Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happening

Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #1
Ford asked me to gather the stuff I have written on stadium deals and put it into one thread and it can be a bit of a reference source/sticky for stadium deals stuff. I want to expand on that a little in some other posts as SA footy is in for a paradigm shift and it all ties in with the stadium deal we are trying to change as well as what is happening in Victoria at the moment between the AFL + it's clubs and the MCG and Docklands.

This first thread will be long and detailed but the idea is that it is a reference source you can cut and paste or link to when you are having debates about stadiums.

Fundamentally there are two types of stadium deals, clean stadiums and non clean stadiums. A clean deal is where the hirer of the stadium takes a greater share of the risk from the owner by paying a higher up front rent but has access to most of the revenue streams. A non clean deal is where the hirer, takes a lower level of risk and is charged a low or no rent and has access to a limited number of the revenue streams. Late last year I read most of the WA Major Stadia Taskforce’s Feasibility Report into the new WA stadium.

If you want to get a good feel for a new stadium and issues, technical and ownership, governance and financial feasibility then its worth having a look at it. You also will get information on other stadiums around Oz.

Major Stadia Taskforce Publications page link

Worth a read are

1. The Stadium & the City: Volume 1 ie the Main report

2. The Stadium & the City: Volume 2 Section C - Governance and Financial Feasability

The following is a definition of a clean stadium the Taskforce used for the WA stadium and I have put the table that they showed who had access to the venue revenue and expenses. All the quote paragraphs with no reference, comes from the document I linked at point 2 above.

Definition of “Clean” Stadium
………the individual sporting codes have suggested that a “clean” stadium model would be the preferred solution for all sports. As highlighted earlier, from a financial perspective the venue owner has to recoup the foregone venue membership revenue by charging higher fixed rents, increase its share of other revenue sources in hiring arrangements, or a combination of both.


The definition of “clean” stadium presented in Table 22 has been assumed for the purpose of this study.
Table 22: Definition of “Clean” Stadium

• The venue is provided to hirers free of any seating and membership restrictions, i.e. the venue will be provided to hirers as a 60,000 seat stadium including all corporate facilities, excluding those required for the owner and major sponsors, such as a naming rights sponsor;

• The owner has the right to the sell the naming rights for the venue / and or individual grandstands with all revenue retained by the owner (refer to Section C 2.3 for further detail on naming rights);

• The owner has the right to sell pourage rights and retain the revenue associated with these rights and will provide access rights for an alternative sponsor supplier to minimize potential conflicts with hirers;

• The owner has the right to undertake or sell catering rights and retain the associated revenue;

• The owner may negotiate to share some of the revenue associated with naming, catering and pourage rights with venue hirers (on a case by case basis) as part of the overall stadium hire arrangement;

• Revenue from signage that is visible to TV cameras flows to the hirer whereas signage revenue generated from sections of the venue that is not visible to TV cameras (e.g. stadium exterior or concourse level) of the venue remains with the owner; and

• Revenue from TV and other broadcast rights are retained by the venue hirers with any access / installation costs to be borne by the hirer.
Potential Sources of Revenues / Costs associated with Major Venue Operations​


F&B = Food and Beverage​

Similarly, the owner and hirers face a range of costs associated with owning and operating / hiring the venue. Table 1, above, provides an overview of the different revenue and cost sources associated with major venue operations and the general allocation of such items between the venue owner and hirer.

While there are some generally accepted industry benchmarks for rental levels and cost apportionment, such as a 15% rental plus venue related event costs, it is rare that any rental arrangement is this simplistic and will depend on the facilities available to the hirer to sell, the size of the venue, and the competition between venues. Ultimately the revenue share between the hirer and the owner is the outcome of negotiations, where the deal may be made in a number of different ways to provide return and risk and incentive for both parties, recognising that rather than an owner and hirer relationship this is actually a partnership.
Venue Membership are an important part of the whole stadium financial model. They effect the returns to the stadium owner and the hirer and different membership arrangements affect the different deals.

Given the fixed nature of venue ownership costs the preferred position of the venue owner is to secure revenue streams with a smaller degree of volatility and, in turn, greater certainty.

Venue memberships have traditionally provided a significant revenue stream for the venue owner with all major stadia across Australia having some form of venue memberships in place, with the exception of Subiaco Oval.Venue memberships are a popular product for major multi-sport venues, as they provide access for all events, and are highly sought after by both sporting fans and those who particularly want to attend the major events with access to the best possible seats and additional facilities and services. Membership packages typically appeal to middle to high income sports fans and corporate clients, who choose the informal atmosphere that a membership offers, with the option for dining if desired, rather than the more formal atmosphere of the corporate suite.

In Australia, about 10% to 20% of seats are allocated to memberships, and in all stadia, venue owners have had to manage issues with individual hirers to protect the rights of their members, both in terms of the perceived competition of the membership program with other programs they may offer and other issues such as empty seats in prime areas when members do not attend events. This is particularly the case in sold out events.
So given the basic definition between clean and non clean and the potential revenue streams available to the hirer (ie the AFL clubs) lets look at what happens around Oz.

QUEENSLAND

All the major stadiums in Queensland are owned by the government through a trust type set up, the Major Sports Facilities Authority (MSFA), Queensland. It is called Stadium Queensland for short hand. From the WA report

The Queensland Government has adopted an alternative model and established the MSFA to manage and promote the use of the State’s major sports, recreation and leisure facilities. The MSFA oversees a range of major sports and entertainment venues throughout Queensland, some of which it manages in house and others it manages by way of contract management.

The consolidation of the oversight role of Government funded venues into a single body such as the MSFA, ensures the management and operation of such venues is undertaken in a coordinated and consistently professional manner from a whole-of-government, whole-of-community perspective.

For example, a single oversight body will ensure that Government funded and owned venues do not compete with each other “against the public interest” to secure major national and international events. In addition, such a model provides the opportunities for economies of operation, both from an ownership and management perspective.

Table 10: MSFA Major Venues
Venue Management Arrangements
• The Brisbane Cricket Ground (Gabba) • Staff appointed directly by the Trust

• Suncorp Stadium • Contracted to a professional venue management company

• Dairy Farmer’s Stadium Townsville • Staff appointed directly by the Trust

• Brisbane Entertainment Centre • Contracted to a professional venue management company

• Queensland Sports & Athletic Centre • Staff appointed directly by the Trust

• The Sleeman (Aquatic) Centre • Staff appointed directly by the Trust

• Gold Coast Stadium • Staff appointed directly by the Trust
Info on the individual Qld stadiums can found at:
http://www.msfa.qld.gov.au/content/overview.asp?name=MSFA_Home

The Gabba
The Gabba is basically a clean stadium. I remember reading that in 2002 the new Brisbane CEO Michael Bowers had negotiated a pourage rights deal with the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust.

The Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust has 3,600 members and they have access to all cricket and AFL matches with an additional charge for finals. A little less than 10% of total capacity, which in 2005 increased from 37,000 to 42,000 but in that time the Lions have never had a crowd bigger than 37,000.

Table 21: Types of Membership Packages offered for Events at the Gabba in 2006
Issuer Price of Premium Membership
Hirer Brisbane Lions $257 - $433
Trust The Gabba Trust $990 joining fee + $490 p.a.
The Gabba was redeveloped over several stages between 1994 and 1999 for approx $120mil + the $40mil 2005 redevelopments, all paid for by the Qld government. So if the Lions get a 30,000 crowd it is the Queensland taxpayer who is effectively subsidising the Lions excellent stadium returns because they are transferring the right to earn decent profits on the stadium to the hirers of the ground.

The proposed upgraded Gold Coast Stadium

From this newspaper report.
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/03/09/56921_gold-coast-top-story.html

The state's $60million funding builds on the Gold Coast City Council's pledge of $20million, but is contingent on the AFL securing the shortfall of $50million from either its own funds or the Federal Government.
<snip>
Against the backdrop of the global financial crisis and a crippled state budget, Ms Bligh has engineered a funding model that will cost the state just $9million in its first two years and will see the AFL carrying most of the upfront construction costs.

The state will pay just $2million next financial year, $7million in 2001-12 and $51million the following year, `when the economic situation should be better'.
``We could not have got this deal over the line if the AFL had not been prepared to structure the financing in a way that fitted our finances, but equally our commitment gives the AFL certainty on which to proceed,'' said Ms Bligh.

``In return we expect the AFL to start construction within months (of the first funding allocation).''
So the AFL will have to find $51mil to build the stadium in the next 24 months which will then be reimbursed by the Queensland government. They might also have have to find another $50mil to finish off the stadium but it looks like there is some help coming from the federal government.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/03/14/59125_gold-coast-top-story.html

Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese stopped by The Bulletin office yesterday to say it would almost certainly part-fund the project -- virtually securing the Gold Coast an AFL licence.
"The council has asked for $40 million and we've had discussions with them and the AFL," he said.
"Each application is being checked by outside auditors to make sure it complies with the guidelines but it appears that this is precisely the sort of project that we are looking to support."
In other words the GC team will get a clean stadium subsidized by the state government, the GC Council, probably the federal government and the AFL so they will have an excellent stadium deal.

NEW SOUTH WALES.

The SCG Trust is a government body and Stadium Australia – now ANZ Stadium, is a privately owned stadium, that is a BOOT project, ie build, own, operate and transfer back to the NSW government in 2031 for $1 and be placed into the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA). All those stadiums at SOP are owned/run by the authority in a similar way to what the MSFA does in Qld.

Table 15: SOPA Major Venues
Venue Management Arrangements
• Telstra Stadium • Contracted to professional venue management company
• Acer Arena (previously Superdome) • Contracted to professional venue management company
• Aquatic & Athletic Centres • Previously contracted to SCG Trust, now SOPA, pending a redevelopment
• Golf Centre • Private Lease
• Sports Centre • State Government
• Sydney International Tennis Centre • Tennis NSW
• Sydney Showground • Royal Agricultural Society
• Waterview Convention Centre • Private Lease
ANZ Stadium cost $670mil to build, $555mil was from private monies and $115mil from the state government. After the Olympics another $80mil was spent to reconfigure the stadium by the private owners.

http://www.anzstadium.com.au/AboutUs/TheStadium.aspx

However the stadium did so poorly it was sold to ANZ for $10mil in late 2006 and the $140mil they lent the stadium owners was converted to equity and ownership of the stadium now resides in one of ANZ’s infrastructure funds. So effectively $555mil (1999$) + $80mil (2002$) was only worth $150mil in late 2006. See:

Debt sinks Stadium Australia: ANZ to take control for $10m


ANZ Stadium Corporate Structure

So in Sydney the Swans played off the government owned SCG Trust against the struggling Stadium Australia after the AFL committed to pay $1m a year for 5 years to help finance the reconfiguration of the ground. I don’t know what the deal is at each ground for the Swans, but whilst I know they don’t have a clean stadium deals at either ground, they have greater access to revenue streams and lower costs than the standard non clean stadium deals.

A good example of how playing the 2 stadiums off against each other when the lease agreements came due, was that ex test cricketer and CEO of NSW Cricket Association David Gilbert, was able to get an extra $6mil cash over 3 years and improved facilities from the SCG Trust, by threatening to take Test Matches and One Day Internationals to the Olympic Stadium.

Also the fact that ANZ group only have to make a profit on $150mil between 2006 and 2031 before handing back the stadium for $1, means that they have a lot more room to move than the original owners who had to make a profit on $555mil + $80mil over 32 years. If ANZ require a 6% return over 25 years, ie they could have put that in the bank and earned the same amount of interest, then they will only need about $13mil cash profits each year an reinvest them at 6%. The original owners just on the $555mil, @ 6%, needed to generate about $40mil cash profit each year to be no worse off than sticking the money in the bank for 32 years.

So when Sydney draw a crowd of 30,000 they get a good stadium return because at the SCG, the government owned SCG Trust is allowing them to do well and out at ANZ Stadium, the old owners of the stadium who lost around $400mil + $80mil, subsidised them when they signed a deal in desperation to get events to the stadium

This means there is scope for a second Sydney team to get a reasonable stadium deal from ANZ Stadium owners/managers as they don't have to charge an arm and a leg and rugby league is the anchor tenant so they can do deals that require less share of the revenue generated from a western Sydney game ie differential pricing compare to the RL tenants.

However the AFL wants to develop the Sydney Showground stadium, which is about 800m from ANZ Stadium, into a boutique 25,000 seat stadium for the new team for the games that will only draw small crowds. The expected cost for the stadium redevelopment is about $100mil. They are looking for the NSW government to pay for it. If they do they could offer it as a clean stadium, but I suspect they are smart enough, given the current pressure on the NSW budget, to charge a commercial rent for it. Only time will tell what happens here.

