Stadiums in WA/SA the capacity for the future

[stmookeyj]

Just one out of left field....do stadia in these parts really need so much in the future if so many people now are staying away from games to watch on TV?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

The south-eastern states financially supported the development of WA and QLD for decades before the mining boom.

After the grants commission was introduced following the 1933 referendum. 1901-1934 WA funded most of our own projects on the back of unthinkable levels of debt.

Most of that time was before the GST was introduced. The GST has increased the pool of money being equalized, today it is very different to thirty years ago because WA doesn't have access to a host of revenue that south eastern states had during those years.

Sure WA has to pay back the south eastern states, but we are still a smaller economy with a smaller population. We also have seventy years to do it (if all things are equal).

 

[Rob]

Just one out of left field....do stadia in these parts really need so much in the future if so many people now are staying away from games to watch on TV?

People staying away from games? Where do you get that idea? We pay the highest prices in Australia for the worst stadium in Australia and still manage to sell out most games.

 

[Kwality]

hmm....

Oops, indeed my mistake.

 

[stmookeyj]

People staying away from games? Where do you get that idea? We pay the highest prices in Australia for the worst stadium in Australia and still manage to sell out most games.

Reality is in these times is that in the near future with all games live on TV (hopefully on the West Coast), will the consumer see more value for money paying $40 for 12 weekends of the year or about $300 a year for a membership (not including transportation or food/drink) that may get them a reserved seat, or will they use the same money to watch the same game in their living rooms? Families and consumers are going to have to make a choice between the 2 (or worse) as finances are going to get tighter and tighter to get to football matches no matter what capacity stadium.

 

[Rob]

Reality is in these times is that in the near future with all games live on TV (hopefully on the West Coast), will the consumer see more value for money paying $40 for 12 weekends of the year or about $300 a year for a membership (not including transportation or food/drink) that may get them a reserved seat, or will they use the same money to watch the same game in their living rooms? Families and consumers are going to have to make a choice between the 2 (or worse) as finances are going to get tighter and tighter to get to football matches no matter what capacity stadium.

LOL, $300 for a membership. Maybe for the really s**t seats. Adults pay over $500 in most parts of Subi for the year.

The vast majority of games have been live on Fox against the gate for years. It won't have the slightest impact. Not sure where you get the idea that finances are going to get tighter, at least in the long term.

 

[Kwality]

Finances are a convenient excuse for clubs that cant put bums on seats &/or get supporters to become members - after 100 years + its time these club members got real, got honest, say too many teams in a particular market, shock horror, a reality check?

 

[Papa G]

LOL, $300 for a membership. Maybe for the really s**t seats. Adults pay over $500 in most parts of Subi for the year.

The vast majority of games have been live on Fox against the gate for years. It won't have the slightest impact. Not sure where you get the idea that finances are going to get tighter, at least in the long term.

Where is this notion that Freo sell out Subi regularly come any rate? No need for the Lol you're a Port supporter what would you know, but seriously how often does Freo get over 40,000 at Subi? My impression, and correct me if I'm wrong is that Freo get mainly low to mid 30's (a good crowd I might add for a team that is playing basically only interstate opposition) but nothing to suggest that they need a stadium with a 70,000 capacity.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

To keep all those hrs of sun light out...

Actually, this is a valid point. Sunset is a major pain to a number of games scheduled in Perth due to the need to cater to a Melbourne TV audience. Sunlight is not a problem... it's when the Sun is directly in your line of sight that is.

60k is too low. For the years away it is, 70k should be their foundation, with options to expand. Far too conservative and I fear we're simply going to be in the same situation as now - waiting lists.

There's a lot of options they can explore to sell seats - limited game packages, stadium memberships.

And if the WA sides suck and attendances drop, 30k is going to look just as meagre in a 60k stadium as it would in a 70k stadium.

