Bulldogs want a 25-30k NEW stadium in Melbourne.

[Tiger2709]

...but only one that is successful

Well we wont be moving as we are to big to become another Tassie Hawks, but yeah we probably would be more popular with supporters than Hawthorn if we moved games to Tassie.

 

[fumbler]

...but only one that is successful

Yeah Tassie Tigers.

Let's face it, if you took Hawthorn out of Tassie suddenly the memberships at the Hawks would fall drop right off.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Well we wont be moving as we are to big to become another Tassie Hawks, but yeah we probably would be more popular with supporters than Hawthorn if we moved games to Tassie.

especially Hobart due to the Hobart Tigers

 

[fumbler]

especially Hobart due to the Hobart Tigers

The League down there dumped them and I think they're almost on their last legs down there.

The Tigers in the State League is Kingborough and they are s**t, shows you what happens when the league sticks it head where it's not needed or wanted.

 

[Hoops]

Lol, good luck getting that zoned. The residents may have a thing or two to say about it. It's nothing but suburbia in every direction as far as the eye can see.

It's surburbia, but if you can only accesss the stadium car park by car from the Freeway and with the close proximity to public transport can't see it being to bad for the locals. it's only a 20-25k stadium

 

[Hawkk]

Yeah Tassie Tigers.

Let's face it, if you took Hawthorn out of Tassie suddenly the memberships at the Hawks would fall drop right off.

Not quite.

Hawthorn has 8700 members in Tasmania.

Once the AFL run the audit on the Richmond figures they have a tendancy to lose 10,000 to 15,000 members every season (I blame the Tiger Insider memberships) but hey I'm just a numbers man

 

[Tas]

Renovate Etihad. Make it 35,000 capacity.

It doesn't need to be smaller, it needs fewer parties taking money away from the clubs. AFL has kicked in $30m for their right to take the stadium at the end of it's lease, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to what has been lost by clubs to facilitate the agreement over a 25 year period.

We just have to do the best we can during the remainder of the lease, or if humanly possible, buy it out close to it's expiry.

People need to understand how debilitating this agreement is, especially with the AFL and stadium owners competing against clubs for premium memberships.

The current owners take 15% of gross admission receipts, so this is an off the cuff stream that isn't factored to match day overheads, this is from people who pay at the gate. AFL takes 50% of the rest of this money, with the rest accounted for towards match day revenue.

AFL pays 75% of an adult admission price for AFL members to the stadium owner, clubs see nothing. There are approximately 2,000 seats available at Docklands available to AFL members, thankfully it isn't a significant amount, but contributes nothing to the revenue pool for clubs.

Clubs charged 15% of standard admission price for home club members that attend, it came back to our previous CEO saying we would make more money if they locked the gates and didn't let anyone in.

Owner gets 50% of seat reservation fees.

Owner gets 50% of general catering revenue.

Owner has sole control of the corporate boxes, club receives 75% of a standard admission price for a patron using a corporate box. This is a massive issue, there are 50 corporate boxes at Docklands, they range from 12 seats to 16 seats, the amount they cost is based on what kind of access they have to the better games. For example, the worst access B-Rating (St Kilda and Bulldog matches mostly, especially vs interstate teams) costs $4,240 +GST for a 16 person box, the A-Rating access (North, Carlton, Collingwood, some Essendon games) costs $5,760 +GST for a box of 16 people and for the Blockbuster category, costs $7,295 +GST per box of 16 (North vs Essendon and North vs Carlton the only two games to sell out at this category).

So General Admission is $25, so we would get $300 from a 16 man corporate box, Owner gets $7,724 inc GST, when you multiply that by 50 odd boxes it is a significant amount of money that doesn't go towards the gate. Our boxes sold out vs Essendon a few weeks ago and we would have made * all from that game.

Stadium owner has sole access to names rights revenue, parking, AFL has gifted them the pourage rights, it is no wonder clubs are never making any money there.

The appeal of a boutique stadium or just playing somewhere else the AFL hasn't ****ed up is that whatever money you make from the selling the games, you actually profit from. From the shitful amount they actually collect and count towards the gate, they take out the full operating costs, financing costs and owner profit margin on top, last year they made $25m profit on $75m revenue. The stadium is a complete farce and the AFL is the party at fault who signed this ludicrous deal prior to any club committing to facilitating it.

 

[Hawkk]

Well we wont be moving as we are to big to become another Tassie Hawks, but yeah we probably would be more popular with supporters than Hawthorn if we moved games to Tassie.

Well your not too big (LOL) or too proud to take handouts from the AFL and complain that Hawthorn and Collingwood arent getting taxed enough.

Neither are you too big to get 40,000 of your own supporters to matches that are not carried by Essendon, Collingwood or Carlton (we've only managed it something like 8 times against non Vic clubs in 5 years...probably more if we didnt play games in Tasmania).

Me thinks that you are stuck in 1982

 

[rocket18]

I am not having a go at the expansion clubs here as I firmly believe they are good for the game. But how they are talking about average crowds being down it is the fault of these clubs

No, it says more about the narrow mindedness of Victorian supporters who only go to watch their side play another Vic side, maybe they should grow up and realize it is a national comp now.

