Remove this Banner Ad

Saints News Stadium Deal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kildonan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Melbourne clubs may reap $1m extra from stadiums
Jake Niall | June 24, 2009


MELBOURNE'S nine clubs would receive upwards of an extra million dollars each a year under the latest proposed deal from the MCG and Etihad Stadium.

The MCG and Etihad are now willing to pay about an extra $100,000 a home game for every club — a significant increase in revenue for the clubs, possibly enough to ensure the survival of some, such as Melbourne, the Bulldogs and North Melbourne, that have poor stadium returns.

If the AFL can reach agreement on the details of the discussions, this would mean an extra $1.1 million a year for those clubs that play all 11 home games in Victoria, though the deal is not yet settled, and the final package would also involve other factors, such as the total attendances at the two venues; and the AFL required to give more back to the stadiums.

But sources have confirmed that the AFL has made significant progress in its discussions with the venues and has reported to clubs that the latest offer would see them receive an estimated additional $100,000 a game. The MCC had already made public its previous offer of $90,000 a game.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou and league chairman Mike Fitzpatrick met Bulldogs president David Smorgon, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and Carlton chief executive Greg Swann, who represent the nine Victorian clubs in discussions, on Monday to brief them on how the negotiations were progressing.

Under the current offer from the stadiums, the clubs would receive a flat payment of $100,000 for each (home) game, regardless of what they currently receive.

For instance, if North Melbourne was receiving nothing at all for a game that attracted 30,000 fans at Etihad, it would now receive $100,000. If North had to write a cheque to Etihad for $50,000 for a poorly attended, loss-making match, it would now receive about $50,000.

Collingwood, which receives a guaranteed $200,000 for its two home games at Etihad, would have that amount boosted to about $300,000 a home game at the same venue.

Essendon, which has by far the most favourable deal at Etihad, would receive an extra $100,000 on top of its current return.

While the AFL has enlisted the State Government — which appoints the MCG trust — in its bid for a better return from the MCG, its main bargaining chip with Etihad Stadium has been the contract it has with the Docklands venue that it will take over in 2025.

The AFL has scheduled 46 games at Etihad Stadium this year, but under the terms of the contract, the minimum number reduces to just 30 in 2015, and it understood that the league has made it clear to Etihad's management that it would cut the number of games if it did not increase returns substantially.

The MCG contract is much more favourable than Etihad's. The MCG is guaranteed 45 games a year, including four finals, any preliminary final in Melbourne, the grand final and "reasonable endeavours" to ensure at least 2.1 million spectators; last year, with seven finals hosted at the ground, it drew about 2.8 million.

Geelong, whose president Frank Costa is also on the committee representing the clubs, benefits only from the two or three home games that it plays in Melbourne, and so would only get an extra $200,000 or $300,000 under the proposed formula. The Cats make up to $650,000 a game in Geelong.

MCC secretary Stephen Gough would not comment on the discussions last night.
 
The descrepancy I see is that other sports and events use Etihad knowing that they will attract 20-30000 spectators, and don't complain.
In other words they go to Etihad and say how much to use the stadium this weekend, and Etihad give a price which they find acceptable for the amount of crowd they are expecting.
Obviously the AFL clubs are subsiding the venue for everyone else with the current pricing arrangements.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Remember earlier in the year where we were like -250k from 3 home games after 5 rounds?

Soo, instead we'd be 50k in the black.

Still not that great, considering we'd had like 25,000 on average. Which aint bad against Sydney, Freo and WC!
 
Remember earlier in the year where we were like -250k from 3 home games after 5 rounds?

Soo, instead we'd be 50k in the black.

Still not that great, considering we'd had like 25,000 on average. Which aint bad against Sydney, Freo and WC!

I am pretty sure we paid something like 130k for those 3 games.
 
Remember earlier in the year where we were like -250k from 3 home games after 5 rounds?



Soo, instead we'd be 50k in the black.



Still not that great, considering we'd had like 25,000 on average. Which aint bad against Sydney, Freo and WC!


but it was our bad luck that we had them in a row... dont worry we should make good money from the geelong game... it would have been good if carlton was our home game
 
IMO the Stadium Management priced the contracts so that they could cover the entire cost of maintainance+ overheads+ game day costs + reasonable profit, solely on the AFL business. When others outside the AFL want to use the stadium they only pay game day costs + reasonable profit.
I'm only guessing, but thats what it seems like.
 
AFL to push ahead with court action
Kate Hagan and Guy Hand | June 26, 2009


ANDREW Demetriou has vowed the AFL will do "whatever it takes" to improve its Melbourne clubs' stadium deals as its battle with Etihad Stadium threatens to escalate to full-blown legal action.

League boss Demetriou said the AFL would press ahead with court proceedings against the Docklands stadium's owners after a partial win in its bid to extract documents from them yesterday.

The Supreme Court has ordered the operator of Etihad Stadium to provide the AFL with details of its naming-rights agreement with the Abu Dhabi-based airline.

Demetriou said the verdict would allow it to continue its action against the stadium to ensure better match-day returns for its clubs. "AFL clubs are generating a strong economy and have put millions of patrons through the stadium, but are not being rewarded for their outstanding work … in generating the bulk of stadium revenue," he said.

"Thousands of direct and indirect jobs are created by AFL clubs and AFL tourism brings nearly $150 million per year to Victoria. The clubs create jobs but they can't create jobs if they are being starved of money. We plan to take this forward legally to make sure we get the best outcome for our Victorian clubs. Whatever it takes on behalf of our clubs — that's how important it is."

Demetriou said stadium boss Ian Collins did not seem to want to resolve the dispute. "I'm not sure if his view reflects (that) of his shareholders … (but) I urge them to really take a hard look at this decision," he said. "Going forward, you don't want to have tenants who are dissatisfied. It's in no one's interest."

In a statement, Collins said the stadium's agreement with the AFL ran until 2025 and both parties were bound to comply with it. "We respect the AFL's position as our largest customer. If the AFL wants to negotiate a variation of the deal we are happy to listen, but any new deal obviously needs to offer mutual benefits," he said.

In her judgment delivered yesterday, Chief Justice Marilyn Warren said details should be provided to the league so it could establish whether Stadium Operations Limited had breached a naming-rights clause. A user agreement with the AFL prohibits the stadium from entering into naming rights with a league sponsor's rival.

An arrangement between the AFL and Qantas expired on December 31 last year but the airline is continuing to sponsor the league while negotiations on a new deal continue.

The stadium operator must also provide to the AFL details of its agreements with Coca Cola and Carlton and United Breweries, which have access to the stadium to provide beverages, to investigate any breaches of the league's pouring rights.

The AFL failed, however, in a bid to obtain details of the stadium's agreement with soccer club Melbourne Victory, which it argued might have received favourable terms at the stadium in breach of the AFL's user agreement.
 
Can the AFL even do anything? If they signed and agreed to the current contract, what can they do in court?
 
It appears that the AFL signed their agreement but so did the Docklands people and they agreed not to offer a better deal to another user (football code etc) and to consult with regard to sponsors that are in direct competition with the AFL sponsors. I dont know all the issues but it appears that the Docklands people have broken their word on just about everything they gave their word on.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom