Docklands contract buyout speculation

[telsor]

actively compete is how I would describe it, more so the AFL with the clubs - those who reject their club in favour of the AFL Members get described as club members & the clubs cop it, Ben Dover style cos there is a dollar in it.

Partly because there is a dollar in it, but I think it's mostly because they have no choice in the matter. Why upset those in charge over something that isn't going to change, far better to save what political capital you have for issues that might achieve something, however small.

 

[Kwality]

Partly because there is a dollar in it, but I think it's mostly because they have no choice in the matter. Why upset those in charge over something that isn't going to change, far better to save what political capital you have for issues that might achieve something, however small.

Pragmatic* .... Eddie is the only one to make his views public
Collingwood president Eddie McGuire says he is sick of the AFL trying to "steal" his club's members,
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mcguire-lashes-out-on-mcg-ticket-sales-20120906-25g6j.html#ixzz44STCRO56

* try discussing the issue on BigFooty, & you'll see the muddle headed to the fore.

 

[telsor]

Pragmatic* .... Eddie is the only one to make his views public
Collingwood president Eddie McGuire says he is sick of the AFL trying to "steal" his club's members,
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mcguire-lashes-out-on-mcg-ticket-sales-20120906-25g6j.html#ixzz44STCRO56

* try discussing the issue on BigFooty, & you'll see the muddle headed to the fore.

Not just BF...I went away for the weekend and discussed this in the car with an AFL member for a while...We ended up 'agreeing to disagree'.

Note, that article is 3.5 years old...nothing has been said or done since to my knowledge... Seems even Eddie realised it was hopeless.

 

[MightyHawks]

Don't the MCC & Etihad management offer their own packages with/without a box ?

Both Venues control all corporate suites

They sell boxes on a match by match basis, but most boxes are sold to companies for the entire year

The MCG and Etihad wouldn't sell a Corporate Box for an individual match without catering

 

[Rob]

Even if they sell the same amount, a bigger % return can still provide significant improvements.

e.g. Medallion club.
Lets say that 'only' 1000 seats are sold (from memory, that'd be about 20% capacity, so not much).

Currently the clubs would get $18,750 from that (GA of $25 * 0.75).
If they instead got 75% of a reserved seat sale, they'd get $48,750 (level 2 seat of $65 * 0.75)

Same number of seats sold, at the same prices, but the better return means another 30K on that alone even though it'd be practically empty.

They're reasonable assumptions a standard Dogs or Roos match at Etihad - but it's bugger all money, and it's also assuming the AFL will simply hand over those seats for next to nothing. $30k a game is a paltry $330k a year.

It'd also give the clubs more incentive to try and get bigger crowds and upsell tickets....Currently a lot of games 'only' get the minimum $100K return...getting another 1,000 people in or selling another corporate box wont change that, so why bother? by increasing the returns, you lower the break even point, making getting those extra sales worth it for the clubs (and fans would know that their money would get to the club, so would be more inclined to go as well).


Clubs aren't going to make millions more on a tiny crowd, but even the smallest Vic clubs average about 25K per home game or over a quarter of a million people per season...Another $4 return per person on average works out to a million dollars, ~$10 would cover the to 'extra support' of all Vic clubs (bar St Kilda, but they're a separate issue).

That is true, but given most crowds are mostly members, that's up to the club to charge and collect, and the incentive is already there as clubs keep their membership income.
There's no reason they'd charge $100 more for a membership after the AFL takes ownership. Why wouldn't they do it now? (I know the answer to that btw, and i'd imagine you do as well)

 

[Rob]

Both Venues control all corporate suites

That's not true. I haven't checked all AFL clubs' websites, but the ones I have checked all advertise corporate suites available to purchase directly off the club.

 

[MightyHawks]

That's not true. I haven't checked all AFL clubs' websites, but the ones I have checked all advertise corporate suites available to purchase directly off the club.

Where do you think the football clubs buy their suites from?

 

[Rob]

Where do you think the football clubs buy their suites from?

