Play Nice 2019 Non AFL Admin, Crowds, Ratings, Participation etc thread

[NoobPie]

Is it plausible that the whole deal and backing could be susceptible to a laundering type deal or backer?

There was an international soccer magazine that recently published ten ways on how laundering works in the football game or something along these lines. It highlighted the asset stripping that is going on in England and some similar scenarios in Europe with developments.

I know it’s something we haven’t really seen in Australia but the whole deal seems fishy with the silent backers from the get go as well as one of the Directors companies will be building the ground in the future.

We probably haven't really seen it in Australia because you don't have privately owned soccer clubs with legacy ownership of stadium assets. You need to have assets to strip in the first place! The few semi pro soccer clubs that own their own stadium in Australia are actually clubs that can't be easily sold off to a would be asset stripper

Something is clearly not right with the Wyndham / Western United set up but I'd say the most likely scenario is people enthralled in delusions of grandeur. There is certainly no way that both public interest and commercial profit are being met here. I'd say there are some particularly gullible people pushing this within Wyndham Council. Either way, it is just a matter of what kind of "bad" this ends up playing out.

 

[Our Game]

Is it plausible that the whole deal and backing could be susceptible to a laundering type deal or backer?

There was an international soccer magazine that recently published ten ways on how laundering works in the football game or something along these lines. It highlighted the asset stripping that is going on in England and some similar scenarios in Europe with developments.

I know it’s something we haven’t really seen in Australia but the whole deal seems fishy with the silent backers from the get go as well as one of the Directors companies will be building the ground in the future.

Maybe the State Auditor General should take a look at the "deal"
It wouldn't be the first time a local council has been conned by property developers.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

We probably haven't really seen it in Australia because you don't have privately owned soccer clubs with legacy ownership of stadium assets. You need to have assets to strip in the first place! The few semi pro soccer clubs that own their own stadium in Australia are actually clubs that can't be easily sold off to a would be asset stripper

Something is clearly not right with the Wyndham / Western United set up but I'd say the most likely scenario is people enthralled in delusions of grandeur. There is certainly no way that both public interest and commercial profit are being met here. I'd say there are some particularly gullible people pushing this within Wyndham Council. Either way, it is just a matter of what kind of "bad" this ends up playing out.

You need to stop looking at this as a stadium deal and instead a suburban property development deal.

If you want to build a suburb (like Caroline Springs or Williams Landing were) you have to agree to build key pieces of community infrastructure as a part of this.

Some developments require that the developer build the public schools. As I previously posted, Wyndham were wanting this development previously anchored around a $50m aquatic centre

Where these deals go bad is if:

1) the developer runs out of coin (and you get a half built suburb

2) the council has a shitty deal (Caroline Springs for instance loop holed much of its schooling requirements by doing a side deal with a private school. Narre Warren had no requirement for schools and shops during the build up phase, so the developer left them pretty much till the end)

3) the development doesn't sell, so developer goes bust and council is left with unwanted social infrastructure

 

[NoobPie]

You need to stop looking at this as a stadium deal and instead a suburban property development deal.

If you want to build a suburb (like Caroline Springs or Williams Landing were) you have to agree to build key pieces of community infrastructure as a part of this.

Some developments require that the developer build the public schools. As I previously posted, Wyndham were wanting this development previously anchored around a $50m aquatic centre

Where these deals go bad is if:

1) the developer runs out of coin (and you get a half built suburb

2) the council has a shitty deal (Caroline Springs for instance loop holed much of its schooling requirements by doing a side deal with a private school. Narre Warren had no requirement for schools and shops during the build up phase, so the developer left them pretty much till the end)

3) the development doesn't sell, so developer goes bust and council is left with unwanted social infrastructure

That's precisely the way I am looking at it, which is what I meant by

There is certainly no way that both public interest and commercial profit are being met here.

A $50m aquatic centre provides substantial amenity to the people within its vicinity. A $200m 15,000 seat soccer stadium for a franchise that pulls barely 2,000 people to games in its first season where it sits third on the ladder provides very very little.

The annual capital and maintenance cost of such a facility would be over $20M a year on pretty generous assumptions. $20m a year. Western United matches will be lucky to cover the operating costs let-a-lone eat in to any of those capital and maintenance costs and only a fool would think a venue in Tarneit has any hope of drawing significant other revenues.

There is simply no way this project is a goer. So either foolish developers or (probably more likely) a foolish council are the only reason this goes ahead.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

You need to stop looking at this as a stadium deal and instead a suburban property development deal.

