Roy Masters.."state government bequeathing the Docklands stadium to the AFL" !!

[speedpeck23]

The job of a journalist is of course to create an argument and build a headline so that the media outlet for which they work can sell more advertising. Roy Masters of course always goes into bat for the NRL. Good luck to him...that's his favourite sport.

Ironically in his most recent article for the SMH the NRL could be forgiven for thinking that he wants to give the AFL a free kick. Roy's credibility must be questioned over his distortion of the facts in relation to the AFL's ownership of Docklands stadium.

Without going into exhaustive historic detail it was the then VFL's investment in a large chunk of real estate in 1962 , coupled with Australian Rules continuing enormous popularity which has effectively allowed the AFL to be uniquely placed compared to all other elite sports in Australia in privately acquiring ownership of one of it's major venues.

Whilst there are many different opinions about the pros and cons of the AFL's stadium, the mere fact that the AFL owns and operates such a venue reflects the popularity and potential of the game itself compared to all other sports in Australia.

The NRL and the SMH would be better served by Roy if he relied on facts to back up his expert opinions.

 

[Colonial]

The job of a journalist is of course to create an argument and build a headline so that the media outlet for which they work can sell more advertising. Roy Masters of course always goes into bat for the NRL. Good luck to him...that's his favourite sport.

Ironically in his most recent article for the SMH the NRL could be forgiven for thinking that he wants to give the AFL a free kick. Roy's credibility must be questioned over his distortion of the facts in relation to the AFL's ownership of Docklands stadium.

Without going into exhaustive historic detail it was the then VFL's investment in a large chunk of real estate in 1962 , coupled with Australian Rules continuing enormous popularity which has effectively allowed the AFL to be uniquely placed compared to all other elite sports in Australia in privately acquiring ownership of one of it's major venues.

Whilst there are many different opinions about the pros and cons of the AFL's stadium, the mere fact that the AFL owns and operates such a venue reflects the popularity and potential of the game itself compared to all other sports in Australia.

The NRL and the SMH would be better served by Roy if he relied on facts to back up his expert opinions.

He never has used facts in his discussions about footy anywhere before so I doubt they will force him to now.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[RUNVS]

The job of a journalist is of course to create an argument and build a headline so that the media outlet for which they work can sell more advertising. Roy Masters of course always goes into bat for the NRL. Good luck to him...that's his favourite sport.

Ironically in his most recent article for the SMH the NRL could be forgiven for thinking that he wants to give the AFL a free kick. Roy's credibility must be questioned over his distortion of the facts in relation to the AFL's ownership of Docklands stadium.

Without going into exhaustive historic detail it was the then VFL's investment in a large chunk of real estate in 1962 , coupled with Australian Rules continuing enormous popularity which has effectively allowed the AFL to be uniquely placed compared to all other elite sports in Australia in privately acquiring ownership of one of it's major venues.

Whilst there are many different opinions about the pros and cons of the AFL's stadium, the mere fact that the AFL owns and operates such a venue reflects the popularity and potential of the game itself compared to all other sports in Australia.

The NRL and the SMH would be better served by Roy if he relied on facts to back up his expert opinions.

Could you provide a link?

 

[WillHayward]

I cant find the article but I assume old Roy Boy is trying to justify NSW government money being spent on the new Moore Park rugby stadium?

 

[Aucklander]

The quote is in this article.

 

[Colonial]

I cant find the article but I assume old Roy Boy is trying to justify NSW government money being spent on the new Moore Park rugby stadium?

I would say more about the ANZ rebuild


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Pessimistic]

Shelbyville strategy

 

[pazza]

The headline is the problem here. Victorian Government has never owned Docklands....

 

[RUNVS]

The headline is the problem here. Victorian Government has never owned Docklands....

and no one gave the AFL Docklands, the AFL bought it.

 

[NoobPie]

It either comes down to either a lack of integrity or competency....or a little from both columns

The guy apparently lives in Melbourne. I find it very hard to believe he wasn't aware that is a completely dishonest misrepresentation of how Etihad came into the AFL's ownership

 

[Temp1au]

The usual league fan with a chip on his shoulder, full of bitterness & rage of other codes being more successful

 

[Kwality]

The job of a journalist is of course to create an argument and build a headline so that the media outlet for which they work can sell more advertising. Roy Masters of course always goes into bat for the NRL. Good luck to him...that's his favourite sport.

