Analysis Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happening

[Papa G]

All the things he listed that the SANFL were doing like Auskick and 500 umpires I'm thinking why the * are the SANFL doing this? Im sure the AFL would look after this everywhere else. These *ers are clinging to any sort of power they can and using the money generated from the AFL clubs to do it. They also seem to be trying to take over the Amateur League by stealth too

 

[bomberclifford]

I accidentally heard the interview - he must think everyone is a dickhead - either that or he's ******* senile or delusional - in any case he needs to be removed he's clearly incapable of holding the position

He's neither senile nor delusional. He's a sleazy, slimy, dishonest and greedy man. Has been from way before he even entered politics.

 

[Jonts]

The way sanfl run junior umpiring is pathetic

Still get calls saying they're short
Three years after I've said nah never again

 

[The_Wookie]

All the things he listed that the SANFL were doing like Auskick and 500 umpires I'm thinking why the **** are the SANFL doing this? Im sure the AFL would look after this everywhere else. These gooses are clinging to any sort of power they can and using the money generated from the AFL clubs to do it. They also seem to be trying to take over the Amateur League by stealth too

Auskick IS an AFL program. They get a grant for it, just like the WAFL do.

 

[HighBudget]

So apparently the MCG, SCG and Etihad can offer cheaper food, beer etc due to buying power. s**t, I would have thought an average of 45,000 patrons a week would have given you rather significant buying power John.

That interview was so dumb, and every thing John Olsen said didn't make sense. Felt like smashing my stereo listening to his bullshit

 

[Finest of Wines]

Genuinely surprised he didn't say the price increase was Ports fault because of the GDV or some other excuse caused by our club

 

[raman]

Gonna try my hardest to not buy beer at Adelaide Oval this year, so if any of you see me lining up to buy a beer, please buy me a beer so I won't need to.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Gonna try my hardest to not buy beer at Adelaide Oval this year, so if any of you see me lining up to buy a beer, please buy me a beer so I won't need to.

We will have to take you to the GDV pre game for an hour then to make sure you load up.

 

[Steve Dore]

Olsen spent a lot of time discussing the value in a Barossa Fine Foods hotdog for $7.50
I purchased a Barossa Fine Foods hotdog last Friday night at Hindmarsh stadium for $5. ......

Genuinely surprised he didn't say the price increase was Ports fault because of the GDV or some other excuse caused by our club

The SMA are doing a community service by charging a premium for a "gourmet" hotdog. Research has shown that the consumption of processed meat, such as the sausage in a hotdog, can cause cancer. By charging a 33% "health tax" the SMA are discouraging people from consuming this dangerous foodstuff. This is the same as them charging more for beer than the GDV in order to discourage drunken behavior. The SMA should be commended on their altruism.

 

[Portology]

The SMA are doing a community service by charging a premium for a "gourmet" hotdog. Research has shown that the consumption of processed meat, such as the sausage in a hotdog, can cause cancer. By charging a 33% "health tax" the SMA are discouraging people from consuming this dangerous foodstuff. This is the same as them charging more for beer than the GDV in order to discourage drunken behavior. The SMA should be commended on their altruism.

I heard they were going to charge $9/hot dog for that very reason, then discounted it to $5 for the other altruistic reason, that eating greasy hot dogs tends to reduce the dangerous amount of alcohol consumed during the game, but then raised the price back up to $7.50 to make up for the revenue shortfall out of said lower alcohol consumption. "It's tough to get the balance right" said SMA boss John Olsen "but we look to our good friends in the Adelaide media to help us sell the story anyway".

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Rucci in his article mentioned the stadium deal re the Sinking Fund and Rent. He has changed his tune from every year including from 2014 there has to be $2.8mil per year to the first contribution is on 1st September, but still saying its every year, which isn't what has been agreed to. And rent is $200k in 2015/16 financial year, this year is the first year and goes up by $200k each year and hits Rooch's magical $1mil figure in 2019/20 and then is indexed by CPI every year after that.

