Docklands (Etihad) stadium new AFL tenant club agreements

[EagleMan87]

Does it seem coincidental to you that the Etihad tenants are the ones who get this extra money?

Not at all, and that's what's worrying. Why does the AFL feel the need to hold the whip hand like that if the amounts are roughly the same?

The 'rich tax' is across the board, and more Vic clubs would pay it if they got better stadium deals.

As for funding grass roots...Yeah, you do that, but that's a payment to your franchise owners, not the AFL (nb. The AFL also gives WAFC and SANFL millions), so does nothing to fund the game in NSW, QLD or Tas...

Really? I thought the majority came from the WA/SA AFL clubs, but can't find any figures on that.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

A similar return on takings to what clubs get elsewhere.

A reasonable share of the profits the AFL is reaping from the ground. (i.e. the money they're using to pay off their debts).


Hell, as I suggested around 10 years ago, give all clubs 1 share in owning the ground for every home game they played there, and let those who bought it actually work out where the money goes.


Why should 'the rest of the league' get the benefits, when only a few clubs paid the price to buy it?

So your solutions are:

1) operate at a loss (ie subsidize etihad tenants permanently)

Or

2) give the etihad tenants a billion dollar asset the rest of the league paid for, for free

Why not just get 30k+ to your home games??

 

[sprockets]

The AFL IS the clubs, they aren't 'stealing' from the poor and giving to the rich.

 

[Dadadadaaaaaa]

Thank **** we have our own stadium and can avoid that black hole....

Oh wait, this is the AFL where only 1 team does not get to choose where they play its home games...

Guess we'll be subsidising other teams to sell their home games somewhere else and we'll be forced to make up their numbers again.

But yes, the AFL buy out was supposed to help those clubs margins... 10% increase in revenue is horrendous.

GO Catters

Your lucky bastards that your not stuck playing games at Concrete Dome. I applaud it though, Geelong is well and truly one of the biggest and best run clubs in Australia. All you need now is a premiership to top it all off.
Unlike most Victorian clubs you have well and truly made your intentions clear to the AFL and are getting rewarded with it. So many clubs just get taken advantage of by the AFL unfortunately.

 

[NoobPie]

Not at all, and that's what's worrying. Why does the AFL feel the need to hold the whip hand like that if the amounts are roughly the same?

Because they are not. The AFL is returning an extra 10% back to the tenant clubs and is paying off the debt to take advanced ownership three years ahead of when they would have contractually assumed ownership

They are also working with the Victorian government to have significant investment ($300M IRRC) to renew the immediate precinct which presumably was made more plausible through taking ownership earlier

 

[NoobPie]

The AFL IS the clubs, they aren't 'stealing' from the poor and giving to the rich.

Bingo

 

[EagleMan87]

Because they are not. The AFL is returning an extra 10% back to the tenant clubs and is paying off the debt to take advanced ownership three years ahead of when they would have contractually assumed ownership

They are also working with the Victorian government to have significant investment ($300M IRRC) to renew the immediate precinct which presumably was made more plausible through taking ownership earlier

The AFL will probably just reduce the yearly subsidies to those by that same amount though, so why not just give them an even better deal and reduce the subsidies even further?

I have no issue with the AFL trying to pay off the stadium, but I don't get why they need to keep low(relatively) the amount the Etihad tenants receive per game if they're just going to give them that money back at the end of the year.

 

[NoobPie]

The AFL will probably just reduce the yearly subsidies to those by that same amount though, so why not just give them an even better deal and reduce the subsidies even further?

I have no issue with the AFL trying to pay off the stadium, but I don't get why they need to keep low(relatively) the amount the Etihad tenants receive per game if they're just going to give them that money back at the end of the year.

Good point. Perhaps Essendon's presence complicates the deal

 

[Capt Hindsight]

Good point. Perhaps Essendon's presence complicates the deal

How does Essendon complicate new stadium agreements at Etihad?
Each club should get the exact same deal.
The only likely thing Essendon are going to do is try to play a few more home games at the MCG.

 

[Kwality]

I want the AFL to give those who bought the ground for them their due.

The problem is that a 50k stadium is not viable with crowds of less than 30k consistently, clubs that cant pull enough dollars game day.

 

[The 747]

Wonder if they might also have one eye on the future and look to establish another route for online distribution which would certainly decrease what they can obtain from a broadcasting deal from other parties

You would think so but again look at their web products. Time and time again I fall into the trap of assuming the AFL is a smart organisation and everytime they prove me wrong.