You should go along and support your club playing regardless of who you are playing.

It just highlights some of these smaller Vic clubs should move to the VFL.

 

[fumbler]

Not quite.

Hawthorn has 8700 members in Tasmania.

Once the AFL run the audit on the Richmond figures they have a tendancy to lose 10,000 to 15,000 members every season (I blame the Tiger Insider memberships) but hey I'm just a numbers man

Hawthorn has over 9000 Tasmanian members, that they can't afford to lose ........ what with that big move from Waverley coming up and all.

I'm sure you take lols on the Tigers inaccuracy in front of goals to be a blemish on our overstating members numbers, but we may have not won since 82 but we've never cheated our way to a flag.

 

[Hawkk]

Hawthorn has over 9000 Tasmanian members, that they can't afford to lose ........ what with that big move from Waverley coming up and all.

You must have different numbers, you must operate using the same magic pudding that the Tigers use to overstate their 10,000 members a season.

The reality is that Hawthorn had 8700 members last year and there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that they've got more than that figure this year

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Hawthorn/PDFs/2014 Hawthorn Report Finance.pdf

Good guess though

I'm sure you take lols on the Tigers inaccuracy in front of goals to be a blemish on our overstating members numbers, but we may have not won since 82 but we've never cheated our way to a flag.

Please go on...

Was the salary cap, the 50 metre arc and interchange bench even a thing when Richmond last made a GF? Surely lace up jumpers weren't in vogue were they?

 

[Spook]

Me thinks that you are stuck in 1982

More like 1983, when the finished 3 rd last after a GF loss the year before

 

[Bunk Moreland]

No, it says more about the narrow mindedness of Victorian supporters who only go to watch their side play another Vic side, maybe they should grow up and realize it is a national comp now.

You should go along and support your club playing regardless of who you are playing.

It just highlights some of these smaller Vic clubs should move to the VFL.

Doesn't really make sense.

I would say the difference in numbers you speak of is opposition supporters.

Another local club = more opposition supporters than an interstate club. Makes sense, really.

Say SA had a 250,000 seat stadium - which game do you think would get a bigger crowd: Adelaide v Port, or Adelaide v GWS? And why?

 

[DERIBERATE]

It doesn't need to be smaller, it needs fewer parties taking money away from the clubs. AFL has kicked in $30m for their right to take the stadium at the end of it's lease, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to what has been lost by clubs to facilitate the agreement over a 25 year period.

We just have to do the best we can during the remainder of the lease, or if humanly possible, buy it out close to it's expiry.

People need to understand how debilitating this agreement is, especially with the AFL and stadium owners competing against clubs for premium memberships.

The current owners take 15% of gross admission receipts, so this is an off the cuff stream that isn't factored to match day overheads, this is from people who pay at the gate. AFL takes 50% of the rest of this money, with the rest accounted for towards match day revenue.

AFL pays 75% of an adult admission price for AFL members to the stadium owner, clubs see nothing. There are approximately 2,000 seats available at Docklands available to AFL members, thankfully it isn't a significant amount, but contributes nothing to the revenue pool for clubs.

Clubs charged 15% of standard admission price for home club members that attend, it came back to our previous CEO saying we would make more money if they locked the gates and didn't let anyone in.

Owner gets 50% of seat reservation fees.

Owner gets 50% of general catering revenue.

Owner has sole control of the corporate boxes, club receives 75% of a standard admission price for a patron using a corporate box. This is a massive issue, there are 50 corporate boxes at Docklands, they range from 12 seats to 16 seats, the amount they cost is based on what kind of access they have to the better games. For example, the worst access B-Rating (St Kilda and Bulldog matches mostly, especially vs interstate teams) costs $4,240 +GST for a 16 person box, the A-Rating access (North, Carlton, Collingwood, some Essendon games) costs $5,760 +GST for a box of 16 people and for the Blockbuster category, costs $7,295 +GST per box of 16 (North vs Essendon and North vs Carlton the only two games to sell out at this category).

So General Admission is $25, so we would get $300 from a 16 man corporate box, Owner gets $7,724 inc GST, when you multiply that by 50 odd boxes it is a significant amount of money that doesn't go towards the gate. Our boxes sold out vs Essendon a few weeks ago and we would have made **** all from that game.

Stadium owner has sole access to names rights revenue, parking, AFL has gifted them the pourage rights, it is no wonder clubs are never making any money there.

The appeal of a boutique stadium or just playing somewhere else the AFL hasn't stuffed up is that whatever money you make from the selling the games, you actually profit from. From the shitful amount they actually collect and count towards the gate, they take out the full operating costs, financing costs and owner profit margin on top, last year they made $25m profit on $75m revenue. The stadium is a complete farce and the AFL is the party at fault who signed this ludicrous deal prior to any club committing to facilitating it.

Building a 56k stadium and having 19k rock up doesn't make money. All you're doing is searching for ways to drop the losses on someone else.

 

[rocket18]

Doesn't really make sense.

I would say the difference in numbers you speak of is opposition supporters.

