Ground Rental Rates for AFL Clubs/Stadiums

[Catoggio76]

Hi all,
Just did some raw maths on what Rental Rates AFL clubs are being charged to play at select stadiums across Australia. This sort of ties back to Ground Rationalisation and the benefits of keeping your own ground versus "going where the AFL Head Office wants you to play".

My raw maths was based on West Coast Eagles 2014 season and financial records. See here for more: http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/news/2014-01-10/finanical-results

West Coast Eagles advised that:

1. West Coast has made a royalty payment to the West Australian Football Commission (WAFC) of $2,918,871, which includes a one-off investment return in these figures.

2. When consolidated with rent payment of $3,471,535, the club's return to the WAFC was $6,390,406 which we are extremely proud of, as it goes directly back into Western Australian football.

So looking at the above rent payment of $3,471,535, if the Eagles rented Subiaco Oval (say) 14 times in 2014, that they pay $247,966.80 per home game, to 'rent out' Subiaco Oval.

I am looking to see what other clubs rental rates are, versus those at "AFL Corporate Venues" such as the MCG and Etihad, to see if the clubs are getting a good stadium deal.

 

[The_Reaper]

There is no benefit in keeping your ground without state government support and why would state government support every team having its own stadium?

Fans don't actually want to watch games in shitty, derelict suburban grounds.

 

[Catoggio76]

There is no benefit in keeping your ground without state government support and why would state government support every team having its own stadium?

Fans don't actually want to watch games in shitty, derelict suburban grounds.

NRL, ARU and A-league clubs will demand the same assistance then, if the AFL clubs want to rely on "Government Support" for Stadium Infrastructure. AFL has no more right than say a Melbourne Victory FC to demand Government Assistance for stadium infrastructure.

 

[The_Reaper]

NRL, ARU and A-league clubs will demand the same assistance then, if the AFL clubs want to rely on "Government Support" for Stadium Infrastructure. AFL has no more right than say a Melbourne Victory FC to demand Government Assistance for stadium infrastructure.

Yeah. That's my point. The reason ground rationalisation happened because the guy paying the bills said so.

AFL clubs had no choice in the matter.

 

[boncer34]

AFL has no more right than say a Melbourne Victory FC to demand Government Assistance for stadium infrastructure.

I can think of 13,319 reasons why they do.

 

[Catoggio76]

I can think of 13,319 reasons why they do.

May as well list them mate. Last time I checked, MVFC had 25,000 members.

 

[boncer34]

May as well list them mate. Last time I checked, MVFC had 25,000 members.

Yeah and had on average 22,888 people watch them.

Sorry thought we were talking about stadiums not members. Want me to list the amount of members the AFL has?

 

[Catoggio76]

Yeah and had on average 22,888 people watch them.

Sorry thought we were talking about stadiums not members. Want me to list the amount of members the AFL has?

I know that mate, point being, for an industry that gets billion dollar TV deals, its reliance on Government to build it stadiums is suspect. Much like your club.

 

[boncer34]

I know that mate,

You know that Victory's crowd size is dwarfed by the AFL's yet still claim that the AFL has no more right to stadium infrastructure then the Victory?

Knowing that more people use the AFL's stadiums then the Victory's you still make that claim?

You're not very bright are you?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Hi all,
Just did some raw maths on what Rental Rates AFL clubs are being charged to play at select stadiums across Australia. This sort of ties back to Ground Rationalisation and the benefits of keeping your own ground versus "going where the AFL Head Office wants you to play".

My raw maths was based on West Coast Eagles 2014 season and financial records. See here for more: http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/news/2014-01-10/finanical-results

West Coast Eagles advised that:

1. West Coast has made a royalty payment to the West Australian Football Commission (WAFC) of $2,918,871, which includes a one-off investment return in these figures.

2. When consolidated with rent payment of $3,471,535, the club's return to the WAFC was $6,390,406 which we are extremely proud of, as it goes directly back into Western Australian football.

So looking at the above rent payment of $3,471,535, if the Eagles rented Subiaco Oval (say) 14 times in 2014, that they pay $247,966.80 per home game, to 'rent out' Subiaco Oval.

I am looking to see what other clubs rental rates are, versus those at "AFL Corporate Venues" such as the MCG and Etihad, to see if the clubs are getting a good stadium deal.

Thats 1 club not Clubs as you state in your opening statement. Clubs that play at clean stadiums get charged fixed rents. Non clean stadiums the charge is a combination of recovery of match day costs and slice of the gate.

