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

[FishingRick04]

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

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.

Two things REH:

I saw the paper after my post earlier. Did you see the excessive use of dot points and pictures lol tips for future posts (tongue in cheek comment here)

Also, who really listens to KG, we all know how uneducated and ill informed he is. He's great for controversial banter but rarely there is substance to his knowledge.

In addition, I still believe you should submit the OP and subsequent posts to the a paper like the Australian/Herald sun, you could make some extra money frelance, or get your name in the paper for a bit of glory Top work either way as per normal.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Also, who really listens to KG, we all know how uneducated and ill informed he is. He's great for controversial banter but rarely there is substance to his knowledge.

Unfortunately too many of our supporters and the general sporting public. We are in the PR game 24/7 whether we like it or not. Some stuff can be nipped in the bud quickly rather than let to fester and unnecessarily make us look bad. If we are in the drive for new supporters we have to give them a realistic picture rather than they are constantly feed this negative incorrect dribble about us.

In addition, I still believe you should submit the OP and subsequent posts to the a paper like the Australian/Herald sun, you could make some extra money frelance, or get your name in the paper for a bit of glory Top work either way as per normal.

My mate is a senior economics writer with the Fin review. We were have a chat about salary caps around the world about 2.5 years ago. I had a pretty good grasp of what happened O's. He said I should write something and he could get it published in the Fin Review's less serious part in a column on intersting sports things. Just over 2 years ago I wrote a long thread on salary caps around the world on this board. He did tell me I would have to limit my articles to 500 to 1,000 words.

 

[FishingRick04]

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

He did tell me I would have to limit my articles to 500 to 1,000 words.

Surely you have had to submit work based on a word limit You are just being lazy on this board knowing you can write as much as you like lol

I always remember my first uni assignment. Limit was 3,000 words. I was like how the hell am I gonna write that much from a one sentence question, 6,000 words later lol Good old Economics, loved it, shame it made me unemployable with those skills

 

[Phhht]

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

Firstly REH, how the hell do you find the time?

It was hard work for me trying to absorb all that info so I can't imagine the effort that you have gone to compile all that info - a true legend!

If I may so bold to ask a question...please.

The new structure that is being built on the outskirts of Football Park (southern-end), I am assuming that the structure is the "shared" facility that either the AFC or PAFC will be able to utilise for post-game functions for supporters.

If this is in fact the case are either your goodself or anybody else aware of what 'deal' with the SANFL is in place re the use of this facility? Is it simply a case of the SANFL building the facility and then allowing the 2 AFL clubs to use free of charge (I doubt it but you never know) or will it be another case of the supporters hard-earned being divied up between the respective AFL club and the SANFL?

I did try and find the information on the SANFL website but other than fly thrus, pics of knobhead Whicker trying to look like he knows whats going on there isn't too much detail.

 

[Geoffa32]

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

I believe that structure is the Crows new admin and training facility.............

 

[erical]

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.

No need the Crows getting shafted either if they can make more money from a better deal

 

[erical]

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

Agree.

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.

Jesus Christ he has done some typing there.
I have had a computer for 5 years now and been on many forums(banned from many mind you) but I have never typed so much as that.

 

[Phhht]

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

I believe that structure is the Crows new admin and training facility.............

If it is then do you know where the supposed 'shared facility' is? Is it still going ahead?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Jesus Christ he has done some typing there.
I have had a computer for 5 years now and been on many forums(banned from many mind you) but I have never typed so much as that.

Over 2/3rds of what is in the first post is a cut and past job, mainly from the WA Major Stadia Taskforce report and section c - governance and financial feasibility, as well as articles and annual reports I have downloaded to my files. Also I have written a fair bit about most stadiums either in this 350 post thread on the twilight zone Fans want new stadium, not lights and in threads on the main board.

So I also cut and pasted some of those posts. Anything in quotes is a cut and past job as is some of the other stuff. I think I got to 62 pages of cut and paste of reports, articles and my posts into a word document which I had to sort out what was worth putting into a thread and what wasn't. Post 2 is an article and post 3 is 3 articles with a couple of comments.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

If it is then do you know where the supposed 'shared facility' is? Is it still going ahead?