Uh.....so? You think they should just be given them for free?

 

[MightyHawks]

Uh.....so? You think they should just be given them for free?

I said both venues control all corporate suites because that's what happens (it has nothing to do with home or away teams)

You looked up the internet and saw that say St Kilda Football Club sell Corporate Suites and assumed that the Clubs must control them or something

But St Kilda sell a corporate suite for all events at the MCG because St Kilda have bought one suite from the MCG

When St Kildas contract comes up for renewal, the MCG can decide whether or not they want to sell it to St Kilda again as the MCG control all Corporate suites

 

[MightyHawks]

Pragmatic* .... Eddie is the only one to make his views public
Collingwood president Eddie McGuire says he is sick of the AFL trying to "steal" his club's members,
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mcguire-lashes-out-on-mcg-ticket-sales-20120906-25g6j.html#ixzz44STCRO56

* try discussing the issue on BigFooty, & you'll see the muddle headed to the fore.

Is this the article that Eddie says how unfair it is that Collingwood control the public section in the Ponsford Stand for all their Home and Away matches?

No?

Wonder why he didn't talk about that...

How unfair is it that Collingwood can market the Ponsford Stand in competition against the Home club

 

[Rob]

I said both venues control all corporate suites because that's what happens (it has nothing to do with home or away teams)

You looked up the internet and saw that say St Kilda Football Club sell Corporate Suites and assumed that the Clubs must control them or something

But St Kilda sell a corporate suite for all events at the MCG because St Kilda have bought one suite from the MCG

When St Kildas contract comes up for renewal, the MCG can decide whether or not they want to sell it to St Kilda again as the MCG control all Corporate suites

So how is that different to every other stadium in the world? You're talking like it's some sort of unfair deal. Of course the owner of the stadium ultimately controls everything in the stadium - that's why you sign a usage agreement. If you want corporate suites to sell, then you negotiate with the stadium manager to let you sell them.
What's the issue here?

 

[MightyHawks]

So how is that different to every other stadium in the world? You're talking like it's some sort of unfair deal. Of course the owner of the stadium ultimately controls everything in the stadium - that's why you sign a usage agreement. If you want corporate suites to sell, then you negotiate with the stadium manager to let you sell them.
What's the issue here?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding at Domain Stadium is that all (or nearly all) Corporate suites are allocated to the Home team, and the clubs make good money selling them

At the MCG its completely different - if your company has a suite its yours for the whole year. The Home team has no suites because they are the home team

The home team has access to a number of dining rooms - more than any club really needs other than ANZAC Day

 

[Rob]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding at Domain Stadium is that all (or nearly all) Corporate suites are allocated to the Home team, and the clubs make good money selling them

Yes.....that both teams pay millions of dollars a year for.

At the MCG its completely different - if your company has a suite its yours for the whole year. The Home team has no suites because they are the home team

The home team has access to a number of dining rooms - more than any club really needs other than ANZAC Day

I'm sure if any club paid the MCG for those facilities then they'd be able to on sell them.

Funnily enough, I have noticed that some clubs are selling corporate suites not just to their own games, but other games as well. Maybe that's part of the deal - you get access to certain facilities for all games, not just yours.

 

[MightyHawks]

Funnily enough, I have noticed that some clubs are selling corporate suites not just to their own games, but other games as well. Maybe that's part of the deal - you get access to certain facilities for all games, not just yours.

I'm not sure why you are finding the concept so challenging to understand...

The MCG sell most suites for the entire year - if you buy one then its your suite for the whole year

So.... Melbourne Football Club buy a suite for the whole year

That means the MFC get the use of that suite for MFC Home games, MFC Away games, all other AFL matches including finals, in fact they get it for soccer and cricket as well because the MFC have bought a suite for the whole year

So.... Collingwood Football Club buy a suite for the whole year

That means the CFC get the use of that suite for CFC Home games, CFC Away games, all other AFL matches including finals, in fact they get it for soccer and cricket as well because the CFC have bought a suite for the whole year

Its so much your suite that if you want to have a board meeting in your suite when there isn't an event on at the MCG then you can do that too

 

[telsor]

They're reasonable assumptions a standard Dogs or Roos match at Etihad - but it's bugger all money, and it's also assuming the AFL will simply hand over those seats for next to nothing. $30k a game is a paltry $330k a year.