If you want to build a suburb (like Caroline Springs or Williams Landing were) you have to agree to build key pieces of community infrastructure as a part of this.

Some developments require that the developer build the public schools. As I previously posted, Wyndham were wanting this development previously anchored around a $50m aquatic centre

Where these deals go bad is if:

1) the developer runs out of coin (and you get a half built suburb

2) the council has a shitty deal (Caroline Springs for instance loop holed much of its schooling requirements by doing a side deal with a private school. Narre Warren had no requirement for schools and shops during the build up phase, so the developer left them pretty much till the end)

3) the development doesn't sell, so developer goes bust and council is left with unwanted social infrastructure

Which is probably why it is so ridiculous from the council. They may have blown a $150mil plus handout from the developers on a team stadium that no one cares about. You would also hope they have a 25 year guarantee or something on the actual team being around. Makes little sense and you think they could’ve gotten something better and more needed for the community.

As for it being corrupt I don’t think that makes any sense at all as it seems like a poor deal for everyone.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

That's precisely the way I am looking at it, which is what I meant by



A $50m aquatic centre provides substantial amenity to the people within its vicinity. A $200m 15,000 seat soccer stadium for a franchise that pulls barely 2,000 people to games in its first season where it sits third on the ladder provides very very little.

The annual capital and maintenance cost of such a facility would be over $20M a year on pretty generous assumptions. $20m a year. Western United matches will be lucky to cover the operating costs let-a-lone eat in to any of those capital and maintenance costs and only a fool would think a venue in Tarneit has any hope of drawing significant other revenues.

There is simply no way this project is a goer. So either foolish developers or (probably more likely) a foolish council are the only reason this goes ahead.

Pretty much this.

 

[NoobPie]

Which is probably why it is so ridiculous from the council. They may have blown a $150mil plus handout from the developers on a team stadium that no one cares about. You would also hope they have a 25 year guarantee or something on the actual team being around. Makes little sense and you think they could’ve gotten something better and more needed for the community.

As for it being corrupt I don’t think that makes any sense at all as it seems like a poor deal for everyone.

Exactly. But then what entity would that guarantee be with?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Exactly. But then what entity would that guarantee be with?

that’s the worry and the council would have to be absolute morons to not have foolproof guarantors to these developers, which would be surprising if they did. Just so much doesn’t add up.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

That's precisely the way I am looking at it, which is what I meant by



A $50m aquatic centre provides substantial amenity to the people within its vicinity. A $200m 15,000 seat soccer stadium for a franchise that pulls barely 2,000 people to games in its first season where it sits third on the ladder provides very very little.

The annual capital and maintenance cost of such a facility would be over $20M a year on pretty generous assumptions. $20m a year. Western United matches will be lucky to cover the operating costs let-a-lone eat in to any of those capital and maintenance costs and only a fool would think a venue in Tarneit has any hope of drawing significant other revenues.

There is simply no way this project is a goer. So either foolish developers or (probably more likely) a foolish council are the only reason this goes ahead.

Yet you have no idea of planned utilisation for it or actual running costs

Just because it's a rectangle doesn't mean it's evil

 

[Rob]

You need to stop looking at this as a stadium deal and instead a suburban property development deal.

If you want to build a suburb (like Caroline Springs or Williams Landing were) you have to agree to build key pieces of community infrastructure as a part of this.

Some developments require that the developer build the public schools. As I previously posted, Wyndham were wanting this development previously anchored around a $50m aquatic centre

I get all of this. But it still makes no sense that the developers would incur these huge losses on an A-League club that would hardly have been a determining factor as to the quality of the development.
Rec centres, entertainment precincts, parks....sure. But a soccer stadium? Never mind a $150 million soccer stadium that will be a money drain for decades? Surely the council would have said to the developers "How about you spend that money on something the community will actually use and we can sell"?

The only real explanation - and that's if the whole thing is propped up by the property development - is that the stadium is a complete work of fiction and will never get built. If they agreed to build a big * off rec centre then there will be pressure on the developers to actually deliver. But if they scrap the stadium, or at least only build stage 1 (i.e a pitch and 1 small grandstand), then no-one is really going to care. Especially because their crowds are rubbish and the developers can justify their decision.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I get all of this. But it still makes no sense that the developers would incur these huge losses on an A-League club that would hardly have been a determining factor as to the quality of the development.
Rec centres, entertainment precincts, parks....sure. But a soccer stadium? Never mind a $150 million soccer stadium that will be a money drain for decades? Surely the council would have said to the developers "How about you spend that money on something the community will actually use and we can sell"?