But in seriousness PayTV are paying a lot now because live sport is really the only thing that keeps them in business. And they probably pay more than they should because of that. Its reasonable to assume that disruption will occur with regard to live sport and broadcasts, and likely within this broadcast deal.

 

[The 747]

The problem is that a 50k stadium is not viable with crowds of less than 30k consistently, clubs that cant pull enough dollars game day.

The funny thing is that the 100K MCG is viable with much smaller crowds than the 50K stadium.

 

[Capt Hindsight]

The problem is that a 50k stadium is not viable with crowds of less than 30k consistently, clubs that cant pull enough dollars game day.

Yet it is somehow viable for A league side Melbourne Victory who in their entire existence have never averaged 30k a season and play a fair amount of their home games there. Last 5 seasons averaged between 20k and 26k for Melbourne Victory who could easily play all their home games at AAMI Park (Melbourne. rectangular stadium) which holds 30k.

 

[Kwality]

The funny thing is that the 100K MCG is viable with much smaller crowds than the 50K stadium.

All about the business model, reality is that most stadiums have different income sources e.g MCC membership subs.

 

[Kwality]

Yet it is somehow viable for A league side Melbourne Victory who in their entire existence have never averaged 30k a season and play most of their home games there. Last 5 seasons averaged between 20k and 26k for Melbourne Victory who could easily play all their home games at AAMI Park (Melbourne. rectangular stadium) which holds 30k.

Just goes to prove how poorly the AFL dealt with exiting Waverly, Docklands cherry picked the Bombers with a good deal based on more bums on seats & then along came the AFL and sat back as Docklands management offered a take it or leave it deal for the rest of the clubs.
The A- League deal came later, the private owners of Victory were far more canny with their own money & got a better deal potentially marginally costed
(http://smallbusiness.chron.com/diff...st-marginalcost-pricing-strategies-66005.html)

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The problem is that a 50k stadium is not viable with crowds of less than 30k consistently, clubs that cant pull enough dollars game day.

Answer is get more than 30k consistently

 

[The Prosecutor]

How does Essendon complicate new stadium agreements at Etihad?
Each club should get the exact same deal.
The only likely thing Essendon are going to do is try to play a few more home games at the MCG.

Essendon has a clause in it's contract which guarantees it receives the best deal.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Yet it is somehow viable for A league side Melbourne Victory who in their entire existence have never averaged 30k a season and play a fair amount of their home games there. Last 5 seasons averaged between 20k and 26k for Melbourne Victory who could easily play all their home games at AAMI Park (Melbourne. rectangular stadium) which holds 30k.

If it wasn't for the money I doubt they'd play there - it's a s**t venue for football, particularly when the seats aren't in. AAMI Park is so much better as a spectacle.

 

[blue harvest]

The problem is that a 50k stadium is not viable with crowds of less than 30k consistently, clubs that cant pull enough dollars game day.

With private owners making big profits through crappy club contracts it wasn't really viable for clubs that draw less than 30K.
But the AFL own it now, they can give the clubs a much better deal which makes it viable, however it appears they are being greedy by taking most of the profit themselves.

 

[Capt Hindsight]

Essendon has a clause in it's contract which guarantees it receives the best deal.

Then everyone gets an equally good deal.

 

[gopies1981]

The only way Essendon are going to be able to play more home games at the mcg is if Collingwood, Richmond and Melbourne play more home games at Etihad which ain't going to happen as it is Melbourne, Richmond and Collingwood play 9 home games at the mcg. Melbourne play two home games at the Northern Territory so they don't play at Etihad and Collingwood and Richmond want to play no games at Etihad at all. At the present time I cannot see Essendon's home games reduced from 7. My guess is that Essendon is trying to go for a 7 home game deal at the mcg and 4 home game deal at Etihad.

the afl should just increase the capacity of Etihad to 70,000 not sure if it can be done but then Essendon would be able to play 10 home games at the ground except when they play a home game on Anzac Day one year and dream time the next year. Collingwood and Richmond fans would start to go to the stadium as their will be plenty of ga walk ups and will not have to worry about booking a ticket.

