News Stoush over new Perth Stadium - Barnett vs AFL

[QS]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...ialSF&utm_source=PerthNow&utm_medium=Facebook

NEGOTIATIONS between the AFL and the Barnett Government over the new Perth Stadium have become so heated the code is threatening to stay at Subiaco Oval.

PerthNow and The Sunday Times can reveal tensions over how to run the facility are boiling over on a number of issues – including the AFL’s desire to raise money by selling the naming rights. The AFL is also trying to limit the number of non-football events held there during the season, like rugby matches or music concerts.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...ialSF&utm_source=PerthNow&utm_medium=Facebook

What do we all think? AFL can f**k right off in my view.

 

[Eagle87]

This is just your standard negotiation between the major tenant and the owner...

They both need each other but neither wants to bend over...

As regards revenue you'd expect the major tenant to try and maximize is revenue streams (stadium naming and concessions) and you'd further expect them to protect the integrity of the playing arena (minimal U2 and Rolling Stones concerts at the venue midweek in season).

The landlord similarly wants to maximize is revenue.

The government has obviously leaked because it wants public pressure to push this its way. Just the normal argie bargie.

Remember from the clubs perspective its incumbent on the AFL to get the best deal it can or we'll join the list of clubs with "bad stadium deals"

 

[Keys]

Also two organisations/people that aren't particularly noted for their conciliatory negotiating style

 

[free at last]

The AFL can get stuffed!
Why does the AFL want naming rights to the yet to be constructed stadium and The 'MCG' which is the home of footy never gets slated for a name change?

 

[Eagle87]

The AFL can get stuffed!
Why does the AFL want naming rights to the yet to be constructed stadium and The 'MCG' which is the home of footy never gets slated for a name change?

Because it's a negotiation and in negotiations one tends to seek the best deal they can....

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

The AFL can get stuffed!
Why does the AFL want naming rights to the yet to be constructed stadium and The 'MCG' which is the home of footy never gets slated for a name change?

I think it's in the consitution of the MCC that they have naming rights. They don;t need to sell out for cash. They have plenty.

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

Over in SA we have been going through this as the Crows and Power lost money on gameday even though they had record attendances. (Crows the highest for the year over everyone)
It was in the media abit and ended up a 300+ day shit fight over eveything from drink prices to contracts for food stalls and % of ticket prices that went back to the clubs.

They worked it out and both the Crows and power should do better t han 2-3 million dollar loses this year.

 

[Matera LeNui]

Don't need another Etihad type fiasco. Have to ensure Eagles get a good deal from day 1.

 

[ziad]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...ialSF&utm_source=PerthNow&utm_medium=Facebook

NEGOTIATIONS between the AFL and the Barnett Government over the new Perth Stadium have become so heated the code is threatening to stay at Subiaco Oval.

PerthNow and The Sunday Times can reveal tensions over how to run the facility are boiling over on a number of issues – including the AFL’s desire to raise money by selling the naming rights. The AFL is also trying to limit the number of non-football events held there during the season, like rugby matches or music concerts.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...ialSF&utm_source=PerthNow&utm_medium=Facebook

What do we all think? AFL can f**k right off in my view.

AFL can sell the naming rights if the pay for the stadium. so glad somebody is standing up to that bunch of losers.

 

[new breed]

I thought the WA government was broke and they are putting an Etihad type deal to WCE and Dockers .

WCE have a long lease available at Subiaco , why not stay there untill the Barnett Government bring a better deal to the WA teams .

 

[WCE_phil]

I thought the WA government was broke and they are putting an Etihad type deal to WCE and Dockers .

WCE have a long lease available at Subiaco , why not stay there untill the Barnett Government bring a better deal to the WA teams .

IF i have to sit at subiaco past 2018 season im moving to melbourne.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Barnett stated this stadium, being funded by the taxpayer, would be focussed on the taxpayer

If the claim of not being able to bring your own food in is true - then that is a disgrace given it isn't implemented anywhere else

I fear for massive gouging of the WA public...

 

[Marlin01]

I fear for massive gouging of the WA public...

That's been a given from the outset. I'm prepared to grab my ankles and grit my teeth provided we get a top class facility to view games and the Eagles finances aren't compromised.

 

[Small Moves]

Barnett stated this stadium, being funded by the taxpayer, would be focussed on the taxpayer

If the claim of not being able to bring your own food in is true - then that is a disgrace given it isn't implemented anywhere else

I fear for massive gouging of the WA public...

Is no outside food/drink even a rule at Subi?

A few weeks back I was told to throw out my bottle of coke before I entered ..... the week after that I threw my bottle of mountain dew into one of the bins before I went in to the ground, and a staff member told me I was more than welcome to bring it in with me...

That's been a given from the outset. I'm prepared to grab my ankles and grit my teeth provided we get a top class facility to view games and the Eagles finances aren't compromised.

^ this.

 

[QS]

I thought the WA government was broke and they are putting an Etihad type deal to WCE and Dockers .