The eastern side of the ground is the new crows facility they announced about 9 months ago. The western side is where the new shared facility will be. The southern side is where the corporate boxes are so maybe it is related to more corporate facilities unless you have got your south and east wrong.

 

[Spadge]

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

The eastern side of the ground is the new crows facility they announced about 9 months ago.

a great step in the right direction to "equal branding" of footy park isnt it

 

[Hooligan87]

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

a great step in the right direction to "equal branding" of footy park isnt it

It sounds equal to me. One new Crows only faclity and one new shared faclity!

Perfect!

 

[FishingRick04]

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

It sounds equal to me. One new Crows only faclity and one new shared faclity!

Perfect!

Let's remember we have a stand alone base at Alberton whereas the Crows base is at footy park. This stuff IMO is less important than other issues currently surrounding us. The Crows need to have a base somewhere.

If we can see a little Crow sign above a stand who really cares. If all signage at the ground was home of the Crows and Crows adverts everywhere, well different story.

 

[Forzaport]

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

There is enough land there to give the crows a stand alone base at the shed. It'll keep the crows on SANFL owned land and it'll help make the AAMI purely neutral.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

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

Just on the crows facility, Rucci noted today that they were able to access $1M from the AFL to contribute to the ($20M) facility. But when Port went to ask for money (and Rucci maintains it was for a one off $1M payment) from the "facility development fund" to put up against the debt created by building the Power headquarters the fund dried up.

 

[Phhht]

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

The eastern side of the ground is the new crows facility they announced about 9 months ago. The western side is where the new shared facility will be. The southern side is where the corporate boxes are so maybe it is related to more corporate facilities unless you have got your south and east wrong.

Bl**dy hell, now I am losing my sense of direction.....not really.

There is definitely a structure of some sort being built on the southern side of the outskirts of the stadium. I know that in the past we (PAFC) have had some temporary functions at the same spot. One year their was a giant Vodafone tent from memory and Port supporters were able to get a drink or two there. Fairly sure it was pre one of our finals. I have always assumed that the new structure was the new 'shared' facility. I was fairly confident that Geoffa was trying to steer me in the wrong direction as it is fairly obvious that the eastern side of the stadium is where the new Crows facility is being built.

I am going to have to go and ask one of those pesky redcoats on Sunday as to exactly what that structure is.

But after all that claptrap what I really am interested in is if anyone knows how the shared facility is to be 'charged' to the 2 AFL clubs? hope that makes sense....

 

[Steve Dore]

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

Bl**dy hell, now I am losing my sense of direction.....not really.

There is definitely a structure of some sort being built on the southern side of the outskirts of the stadium. ...

I am fairly sure you're right. I think it may be temporary accommodation for the Crows while their new facility is being built.

 

[Phhht]

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

I am fairly sure you're right. I think it may be temporary accommodation for the Crows while their new facility is being built.

Ahhh, that makes sense....thx wharfie

And Geoffa, sorry mate I shouldn't have doubted you..

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

I was going to add to this but have been a bit slack. This is a story from 3 weeks ago. It looks at what happens to the clubs who play home games at Docklands now that the stadium owners/management have stopped providing fixed match returns.

I used 30,000 as the crowd figure in my opening post as the measuring stick because that's what most clubs draw or less than that amount if they play a visiting team from another state.

Interesting to see that those clubs who play home games at a relatively shiny new $430mil stadium, with all the mod cons for spectators and excellent new corporate facilities for the sponsors etc, in the middle of town, make no return on 30,000 spectators turning up, because the private owners who own the depreciating asset, (ie don't own the land so no capital appreciation is possible and have to give it back for $1 in 2025), get most of the revenue streams generated by the home clubs so as the private owners can make a $$ on their $330mil investment ( ie what current owners paid in June 2006).

