WAFL debt plea to WA Government

[The_Wookie]

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.

Yeah they've got options, and the taxpayer cant be bailing out the WAFC every 30 years. The Government should be making them sell back parts of IPL or Fremantle to the clubs involved. Theres no reason royalty and rent payments couldnt continue anyway.

 

[Rob]

Yeah they've got options, and the taxpayer cant be bailing out the WAFC every 30 years. The Government should be making them sell back parts of IPL or Fremantle to the clubs involved. Theres no reason royalty and rent payments couldnt continue anyway.

What would the royalties be for then? And the days of rental payments are numbered.

But realistically they could probably get $50m for West Coast and $25-30m for Freo. That creates a future fund for WA footy where the earnings can be used to fund the game for as long as foreseeable.

 

[The_Wookie]

What would the royalties be for then? And the days of rental payments are numbered.

But realistically they could probably get $50m for West Coast and $25-30m for Freo. That creates a future fund for WA footy where the earnings can be used to fund the game for as long as foreseeable.

it'd be like an "annual state development fee" or some crap that could be written into the sale contract. But I agree with you on the rest.

 

[Kwality]

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.

At it again trying to put words in my mouth. Your conclusions are flawed, clear for all to see - to compare a government owned body with a footy club, hello, hello, pardon my mirth.

Just another example of telsor logic ...

 

[Kwality]

Yeah they've got options, and the taxpayer cant be bailing out the WAFC every 30 years. The Government should be making them sell back parts of IPL or Fremantle to the clubs involved. Theres no reason royalty and rent payments couldnt continue anyway.

The WAFC could always put up the ground rental & the clubs could get AFL assistance, leaving less for distribution to all the clubs. They could then run MCC size profits at the expense of footy.

Why should the Government make them (the WAFC) follow your suggestion Wookie? You mention there are options, what are they, who do they help?

 

[The_Wookie]

The WAFC could always put up the ground rental & the clubs could get AFL assistance, leaving less for distribution to all the clubs. They could then run MCC size profits at the expense of footy.

Why should the Government make them (the WAFC) follow your suggestion Wookie? You mention there are options, what are they, who do they help?

Why should the Government follow anyones suggestions? More to the point, I thought you were leaving this thread.

• Option 1. Have the taxpayer bail the WAFC out - again. Status quo continues
  
• Option 2. Sell partial or total control of West Coast/Fremantle back to the club - with the club still paying rent and royalties. The club becomes member owned like everyone else and truly national in focus like its competitors, the WAFC retains as much funding as it can.
• Option 3. Like Rob says, sell the clubs, pay off debt and gain a big future fund - only problem with this is, while West Coast have money in the bank, Fremantle dont.
• Option 4. Sell the clubs. Take compensation from the AFL for 15 years like the SANFL have done for development funding, hope for a favourable stadium deal.
• Option 5. do nothing. See what happens.

 

[Kwality]

Why should the Government follow anyones suggestions? More to the point, I thought you were leaving this thread.

• Option 1. Have the taxpayer bail the WAFC out - again. Status quo continues
  
• Option 2. Sell partial or total control of West Coast/Fremantle back to the club - with the club still paying rent and royalties. The club becomes member owned like everyone else and truly national in focus like its competitors, the WAFC retains as much funding as it can.
• Option 3. Like Rob says, sell the clubs, pay off debt and gain a big future fund - only problem with this is, while West Coast have money in the bank, Fremantle dont.
• Option 4. Sell the clubs. Take compensation from the AFL for 15 years like the SANFL have done for development funding, hope for a favourable stadium deal.
• Option 5. do nothing. See what happens.

So MCC size ($s) wouldnt find a couple of $mil? Of course it would, you arent dinkum, but you are consistent. Trolling?

 

[The_Wookie]

So MCC size ($s) wouldnt find a couple of $mil? Of course it would, you arent dinkum, but you are consistent. Trolling?

Im sure if they raised the rent to MCC levels, they could find more money sure. It remains to be seen if they'll even have management rights at Burswood.

I answered the damn question you asked. You asked what I thought the options were, I gave them. The MCC thing was yours and nothing to do with me, I didnt think it needed repeating IN THE VERY NEXT POST.

 

[jatz14]

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.

No, read it before commenting. The deal was that the government pays of the debt, and the WAFC pays the interest on that debt. The longer the government lets the debt ride, the more footy has to pay in interest. What they are asking is, you have to pay the debt anyway, please pay it now so we save on interest. The problem for WAFC is, as the government is not paying the interest, they have no incentive to pay the debt down faster.

 

[jatz14]

Yeah they've got options, and the taxpayer cant be bailing out the WAFC every 30 years. The Government should be making them sell back parts of IPL or Fremantle to the clubs involved. Theres no reason royalty and rent payments couldnt continue anyway.

They are not, they have been asked to pay the debt they are going to have to pay anyway now rather than later. How is this bailing out?

 

[telsor]

No, read it before commenting. The deal was that the government pays of the debt, and the WAFC pays the interest on that debt. The longer the government lets the debt ride, the more footy has to pay in interest. What they are asking is, you have to pay the debt anyway, please pay it now so we save on interest. The problem for WAFC is, as the government is not paying the interest, they have no incentive to pay the debt down faster.

I have read it.

WA government paying for the stadium upgrade for WAFC.

Or in other words, football in WA not paying for it's own expenses instead requiring the government to help it out.

Now personally, I don't have a big issue with that, but I do object to the claims that WCE/Freo are supporting football in the state when in fact they themselves are beneficiaries of government support. I especially object when the likes of Kwality continually rant about Vic clubs getting support.

 

[jatz14]

I have read it.

WA government paying for the stadium upgrade for WAFC.

Or in other words, football in WA not paying for it's own expenses instead requiring the government to help it out.

Now personally, I don't have a big issue with that, but I do object to the claims that WCE/Freo are supporting football in the state when in fact they themselves are beneficiaries of government support. I especially object when the likes of Kwality continually rant about Vic clubs getting support.

It is a part of a long standing deal between footy in WA and the state government. This occurs in every state in one form or another. Every iteration of this deal is not a new 'bail out' of the WA cubs, which seemed to be the implication of a lot of posts in this thread.

 

[telsor]

It is a part of a long standing deal between footy in WA and the state government. This occurs in every state in one form or another. Every iteration of this deal is not a new 'bail out' of the WA cubs, which seemed to be the implication of a lot of posts in this thread.

No, not bailing out the clubs, the WAFC, which it seems can't pay it's own way by covering all it's costs (like refitting the stadium it collects rent on).