AFL Close to Purchasing Etihad

[Inferno]

People who complain about Etihad have a romantic view of the G and are never going to be satisfied as long as they aren't playing at the G.

Barring Adelaide Oval and the G, Etihad is as good as any stadium in the league. It's in a great location, easy to get to, has really good facilities and has great sight lines from basically everywhere.

If you don't think so, go to Subiaco, the SCG or the Gabba one time.

I don't know what people expect location wise. Short of taking out an entire city block somewhere along Swanson St how can a stadium be any more central?

It's a bit of a soulless stadium but the AFL seem fully aware of that and hopefully should fix it up a bit. Besides that there's nothing majorly wrong with the venue.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I can walk to both grounds. It's not an argument and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The place is maligned for a reason and the criticisms are fair in my opinion.

The criticisms are fair. It's a sterile environment, no parkland around so you can't kick the footy before/after the game, takes forever to get in when there's a big crowd and the surface is like concrete. The issues especially with the entry times and surface go back to its inception and these perceptions stick even though they've improved.

 

[The Unforgiven]

So what?

So... it's in a great location from the perspective of accessibility. You say it's in a s**t location; in what way were you referring to its location as being s**t?

 

[mightymouse75]

It's in a perfect spot. Some people are never happy

 

[Kwality]

No as in from concerts, cricket, soccer etc

not currently using the venue like concerts, international speedway, A League, darts etc .... hang on the current owners bank those dollars.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL will want as much summer sport as it can get - this is where the true savings are to be made - no money from that to the clubs, thats all general revenue.



Lol no they wont. And you know this already. Docklands draws much revenue that the AFL doesnt has access to, while the AFL has revenues its entitled to that Docklands doesnt get, and the clubs get revenues that neither the AFL nor Docklands get. Even if the clubs get better deals, there should be an overall net increase in revenue - particularly given the AFL wont be paying off debt, which MSL currently is.

It does if you can add 1+1 and stop trying to to make it something it isnt.

Revenue is but one line, then there is the cost required to earn that revenue, fixed & variable ... profit is the only thing that can be shared, not revenue.

 

[The_Wookie]

Revenue is but one line, then there is the cost required to earn that revenue, fixed & variable ... profit is the only thing that can be shared, not revenue.

Doesnt change a thing about what I said. Its general afl revenue - no money to the clubs from it. Its quite amazing how you find ways to disagree with stuff,

 

[theyellowsash]

not currently using the venue like concerts, international speedway, A League, darts etc .... hang on the current owners bank those dollars.

so when the afl become the owners, then they can bank them dollars. simples.

 

[Kwality]

Doesnt change a thing about what I said. Its general afl revenue - no money to the clubs from it. Its quite amazing how you find ways to disagree with stuff,

Revenue as a measure ..... great for the fiscally naïve ....

 

[telsor]

Revenue as a measure ..... great for the fiscally naïve ....

This is true...as I've mentioned to you a few times with club financials.

As for fixed/variable costs, this is also a factor, but given the biggest fixed cost (owning/upkeeping the stadium itself) wont change much with the extra usage, any extra revenue from whatever source would likely to be gravy.

 

[Kwality]

This is true...as I've mentioned to you a few times with club financials.

As for fixed/variable costs, this is also a factor, but given the biggest fixed cost (owning/upkeeping the stadium itself) wont change much with the extra usage, any extra revenue from whatever source would likely to be gravy.

Gravy as reflected in the current owners financials ?

 

[telsor]

Gravy as reflected in the current owners financials ?

Undoubtedly.

Doesn't mean they make mega profits, just that they have some off season revenue that is higher yielding if the fixed costs were considered to be all paid by the AFL clubs.

 

[Kwality]

Seems the Vic Govt contribution to the purchase is holding up the AFL, now between a rock (the Oct 31 final list lodgement) & a hard place (the AFLPA).

Bit of advice for the AFL, toss in a private box for the United Firefighters & Dan will throw the piggy bank your way, but no right of veto on goal reviews please !!

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-players-want-etihad-stadium-sale-details-before-settling-pay-deal-20160923-grndp1.html

The AFL is expected to finalise the sale of the Docklands Stadium ...... has indicated that it is not prepared to release some confidential details to the AFLPA of that sensitive negotiation, which involves the Victorian government.

 

[telsor]

Seems the Vic Govt contribution to the purchase is holding up the AFL, now between a rock (the Oct 31 final list lodgement) & a hard place (the AFLPA).

Bit of advice for the AFL, toss in a private box for the United Firefighters & Dan will throw the piggy bank your way, but no right of veto on goal reviews please !!