 

[Rob]

Where is this notion that Freo sell out Subi regularly come any rate? No need for the Lol you're a Port supporter what would you know, but seriously how often does Freo get over 40,000 at Subi? My impression, and correct me if I'm wrong is that Freo get mainly low to mid 30's (a good crowd I might add for a team that is playing basically only interstate opposition) but nothing to suggest that they need a stadium with a 70,000 capacity.

I think you're confused. A sellout simply means all tickets sold, not all seats occupied. Eg. Freo's last home game against collingwood was sold out, despite the ground having over 10k empty seats. Not every member shows up to every game.

 

[Kwality]

Actually, this is a valid point. Sunset is a major pain to a number of games scheduled in Perth due to the need to cater to a Melbourne TV audience. Sunlight is not a problem... it's when the Sun is directly in your line of sight that is.

60k is too low. For the years away it is, 70k should be their foundation, with options to expand. Far too conservative and I fear we're simply going to be in the same situation as now - waiting lists.

There's a lot of options they can explore to sell seats - limited game packages, stadium memberships.

And if the WA sides suck and attendances drop, 30k is going to look just as meagre in a 60k stadium as it would in a 70k stadium.

stadium memberships .... what is in that for footy? Why are you anti footy club, why would you want Medallion Club style memberships stealing members from the clubs.

The Eagles clearly need to come up with a solution to the empty booked seating when the waiting list is hanging out to see a game.

 

[Papa G]

I think you're confused. A sellout simply means all tickets sold, not all seats occupied. Eg. Freo's last home game against collingwood was sold out, despite the ground having over 10k empty seats. Not every member shows up to every game.

Actually, I think it is you who is confused. The question begs, if the majority of your games attract 30-35,000 why do you need a 70,000 plus stadium? If 10,000 can't be arsed rocking up to a game against the reigning premier, it just shows that the demand isn't actually there. With 70,000 plus seats available, you may even see a decline in membership numbers as it will be easy to get seats and this 10,000 that aren't rocking up regularly might save their dough and just pay for the games they want to go to. The cashed up bogan's intellect can stretch this far. He may decide that he's at the mine site for half the games and realise even though he does have cash to burn, it's still a waste of money.

 

[Rob]

Actually, I think it is you who is confused. The question begs, if the majority of your games attract 30-35,000 why do you need a 70,000 plus stadium? If 10,000 can't be arsed rocking up to a game against the reigning premier, it just shows that the demand isn't actually there.

Dude, if the game is sold out, then the demand for tickets exceeds the number of seats. I'm not sure you understand that. Using Freo's game against Collingwood as an example, despite there being over 10k empty seats, if you had of rocked up on gameday without a ticket, you wouldn't have got in. Consequently you can't say 'only 31k could be arsed rocking up' given anyone that wanted to go on the day and didn't have a ticket couldn't get in.

Mind you, that game was an outlier. It was expected to be a smashing, and duly was. Hence the low member turnout (and when I say 'low', that's relative. Most clubs don't get 75% of their members showing up for any games, let alone their worst. Your club looks to have had at least HALF it's membership not bother watching you play Collingwood). When we're going well, crowds average in the high 30k's with almost all games sold out. If we ever win a flag then we'd be able to sell 60k memberships (i.e reserved seats) easily to a world class stadium. Hell, a couple of top 4 years in a row would probably do it.

Based on your comments, Anzac Day clearly has no more demand for tickets because there are at least 10k empty seats to the game. Which is obviously false.

With 70,000 plus seats available, you may even see a decline in membership numbers as it will be easy to get seats and this 10,000 that aren't rocking up regularly might save their dough and just pay for the games they want to go to. The cashed up bogan's intellect can stretch this far. He may decide that he's at the mine site for half the games and realise even though he does have cash to burn, it's still a waste of money.

