Melbourne Stadium Issues

[Zvim]

On MMM AD spoke that in the last meeting with the clubs recently the AFL and ALL 16 clubs made a commitment to address the issue of the stadium crisis in Melbourne.

This is a huge positive for Melbourne clubs as the lack of clean stadiums to 9 of the clubs has seen a number of clubs anywhere up to $5m worse off a year.

AD said they don't know exactly how to overcome the issue and recognise they are in the hole because of the MCG/TD agreements which they can't break, but it is the first time the AFL and all the clubs acknowledge that it is a major problem which must be addressed in the short-term. It will be a huge boon for the Melbourne clubs.

 

[retroparty]

Yep we Definitely need 1 or 2 new stadiums in Melbourne. I say put one in the inner west and one in the inner east.

 

[waspy]

What's the problem with our current situation? Any new stadiums are not going to be big enough to play AFL matches at, and just last week Brumby announced huge funding for Vic clubs to improve their training facilities. What more do you propose we do?

 

[OzBomber]

Reckon the AFL wish they still had Waverley?

 

[Zvim]

What's the problem with our current situation? Any new stadiums are not going to be big enough to play AFL matches at, and just last week Brumby announced huge funding for Vic clubs to improve their training facilities. What more do you propose we do?

The problem is geelong can make $500k on getting 25k at Skilled and the interstate teams can make a similar amount on about 35-40k at their stadiums because the stadiums are clean. All corporate, catering, advertising and ground sponsorship revenue goes to the clubs, so it is very profitable to play at these stadiums.

Because MCC and TD are third party stadiums clubs see very little to nothing of the more profitable areas. It is why you need to get 30k to TD just to make any money at all. Clubs have 11 games to make a reasonable chunk of money and the restrictive agreements between the AFL and third parties means clubs have little bargaining power with these stadiums who are looking to make as much money from the games themselves and are protected from competing for games by guaranteed games and guaranteed attendance levels.

 

[Robbie]

Probably not, cos it was a half finished shit hole

 

[Genesis67]

On MMM AD spoke that in the last meeting with the clubs recently the AFL and ALL 16 clubs made a commitment to address the issue of the stadium crisis in Melbourne.

This is a huge positive for Melbourne clubs as the lack of clean stadiums to 9 of the clubs has seen a number of clubs anywhere up to $5m worse off a year.

AD said they don't know exactly how to overcome the issue and recognise they are in the hole because of the MCG/TD agreements which they can't break, but it is the first time the AFL and all the clubs acknowledge that it is a major problem which must be addressed in the short-term. It will be a huge boon for the Melbourne clubs.

Scuse my ignorance, but why would the interstate teams be interested? Steve Trigg has already "complained" about the Vic teams getting State Govt money, why would WC/Freo/Adelaide et al give a damn? Or have the interstate teams taken the stance of "Yes, very nice, we'd love to help with the Melbourne stadia issue, we'll be over here having coffee and cake if you need us, give us a call...".

Has there been some unmentioned agreement to address Football Park and the delay in the new Perth stadium as an enticement or something?

 

[Zvim]

Reckon the AFL wish they still had Waverley?

MMM talked about that and say that region is now considered the biggest growth region in the country. Casey, Dandenong, Frankston and surrounding regions are massive growth regions.

Population in Melbourne is estimated to hit 6.2m by 2020 and this region is one of the major growth areas, it is a huge loss to have a lack of presence in this region.

 

[Rob]

Abolish AFL membership and let the clubs sell the space.

 

[OzBomber]

I dont know much about Waverley, but I know that you feel like you were too far away and the weather was terrible there. If it was more like the G, and in close it would've been an awesome ground. And we'd see more teams with home ground advantages in Melbourne.

 

[Zvim]

Scuse my ignorance, but why would the interstate teams be interested? Steve Trigg has already "complained" about the Vic teams getting State Govt money, why would WC/Freo/Adelaide et al give a damn? Or have the interstate teams taken the stance of "Yes, very nice, we'd love to help with the Melbourne stadia issue, we'll be over here having coffee and cake if you need us, give us a call...".

Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney, West Coast and Fremantle all agreed that it was a major issue that needed to be resolved.