Yet Port get basically the same deal when we get 30,000 and our stadium is 35 years old, doesn't have all the mod cons, doesn't have a normal roof for most spectators or a retractable roof, is in a crappy location compared to Docklands, is owned by a football organisation not a private infrastructure group wanting to make a $$ and that football organisation as owner of our licence is supposed to make sure we have a reasonable chance of doing better than just surviving.

Poorest clubs paying to play at Etihad Stadium
Damian Barrett | April 14, 2009 11:55pm

MELBOURNE'S financially vulnerable clubs will be forced to pay to play matches at Etihad Stadium this season. The revelation comes after venue management withdrew commitments to provide fixed match returns.

In an escalation of the bitter stand-off between the AFL and the stadium's operators, the development will affect all clubs, including Collingwood, which use the venue for a home match.

Of the stadium's regular users, it is likely to most hurt the Western Bulldogs and St Kilda, as North Melbourne and Carlton have been operating without set deals for some time.

The AFL has taken Etihad Stadium management to court and is also in a major stand-off with the MCG Trust.

It informed its clubs of the Etihad Stadium decision in an email which read, in part, "they have advised that they will not be continuing with the current fixed match return arrangements that some clubs have had in place for the last three years".

While Etihad Stadium crowds in the 46,000 vicinity will provide for the home team the possibility of making $150,000, crowds of 30,000 or less will require the club to write a cheque to the ground's operators.

Financial returns will drop sharply when crowds fall below 40,000, a crowd which would on most occasions reap about $50,000 for the home team.

Some club-stadium deals expired at the end of last year, and the clubs had assumed they would roll on in to 2009 and beyond.

The Bulldogs will be financially exposed in their home matches at Etihad Stadium in Rounds 18 and 19 against Fremantle and West Coast.

Bulldogs chief executive Campbell Rose said last night the change in match payments posed a serious dilemma for his club.

"It is of significant concern," Rose said. "The battle to resolve the disparity in stadium economics has gone up a notch; the heat has been turned right up."

It is believed Collingwood had been guaranteed $200,000 for any home match it was to play at Telstra Dome.

The Magpies will now receive less than that amount for their Round 7 Etihad Stadium match against St Kilda.

The Herald Sun understands the change will not affect Carlton, as it has been operating under the gate-receipt arrangement for some time.

North Melbourne has not been subject to a deal at Docklands since 2007, and last year it was not granted financial returns that had been given previously for reaching certain crowd numbers.

It is believed the Dogs had struck an arrangement where they received $15,000 for games at Etihad Stadium against non-Victorian clubs, and $45,000 for Melbourne clubs.

The AFL's chief operating officer Gillon McLachlan could not be contacted.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

In the "Crowd discussion (out of Bock thread)" thread wharfie put up a link from the AFL website re North Melbourne's CEO Arocca's comments on stadium deal. It's worth reading the Age's report and where their emphasis was and then AFL website's report and where they put the emphasis.

Arocca makes a good point that making a $1 return from when you have two good crowds totalling 70,000 is pretty poor. I said the same sort of thing on our financial crisis/stadium deal thread on the crows board that if our club can't make a $1 or $2 per person when you get 30,000 at Footy Park then something is wrong. Given how little debt there is on Footy Park and how much return of private equity is needed to be made at Docklands, maybe I was a bit generous to the SANFL.

Arocca blasts crippling deal
Caroline Wilson | May 5, 2009


NORTH Melbourne boss Eugene Arocca has lashed out at his club's debilitating home-ground agreement at Etihad Stadium, admitting that the Kangaroos would be financially better off by shutting out the fans for Saturday night's clash with Port Adelaide and playing to an empty stadium.

The frustrated chief executive said that the round-seven match between two of the AFL's most cash-strapped clubs was expected to attract a crowd of about 20,000 at Docklands, which would force the club to hand stadium management a cheque for $100,000.

Hitting back at suggestions yesterday that North might have been better off relocating to the Gold Coast, Arocca said that his club was in no danger while it continued to subsidise the AFL's purchase of Docklands through its dreadful financial deal.

