All those contracts would be commercial in-confidence. Most of what we know about stadium deals come from other publicly available information like annual reports.
Docklands contract buyout speculation
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
All those contracts would be commercial in-confidence. Most of what we know about stadium deals come from other publicly available information like annual reports.
telsor
Hall of Famer
If they're out in the open, it makes it harder for the AFL to brush anything uncomfortable about them or arising from them under the carpet.
So being open would through the AFLs entire PR strategy out the window.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #153
WE did get a fair amount of detail in the annual report when the original contract was signed. I think we'll get some details publicly released, but not the specific rental cost.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I'd be surprised if the AFL gave a clear idea of how much profit it will be taking from the ground.
If clubs at Docklands are still getting, say, 20% less stadium returns than most other venues provide, then you can be sure they'll talk a lot about the high venue costs, etc. but I suspect that they're taking 15% wont see the light of day.
nb. I wouldn't think that 15% was an unreasonable take considering they'd want some return on their $200m, but the PR 'cost' of it becoming public isn't something they'd want to deal with.
The deal at Subi is very transparent - yep, the AFL aren't involved !!
How will the MCC treat this competitor come cash cow?
In what ways is it "transparent"
The MCC will have to deal with their major tenant, that is also the supplier of a "product" that motivates the vast majority of its membership that is now also its major "competitor"....from this rather weak position it will "deal" with the AFL within the constraints of its long term contract
AFL looking for govt investment to make Etihad and environs more attractive and presumably more profitable.
Now we hear the AFl has discovered its pokies conscience, wanting to lessen reliance on them.
Linked? I think so for two reasons:
-govt may be applying pressure in return for investment
-now the AFL has a ground in Melbourne, it ought to be able to make core busisness for clubs more profitable, thus less reliant on aPokies
Now we hear the AFl has discovered its pokies conscience, wanting to lessen reliance on them.
Linked? I think so for two reasons:
-govt may be applying pressure in return for investment
-now the AFL has a ground in Melbourne, it ought to be able to make core busisness for clubs more profitable, thus less reliant on aPokies
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #158
Why? The Tasmanian Government was clear that they wanted Hawthorn, despite an offer from North for more games.
ref: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/sor...rned-tassie-deal/story-e6frf33l-1225954177112
In fact the Tasmanian government liked the Hawks so much, they upped the offer the next time it came around. You earn that kind of loyalty after actually sticking around for 15 or more years, during which time North have played in Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, Hobart, and tried for Ballarat.
And woe to the poor western suburbs who would never have ever seen a pokie machine if those nasty Hawks hadnt set up shop.
The Eagles Financials, ie Indian Pacific Limited & the WAFC Annual Report - have a look.
As for the MCC its cash cow now owns an opposition venue & the competition for events is strong between the States - taxpayer money will be driving the choice of venue.
The business package the Hawks offer Tas, sponsorship, games, & the very demonstrable parading of their 3 flags over a long time is good reason for 'liking' the Hawks.
The business package that drives the Hawks investment out west must also be a good one for the family club.
One thing I was going to ask is how long into next year will it take for a club exec to complain that the new deal with Docklands under AFL ownership is unfair?
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
AFL now owns docklands - got a crowd of 28k to the cricket last night, wonder what they made out of it - if anything ?
I expect they'd have got the hire fee,
negotiated by the previous owners, and CA makes the money depending on the size of the crowd. Pourage rights etc who knows. But given popularity of big bash it's sure to be a money spinner for them for a very long time...
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
telsor
Hall of Famer
Would have made a fair bit. Cricket's deal didn't include having to buy the ground, so was a lot more profitable for the tenant.
So the 'deal' oakley and kennett got wasn't quite as good for AFL as trumpeted from the start
telsor
Hall of Famer
It was great for the AFL. Crappy for the clubs that were forced to play there.
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
The Victorian clubs and Mc Cutcheon, through their collective wisdom and approval, bought land in Waverley in the 50's , then paid also to build Waverley Park in 1970 -therefore purely a Victorian initiative. The genesis of creating Dockland in the 90's was the sale of Waverley Park. No financial input from any non-Victorian clubs.
Were the profits from Waverley, fully owned by the AFL, spent ONLY on the Victorian clubs? Or go into consolidated revenue, to spend simply how the AFL saw fit ie including on non-Victorian clubs.
Similar question for the early purchase (about $200,000,000) of Dockland. Are only Victorian clubs paying (or borrowing the amounts) for the early buy-out; and will only Victorian clubs be the beneficiaries of all profits that Docklands now makes?
Were the profits from Waverley, fully owned by the AFL, spent ONLY on the Victorian clubs? Or go into consolidated revenue, to spend simply how the AFL saw fit ie including on non-Victorian clubs.