The membership set up at the two grounds is as follows.

SCG Trust = SCG + Aussie Stadium (ie Sydney Football Stadium). There are almost 20,000 members for the two grounds combined. Some memberships allow access to both grounds some to just one. Around 12,000 have access to the SCG but its hard to tell how many turn up, because the swans sell memberships that allow access to the SCG Trust members areas.

Type 1 – SCG Membership: Memberships are life memberships. SCG has a 10 year waitlist. SCG joining fee approx. $1,100 plus annual subscription fee of $260 for pensioners to $1,180 for corporate memberships. Type 2 – Gold membership: guaranteed access to all sporting events at both venues, stadium fitness centres, access to Member’s dinning room, not transferable Single membership cost $8,000 (in 2006 now $9,000) plus $463 p.a ($560)……..
ANZ Stadium has 11,000 members holding 18,000 memberships.
Gold: guaranteed seat to every sporting event to 2030 and right to purchase tickets at special events, 17,200 memberships available cost $5,000 upfront (now $5,999 upfront or $1,399 + 12 x $400 or you can buy them on e-bay if people want to sell them) and annual subscription fee of $539 (2005) guaranteed seat until 2030. Platinum: 600 double memberships, all sold out (last 2 sold for $65,000) X seats 800-1000 seats leased until December 2013 costing $12,500 plus annual licence fee for each successive year ($1,654 in 2006)
VICTORIA

Victoria has 3 stadiums, MCG, Docklands and Kardinia Park. All have different set ups but the first two produce a similar result for the clubs when they draw 30,000 crowd but for a different reason.

MCG.
The MCG is owned by a government Trust. The only major assets of the MCG trust is the land the G is built on and surrounding area and the value of the items in the National Sports Museum. The trust carries no debt on its books.
The Board of the MCG Trust currently consists of nine members who are independent from any sport which is a tenant of the MCG and who manage the venue on behalf of the Government.
The stadium management is performed by the Melbourne Cricket Club. It is the MCC that took out loans to build the Great Southern Stand and the recent northern stands redevelopment and show it in their accounts as leasehold improvements.

The Great Southern Stand cost about $150mil in 1991 and was paid for mainly by football people as the MCC gave the AFL a 23,000 members reserve and shiny new offices at the ground. Most of this debt has been paid off.

The AFL members consist of the following set up in 2008

2008 AFL Annual Report - Broadcasting & Commercial Operations section
AFL Membership grew in 2008, reaching a total figure of 49,150. The breakdown of membership included 29,966 full members, 16,924 silver members and 2260 absentee members. Some 41,882 were club support members, representing 8.5 per cent of the total club membership nationally. For a breakdown of the club support see page 41 of the above linked document.

These membership fees in 2009 are;
Full membership $430
Full membership - Adult Country Club Support $325
Silver membership $325 + a one off joining fee of $275
Absentee membership $90
There is an approximate 8 year waiting list for full membership.

In 2008 and 2009 the AFL pays each club $131 for every membership that has that club’s Club support indicated on the membership renewal form. The amount is based on the Victorian Club membership Adult 11 price the AFL sets. The same relevant amounts are transferred for concession and junior memberships by the AFL to the club. Monies paid at the gate of the AFL members reserve, for guest passes, is split between the home team and the AFL’s equilisation income fund.

So whilst Collingwood get approx 9,900 x $131 out of this deal, they arguably could have been getting 9,900 x $375 (average per membership) as income by selling those memberships direct to the club and the rental and match day costs would have been less than the $244 per member difference. So the well supported AFL members clubs are missing out big time.

The MCG has a 22,000 MCC Members Reserve allocated on a first come, first served basis for home and away games but has seat allocations for part of the reserve in the finals. For the GF members can elect to go into a ballot for 11,000 seats and the remaining 11,000 are for walk up full members. In 2006 membership nomination was $55 and the annual membership fee was between $200 and $500.

From the 2008 MCC annual report for the year ended 31st March 2008;

Members by category at August 31 2007
Full ................................60,300
Restricted .......................39,500
TOTAL.............................99,800
Waiting List....................175,000

________________________ 2008 __ 2007
TOTAL INCOME ($’000)___ 115,168 135,716
NET PROFIT of MCC ($’000) 11,196 27,696

Total of other income included in above was ($'000) 17,179 45,759

Prior year contributions of $15.000 million received from the Federal Government for the NSM, and $8.500 million received from the State of Victoria for the Southern Concourse upgrade ($3.500 million) and heritage projects at the MCG ($5.000 million), compared with $10.000 million received from the Federal Government for the National Sporting Museum in the current year.
So without the federal and state government capital grants the MCC would have made a $1.1 mil profit in 2008 and a $4.1mil profit in 2007.

The debts of the MCC to redevelop the ground are in their balance sheet.

Interest bearing loans and borrowings__ 2008__ 2007
Current Liabilities ($’000 )_________9,629 17,626
Non- Current Liabilities ($’000 )__ 318,518 327,983
The MCG redevelopment cost $434mil. The state government chipped in $77mil when the federal government pulled out it’s $90mil proposed contribution because it wanted certain workplace conditions on the site for them to hand over the monies. Grollo constructions and the unions had an agreement the feds didn’t like so no monies were granted. The MCC went out and borrowed $357mil to pay for the redevelopment. . The MCC having 99,000+ members allowed them to go and borrow $357mil for the redevelopment

The deal struck with the AFL was that they would contribute $6mil per year for 32 years and from members funds $29mil for 20 years would be allocated to repayments. The MCC only put up fees by a bit less than $100 per year once the new stands were finished. At a bit more than $500 it’s a great deal and that’s why they have 175,000 on the waiting list.

So football people, via the AFL it's members and it's clubs and fans and MCC members who really want to watch the 40+ games of footy are paying for the redevelopment. As can be see from above the MCC aren’t screwing footy fans as they don't make huge profits without those government grants

So when a crowd of 30,000 turns up, it is the MCC bankers who do well out of the footy people rather than the MCC or the AFL clubs. The clubs don’t get much of the other revenue streams from the MCG. Collingwood were able to get a good deal because they have the numbers and were able to negotiate better facilities for their corporates. Maybe the MCC members need to pay a little more if the AFL clubs are going to do better out of the MCC

Let’s look at an extreme example of why a club could do really poorly out of the MCG yet get 40,000 people to a game.

The thing that Vic fans have to remember is that crowd numbers mean almost nothing in terms of a clubs viability. Look at the MCG, you could get a crowd of 40,000 to a game. 10,000 could be MCC members, 10,000 could be AFL members, 18,000 could be the home team fans who have a membership and 2,000 could be opposition fans. That means only the gate takings from the 2,000 fans would be collected to offset costs. That would mean the home club more than likely writing a cheque to the MCC. It's a bit of an extreme example but it shows the point of why clubs wont make any money on match days, just because they have decent crowds. The AFL finally woke up a couple of years ago that stadium returns, gross or net are what really counts. But James Brayshaw hasn't. He asked why can North Melbourne average almost 40,000 at the MCG and Brisbane 26,000 at the Gabba and there be such a discrepancy in stadium returns? That above example makes it pretty clear that crowd numbers are pretty irrelevant if the mix of paying vs non paying attendees isn't right and you have a clean vs non clean stadium deal.

I just heard Stephen Gough from the MCC, on the radio say that they take 15% of the gross gate takings on game day. I assume that doesn’t include game day costs and that would come out of the clubs other 85% share, but I don't know for sure.

DOCKLANDS

Docklands cost $430mil to build. The AFL stuck in $30 mil after ex AFL commissioner and current ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuel engineered a brilliant financial package for the AFL. The deal was struck in late 1999 and the monies had to be paid in late 2000.

It is a BOOT project, build, own, operate then transfer. A lot of money was lost by the owners and operators in the first few years. It started making a profit in 2005, then in January 2006 Ch 7 bought everybody else out and on 21 June 2006 it sold the stadium to a James Fielding Funds Management for $330mil. The infrastructure fund / superfund has to run it and maintain it until 2025 and then hand it over to the AFL for $1. If the superfund invested $330mil at 6% compound interest and paid no tax, which is a possibility for superfunds given their investment mix and franking credits earned, they would turn that amount into $998mil by 2025. So they have to make decent cash profits of about $30mil per year and then invest those cash profits at 6% compound or more to be ahead at the end of 2025. A tough ask!! But the original owners of the Docklands and Ch 7 lost $70mil of capital value plus it is estimated close to $200mil of pre tax operating losses in 6 years up to June 2006. The AFL didn’t lose it’s $30mil. It has basically paid for the land.

Seven and James Fielding secure agreement on Telstra Dome

Who pays for this? Mainly footy supporters as they are the biggest users of the ground. That's why breakeven crowd is around 30,000 at TD compared to 15,000 at Waverley Park. That's why the Western Bulldogs and North can't make any money out of the TD and St Kilda couldn't until they got their crowds up over 35,000.

I have read on the main board that Docklands break even is 15,000 and they rip the clubs off. That’s rubbish as the break even for a BOOT project is what they could have done if they stuck the money in a bank account. They have to hand the stadium back for $1. They can’t make a capital gain or sell it like the AFL did with Waverley Park for $100mil. It's a depreciating asset.

Another important part of the financing of Docklands is the 5,000 members in the Medallion club. The first 5 years if people wanted their own video seat they paid $5,000 joining fee plus $400 per month for 60 months. If you didn't want a video seat you paid $2,500 joining fee plus $350 per month for 60 months.

The second lot of 5 year memberships that go until March 2010, cost $325 per month for 60 months.

For this, each year you get 40+ games at Docklands plus 40+ games at MCG plus finals games tickets in weeks 1 and 2 and rights for PF and GF tickets as well as a 50% discount to cricket at the MCG plus free admission to any other sporting event at the stadium.

Then there are 3,000 Axcess One members that started at $499 per year which is now called Axcess One Premium and costs about $2,800 per year with a $500 joining fee and you have Axcess One memberships which costs $990 per year.


So when a crowd of 30,000 turns up, it is the Dockland Owners who do well out of the footy people rather than the AFL clubs. The clubs don’t get much of the other revenue streams from the Docklands. Essendon were able to get a good deal because they have the numbers and became they were the anchor tenants. However they would do a lot better in terms of membership income and gate takings if they played at the MCG. However the part of the deal that they don’t reveal is how better off their corporate facilities deal is than the other clubs who call the stadium their home.

The clubs at Docklands were sold a pup and they were stupid enough to fall for the deals. Yes the AFL initial deal with 35 games meant that some clubs were forced to play some home games, but the clubs were seduced by a shiny new stadium and didn’t do the hard number crunching.

It's nice to have 2 shiny new stadiums in Melbourne. But someone has to pay for them. That someone is the footy clubs and their fans as they are the biggest users. The AFL signing long term 40 year deals at the MCG and 25 year deals at Docklands have stuffed things up for the Vic clubs.

As I’m writing this I heard a grab from Eddie saying this Vic stadium deal problem is the AFL’s fault for signing a 40 year deal in 1992 with giving too much away as well as the long term deal at Docklands. Hallelujah, somebody has finally told the AFL it stuffed things up.

As i wrote the other day the AFL has a ****ed record when it comes to stadium deals going back to 1992 and the MCG negotiations for the Great Southern Stand. They could not sign up fast enough in 1991 to lock in 40 years of at least one final in each of the first 3 weeks and all GFs at the G. They just didn't care about non Vic teams getting the moral right to host finals. Introducing a second PF let them get away with their stupidity for another 8 or 9 years.

And now the MCG is suggesting 10 more years of GFs locked into the MCG as a trade off for a better deal.

Add in the Docklands 25 year deal and the dopy Gabba redevelopment contract whereby they guaranteed the Qld government they would pay a 100% of the construction costs as a penalty if a second team was entered into SE Qld before 2015 and didn't play all it's games at the Gabba. They didn't even have a clause that scaled down the penalty between 2005 and 2015.

The AFL had been blaming the clubs until for poor stadium returns, but for the last 2 or 3 years, it has finally woken up and realised the clubs were correct and that stadium returns, gross and net, is a critical issue for clubs viability.

Edit Footy stats diary page that has 7 years of news article on Docklands stadium.

http://footystats.freeservers.com/Footystats/Docklands-grass.html

KARDINIA PARK
This is probably the best set up that most of the Vic clubs and Port wished they had. Government monies have allowed this to become the most profitable stadium in Victoria. It’s a clean stadium because the City of Geelong own the stadium but charge Geelong a small rent.