A standard (well average) Dogs or Roos match at Docklands is a little over 50% full, so assuming the medallion club is at a similar level, that would be about 2.5 times that. (ie 75K/match or 825K/year).

That's also only one element of it, used because it's a simple and obvious example.

Docklands interest is ~16.7M...AFL attendance ~1.3M, so that's ~$13 per patron going on interest alone (nb, this doesn't include repayments). For an 'average' Dogs or Roos game, returning that to the clubs would mean about $325K per match or about $3.5M per year. Add in the debt principle repayments and you could double that.

That is true, but given most crowds are mostly members, that's up to the club to charge and collect, and the incentive is already there as clubs keep their membership income.
There's no reason they'd charge $100 more for a membership after the AFL takes ownership. Why wouldn't they do it now? (I know the answer to that btw, and i'd imagine you do as well)

So pushing more 3 game members towards getting 11 game memberships wouldn't matter? or reserved seat sales/upgrades?
Also, attendance does matter, even if the seats are already paid for...Food and beverage payments aren't insignificant.

 

[Rob]

I'm not sure why you are finding the concept so challenging to understand...

The MCG sell most suites for the entire year - if you buy one then its your suite for the whole year

So.... Melbourne Football Club buy a suite for the whole year

That means the MFC get the use of that suite for MFC Home games, MFC Away games, all other AFL matches including finals, in fact they get it for soccer and cricket as well because the MFC have bought a suite for the whole year

So.... Collingwood Football Club buy a suite for the whole year

That means the CFC get the use of that suite for CFC Home games, CFC Away games, all other AFL matches including finals, in fact they get it for soccer and cricket as well because the CFC have bought a suite for the whole year

Its so much your suite that if you want to have a board meeting in your suite when there isn't an event on at the MCG then you can do that too

I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand why it's such a problem.

 

[MightyHawks]

I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand why it's such a problem.

Your previous comments have consistently demonstrated that you haven't understood the situation

 

[Rob]

Your previous comments have consistently demonstrated that you haven't understood the situation

Your problem (correct me if i'm wrong) is that if a club wants to sell corporate suites, they need to 'rent' them off the MCG for the year in order to on sell the,.

I don't see why such a commercial deal is a problem. If you think such an arrangement is bad, then don't get into it.

 

[MightyHawks]

Your problem (correct me if i'm wrong) is that if a club wants to sell corporate suites, they need to 'rent' them off the MCG for the year in order to on sell the,.

I don't see why such a commercial deal is a problem. If you think such an arrangement is bad, then don't get into it.

There's no problem with that at all - the competing club don't need loads of suites as they don't need all the dining rooms that are available to them

Clubs only do it as they can make money from it

The topic came up as Old mate in the thread seems to think the home club should have it all or the venue should be paying the home club significant revenues from the suites

 

[Rob]

There's no problem with that at all - the competing club don't need loads of suites as they don't need all the dining rooms that are available to them

Clubs only do it as they can make money from it

The topic came up as Old mate in the thread seems to think the home club should have it all or the venue should be paying the home club significant revenues from the suites

Isn't that a good deal though, especially for the small clubs? You only have to pay for the facilities that you can on sell.

Would have thought that would be better than having to pay for everything only to see a lot of it unsold and empty on matchday.

 

[telsor]

There's no problem with that at all - the competing club don't need loads of suites as they don't need all the dining rooms that are available to them

Clubs only do it as they can make money from it

The topic came up as Old mate in the thread seems to think the home club should have it all or the venue should be paying the home club significant revenues from the suites

I assume you're referring to me, and I was pretty clear about it being a very simple example of where more revenue could be handed over to the clubs.

