Impact of the TV deal on stadiums - buy Etihad or build a boutique?

[miksmif]

A boutique stadium makes for common sense, especially if a national women's comp is announced..how many will it seat? 10,20 or 30k or what should it seat and what other uses will there be for it

 

[bombersfan4000]

There is no plan at this stage for WB night games in Ballarat, although Eureka Stadium will be fitted with AFL grade lighting, the lights will be used by the Ballarat and Central Highlands Football Leagues initially.

The new Eureka Stadium light towers will be 50% brighter and five metres higher than the light towers that they replaced. Complaints about the previous light towers never occurred. The new towers are to be angled and will have cowling around individual lights that will minimise light spillage into nearby residential areas. The nearby Wendouree C.E. Brown Reserve has just undergone a major upgrade too with an rebuilt playing arena, new lighting and is getting a new $2.6 million pavillion and will be hosting night games for the first time in April 2016 for the Central Highlands Football League. That will be a significant test on residents attitudes.

along with the local leagues, i can imagine the AFL and the Western bulldogs using the Eureka stadium for preseason games as well as training

 

[Periphery]

Neither option should be taken.

Docklands selling price goes down by about $12-$15mil every year before the 31/12/2025 hand over. Thats a pretty decent incentive not to buy it if the AFL is subsidising the 5 home clubs with only $10mil extra distributions to cover the poor net stadium yield. Plus there is all the maintenance costs and if they owned the stadium they would have to employ a stadium management team which all up might be another $7-$15mil cash out goings given both recurrent + long capital maintenance costs usually anually average at about 2% of original construction costs.

Build a 30,000 seater and you are looking at $5k to $10k per seat cost depending how basic or fancy you want it. Now the banks will give the AFL a 10 year loan but they might be able get a 20 year loan from the banks. Either way capital and interest payments plus maintence costs and setting up a stadium management divison at the AFL is still a more expensive option than waiting 10 years and 2 weeks to take over Docklands and keeping up the current subsidies.

Now if you get a government to pay for one or both alternatives then thats a different situation and I read the thread headline as the AFL has to fully fund either option.

In option 2 wouldn't it be safe to assume that the AFL would use money from the sale of Etihad to pay for the construction of the new stadium? As such they wouldn't need to borrow anything or if they did it would only be short term to cover the time it takes to construct the new stadium. By the time they planned and constructed a new stadium it'd probably be pretty close to the 2025 handover and the AFL would get an asset whose value is probably much higher than what it'd cost to build the new stadium.

Without knowing the exact area of the land they have to sell it's only possibly to get a vague idea of Etihad's value, but just using google maps the Etihad building itself is roughly a 300 x 260m ellipse with an area of 61,261 square metres. Figuring out a $/square value for the land is also difficult but based on a bit of quick research* it looks like it could range from between $10k and $25k. That gives it a rough value of between $612m - $1.531bn with $15k/square (chosen because it seems like a more reliable figure in the 2nd source) giving a value of $918m.

Demolition costs would probably be factored in to any sale price (assuming this isn't already included in those $/square figures) and I can't find much to give me a rough idea on how much that would cost. I did find one article** saying that $68m would be considered very expensive in the US for a stadium that looks to be roughly comparable to Etihad. Obviously it'd be more expensive in Australia to do the same job and I'd assume that they wouldn't be able to implode Etihad so the costs would probably be even higher. But even at $150m for demolition there would still almost certainly be sufficient cash from the sale to fund the whole thing.

I'd also assume that if the new stadium was built at the Olympic Park site as rumored in this thread then there would be minimal costs associated with acquisition of land as that area is government owned (as far as I can tell). I'd guess all it would take is for a contribution to the inevitable development and upgrade of Richmond station.

I'm making a lot of guesswork here but I think it would be entirely feasible and potentially highly profitable for the AFL to sell Etihad and build a new boutique stadium. Anything over $15k/square for Etihad seems like it would be highly profitable assuming it isn't going to cost a ridiculous sum to demolish it or acquire a new site.

*http://www.savills.com.au/_news/art...e-cbd-office-building-sells-for-$7.65-million & http://charterkc.com.au/valuations/...ntext-current-council-site-value-assessments/

** http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastro...-demolition-price-tag-seems-high/#photo-84383

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

In option 2 wouldn't it be safe to assume that the AFL would use money from the sale of Etihad to pay for the construction of the new stadium? As such they wouldn't need to borrow anything or if they did it would only be short term to cover the time it takes to construct the new stadium. By the time they planned and constructed a new stadium it'd probably be pretty close to the 2025 handover and the AFL would get an asset whose value is probably much higher than what it'd cost to build the new stadium.