It is possible, but IMO unlikely. A far superior stadium is more likely to attract spectators, and it's probably fair to suggest that the vast, vast majority of members, when offered a much better seat at presumably the same price won't turn down the opportunity. In addition to others that would no doubt buy a membership if they didn't have to sit in the nosebleed section of Subi with their knees in their chest because the seats are so poor. In any case, it's not like half our members go missing every game, generally the member turnout is 80%+, even in s**t years. If the crowd is about 34k then 80% of members have shown up. And most our games get over that.

Do you have any examples of your phenomenon at work?

 

[sydney eagle]

stadium memberships .... what is in that for footy? Why are you anti footy club, why would you want Medallion Club style memberships stealing members from the clubs.

The Eagles clearly need to come up with a solution to the empty booked seating when the waiting list is hanging out to see a game.

Could they make it a rule that any booked seats not occupied by the end of the first quarter of the main game can be resold to people who turn up at the ground ? Get in early or you lose your booked seat !

 

[The_Reaper]

Could they make it a rule that any booked seats not occupied by the end of the first quarter of the main game can be resold to people who turn up at the ground ? Get in early or you lose your booked seat !

How many people are going to bother turning up after a quarter on the off chance that they may get a seat?

 

[Silent Alarm]

What about an iPhone app.

You simply 'check in' to your membership seat. Although this would mean a lot of people would miss out on half a quarter of footy (or so).

Could possibly give another, second backup to crowd numbers as well.

Main detriment is the fact that not everyone has an iPhone.

 

[Rob]

Could they make it a rule that any booked seats not occupied by the end of the first quarter of the main game can be resold to people who turn up at the ground ? Get in early or you lose your booked seat !

Most stadium memberships don't assign seats, and in any case even if they did most wouldn't give them up anyway. No-one's going to rock up at quarter time on the off chance they can get in.

With medallion club members they can legally resell their seats for any individual game (or at least I assume it's legal given the number on ebay), but it's still half empty for a lot of events where the rest of the ground is full.

 

[Oneiros]

The south-eastern states financially supported the development of WA and QLD for decades before the mining boom.

Don't cry to us about that; we both tried to avoid getting into the Commonwealth in the first place and then had a referendum to leave in the 30s and had to stay, so its only right and proper that you paid for us to be there

 

[jadr76]

I haven't read every post in this forum, but I believe that plans for Adelaide and Perth stadiums are short sighted. Both cities should be planning to build facilities that are capable of hosting the grand final. I would suggest stadiums in excess of 80,000. Governments in both cities should be seeking to host the grand final on a rotating basis. I suggest that over a six year period that Melbourne hosts three grand finals, with Adelaide, Sydney and Perth hosting one each.

Just think that over the last 20 years non-Victorian teams have won 50% of all AFL Grand Finals, yet not a single one of these games has been played outside of Melbourne...

It is time to smash the monopoly the Victoria has on the "Australian" Football League Grand Final.

 

[grimface_87]

Doesn't the MCG have a contract to host the AFL Grand Final until about 2050? It was part of the deal to give up its right to host at least one Prelim each year.

 

[eskabah]

& used it for 2 x Olympics & 1 x Comm Games.
One day someone might relate the story of Perry Lakes Stadium built for the 1962 Comm Games
& the cricket ground in WA is not owned by the taxpayer unlike the MCG . The WACA is owned by the WACA, the Western Australian Cricket Association.

Amazing how a little research ...

I have done some research of my own, the MCG is on land owned by the state, on a 99 year lease to the MCC. Meaning that the structure is owned by the MCC, but only for now.

And I also believe that the WACA is on a similar deal, but the lease from the WA government is 999 years, not a typo, almost a millennium!

 

[DardySingh360]

I have done some research of my own, the MCG is on land owned by the state, on a 99 year lease to the MCC. Meaning that the structure is owned by the MCC, but only for now.

And I also believe that the WACA is on a similar deal, but the lease from the WA government is 999 years, not a typo, almost a millennium!