City of Greater Geelong - Stadium Management

The City of Greater Geelong is the owner and operator of Skilled Stadium which is located in Kardinia Park, Geelong. The City of Greater Geelong Stadium Management Group is based at Sports House - Skilled Stadium, Moorabool Street Geelong.
Geelong made a hard slog of it over the years building some basic but very functional facilities. I’ve been there a couple of times in the 1990’s and it was a mud heap when it rained and my nephew reminds of how bad it was even up to a few years ago. As far as I know it’s basically a clean deal with no stadium members, ie the crowd is basically full of members of the Geelong Football Club.

However, they have had government subsidies that have helped set them up with the building of the Hickey Stand on the eastern wing and further subsidies with the new Grandstand.

This page is no longer up but I saved it and shows clearly the assistance Geelong have received.

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/Media_Releases/April_2005/New_eastern_stand_at_Skilled_Stadium/

New eastern stand at Skilled Stadium

22-Apr-05
The columns supporting the new eastern stand at Skilled Stadium have been dubbed cat’s claws by fans. There is definitely something feline about the striking curved forms which is appropriate at the home ground of the Geelong Cats.

The new stand is the most visible element of a $26 million upgrade to Skilled Stadium. Other improvements include a new gymnasium, new change rooms and umpires’ facilities, a medical suite, a 600 seat corporate function room and a revamped main entrance on the western side of the ground. The entrance has electronic ticketing facilities and a new Cats Shop.

Geelong’s first home game of the 2005 AFL season is the official opening day of the new eastern stand. The Skilled Stadium redevelopment has been a joint project of the Victorian Government, the City of Greater Geelong, Geelong Football Club and the AFL.

Contributions to the Skilled Stadium redevelopment:

Victorian Government (via the
Community Support Fund and the
Regional Infrastructure Development Fund) $13.5 million
City of Greater Geelong $6 million
Geelong Football Club $4.5 million
AFL $2 million

The eastern stand was created by award winning architects Peddle Thorp who are recognised as being amongst the best designers of sporting and stadium projects in the world. Kane Constructions were engaged to build the new stadium.

The stand has 6,000 seats across three tiers and stands 20 metres high.
And this is how the new Grandstand will be funded

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/...ion_to_28_million_upgrade_of_Skilled_Stadium/

Council to contribute $2million to $28 million upgrade of Skilled Stadium
11-Dec-07

The City of Greater Geelong will contribute $2 million towards a $28 million upgrade of Skilled Stadium.

Geelong Mayor Cr Bruce Harwood said the City's contribution would assist in the redevelopment of the Ross Drew Stand and provide for the replacement of the turf at the stadium.

Council has agreed to contribute to the upgrade in recognition of the social and economic benefits the upgrade promises to deliver to the wider community, the Mayor said.

While Skilled Stadium is best known as the home of the Geelong Cats it also serves as a venue for a great many other sporting and community uses, and this new redevelopment plan, will further improve community access to the venue.

The funding model represents a good outcome for the community with Council contributing $2 million for the return of a $28 million upgrade to a publicly owned facility, Cr Harwood said.

Contributions for the upgrade are as follows;

Geelong Football Club $3 million
AFL $3 million
Victorian Government $6 million
Federal Government $14 million
City of Greater Geelong $2 million

Total $28 million

Cr Harwood said the construction project would be managed in a similar way to the redevelopment of the Reg Hickey Stand which was completed in May 2005.

The City of Greater Geelong will be represented on a project control group which will comprise all the stakeholders in the project.

Council's Sport and Recreation portfolio holder Cr John Mitchell said the upgrade would provide a new stand to replace the old Ross Drew Stand and the Past Players Stand at the south west corner of Skilled Stadium.

The project will create an additional 3,000 seats, increasing capacity of Skilled Stadium to 30,000. There will be state of the art training, gymnasium and rehabilitation facilities; more spectator facilities for people with a disability; expanded corporate entertainment facilities; improved administration premises and new turf maintenance facilities, Cr Mitchell said.

Cr Mitchell said not only would the upgrade provide increased spectator capacity, it would add to the breadth of sporting infrastructure available in Geelong.

The expansion of the gymnasium facilities will give local high performance athletes more access to top quality training equipment and the replacement of the turf will improve the stadium's capacity to host a large number of events, he said.

In 2007 there were a total of 429 uses scheduled on the playing surface at Skilled Stadium, and although some events had to be relocated because of wet conditions, it's clear that the stadium is a significant venue for events from local to national level.

The replacement of the turf will help the surface withstand this very heavy schedule of events, Cr Mitchell said.

The City will also revise its lease arrangements with the Geelong Football Club to reflect the improved commercial return anticipated through increased gate takings.
So when Geelong get 24,000 at Kardinia Park they do well out of it because they did the hard yards over the years and built up their stadium, but they also have been subsidised by 3 different government bodies. This will continue to be the case because they will do even better once the new stand is finished and they get 30,000 and can charge their corporates more and a bigger premium for these new seats.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Subiaco Oval
The WAFL never owned Subiaco Oval it was leased from Subiaco Council. When the WAFC was formed in 1983, after the WA government funded The Mitchell Inquiry and it recomended setting up the WAFC totook over the running of all aspects of footy in WA. Then around 1993/94/95 the WA government stepped in to sort out the financial mess WA footy was in because of the private debts associated with setting up the West Coast as a private company. Also the government decided to lend the WAFC monies to develop Subiaco. The WA government paid off a large chunk of the debt after the Labor party promised they would after an election early this decade, I think 2004.

The WAFC manage Subiaco Oval under a 99-year lease agreement which expires in September 2090

Subiaco Oval
• Crown land with Management Order to City of Subiaco which have leased the venue to the WAFC for 99 years (with 84 years remaining).

• The existing lease and governance arrangements in place over Subiaco Oval which
the then Government provided to the WAFC (at no cost) to assist Football resolve their financial problems at the time;
So given the WAFC is effectively a quasi WA government body as they appoint the WAFC commissioners, has funded a large chunk of the Subi Oval redevelopment, little debt is associated with the stadium, it has offered the two clubs a clean stadium with high match day rents but access to most revenue streams. Because the oval is smaller than WCE requirements and close to capacity for Freo, and there is no stadium members, only several hundred Subiaco Football Club members who get access to tickets, the two WA clubs have the incentive to really maximize the revenue they can generate from hiring the oval off the WAFC.

Also as the WAFC are this quasi government organisation, they have been prepared to help Freo out to get it’s act together without any perceived conflicts of interest as you get with the SANFL and the 2 SA clubs.

Eagles supporters will reap dividend rewards

MARK DUFFIELD
……….
The West Australian understands the new scheme will aim to have both West Coast and Fremantle paying equal rent on Subiaco Oval after two years. The rent figure per club is likely to be about $2.9 million, the figure paid by West Coast last year.
…………

Fremantle's rent ($1.9 million in 2003) would increase substantially next year to around $2.5 million.

Fremantle supports the principle of the new agreement but may ask the WAFC for more time before paying the same rent as the Eagles.

"We are asking to be equal when we are equal," chairman Rick Hart said. "We see that happening in the not too distant future."
…………
July 28, 2004 The West Australian

The WAFC helped out Freo by also suspending their licence royalty fee. They let Freo retain 100% of their profits in the following years

Code:
2003	$711,000
2004	$1,254,000
2005	$1,015,000
2006	$1,261,000

Total	$4,241,000
That's a suspension of $2,800,000+ in licence fees over these 4 years. And between 1999 and 2002 they made 4 losses totalling $5mil and didn't pay $1 in licence fee in that 4 years so for 8 years Freo paid no licence fee between 1999-2006.

The difference in rent and licence fee according to the WAFC 2007 and 2006 annual report was;

Rent ---2008-----2007-- ---2006-- --2005--
WCE 3,122,983 3,051,000 2,972,500 2,900,000
FFC- 3,148,901 3,051,000 2,500,000 2,250,000


Licence fee –2008----2007 ----2006-- --2005
WCE--- 1,701,472 2,766,450 2,516,578 2,297,764
FFC------ 799,906 --519,454 --------0 --------0

So when the 2 WA clubs draw a crowd of 30,000 the WA taxpayer has helped subsidise this because their funding helped set up a clean stadium as a result of setting up an independent WAFC, helping get the West Coast and WA footy out of the mess of the early private company set up of the WCE and their debt problems, sureing up Subiaco Oval by taking out the loan for the redevelopment and then paying off a large chunk of that loan. The massive earning capacity of the West Coast has added to that by sureing up Subiaco, along with the shortage of seats and the ability to charge high premiums for seats. The booming WA economy has helped as well but it is the clean stadium deal that lies at this success.

If either of the top 2 recommendations of the WA Major Stadia Taskforce are taken up it will be the WA taxpayers who provide a great stadium deal to subsidise the great returns expected to be earned by the 2 WA clubs. The $821mil East Perth option sees the government trust only make annual profits of $3.8mil after 5 years and the Kitchener Park option costs $849mil with the government trust only make annual profits of $1.9mil after 5 years. There is no way the private sector or the WAFC would accept those returns on such a big project so a taxpayer subsidised clean stadium would provide great returns for the WA clubs
.

Here is some more details from the Major Stadia Taskforce and a new stadium and the WAFC and current Subiaco Oval position. I think this should be seriously considered especially if the SA government is going to put $100mil+ into a stadium owned by a private organisation.

Table 3: Key Elements of the WAFC “All Stadia Management Model”
Key Elements of the WAFC “All Stadia Management Model”

• The proposed governance model applies whether a multi-sport venue or a primarily
single sport venue is developed;
• Subiaco Oval is the preferred location however the proposed governance solution would also be applicable if the stadium is developed at an alternative location;
• The WAFC agree to the establishment of a Trust to oversight the management of the major stadium in accordance with an agreed Constitution, however the WAFC require control of the Trust through majority membership;
• The WAFC require the right, along with other venue hirers, to veto any proposed changes to the Constitution with none of the sporting codes indicating the requirement for veto rights;
• The WAFC be the venue manager for the estimated economic useful life of the new stadium – 20 years with a further option of 20 years (at WAFC’s discretion). The operations of the venue manager to be oversighted by the Trust to ensure compliance with the provisions of the agreed Constitution So in essence under this model the WAFC would oversight their own venue management activities;
• After the expiration of the term of the management rights the ongoing control of the venue reverts to the WAFC under the terms of the lease over Subiaco Oval which expires in 2090;
• The management agreement with the WAFC cannot be effectively terminated for nonperformance as under the WAFC governance model, the management rights to the venue would revert to the WAFC under the terms of the lease;
• The WAFC is to receive a management fee with any profits to be reinvested into the development of football across WA;
• The WAFC to be guaranteed the current levels of revenue generated from Subiaco operations;
• The WCE and FFC to only pay rent on any incremental revenue generated at the new stadium; and
• AFL will be given preferential access to the venue during the AFL season.

Table 4: Key Factors considered by the Taskforce in Response to the WAFCs Proposed Model

The existing lease and governance arrangements in place over Subiaco Oval which the then Government provided to the WAFC (at no cost) to assist Football resolve their financial problems at the time;
• Football being the anchor tenant of any multi-purpose major stadium but in which other national codes would also be tenants;
The venue will likely be Government (i.e. taxpayer) funded – in this case the stadium would be included on the Government’s balance sheet which would necessitate it to have governance control;
• The WAFC will be a major benefactor of the new stadium and would therefore be adequately compensated for the early termination of the current lease and management arrangements over Subiaco Oval;
• The stadium is to provide benefits to all sports in WA in general and the wider community;
• The likely conflicts between hirers of the stadium relating to access and pricing;
• The need to protect the Government’s investment in the venue (i.e. asset maintenance and capital replacement over the life of the venue), and
• Greater expertise existing within Government for the planning, design and project
management (a whole-of-Government approach) to major stadia.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Football Park

Was constructed between 1971 and 1974 for a cost of $6.6mil and the land cost $48,538 in 1971 to buy. This is the SANFL’s golden goose which gave it financial independence after leaving Adelaide Oval. It was the biggest difference between the WAFL and SANFL for the dozen years between 1974 and 1986.

The capacity of 51,515 and with approximately 19,500 members of Footy Park, it is the biggest ground membership reserve as a percentage of total seats available of any of the stadium owners/operators. If you add the MCC reserve and AFL reserve together then percentage wise they are bigger.

The clubs have limited access to corporate revenues as well as advertising revenues. I thought they had no access to catering revenue and parking revenue but Haysman said something which said if they don’t get it directly it is part of the overall rent/match day cost formula. They have the standard gate takings arrangement and match day costs as most other non clean stadium. There was only $17mil of debt associated with the stadium as at 31/10/07.

The 27,000 break even figure you hear about is an approximation figure and its not one set in concrete. When I spoke to our ex Finance manager David Bartlett he wouldn’t tell me what the figures were but he said they were made up of 3 components;
1. A fixed amount plus
2. A variable amount which was driven by attendances plus
3. A charge for each seat in the northern stand.