From the Auditor General's Ninth 6 monthly report covering the period 1st July 2015 to 31st December 2015 and issued on 29th February 2016 - page

5.2 Establishment of a sinking fund
The Act provides for the establishment and operation of a sinking fund by AOSMA to receive
and disburse monies to meet non-recurrent expenditure associated with the lease of the Oval.
The Act also provides for the:
* Treasurer, acting with the advice and after consulting with AOSMA, to approve or
determine the amount of money to be paid into the sinking fund during each financial
year by AOSMA
* Auditor-General to audit the accounts of the sinking fund and examine certain matters
provided for in the Act.
The fourth Report indicated that AOSMA advised it had obtained a report from the project
cost consultant that provides an estimate of the total forecast capital expenditure, over a
20 year period, and the required annual sinking fund contribution. AOSMA further advised
that it had established a bank account to hold sinking fund monies.
.......
The fifth Report provided an update on the status of the sinking fund. It communicated that in
November 2013 the Minister wrote to the Treasurer seeking approval for proposed
arrangements for the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment sinking fund. It further conveyed that in
January 2014 the Treasurer responded to the Minister’s request and advised that he:
* considered the proposed arrangements for the sinking fund to be satisfactory at the
present time
* authorises DPTI to inform AOSMA that it should budget for the proposed
arrangements in its forward program
* notes that AOSMA proposes to make its first contribution of approximately
$2.7 million to the sinking fund in 2016-17 and AOSMA will notify him of this
proposed contribution for approval prior to 1 September 2016
* will approve or make a determination of the amount to be paid into the sinking fund at
that time.

The previous Report noted that in July 2015 AOSMA wrote to the Minister confirming that
the first instalment will be paid into the fund in the 2016-17 financial year.
In preparing this Report we enquired about the status of the sinking fund with DPTI. We were
advised that there has been no change to the commitment made by AOSMA to make the first
contribution to the sinking fund in the 2016-17 financial year.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l/news-story/81220562bbf03930d40040f44ac35e36
No free hit
STADIUM Management Authority chairman JOHN OLSEN wove into his opening speech at the Adelaide Oval Media Hall of Fame a little reminder of just how far he has to reach into his pockets to maintain the Oval as a jewel.

And the figures — particularly for the next 20 years — may serve as a counter to those who keep saying the State Government “gifted” both the SANFL and the SA Cricket Association a $535 million cheque (with $529m spent) during the redevelopment of the Oval. Here are the numbers — Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act, 2011 — that sometimes keep many SMA board members awake at night as they reflect on their responsibility to maintain the Oval and generate funds to keep SANFL and SACA programs afloat.

$2.8 MILLION — from July 1, 2016 the SMA must deposit this sum into an “Adelaide Oval sinking fund” to underwrite maintenance and future development at the venue. And that is $2.8 million each and every year.

$200,000 — for the “community sports tax” crafted by the State Opposition (the so-called “Rob Lucas Tax”, although Iain Evans puts his hands up for this impost too). This figure rises by $200,000 a year to reach $1 million after 2020.

Ultimately, the SMA will be needing $3.8 million a year from the Oval before it has a cent to deliver to football and cricket. It is $3 million this year ... and, ultimately with cost-of-living increases built into the deal, probably $100 million in the first 20 years at the Oval.

The SMA also is clearing — at $500,000 a year — the $8m overdraft needed to set up the authority, a joint venture of the SACA and SANFL. So when the SMA details it has made a “few hundred thousand dollars” as a profit at the Oval, those who ask, “Where has all the money gone?” may now appreciate some realities Olsen and his board face year after year.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l/news-story/81220562bbf03930d40040f44ac35e36

 

[Joelg]

Was reading about Sepp Blatter and his 2 lieutenants paying each other and signing off on all sorts of bonuses between themselves for "running the World Cup" up and over their salary.

The AFL seem to disclose salaries.

I keep wondering over the years where all the money goes from the AFL games in SA that wasn't kept by the clubs.

Any information on who and how money is paid to SANFL management and commission. Or are all the benefits tied up in contra deals eg keeping all the catering left overs...........

I realise I have no facts but REH after reading the FIFA scandal, can you shed any light?

 

[Kwality]

Read the post above your own.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Since I started this thread in March 2009, I have been saying that a final at Footy Park when a crowd of between 40,000 and 50,000 rocked up, was probably worth $1m NET to the SANFL. In this thread and the other one re Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - Thunderbirds Are Go thread, I said we had to get a slice of finals receipts like the Lions did at the Gabba, the 2 WA clubs at Subi, Geelong at Kardinia Park and as Sydney do at ANZ and not quite as good a deal at the SCG. I dont know what the 2 expansion clubs get for a home final.

