It's interesting that you posted that link but but completely unable to grasp the implications. Roughly, the afl, as part of the contract to build the thing, were required to play 45ish games a year at Etihad. This is why the afl games were subjected to the "full cost" if you like of the investment. This also gave the afl priority access to the venue between February and September. The deal with victory, and presumably all other minor tenants, would be at some mark up on marginal cost. It's not really about "savviness"Just goes to prove how poorly the AFL dealt with exiting Waverly, Docklands cherry picked the Bombers with a good deal based on more bums on seats & then along came the AFL and sat back as Docklands management offered a take it or leave it deal for the rest of the clubs.
The A- League deal came later, the private owners of Victory were far more canny with their own money & got a better deal potentially marginally costed
This is what made the ffa's behaviour around the World Cup bid as well as the soccer shoulder chippers whining about not getting access to Etihad for the gf without significant compensation so obnoxious, by the way