See, the money is not going from the Stadiums to the AFL, it is money that is not going to the AFL or to the clubs, it is going to third parties. If we had the clubs earning what they should be earning then there wouldn't be any need for the AFL to allocate more money to some clubs.

Trigg and the Crows have never been against supporting Melbourne clubs, he just wants to ensure the money spent is resolving issues rather than just becomes a money drain, which is fair enough. This issue if unresolved threatens all Melbourne clubs and when you factor how much of the AFL's revenue is generated in Victoria it would be a bigger concern to Trigg than any nickel and dime support spent currently.

It is all about resolving the issues rather than just covering them up with band-aid fixes which just bleed millions of dollars for nothing.

Has there been some unmentioned agreement to address Football Park and the delay in the new Perth stadium as an enticement or something?

AFL is going to contribute a significant amount of money to those new stadiums, like they do to all major AFL stadiums. The delay is between SANFL/WAFL, the clubs and their state governments. AFL has no real role in deciding on what is being done. SANFL and WAFL run the show in those states, I believe Port Adelaide is more of an obstacle in Adelaide, they do not really have the supporter base to justify a significantly larger stadium or a stadium where they are going to lose money playing at compared to AAMI.

 

[Zvim]

Abolish AFL membership and let the clubs sell the space.

I agree this is an issue. AFL should not be competing for membership, people choose AFL membership because it gives better access to games than club packages, same with MCC.

James Brayshaw talked about the possibility of building a smaller stadium with the AFL support which is clean, owned by the AFL/clubs and allows the clubs to maximise their revenue from games played there. When you are also factoring introducing two more interstate clubs it is going to be important that clubs can make a decent chunk of cash on the back of a 30k attendance.

 

[Beckers]

I agree this is an issue. AFL should not be competing for membership, people choose AFL membership because it gives better access to games than club packages, same with MCC.

James Brayshaw talked about the possibility of building a smaller stadium with the AFL support which is clean, owned by the AFL/clubs and allows the clubs to maximise their revenue from games played there. When you are also factoring introducing two more interstate clubs it is going to be important that clubs can make a decent chunk of cash on the back of a 30k attendance.

Its not rocket science really is it!!! If a few clubs and the AFL got together and built a ground of around 40k capacity, it would greatly benefit the smaller clubs.

 

[Mofra]

James Brayshaw talked about the possibility of building a smaller stadium with the AFL support which is clean, owned by the AFL/clubs and allows the clubs to maximise their revenue from games played there. When you are also factoring introducing two more interstate clubs it is going to be important that clubs can make a decent chunk of cash on the back of a 30k attendance.

This could actually work - when you consider that 4-5 Victorian sides, when playing interstate clubs, wouldn't get more than 25-30k to a game anyway.

Given the land constraints close to the city, would it make sense to develop one of the existing club bases with the AFL having a part share?
Arden St has little in the way of facilities at the moment so you'd expect a brand new facility could be built there.

Other options would be Optus Oval or Whitten Oval but the existing facilities there sound a little different from what the AFL want to do.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I say deal with it. Some clubs have a problem, big deal. It is not like the old days, where gate takings contributed largely to how a team would be financially. These days clubs have other revenue, where gate takings should not matter.

 

[4for brisbane]

I agree this is an issue. AFL should not be competing for membership, people choose AFL membership because it gives better access to games than club packages, same with MCC.

James Brayshaw talked about the possibility of building a smaller stadium with the AFL support which is clean, owned by the AFL/clubs and allows the clubs to maximise their revenue from games played there. When you are also factoring introducing two more interstate clubs it is going to be important that clubs can make a decent chunk of cash on the back of a 30k attendance.

Agreed re AFL membership, and re what brayshaw said, but he is great spending other people's money-a 30k stadium is 100m plus-the afl won't cop it.

 

[tandino]

Other options would be Optus Oval or Whitten Oval but the existing facilities there sound a little different from what the AFL want to do.

Both grounds you would think are a lost cause, due to development really.

How about Moorabbin? It will be empty soon and if you were to splash a bit of cash around it would be pretty decent.

 

[retroparty]

I agree this is an issue. AFL should not be competing for membership, people choose AFL membership because it gives better access to games than club packages, same with MCC.

