Docklands (Etihad) stadium new AFL tenant club agreements

[Capt Hindsight]

The AFL purchased Docklands (Etihad) stadium for a speculated figure around 200 million last year.
Naturally tenant clubs have been expecting better stadium agreements now that is an AFL owned venue.

However the benefits of the new proposed agreements appear to be less than tenant clubs have hoped for.
According to a recent article:
Essendon to push for extra MCG game
by Caroline Wilson in the The Age (09/08/2017).
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-to-push-for-extra-mcg-game-20170809-gxsw7f.html
'clubs have told Fairfax Media that the AFL's initial financial forecasts to the tenant clubs for 2018 were in some cases barely 10 per cent ahead of previous returns.'
'The AFL has told the clubs it wants to pay off a significant proportion of the Etihad debt by the end of the current six-year broadcast rights deal, fearing the next media deal will fall in value.'
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-to-push-for-extra-mcg-game-20170809-gxsw7f.html

To spend so much money to buy Docklands Stadium and for tenant clubs to only receive deals that are 10 percent better financially than what they previously received so the AFL can pay off the debt incurred to buy the stadium seems to defeat the purpose of buying the stadium in the first place.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

People here have been saying for years afl ownership wouldnt deliver the expected rivers of gold to etihad tenant clubs.

Why is anyone surprised?

 

[Topkent]

So essentially they are using the clubs to buy the stadium for them self... again

 

[Capt Hindsight]

So essentially they are using the clubs to buy the stadium for them self... again

Unfortunately that appears to be the case unless the the relevant clubs make a big push to force the AFL for a better deal.

 

[telsor]

Once again, the Vic clubs are funding the AFL.

and as always, people on BF will complain about them getting even part of that back as being 'charity' and proof those clubs aren't viable.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Well, that sucks. Another loop we go.

 

[Capt Hindsight]

People here have been saying for years afl ownership wouldnt deliver the expected rivers of gold to etihad tenant clubs.

Why is anyone surprised?

I don't think people expected 'rivers of gold' they did expect a big enough increase that would at least ensure the smaller Victorian clubs can have most if not all of their home games to at least be making a small profit.
If a large number of games were making losses for the home game clubs at Docklands before the purchase a small 10 percent increase on returns will still see a continuation of loss making games.

 

[FRUMPY]

Does it matter how much they get? The AFL hands out money to those struggling anyway

 

[Capt Hindsight]

Does it matter how much they get? The AFL hands out money to those struggling anyway

The AFL in the past has handed out money to offset the reduced financial returns the smaller Victorian clubs received by being forced to play at Etihad as in many cases low drawing games home clubs had to pay the stadium for the ability to play there as the crowd hadn't generated enough money.
The AFL has taken a significant debt position to buy the stadium and hasn't significantly increased the return to the tenant clubs then they would require the similar amount of financial support they required before with the AFL not having the ability to give out as much money due to debt it has taken on.

 

[chiwigi]

In what world is 10% a small increase? It is smaller that 11% of course, but if you were told you were getting a 10% payrise or that you could get a 10% interest rate on your savings you would be buzzing!

 

[telsor]

Does it matter how much they get? The AFL hands out money to those struggling anyway

They're only struggling because the AFL is taking so much...

$200M over 6 years is around $800K/game.

Add that to those clubs bottom lines and they wouldn't need AFL 'handouts'.

 

[telsor]

In what world is 10% a small increase? It is smaller that 11% of course, but if you were told you were getting a 10% payrise or that you could get a 10% interest rate on your savings you would be buzzing!

Yeah, but when you're getting a 30% stadium return, an others are getting a 70% return, being told you're now going to get 33% doesn't inspire joy.

 

[Capt Hindsight]

In what world is 10% a small increase? It is smaller that 11% of course, but if you were told you were getting a 10% payrise or that you could get a 10% interest rate on your savings you would be buzzing!

There is no way a 10% increase would cover the losses the smaller Victorian clubs make at Etihad.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't think people expected 'rivers of gold' they did expect a big enough increase that would at least ensure the smaller Victorian clubs can have most if not all of their home games to at least be making a small profit.
If a large number of games were making losses for the home game clubs at Docklands before the purchase a small 10 percent increase on returns will still see a continuation of loss making games.

How much profit do you think the private owner was earning?

Off a really bad mem, it was around 10%

Given this, why would you expect club returns to increase by more than this, unless you think the afl should run it at a loss

 

[chiwigi]

There is no way a 10% increase would cover the losses the smaller Victorian clubs make at Etihad.

They need to 'grow the pie' then!

Maybe some tarps to pay for advertising in the empty seats (oh that's already done with the painted on advertising).

 

[Capt Hindsight]

How much profit do you think the private owner was earning?

Off a really bad mem, it was around 10%

Given this, why would you expect club returns to increase by more than this, unless you think the afl should run it at a loss

Depends on what this 10% you reference is based on. 10% of total gate of a set crowd number?
As North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Saint Kilda constantly said in the press they were paying private management when the crowds didn't meet certain targets.
The article wording appears to be a 10% increase on the club return.

 

[blue harvest]

Should have just waited the 8 more years or whatever it was and got the the stadium for nothing, and in the mean time throw a few million to each of the tenants each year.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Depends on what this 10% you reference is based on. 10% of total gate of a set crowd number?
As North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Saint Kilda constantly said in the press they were paying private management when the crowds didn't meet certain targets.
The article wording appears to be a 10% increase on the club return.

Im talking what they earned running the stadium full stop

The only saving the afl can immediately make is elimination of the profit margin, which wasnt that much

 

[citizen-erased]

we need to divorce ourselves from that venue.
Tired of paying for an AFL membership and having to "book" tickets for most of our home games there.
If we're away there, fine.

we're far too big for the venue.

Don't mind the stadium, and its convenient living north of melbourne. But it's not a good fit for us.

 

[carnthedons]

Im talking what they earned running the stadium full stop

The only saving the afl can immediately make is elimination of the profit margin, which wasnt that much

Shh, logic has no place here

 

[Capt Hindsight]

Im talking what they earned running the stadium full stop

The only saving the afl can immediately make is elimination of the profit margin, which wasnt that much

For years all we heard was that these clubs had the worst stadium deal in Australian sport and that if they played at the other venues they would make more money. Such as the bulldogs making more from one home game in Cairns than 10 home games at Etihad in 2015.
If the AFL buying the stadium could only see a small change for the clubs why did the clubs push the AFL to buy the stadium early and why would the AFL agree considering they have the ability to examine all the financial elements of running the stadium before purchasing it.

 

[B4Bear]

Once again, the Vic clubs are funding the AFL.

and as always, people on BF will complain about them getting even part of that back as being 'charity' and proof those clubs aren't viable.

This, this and this again should be quoted for truth every single day.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Do these figures take into account car park revenue which makes an absolute fortune during most Etihad games?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

For years all we heard was that these clubs had the worst stadium deal in Australian sport and that if they played at the other venues they would make more money. Such as the bulldogs making more from one home game in Cairns than 10 home games at Etihad in 2015.
If the AFL buying the stadium could only see a small change for the clubs why did the clubs push the AFL to buy the stadium early and why would the AFL agree considering they have the ability to examine all the financial elements of running the stadium before purchasing it.

Because they are idiots

Etihad is an expensive stadium to maintain and operate, afl ownership wont change that

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Do these figures take into account car park revenue which makes an absolute fortune during most Etihad games?

Doubt it. Like pink concerts are not included, medallion club and so on.