I think this covered both rent and match day costs. As the northern stand has now been paid off I assume this component has either been eliminated or been absorbed into the other 2 costs. Previously each one of the 6,000 crows members who sat in the northern stand contributed $100 per season ticket to that rent component. Our members who bought a membership in the stand were charged $100 and any game day tickets in the northern stand were charged a rental fee.

The fixed component would cover fixed overheads associated with the stadium and probably also has a minimum crowd component for the catering income and maybe parking income. The variable component allows for things like staff Sunday penalty rates to be charged.

So when a crowd of 30,000 turns up, it is the Football Park owners, ie the SANFL who do well out of the footy people rather than the AFL clubs.

The SANFL never received any SA government monies until it constructed the northern stands. Since then it has received the following

2001- 2005 $828,000 x 5 annual grants for the northern grandstand.

2006 $6,624,000 for the northern grandstand final repayment + a $5,500,000 video screen and security grant.

2007 $9,000,000 capital expenditure grant to help pay for $4mil projects to provide new facilities for St Johns, additional bars and kiosks and storage facilities and $5mil for the new lighting system.

From the premier’s mid year economic review in Dec 2008.
• The timeline for the Government’s contribution to the AAMI Stadium refurbishment will be extended. The SANFL will be allocated $2.6 million in 2008-09 and a further $10 million in 2009-10 to begin the redevelopment and to substantially upgrade the stadium food, drink, toilet and other patron amenities. The remaining contribution to the stadium refurbishment will be delayed by three years.
Originally it was planned for $100 million over three years, commencing in 2009-10 to assist with the substantial upgrading of AAMI stadium – the only stadium solution supported by the SANFL, the AFL and our two AFL clubs. It was going to be $60mil in 2009-10 and $20mil in each of the next 2 years. Supposedly this has now been pushed out to 2012-13 to start.

So it would be fair to say that in the following years these were the biggest single contributors to Footy Park

1974-1990 Port Adelaide probably contributed at least 35% of the revenue
1991-2005 The crows were the single biggest contributor especially during 1991-96.
2006 – 2007 The SA Government
2008 The Crows
2009 The SA Government
2010-2012 The Crows
2013-2015 The SA government

So given that the governments have effectively helped subside excellent stadium returns for 30,000 crowds at the Gabba, the SCG, Kardinia Park and Subi Oval and the proposed new WA stadium if they follow the taskforce’s recommendation, the question has to be asked who should this government subsidy in SA benefit most, the 2 AFL clubs who generate the revenue or the private owners of the stadium, ie the SANFL and it’s 9 clubs.

As I hope you can see it’s a complicated set up around the country and these stadium deals will be the difference between prospering to bigger and better things or struggling along. As you can see you aren’t neccesarily comparing apples with apples when you compare 2 stadiums.

I have no problems if private owners make a decent return out of footy clubs. They are there to make a profit. But when government monies are involved then what’s the point of ripping the clubs off so that a government trust makes a shit load of money?

But you have to balance that up in the MCG’s case and say that if they have gone out and borrowed $357mil they have to be able to make their debt and interest repayments.

But the SANFL is a football organisation it has to balance up what is best for the whole football community in this state. And now that government subsidies are thrown in there it would be foolish not to make sure a fair and equitable deal isn’t done for both Port and the crows as they are the generator of the real revenue associated with the stadium.

Football tourism of interstate visitors coming to watch the footy in SA means the 2 AFL clubs, not the 9 SANFL clubs so if the government wants this to continue it has to ensure a fair deal happens for both AFL clubs.

You can't just change these deals overnight because not only have the SANFL clubs been dependant on the revenue generated by Footy Park, but so has all footy development programs across all levels in SA benefited.

It's now a changed environment and its time to tweak the deal. But it doesn't happen overnight because there are massive implications down the food chain which can't be dismissed off hand.

The Ernest and Young report they are putting together for the SANFL is going to make for some interesting reading in 4 to 6 weeks time when it is finished.

As we see from the shit fight in Victoria at the moment with the MCG and Docklands, things will change in the next 12 to 24 months.

Who was it that said that we live in interesting times.

And that’s before we even look at the SANFL-AFL fight for control of the development levels of footy below the AFL competition.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #2
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

This article from March last year to go with the others that were about 2007 Clubs Financial Review survey was probably the one that crystalised the need for me to understand exactly how the different stadium deals work to why there is such a big discrepancy of stadium returns irrespective of crowds.I posted this article and others last year at Port and the 2007 Club Financial Review

Bigger isn't better

12/03/2008 4:39:56 PM
Paul Gough
Sportal

Bigger is not always better and that is certainly the case when it comes to the financial viability of each of the AFL clubs' home venues.

The AFL released a detailed financial analysis of last season on Wednesday which showed those clubs playing in smaller stadiums - such as Geelong and the non-Victorian clubs - were making infinitely more money per home game than those clubs playing in the larger Victorian venues of the MCG and Telstra Dome.

Even Victoria's two biggest clubs Collingwood and Essendon could not match the stadium deals of the Western Australian clubs West Coast and Fremantle or even the Sydney Swans.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the difference in revenue last year between the club with the most lucrative stadium deal - West Coast - and the team with the least lucrative - the Kangaroos - was $9.3 million.

The Eagles generated nearly $15 million out of their 11 home games at Subiaco mainly because the 43,000-capacity stadium is nowhere near big enough to cater for their huge supporter base - meaning their fans are forced to pay for reserved seats every match or risk losing their spot to one of the 15,000 people on West Coast's waiting list for membership.

In contrast, those Victorian clubs that play at either the 100,000-capacity MCG or 53,000-capacity Telstra Dome - and particularly those with small supporter bases such as Melbourne, the Kangaroos and the Western Bulldogs - did not have the luxury of being able to make extra money by selling reserved seats for their matches because their fans know they can just turn up on the day and find a seat at no extra cost.

"The non-Victorian clubs playing at smaller capacity venues generate greater stadium returns per attendee," Demetriou said on Wednesday.

"Overall the Victorian clubs playing out of Telstra Dome and the MCG generate less and there is a large disparity between the two groups in terms of stadium returns."

Demetriou said the difference in home game receipts for each club was one of the key reasons why clubs such as Melbourne, the Kangaroos and the Bulldogs received additional funding from the AFL to make up for their lack of income from home games.

In addition, the non-Victorian clubs such as West Coast, Fremantle, Sydney and Brisbane - which rank first, second, third and fifth respectively in terms of revenue from their home grounds - had the benefit of getting more signage revenue from their respective homes at Subiaco, ANZ Stadium and the Gabba.

In contrast much of the signage revenue at the MCG goes back to the Melbourne Cricket Club, which runs the ground.

Collingwood and Essendon - which rank fourth and sixth respectively for stadium returns - are better off than their Victorian counterparts because of their larger supporter bases and additional reserved seat revenue from blockbuster games such as Anzac Day at the MCG.

And reigning premier Geelong fares better because like West Coast its 28,000-capacity Skilled Stadium home is not big enough to cater for its fan base while Hawthorn is also slightly better off because of its deal to play four home games a season in Launceston.

But apart from Port Adelaide, which struggles to fill the 51,000-capacity AAMI Stadium, Victorian clubs bring up the rear for stadium returns with the other bottom six spots being filled by the Bulldogs, Carlton, Richmond, Melbourne and the Kangaroos.

The difference in stadium returns was also summed up by just how much each club makes from each person that goes to one of their home games.

While the Eagles - the leaders in this area - make $32 off each spectator, Richmond makes just $14 and Carlton just $13 with even Essendon only making $15 but benefiting from having bigger crowds.

Demetriou admitted the non-Victorian clubs had a major revenue advantage over the Victorian clubs when it came to stadium deals.

"Whilst the clubs that are playing out of the MCG may be getting more attendees, they are not getting the returns that the other clubs are getting because there are no premium (reserved) seats for sale at the MCG for example," he said.

"So we need to work on ways we can get better value for Melbourne teams out of their stadium deals."
Edit Nov 2014 - This belongs in Post 1 under Kardinia Park but I have exceeded my word limit. Added from my post from July 2013

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/cats-prepared-to-revenue-share.1021503/#post-29344359

The AFL used to release Net Stadium Return figures which are different to profits generated per game because memberships are taken out of the
The Net Stadium Return is the revenue figure which includes gate receipts, signage, membership, reserved seating, catering and corporate hospitality, less the expenditure for ground rental and match day costs.

Cook at the senate inquiry into a Tassie team in 2009 so these are 2008 figures
original post on Geelong board
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/stadium-yields-and-compensation.596244/#post-14901897

mine in this thread
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...m-shift-happening.554729/page-3#post-14912506

Originally Posted by Brian Cook
...at Skilled Stadium when you have a capacity of 25,000, we make a net profit in that game of $638,000 per game, which is $26 per head. If we have a crowd of 85,500 at the MCG, which we did have against Collingwood in 2007, we brought home $771,000, which was $9 a head. Importantly,Telstra, now Etihad Stadium, with a near capacity of 46,000, we brought home $293,000, which is $6 a head. So when you compare a crowd at Skilled of 25,000 compared to Telstra, which is nearly twice as much at 46, you at Skilled bring home to the club $638,000 out of all revenue sources per game and only $293,000 from Telstra. It is extremely important that if an AFL stadium is developed in Tasmania, the lease arrangements and the revenue attraction arrangements provide a high yield to ensure sustainability. It is pretty simple, really.

Cost of Kardinia Park 3 stage development so far??

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...the-sa-footy-paradigm-shift-happening.554729/

stage 1
The new stand is the most visible element of a $26 million upgrade to Skilled Stadium.

Contributions to the Skilled Stadium redevelopment:
Victorian Government (via the
Community Support Fund and the
Regional Infrastructure Development Fund) $13.5 million
City of Greater Geelong $6 million
Geelong Football Club $4.5 million
AFL $2 million

stage 2
The City of Greater Geelong will contribute $2 million towards a $28 million upgrade of Skilled Stadium.

Contributions for the upgrade are as follows;
Geelong Football Club $3 million
AFL $3 million
Victorian Government $6 million
Federal Government $14 million
City of Greater Geelong $2 million
Total....................... $28 million

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-shift-happening.554729/page-36#post-23107619

Stage 3

DEMOLITION works will start early next year on Simonds Stadium's Doug Wade Stand after the Geelong Football Club received the green light to build its $49 million stand.

The State Government yesterday confirmed it had approved in principle a request from the Geelong Football Club for additional funding, taking its total contribution to $26.5 million....

The AFL chipped in a further $250,000 on top of $3 million, while the club provided $2.1 million.

About $150,000 in interest over the length of the 16-month project will also bridge the $4 million shortfall.

The Federal Government also tipped in $10 million and the City of Greater Geelong $3 million, with the Cats' total contribution coming to $4.2 million

State $26.50m
Feds..$10.00m
CGG...$3.00m
AFL....$3.25m
GFC...$4.20m
-------------
Total $46.95m ** Think the balance will be a loan from bank by GFC.

Cook said that the total 3 stage redevelopment cost $103mil see below
by my calculation its
Feds. $24mil
State $46mil
CGG.. $11mil
GFC.. $13.8mil
AFL.. $8.2mil
Total $103mil

Cats launch bold bid to complete stadium masterplan

Edit Stage 4 as reported on 1st September 2015 and I posted on page 243
Geelong last night got the final tranche of all their monies with the council grant being achieved and will end up having a 36,000 seater when stage 4 is finished.

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2015-09-01/stage-four-gets-green-light
Stage four of the Simonds Stadium redevelopment is on track to commence this year after the City of Greater Geelong agreed to an amended $6 million contribution to the project. The council voted last week to support the project, but a number of conditions attached to the funding were unacceptable. The council met again on Tuesday night and addressed those issues to ensure the redevelopment will go ahead in 2016.

The council's contribution comes in addition to a $75 million commitment from the state government, $4 million from the Geelong Football Club and $4 million from the AFL."This is a significant and positive decision by the council that will bring a significant economic and social benefit to the region," Geelong CEO Brian Cook said. "The councillors have shown great leadership in working to ensure that this redevelopment can go ahead without delay. It's an exciting day for the club and for the city."

The redevelopment will include new facilities in the place currently occupied by the Brownlow and Jennings stands. Capacity of the stadium will increase to 36,000 and will also feature new football department, community, media, member, public and social club facilities.
http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2015-09-01/stage-four-gets-green-light


Michael Auciello | November 29th, 2012

GEELONG has begun the ambitious task of seeking funding to finally complete its masterplan for a totally redeveloped Simonds Stadium.
The stadium would become the home of all Geelong cricket bodies, would host Melbourne Storm and Melbourne Rebels home and away matches, and would reach a standard able to host international cricket and soccer games under the plan.

