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

[telsor]

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

You don't need to read his posts, just remember this, and you'll understand them all.

WCE - perfection
WA - very very good.
Rest of Aus - acceptable.
Vic - evil incarnate.

From that you can work out his position on just about any issue.

 

[The_Wookie]

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

Mate you're going off half cocked here. While i occasionally find Kwality irritating, his comments generally have some merit.

In this instance, I believe hes referring to a leasehold the Victorian Government gave the AFL to build and rent its new Headquarters on as part of the AFL - Vic Gov deal from last year.

THE AFL has struck a deal with the State Government to rent a site for its new headquarters at peppercorn prices.

The league will be pushed from its current home near Etihad Stadium to make way for a major $225 million makeover of the stadium precinct.

The Herald Sun understands the AFL has its eye on a new location at New Quay.

Treasurer Tim Pallas revealed that the relocation deal had been struck as part of a package to upgrade the Docklands stadium, as well as others across the city, and keep the AFL grand final in Melbourne until 2057.

Asked whether it was correct that the AFL would get the site for free or peppercorn rent, he said: “it is”.

“The arrangements that we put in place are that they will be able to access a facility, a piece of land, for AFL headquarters,” Mr Pallas said.

“It will be renegotiated around about the time that control of the AFL grand final staying in Melbourne (2057) is up for review.

“We hope to have them as a landlocked hostage.”

AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said: “There will be discussions now about where AFL House will be located in a number of years time as this refurbishment work gets underway.”

Mr Pallas also revealed in a post-Budget address to business that the government had splashed about $100m to buy the Docklands tower that currently houses Channel 7.

The move is also part of the revamp plan to open the esplanade to the waterfront.

“It is long overdue,” Mr Pallas said.

“The one thing that everyone would have to say about Etihad is that it is not visually splendid.

“A bit more work in connecting Etihad to the waterfront, opening it up, would be a good investment for all involved.”

Also here

Mr McGuire said the credit for the deal belonged to Premier Daniel Andrews, ALF chief executive, Gill McLachlan, and Melbourne Cricket Club president Steven Smith.

He added: “They’re going to knock over AFL House. AFL House is going to move around the corner, over the fence here (Docklands Studios, where the show is produced), on the waterfront in a deal which gives them 1500sqm of waterfront, plus the sports grounds there at Ron Barassi Snr oval and they’ll be able to go a lot of things there for a 40 year lease for $1 per year.”

If you havent seen it the details of the Governmnet/AFL deal are here.

 

[The_Wookie]

New Quay Site

• (a) Development Victoria is the registered proprietor of the land situated at Sites E1 and E2 of Docklands Drive, Docklands and identified in the plan contained in Annexure A (excluding the adjacent sporting field) (New Quay Site).
• (b) The State will ensure that Development Victoria grants to the AFL or a wholly owned or controlled subsidiary nominated by the AFL (AFL Tenant) a 40-year ground lease of as much of the New Quay Site as is required by the AFL:
  • (i) to accommodate its requirements for a new headquarters (including for any related entities) and associated AFL related uses (including for example media facilities) and other uses which are ancilliary to or connected with the Docklands Studio Precinct (as defined by Development Victoria) (including for example sport, 31 Doc ID 549905203/v1 digital and broadcast, but not including residential, serviced apartments or a shopping centre); and
  • (ii) subject to the State's consent (acting reasonably) for other uses, (Premises) for an annual peppercorn rental of $1.00 per annum (Lease). The State warrants that it has the power to procure the grant of such a lease from Development Victoria.
• The AFL will have an option to purchase the land at the end of the Lease for the value of the unimproved land. The value will be as determined by the Valuer-General (acting on joint instructions and applying generally applicable Valuer-General principles then in place).

 

[Kwality]

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

Not sure I mentioned the MCG, no I didnt, why have you reappeared with this load of nonsense, read what is said before your fingers do the talking.

 

[Kwality]

Mate you're going off half cocked here. While i occasionally find Kwality irritating, his comments generally have some merit.

In this instance, I believe hes referring to a leasehold the Victorian Government gave the AFL to build and rent its new Headquarters on as part of the AFL - Vic Gov deal from last year.



Also here



If you havent seen it the details of the Governmnet/AFL deal are here.

Thank you, I 'll try to be less irritating to you, sadly not always.

 

[NoobPie]

Mate you're going off half cocked here. While i occasionally find Kwality irritating, his comments generally have some merit.

In this instance, I believe hes referring to a leasehold the Victorian Government gave the AFL to build and rent its new Headquarters on as part of the AFL - Vic Gov deal from last year.



Also here



If you havent seen it the details of the Governmnet/AFL deal are here.

Perhaps you've been communicating with Kwality longer than me and can actually understand where he is coming from.

But what merit does his comments have anyway? The AFL getting that land at peppercorn lease was part of the deal. It is in the publicly available contract you have linked. Isn't Kwality trying to argue the AFL signed a sub optimal deal as part of some kind of Victoria fix?

 

[Kwality]

Perhaps you've been communicating with Kwality longer than me and can actually understand where he is coming from.

But what merit does his comments have anyway? The AFL getting that land at peppercorn lease was part of the deal. It is in the publicly available contract you have linked. Isn't Kwality trying to argue the AFL signed a sub optimal deal as part of some kind of Victoria fix?