Pretty sure the Guinness Brewery in Dublin has a 9999 year lease

 

[Kwality]

I have done some research of my own, the MCG is on land owned by the state, on a 99 year lease to the MCC. Meaning that the structure is owned by the MCC, but only for now.

And I also believe that the WACA is on a similar deal, but the lease from the WA government is 999 years, not a typo, almost a millennium!

Where does the MCG Trust fit in that?

My understanding is the Trust appointed the ground manager, ie the cricket club (no it did not go to public tender).

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I have done some research of my own, the MCG is on land owned by the state, on a 99 year lease to the MCC. Meaning that the structure is owned by the MCC, but only for now.

I think you need to do a little bit more reseach. The land the MCG is built on, is crown land and owned by the MCG Trust, a government Trust. There currently isn't a 99 year lease. Maybe the original lease was for 99 years but not currently. Yes the Great Southern Stand and Northern Stand are shown in the books of the MCC as MCG building improvements as are the loans taken out to build the stands. Basically those stands are leasehold improvements and are the MCC's assets as long as there is a lease in place.

There is a lease, which was varied in 2002 and a ground management agreement which was also varied in 2002 between the MCG Trust and the MCC.

At the following link you can download the 2010-11 MCG Trust Annual Report.

http://www.mcg.org.au/About the G/MCG Trust/Annual Report.aspx

Some snippets from the Annual Report

From the P&L

Net result before contribution to the Melbourne Cricket Club (“the
Club”)

From the Notes to the Financial Statement

1. MELBOURNE CRICKET GROUND TRUST (“THE TRUST”) INFORMATION
The Trust was established as a body corporate incorporated under the provisions of the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust Act 1989 as the successor to the unincorporated Trustees who held office under the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1933. The 1989 Act provided that the assets and liabilities of the Trustees became the assets and liabilities of the Trust. The 1933 and 1989 Acts were repealed in 2009 with the provisions re-enacted in the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 2009 (“The Act”).

2. SUMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

...

(g) Property, plant and equipment

(i) Crown land - MCG
The Act provides that the assets and liabilities of the Trustees became the assets and liabilities of the Trust. Under the provisions of this Act, the Trust was deemed to become the grantee of the MCG’s land reserved under an Order in Council dated 20 February 1934. No cost was incurred by the Trust in respect of this land.

Crown land for the MCG is measured on a fair value basis. At each balance date, the value of the asset in this class is reviewed to ensure that its carrying value does not materially differ from the asset’s fair value at that date. Where necessary, the asset is revalued to reflect its fair value.

This land was independently revalued at $49.583 million at March 2009 and has been recorded at that value in the accounts at 31 March 2011 after an independent review was conducted at that date.

...

16. REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MCG

Under the provisions of the original Indemnity Deed dated 11 April 1990, the Club agreed to redevelop the Great Southern Stand at a cost of approximately $150 million. The original Indemnity Deed was re-negotiated and a new Management and Indemnity (“M&I”) Deed was signed (15 August 2002) by the Trust, the Club and the State Government of Victoria.

The original financing arranged by the Club in relation to the Great Southern Stand continues to be repaid over a 25 year period, with guarantees in respect of the financing being provided by the Trust and the Treasurer of Victoria in accordance with the specific provisions of the Indemnity Deed.

As part of the M&I Deed, the Club agreed to redevelop the Northern side of the MCG. The financing arranged by the Club will be repaid over approximately a 30 year period, with guarantees in respect of the financing being provided by the Treasurer of Victoria in accordance with the specific provisions of the M&I Deed.

The outstanding long-term debt in relation to the re-developments of the MCG is recognised in the Club’s accounts. Total Re-development Debt at 31 March 2011 for these projects is $293.015 million (2010: $307.728 million).


....

18. GROUND MANAGER

On 15 August 2002, the Club entered into a Deed of Variation of Lease with the MCG Trust pursuant to which the Club’s existing tenancy of the MCG was extended until 31 March 2042 with an option to extend its lease over the Members’ Reserve for a further 25 years. Under a separate management agreement with the Trust and the Government of Victoria, the Club’s role as manager of the MCG has also been extended until 31 March 2042.

