WAFL debt plea to WA Government

[The_Wookie]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/wafl/a/26607516/footy-debt-plea-to-govt/

WA Football Commission chief executive Gary Walton wants WA football to be debt free when it moves to the new Burswood stadium in 2018 after a State Government contribution help-ed the commission slash debt of almost $4 million last year.

The Government pitched in $3 million and renewed a debt guarantee on Domain Stadium, while the WAFC repaid $900,000, representing repayments for 2012, 2013 and 2014, to cut debt from $10.4 million to $6.5 million.

Walton said the WAFC would be expected to pay $300,000 in each of the 2015, 2016 and 2017 seasons, while it was hoped the government would erase the remainder of the debt before the shift to Burswood.

The debt stems from the last development at Subiaco which was completed for the 2000 season at a cost of $34 million.

Under arrangements reached with the government of the day, football was to pay interest on $30 million in borrowings, while the State repaid the principle.

Several years ago the government pre-paid $15 million to reduce the debt from $25 million to $10 million, slashing the interest payments the WAFC faced.

Walton said a cash operating surplus of $650,000 in 2014 had enabled the WAFC to reduce the debt without getting “behind the eight-ball”.

 

[Rob]

Sell their IPL shares back to West Coast. They'll probably pay $50 million for them. Be cashed up then, no debt.

 

[The_Wookie]

Sell their IPL shares back to West Coast. They'll probably pay $50 million for them. Be cashed up then, no debt.

would seriously get rid of the debt lol. Even half the shares would do the trick.

 

[Rob]

would seriously get rid of the debt lol. Even half the shares would do the trick.

I'm actually surprised the government haven't suggested this. Maybe they have. At the very least they could suggest that the WAFC tell West Coast to declare a special dividend of $10m to pay it off.

 

[Kwality]

I'm actually surprised the government haven't suggested this. Maybe they have. At the very least they could suggest that the WAFC tell West Coast to declare a special dividend of $10m to pay it off.

The WAFC might use the issue as a negotiating tool for management rights of the new stadium - no doubt the Eagles can pay more & as long as it goes into WA footy the majority of the membership will not complain.
Ripping $10 mil off them as they working to building a new home facility is a bit rich - maybe some deal like the prepayment of rent at Subi would work.
With no details of the deal for the clubs at the new stadium it is the wrong time for any long term fix.

 

[Kwality]

would seriously get rid of the debt lol. Even half the shares would do the trick.

& the members carry the debt?

 

[The_Wookie]

& the members carry the debt?

to get effective control over their own club? Only a small part has to be a lump sum to cover the debt - the rest could be done in installments.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

& the members carry the debt?

Actually it's a good question

Would you support a move to make the Eagles a membership owned organisation and independent from the wafc if it meant taking on a debt burden?

 

[telsor]

WA football being bailed out by the government (again)....But doesn't Kwality keep telling us what a superior model they have over there? Surely it's the fault of Victorians....somehow.

 

[Kwality]

to get effective control over their own club? Only a small part has to be a lump sum to cover the debt - the rest could be done in installments.

Eagles members pay their way.

As I said in an earlier post: ... no doubt the Eagles can pay more & as long as it goes into WA footy the majority of the membership will not complain.

 

[Kwality]

Actually it's a good question

Would you support a move to make the Eagles a membership owned organisation and independent from the wafc if it meant taking on a debt burden?

I dont see any benefit from changing the current structure ... the membership & the right to vote is rarely used, e.g where have Melbourne members been in the AFL days, where have Tigers members been given the almost irrelevance of their club since the game went national .... Sticks moved on at Carlton & its not the members that picked the new president ... Eddie picks the committeemen at the Pies.

I raised the debt as much of the commentary infers the AFL take control of the licence.

The clubs funding the local body seems good to me BUT change is upon us with the new stadium, I dont see now is a time for change.

 

[The_Wookie]

Eagles members pay their way.

And no one said they didnt. I suggested they might like to have a say in their club and might be willing to pay for that control.

 

[Kwality]

WA football being bailed out by the government (again)....But doesn't Kwality keep telling us what a superior model they have over there? Surely it's the fault of Victorians....somehow.

You really need to read the article it might help you understand how the WA model differs from the AFL model that runs footy in Vic. The WA Government own the WAFC on behalf of the taxpayers.

 

[Kwality]

And no one said they didnt. I suggested they might like to have a say in their club and might be willing to pay for that control.

I agree & dont believe my support for the current model is held by most Eagles fans - footy fans tend to put anything that sounds like support of the club #1. Engage heart before head.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I dont see any benefit from changing the current structure ... the membership & the right to vote is rarely used, e.g where have Melbourne members been in the AFL days, where have Tigers members been given the almost irrelevance of their club since the game went national .... Sticks moved on at Carlton & its not the members that picked the new president ... Eddie picks the committeemen at the Pies.

I raised the debt as much of the commentary infers the AFL take control of the licence.

The clubs funding the local body seems good to me BUT change is upon us with the new stadium, I dont see now is a time for change.

I'd disagree with this for the most part

While I agree membership needs to be more politically aware and active, it's wrong to say they are non existent

The last Richmond egm was triggered by a fan forum poll, not political power brokers. In our last election, one non board promoted candidate got up (dismissing the idea the board vote is just a rubber stamp). As for the coteries, they don't run the club like it may be suggested they did in years gone by

That's just with my club, which has been far from the best run historically

 

[The_Wookie]

I dont see any benefit from changing the current structure ... the membership & the right to vote is rarely used, e.g where have Melbourne members been in the AFL days, where have Tigers members been given the almost irrelevance of their club since the game went national .... Sticks moved on at Carlton & its not the members that picked the new president ... Eddie picks the committeemen at the Pies.