"I don't believe the AFL could let any Victorian club die over the next decade or so," said Arocca, "particularly not those clubs which are subsidising their long-term plan to own the stadium by 2025 by being subject to a stadium deal which was reached by the AFL.

"Everyone at commission level and I think at executive level would understand that while we are supporting the purchasing of a stadium for the AFL we have a right to their support. The irony is that we are purchasing the stadium and yet we are not subject to the agreements that other clubs are getting."

The AFL's long-term deal with the Docklands stadium will result in it taking over the ownership of it in 2025.

Arocca denied that North was in the middle of a financial crisis despite the club's projected million-dollar profit being lowered to just above break-even for 2009 — a drop exacerbated by the club's failure to replace the $1.2 million Gold Coast revenue from selling games to Carrara, now split three ways by Carlton, St Kilda and Richmond.

Arocca had also counted on a $900,000 revenue increase from Docklands management, part of an unofficial annual $6 million agreement between stadium boss Ian Collins and AFL chief Andrew Demetriou that never eventuated.

Last year's record membership of more than 34,000 will not be repeated with this year's total sitting just under 29,000 and although major sponsor Mazda stepped in to fill the void left by Vodafone at the end of 2008, Mazda has an option in its deal to end the agreement at the end of 2009.

While the club increased its football department spending by $950,000 and no longer sits at the bottom of the 16 clubs in that area, it was forced to lay-off three members of its administrative staff last week.

With the AFL's legal battle against Docklands unlikely to be resolved this year, the commission has not decided whether it will continue to subsidise the poorer clubs with funds from the AFL's consolidated revenue currently labelled "additional special dividends".

North Melbourne's current annual distribution is $1.4 million, with Arocca believing the special dividends will be replaced next year by a formula based on the 16 clubs' stadium revenues.

North Melbourne learnt last week it was likely to receive a total of $70,000 from its two recent home games against Hawthorn and Essendon, which attracted a total of almost 70,000 fans.

"We are basically getting about $1 per attendee with reasonable crowds," said Arocca.

"If we get 20,000 to the Port Adelaide game we'll be forced to hand over a cheque for about $100,000. We'd be better off playing to an empty stadium and cutting our costs that way."

Arocca also stressed that North Melbourne had no backroom deal with Collingwood regarding the contentious issue of the clash jumper although he conceded there may have been a deal in the past between previous administrations. He backed up his comments at the weekend that North had neither the "financial nor political clout" to take on the AFL over the jumper issue, stating that the AFL had the right to overrule any jumper that it believed clashed with the opposition — home team or not.

"It won't always be that way but the reality is right now we can't afford to pay the fine and we would have been fined if we'd clashed with Collingwood," said Arocca.

The pale blue striped guernsey will be worn once again against Geelong in less than a fortnight.

"The AFL has approved Collingwood's clash strip so we had to change. I understand these are testing times for us but any time I get concerned I only have to drive down to Arden Street and look at what is happening there," said Arocca. "Then I remember how far we've come. Why would we not believe in our own future? … To throw up the Gold Coast and suggest we might have been better off relocating is disrespectful of what this club has achieved over the past 17 months."

The AFL's website article

Arocca stadium fear

By Steve Lavell
10:58 AM Tue 05 May, 2009

NORTH Melbourne chief executive Eugene Arocca fears his club's ongoing battle with Docklands could stretch for two or three years.

The Roos, the Western Bulldogs and Carlton are the three clubs most affected by an agreement with the venue operators, where sub-par attendances cost them money.

Speaking from Arden Street on Tuesday morning, Arocca said that anything less than 31,000 patrons at Saturday night's clash with Port Adelaide meant North would have to pay the stadium operators.

"We're being flippant about saying, 'Lock the doors and keep them out and we'll make more money'," he said.

"But it just crystallises how painful this is at the moment ... they (Carlton) pull 42,000 people and get a cheque for 17 grand [$17,000]. That's disgraceful.

"Every person under that figure (31,000) starts driving the figure (match- day return) down until you get to minus five dollars per head.

"When you realise clubs are getting 20,000 people and writing out cheques for $100,000, there's not a lot of time up our sleeve."