WCE have a long lease available at Subiaco , why not stay there untill the Barnett Government bring a better deal to the WA teams .

I think the clubs will be fine.. its not like Etihad where we struggle to fill the ground. The AFL is trying to flex its muscles. In any event if worst came to worst the WA govt could resume the land that Subiaco sits on anyway....

 

[new breed]

I think the clubs will be fine.. its not like Etihad where we struggle to fill the ground. The AFL is trying to flex its muscles. In any event if worst came to worst the WA govt could resume the land that Subiaco sits on anyway....

The WAFC has a 50 year plus lease on Subiaco oval and the Football commission own WCE so West Coast have options and they might use Subiaco
if Colin doesn't look after our financial situation .

Just saying we have options but the stadium will be great at the right deal for us and West Coast wont compromise this .... we are the chardonnay set and we dont wont to be the shinboners unless we have to be .

 

[Smeg Head]

Club won't struggle regardless, but if we are talking about the vic centric AFL then they can get stuffed indeed. Already subsidising the shit clubs over east so if they want more control maybe they should fold some of their beggar clubs.

 

[QS]

The WAFC has a 50 year plus lease on Subiaco oval and the Football commission own WCE so West Coast have options and they might use Subiaco
if Colin doesn't look after our financial situation .

Just saying we have options but the stadium will be great at the right deal for us and West Coast wont compromise this .... we are the chardonnay set and we dont wont to be the shinboners unless we have to be .

It's not about Colin here, its about the AFL trying to exert their influence over how the ground is used. They have contributed **** all and they are simply trying to call the tune because they have a concept they are all conquering and should be the sole tenant during the season. It was not built purely for AFL, it is a facility for them to use. As a side note, the lease could likely be dealt with fairly simply should the Government wish to pull the AFL into line (e.g. remove Subiaco as an option)... I don't see much in the article that purports to make the AFL clubs paupers for using it either..?

 

[new breed]

It's not about Colin here, its about the AFL trying to exert their influence over how the ground is used. They have contributed **** all and they are simply trying to call the tune because they have a concept they are all conquering and should be the sole tenant during the season. It was not built purely for AFL, it is a facility for them to use. As a side note, the lease could likely be dealt with fairly simply should the Government wish to pull the AFL into line (e.g. remove Subiaco as an option)... I don't see much in the article that purports to make the AFL clubs paupers for using it either..?

Sorry for hijacking the thread but in the past six months , have heard reports that the Stadium deal is average and rumours West Coast are trying to improve it .

The Govt have recently delayed the development of Lathlain Park because of finances and The Stadiium cost has recently reported as blown out by 600 million .

The Government deal to the tenants is probably reflecting their financial situation and the expense is being past on to the tenants .

Just what I have gathered from the situation ... wait and see though , I might be right / wrong !

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Shit government clashes with shit organisation, as reported by two shit news outlets.

Yep, they certainly ticked a lot of boxes.

 

[QS]

Sorry for hijacking the thread but in the past six months , have heard reports that the Stadium deal is average and rumours West Coast are trying to improve it .

The Govt have recently delayed the development of Lathlain Park because of finances and The Stadiium cost has recently reported as blown out by 600 million .

The Government deal to the tenants is probably reflecting their financial situation and the expense is being past on to the tenants .

Just what I have gathered from the situation ... wait and see though , I might be right / wrong !

Cost blowouts on construction projects are not unusual. In fact for costs not to increase over the life of a very large project (be it private enterprise or public funded) is very unusual. Its easy to rile the masses with estimates of 'blowouts' when quite frankly it is normal.

I think you are making this more about criticism levelled at the State Government for unrelated issues rather than the actual issue reported...

 

[Ochre]

I think the clubs will be fine.. its not like Etihad where we struggle to fill the ground. The AFL is trying to flex its muscles. In any event if worst came to worst the WA govt could resume the land that Subiaco sits on anyway....

SA clubs filled Adelaide Oval the first year and lost a large amount of money.

 

[Billy ray]

Cost blowouts on construction projects are not unusual. In fact for costs not to increase over the life of a very large project (be it private enterprise or public funded) is very unusual. Its easy to rile the masses with estimates of 'blowouts' when quite frankly it is normal.

I think you are making this more about criticism levelled at the State Government for unrelated issues rather than the actual issue reported...

.. there was no cost blowout... the latest cost included the running costs (maintenance and interest etc) for the next 20 years or something.

its like saying the new $1.5b childrens hospital is now costing $8b, because, yknow, once its opened you need to run it...

stupid opposition looking for a gotcha moment, and the press as pathetic as they are swallowed it...

 

[oak79]

Is no outside food/drink even a rule at Subi?

No alcohol, glass or cans. Anything else is fair game to bring in.

They can ask you to throw out opened bottles of coke etc as you may have added some alcohol to it.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

heck Barnett and his smug egg. Took the promise of a stadium to two elections, then didn't build it the right size. To make matters worse not only has he capped our growth again but our future growth by having the upgrade only to 70k not 80k. This rugby union western suburbs loving chump doesn't give two shits for anything football.