Cats chief executive Brian Cook and president Colin Carter have returned from Canberra, where they held 14 meetings with government officials on Monday about stage four of the redevelopment - which would see a complete overhaul of the city end of the ground.

"It's a big call in terms of what our vision is, it basically completes the stadium," Cook said yesterday.
"It's nearly half the stadium to go, people don't quite get that. We've done half the stadium, it's cost us $103 million so far and it's going to cost us that again to complete it, so it's a lot of money, particularly when governments are struggling at the moment, at all levels."
Cats launch bold bid to complete stadium masterplan


So why do Geelong want to share? Because Cook isn't stupid and if stages 4 and 5 are to be built that will cost another $140mil and where is that going to come from?? The governments of Oz, Vic and Geelong.

http://www.g21.com.au/simonds-stadium-redevelopment-–-stages-4-and-5

...
Stages 4 and 5 of the Simonds Stadium redevelopment vision will complete transformation of the venue from a small, regional venue, into Victoria’s 3rd National Multi-Purpose Stadium, providing the region with the ability to attract a wide range of nationally significant events such as AFL, T20 Big Bash, NRL, Super 15 Rugby, A-League Soccer and concerts.

.....

Stage 4
$80 M
Brownlow and Jennings stand replacement
Stage 5
$60 M
Ford Stand, Ablett Terrace and Southern Terrace Replacement and Hickley Stand Refurbishment
A total investment of $140M is required to complete the Stadium’s redevelopment.

http://www.g21.com.au/simonds-stadium-redevelopment-–-stages-4-and-5

and another post on next page of that thread in July 2013
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/cats-prepared-to-revenue-share.1021503/page-2#post-29366510
From that December 2011 story I linked linked
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/12/26/299611_news.html

The AFL chipped in a further $250,000 on top of $3 million, while the club provided $2.1 million.
About $150,000 in interest over the length of the 16-month project will also bridge the $4 million shortfall.
The Federal Government also tipped in $10 million and the City of Greater Geelong $3 million, with the Cats' total contribution coming to $4.2 million.


Geelong's additional $2.1 million takes the club's debt to $10 million by the end of 2012, the second largest debt of all AFL clubs.
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/12/26/299611_news.html

In my post I said I wasn't sure were another $2.1mil was coming from, maybe a further bank loan to make up the difference between $46.9m and $49m for stage 3. However I think Geelong was covering that and it wasn't clear if that was from cash reserves and/or selling short and/or long term assets. [ ie orginally GFC was to contribute $2.1 then increased to $4.2 as per the above story but above story was still $2.1mil short of fully $49mil so I have said GFC contribution for stage 3 is $6.3mil]
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #3
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

From an article in The Australian on Thursday June 1 2006, page 37, titled "Swans hand-out reveals cash stance," which I have a hard copy of, it explained the AFL's 2005 Clubs Financial Review which was released in April. It also talked about the 2006 ASD's and how the clubs were arguing for a greater share of the TV monies as a result of the $780mil deal for the 2007-11 TV rights that was finalised in January 2006.

I can't find the article on the net and the info on net stadium returns wasn't in the internet article but I did reproduce it at this post back in 2006. I have added the average home attendances to show how the clean stadium deals are way ahead non clean stadium deals when looking at net $ per seat. This is 3 years old but it's the only info published on individual clubs and their net stadium returns.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6378922&postcount=42

Home crowd averages from;

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2005.html

Net Stadium Returns - 2005

WCE $10.93m (Average home attendance in 2005 was 40,267)
Bris_ $10.84m (33,267)
Col_ $10.30m (41,759)
Fre_ $10.29m (35,224)
Syd__ $7.62m (32,346)
Ess__ $7.49m (46,198)
Adl__ $7.28m (42,341)
Clt___$7.18m (36,976)
Gee__ $7.06m (27,783)
Mel__ $6.10m (39,869)
Stk__ $6.03m (36,856)
PA___ $5.93m (32,911)
Haw__ $5.65m (30,541)
Ric___ $5.57m (35,800)
Kan__ $5.14m (30,795)
WB___ $4.64m (28,321)

Average $7.38m. Victorian Average $6.52m.
The Net Stadium Return is the revenue figure which includes gate receipts, signage, membership, reserved seating, catering and corporate hospitality, less the expenditure for ground rental and match day costs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2007 The Age published a list of income (3) and expenditure (4) items for the 16 different in 2006.

For income they had the following 3 categories
1. Membership (Reserve seat income included)
2. Football revenue (sponsorship, membership, gate receipts, merchandise, fund-raising, marketing and AFL-sourced)
3. Non-football revenue (including gaming and other businesses)

But if you add the 3 items you don't necessarily get what's in the accounts of the clubs. Some items have been netted. I know Port's item 2 is a net figure.

See 2006 Club Figures

From that link provided the following was the gross membership returns of clubs in 2006 including seat premiums:

1. West Coast $11.045m
2. Adelaide $7.917m
3. Collingwood $7.541m
4. Brisbane Lions $6.982m
5. Geelong $6.375m
6. Fremantle $6.279m
7. Essendon $6.13m
8. Port Adelaide $5.667m
9. Sydney $5.416m
10. St Kilda $4.957m
11 Richmond $4.108m
12. Carlton $4.072m
13 W Bulldogs $3.594m
14 Hawthorn $3.225m
15 Melbourne $3.181m
16 Kangaroos $2.981m
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In today's Advertiser they have stadium return figures with Rucci's "We need clean deals and Crows want more cash" article. Vi on thepowerfromport.com took a scan of the info as it's not up on the net. If you have access to the site the image and article is at

http://www.thepowerfromport.com.au/articles.php?action=view&article_id=6860&lid=6&yr=2009

Stadium Returns in 2007

1. WCE $14.40m
2. FRE_ $12.52
3. SYD- $11.97 (In 2007 Sydney had 3, 60,000+ crowds at ANZ Stadium but a not in 2008)
4. COL_ $11.39
5. ADL_ $9.85
6. BRI_ $9.44
7. ESS_ $8.66
8. GEE_ $7.51
9. PORT $7.49
10. STK $7.13
11. HAW $7.03
12. WB_ $6.02
13. CLT_ $5.99
14. RICH $5.90
15. MLB $5.40
16. NML $5.07
In 2008 when we had the worst crowds in our 12 years in the AFL;

2008 Share of the pie at Footy Park
AAMI Stadium - The Figures - How the pie wa carved up in 2008.

Crows $11,005,910 - 34.7%
Port__ $7,822,892 -- 24.7%
SANFL $11,680,483 - 36.9%
AFL__ $1,162,414 --- 3.7%
TOTAL $31,671,700 --
In 2008 the crowd figures were
Crows 447,455 an average of 40,678 long term average 41,070
Port__ 262,258 an average of 23,842 long term average 30,007 (29,477 without 1997)

crowds from AFL Tables - crowds 2008

$ provided per attendee
Crows $25.60
Port__ $29.83

I'm not sure if the 2 clubs figure includes all membership figures. I assume it is only for revenue directly attributable to Port and the Crows eg Suite one corporate facility is all port's income and all Southern end corporate boxes is the SANFL's.

I get the SANFL annual report which has total figures. I haven't got 2008 but it will be interesting to see how much of the total SANFL income is from Footy Park. Then again if figures include the membership fees collected directly by the club it doesn't mean much.

-----------------------------------
2008 Net Stadium Returns from the Advertiser 7 May 2009 and scanned on at TPFP at http://www.thepowerfromport.com.au/viewthread.php?tid=28126

The article had 2008 NSR + average crowd and I have added a few other columns

Code:
2008 Net Stadium Returns					
Team	$ Mil NSR	Av crowd	Tot crowd	$NSR/Attendee	Membership
WCE	 $17.00 	 37,653 	 414,188 	 $41.04 	44,863
COL	 $14.30 	 59,213 	 651,345 	 $21.95 	42,498
FRE	 $13.70 	 35,877 	 394,643 	 $34.71 	43,366
SYD	 $11.00 	 32,834 	 361,169 	 $30.46 	26,721
GEE	 $10.10 	 29,474 	 324,211 	 $31.15 	36,850
HAW	 $9.8000 	 39,976 	 439,732 	 $22.29 	41,436
BRI	 $9.300 	 28,128 	 309,405 	 $30.06 	22,737
ESS	 $9.000 	 46,368 	 510,051 	 $17.65 	41,947
ADL	 $8.700 	 40,678 	 447,455 	 $19.44 	48,720
CRL	 $8.200 	 48,589 	 534,483 	 $15.34 	39,360
WBS	 $6.900 	 30,275 	 333,029 	 $20.72 	28,306
NM	 $6.300 	 27,667 	 304,337 	 $20.70 	32,600
RIC	 $6.200 	 43,548 	 479,027 	 $12.94 	30,820
STK	 $6.200 	 37,034 	 407,370 	 $15.22 	30,063
PA	 $6.000 	 23,842 	 262,258 	 $22.88 	34,185
MEL	 $5.900 	 30,777 	 338,551 	 $17.43 	29,619





---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this article by Rucci confirms
1. The crows have realised they are missing out on being a goliath like West Coast; and

2. Port only originally asked for $1m in November last year from the league's "facility development" fund to work off the debt left from building its Power Headquarters at Alberton. This has been declined because the fund - from which the Crows took $1 million for its new $20m training and social facility at AAMI Stadium - has run dry.

So Haysman's strategy of "if you are going to ask for a hanout, you mind as well ask for a decent handout" maybe starting to work its trick of spooking people and waking them up to this issue.

Crows want more AAMI cash
MICHELANGELO RUCCI CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER | March 25, 2009 12:30am

ADELAIDE has entered the Great Stadium Debate, also seeking a new deal at AAMI Stadium - and more. The Crows - who bank none of the lucrative catering or car-parking revenue nor sell any of the corporate boxes at AAMI Stadium - question if they could deliver a bigger return from the West Lakes arena if they were given a "clean stadium" as their West Coast rivals have at Subiaco Oval.

But Adelaide chief executive Steven Trigg has broadened the biggest off-field issue in AFL football by emphasising the future of both the Crows and Power hinges on far more than grabbing a bigger slice of the AAMI Stadium match-day revenue.

"Getting lost in this debate are quite a few critical points," Trigg told The Advertiser yesterday. "It's not just about the stadium.

"The challenge for both AFL clubs here is to deal with three different but related points.

"First, how do we reduce the costs of putting on an AFL game at AAMI Stadium (up to $130,000 for the Crows)?

"Second, we do need to look at the stadium deal - particularly if we can do more than sell the corporate boxes, but also deliver something extra.

"Third, we need growth - not just as AFL clubs, but in the SANFL and the nine SANFL clubs."

The stadium debate at West Lakes has become hijacked by last week's hysteria to an unfounded report that Port Adelaide had asked the AFL for $1m a year in the next three years as emergency relief funding.

Rather, Port late last year sought $1m from the league's "facility development" fund to work off the debt left from building its Power Headquarters at Alberton.

This has been declined because the fund - from which the Crows took $1 million for its new $20m training and social facility at AAMI Stadium - has run dry.


The AFL, before offering any new financial aid to the Power, has challenged Port to develop a new business model - and, after a decade of unease with the SANFL, to do so with its licence owner, the SANFL.

Port president Brett Duncanson and chief executive Mark Haysman - neither of whom carry the 1990 stigma that has tainted Power-SANFL ties - insist the Power's future hinges on a better deal at AAMI Stadium.

SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker says it will be found in developing stronger attendances at Power games and bigger membership - a long-term task.

Adelaide is at the other extreme. Its full membership sales each year mean the Crows are not rushing for a new AAMI Stadium deal - or declaring the issue, as Duncanson puts it, "the single, most important short-term agenda item".

"But it needs to be examined," Trigg said. "And since late last year we have worked with Port on this - and a few other issues.

"And don't think this football club takes pleasure or wants to see Port Adelaide suffering financially. We're very happy to beat them on the field, but it is no good to us if Port is on life support off the field.

"We do share a few issues. The biggest off the field is how do we grow?

"This new facility we are building (at West Lakes) is not just about finding a competitive edge on the field. It also is about finding new revenue, delivering more to our fans.

"But (this debate) is not just about getting more dough out of the stadium.

"I'm sure we will not get any sympathy for this remark - but there is a real squeeze on our (profits). Revenue is flat-lining. Costs are rising. We have to keep growing the yield between that revenue and costs."

More so when Adelaide's direct equivalent - West Coast, which plays to a smaller stadium in Perth - has lifted the Eagles' annual turnover to $46m and its massive cash reserves with a $3.88m profit, after handing $5.77m to the WA Football Commission.