The AO stadium deal review negotiations that took all of 2014 to negotiate, ended up giving the 2 clubs the slice of Finals revenue, ie AFL keeps all the ticket sales revenue, pays the SANFL/SMA a rent, takes a chunk of seats for its use and SANFL/SMA keep all the corporate box, catering - both functions and general food and beverage, parking, advertising, etc revenue streams. The clubs get a slice of that but we have never been told how much but the figure of up to $1m for 2 finals for the clubs seems to ring a bell, but don't take that as gospel as lots of figures were associated with the review and they were all potential figures, rather than set in stone ones. i have to go back to the review to find that guestimate.

This story on Monday in the Tsier's footy lift out section confirms my long held belief that a final with at least 40k produces a net profit of $1mil from that final. The headline says the crows have missed out on $2m but if you read the story its the SMA+SANFL and crows who have missed out on the $2m combined. But that is a gross figure as you have a s**t load of costs as you have to employ about 900 people on game day given the crowd figure adjustments last year for staff counted in the "official" total crowd. Plus there is the cost of gods sold and all those service costs eg buses, cops, cleaners etc.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Ok I found the above story on line, couldnt find it before because the headline has changed for the online version.

Crows in for cash bonus — but it could have been so much bigger

 

[Kwality]

Ok I found the above story on line, couldnt find it before because the headline has changed for the online version.

Crows in for cash bonus — but it could have been so much bigger

.

Never going to be appropriate but my first game at new Adelaide was last weekend v the Crows, top venue, even the natives were friendly, well most were - sensational venue

 

[xflamedancer]

.

Never going to be appropriate but my first game at new Adelaide was last weekend v the Crows, top venue, even the natives were friendly, well most were - sensational venue

Thanks for winning.

 

[spookism]

Facebook told me that 5 years ago I was at Adelaide Oval and we were playing Melbourne

 

[Portology]

Paper on the scale of and mechanics of US federal government subsidies for stadium building for the "big four" professional sports. Posted here for someone's future reference ... g'day REH

https://www.brookings.edu/research/...spending-billions-on-private-sports-stadiums/

 

[tribey]

Since I started this thread in March 2009, I have been saying that a final at Footy Park when a crowd of between 40,000 and 50,000 rocked up, was probably worth $1m NET to the SANFL. In this thread and the other one re Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - Thunderbirds Are Go thread, I said we had to get a slice of finals receipts like the Lions did at the Gabba, the 2 WA clubs at Subi, Geelong at Kardinia Park and as Sydney do at ANZ and not quite as good a deal at the SCG. I dont know what the 2 expansion clubs get for a home final.

The AO stadium deal review negotiations that took all of 2014 to negotiate, ended up giving the 2 clubs the slice of Finals revenue, ie AFL keeps all the ticket sales revenue, pays the SANFL/SMA a rent, takes a chunk of seats for its use and SANFL/SMA keep all the corporate box, catering - both functions and general food and beverage, parking, advertising, etc revenue streams. The clubs get a slice of that but we have never been told how much but the figure of up to $1m for 2 finals for the clubs seems to ring a bell, but don't take that as gospel as lots of figures were associated with the review and they were all potential figures, rather than set in stone ones. i have to go back to the review to find that guestimate.

This story on Monday in the Tsier's footy lift out section confirms my long held belief that a final with at least 40k produces a net profit of $1mil from that final. The headline says the crows have missed out on $2m but if you read the story its the SMA+SANFL and crows who have missed out on the $2m combined. But that is a gross figure as you have a s**t load of costs as you have to employ about 900 people on game day given the crowd figure adjustments last year for staff counted in the "official" total crowd. Plus there is the cost of gods sold and all those service costs eg buses, cops, cleaners etc.


View attachment 284557

So how much money did we kiss goodbye by stupidly qualifying for a home final at Adelaide Oval before the reworked deal?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

So how much money did we kiss goodbye by stupidly qualifying for a home final at Adelaide Oval before the reworked deal?

Hard to tell without all the info but probably $200k for 50,000 who rocked up and maybe as much as $500k. But the big slice would be from corporate boxes, functions catering and advertising given the way the home and away deal was restructured.

