2015 and those increases, $100 for adults, $55 for concessions and $30 for juniors was split equally between the 2 clubs and as 8,009 Footy members.

So in both years the SANFL collected an effective rent from the two clubs of approx $10.5mil, by selling, the super boxes, Stadium Club memberships and the Footy memberships.

The SACA sells 26,000 memberships directly for the cricket season (by passing the SMA) and that raises them about $11-$12 million.

The SACA and SANFL receive a sales commission from the SMA and its somewhere between 20% and 25% of food and beverage sale when a cricket event is hosted between 8th October and 14 March the commission goes to the SACA and the SANFL collect that commission during the footy season legislate as 15 March to 7 October. The SMA keeps any catering revenue hosting events outside of cricket and footy related events. AO was designed to be used 365 days a year and can serve 2,000 meals at lunchtime and also at dinnertime. The SMA is run to basically make a small profit of $300k to $500k in the first 2 years apart from collect monies for the sinking fund. In many ways its just a banker for the SACA and SANFL.

In 2014 the SANFL made about $4.4mil from sales commissions on catering that they received from the SMA as it was publicly reported the SANFL made $14.9mil from the first season of footy and I know my $10,5mil figure I mentioned above is pretty close to the mark.

The new deal didn't claw back anything in 2014, but the SANFL gave up some revenue streams for future years, some corporate inventory, gave some Footy membership fees - by increasing them, some seats that can be sold as reserved seats in the western stand and the clubs get that fee, some catering revenue when crowds are over 30,000, and some more adverting/signage rights. That gave the clubs an extra $3mil to share in 2015 and an expect extra $4mil to share between in both 2016 and 2017 if they maintain their crowds. The next stadium deal review is after the 2017 footy season.

The bigger winner for the 2 SA clubs is that they will be able to get what the WA clubs get when they host finals at Subiaco ie access to corporate inventory, catering and advertising revenue streams. Port got bugger all for the 2014 Elimination final at AO versus Richmond. Under the new agreement they would have made about $500,000.

 

[masai]

I personally would have preferred a Subi rebuild, i think the character, benefits to locals via business etc of Subiaco both suburb and ground far outweigh a stadium where the Casino is a big winner.

The Subi locals, do not want the footy. Lights can only be used a fixed number of nights a year. Subi council are not known for their preparedness to enter negotiations.

Burswood has room to move on issue of lights, Council approvals, public transport, eating facilities, residents approval etc.

 

[Big Cox 88]

It's no surprise that packer was happy to give up land near his casino. Now it is even more intriguing that he is the major shareholder of the stadium Australia company. Corruption lots of money made and us the plebs will indefinitely lose out.

 

[Defacto]

The Subi locals, do not want the footy. Lights can only be used a fixed number of nights a year. Subi council are not known for their preparedness to enter negotiations.

Burswood has room to move on issue of lights, Council approvals, public transport, eating facilities, residents approval etc.

subi council are absolutely horrid

its turning into a ghost town there anyways

 

[Defacto]

It's no surprise that packer was happy to give up land near his casino. Now it is even more intriguing that he is the major shareholder of the stadium Australia company. Corruption lots of money made and us the plebs will indefinitely lose out.

what ever happened to the investigation into colin barnett breaking the law by telling packer ahead of the announcement to government?