The only real explanation - and that's if the whole thing is propped up by the property development - is that the stadium is a complete work of fiction and will never get built. If they agreed to build a big fu** off rec centre then there will be pressure on the developers to actually deliver. But if they scrap the stadium, or at least only build stage 1 (i.e a pitch and 1 small grandstand), then no-one is really going to care. Especially because their crowds are rubbish and the developers can justify their decision.

Williams Landing cost $1.5b and was 330 odd hectares. This one property is 130 hectares, but looking at the council plans the redevelopment originally was intended to cover a similar size to Willams Landing (but no idea if that is part of what these guys are getting too)

They are making their coin on the billion dollars of cookie cutter houses they will sell.

 

[NoobPie]

Yet you have no idea of planned utilisation for it or actual running costs

No, all I have is the application of my own reason and available evidence which tell me for instance:
- there is no basis to assume any "planned utilisation" could plausibly expect any serious revenue from other sources (who is going to pay any serious money to utilise an open air stadium in Tarneit on the outskirts of a city that has several indoor facilities that can hold similar or much larger numbers?)
- there is no basis to assume that "actual running costs" will have any different nature to any other stadium

Do you have any alternative reasoned arguments with or without supporting evidence that contests either of these arguments?

Clearly not as, true to form, you went with this instead....

Just because it's a rectangle doesn't mean it's evil

....ad hominem pap that is a classic signal that Ned_Flanders has given up any hope of putting a credible case like an adult

FWIW I was supportive of the Melbourne Rectangular Stadium being built. It clearly filled a gap in Melbourne's armada of sporting infrastructure and is now very well utilised.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No, all I have is the application of my own reason and available evidence which tell me for instance:
- there is no basis to assume any "planned utilisation" could plausibly expect any serious revenue from other sources (who is going to pay any serious money to utilise an open air stadium in Tarneit on the outskirts of a city that has several indoor facilities that can hold similar or much larger numbers?)
- there is no basis to assume that "actual running costs" will have any different nature to any other stadium

Do you have any alternative reasoned arguments with or without supporting evidence that contests either of these arguments?

Clearly not as, true to form, you went with this instead....




....ad hominem pap that is a classic signal that Ned_Flanders has given up any hope of putting a credible case like an adult

FWIW I was supportive of the Melbourne Rectangular Stadium being built. It clearly filled a gap in Melbourne's armada of sporting infrastructure and is now very well utilised.

the idea that they plan to use a $150m asset will only be used for one a league teams home game only is insane. Its not viable for them, and its not viable for council. fact the council is endorsing this over their planned aquatic centre (which was rejected because of too many local alternatives) shows there must be something more behind this.

and as mr. pax ar you wouldnt be hit with the anti soccer tag if you didnt have form

 

[NoobPie]

the idea that they plan to use a $150m asset will only be used for one a league teams home game only is insane. Its not viable for them, and its not viable for council. fact the council is endorsing this over their planned aquatic centre (which was rejected because of too many local alternatives) shows there must be something more behind this.

Yep, there is no public evidence or any publicly made rational case for this to be sane. You apparently ultimately agree with this but somehow reach a different conclusion to everyone else - i.e. that there is some hidden information that completely changes everything!

A comical conclusion. No public evidence or case has been made this is viable for the developer and in the public interest at the same time.....but in the abence of this was should trust both the competency and integrity of both the developer and outer suburban council involved int he transaction. True comedy if you are just trolling, I'll pay that!

and as mr. pax ar you wouldnt be hit with the anti soccer tag if you didnt have form

Ahhh there you go again. You respond to someone pointing out an ad hominem attack with another ad hominem attack. The class of the guy!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yep, there is no public evidence or any publicly made rational case for this to be sane. You apparently ultimately agree with this but somehow reach a different conclusion to everyone else - i.e. that there is some hidden information that completely changes everything!

A comical conclusion. No public evidence or case has been made this is viable for the developer and in the public interest at the same time.....but in the abence of this was should trust both the competency and integrity of both the developer and outer suburban council involved int he transaction. True comedy if you are just trolling, I'll pay that!




Ahhh there you go again. You respond to someone pointing out an ad hominem attack with another ad hominem attack. The class of the guy!