By comparison, Adelaide's turnover last year was $26m - with a $1.6m profit.

The critical difference between the Eagles and Crows is that West Coast gets a "clean stadium" at Subiaco where it pays $3m rent but keeps all the revenue from corporate boxes, catering and advertising.

"Our question with the SANFL," Trigg said, "is, if we get involved with the corporate boxes, signage can we then deliver more to our customers? Can we do it differently so we cut costs and increase revenue?"
* In Rucci's other article he correctly pointed out the WCE in 2007 made profits of $6.65mil after paying $3mil rent to the WAFC, it then gave a $2.77mil licence fee payment to the WAFC and was left with $3.88m net profit

Power needs Midas touch
March 26, 2009 12:30am

PORT Adelaide's immediate answer to its financial challenge has been thrown to coach Mark Williams and his players. The SANFL, owners of AAMI Stadium and the two SA-based AFL licences, has reaffirmed - in responses to the AFL - that the Power's business model can only be saved by growing its membership base and not a new stadium deal alone.

By the SANFL's figures, if the Power regains the 5000 fans it lost at the AAMI Stadium gates last year, Port will add $500,000 to its bottom line.

And if the Power can appeal to the 35,000 who watched the club in its inaugural AFL season in 1997, Port - which lost a record $1.4 million last year and is carrying $3.5m of debt - will be financially secure.

SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker yesterday maintained the impasse with the Power administration saying the club's financial security hinges on "growing the business" - and not increasing its share of the AAMI Stadium profits.

Whicker also rejected:

COPYING the WA model in which Subiaco Oval is handed as a "clean venue" to AFL clubs West Coast and Fremantle, which keep all the match-day revenue in return for annual rent of $3 million each.

"However you shake it," Whicker said, "there is a consolidated revenue of $90 million under the WA model and $90 million from the AAMI Stadium model - and when it filters down to the bottom, the results are the same.

"The real difference between SA and WA is the prices charged - the rates for corporate boxes at Subiaco are almost double those of AAMI Stadium.

"And we have to be very careful in a city such as Adelaide that is very price sensitive."

CUTTING the nine SANFL clubs' dividends to hand back more money to the AFL franchises.

"We will not weaken our obligation to the SANFL clubs," Whicker said. "The clubs are entitled it. For 24 years we have delivered our budgets to the SANFL clubs - and there will be no exception this year."

The SANFL clubs last year each banked $453,000 as a league dividend - or $4,077,000. The message from the SANFL to the AFL - and Port - is clear: The Power has to bring more people through the gates.

Port chief executive Mark Haysman last night said his club accepted this - but he maintained the deal at AAMI Stadium was still wrong.

"We'll always be working at growing our membership base," Haysman said, "but the fundamentals (of the stadium deal) are what they are - and they need to be fixed."

Whicker will debate the significant point of difference with Port when Haysman and his new team at Alberton delivers a budget based on the new business model the Power announced last week.

The SANFL will be searching of Port's numbers - as it was of the figures both the Crows and Power presented to the AFL on its stadium deals.

Adelaide and Port's figures from 2007 put the SA clubs at seventh and 15th in the league rankings for net stadia returns. But the SANFL's audit found undisclosed revenues - such as boundary advertising worth more than $1m - that lifted the clubs' rankings to fifth and ninth respectively.

"On those figures," Whicker said, "our clubs are doing reasonably well.

"And the difference between the two clubs' figures is Port has less in membership and attendances."

In the figures the SANFL has delivered to the AFL, AAMI Stadium generated $31.6m in total revenue last year. The SANFL claimed $11.6m - or 36.9 per cent of the AAMI Stadium "economy".

Adelaide took $11m - 34.7 per cent; Port, $7.8m or 24.7 per cent.


The SANFL paper to the AFL concludes: "Port Adelaide is $3,244,044 behind Adelaide in membership alone. If Port had the same level of membership as Adelaide, it would increase its percentage to 33 per cent of total revenue.

"The share of the total economy (at AAMI Stadium) would be almost 33 per cent for each of the SANFL, Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs."
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #4
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

The Victorian shit fight.

The MCC's initial offer rejected by the AFL

Showdown looms as AFL tries to muscle in

Damian Barrett and Michael Warner
March 20, 2009 11:30pm

FOOTY faced another crisis as talks aimed at generating millions of dollars for struggling Melbourne clubs broke down.

An AFL delegation rejected a State Government-proposed solution on financial returns on games played at the MCG.

Having already taken legal action against management of its Docklands stadium, the AFL now is in dispute with the MCG Trust.

The AFL was hoping for up to $10 million a year more from deals with the MCG.

But it was left angry at a package, largely put together by the Government, that proposed to add only an extra $4 million a year.

"There is a hell of a lot of work to do," said a footy official last night.

The Herald Sun has learned that during the meeting the Government offered the AFL a package that would:

PROVIDE an extra $90,000 a match for clubs playing home games at the MCG.

EXTEND from 2032 to 2042 the AFL commitment to play 40-plus home-and-away season matches plus finals, including the Grand Final, at the MCG.

SEE the Government take control of Yarra Park (used for parking on match days) and in turn transfer management of it to the MCG Trust.

In total, the Government's proposal would be worth about $4 million a year to the AFL and the Victorian clubs.


As well as this, it was proposed the AFL would receive a "financial reward" from the government for increasing attendances.

But, the Herald Sun has discovered the AFL was seeking a package that would benefit it and its clubs by $10 million a year.

At the meeting were AFL bosses Andrew Demetriou and Mike Fitzpatrick, David Smorgon (Western Bulldogs president), Eddie McGuire (Collingwood), Frank Costa (Geelong), Greg Swann, (Carlton CEO), Steven Wright (Richmond CEO), David Meiklejohn, John Wylie and Stephen Gough (all of the MCG), as well as Sports Minister James Merlino and a band of advisers.

Mr Merlino would not comment on the specifics of the deal being offered, but it is known it relates to every club that plays a home game at the MCG.

The only Melbourne-based club that does not is St Kilda.

"We are committed to doing what we can to hep secure the future of Victorian football clubs," Mr Merlino said.

"It is no secret the Brumby Government wants to see a more financially secure future for the Victorian clubs. I have said previously we will do all we can to help broker a deal on this issue.

"I have met with the clubs, the AFL the MCG Trust, and I am not in a position to confirm any details of the proposal, as discussions are continuing."

Mr Demetriou could not be contacted.

Mr Smorgon, who was appointed head of the clubs' delegation, said: "I am not going to comment on any negotiations between the AFL, its clubs, the State Government and the (MCG) Trust."

Under the current AFL-MCG contract, the AFL commits to producing 1.7 million spectators for MCG matches each year.

It commits to 2.1 million spectators under a "best endeavours" clause in the contract, and last year recorded 2.8 million spectators.

In 46 home-and-away matches, the average crowd was nearly 50,000.

The Herald Sun revealed in November that Victoria's 10 AFL clubs were set for a showdown with the Government after tiring of the perceived unjust financial returns on the millions of dollars they generated for the state.

The clubs' anger is directed to many areas, including the Government-backed construction of a rectangular stadium for soccer's Melbourne Victory and rugby league's Melbourne Storm, as well as Cricket Australia's lucrative deal with the MCG.

The AFL has taken legal action against management of the other Melbourne stadium it uses, Docklands.
Eddie's response. As I said in the first post, someone finally puts the heat back on the AFL for doing this crappy long term deals which have so many "unintended consequences," probably because they were too dumb to think ahead too far.
McGuire slams AFL-brokered deals

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire has taken a swipe at the AFL for having made 'bad deals' with stadium operators which several Melbourne-based clubs are seeking to renegotiate.

Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon has floated the prospect that matches could be played interstate in a bid to force the MCG Trust and management of Eithad Stadium to provide a better return.

According to Smorgon, the Melbourne clubs receive an average of 30 percent of stadium returns compared to the 75 percent available to teams based outside Victoria.

Speaking at the announcement of a new sponsorship arrangement with Aussie Home Loans, McGuire said Collingwood is 'standing-by the smaller clubs' and the league in their quest for better stadium deals.

But he said the fight may not have been necessary had the right deals been done in the first place.

"We are getting robbed in Victoria as far as the stadium deals - bad deals done by the AFL," said McGuire.

"Let there be no mistake - bad deals done by the AFL - but now it's time to rectify these things
because bad deal after bad deal ends up in what we've just seen in the world economic disaster that's going on."

"What we have to take on board is that there's been some bad deals and get some win-win deals happening again."

McGuire said it's ridiculous that clubs should be 'on their knees' when up to 300,000 people could attend the opening round of the new season.

He said a generational opportunity exists to get the stadium deals right and nominated the Victorian Government as being best-placed to broker the deal.

Asked about the collective threat to shift matches interstate, McGuire said: "Collingwood has very strong contractual obligations with the MCG and (Etihad Stadium) and we won't be moving our games anywhere for the foreseeable future."

Later, MCC Secretary Stephen Gough revealed details of a revised agreement put to AFL clubs last week that he said would have earned Melbourne an extra $920,000 had it been in place this season and Richmond $720,000.

"We think it's an exceptional offer and one that we don't need to do but we're prepared to extend our debt period to try and do something for the Victorian clubs," Gough told Channel 10.

Meanwhile McGuire played down media reports of links between the Magpies and the consortium favoured to win a second A-League licence in Melbourne.

"Collingwood won't have a formal association with any soccer side," McGuire declared. "It's not on our radar."
Patrick Smith has a dig back at the AFL and the MCG deal and the AFL clubs and their administrators.

AFL's grab for dollars

Patrick Smith | March 25, 2009

THIS is a dispute that affects every team in the AFL competition. It is a battle being fought in Melbourne, the game's home front, but the outcome will impact from West Coast and Fremantle to Brisbane and the prepubescent Gold Coast. It is, as always now in football, a grab for dollars.

The smaller Melbourne clubs - and Port Adelaide, too - cannot compete with Collingwood, Essendon and the non-Victorian giants like the Eagles and the Crows because they get miserly returns from the two Melbourne stadiums - the MCG and Etihad Stadium.

It is true that Brisbane makes a killing from its Gabba deal and the Western Bulldogs are slaughtered by a niggardly return from the Melbourne stadiums.

No one argues about this inequality but everybody argues how the competition and its playing grounds must go about fixing it.

There is not much room to wriggle about in because the AFL has struck long-term deals with both Melbourne grounds. The deal to play at the MCG stretches to 2032. If the deals to the Melbourne clubs cannot be improved then the wealthier and non-Victorian clubs will need to stump up the competition. It is why we are now witness to that rarest of sights - AFL presidents gathered arm-in-arm to fight the good fight.

The AFL has turned to the clubs - and so by extension their members and supporters - to embarrass the MCG Trust which, with the Melbourne Cricket Club, administers the best stadium in the nation. The AFL has also sought to draw the media to its side, hoping the print and broadcast outlets will pressure the MCG powers.

The clubs have gone for few old favourites - a threat to play at Visy Stadium (Carlton's home base) and take games away from the local venues to interstate grounds.

Visy, formerly known as Princes Park, has not been fit to stage an AFL game for at least a century. And members and supporters will not tolerate their clubs taking home games into Sydney, Perth, Brisbane or Adelaide. It is all bluster and bunkum.

Talks between the MCG, the state Government and an AFL delegation of bits and pieces - presidents, club chief executives, AFL officials - broke down last Friday. The AFL was said to be incensed, livid that the state Government was prepared to pour money into upgrading the Melbourne Tennis Centre ($500 million) and a new rectangular stadium ($300 million) for rugby union, league and soccer. It is best not mentioned that it is planned also to be the headquarters of the Melbourne Football Club.

But the offer to help solve the Melbourne clubs was worth $50 million over 10 years, or $90,000 for every game played by a Melbourne club tenant. In exchange the MCG wanted the AFL contract extended by 10 years to 2042.

The AFL countered last night that adding 10 years to the deal would earn the MCG an extra $1.6 billion gross.

Club presidents Eddie McGuire of Collingwood and Frank Costa of Geelong were on roster duty yesterday to push the AFL case.

Costa told Melbourne radio SEN that the poor dividends were putting at least three Melbourne clubs at risk of extinction. Never mind that a week ago AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou promised the competition would always support 10 Victorian clubs. A mere detail, apparently.

Some facts to balance out. The MCG power brokers have a debt of $320 million, courtesy of ground development. The AFL thumps its chest that its own bank balance shows it has no debt at all and that the league continually tips millions into its future fund, expected total at the end of the year a cool $50 million. Costa says that we should not consider that the AFL has $400 million to build teams in west Sydney and the Gold Coast. Now or never, says the president.