Which stadiums have clean stadium deals with which clubs? Answer that question first and you will work out how much work you have to do.

 

[Catoggio76]

You know that Victory's crowd size is dwarfed by the AFL's yet still claim that the AFL has no more right to stadium infrastructure then the Victory?

Knowing that more people use the AFL's stadiums then the Victory's you still make that claim?

You're not very bright are you?

Typical Essendon supporter, try and bluff and bully your way out of reasonable discussion. That's why your club stinks to high heaven.

 

[boncer34]

Typical Essendon supporter, try and bluff and bully your way out of reasonable discussion. That's why your club stinks to high heaven.

What part of my post was a bluff?

 

[The_Reaper]

Typical Essendon supporter, try and bluff and bully your way out of reasonable discussion. That's why your club stinks to high heaven.

He's correct.
Clubs that get more fans get more government investment. Why the Eagles and Dockers will playing from a 60,000 seater and the Glory from a 20,000 seater.

 

[Catoggio76]

He's correct.
Clubs that get more fans get more government investment. Why the Eagles and Dockers will playing from a 60,000 seater and the Glory from a 20,000 seater.

West Coast and Freo haven't done a deal with the new stadium, last I heard.....

Look at the 2018 events booked for the new Perth Stadium.

1. NRL Double Header is OPENING the Stadium on March 4
2. NRL State of Origin is booked there for mid 2019.
3. WA Govt wants Socceroos v England soccer match at stadium in June 2019
4. WA Govt wanted stadium ready late 2017, for ASHES cricket.

Yeah yeah, the Eagles and Dockers are the only tenants the Stadium Operators are worried about.

Well done. Now go back to your PR jobs at your respective AFL clubs.

 

[The_Reaper]

West Coast and Freo haven't done a deal with the new stadium, last I heard.....

Look at the 2018 events booked for the new Perth Stadium.

1. NRL Double Header is OPENING the Stadium on March 4
2. NRL State of Origin is booked there for mid 2019.
3. WA Govt wants Socceroos v England soccer match at stadium in June 2019
4. WA Govt wanted stadium ready late 2017, for ASHES cricket.

Yeah yeah, the Eagles and Dockers are the only tenants the Stadium Operators are worried about.

Well done. Now go back to your PR jobs at your respective AFL clubs.

The Eagles and Dockers are the most important ones who will be using the stadium week in week out while naturally the state government wants events from elsewhere - which by the way still happened at Subiaco Oval.

If you think the government spent over a billion to host a match between two eastern staters in a sport nobody in WA cares about once in a blue moon you aren't the brightest spark.

 

[boncer34]

Well done. Now go back to your PR jobs at your respective AFL clubs.

You're not very bright are you?

 

[boncer34]

you aren't the brightest spark.

It took this long for you to work that out?

 

[NoobPie]

NRL, ARU and A-league clubs will demand the same assistance then, if the AFL clubs want to rely on "Government Support" for Stadium Infrastructure. AFL has no more right than say a Melbourne Victory FC to demand Government Assistance for stadium infrastructure.

In Victoria:

-Australian football has directly or indirectly paid off the vast bulk of the two major stadiums it uses with minimal direct or indirect government contribution

-the rectangular sports rely on either these AFL build stadiums (which the Vic government sometimes pays these sports to host events at) or the several hundred million dollar one it built for the rectangular codes

The AFL has put far more in to stadium infrastructure in this country than every other sport combined

 

[Professor Knowall]

It seems that everyone here has forgotten the Vic state gov't paid $340 million for the rectangular stadium - just for the benefit of the privately owned soccer and rugby clubs. This is more than the total amount they've contributed for the oval stadiums for the community (membership based) owned Australian Football AFL clubs in Victoria - and all this without any monetary contribution required from the soccer/rugby clubs for the cost of construction. The NSW gov't has committed at least $1.6 billion or more for rectangular stadiums - again without any monetary contribution required from the NRL or A-League.

If only AFL clubs could have access to these sort of handouts..

As for the WA stadium - a few "special" events here and there won't make this stadium in any way viable. Clearly this has been built primarily for the 22 H&A AFL games.

 

[Rob]

I know that mate, point being, for an industry that gets billion dollar TV deals, its reliance on Government to build it stadiums is suspect. Much like your club.

How about you have a look at the net wealth of A-League team owners and then get back to us on who deserves government assistance to build stadiums.

 

[JohnZ]

Does anyone know how much money the Vic Gov has spent on the MCG compared to the MCC and AFL?