 

[tribey]

Hard to tell without all the info but probably $200k for 50,000 who rocked up and maybe as much as $500k. But the big slice would be from corporate boxes, functions catering and advertising given the way the home and away deal was restructured.

"Pay your share, Port"

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Paper on the scale of and mechanics of US federal government subsidies for stadium building for the "big four" professional sports. Posted here for someone's future reference ... g'day REH

https://www.brookings.edu/research/...spending-billions-on-private-sports-stadiums/

Good link thanks Portology. The subsidies of 3 billion is the discounted value of issuing tax exempt municipal bonds - which is standard in USA, but doesn't exist in Oz, which is a pity as it would be a great vehicle to get states and councils to issue bonds for much needed infrastructure and a good place for a large chunk of the $2 Trillion in Suerfunds rather than just the stock market and offshore. The federal subsidies in the USA the article talks about is not about cash grants from the federal government, like you get in Oz from the feds and state governments. The phrase Tax Expenditures is used in the Brookings Institute paper that I had a quick flick thru. Tax expenditures cover - exemptions of income, deductions for expenditure by taxpayers or tax credits given by the government to taxpayers.

The spreadsheet with the full data set that you can download for 45 stadiums is an excellent resource.

The study looked at the $13bil of tax exempt bonds issued by state and local governments with the issuing of Tax Exempt Municipal Bonds, which can be issued by state governments, city governments, county governments or agencies or utilities owned by these governments in the US. There are 45 stadiums they looked at with total costs of $27.8bil. 9 stadiums had no help from the bonds including 2 x $1bil+ stadiums ie the Giants/Jets one in NY/NJ and San Francsico 49ers. 6 were funded 90% or more by bond issues. 11 between 25% and 39.9% and the rest 50% or more. I can't believe the 55,000 seat Yankee Stadium cost $2,538m - $800m more than the 82,000 seat Giants/Jets Stadium.

The $3.2bil subsidy is calculated by having lower interest rates on tax exempt bonds versus private bonds or bank borrowings or other debt costs, basically the interest spread of taxable interest earned debt vs tax free interest earned debt, as well as capital raising cost would be cheaper for tax exempt bonds than other methods. They also say that when you factor in the tax exempt status of the interest received by the people who buy the bonds, the tax revenue lost by the feds takes that subsidy to $3.7bil.

The main thrust of the article is that the feds should not allow the issuing of Tax Exempt Municipal Bonds for the building of stadium infrastructure because the states and cities that dont have professional teams don't get any benefit out of this. They reckon states and local governments should raise taxes as well as issue bonds that are subject to tax on the interest received by the purchaser of the bonds. Like all these studies they never put a dollar figure for benefits to the intangibles associated with building these stadiums to get a true net marginal benefits/costs calculation. Costs are easy to calculate as most of them are tangible ie revenue lost, $$$ involved, but the benefits tend to be heavily swayed on the intangible side which are a lot harder to value. Look at AO, how do you value the intangibles associated with building this world class stadium in a city crying out for it??? Still a worthwhile study and not to be dismissed easily, but it doesnt tell you the full picture.

 

[Portology]

Yeah not being financially literate I've always seen AO like I saw the Grand Prix. The benefits for a precinct where "network effects" matter, ie you get a non linear benefit with increasing numbers of people over time, in this case the CBD, are obvious but hard to quantify precisely.

I remember how dead the East End was prior to the GP, times and business drivers have since changed but the GP was the jumpstart, hell it was the restoration project itself.

Puns intended I'll put the brakes on there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kwality]

Yeah not being financially literate I've always seen AO like I saw the Grand Prix. The benefits for a precinct where "network effects" matter, ie you get a non linear benefit with increasing numbers of people over time, in this case the CBD, are obvious but hard to quantify precisely.

I remember how dead the East End was prior to the GP, times and business drivers have since changed but the GP was the jumpstart, hell it was the restoration project itself.

Puns intended I'll put the brakes on there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Port, 3 of us came over for the West Coast Adelaide game, only the game drew us there. Airfares, taxi/Uber, accommodation, tickets, grog & food Fri night, Saturday & Sunday - no game, no trip.
$3000k + all up is my guess, was a guest so didn't do much damage to my pocket - most $s in the CBD
I do agree putting a dollar figure on it in the bigger picture is not easy.