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-players-want-etihad-stadium-sale-details-before-settling-pay-deal-20160923-grndp1.html

The AFL is expected to finalise the sale of the Docklands Stadium ...... has indicated that it is not prepared to release some confidential details to the AFLPA of that sensitive negotiation, which involves the Victorian government.

Love the firefighters comment

But yeah, with the AFLPA wanting a share of total revenue, issues like this are a big stumbling block....For example, do the players get a share of what the BBL pays to rent the ground once the AFL owns it?

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFLPA shouldnt need or get the details either.

 

[Kwality]

The AFLPA shouldnt need or get the details either.

so true. How compromised are the AFL to be in this position ?

 

[The_Wookie]

so true. How compromised are the AFL to be in this position ?

I dont think they are at this point. Ive no idea what the AFLPA hope to gain out of it - they wouldnt be entitled to any money being granted by the government for a stadium refit or purchase anyway.

 

[telsor]

I dont think they are at this point. Ive no idea what the AFLPA hope to gain out of it - they wouldnt be entitled to any money being granted by the government for a stadium refit or purchase anyway.

The gain is more money for the players.

There are two issues...The more public one, which is the % of revenue, and the less discussed one which is what qualifies as 'revenue' for that purpose.

Naturally, the AFLPA want for both the highest percentage, and the broadest base possible.

To get back to the point at hand though, regardless of where the line is draw for what is and isn't revenue, the AFLPA (or their accountants) would want to be able to inspect the deal to check if it does, or doesn't, get included.



Regardless, it's kinda dumb though....If Docklands gets a 'tax' by the AFLPA on revenue (however it's calculated) because the AFL owns the ground, and all other grounds only get a tax on the revenue that makes it's way to clubs (that being net of expenses, operator profits and the like), then it would both be grossly unfair, and would probably have a significant impact on the AFL decision on if they should buy the ground out early. The result should be that grounds are treated the same way (or as near as possible to)....Not that the AFL will see it that way if they can see a way of extracting more money for themselves.

 

[NoobPie]

The gain is more money for the players.

There are two issues...The more public one, which is the % of revenue, and the less discussed one which is what qualifies as 'revenue' for that purpose.

Naturally, the AFLPA want for both the highest percentage, and the broadest base possible.

To get back to the point at hand though, regardless of where the line is draw for what is and isn't revenue, the AFLPA (or their accountants) would want to be able to inspect the deal to check if it does, or doesn't, get included.



Regardless, it's kinda dumb though....If Docklands gets a 'tax' by the AFLPA on revenue (however it's calculated) because the AFL owns the ground, and all other grounds only get a tax on the revenue that makes it's way to clubs (that being net of expenses, operator profits and the like), then it would both be grossly unfair, and would probably have a significant impact on the AFL decision on if they should buy the ground out early. The result should be that grounds are treated the same way (or as near as possible to)....Not that the AFL will see it that way if they can see a way of extracting more money for themselves.

Surely the point is that if the AFL purchase the ground this could have a significant impact on the "net revenue (?)" upon which the AFLPA EBA is negotiated. I can't profess to know much about this but if it is based on total net revenue for the league and clubs then there is every chance that it could change. The poor returns for AFL clubs at the Docklands could plausible change significantly following the AFL purchase. Under the long term contract that ensured the building of the stadium, the AFL clubs were effectively paying off the capital investment and return on capital with the stadium management then able to rent the ground out for other uses at or near marginal cost.

How was this treated in the previous EBA? Was there some approach that ensured that the different nature of stadium ownership did not affect this calculation?

If there is any chance that the change in ownership could change the calculation then the AFLP have every right to access this information and consider it as part of their negotiations. AFL footballers likely get a smaller share of league revenues than any other professional league in the world. It is surely the only professional league whose CEO earns significantly more than the highest paid player

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/f1430c208e9b9cf67b3609eab3797a35

 

[telsor]

Surely the point is that if the AFL purchase the ground this could have a significant impact on the "net revenue (?)" upon which the AFLPA EBA is negotiated. I can't profess to know much about this but if it is based on total net revenue for the league and clubs then there is every chance that it could change. The poor returns for AFL clubs at the Docklands could plausible change significantly following the AFL purchase. Under the long term contract that ensured the building of the stadium, the AFL clubs were effectively paying off the capital investment and return on capital with the stadium management then able to rent the ground out for other uses at or near marginal cost.

As I said, it depends on what counts as revenue.
If (for example, using totally made up figures), Docklands, once in AFL hands, brings in $60M/year from football, and $40M a year from other sources, of which $80M is expenses of various sorts, what do the players get a percentage of?
a) The total revenue of $100M
b) football revenue of $60M
c) net revenue of $20M
d) footballs share of net revenue of $12M
e) $0 because it's not a 'standard' form of revenue.