But the MCG Trust runs a business as well and plans a redevelopment of the Great Southern Stand that will cost about as much - now or never says the trust.

The AFL does not mention that its own clubs bleed its brother clubs dry. Essendon is rich on its stadium deals and so is Collingwood. Smart dealing by those clubs, but no suggestion from the AFL that Collingwood and Essendon share their fortunes about town.

This is not a simple case of the MCG Trust ripping off Melbourne clubs. Contracts were entered into by the AFL and MCG officials. Grown men with business degrees signed the contracts. That they have turned out to be lousy for the AFL is just bad commerce. And there is no legal obligation on the MCG to alter or massage any contracts. The trust thought long and hard about even putting Friday's offer to the AFL. It is only out of an acceptance that both ground and competition need each other and remain in a partnership, however frayed.

We wrote yesterday that the haphazard, unplanned and myriad deals done within deals have brought the competition to this fractious position. It is chaotic and unmanageable.

It is time for all parties - the stadium managers, the AFL, the clubs and the government to sit down and start again. A blank canvas. Draw from scratch arrangements that benefit everybody and favour no one in particular. It will require brave and fair leadership from all parties. Surely that's not impossible. For men on a million dollars and more it certainly shouldn't be.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #5
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

This is a great post by Porthos as to why the political battle between the SANFL and AFL re development funding, salary cap issues, control of footy programs etc means we will get caught in the cross fire

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=552190&highlight=china&page=2

I know this will surprise some people, but I am not thinking that the SANFL is all evil bastard on this either.

Right now, money funneled into the SANFL by Crows and Power allow it to maintain some independence from the A/VFL. which I think its important and really should be guaranteed. When I see the SANFL turn down AFL funding so that they can ensure SA football is properly administrated, by parties that give a shit about it having a decent standard (and maybe keeping the name the league has instead of becoming `AFL SA' or some equally generic shit), to me that is great to see.

Yes, Port and the AFL may well be working a number on the SANFL through the media, but the AFL is not acting to help Port - its to break the SANFL.

What I would want to see is this
* SANFL quit relying on Port/Crows for their income
* AFL give SANFL the same state league grants that they give other states without the ideological strings attached. If it was proportionate with funds pumped into Victorian state leagues, I bet it would comfortably make up for income derived from AFL licenses and then some.
* Port have more money and can get on with football.

Why this won't happen
* A fixed Port/Crows stadium deal sees Adelaide become a genuinely powerful club (ie. Collingwood powerful), which is not in line with Victorian football strategy.
* AFL will never give funds to leagues without gaining more control over culture and administration.
* SANFL will never give up funds that would compromise its independence.
* It is easier for both AFL & SANFL to blame Port, but if they can get a few hits in at each other on the way, that is great.
* The AFL is pretty happy using Port as a pawn in their efforts to dominate nationally.

Round 3 this will come to a crux. The AFL have scheduled us a home game, at 12:40pm, on Easter Sunday, against Melbourne - don't tell me that that is a pure accident. This will probably draw about as well as an SANFL game.

If the AFL are willing to step in for Victorian clubs to get them better stadium deals, new stadiums, buy out their old stadium deals and so on, then they have that very same responsibility to Port Adelaide. You can `Oh, but SANFL sub-license, not their problem' to your heart's content, but that is bullshit. The AFL should be coming to the table with the SANFL and negotiating; Port negotiating alone with either party will be fruitless.
My response

I know this will surprise some people, but I am not thinking that the SANFL is all evil bastard on this either.
I agree with you. I don't understand why the SANFL is blamed for all our ills. Yes there's 1990 stuff and the whole PAFC/PAMFC saga but, when it comes to the stadium deal they have been pretty fair to us given that they have done an identical deal with the crows but have agreed to give us $250k subsidy which has been matched by the AFL since 2006.

You can't just change these deals overnight because not only have the SANFL clubs been dependant on the revenue generated by Footy Park, but so has all footy development programs across all levels in SA benefited.

It's now a changed environment and its time to tweak the deal. But it doesn't happen overnight because there are massive implications down the food chain which can't be dismissed off hand.

As I posted somewhere else the SANFL does nicely out of us even with a 30,000 crowd. But at least it is a football body, unlike the Docklands where the private owners do nicely out of 30,000 crowd or at the MCG where the MCC bankers do very nicely out of a 30,000 crowd. And in Queensland its a bit different as the taxpayers let the Lions do nicely out of them , by subsidising their use of their stadium. And if the WAFC wasn't effectively a government controlled body they wouldn't have let their clubs do so well out of Subi, seeing as the government restructured WA footy and redeveloped Subi oval.

Right now, money funneled into the SANFL by Crows and Power allow it to maintain some independence from the A/VFL. which I think its important and really should be guaranteed. When I see the SANFL turn down AFL funding so that they can ensure SA football is properly administrated, by parties that give a shit about it having a decent standard (and maybe keeping the name the league has instead of becoming `AFL SA' or some equally generic shit), to me that is great to see.
That independence is a healthy thing to have over the control freaks that are the AFL executive team and the AFL commission. I agree with you that so far its good to see the WAFC and SANFL have told the AFL to get stuffed on name changes to AFL WA and AFL SA.

Yes, Port and the AFL may well be working a number on the SANFL through the media, but the AFL is not acting to help Port - its to break the SANFL.
I agree with you on that. We have seen Port and the AFL jabbing at the SANFL in public. Sounds like poor old Leigh is flustered. I don't have much time for Caroline Wilson's footy knowledge and her moral crusades, but she understands footy politics well and she has correctly called this a 3 way political process.

What I would want to see is this
* SANFL quit relying on Port/Crows for their income
* AFL give SANFL the same state league grants that they give other states without the ideological strings attached. If it was proportionate with funds pumped into Victorian state leagues, I bet it would comfortably make up for income derived from AFL licenses and then some.
* Port have more money and can get on with football.
The first point is a long time from happening. If this new state of the art city stadium was ever built and it was a clean stadium and government trust owned and controlled it like the proposed WA stadium, then that's probably when it will materially happen. But you are right about the other 2.

Why this won't happen
* A fixed Port/Crows stadium deal sees Adelaide become a genuinely powerful club (ie. Collingwood powerful), which is not in line with Victorian football strategy.
* AFL will never give funds to leagues without gaining more control over culture and administration.
* SANFL will never give up funds that would compromise its independence.
* It is easier for both AFL & SANFL to blame Port, but if they can get a few hits in at each other on the way, that is great.
* The AFL is pretty happy using Port as a pawn in their efforts to dominate nationally.
I've said the crows will turn into a money making Goliath like the West Coast, but I think you're right that politically they could become like Collingwood. You are 100% correct about your 2nd and 3rd point and probably correct on the 4th and 5th point.

Round 3 this will come to a crux. The AFL have scheduled us a home game, at 12:40pm, on Easter Sunday, against Melbourne - don't tell me that that is a pure accident. This will probably draw about as well as an SANFL game.
Lets hope for a warm sunny day at least. Maybe get the SA Brewery on board and offer free beer for the first half might help with the crowd numbers.

If the AFL are willing to step in for Victorian clubs to get them better stadium deals, new stadiums, buy out their old stadium deals and so on, then they have that very same responsibility to Port Adelaide. You can `Oh, but SANFL sub-license, not their problem' to your heart's content, but that is bullshit. The AFL should be coming to the table with the SANFL and negotiating; Port negotiating alone with either party will be fruitless.
The AFL has a ****ed record when it comes to stadium deals going back to 1990/91 and the MCG negotiations for the Great Southern Stand, a 23,000 AFL members reserve and shiny new offices at the G. They could not sign up fast enough in 1991 to lock in 40 years of at least one final in each of the first 3 weeks and all GFs at the G. They just didn't care about non Vic teams getting the moral right to host finals. Introducing a second PF let them get away with their stupidity for another 8 or 9 years. They finally woke up a couple of years ago and realised the Melbourne teams, whilst its nice that they play in shiny new stadiums, have crappy deals and poor stadium returns, and it's these stadium returns that are the key to all clubs doing better than just surviving.

I can't see them fixing up any stadium deals in Victoria, they could well lose a shit load on the GC and western Sydney teams, both by subsiding the teams and the stadiums, so they aren't going to do much for Port if that's the case.

If they do manage to actually do something right with renegotiating the stadium deals then I think you are right Porthos, they have the moral obligation to lean on the SANFL, but they wont.

And an article a few day later I posted on the next page of that thread that confirms what Porthos wrote about development monies and the AFL wanting to control things.

Just wanted to link Porthos' excellent summary of the AFL-SANFL-Port power play, with the lastest power play by the AFL. (no pun intended)

Showdown looms as AFL tries to muscle in
Jay Clark
March 22, 2009 12:00am

VICTORIAN Football League chiefs fear an AFL takeover bid could strip the league of its "heart and soul" and put every club at risk of expulsion.

The AFL wants unprecedented power to control the make-up of the VFL competition and the AFL Victoria board, and could cut millions of dollars of funding unless VFL clubs agree.

The two bodies are headed for a bitter showdown if, as expected, most VFL clubs reject the AFLV's proposed constitutional amendments at the league's annual general meeting tomorrow night.

It could have dramatic consequences for Australian football's oldest competition, with the AFL thinking about a new eastern seaboard reserves league as part of its bold expansion plans.

Outspoken VFA/VFL great Phil Cleary said the AFL's plan to gain full control of who was on the AFLV board and which clubs played was "undemocratic".

"If the AFL's plan goes through, it will be a step towards the death of the VFL competition," Cleary said.

"It will turn the VFA/VFL, a league steeped in 130 years of football tradition, into a satellite competition, a mini-AFL.

"I am concerned. This puts the very heart and soul of Victorian football at risk. Maybe the people will have to fight back."

The AFL denied funding was at stake and insisted the proposed changes, endorsed by the AFLV board, would improve the structure governing the VFL.

"We think it is in the best interests of football, especially in times of increasing competition, to improve the governmental structure and work even closer together," said the AFL's general manager of game development, Dave Matthews.

Six of the nine AFLV directors have already been offered a position on the revamped board.

The most controversial of the proposed amendments would give the AFL the only vote at general meetings and the power to change the constitution.

It would also give the AFL power to veto any director elected by VFL clubs to an AFLV board position.

"It means VFL clubs will be locked out and basically have no say in any situation," Williamstown president Trevor Monti said.

"We will have to put our full faith in not only the current AFL administration, but future AFL administrations, and we know there could be a lot of pressure to admit interstate teams, such as West Sydney and the Gold Coast. But at what cost?"

Casey president John Sharkie added: "My fears are that as a result of this, some of our less robust clubs may go out of existence."

The AFL pours $15 million a year into the VFL and has undertaken joint VFL facility projects with State Government and local council worth more than $30 million.

"The AFL understands the place Victorian football has in the overall health in the game," Matthews said.

To pass the controversial amendments, AFLV needs at least 25 of 32 votes in favour.

North Ballarat and Bendigo, two clubs who fear for the league's susceptibility without full AFL funding, appear set to break ranks with other clubs by voting in favour of the proposal.

Club presidents have formulated a counter-proposal but AFL representatives are yet to discuss it with them.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #7
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

editting post to come

Edit 15 March 2011
Transfering a post from the following post so info is in this thread.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=550391&highlight=allianz&page=2

On a Tassie option thread on the main board, thanks to the stupidity of Mr Cornes, I got into a spirited debate with crows supporter aneale, which surprise, surprise ended up turning into a stadium debate. He bought up NY so I ended up putting links to the new Meadowlands Stadium being currently built across the Hudson River in New Jersey.

Currently the NY Jets play home games at their rival's NY Giants home ground Giants Stadium in New Jersey. The new Meadowlands Stadium is being built next to it. The Jets reckon that they have been the second class citizens for the 25 years they have played their. So this is how the new stadium design tries to get around that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadowlands_Stadium

Design

The new stadium the Jets and the Giants are scheduled to occupy in 2010 will be distinguished by an outer skin of aluminum louvers and by interior lighting that will switch colors depending on which team is playing at home — a technique originated at the Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany, which is shared between two soccer clubs. The special louvers and the associated hanging system have been custom designed by Overgaard Ltd., Hong Kong. Architectural Wall Systems co. of Des Moines, Iowa is supplying all materials for this project. The total linear amount of louvers is roughly 50,000 meters (50 kilometers) or 163,680 feet (31 miles).

There will be numerous tailgating zones, and myriad options to buy food and merchandise in the plaza that will ring the stadium.

The changing colors — blue for the Giants, green for the Jets, and red for a concert — reflect each team’s desire to individualize the look of the 82,500-seat stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The teams’ current home, Giants Stadium, opened in 1976, but the Jets have long felt like a second-class tenant there since arriving in 1984. The louvers in the new stadium, which are arranged in various densities, may also reflect the teams’ colors.