 

[Upgrayedd]

The only way Essendon are going to be able to play more home games at the mcg is if Collingwood, Richmond and Melbourne play more home games at Etihad which ain't going to happen as it is Melbourne, Richmond and Collingwood play 9 home games at the mcg. Melbourne play two home games at the Northern Territory so they don't play at Etihad and Collingwood and Richmond want to play no games at Etihad at all. At the present time I cannot see Essendon's home games reduced from 7. My guess is that Essendon is trying to go for a 7 home game deal at the mcg and 4 home game deal at Etihad.

the afl should just increase the capacity of Etihad to 70,000 not sure if it can be done but then Essendon would be able to play 10 home games at the ground except when they play a home game on Anzac Day one year and dream time the next year. Collingwood and Richmond fans would start to go to the stadium as their will be plenty of ga walk ups and will not have to worry about booking a ticket.

Can't

Im assuming the purchase they'll attempt to shunt Hawthorn/Demons to have more games at Ethiad and give essendon 3-4 home games at the G

 

[WagonBang]

Yet it is somehow viable for A league side Melbourne Victory who in their entire existence have never averaged 30k a season and play a fair amount of their home games there. Last 5 seasons averaged between 20k and 26k for Melbourne Victory who could easily play all their home games at AAMI Park (Melbourne. rectangular stadium) which holds 30k.

Victory per season at Etihad averaging
2016/17: 30,079
2015/16: 28,900
2014/15: 35,618
2013/14: 26,907

Though they'd make a profit from 12k.

 

[Page8383]

Answer is get more than 30k consistently

I don't think you understand how the stadium deals work.
It's not about just getting numbers through the gates. Smaller clubs should be able to operate comfortably out of Etihad - the main problem is (under the old deal) tenants are only getting gate receipts. Food, parking etc went to Etihad under the Collins deal.
Therefore north would only make profit after 28000 had passed through the gates whilst the operator took / takes cash from other streams as payment for the AFLs debt on the stadium.
Clubs that deal with the MCC can negotiate on their own terms, helped by the fact they can draw larger crowds (and Melbourne FC being a permanent tenant) - there's no Afl debt to pay on that stadium.

Just saying "get more than 30k to games" doesn't add anything to the debate on stadium deals. There's a place for medium / small clubs in Victoria - not everyone club can be a powerhouse 70k+ member force.
The problem is the tenants at Etihad are not in control of their own destiny due to the leverage of the stadium the AFL has over them. The setup isn't wrong but it's the distribution of funds that needs tweaking.

The tenants are paying for Etihad because it's a new stadium - just because other clubs are playing at (relatively) clean stadiums owned by trusts or otherwise isn't argument to say that Etihad tenants are being subsidised by the AFL.

It's like paying off the mortgage of a house you might not necessarily want. Whereas other people have the option to rent elsewhere.
Richmond shut the door on Etihad about 5 years ago? Because they weren't locked in to the Etihad deal and had the ability to negotiate a decent deal (not as good as Collingwood) at the MCG through their larger supporter base

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't think you understand how the stadium deals work.
It's not about just getting numbers through the gates. Smaller clubs should be able to operate comfortably out of Etihad - the main problem is (under the old deal) tenants are only getting gate receipts. Food, parking etc went to Etihad under the Collins deal.
Therefore north would only make profit after 28000 had passed through the gates whilst the operator took / takes cash from other streams as payment for the AFLs debt on the stadium.
Clubs that deal with the MCC can negotiate on their own terms, helped by the fact they can draw larger crowds (and Melbourne FC being a permanent tenant) - there's no Afl debt to pay on that stadium.

Just saying "get more than 30k to games" doesn't add anything to the debate on stadium deals. There's a place for medium / small clubs in Victoria - not everyone club can be a powerhouse 70k+ member force.
The problem is the tenants at Etihad are not in control of their own destiny due to the leverage of the stadium the AFL has over them. The setup isn't wrong but it's the distribution of funds that needs tweaking.

The tenants are paying for Etihad because it's a new stadium - just because other clubs are playing at (relatively) clean stadiums owned by trusts or otherwise isn't argument to say that Etihad tenants are being subsidised by the AFL.

It's like paying off the mortgage of a house you might not necessarily want. Whereas other people have the option to rent elsewhere.
Richmond shut the door on Etihad about 5 years ago? Because they weren't locked in to the Etihad deal and had the ability to negotiate a decent deal (not as good as Collingwood) at the MCG through their larger supporter base

Most clubs dont get food or parking

Etihad is not a low cost stadium

It was never meant to be profitable for small crowds, otherwise it wouldnt be in docklands, have a roof that opens, have massive turf rotation, or a moveable stand

Increase your crowds like the dons do, and that solves your problems

If you need a small suburban ground to be profitable, go to the vfl