Another local club = more opposition supporters than an interstate club. Makes sense, really.

Say SA had a 250,000 seat stadium - which game do you think would get a bigger crowd: Adelaide v Port, or Adelaide v GWS? And why?

The variance is minimal between playing port and playing an interstate club.

We still manage to get 40k + against GWS and GC with crappy timeslots as well.

Why do you need the opposition supporters to prop up your crowd numbers, if you don't have enough members willing to turn up to watch your team play each week perhaps some of these smaller clubs should move to the VFL.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The variance is minimal between playing port and playing an interstate club.

We still manage to get 40k + against GWS and GC with crappy timeslots as well.

Why do you need the opposition supporters to prop up your crowd numbers, if you don't have enough members willing to turn up to watch your team play each week perhaps some of these smaller clubs should move to the VFL.

Yes, I know.

I asked if you had a huge stadium. Much bigger than you needed.

Would you get 100k against Port?

Would you get 100k against GWS? Why?

 

[Father Jack]

If clubs want to play local opposition every week they can do that in the VFL, if they want a stadium that more properly reflects their supporter base they can do that in Hobart or Launceston, but if they really want to rely on handouts from actual national league standard clubs until the end of eternity then I guess they can stay in Melbourne and in the AFL.

 

[fumbler]

You must have different numbers, you must operate using the same magic pudding that the Tigers use to overstate their 10,000 members a season.

The reality is that Hawthorn had 8700 members last year and there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that they've got more than that figure this year

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Hawthorn/PDFs/2014 Hawthorn Report Finance.pdf

Good guess though



Please go on...

Was the salary cap, the 50 metre arc and interchange bench even a thing when Richmond last made a GF? Surely lace up jumpers weren't in vogue were they?

Think I got it from walhawk or something, no need to get precious about it.

Oh and the Tigers have always got what the Hawks want, a good training venue close to the City.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If clubs want to play local opposition every week they can do that in the VFL, if they want a stadium that more properly reflects their supporter base they can do that in Hobart or Launceston, but if they really want to rely on handouts from actual national league standard clubs until the end of eternity then I guess they can stay in Melbourne and in the AFL.

The local opposition argument is stupid.

Of course playing local opposition results in bigger crowds, as you have two seats of "home supporters"

See my SA example

It's not the issue here.

 

[Father Jack]

The local opposition argument is stupid.

Of course playing local opposition results in bigger crowds, as you have two seats of "home supporters"

See my SA example

It's not the issue here.

It is if you can't make any money out of the existing facilities without that local opposition support.

 

[rocket18]

Yes, I know.

I asked if you had a huge stadium. Much bigger than you needed.

Would you get 100k against Port?

Would you get 100k against GWS? Why?

Oh OK, doubt we would get 100k vs Port maybe 80k, would still only get 45k against GWS.

But that is sort of agreeing with my point, if your club can only muster 15k of its own supporters consistently in the national comp, its not good enough.

This is the Elite National Comp, if your club isn't big enough to stand on its own without been propped up by the opposition supporters it is off to play Port Melbourne with you.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It is if you can't make any money out of the existing facilities without that local opposition support.

What you’re doing is placing the responsibility for turning a profit from stadiums on the clubs, whilst not giving them any freedom to make decisions regarding to stadiums.

You would make one hell of a boss.

Many clubs are saddled with stadiums that are far too big for them, yet they have no ability to place games elsewhere.

You can’t blame them for a situation they didn’t create, and have no ability to change.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Oh OK, doubt we would get 100k vs Port maybe 80k, would still only get 45k against GWS.

But that is sort of agreeing with my point, if your club can only muster 15k of its own supporters consistently in the national comp, its not good enough.

This is the Elite National Comp, if your club isn't big enough to stand on its own without been propped up by the opposition supporters it is off to play Port Melbourne with you.

So it’s not a case of only showing up against opposition clubs. Which is a stupid argument which falls apart whenever anybody is questioned on it. Glad we have that sorted.

So what do you propose? An eight team national comp?

 

[Father Jack]

What you’re doing is placing the responsibility for turning a profit from stadiums on the clubs, whilst not giving them any freedom to make decisions regarding to stadiums.

You would make one hell of a boss.

Many clubs are saddled with stadiums that are far too big for them, yet they have no ability to place games elsewhere.

You can’t blame them for a situation they didn’t create, and have no ability to change.

That sounds awfully like they're either in the wrong league or in the wrong city to me, and both of those things they absolutely can change. No team has an absolute god given right to be in the AFL.

 

[walhawk]

Think I got it from walhawk or something, no need to get precious about it.

Oh and the Tigers have always got what the Hawks want, a good training venue close to the City.

Hey don't bring me into this. If you are argueing over who is better, Richmond or Hawthorn, then the answer is clearly Hawthorn.
Back to this rubbish that we need another stadium - we don't. Bulldogs make heaps of money form Etihad - divide their membership / reserved seating revenue by 10 and that is how much revenue that make each game. It is mischevious to sugges they make a loss. Just becsue they don't pull and extra from game day does not mean they make a loss on each game - they have already banked most of their revenue for that match.