Ironically in his most recent article for the SMH the NRL could be forgiven for thinking that he wants to give the AFL a free kick. Roy's credibility must be questioned over his distortion of the facts in relation to the AFL's ownership of Docklands stadium.

Without going into exhaustive historic detail it was the then VFL's investment in a large chunk of real estate in 1962 , coupled with Australian Rules continuing enormous popularity which has effectively allowed the AFL to be uniquely placed compared to all other elite sports in Australia in privately acquiring ownership of one of it's major venues.

Whilst there are many different opinions about the pros and cons of the AFL's stadium, the mere fact that the AFL owns and operates such a venue reflects the popularity and potential of the game itself compared to all other sports in Australia.

The NRL and the SMH would be better served by Roy if he relied on facts to back up his expert opinions.

You didnt link the article/s you have read. I'd be surprised if the context of any claim by Masters is not understood.
My understanding is that a leasehold property has been effectively gifted to the AFL for the period of the sweetheart deal over the GF deal. The term of the lease parallels the term of the GF deal (no coincidence?) The building returns to Govt ownership at the expiry of the GF deal.

Are you unaware of the details of the sleazy deal between the encumbents? Arrangements that extended the GF deal to long after I have departed this world.

 

[Kwality]

and no one gave the AFL Docklands, the AFL bought it.

& journos do not pen the headline, aka not Roys work !!

 

[Our Game]

The old idiot is starting to to sound like a broken record.
I bet he is pissed off that Carlton and the AFL have sucked $15 million out of the Federal Govt to improve Princes Park for AFLW footy.

 

[jatz14]

& journos do not pen the headline, aka not Roys work !!

It wasnt the headline, the quote is from the body of the article about why Sydney is now the sporting capital of australia

Although Melbourne hosts January’s Australian Open, one of four grand slam tennis tournaments, as well as the formula one grand prix, these events were not enough to elevate the Victorian capital above Sydney in a survey that relied heavily on international recognition.

So, while Melburnians’ collective love of sport meant they had no objections to their state government bequeathing the Docklands stadium to the AFL at a time there is fierce protest in Sydney over rebuilding a 30 year old stadium, the 2019 survey focussed on the viewpoints of International Sporting Federations and global sports media.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Maybe Sydney would have more credibility if people actually turned out to watch their sports

 

[Pessimistic]

Maybe the plot of land was a $1 deal which became the AFLs after 30 years?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I wouldn't read too much into it. I'm a Sydney resident who actively dislikes NRL, but view Roy as pretty much just a good natured troll.

The motivation seems to be the rebuild of Alliance stadium which is huge politically and he's trying to deflect.

The issue has nothing to do with any Sydney v Melbourne rivalry though. It's public money being prioritised for the Eastern suburbs when the population lives in the west. Baird rejected the proposal for that reason, since he left the traditional elites have got it back in the agenda. It's now prioritised over the ANZ rebuild.

Stand by for it to possibly cost the Libs government. Such are the forces at play they kinda seem ok with that. There's a mad rush to get the demolition beyond the point if no return prior to the election so it cant be reversed.

 

[NoobPie]

Maybe the plot of land was a $1 deal which became the AFLs after 30 years?

Pretty sure the $30M the AFL paid was implicitly for the land. Obviolusly it also signed a 25 year contract which stipulated a minimum number of games of various import over the duration of the contract. The value of that contract can be inferred by the $200M the AFL paid to have the ownership transfer 7(?) years early

My understanding is that a leasehold property has been effectively gifted to the AFL for the period of the sweetheart deal over the GF deal. The term of the lease parallels the term of the GF deal (no coincidence?) The building returns to Govt ownership at the expiry of the GF deal.

.

And, not at all unusually, your understanding is completely incorrect

 

[Kwality]

And, not at all unusually, your understanding is completely incorrect

Not strange you didnt supply a link to your 'pretty sure' claim, but no doubt you will rectify this grave overlooktion (sic).

 

[Kwality]

I wouldn't read too much into it. I'm a Sydney resident who actively dislikes NRL, but view Roy as pretty much just a good natured troll.