I believe I said something about 75% of the revenue received...Would it make you happy if I changed that to 75% of NET revenue received?

Doesn't really matter though, the point was that when the ground has lower costs, it will be able to return significantly more money to the clubs.

 

[MightyHawks]

I assume you're referring to me, and I was pretty clear about it being a very simple example of where more revenue could be handed over to the clubs.

I believe I said something about 75% of the revenue received...Would it make you happy if I changed that to 75% of NET revenue received?

Doesn't really matter though, the point was that when the ground has lower costs, it will be able to return significantly more money to the clubs.

Yes you are very clear in your opinions on how the corporate areas and $$$ could be restructured, but you consistently demonstrate very little understanding of how things currently work...

Most of the value in a corporate suite at the MCG lies in the finals series and specifically the Grand Final

As most suites are sold to companies for a 3-5 year period, it means that very few suites are actually available for individual purchase. This lack of supply keeps the price up so they can charge more for individual games - which makes it extremely difficult to determine what the actual value of a suite is for a match

If say the MCG sold Corporate suites for all events other than Home and Away games leaving clubs to sell their own Home matches then most of the suites would be empty for most matches as the clubs would struggle to sell them

Richmond have ample opportunity to make more money
1. get your huge supporter base to buy more reserved seats
2. get your huge supporter base to buy more dining packages at club functions
3. have a better corporate sales and marketing department

Either Richmond have an incredibly large number of cheapskates supporting them or your club is woefully mismanaged (or a combination of the two)

Richmonds problem is not the funding arrangements at the MCG

 

[telsor]

Yes you are very clear in your opinions on how the corporate areas and $$$ could be restructured, but you consistently demonstrate very little understanding of how things currently work...

Most of the value in a corporate suite at the MCG lies in the finals series and specifically the Grand Final

As most suites are sold to companies for a 3-5 year period, it means that very few suites are actually available for individual purchase. This lack of supply keeps the price up so they can charge more for individual games - which makes it extremely difficult to determine what the actual value of a suite is for a match

If say the MCG sold Corporate suites for all events other than Home and Away games leaving clubs to sell their own Home matches then most of the suites would be empty for most matches as the clubs would struggle to sell them

Richmond have ample opportunity to make more money
1. get your huge supporter base to buy more reserved seats
2. get your huge supporter base to buy more dining packages at club functions
3. have a better corporate sales and marketing department

Either Richmond have an incredibly large number of cheapskates supporting them or your club is woefully mismanaged (or a combination of the two)

Richmonds problem is not the funding arrangements at the MCG

I repeat, it was a deliberately simple example.


Do you have a problem with the idea that lower costs could mean more money is passed on to the clubs?

That is all I'm saying.




(Not sure how Richmond, or the MCG, are at issue here though, considering we were talking about Docklands and the clubs that are tenants there).

 

[MightyHawks]

I repeat, it was a deliberately simple example.


Do you have a problem with the idea that lower costs could mean more money is passed on to the clubs?

That is all I'm saying.




(Not sure how Richmond, or the MCG, are at issue here though, considering we were talking about Docklands and the clubs that are tenants there).

You have little understanding of how these things work

So you think the AFL will buy the stadium, then merge the AFL members with the Medallion Club members and provide lots of corporate areas for the clubs at minimal charge

That seems very unAFL like to me

Clubs will get a better deal but its not going to be some ridiculous deal and the AFL will be working hard to extract more money from supporters than currently happens

And yes they will own the stadium sooner than you think

 

[telsor]

You have little understanding of how these things work

So you think the AFL will buy the stadium, then merge the AFL members with the Medallion Club members and provide lots of corporate areas for the clubs at minimal charge

That seems very unAFL like to me

Clubs will get a better deal but its not going to be some ridiculous deal and the AFL will be working hard to extract more money from supporters than currently happens

And yes they will own the stadium sooner than you think

So, apart from taking digs at my lack of understanding, and talking about stuff that I've already said as if it's new and different, you agree with me.