Docklands contract buyout speculation

Remove this Banner Ad

MightyHawks said:
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
Click to expand...

Given I linked the article it had nothing to do with club home games, nothing, it related to an area for every game, home & away, finals, the Grand Final.

So how is the G seating allocated for home & away games by club, one size fits all?
 
MightyHawks said:
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
Click to expand...

Given the current cash flow from the stadium to the owners, what sort of premium do you suggest the AFL will have to pay to take ownership early OR do you subscribe to the discount theory for early settlement.
 
Kwality said:
Given I linked the article it had nothing to do with club home games, nothing, it related to an area for every game, home & away, finals, the Grand Final.

So how is the G seating allocated for home & away games by club, one size fits all?
Click to expand...

I take no notice of Eddie when he argues for equality, as Collingwood have no shortage of advantages

At the MCG, basically the home club has control of the public section in both the Olympic and Southern Stands (the away team has the front few rows of level Q in the Southern Stand)

The exception is the public section of the Ponsford Stand where Collingwood have that for all Home and Away matches. It enables them to sell the same seats for all H&A games as a premium membership. It also allows them to sell a 3 game membership where they package ANZAC Day with 2 crappy matches

If a club wants to sell say a level N membership in the Ponsford Stand they have to exclude any Home matches against the Pies
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality said:
Given the current cash flow from the stadium to the owners, what sort of premium do you suggest the AFL will have to pay to take ownership early OR do you subscribe to the discount theory for early settlement.
Click to expand...

The owners know that the AFL want to own the stadium earlier so they want the AFL to pay a premium for it

The AFL have spent the last few years giving Etihad a fixture that meets the minimum standards required in the contract, but nothing more than that, which is an attempt to reduce the amount they have to pay for the stadium

Look for an improved allocation of matches at Etihad in the fixture once they own the stadium
 
MightyHawks said:
I take no notice of Eddie when he argues for equality, as Collingwood have no shortage of advantages

At the MCG, basically the home club has control of the public section in both the Olympic and Southern Stands (the away team has the front few rows of level Q in the Southern Stand)

The exception is the public section of the Ponsford Stand where Collingwood have that for all Home and Away matches. It enables them to sell the same seats for all H&A games as a premium membership. It also allows them to sell a 3 game membership where they package ANZAC Day with 2 crappy matches

If a club wants to sell say a level N membership in the Ponsford Stand they have to exclude any Home matches against the Pies
Click to expand...

:thumbsu:

Best guess on capacity of the MCG for club home & away games - 70,000 ? Less?

More seating for the Pies than Hawks, is that what you are saying?
 
MightyHawks said:
The owners know that the AFL want to own the stadium earlier so they want the AFL to pay a premium for it

The AFL have spent the last few years giving Etihad a fixture that meets the minimum standards required in the contract, but nothing more than that, which is an attempt to reduce the amount they have to pay for the stadium

Look for an improved allocation of matches at Etihad in the fixture once they own the stadium
Click to expand...

Some posters seem to believe taking over early will cost less ... I agree the owners want a premium to satisfy an eager buyer.
 
Kwality said:
Some posters seem to believe taking over early will cost less ... I agree the owners want a premium to satisfy an eager buyer.
Click to expand...

Good for them. However, the AFL is the only realistic buyer at this point, and they dont actually need to buy it, they can just bide their time and take it for bugger all in 10 years.
 
Kwality said:
Some posters seem to believe taking over early will cost less ... I agree the owners want a premium to satisfy an eager buyer.
Click to expand...
The_Wookie said:
Good for them. However, the AFL is the only realistic buyer at this point, and they dont actually need to buy it, they can just bide their time and take it for bugger all in 10 years.
Click to expand...
The AFL are definitely the only potential buyer, but they do want to own the stadium sooner rather than later

The early buy out has been discussed for years, Etihad want the AFL to pay a premium, the AFL want a good deal for them and they've been a long way off coming to an arrangement

What has changed recently is that the AFL really do want to own the stadium. It's something that Gil wants, and as the AFL can afford to pay what Etihad wants I believe the buy out figure will be closer to what Etihad wants than what the AFL want
 
Kwality said:
:thumbsu:

Best guess on capacity of the MCG for club home & away games - 70,000 ? Less?

