Docklands (Etihad) stadium new AFL tenant club agreements

[Vooligan]

Once again, the Vic clubs are funding the AFL.

Gee, you ever so nearly got your desired reaction out of me with a long-winded post I had written... Until I realised this was a fishing attempt.

Well played.

 

[telsor]

Gee, you ever so nearly got your desired reaction out of me with a long-winded post I had written... Until I realised this was a fishing attempt.

Well played.

No, it was a genuine comment.

People here like to whine about how some Vic clubs get 'charity' or 'handouts' from the AFL, then ignore when it's put plainly in their faces that the AFL takes noticeably more from those club than it gives back.

and of course, this is just the docklands deal. There is also the MCG deal, and AFL members, both of which involve the AFL receiving large amounts of money at the expense of (mostly) Vic clubs.

 

[telsor]

Because they are idiots

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

Yeah, but paying off $200M of debt in 6 years will change.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yeah, but paying off $200M of debt in 6 years will change.

Thats coming off total revenues the stadium generates, including carparks, medallion club, pink and adele, food and drink, jo ho conferences, and so on.

Removing the interest costs from the 40 odd afl games will matter sfa.

This is a pipe dream. Etihad is expensive to run. It has a roof ffs, turf replacement costs are insane, and its not far off needing a refurb

 

[ApplecrossWC]

Big surprise the AFL is stuffing clubs around again/

 

[telsor]

Thats coming off total revenues the stadium generates, including carparks, medallion club, pink and adele, food and drink, jo ho conferences, and so on.

Removing the interest costs from the 40 odd afl games will matter sfa.

This is a pipe dream. Etihad is expensive to run. It has a roof ffs, turf replacement costs are insane, and its not far off needing a refurb

Sure it's expensive, but if that $33M/yr was going to the clubs instead of replaying the debt, it wouldn't be nearly as expensive.


The AFL could pay those clubs twice as much and still be paying their interest bill and reducing their debts.

 

[Vooligan]

No, it was a genuine comment.

People here like to whine about how some Vic clubs get 'charity' or 'handouts' from the AFL, then ignore when it's put plainly in their faces that the AFL takes noticeably more from those club than it gives back.

and of course, this is just the docklands deal. There is also the MCG deal, and AFL members, both of which involve the AFL receiving large amounts of money at the expense of (mostly) Vic clubs.

Yeah that's fair enough I guess, but I would've thought clubs paying for the stadiums they use is pretty fair. And Victorian clubs aren't the only ones to do so. During the final year of Footy Park (RIP), my membership was around $280 for the season. A year later at Adelaide Oval it was $390. That same level of membership is now a tad over $500. So that's an increase of around $220 since 2013. Most of that is put down to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and relocation. The point I'm trying to make is everyone is paying for the stadium they're using. I expect Freo and WCE fans to be faced with the same thing.

 

[telsor]

Big surprise the AFL is stuffing VIC clubs around again/

EFA

 

[Great8]

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

Maybe those clubs should worry more about getting their fans to go to the game. Some of the crowds have been appalling

 

[telsor]

Yeah that's fair enough I guess, but I would've thought clubs paying for the stadiums they use is pretty fair. And Victorian clubs aren't the only ones to do so. During the final year of Footy Park (RIP), my membership was around $280 for the season. A year later at Adelaide Oval it was $390. That same level of membership is now a tad over $500. So that's an increase of around $220 since 2013. Most of that is put down to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and relocation. The point I'm trying to make is everyone is paying for the stadium they're using. I expect Freo and WCE fans to be faced with the same thing.

Are you trying to pay off AO in 6 years because the AFL wants to clear it's own debts?

Also, it's not just that...AFL members is money the clubs don't get, against falling mostly on the Vic clubs. How would you feel if the AFL took over ~25% of AO (generally good seats that your club could sell as premium reserved seats otherwise) and your club got 75% of GA entry price when they were used?

MCG, which should be long since paid off still includes significant income for the AFL (including major bonuses if the clubs pull big crowds)....Does the league take any money from AO (or the new Perth stadium)?


SA & WA teams help fund football in those states, sure, but Vic clubs fund everything else.

 

[telsor]

Maybe those clubs should worry more about getting their fans to go to the game. Some of the crowds have been appalling

I'm sure crowds would be bigger if people thought their money was going to benefit their club.

As it is, until the crowd hits something like 25-30K, (and thus passes the $100K 'minimum' payment) it makes no difference to the club and thus all the money effectively goes to the stadium/AFL.

 

[Orange Agent]

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!

Exactly this, and when a decent amount the debt is paid off the deals will only get better. What a beat up.

 

[Walshawk]

Ownership changes little in the short/medium term. There are catering/membership/pourage contracts in place.
There AFL will want more games there now they own it, so will be interesting to see how they handle Essendon and Bulldogs wanting to play in Ballarat.