All could be argued

How was this treated in the previous EBA? Was there some approach that ensured that the different nature of stadium ownership did not affect this calculation?

The previous EBA didn't include a % of revenue, just a flat figure.

If there is any chance that the change in ownership could change the calculation then the AFLP have every right to access this information and consider it as part of their negotiations. AFL footballers likely get a smaller share of league revenues than any other professional league in the world. It is surely the only professional league whose CEO earns significantly more than the highest paid player

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/f1430c208e9b9cf67b3609eab3797a35

Yes, the AFLPA would need to see such things, and avoiding that would be a big concern for the AFL for a variety of reasons.

As for the & players get, perhaps true, but the AFL does more than 'just' run the league...Do these other sports you refer to spend nearly as much on development for example?

 

[NoobPie]

As I said, it depends on what counts as revenue.
If (for example, using totally made up figures), Docklands, once in AFL hands, brings in $60M/year from football, and $40M a year from other sources, of which $80M is expenses of various sorts, what do the players get a percentage of?
a) The total revenue of $100M
b) football revenue of $60M
c) net revenue of $20M
d) footballs share of net revenue of $12M
e) $0 because it's not a 'standard' form of revenue.

All could be argued



The previous EBA didn't include a % of revenue, just a flat figure.



Yes, the AFLPA would need to see such things, and avoiding that would be a big concern for the AFL for a variety of reasons.

As for the & players get, perhaps true, but the AFL does more than 'just' run the league...Do these other sports you refer to spend nearly as much on development for example?

In terms of the "which revenue" figure, I took from your last post that it would be a "net revenue" figure. Intuitively, I would have thought some form of "(d)" would be correct, but it would be highly contentious what that is. Your example assumes that expenses are attributed in equal proportion to football and other commercial activities. Historically, under private management, this has not been the case with capital related expenses being attributed to AFL games resulting in the famously poor returns to clubs.

In terms of the AFL contribution to development, that is true. The AFL is not directly comparable to other "Leagues" because it has broader functions (including, in addition to development, to the management of state leagues outside of WA and SA). This is in part due of course to the negotiated sacrifice of the players.

You read McLauglan's CV and it is hard to see how he is worthy of a multi-million dollar salary the best players could never earn.

 

[telsor]

In terms of the "which revenue" figure, I took from your last post that it would be a "net revenue" figure. Intuitively, I would have thought some form of "(d)" would be correct, but it would be highly contentious what that is. Your example assumes that expenses are attributed in equal proportion to football and other commercial activities. Historically, under private management, this has not been the case with capital related expenses being attributed to AFL games resulting in the famously poor returns to clubs.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was just speculating based on what little has been in the media.

As for the use of 'd'...If the AFL 'transferred' ownership/control to a WAFC like body (but for Vic obviously) to fund/develop the VFL and other state initiatives, would that revenue be excluded, just like revenue from Subi presumably is? Taking revenue from one ground, but not others effectively puts a tax on the users of that ground (which kinda sucks for the clubs who have spent all this time paying for it to still end up with a far crappier deal than everyone else gets).

In terms of the AFL contribution to development, that is true. The AFL is not directly comparable to other "Leagues" because it has broader functions (including, in addition to development, to the management of state leagues outside of WA and SA). This is in part due of course to the negotiated sacrifice of the players.

Personally, I'd like to separate the league from the 'other' duties it has, but realistically, that wont happen, and that being the case, straight comparisons to other 'professional leagues' just don't fit.

 

[Kwality]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was just speculating based on what little has been in the media.
..

Personally, I'd like to separate the league from the 'other' duties it has, but realistically, that wont happen, and that being the case, straight comparisons to other 'professional leagues' just don't fit.

Roger that, I cant help think the AFL don't like outsiders aka fans to be able to make year on year comparisons, prefer us to accept the spin doctor press release telling us what the AFL want us to believe.
& telsor, be assured I don't believe the WAFC are any better.

 

[telsor]

Roger that, I cant help think the AFL don't like outsiders aka fans to be able to make year on year comparisons, prefer us to accept the spin doctor press release telling us what the AFL want us to believe.
& telsor, be assured I don't believe the WAFC are any better.

That and decoupling the 'development' of the game from which teams they seem to be favoring, be that reality or perception.

Having it all under the one umbrella means they can shuffle too much around without explanation or scrutiny.


I don't think the WAFC system is perfect, but it does seem to be better. Certainly better than what happens in Vic.

 

[Gigantor]

There's a thread on the main board saying that the AFL has negotiated to purchase Etihad by Christmas for $200 mill.

A couple of tweets quoted.

Nothing on the AFL site on it.