More seating for the Pies than Hawks, is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

On very rough figures

MCC 20,000
AFL 20,000
Ponsford public 15,000
Southern/Olympic public 45,000

So Collingwood could sell 60,000 Home reserved seat memberships and 15,000 Away reserved seat memberships

Other clubs can only sell 45,000 reserved seat memberships

Essendon would be the biggest winner of Collingwood losing their Ponsford deal simply from the Essendon Home ANZAC Day match

But Hawthorn, Richmond, Essendon and Carlton would love to be able to sell reserved seats to all Home games at the MCG on level N of the Ponsford Stand
 
MightyHawks said:
The AFL are definitely the only potential buyer, but they do want to own the stadium sooner rather than later

The early buy out has been discussed for years, Etihad want the AFL to pay a premium, the AFL want a good deal for them and they've been a long way off coming to an arrangement

What has changed recently is that the AFL really do want to own the stadium. It's something that Gil wants, and as the AFL can afford to pay what Etihad wants I believe the buy out figure will be closer to what Etihad wants than what the AFL want
Click to expand...

Reports in the Financial Review say that the owners of the stadium are near desperate to sell. Im not sure theres a lot of bargaining power there either.
 
MightyHawks said:
On very rough figures

MCC 20,000
AFL 20,000
Ponsford public 15,000
Southern/Olympic public 45,000

So Collingwood could sell 60,000 Home reserved seat memberships and 15,000 Away reserved seat memberships

Other clubs can only sell 45,000 reserved seat memberships

Essendon would be the biggest winner of Collingwood losing their Ponsford deal simply from the Essendon Home ANZAC Day match

But Hawthorn, Richmond, Essendon and Carlton would love to be able to sell reserved seats to all Home games at the MCG on level N of the Ponsford Stand
Click to expand...

:thumbsu: good stuff Hawka, not seen the G capacity as clearly outlined, thanks !!
 
AFL looking to take over Docklands early and renovate it:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bombersfan4000 said:
It would be great if they did, but we have heard this several times over the years!

You'd wonder if they would make Essendon honor their stadium deal until the 2025.
Click to expand...

Where would you have them play?

MCG can only handle so many games, so it wont get (many) more, so you'd have to push other clubs out.

Before you say 'best fit', that wont work either, because non-vic clubs want to play a few games on the G, and those are the ones that would be 'best fit' at Docklands.

So factor in those things and EFC would play roughly the same split of home games at an AFL-owned docklands as they do now.
 
telsor said:
Where would you have them play?

MCG can only handle so many games, so it wont get (many) more, so you'd have to push other clubs out.

Before you say 'best fit', that wont work either, because non-vic clubs want to play a few games on the G, and those are the ones that would be 'best fit' at Docklands.

So factor in those things and EFC would play roughly the same split of home games at an AFL-owned docklands as they do now.
Click to expand...

How many games do you expect current MCG tenants to have transferred, it will be 2 way traffic.
 
Kwality said:
How many games do you expect current MCG tenants to have transferred, it will be 2 way traffic.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Shouldn't be too many though, because the current tenants are (generally) the ones who host the non-vic clubs. Unless they intend to swap Richmond V Adelaide with Essendon V Adelaide.
 
telsor said:
Where would you have them play?

MCG can only handle so many games, so it wont get (many) more, so you'd have to push other clubs out.

Before you say 'best fit', that wont work either, because non-vic clubs want to play a few games on the G, and those are the ones that would be 'best fit' at Docklands.

So factor in those things and EFC would play roughly the same split of home games at an AFL-owned docklands as they do now.
Click to expand...

Well we have precedence with Carlton lobbying for an 8-3 MCG / Ethiad split but settling for 6-5 split in 2014
 
Hawkk said:
There is a perception that Essendon would do better if they played more games at the MCG. Not exactly sure to be honest...
Click to expand...

I'd suggest the Bombers strategy aiming to sell out its seating allocation at Docklands is working for them - its not an option for the 60k at the G on club current membership mix.
 
Kwality said:
I'd suggest the Bombers strategy aiming to sell out its seating allocation at Docklands is working for them - its not an option for the 60k at the G on club current membership mix.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be shocked if it was a case of PR to keep the members happy vs the club actually wanting it.

"Oh gee, we'd really like to play at the bigger ground, but they wont let us, so we'll just have to stay where we make more money".
 
Hawkk said:
Well we have precedence with Carlton lobbying for an 8-3 MCG / Ethiad split but settling for 6-5 split in 2014
Click to expand...

and even that required the MCG clubs to play nominally 1 'home' game at docklands.
 
Hawkk said:
Well we have precedence with Carlton lobbying for an 8-3 MCG / Ethiad split but settling for 6-5 split in 2014
Click to expand...

Carlton had a specific contract at Etihad that ended in 2014. From 2015 they moved from the 6-5 theyd had since 2005 to a 7-4 split - the downside for the Blues was they didnt get any big games moved to the G other than the usual, they ended up playing Port and Adelaide there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top