 

[telsor]

Ownership changes little in the short/medium term. There are catering/membership/pourage contracts in place.
There AFL will want more games there now they own it, so will be interesting to see how they handle Essendon and Bulldogs wanting to play in Ballarat.

The AFL wants games in other locations....it brings the game to smaller markets like Tas, NT & North QLD.

On a pure financial basis though, the AFL could 'pay' those clubs $500K/match to bring them back to Melbourne and play them at Docklands and still make a profit.

They wont do it though because having those games 'sold elsewhere' is the only realistic way to keep the smaller markets happy.

 

[Great8]

I'm sure crowds would be bigger if people thought their money was going to benefit their club.

As it is, until the crowd hits something like 25-30K, (and thus passes the $100K 'minimum' payment) it makes no difference to the club and thus all the money effectively goes to the stadium/AFL.

Does this actually stop people going?
I don't know one single person who decides on attending or not because of who gets the money.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Sure it's expensive, but if that $33M/yr was going to the clubs instead of replaying the debt, it wouldn't be nearly as expensive.


The AFL could pay those clubs twice as much and still be paying their interest bill and reducing their debts.

That 33m isnt just paid for by the afl games. The tenant clubs dont get access to most of the revenue streams of the stadium, just as rfc doesnt get access to boxing day test revenues

 

[Heaps of fun]

Nothing but a bunch of shysters. s**t organisation run by self-interested crooks.

 

[vide0n]

Wonder why the AFL thinks that the next media deal will fall in value...

Even if Foxtel as we know it collapses due to competition from streaming, people are still going to watch AFL football somewhere (aren't they?) and if that is true, advertisers are still going to want in on that - right?

 

[EagleMan87]

No, it was a genuine comment.

People here like to whine about how some Vic clubs get 'charity' or 'handouts' from the AFL, then ignore when it's put plainly in their faces that the AFL takes noticeably more from those club than it gives back.

and of course, this is just the docklands deal. There is also the MCG deal, and AFL members, both of which involve the AFL receiving large amounts of money at the expense of (mostly) Vic clubs.

How much would each Etihad tenant be losing out per season because of the deals, and how does it compare to the amount given back at the end of the year?

 

[telsor]

That 33m isnt just paid for by the afl games. The tenant clubs dont get access to most of the revenue streams of the stadium, just as rfc doesnt get access to boxing day test revenues

So just give them decent access to the revenue streams they DO provide (gate, pourage, signage) and use the rest to pay off the debt.


*OR* have people stop whinging and calling for those teams to be killed off for getting 'handouts' when, in fact, the AFL is taking significantly more from them than they provide.

 

[telsor]

How much would each Etihad tenant be losing out per season because of the deals, and how does it compare to the amount given back at the end of the year?

As I said earlier, if the AFL expects to be paying off $200M in 6 years, that's around $800K per game (and that's with the clubs getting around a 10% better deal this year, so previous years would be worse).

Without looking them up, I think St Kilda gets the most 'extra' from the AFL of the Vic clubs, and that would be around about $7M about the 'usual' payment clubs got last year (that's a rough, top of my head figure, feel free to look it up)...Of course, some of that is money they actually earned and was forwarded to them by the AFL after they took their cut, like a share of signage rights at Dockland and AFL memberships.

They play 11 games at the ground, so based on those rough figures, that's about $1.8 net they lose to the AFL. Add in AFL memberships and the like and you'd be looking at comfortably over $2M.

Of course, other clubs would be even worse off, as they don't get as much in 'handouts' to compensate them.


tl;dr If Vic clubs didn't have the AFL putting their hand in our pockets, 'handouts' could be cut to zero, and the clubs would still be better off.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So just give them decent access to the revenue streams they DO provide (gate, pourage, signage) and use the rest to pay off the debt.


*OR* have people stop whinging and calling for those teams to be killed off for getting 'handouts' when, in fact, the AFL is taking significantly more from them than they provide.

Most stadiums dont give that stuff away unless you pay a massive rent like the wa clubs, or you effectively own the stadium

You seem to want to run the joint at a loss. How about this for a solution, get more than 30k going to home games there

 

[Kwality]

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

Was the private owner charging a commercial rate, seems like it.

 

[telsor]

Most stadiums dont give that stuff away unless you pay a massive rent like the wa clubs, or you effectively own the stadium

You seem to want to run the joint at a loss. How about this for a solution, get more than 30k going to home games there

Those teams bought the ground, I think they deserve decent treatment. Like, say, something similar to what clubs get in other states?

 

[Kwality]

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.

& the people who predicted eternal life for the div2 clubs based on manna from Gil are proven to be dreamin' still!!