Geelongs 150 million government investment - Is this fair on the rest?

[telsor]

The AFL is hitting them up for a $60,000,000 loan - there isn't an option of WCE leaving the league.

Have you got anything solid to back up that loan claim? I keep hearing it, and the closest I get to support for the claim is rumours floated by shock jocks and the like.


As for leaving the league...no club can really...the AFL owns their name, jumper, song, etc, so while they can leave, they can't take anything recognisable with them.

WA *fans* can leave however. They can go back to supporting the WAFL. (an option not available in Vic).

But really, it's just more WCE whinging...Fans of a club that has won over 57% of it's matches since joining the comp continually complaining about conspiracy theories about how the evil Victorians make it so hard for them is just sad and pathetic.

 

[mitchwea222]

how about simple terms

 

[Our Game]

given the saints got money to build a second training facility because the first one wasn't near good coffee, i dont think they have much of a case to b*tch about the state being tight

Maybe the Saints should start paying back the Millions they owe to the AFL first!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Maybe the Saints should start paying back the Millions they owe to the AFL first!

I'd also like them to pay back Frankston Council $4m for the white elephant they are left with

Saints slammed before exit - Bayside News

ST Kilda Football Club has been given a kick on the way out the door of Seaford’s Linen House by Frankston councillors critical of the AFL club’s lack of engagement with the community during its short-lived stay at the training and administration base. The Saints will go marching out of the...

baysidenews.com.au

Councillors at the latest public council meeting on Monday 16 October voted to set up a council committee to begin looking for tenants to move into Linen House after St Kilda FC leaves Seaford.

Longtime councillors still on council who voted to welcome the AFL club to Seaford eight years ago voiced dissatisfaction at promises made that did not pan out in reality.

“I was persuaded over a period of time to vote for St Kilda to go in there,” Cr Colin Hampton said.

“We were told that there would be a $40 million bonus [annually] to the city of Frankston for this club to come here. I haven’t seen any of that.”

Cr Hampton said joint work in the community between St Kilda FC and Frankston Council “happened for a very short time and then ceased”.

Cr Glenn Aitken said he also voted to welcome the Saints to Seaford since councillors at the time were presented with “a very strong business case” that the move would be of economic benefit to the Frankston area.

“As time went by, it became evident that it certainly wasn’t turning out the way that we had hoped or would have preferred it to.”

Frankston Council kicked in about $4 million of ratepayers’ money to a joint AFL, state government and council deal to lure the Saints to Seaford in 2010.

The AFL club paid a peppercorn rent of $1 annually and contributed towards maintenance at Linen House.

 

[Kwality]

Maybe the Saints should start paying back the Millions they owe to the AFL first!

They arent welcome their Franga heartland, soiled the nest before getting out of town.

For those who came in late:

Longtime councillors still on council who voted to welcome the AFL club to Seaford eight years ago voiced dissatisfaction at promises made that did not pan out in reality.

“I was persuaded over a period of time to vote for St Kilda to go in there,” Cr Colin Hampton said.

“We were told that there would be a $40 million bonus [annually] to the city of Frankston for this club to come here. I haven’t seen any of that.”

Cr Hampton said joint work in the community between St Kilda FC and Frankston Council “happened for a very short time and then ceased”.

Cr Glenn Aitken said he also voted to welcome the Saints to Seaford since councillors at the time were presented with “a very strong business case” that the move would be of economic benefit to the Frankston area.
Frankston Council kicked in about $4 million of ratepayers’ money to a joint AFL, state government and council deal to lure the Saints to Seaford in 2010.

The AFL club paid a peppercorn rent of $1 annually and contributed towards maintenance at Linen House.

Saints slammed before exit - Bayside News

ST Kilda Football Club has been given a kick on the way out the door of Seaford’s Linen House by Frankston councillors critical of the AFL club’s lack of engagement with the community during its short-lived stay at the training and administration base. The Saints will go marching out of the...

baysidenews.com.au

 

[Freomaniac]

Geelong will always get better subsidies compared to other Melbourne based teams, because they're in a regional area + historically has been a marginal seat at State and Federal levels.

I have no problem with regional areas getting investment. We get it pretty good in the cities.