Members have voted when it matters to them - and thats the idea. Go to the Port board and ask them if getting control of their own destiny matters. Members have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote every time there is an AGM - Eddie might make his nominations as you allege - and in truth the board does have the power to select several commissioners, but the rest are voted and nominated by members.

I raised the debt as much of the commentary infers the AFL take control of the licence.

What commentary exactly in this instance?

The clubs funding the local body seems good to me BUT change is upon us with the new stadium, I dont see now is a time for change.

On the contrary, I see it as the best time to make a change. All things become new for everyone. You've advocated before that Melbourne clubs should be able to seek their own deals, why couldnt West Coast be afforded the same right if they afforded their own license buyback?

 

[Kwality]

Members have voted when it matters to them - and thats the idea. Go to the Port board and ask them if getting control of their own destiny matters. Members have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote every time there is an AGM - Eddie might make his nominations as you allege - and in truth the board does have the power to select several commissioners, but the rest are voted and nominated by members.



What commentary exactly in this instance?



On the contrary, I see it as the best time to make a change. All things become new for everyone. You've advocated before that Melbourne clubs should be able to seek their own deals, why couldnt West Coast be afforded the same right if they afforded their own license buyback?

I prefer the current structure funding WA footy, it works. I acknowledge most members would more likely prefer the membership voting model.

Explaining its the clubs that carry the debt not the AFL:
AFL in power play for Eagles, Dockers licences
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/8871186/afl-in-power-play-for-eagles-dockers-licences/
& please no strawman attempts to beat this up, IF you dont understand say so & I'll do my best to help you understand.

The club has power in its current structure as was demonstrated by it making an offer to North to play a game in Perth, the Eagles not the WAFC (given the AFL knocked it on the head, not North, ie the club), so maybe you can clarify the point you were trying to make.

 

[Kwality]

I'd disagree with this for the most part

While I agree membership needs to be more politically aware and active, it's wrong to say they are non existent

The last Richmond egm was triggered by a fan forum poll, not political power brokers. In our last election, one non board promoted candidate got up (dismissing the idea the board vote is just a rubber stamp). As for the coteries, they don't run the club like it may be suggested they did in years gone by

That's just with my club, which has been far from the best run historically

Well put. Non existent clearly not the case at TigerLand but no more effective than the current eagles structure, just feels better.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Well put. Non existent clearly not the case at TigerLand but no more effective than the current eagles structure, just feels better.

Yes, but things change. Remember we were one of the best run clubs in the country in the 70's, but times changed

A more relevant example would be Adelaide though. A club that was a monster, but then a combination of s**t management and s**t decisions saw that fall away. Members were furious, but couldn't do s**t because of the SANFL

You are rocking now, but what will you do if the new stadium deal is a stinker, and the club massively overspends on the new training facility? Don't you deserve to have a voice?

 

[The_Wookie]

I prefer the current structure funding WA footy, it works. I acknowledge most members would more likely prefer the membership voting model.

Sure. How nice of you to agree.

Explaining its the clubs that carry the debt not the AFL:
AFL in power play for Eagles, Dockers licences
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/8871186/afl-in-power-play-for-eagles-dockers-licences/
& please no strawman attempts to beat this up, IF you dont understand say so & I'll do my best to help you understand.

Sure, you can introduce this. I mean it has NOTHING to do with this thread or the discussion at hand, but whatever floats your boat. Further the article doesnt explain anything about any debt whatsoever.

The club has power in its current structure as was demonstrated by it making an offer to North to play a game in Perth, the Eagles not the WAFC (given the AFL knocked it on the head, not North, ie the club), so maybe you can clarify the point you were trying to make.

The club has as much power as any board does that is entirely controlled by another entity. Why would the WAFC intervene when it would ultimately benefit from the hosting of extra matches at Subiaco? I shouldnt need to clarify this.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, but things change. Remember we were one of the best run clubs in the country in the 70's, but times changed

A more relevant example would be Adelaide though. A club that was a monster, but then a combination of s**t management and s**t decisions saw that fall away. Members were furious, but couldn't do s**t because of the SANFL

You are rocking now, but what will you do if the new stadium deal is a stinker, and the club massively overspends on the new training facility? Don't you deserve to have a voice?

I've no problem with the thinking of the current regime - going forward, I take your point.

 

[Kwality]

Sure. How nice of you to agree.



Sure, you can introduce this. I mean it has NOTHING to do with this thread or the discussion at hand, but whatever floats your boat. Further the article doesnt explain anything about any debt whatsoever.



The club has as much power as any board does that is entirely controlled by another entity. Why would the WAFC intervene when it would ultimately benefit from the hosting of extra matches at Subiaco? I shouldnt need to clarify this.

Surely your comprehension of the written word is better than that - I'd be banned for disagreeing with you, so bye bye.

 

[The_Wookie]

Surely your comprehension of the written word is better than that - I'd be banned for disagreeing with you, so bye bye.

Thats not why you get banned.

 

[telsor]

You really need to read the article it might help you understand how the WA model differs from the AFL model that runs footy in Vic. The WA Government own the WAFC on behalf of the taxpayers.

Doesn't change the fact that the WA government has to keep bailing them out.

The model is clearly unsustainable, so by the logic you use for clubs that struggle, it either needs to be significantly changed or dumped.

 

[Rob]

Doesn't change the fact that the WA government has to keep bailing them out.

The model is clearly unsustainable, so by the logic you use for clubs that struggle, it either needs to be significantly changed or dumped.

Not sure that they need to be bailed out, I just reckon they're being opportunistic. They're effectively saying to give them management rights at the new stadium or clear their debt going forward.

Their interests in West Coast alone are worth a heap more than their debt.