The motivation seems to be the rebuild of Alliance stadium which is huge politically and he's trying to deflect.

The issue has nothing to do with any Sydney v Melbourne rivalry though. It's public money being prioritised for the Eastern suburbs when the population lives in the west. Baird rejected the proposal for that reason, since he left the traditional elites have got it back in the agenda. It's now prioritised over the ANZ rebuild.

Stand by for it to possibly cost the Libs government. Such are the forces at play they kinda seem ok with that. There's a mad rush to get the demolition beyond the point if no return prior to the election so it cant be reversed.

Where does the SCG Trust fit into this circus?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Where does the SCG Trust fit into this circus?

Tony Shepherd the trust Chairman is front and centre. They run the SCG and the Adjacent Alliance stadium. He was called out for writing press releases for the sports minister justifying the upgrade.

Think old money and influence, versus the practical realities of Sydney's geography, if you want to understand it.

 

[NoobPie]

Not strange you didnt supply a link to your 'pretty sure' claim, but no doubt you will rectify this grave overlooktion (sic).

Captain Wild Assertion himself ridiculing a lack of referencing. At least I qualified it with "pretty sure" so the reader wasn't mislead in to thinking I was climing it as a solid fact

As it is, apparently the AFL paid way overs for the freehold land title compared to what kennett was practically giving away other parts of the docklands for....



http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2424

According to the 2015 Concise Annual AFL Report, The AFL paid an Option Fee of $30 million to the Docklands Authority in 2001. This gives them the option to take the freehold land title on the land for $30.00 anytime within 6 months of the end of the present lease arrangment. Essentially the AFL will pay $30,000,030.00 for the freehold title to Docklands.

In 2012, The Age would report that the Kennett Government had been giving land in the Docklands away for a song. One of the first land deals orchestrated by the Kennett government in 1999 in an effort to kickstart the Docklands precinct saw the 136,970 square metre New Quay precinct, roughly five city blocks in size, sold to developers MAB Corporation for $3 million. The deal priced the land that came with harbour access at $22 per square metre. (A Brunswick workers’ cottage in 1999 cost $991 per square metre.).

 

[Kwality]

Captain Wild Assertion himself ridiculing a lack of referencing. At least I qualified it with "pretty sure" so the reader wasn't mislead in to thinking I was climing it as a solid fact

As it is, apparently the AFL paid way overs for the freehold land title compared to what kennett was practically giving away other parts of the docklands for....



http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2424

Fancy that I was not referring to the Docklands deal, I was referring to the Grand Final deal very clearly. not the cut & shut that suited your need to criticise:

You didnt link the article/s you have read. I'd be surprised if the context of any claim by Masters is not understood.
My understanding is that a leasehold property has been effectively gifted to the AFL for the period of the sweetheart deal over the GF deal. The term of the lease parallels the term of the GF deal (no coincidence?) The building returns to Govt ownership at the expiry of the GF deal.

Are you unaware of the details of the sleazy deal between the encumbents? Arrangements that extended the GF deal to long after I have departed this world.

I was unaware the cheerleader set had deteriorated to a peanut gallery, but there you go !!

 

[NoobPie]

Fancy that I was not referring to the Docklands deal, I was referring to the Grand Final deal very clearly. not the cut & shut that suited your need to criticise:

You didnt link the article/s you have read. I'd be surprised if the context of any claim by Masters is not understood.
My understanding is that a leasehold property has been effectively gifted to the AFL for the period of the sweetheart deal over the GF deal. The term of the lease parallels the term of the GF deal (no coincidence?) The building returns to Govt ownership at the expiry of the GF deal.

Are you unaware of the details of the sleazy deal between the encumbents? Arrangements that extended the GF deal to long after I have departed this world.

I was unaware the cheerleader set had deteriorated to a peanut gallery, but there you go !!

What? The AFL doesn't have any "leasehold" over the MCG what are you talking about? The reason the MCC may have had its lease hold extended to until the same year as the AFL's deal is because the whole thing is driven by the AFL deal...most importantly the rebuilding of the southern stand.

Once again confusion is occurring primarily because you don't know what you are talking about. You bang on about some "cheerleader set" but you'd have to be close to the most rabid of the regular contributor's to the footy industry board