Without knowing the exact area of the land they have to sell it's only possibly to get a vague idea of Etihad's value, but just using google maps the Etihad building itself is roughly a 300 x 260m ellipse with an area of 61,261 square metres. Figuring out a $/square value for the land is also difficult but based on a bit of quick research* it looks like it could range from between $10k and $25k. That gives it a rough value of between $612m - $1.531bn with $15k/square (chosen because it seems like a more reliable figure in the 2nd source) giving a value of $918m.

Demolition costs would probably be factored in to any sale price (assuming this isn't already included in those $/square figures) and I can't find much to give me a rough idea on how much that would cost. I did find one article** saying that $68m would be considered very expensive in the US for a stadium that looks to be roughly comparable to Etihad. Obviously it'd be more expensive in Australia to do the same job and I'd assume that they wouldn't be able to implode Etihad so the costs would probably be even higher. But even at $150m for demolition there would still almost certainly be sufficient cash from the sale to fund the whole thing.

I'd also assume that if the new stadium was built at the Olympic Park site as rumored in this thread then there would be minimal costs associated with acquisition of land as that area is government owned (as far as I can tell). I'd guess all it would take is for a contribution to the inevitable development and upgrade of Richmond station.

I'm making a lot of guesswork here but I think it would be entirely feasible and potentially highly profitable for the AFL to sell Etihad and build a new boutique stadium. Anything over $15k/square for Etihad seems like it would be highly profitable assuming it isn't going to cost a ridiculous sum to demolish it or acquire a new site.

*http://www.savills.com.au/_news/art...e-cbd-office-building-sells-for-$7.65-million & http://charterkc.com.au/valuations/...ntext-current-council-site-value-assessments/

** http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastro...-demolition-price-tag-seems-high/#photo-84383

To many assumptions. When have the AFL said they will sell Docklands? Given they dont take over for 10 years and lot can happen in a decade, then my answer to you first question -In option 2 wouldn't it be safe to assume that the AFL would use money from the sale of Etihad to pay for the construction of the new stadium? - is NO.

 

[Periphery]

To many assumptions. When have the AFL said they will sell Docklands? Given they dont take over for 10 years and lot can happen in a decade, then my answer to you first question -In option 2 wouldn't it be safe to assume that the AFL would use money from the sale of Etihad to pay for the construction of the new stadium? - is NO.

If they were going to build a boutique stadium why would they keep Etihad? It would make no sense to have both, especially when they could make a significant profit from the sale of Etihad.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If they were going to build a boutique stadium why would they keep Etihad? It would make no sense to have both, especially when they could make a significant profit from the sale of Etihad.

Its 10 years away!

 

[bombersfan4000]

If they were going to build a boutique stadium why would they keep Etihad? It would make no sense to have both, especially when they could make a significant profit from the sale of Etihad.

why would they sell etihad any time soon?
it will have taken 25 years to pay off, they will own it out right & have full control of the venue as well as it being a fully enclosed state of the art stadium.
peoples idea of the AFL building a boutique stadium is mad. perhaps the state government might but Etihad is here to stay for at least the next 20 years

 

[bombersfan4000]

I'm not convinced that they need a boutique stadium as an alternative to Etihad Stadoium in Melbourne. Perhaps it just comes down to how Etihad Stadium is being run. The AFL in its infinite wisdom should schedule the anticipated low crowd drawing games on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, this way the games can be played with the roof open, thus reducing lighting costs etc. Also if they anticipate a crowd of 15,000 then it isn't hard to shut off sections of the ground and restrict seating to the lower sections. This reduces cleaning, the amount of bars and other catering facilities needed etc.

Goodness, do these people know how to run a business?

The afl just need to look at how the NRL.manage its pathetic crowds. Close the top tier stands off, use tarps for sponsorships and jam every one up close to the field of play to make it loom like there is a crowd there

 

[Rouel_14]

Getting rid of Etihad is a terrible idea.
Then you would have a 30000 seat stadium with not enough seats and people will miss out and a 100000 seat stadium no one comes close to filling.