Arocca said the League had signed off on the deal with Docklands in the late 1990s and North's ventures to the Gold Coast and Canberra in recent years were encouraged by the lopsided arrangement.

Clubs like Carlton were selling home games to interstates venues because of it, he said.

The Blues play Fremantle at Gold Coast Stadium this week, however, North's re-commitment to its base means all of its home games are in Melbourne for the first time in more than a decade.

"They (the AFL) came out and declared it was going to be the greatest thing for AFL football and Victorian clubs," Arocca said.

"It's been probably the one thing that's affecting the clubs most and more than any other."

However, Arocca acknowledged the support of current AFL chief Andrew Demetriou in trying to get a new deal.

Demetriou, whose grievances also extend to the MCG, said on radio in March that the competition would consider a third Melbourne venue if negotiations between clubs and the stadia remained at stalemate.

The current agreement with Docklands is in place until 2025.

"We just want to keep the issue front and centre with the AFL and with Melbourne Stadiums and make sure they understand that in a tough year it's getting even tougher" Arocca said.

"In essence, this stadium is slowly killing four or five clubs. If we have to wait another 15 years to get the stadium into the AFL's hands, we're simply not going to survive."

Arocca said there was correlation between North Melbourne's debt and its stadium deal but the club had never been too reliant on its match returns.

"For the last 10 years, we've always lost money," he said. "Our key drivers have always been sponsorship and membership. Fortunately, they're two areas that are holding up.

"We are still hopeful of making a profit [this year] but clearly we have to re-forecast down on the basis that we thought there was going to be a stadium deal."

Arocca said he expected the deal to be broken eventually but questioned what it would cost clubs in the meantime.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Bit more on stadiums returns and the related flexibility to pay higher football dept expenses.

http://footyheads.com.au/index.php/page/2/

CASH GAP WIDENING
Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pmBY ANDREW LOWTHER

THE GAP between the richest and poorest AFL clubs is widening, the AFL has revealed.

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou today said the six non-Victorian clubs averaged a net stadium return of 411mil, compared to an average of $8.3mil for Victorian clubs.

And the difference between the highest and lowest clubs had grown to $11.1mil.

The results were released today as part of the AFLs Club Financial Review.

Of the clubs, West Coast generate the greatest dollar return per head, averaging $41.04. Richmond has the lowest, generating just $12.89 per attendee.

In other findings:

* Club memberships jumped 8%
* Attendances were up 1% in 2008
* Collingwood recorded the highest Operating Revenue of $63mil in 2008
* Net stadium returns increased by $12.8mil
* Hawthorn added an additional $1mil in sponsorship while Sydney recorded the highest returns in sponsorship at $5.1mil.
* Average football department spending jumped from $13.3mil in 2007 to $14.5mil in 2008

Football Department Spending

_1. Sydney $16.9mil
_2. Collingwood $16.4
_3. West Coast $16.2
_4. Fremantle $15.2
_5. Hawthorn $15.1
_6. Geelong $15.1
_7. Brisbane $14.6
_8. St Kilda $14.3
_9. Melbourne $14.2
10. Adelaide $14.1
11. Carlton $13.6
12. Richmond $13.4
13. Port Adelaide $13.3
14. Essendon $13.2
15. Western Bulldogs $12.8
16. North Melbourne $12.7

** From AFL 2008 Annual report Sydney spent $728k cost of living allowance which is outside the cap and $700k of that is funded by the AFL's Annual Special Distribution they pay to Sydney for their cost of living allowance.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Why I think the SANFL is finally budging on our stadium deal and looking at alternatives eg the cash injection announced today.

I have been collecting the AFL and SANFL annual reports since 2004. I figure you need to know what is going on with them as organisations to understand how they will impact on the PAFC.

This stadium deal debate has been festering away for a few years, but it finally has came to a head in 2008 and 2009 with out poor crowds and poor financial result in 2008. It took me some time to work out that it was critical to our sustainability as a club. I figured that the crows got such a good result from Footy Park based soley on their crowd numbers and we couldn't do much about it. But as I have tried to highlight the crows could be a goliath if they got a stadium deal similar to WCE and Freo or Brisbane.