I'd love to see some cash given to St Kilda to upgrade Moorabbin, but the same argument could be easily trotted out from Essendon, North, Carlton and the Bulldogs.

A better focus would be to fix the terrible Etihad/Marvel stadium deal we all got, rather than trying to decentralise further.

I know this is Also random to say this......

I am suprised Princes Park or IKON park isnt used as an AFL venue Again.

Sure some parts are heritage listed. But that ground could also be a 25-30,000 seat stadium. Northern based teams like Carlton and North can play games there.

Would benifit North. No Disrespect to North fans and their smaller fan base, its probably better and profitable to get 20-25,000 at Princes Park than get 20-25,000 at docklands.

Geelong got that home final vs Freo in 2013 as they make more money getting 35,000 at Kardinia than 50,000 at docklands.

 

[Rob]

I know this is Also random to say this......

I am suprised Princes Park or IKON park isnt used as an AFL venue Again.

Sure some parts are heritage listed. But that ground could also be a 25-30,000 seat stadium. Northern based teams like Carlton and North can play games there.

Would benifit North. No Disrespect to North fans and their smaller fan base, its probably better and profitable to get 20-25,000 at Princes Park than get 20-25,000 at docklands.

And what if they could only get 10k at Princes Park?

 

[telsor]

I know this is Also random to say this......

I am suprised Princes Park or IKON park isnt used as an AFL venue Again.

Sure some parts are heritage listed. But that ground could also be a 25-30,000 seat stadium. Northern based teams like Carlton and North can play games there.

Would benifit North. No Disrespect to North fans and their smaller fan base, its probably better and profitable to get 20-25,000 at Princes Park than get 20-25,000 at docklands.

Geelong got that home final vs Freo in 2013 as they make more money getting 35,000 at Kardinia than 50,000 at docklands.

2 problems with that.

The first and biggest is the AFL. They own Docklands and make big coin out of the MCG...They're not going to be huge fans of competition that takes game away from either.

The other problem is getting there, and the catch-22 of having a ground big enough to be economically viable/worthwhile while also being a location that struggles to get the people to/from. More seats means bigger transport problems..

There is virtually no parking (and the council would need it's arm bent a long way to allow cars back on princess park which is where there was *some* parking before, but even that's not much).

Train isn't close (there are 2 stations 'nearby', with a third coming, but both are a bit of a hike relative to what people are used to).

Trams do come close, but it takes a lot of trams to get the required number of patrons.


Best option would be to rebuild the rail spur to Princess park, which while physically quite easy, would be a planning/approval nightmare (NIMBY's would revolt).

 

[JohnZ]

Geelong home games make $1m profit. Partly because the city council subsidises it to encourage spending in local business, and partly because most seats are pre-sold as season tickets which can go for $400+ each ($50 per game per seat guaranteed).

The new funding increases the capacity by about 5000, but the majority of the funding is going into building more change room facilities to support AFLW, VFL, VFLW, Cricket and Soccer to allow the stadium to be used for more events. The aim is to increase the utility of the stadium for more than just the 7 to 11 AFL games scheduled each year.

Best option would be

to build a 35k stadium at e-gate (area between North Melbourne station and Docklands), similar style to Gold Coast or GWS stadium. The Melbourne clubs would be scheduled depending on ranking of expected crowd. No reason why Melbourne v GWS should be played at the G, nor Hawthorn v Essendon at Docklands stadium.

The easiest way to justify a 3rd (boutique) stadium in Melbourne is to increase the number of rounds from 22 to 34, with a full H+A fixture. That's a whole other topic tho

 

[Kwality]

Geelong home games make $1m profit

Thats the goss, anything to support it ?

Given its the Trust that own/manage it, who does the Council pay the subsidy to ?

Note I'm not criticising anyone, all parties benefit, e.g Ballarat trying to duplicate it success.

 

[JohnZ]

Thats the goss, anything to support it ?

Brian Cook has mentioned it on radio (K rock) a few times, here's an article that mentions it

Clubs aware of financial hit but prioritise keeping players healthy

Clubs are bracing for the financial hit of playing matches without spectators but are pledging to face the challenges as a united group.

www.theage.com.au

Geelong president Colin Carter said at the Cats' season launch they faced losing revenue of close to $1 million for every match that is not played at their home stadium at GMHBA but emphasised that football clubs were resilient entities that would work their way through the situation.