 

[NoobPie]

Does anyone know how much money the Vic Gov has spent on the MCG compared to the MCC and AFL?

I'm pretty sure they contributed ~$70M for the redevelopment last decade ahead of the commonwealth games with the bulk of the remainder financed by the MCC underpinned ultimately by a long term contract with the AFL to play a lot of games, including finals and the GF there

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Does anyone know how much money the Vic Gov has spent on the MCG compared to the MCC and AFL?

The Government spent nothing into the great southern stand. The AFL got a 23,000 seat AFL members reserve and some annual payment was made. IIRC correctly it was $5mil per year but can't remember if it was for the full 40 years to tie in with the 40 year finals and GF deal ie 1992-2032 period. The_Wookie do you have the details from those early 1990's AFL annual reports.

Eddie then helped negotiations so that no non Vic side had to pay a home PF after the 2004 Brisbane debacle and an extra 5 years of GF's and finals was negotiated guaranteeing a GF at the MCG until 2037.

The northern stands redevelopment was supposed to be $90mil from the feds. But because Grocon wouldn't sign their approved workplace agreement with the unions they pulled the funding and the Vic government stepped in and contributed $77m and the MCC went and borrowed the balance $357m.

The deal struck with the AFL was that they would contribute $6mil per year for 32 years and from members funds $29mil for 20 years would be allocated to repayments. The MCC only put up fees by a bit less than $100 per year once the new stands were finished. At a bit more than $500 it was a great deal and that’s why they have 175,000 on the waiting list back in 2007 as per the annual report that year. I don't know if year 1 of of the 32 was when the redevelopment was completed ie 2006, but if it was, it lines up with the last payment in 2037 with the extended GF deal to 2037.

That's good, the AFL are contributing up until 2037 when the GF deal was extended to. The AFL should then say we are hiring the MCG as a clean stadium for the GF and no MCC member has rights to tickets to the GF, as we are now taking the GF around the country and taking bids for grounds around Oz to host the GF. Any ground who wants to enter a tender bid, has to provide 50,000 seats for the 2 competing club members and 20,000 for use by the AFL. Anything above 70,000 seats is up for negotiations as to who gets access to them.

 

[JohnZ]

The Government spent nothing into the great southern stand. The AFL got a 23,000 seat AFL members reserve and some annual payment was made. IIRC correctly it was $5mil per year but can't remember if it was for the full 40 years to tie in with the 40 year finals and GF deal ie 1992-2032 period. The_Wookie do you have the details from those early 1990's AFL annual reports.

Eddie then helped negotiations so that no non Vic side had to pay a home PF after the 2004 Brisbane debacle and an extra 5 years of GF's and finals was negotiated guaranteeing a GF at the MCG until 2037.

The northern stands redevelopment was supposed to be $90mil from the feds. But because Grocon wouldn't sign their approved workplace agreement with the unions they pulled the funding and the Vic government stepped in and contributed $77m and the MCC went and borrowed the balance $357m.

The deal struck with the AFL was that they would contribute $6mil per year for 32 years and from members funds $29mil for 20 years would be allocated to repayments. The MCC only put up fees by a bit less than $100 per year once the new stands were finished. At a bit more than $500 it was a great deal and that’s why they have 175,000 on the waiting list back in 2007 as per the annual report that year. I don't know if year 1 of of the 32 was when the redevelopment was completed ie 2006, but if it was, it lines up with the last payment in 2037 with the extended GF deal to 2037.

That's good, the AFL are contributing up until 2037 when the GF deal was extended to. The AFL should then say we are hiring the MCG as a clean stadium for the GF and no MCC member has rights to tickets to the GF, as we are now taking the GF around the country and taking bids for grounds around Oz to host the GF. Any ground who wants to enter a tender bid, has to provide 50,000 seats for the 2 competing club members and 20,000 for use by the AFL. Anything above 70,000 seats is up for negotiations as to who gets access to them.

Interesting - thanks.

Do you think between now and 2037, the Southern Stand might be rebuilt,and what implications would this have for the MCG and the AFL?

 

[Professor Knowall]

Do you think between now and 2037, the Southern Stand might be rebuilt,and what implications would this have for the MCG and the AFL?

Hmmm - the problem with this question is that any answer given will only be a best guess opinion.

That said, if any new stand is built, I think (best guess) that the AFL and MCC would demand a much greater state gov't contribution than previous - or risk losing the GF to interstate - especially given how generous the NSW and Vic govt's have been in building new rectangular stadiums.