Similar question for the early purchase (about $200,000,000) of Dockland. Are only Victorian clubs paying (or borrowing the amounts) for the early buy-out; and will only Victorian clubs be the beneficiaries of all profits that Docklands now makes?
telsor
Hall of Famer
A large part of the rationale for the licence fees clubs paid to join the AFL (WCE, Brisbane & Adelaide at least) was that they were buying a share of the leagues assets and by allowing to the league to get cash for an asset they couldn't really sell (at the time), that allowed the league to pass on some funds to the clubs helping them with their financial problems.
When Waverley was sold, a significant part of the proceeds ($25M from memory) went into a 'down payment' on Docklands, anything left over would have gone into consolidated revenue.
The $200M to buy Docklands would also be from consolidated revenue, so all clubs would, in effect, be paying, although Vic clubs had paid a significant sum towards buying the ground over the years through high stadium costs. Vic clubs will (or at least should) be the primary beneficiaries through cheaper costs (even if it's just from not paying extra to buy the ground any more), although doubtless some of the benefits will be spread to non Vic clubs.
Clubs in different areas don't have their own accounts with the AFL... Part of being a national league is that it all mixes up. Vic/WA/SA clubs subsidise football in NSW/QLD (both the AFL clubs and development).
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #170
All AFL clubs - not just Victorian ones - received monies from the sale of Waverly, disbursed over a number of years. The clubs owned no part of Waverly nor could they use a share as collateral, as Fitzroy were told when they enquired about tbeir share in the equity.
The league does it all out of its general revenues, and it will be a league asset - not a club shared one - like Waverly Park before it.
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Actually clubs that bought into the VFL like the Eagles, Dockers and SA clubs subsidized the Vic clubs.
I also would have thought the Swans and Brisbane ( few years ago ) have at times put more money into the AFL than what they have taken.
The AFL is the self proclaimed keeper of the code, it should do everything within its power to develop the game both within Vic and outside Vic.
If it was not for non Vic teams both from traditional and non traditional states, exactly where do you think football would be at ?.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I wouldn't describe it as subsidised.
They bought into the VFL to become part owners of the league, and the VFL paid that money to the current (previous) owners.
If you owned a business and I invested enough to buy 25% of it, and the business paid you a dividend out of that money, the fact that you desperately needed that money wouldn't change the original transaction (apart from making you more willing t o let me buy in).
How so?
Swans have needed to be bailed out several times, and Brisbane is currently (very) broke. Neither gets the TV ratings to pay for even a fraction of their costs, and a large part of their support (fans and sponsors) is the result of cross promotions by the AFL (AFL funds junior comps, gives tickets to AFL games & club Merch away)...Where are they putting money in?
The theory is that in time they will contribute, but Sydney would be the only one getting close (although those TV ratings are still at a level where the AFL probably needs to pay to get them on FTA) and we keep hearing from them how bad things are up there for an AFL club (A club that genuinely holds it's own doesn't need COLA, academies, etc)
I wouldn't say 'everything', because there are reasonable limits that should be observed (e.g. maintaining financial health to ensure long term, and preserving the integrity of the league that brings in it's income), but generally I gree.
I don't think that scenario was ever likely, but it would be in a significantly worse state. How bad depends on the criteria you use to assess it.
Probably would have had the VFL broadcast into every state (that was starting to happen already after all), perhaps with some games played there, but without nearly the level of support (both for the league and game generally) that we have now.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #173
ah no. Eagles and Bears have a case for that - they both paid the license fees straight up. By the time the Crows came in, the league had a massive media deal (for the time) that sorted out most of the rest (and the league had evidently worked out a deal with Port to take a far smaller license fee). There was no disbursement from the license fees paid by Fremantle, Adelaide and Port Adelaide to the existing clubs - and their fees were all paid over ten years in any case.
In 1987 tv rights were very low because of the shambles that went on with seven and broadcom. the 8 million from licenses at the end of 1986 would have helped everyone at the league.
The league was taking 6 million a year for tv in 1991, against $400,000 a year from Adelaides license. By 1997 license money from 3 clubs was 1.2 million a year. TV Money was 17 million a year from 1992 to 1998 and 40 million from 1999 to 2002, by which point Waverly sale money was also coming in.
Brisbane were bailed out several times - and are even now being heavily assisted by the league. The Swans are going so well, the league still technically appoints the board, after bailing the club out three times (and more if you count VFL assistance through 79-80).
Football would have adapted in some way. I think some Victorian clubs would have merged and we'd have had a smaller VFL for a while, and mergers/closures would have happened across the board as the weaker clubs in all states fell by the wayside. We'd still have ended up with a national league, just much later in the peace.
that is bollocks. It wouldn't cost the afl a cent now to have games on 7s secondary digital channels. There would be 10s of thousands of Foxtel subscriptions in Sydney where the swans are the reason for the subscription. In 2009 a survey found the swans were the most "1st supported team" in nsw.
is that ongoing circumstance related to financially viability?
The afl commission is not known for its acts of devolution of power! Imo I would like to see the afl ultimately hand over all clubs it "owns" or controls to democratic memberships