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

2 problems with that.

The first and biggest is the AFL. They own Docklands and make big coin out of the MCG...They're not going to be huge fans of competition that takes game away from either.

The other problem is getting there, and the catch-22 of having a ground big enough to be economically viable/worthwhile while also being a location that struggles to get the people to/from. More seats means bigger transport problems..

There is virtually no parking (and the council would need it's arm bent a long way to allow cars back on princess park which is where there was *some* parking before, but even that's not much).

Train isn't close (there are 2 stations 'nearby', with a third coming, but both are a bit of a hike relative to what people are used to).

Trams do come close, but it takes a lot of trams to get the required number of patrons.


Best option would be to rebuild the rail spur to Princess park, which while physically quite easy, would be a planning/approval nightmare (NIMBY's would revolt).

The issue is, and always has been, that Carlton still own the lease. AFL won't fixture there, no matter how much you upgrade the joint. Elliott (and the rest of us) learnt the hard way.

 

[telsor]

The issue is, and always has been, that Carlton still own the lease. AFL won't fixture there, no matter how much you upgrade the joint. Elliott (and the rest of us) learnt the hard way.

The problem with that was that Carlton manipulated things last time they played there.

Got a guarantee from the VFL for X number of games from other clubs, and then charged them an exorbitant rent because they had no choice.

If it happened again the contact guaranteeing games would include such details as the rent.

 

[JohnZ]

The issue is, and always has been, that Carlton still own the lease. AFL won't fixture there, no matter how much you upgrade the joint. Elliott (and the rest of us) learnt the hard way.

The issue is the AFL don't want or need to, so don't. Make them think it's their idea, and you'd have the opening game there in no time.

 

[Rob]

The problem with that was that Carlton manipulated things last time they played there.

Got a guarantee from the VFL for X number of games from other clubs, and then charged them an exorbitant rent because they had no choice.

If it happened again the contact guaranteeing games would include such details as the rent.

Is that actually true? The league basically signed a blank cheque for Carlton?
As incompetent as many administrators are, it's a bit hard to believe that the AFL signed up for 16 games a year and Carlton could just charge what they liked.

 

[telsor]

Is that actually true? The league basically signed a blank cheque for Carlton?
As incompetent as many administrators are, it's a bit hard to believe that the AFL signed up for 16 games a year and Carlton could just charge what they liked.

Why do you think clubs were so eager to sign up to the crappy deal at Docklands?

PP was the alternative.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Is that actually true? The league basically signed a blank cheque for Carlton?
As incompetent as many administrators are, it's a bit hard to believe that the AFL signed up for 16 games a year and Carlton could just charge what they liked.

telsor is right on this one

 

[Johnny Bananas]

We don't have a fair competition, and it's impossible to unless every club was based in the same city and played and trained at the same stadium. There will always be a disadvantage for some, the best that can be done is the AFL compensating the other clubs by offering them money for similar upgrades. Which they are already doing, at least for training facilities (St Kilda getting two within a decade being the most egregious example).

The one thing I would like to see the AFL do with stadiums is to offer the smaller Melbourne clubs money to rebuild their traditional homes to AFL standard. Specifically just for North, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs. One stadium to the north, one to the east and one to the west seems reasonable. Princes Park will never happen after the BS Carlton pulled and the lack of a train station. Arden St though will be in a prime location once the Metro Tunnel is built. Whitten Oval and Moorabin also have stations.

 

[Rob]

Why do you think clubs were so eager to sign up to the crappy deal at Docklands?

PP was the alternative.

Because crowds were s**t and their members hated it. From memory the money was theoretically going to come from charging a premium to sit in the (new) legends stand, but no one wanted to do that.

It may well have been that it was expensive to play there too, but when you take very little at the gate it doesn't really matter what the costs are.

 

[telsor]

We don't have a fair competition, and it's impossible to unless every club was based in the same city and played and trained at the same stadium. There will always be a disadvantage for some, the best that can be done is the AFL compensating the other clubs by offering them money for similar upgrades. Which they are already doing, at least for training facilities (St Kilda getting two within a decade being the most egregious example).