James Brayshaw talked about the possibility of building a smaller stadium with the AFL support which is clean, owned by the AFL/clubs and allows the clubs to maximise their revenue from games played there. When you are also factoring introducing two more interstate clubs it is going to be important that clubs can make a decent chunk of cash on the back of a 30k attendance.

Yep the Doggies and the Roos could use a stadium which has a capacity of 30k. Then they could fill up the ground with their own supporters and get some real home ground advantage. They could play interstate teams and other vic teams there such as Richmond or St Kilda. It would give them a real good home advantage against other vic teams. The stadium could be located near both of those teams training bases.

Then they could save the bigger drawing games for TD or the G.

 

[Zvim]

Agreed re AFL membership, and re what brayshaw said, but he is great spending other people's money-a 30k stadium is 100m plus-the afl won't cop it.

They don't have to pay for it.

AFL is paying what, $7m a year for SDF? You are looking at hundreds of millions if that status quo continues, to the point the comp can't sustain it.

Put $5m a year towards the stadium over 10 years, have the Government (local/state/federal) kick in $2.5m annually over 10 years and have the clubs that utilise the stadium kick in $2.5m a year for 10 years (based on use of the stadium).

Assume the stadium is used twice a week on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon, assume clubs make a Geelong-like $500k per game net over costs (except capital). That will be $22m net a year, so repayment would be about 11% of gate receipts which would return about $450k per game to the participants over the first 10 years. It would still be a massive improvement in profitability for clubs.

 

[AGC]

Yep the Doggies and the Roos could use a stadium which has a capacity of 30k. Then they could fill up the ground with their own supporters and get some real home ground advantage. They could play interstate teams and other vic teams there such as Richmond or St Kilda. It would give them a real good home advantage against other vic teams. The stadium could be located near both of those teams training bases.

Then they could save the bigger drawing games for TD or the G.

I reckon you'd want it a bit bigger than 30k. Maybe 40k or so, so the Roos and Dogs can use the ground against other bigger clubs.

 

[Zvim]

Yep the Doggies and the Roos could use a stadium which has a capacity of 30k. Then they could fill up the ground with their own supporters and get some real home ground advantage. They could play interstate teams and other vic teams there such as Richmond or St Kilda. It would give them a real good home advantage against other vic teams. The stadium could be located near both of those teams training bases.

Then they could save the bigger drawing games for TD or the G.

Look at Collingwood vs Fremantle, probably lucky to crack 30k, they will be lucky to make much cash from this game. A stadium of around 35k would even be ideal for teams like Collingwood and Essendon when playing interstate teams. Pies will be lucky to make $100k today, could make $500k just by having a more appropriate stadium. Add in reserved seating, pre-booking, etc for a smaller stadium and that is more cash for the club plus you would get a much better atmosphere at a smaller ground that is packed than a half filled big stadium.

 

[Zvim]

I reckon you'd want it a bit bigger than 30k. Maybe 40k or so, so the Roos and Dogs can use the ground against other bigger clubs.

I don't think the AFL can make a stadium bigger than 35k, it would breach their agreement with TD. 35k should be sufficient.

 

[Beckers]

I say deal with it. Some clubs have a problem, big deal. It is not like the old days, where gate takings contributed largely to how a team would be financially. These days clubs have other revenue, where gate takings should not matter.

I think every cent counts for about 4 or 5 of the Melbourne based clubs. Why do they all want home games against Collingwood or Essendon??

 

[tandino]

I think every cent counts for about 4 or 5 of the Melbourne based clubs. Why do they all want home games against Collingwood or Essendon??

And why are Geelong fighting tooth and nail to play more games in Geelong.

The AFL have brought this onto themselves with their push for ground rationalisation and trying to shoehorn 10 clubs into 2.5 stadiums. They will regret the day they sold Waverley.

 

[Zvim]

I say deal with it. Some clubs have a problem, big deal. It is not like the old days, where gate takings contributed largely to how a team would be financially. These days clubs have other revenue, where gate takings should not matter.

The difference between making $5m from your gate receipts and making a few hundred thousand is a massive difference, even for a club like Collingwood who still play a number of games a year against interstate teams where they wouldn't make much out of them.

Teams like Hawthorn, Bulldogs, Melbourne, etc wouldn't need to play out of Melbourne just to make some decent cash on lower attendance/interstate games.

Hawks can still stay in Tasmania if they like, they will just have the freedom of choice.