The reason I disagree is unlike everyone else, i searched the web for stuff on this development

the council has been working on this since at least 2013, so the idea its a flight of fancy without any forethought or planning is just stupid

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

The reason I disagree is unlike everyone else, i searched the web for stuff on this development

the council has been working on this since at least 2013, so the idea its a flight of fancy without any forethought or planning is just stupid

Everything I have ever heard from Kate Roffey has made me less and less confident in the entire thing. She pretty much acknowledges that people are right to be concerned because no one knows what is going on yet can’t offer anything to ease those fears and you can only imagine that’s because there are genuine concerns that she hasn’t got the answers to. The only way she ever tries to justify it is by saying she loves the challenge of it all..... how anyone can put trust in her I have no idea (I have no idea of her achievements) and when people say they love the challenge you usually have to worry, especially when the entire thing revolves around someone else’s money.

 

[NoobPie]

The reason I disagree is unlike everyone else, i searched the web for stuff on this development

But why from all your research have you been unable to make any case for it that doesn't fall back on an assumption that everyone on board knows what they are doing?

the council has been working on this since at least 2013, so the idea its a flight of fancy without any forethought or planning is just stupid

Nobody here has asserted that there hasn't been any forethought. What is stupid is to assume that said "forethought" is of any professional quality

There is almost certainly fantastical thinking involved in this though. e

The only way to imagine this has being viable is for 10K plus crowds every week parlayed into dodgy economic measurements of "wider economic benefits"

The fact they started "working on this" in to 2013 is just a reminder of the demonstrated delusion in A League circles at the time following a couple of years of growth.

In terms of the FFA, 2013 is most famous for this ageless doosey....

'Football will be the biggest sport in Australia,' says FFA chief

The FFA chief executive David Gallop has declared that the game will become the biggest and most popular sport in Australia

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ned_Flanders]

But why from all your research have you been unable to make any case for it that doesn't fall back on an assumption that everyone on board knows what they are doing?



Nobody here has asserted that there hasn't been any forethought. What is stupid is to assume that said "forethought" is of any professional quality

There is almost certainly fantastical thinking involved in this though. e

The only way to imagine this has being viable is for 10K plus crowds every week parlayed into dodgy economic measurements of "wider economic benefits"

The fact they started "working on this" in to 2013 is just a reminder of the demonstrated delusion in A League circles at the time following a couple of years of growth.

In terms of the FFA, 2013 is most famous for this ageless doosey....

'Football will be the biggest sport in Australia,' says FFA chief

The FFA chief executive David Gallop has declared that the game will become the biggest and most popular sport in Australia

www.theguardian.com

they havent been working with the a league since 2013, they have been working to develop this location as a suburb since 2013, learn to read pax ar

 

[manicmagpie]

Another ‘pretty normal’ crowd for a day 3 of a test match:

 

[manicmagpie]

If 20k show up for Day 4 this Test will have outdrawn the previous 3 Tests from this season combined.

 

[jatz14]

If 20k show up for Day 4 this Test will have outdrawn the previous 3 Tests from this season combined.

I would be impressed if I cared.

 

[NoobPie]

they havent been working with the a league since 2013, they have been working to develop this location as a suburb since 2013, learn to read pax ar

Wow, all you have is nasty left

Your comment was ambiguous as to what Wyndham have been "working on since 2013".

It just means that they have pulled into the thrall of the a league delusion more recently.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Wow, all you have is nasty left

Your comment was ambiguous as to what Wyndham have been "working on since 2013".

It just means that they have pulled into the thrall of the a league delusion more recently.

As I already posted, they had a tender to redevelop this land a few years ago, before the a league interest

Again, learn to read and stop playing the victim pax

 

[Gigantor]

Whenever any local council gets involved in any land deal which looks dodgy, a good starting point is that it's probably dodgy.

 

[NoobPie]

Whenever any local council gets involved in any land deal which looks dodgy, a good starting point is that it's probably dodgy.

Succinctly put!

As I already posted, they had a tender to redevelop this land a few years ago, before the a league interest

Again, learn to read and stop playing the victim pax

Not playing the victim, just pointing out your name calling which is now four times without any provocation other than casually and effortlessly pulling apart your "argument"

The fact that you are calling me a name derived from a tongue in cheek comment I made probably 2 or 3 years ago suggests an unhealthy hang up which is probably behind the anger you are exhibiting today

I'm sorry for whatever you think I've done to you previously but I recommend you take a rain-check now for your own good