Etihad is a great stadium and sized perfectly, it's just used and ran so wrongly


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rob]

The afl just need to look at how the NRL.manage its pathetic crowds. Close the top tier stands off, use tarps for sponsorships and jam every one up close to the field of play to make it loom like there is a crowd there

Well in most cases they just use some suburban dump to host the game.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Well in most cases they just use some suburban dump to host the game.

Doesn't change their attempt to make the crowd any bigger

 

[Damon_3388]

Doesn't change their attempt to make the crowd any bigger

A lot of those suburban NRL grounds like Brookvale and Leichhardt only hold about 20,000 or so anyway. Not much difference from the old days of the VFL.

 

[bombersfan4000]

A lot of those suburban NRL grounds like Brookvale and Leichhardt only hold about 20,000 or so anyway. Not much difference from the old days of the VFL.

I realize that, those grounds have been all government funded as well over the years.

 

[Pessimistic]

A boutique stadium makes for common sense, especially if a national women's comp is announced..how many will it seat? 10,20 or 30k or what should it seat and what other uses will there be for it

And a boost for local and vfl footy. Etihad too big port melbourne too small

 

[Pessimistic]

I'm not convinced that they need a boutique stadium as an alternative to Etihad Stadoium in Melbourne. Perhaps it just comes down to how Etihad Stadium is being run. The AFL in its infinite wisdom should schedule the anticipated low crowd drawing games on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, this way the games can be played with the roof open, thus reducing lighting costs etc. Also if they anticipate a crowd of 15,000 then it isn't hard to shut off sections of the ground and restrict seating to the lower sections. This reduces cleaning, the amount of bars and other catering facilities needed etc.

Goodness, do these people know how to run a business?

Problem was, etihad was designed to condition fans into paying higher prices for footy. Victoriens dont like being dictated to.

Would need a redesign

 

[Rob]

Doesn't change their attempt to make the crowd any bigger

No, but 8k in a 20k capacity dump looks a lot better than 12k at the SFS or ANZ.

 

[Pessimistic]

Have to say, Etihad was jumping yesterday, packed to the rafters but not too many turned away.

As for the location, most of the outlets were closed after the game, so people headed on out. Maybe docklands people think they are too good for footy fans

A couple of pubs wouldn't go amiss in docklands

 

[SugarHealey]

I thought this post was probably best placed here, rather than in the larger discussion about the tv deal - it's really more focused on stadia.

The title really says it all.

For over a decade we've had the smaller clubs getting reamed by terrible deals at Etihad Stadium. As we know, the AFL takes ownership of the stadium in 2025, and once a year we get some newspaper articles talking about how the AFL would like to take it earlier to resolve the rubbish agreements, but that the current owners are asking too much.

Throughout that time, also about once a year, a major figure from a poor team getting screwed by Etihad calls for a boutique stadium to be built in Melbourne - this year it was Peter Gordon's turn.

So with the AFL about to be rolling in money from the new tv deal, what's the priority? I don't imagine the current Etihad owners are about to lower their price knowing how much money the AFL has... but is it worth building a new stadium if that's going to take 2 years, and if the AFL takes ownership in 2025 anyway?

I thought I'd throw it open and see what others thought, because in weighing up pro's and cons, I'm buggered if I know which option I prefer. I do know that, now I live in Melbourne, calls for the redevelopment of Princess Park confuse me... there's no parking and it's rubbish to get to! (I can't imagine how people used to deal with Waverley!)

That said... I guess you're not about to get any more land that's within walking distance of the CBD/city train stations... If pushed, I'd probably lean towards just buying out Etihad, but I'm curious to hear what others reckon.

I think its high time the people of Eastern Victoria were looked after. The people of the Sth-Eastern outer suburbs & regional areas have been poorly looked out for, by the AFL.

These people which includes East Gippsland, & right down the Mornington Peninsular have no clubs nearby, & must travel for hours one way if they are to get an AFL footy game to attend.

The West of the Victoria has the Geelong ground to head to, out of Melbourne. Or they can get on a many train routes, almost straight to the door of an AFL ground.

The outer East state regions have maybe an hour & a half drive on average to get to a train, then hours heading toward Melbourne, before stopping all stations along the Dandenong line, to get to the AFL game,

Those down the Mornington Peninsular just have to drive all the way, & back, or get to Frankston station, wait for a train, then stopping all stations into the city.

When will the AFL look after the people of the eastern areas of this state & build a boutique stadium out at Dandenong Sth.


What is this thought bubble that thinks people always must travel inward, to the city centre? How about those near the city hub, travel out occasionally, to a boutique ground.
Then the people of the outer regions, have a better more realistic deal to go the footy.