Agree that totally fair is impossible. There are pros and cons in all clubs situations. Some the AFL can mitigate with money, others just need to be accepted.

The one thing I would like to see the AFL do with stadiums is to offer the smaller Melbourne clubs money to rebuild their traditional homes to AFL standard. Specifically just for North, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs. One stadium to the north, one to the east and one to the west seems reasonable. Princes Park will never happen after the BS Carlton pulled and the lack of a train station. Arden St though will be in a prime location once the Metro Tunnel is built. Whitten Oval and Moorabin also have stations.

Could only be done if the AFL sold Docklands, both for the $$$ and to free up the games. This would require the AFL to make less money and have less control, so it is HIGHLY unlikely to happen.

From memory, Moorabin and Arden St were about as far from the train as Princess park. (Arden St might change with the tunnel)....It's not THAT far (roughly the same as Flinders st to MCG, which many do walk), but people are lazy. The other problem on that front however the need to change trains. MCG & Docklands are both central enough that one train will almost always get you there.

 

[telsor]

In related news to the OP.

State Government Announce Funding for Punt Road Oval Redevelopment

Richmond today thanked the Daniel Andrews State Government following the announcement of a $15.5 million funding contribution for the redevelopment of Punt Road Oval.

www.richmondfc.com.au

State Government just approved $15.5M towards a $60M redevelopment at Punt Road Oval for Richmond (Feds already in for another $15M).

 

[JohnZ]

State Government just approved $15.5M towards a $60M redevelopment at Punt Road Oval for Richmond (Feds already in for another $15M).

Looks good and hopefully it can host some AFLW (and continue with VFL) games with a better suited (ie higher) capacity.

On the note of a boutique stadium, now that ardern st is on the metro tunnel, put some money into that being a replica of GWS stadium, seating 30k to 35k. If that can't work, then do it at Western Oval. Then each Melbourne stadium (MCG, Docklands, Boutique) can host games depending on expected crowd turn out to maximise revenue/profit for the clubs. I know the MCG is the spiritual home for a few clubs, but I'm not sure there's much sense in playing Melbourne v GWS at the MCG, unless the club is happy to cop the loss. I would also aim to bring back the 2pm match where possible to avoid overlaps in other slots which a 3rd Melbourne stadium would help with (every game is stand alone except for the 3 or so played at 2pm Saturday to maximise eyeballs).

edit:

Western Oval using Metricon Design:

Would need to buy the dealership, and incorporate the childcare into the stadium (easily done), fits quite easily otherwise.

 

[telsor]

Looks good and hopefully it can host some AFLW (and continue with VFL) games with a better suited (ie higher) capacity.

On the note of a boutique stadium, now that ardern st is on the metro tunnel, put some money into that being a replica of GWS stadium, seating 30k to 35k. If that can't work, then do it at Western Oval. Then each Melbourne stadium (MCG, Docklands, Boutique) can host games depending on expected crowd turn out to maximise revenue/profit for the clubs. I know the MCG is the spiritual home for a few clubs, but I'm not sure there's much sense in playing Melbourne v GWS at the MCG, unless the club is happy to cop the loss. I would also aim to bring back the 2pm match where possible to avoid overlaps in other slots which a 3rd Melbourne stadium would help with (every game is stand alone except for the 3 or so played at 2pm Saturday to maximise eyeballs).

I dare say GWS would be rather upset about not having the chance to play on the GF venue.

Also, fewer games on the MCG/Docklands eats into the financials of those venues ( and thus, AFL revenue).

 

[JohnZ]

I dare say GWS would be rather upset about not having the chance to play on the GF venue.

Club financials come before away teams opinions where games are played. Should be a decision for the home team only, that's their prerogative.

Also, fewer games on the MCG/Docklands eats into the financials of those venues ( and thus, AFL revenue).

The 45/45 contract is an issue but easily overcome. Increase the number of rounds to 34, for a full 17 home/17 away game fixture.

 

[Bostonian]

It's basically down to there being a marginal seat there which is always pork barrelled to the max.

Anything to make the Labor *******s look good.

They don't do s**t for the other side of town .