Sleazy is my description of the behind closed door, stitch up deal by the encumbents.
Winners are grinners, its sleazy though.

 

[Kwality]

You don't need to read his posts, just remember this, and you'll understand them all.

WCE - perfection
WA - very very good.
Rest of Aus - acceptable.
Vic - evil incarnate.

From that you can work out his position on just about any issue.

I'd of thought balanced might better describe my offerings, e.g the Eagles could have beter managed the ITW member seat allocations moving to the new stadium to allow you a better stage on which to run your 'gouging' argument:
https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/what-will-the-eagles-do-with-its-riches-ng-b881098699z
See how I respect your contribution, but not this thread pls.

 

[The_Wookie]

Perhaps you've been communicating with Kwality longer than me and can actually understand where he is coming from.

But what merit does his comments have anyway? The AFL getting that land at peppercorn lease was part of the deal. It is in the publicly available contract you have linked. Isn't Kwality trying to argue the AFL signed a sub optimal deal as part of some kind of Victoria fix?

I think Kwality's issue with this is that the deal wasnt public before it was announced, and no one else had a chance at even matching it.

Not that I think they would have - the total funding deal including upgrades for various club facilities, AFLW support, Docklands, AFL HQ and all - I think is beyond what anyone else would have offered now - negotiations were never going to happen much further down the track with Docklands and the MCG always going to need upgrades in the next 10 years. Might have been a different story if it was just about grand final hosting.

 

[Kwality]

I think Kwality's issue with this is that the deal wasnt public before it was announced, and no one else had a chance at even matching it.

Not that I think they would have - the total funding deal including upgrades for various club facilities, AFLW support, Docklands, AFL HQ and all - I think is beyond what anyone else would have offered now - negotiations were never going to happen much further down the track with Docklands and the MCG always going to need upgrades in the next 10 years. Might have been a different story if it was just about grand final hosting.

No argument, effectively the three encumbents were inside the tent ie a sweetheart deal. Whether or not the AFL as the gatekeeper of Aussie Rules should act in the best interests of all, or favour one group ( Melburnians), is the issue.
No doubting the political acumen of the Andrews Government in all of this.

 

[telsor]

No argument, effectively the three encumbents were inside the tent ie a sweetheart deal. Whether or not the AFL as the gatekeeper of Aussie Rules should act in the best interests of all, or favour one group ( Melburnians), is the issue.
No doubting the political acumen of the Andrews Government in all of this.

There was only ever going to be one winner of the bid. Why waste significant time, effort and money getting other bids?

 

[Kwality]

There was only ever going to be one winner of the bid. Why waste significant time, effort and money getting other bids?

Depends on your view, ie one of an encumbent, cricket club fans #1, footy fans #2, 2.1 AFL members etc, then a very lonely last the members of competing clubs, subject to the cost of a bus fare &/or a flight plus accomodation - oh for the entitlement passed down generation by generation.

Did I tell you my grandkids are on the MCC waiting list & no, I'm not paying. IF you cant beat them, join 'em!!

 

[telsor]

Depends on your view, ie one of an encumbent, cricket club fans #1, footy fans #2, 2.1 AFL members etc, then a very lonely last the members of competing clubs, subject to the cost of a bus fare &/or a flight plus accomodation - oh for the entitlement passed down generation by generation.

Did I tell you my grandkids are on the MCC waiting list & no, I'm not paying. IF you cant beat them, join 'em!!

It's about two things. The money and the crowd size.

Vic/MCG will provide more of both.


If you want /need a 3rd reason, then the complete impracticality of holding it at the 2nd biggest AFL city (AKA the most isolated city in the world) would surely be a consideration.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

So thats it? The outrage has sprung up from the use of one word, as Roy tries to get a few more more $$ for Leaguies.

Talk about HSS - Hyper Sensitivity Syndrome.

 

[jatz14]

So thats it? The outrage has sprung up from the use of one word, as Roy tries to get a few more more $$ for Leaguies.

Talk about HSS - Hyper Sensitivity Syndrome.

More a case of people getting tired of the repeated comments about government gifting AFL a stadium, when no such thing happened.

Every NRL or soccer whinge about how corrupt the government dealings with AFL are inevitably refers to it.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

More a case of people getting tired of the repeated comments about government gifting AFL a stadium, when no such thing happened.

Every NRL or soccer whinge about how corrupt the government dealings with AFL are inevitably refers to it.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Practical reality is that if the Vic government didn't offer up $300m to develop in and around Docklands stadium and monies for other footy stuff, the AFL would not have gone and borrowed $200m to buy Docklands and another $80m for working capital to run the stadium, when the stadium's value was decreasing by about $25m per year and would have only cost $30 to hand it over on 31/12/2025.

 

[telsor]

Practical reality is that if the Vic government didn't offer up $300m to develop in and around Docklands stadium and monies for other footy stuff, the AFL would not have gone and borrowed $200m to buy Docklands and another $80m for working capital to run the stadium, when the stadium's value was decreasing by about $25m per year and would have only cost $30 to hand it over on 31/12/2025.

Sounds like a deal was made that caused both parties to achieve their objectives.