I say, AFL, build it at Dandenong Sth, with Federal & State Government's assistance, & keep the Etihad until handover. At which time we could build Eastgate boutique, & sell Etihad for demolition, on its completion.

 

[Rob]

wut

Clubs don't even want to train out there, have fun finding clubs that want to play there.

 

[SugarHealey]

wut

Clubs don't even want to train out there, have fun finding clubs that want to play there.

OK, hand the whole East of the state over to soccer then. Just give it to them now. May as well. It's the selfishness that will kill our game, not generosity.

 

[thegreig]

OK, hand the whole East of the state over to soccer then. Just give it to them now. May as well. It's the selfishness that will kill our game, not generosity.

We all know that's not going to happen otherwise we'd all be soccer die hards by now... I agree the east isn't as well looked after as the west but that's because places in the west have larger amounts of the population in specific areas where as the east is very scattered. IMO Waverley park should have been kept for this very reason. The best place to build a stadium now would probably be Dandenong but that would still requier a lot of extra infrastructure to be built before it could happen. The AFL would have some sort of future plan for the area up their sleev

 

[Rob]

OK, hand the whole East of the state over to soccer then. Just give it to them now. May as well. It's the selfishness that will kill our game, not generosity.

Must have missed all the top class soccer clubs that are playing games out there.

 

[nobbyiscool]

OK, hand the whole East of the state over to soccer then. Just give it to them now. May as well. It's the selfishness that will kill our game, not generosity.

Well the Morwell Falcons/Gippsland Falcons/Eastern Pride certainly dented the market share after Waverley was shut down.

Oh, wait...

This notion of "handing regions over to soccer" is ridiculous. Unlike many of the Luddites on this board, the modern, evolved sporting fan - particularly in Melbourne - don't have that "sheilas wogs and NTTAWWTters" outlook on football, and they are capable of supporting and enjoying more than one sport; their kids often play or try multiple sports before settling on one that they most enjoy most, or that their friends play, or that they're the best at.

While I don't think they collect stats, I'd be blown away if over 75% of Melbourne Victory's 27k members aren't also members, or at least regular attendees of AFL clubs as well.

 

[SugarHealey]

We all know that's not going to happen otherwise we'd all be soccer die hards by now... I agree the east isn't as well looked after as the west but that's because places in the west have larger amounts of the population in specific areas where as the east is very scattered. IMO Waverley park should have been kept for this very reason. The best place to build a stadium now would probably be Dandenong but that would still requier a lot of extra infrastructure to be built before it could happen. The AFL would have some sort of future plan for the area up their sleev

No, my generation were brought up on footy at suburban grounds. and tribalism. Generations since have all started doing other sports, surfing, basketball, & of late, soccer is growing on school playgrounds everywhere, on the weekends.

Inner Melbourne is extremely well catered for, re AFL rules. Outer suburbs & beyond isn't, & the people out there are changing cultures away from Western, & Australian cultures. Including the sports.

Asians also play soccer within they're cultures.

Now is the time to move the smaller attendance AFL games to the outer fringes, for all supporters to get a fair go.

Otherwise more people will feel left out, and become disenfranchised

It is ridiculous that State & Federal Governments would spend the peoples txs revenues, all within small central areas of the Capitol cities.

 

[thegreig]

No, my generation were brought up on footy at suburban grounds. and tribalism. Generations since have all started doing other sports, surfing, basketball, & of late, soccer is growing on school playgrounds everywhere, on the weekends.

Inner Melbourne is extremely well catered for, re AFL rules. Outer suburbs & beyond isn't, & the people out there are changing cultures away from Western, & Australian cultures. Including the sports.

Asians also play soccer within they're cultures.

Now is the time to move the smaller attendance AFL games to the outer fringes, for all supporters to get a fair go.

Otherwise more people will feel left out, and become disenfranchised

It is ridiculous that State & Federal Governments would spend the peoples taxes all within small central areas of the Capitol cities.

I get what you're saying and the AFL could probably be doing more, but I remember playing basketball as a kid when Michael Jordan was in his prime and in Melbourne the NBL was getting crowds between 10-15,000 everyone was saying the same thing... Basketball will take over one day! but it didn't happen, in fact it went backwards despite having great numbers and support at junior level and still does today. If you look at the A-league it's almost history repeating, it will be very interesting to see what happens with the next FFA TV rights because things aren't looking very good for them at the moment.