According to renderings of the Jets-Giants stadium obtained by The New York Times, giant red pylons at the north and east entrances will display videos of each team, depending on which one is playing.

A signature feature of the stadium — which will be built in the shape of a rounded rectangle — will be the massive "Great Wall" that will be partly visible through the louvers at the main entrance.

The wall will be 400 feet (120 m) long and 40 feet (12 m) high, showing panels of images that will rotate between photographic murals of the Jets and Giants on game days and different pictures for concerts and other events.

Inside, four 40-by-130-foot scoreboards will hang from each corner of the upper deck.
If you go to the two teams website about the new stadium will get an idea of how the stadiums will look different for when the two teams play a home game there.

http://www.nyg2010.com/

click on the skip the skip into and you will get a series of images of the look of the new stadium with a Giants feel. Or you can click on the images page.

http://www.newjetsstadium.com/home.php

click on the gallery page and you will get a series of images of the look of the new stadium with a Jet feel.

Here is how the Allianz Arena changes colour to give a different feel for the different teams.



Allianz Arena is lit up in red when Bayern Munich play, in blue when 1860 Munich play and in white when in use by the German National Team.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allianz_Arena

Bottom line is, as can be seen with the Meadowlands Stadium, the SANFL would have to spend a decent amount of money and do plenty of work to set this up and between home games so that the stadium gives a look an feel of a home games equally to both teams. So until the SA government monies starts being spent, which now wont start in any great amount until 2012-13, the look and feel of Footy Park wont change a lot.

Oh and just in case people say why can't we build a Meadowlands Stadium, which is a suburb stadium not a CBD location, consider that;

1. Look at how it has blown out from $600mil USD to $1,400mil USD within a few years.
Costs up for Meadowlands Stadium

2. This is privately financed. Every Giants fan has to buy a Private Seat Licence (PSL). This one off payment costs from $1,000 for the cheap seats to $20,000 for the expensive ones. Game day tickets cost from $85 to the nose bleed seats to $700 for the expensive ones.

The Jets fans aren't as rich by the sounds of things. There will be 27,000 seats that are non PSL in the top deck area. The PSL payments range from $4,000 to $30,000 and the game day tickets from $120 to $700. The non PSL nose bleed seats cost between $95 to $125 per seat.

And I note that the New Jersey Transit will construct a rail spur of its existing network as part of the deal.
 

PAFC04

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Posts
3,124
Likes
1,626
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Anything in Black'n'White
#8
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

Compelling reading now that I have a better understanding thanks to REH.

With regards to Kardinia Park, would this be suggesting that Port Adelaide Football Club approach the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and our government along with a private company to upgrade Alberton Oval in the same structure as a clean stadia.

I would rather go to Alberton Oval than to maybe see us play our games at Adelaide Oval.

Perhaps Port Adelaide FC need to go the long yards to become a stronger and club financially sound with a crowd of 30K.

The only question I have is; When can Port start playing there games other then AAMI?
 

Macca19

Moderator
Joined
Jan 14, 2001
Posts
59,031
Likes
57,233
Location
Albertr0n
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
MUFC, Orlando Magic
Moderator #9
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

King amongst men REH! :thumbsu:
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #10
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

1. We have a long term stadium agreement with the SANFL, until 2016 I believe. If we break that, will you pay the SANFL compensation on lost earnings? You know if you break a contract there is compensation to the damaged party. Who is going to pay the compo?

2. There is an affiliation agreement between the AFL and the SANFL that says the SANFL control all football matters in SA. Do you think the AFL are going to breach that and allow us to play home games at Alberton, Adelaide Oval any other football stadium in the universe if the SANFL say no?

3. The SANFL is our licence holder and it's part of the licence agreement. End of story

From History of the 2 SA AFL Clubs that used to be up on the SANFL website.

B: Port Adelaide Football Club Ltd

2. Licence Agreement

The Licence Agreement between the AFL and the SANFL relating to the entry of Port Power into the AFL Competition (“the Port Power Licence Agreement”) is essentially on the same basic terms and conditions as those contained in the Crows Licence Agreement.
so lets go to the basic conditions of the crows.

A: Adelaide Football Club

2. Licence Agreement

The Licence Agreement between the AFL and the SANFL relating to the entry of the Adelaide Crows into the AFL Competition (“the Crows Licence Agreement”) was based, we understand, upon Licence Agreements which had been granted by the AFL to other AFL Clubs to field teams in the AFL Competition. The Licence Agreement with Adelaide however did contain terms and conditions which were pertinent only to the SANFL (and to the Crows). These terms and conditions were:-


1. All home games of the team would be played at Football Park (now AAMI Stadium).
 

jaxx

Team Captain
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
532
Likes
442
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#11
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

Slightly OT, but is it possible to become too good for BigFooty?! :p There's gotta be a way you can help the club with your research skills / knowledge REH.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Geoffa32

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Posts
41,447
Likes
32,231
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
The Autobots and Team America
#12
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

I look forward to reading all of this, plus the new stuff you add REH. I would think that if Port get a change in the deal, they Crows will too. So it affects both clubs. All SA footy people show know how this works.
 

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Posts
20,394
Likes
32,410
Location
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#13
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

1. We have a long term stadium agreement with the SANFL, until 2016 I believe. If we break that, will you pay the SANFL compensation on lost earnings? You know if you break a contract there is compensation to the damaged party. Who is going to pay the compo?
Does this mean that in 2016 we can negotiate a new deal with Adelaide Oval or a newly contstucted or proposed city stadium? Would this be in the realms of possibility? Or does the SANFL control us that much that these sort of Agreements/ Contracts are a sham because they would never let us leave any rate?
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #14
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

King amongst men REH! :thumbsu:
As a foundation member of the Australian Republican Movement I think I'm offended by that. :eek: :p
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #15
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

Does this mean that in 2016 we can negotiate a new deal with Adelaide Oval or a newly contstucted or proposed city stadium? Would this be in the realms of possibility? Or does the SANFL control us that much that these sort of Agreements/ Contracts are a sham because they would never let us leave any rate?
It just means there is a deal in place until 2016 setting out the rights and obligations of both parties. If a new deal is struck then that would override this one, and it might be for longer than 2016. The licence agreement is the dominate agreement and we wont get away from Footy Park unless the SANFL allow it, new stadium or not. Probably pt 3 should have been pt 1.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #16
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

I look forward to reading all of this, plus the new stuff you add REH. I would think that if Port get a change in the deal, they Crows will too. So it affects both clubs. All SA footy people show know how this works.
Yes that's correct as a new deal has to be fair to all parties. As we both have written the new deal would allow the crows to become as big as the West Coast. And just like the WAFC altered the dividend payments and rents of both WCE and Freo over time to get the best possible outcome for all 3 parties that should be the goal of the SANFL especially if significant government monies are spent on the stadium.
 

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Posts
20,394
Likes
32,410
Location
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#17
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

It just means there is a deal in place until 2016 setting out the rights and obligations of both parties. If a new deal is struck then that would override this one, and it might be for longer than 2016. The licence agreement is the dominate agreement and we wont get away from Footy Park unless the SANFL allow it, new stadium or not. Probably pt 3 should have been pt 1.
But what if we don't sign any new deal? Can we use this as a bargaining chip or can the SANFL simply sack our board, take over and make us play at Footy Park any rate?
 

Sheeds

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,515
Likes
1,423
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Everton
#18
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

As a foundation member of the Australian Republican Movement I think I'm offended by that. :eek: :p
Well I was going to refer to you as a hero.:)
That was very good reading. Certainly gives a good insight into the situation Port are in.
 

Geoffa32

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Posts
41,447
Likes
32,231
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
The Autobots and Team America
#19
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

Yes that's correct as a new deal has to be fair to all parties. As we both have written the new deal would allow the crows to become as big as the West Coast. And just like the WAFC altered the dividend payments and rents of both WCE and Freo over time to get the best possible outcome for all 3 parties that should be the goal of the SANFL especially if significant government monies are spent on the stadium.
I agree that if Government monies are used the deals should favour all three parties. Not just the SANFL. Which is the ethos in Perth and Brisbane.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #20
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

But what if we don't sign any new deal? Can we use this as a bargaining chip or can the SANFL simply sack our board, take over and make us play at Footy Park any rate?
We are then in breach of our licence conditions and the AFL will suspend us or kick us out of the league.

Look whether we like the SANFL or not we are in a partnership with them. We are not going to end up in court fighting the SANFL and AFL on this.
 

S.Patrol.G

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Posts
3,827
Likes
2,925
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
There are no other teams
#21
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

Thanks for all of that REH. You must, however, feel a little ill that you've just done all the hard work for Rooch? He's sure to use it over the coming weeks.:rolleyes:
 

Steve Dore

International Trade Facilitator
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Posts
26,330
Likes
33,340
Location
a three hour tour.
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Minnesota Vikings, Canadiens, Ports
#22
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

President amongst men REH! :thumbsu:
Agree. :thumbsu:

Not only is it a very informative thread REH but I believe you win the award for the longest thread title and the longest initial post. :p
 

FishingRick04

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,398
Likes
10,691
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#23
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

Thanks for all of that REH. You must, however, feel a little ill that you've just done all the hard work for Rooch? He's sure to use it over the coming weeks.:rolleyes:
Well that would be plagerism and Sueable by R.E.H. I was thinking similar however that REH should post or email that in to the editor at the advertiser as it would make excellent reading, it would obviously have to be reduced and simplified for the majority of readers, therefore excessive use of dot points would be required :)

However, the research has been fantastic and illustrates the complexity for all parties in all states.

It also shows that ultimately stadium or not Port are and always will be the SANFL's bitch unless in some form if can completely own it's licence. But if that remote event was to happen, they could force us away from AAMI completely, leaving us reliant on the Adelaide Oval (basically).

As I posted earlier, as our Master the SANFL does not want us to fail, they want us to prosper and I can see what they mean by telling us to generate more members, but this will take time, it will be a generational thing to evolve (IMO), which means assistance by them whilst this happens is needed.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
51,520
Likes
63,350
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #24
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

Thanks for all of that REH. You must, however, feel a little ill that you've just done all the hard work for Rooch? He's sure to use it over the coming weeks.:rolleyes:
I don't care if he does. He has finally started to write some good stuff in the last week or so since Johnny Haysman stirred things up. If this helps explain things to our supporters so be it.

See post 3 I have put some info from his article today in which he puts the 2007 stadium returns for the clubs and who generated what at Footy Park in 2008.

I heard Rooch on 5AA last Saturday morning on the net and he was very good at looking at this and explaining who we really are re all the 2 Port crap and haven't changed and gave an excellent example of explaining the fairness of the stadium deal. He said that if you go to a Port or crows game and buy a $5 beer and after all costs have been paid for, if you are left with $1, then who should get what share of that $1. Simple example, but clear as to how complex this issue can.

I almost rung up the sports show on Saturday morning when KG went on about where has all our profits gone. If I had rung up I would have insisted on a 1/2 hr information session telling them about these deals and what I posted in the long term debt thread.

KG thought that debt repayments went thru the profit and loss and that profits was reflective of paying off debts. No one picked him up on it. I considered ringing to tell him how only interest went thru the profit and loss statement and that profits are then used to pay off debt. I would have suggested to Russell Ebert to take him down the club, get Greg Boulton to show him how we have borrowed monies since about 1995 and then paid off debt and then borrowed again. Russell then should have taken him inside all our facilities and pointed out what buildings or equipment was purchased on borrowed monies so the picture was clear that as a club that makes small profits but builds best practice facilities we have to regularly borrow to keep up.

Sometimes our club does a piss poor PR job with basic things. This is bloody complex, but a step by step process can get you to see the big picture.

Coming up with a fair and decent solution is another issue.
 

Andre

Premium Platinum
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Posts
21,994
Likes
22,631
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#25
Re: Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happenin

Brilliant work REH.
It's a real pity the SANFL and SACA are still stuck in the 70's and can't come to an agreement for a new stadium where Adelaide Oval is that can do football, soccer, cricket and events they each own part of rather then pig headedness.
It's enough to make you bang your head against the desk. A location in Adelaide that's ideal, but we can't use and it doesn't have a key tenant (AFL) to justify spending a heap on. And footy park in a suburban location that doesn't work in the 21st century and won't therefore ever get enough other events or usage to make venue memberships valuable enough to cover having it other then a pig with lipstick.

Somtimes I feel like kidnapping the heads of the SANFL, SACA and the government and putting them in a room with instructions to broker a shared city stadium deal, with a finger removed every hour until you stop ****ing over the people of the state because you each want to be big fish in a small pond instead of sharing a larger one. :mad:
 
Top Bottom