Building Improvements and Capital Work in Progress have been funded by the Club and are recognised in the Club’s accounts at a written down value of $492.361 million (2010: $508.935 million). The residual interest in buildings and improvements at the ground will revert to the Trust at the end of the lease period.

You can down load the 2010-11 MCC Annual Report with concise financials and the 2010 MCC Annual Financial Report at

http://www.mcc.org.au/News/Publications/Annual Report.aspx

From Note 22. Related Party Disclosures

a) MCG Trust

The Club is party to a “Deed of Variation of Lease” with the MCG Trust pursuant to which, the Club’s
existing tenancy of the MCG was extended until 31 March 2042 with an option to extend its lease over the members’ reserve for a further 25 years.

Under a separate management agreement with the MCG Trust and the State of Victoria, the Club’s role
as ground manager of the MCG has also been extended until 31 March 2042.

And I also believe that the WACA is on a similar deal, but the lease from the WA government is 999 years, not a typo, almost a millennium!

No your research is wrong. The WACA own the land freehold and manage the oval themselves. That is why they have development proposals to build apparments next to the WACA and flog them off to earn revenue. You can't sell them if you don't own the land and set up sub leases.

From the WA Major Stadia Taskforce report various volumes, which the direct link no longer exist but the indiviual chapters can be found at the WA Department of Sport and Recreation

http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/multipurposestadium

From Page C-6

THE STADIUM & THE CITY VOLUME 2 - TECHNICAL REPORT
SECTION C – GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Prepared by the Major Stadia Taskforce
May 2007

CONTENTS
1.0 Governance and Venue Management C-5
1.1 Background C-6

......

1.1 BACKGROUND

......

The sports in WA are currently heavily involved with their respective
venues. The WAFC manage Subiaco Oval under a 99-year lease
agreement which expires in September 2090 and the WA Cricket
Association holds the freehold title and manages the WACA ground.
Members Equity Stadium (MES) is owned by the Town of Vincent and
is managed by Allia Holdings Pty Ltd which until January 2006 was a
subsidiary company of the Perth Glory Football Club, being the major
tenant of that venue.

Table 1: Existing Management Issues relating to the 3 Major Perth Venues
Existing Management Issues relating to the 3 Major Perth Venues

Subiaco Oval
• Crown land with Management Order to City of Subiaco
which have leased the venue to the WAFC for 99 years
(with 84 years remaining).

• Major concerns raised by other sports seeking
to access venue in regard to independence of
management and cost to access the venue.

• Perceived conflicts arising in the role of the WAFC as
both

WACA
• The WACA owns the freehold of the WACA ground.

• Venue management is considered a distraction for the
sport whose primary role is to foster the development
of the sport.

MES
• The Town of Vincent owns the freehold of the ground.
• The Town of Vincent has entered into a management
agreement with Allia Holdings Pty Ltd.
• Up until January 2006, Allia Holdings Pty Ltd was
owned by Perth Glory who is currently the major tenant
of the MES, giving rise to concerns regarding conflict
of interest and independence when dealing with other
major sports and tenants.
• The company has since sold the franchise but
separated the management of the stadium from the
interests of the soccer team.
• Concerns raised over fees charged to non-resident
sports.
• Non-resident sports franchises have also raised
concerns regarding the cost of access to the venue.

 

[Kwality]

I have done some research of my own, the MCG is on land owned by the state, on a 99 year lease to the MCC. Meaning that the structure is owned by the MCC, but only for now.

And I also believe that the WACA is on a similar deal, but the lease from the WA government is 999 years, not a typo, almost a millennium!

Appears your research has mislead you eskabah, how so?

Perhaps you could confirm your bona fides by listing some links to your claims, e.g ownership of the WACA ...