However looking at stadium deals over Australia over the last 12 months and reading the WA Major Stadia taskforce report into the new Perth Stadium, I have learnt a fair bit, as well as the AFL starting to highlight the issue since the 2005 Clubs Financial Review and following articles about net stadium returns since I in read 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 2006. 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. It was the first time I saw the AFL place great emphasis on Net Stadium Returns. Prior to that the AFL blamed the clubs for bad stadium deals especially in Victoria where it washed its hands clean of the problem, despite the AFL causing most of the problems for the Melbourne clubs by signing 40 year deal at the MCG and 25 year deal at Docklands and locking clubs into guranteed games at both venues.

That's why I started this thread along with Ford asking me to do a summary of the different deals.

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. The Ernest and Young report they are putting together for the SANFL is going to make for some interesting reading in a few weeks time when it is finished and released. I think I now I know why it has been commissioned.

I have extracted information from the last 5 SANFL annual reports which also include 2003 figures.

Look at what happened in 2008 when the SA government grants and AFL grandstand and change room grants are taken away. The SANFL trumpted that it payed the 24th consecutive increased distribution to the SANFL clubs. But it did so out of cash reserves and borrowings and not out of its annual profits.

In prior years the SANFL's net profits after government and AFL grants had been taken out, were about equal to or greater than the distribution to the SANFL clubs. In 2008 this net of grants profit was a small loss. This isn't sustainable.

In his chief executive report on page 11 of the 2008 SANFL annual report Leigh Wicker said the following;

Financial Performance
For the 24th consecutive year, the SANFL achieved a positive operating surplus above budget, which was a sound result given the number of major challenges.

I find it hard to believe that in 2008 the SANFL budgeted to make a loss without SA government grants and AFL grants. The following are extracts from the last 5 SANFL annual reports. The reason why the SANFL has large cash reserves at the moment is because it hasn't spent all the monies it got in 2006 and 2007 from SA government ie $21.1mil, for capital works by the 31st October 2008. The other side to that is that once it spends these cash reserves on capital items, it wont be making $1mil a year in interest like it did in 2008. That means another hole in its revenue. That's one of the reasons why the SANFL acted so quickly on allowing beers in seats.

The AFL seeing those large cash reserves was one of the reasons why they told Port to go back to the SANFL before it gave us any debt relief or an increased Annual Special Distribution.

 

[Corpuscles]

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

Wow! I popped in to read bits about this weeks game and then....

....came accross this SENSATIONAL!....informative thread!!!

My head hurts, from trying to understand it all!

Well done ...and thank you !!!...REH


Question? (REH, if you don't mind)

Would not the potentially lower attendance drawing clubs, especially where there is "venue memberships" sold by owner.... be "gambling" MORE and at potentially MORE risk of financial disaster, if they took on a "clean stadium" rental arrangements and paid for match day running costs directly?

(ie low crowds and game day running costs ultimately exceeding revenue)

(Note the rent would always have to cover the "owners" required return otherwise they wouldn't own it or rent it)


Or .....is it clear to you & others who study it, that clubs would still have to be or almost certainly far better off ...than most at Docklands and Port at AAMI presently ?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Wow! I popped in to read bits about this weeks game and then....

....came accross this SENSATIONAL!....informative thread!!!

My head hurts, from trying to understand it all!

Well done ...and thank you !!!...REH


Question? (REH, if you don't mind)

Would not the potentially lower attendance drawing clubs, especially where there is "venue memberships" sold by owner.... be "gambling" MORE and at potentially MORE risk of financial disaster, if they took on a "clean stadium" rental arrangements and paid for match day running costs directly?

(ie low crowds and game day running costs ultimately exceeding revenue)

(Note the rent would always have to cover the "owners" required return otherwise they wouldn't own it or rent it)


Or .....is it clear to you & others who study it, that clubs would still have to be or almost certainly far better off ...than most at Docklands and Port at AAMI presently ?

Good to hear that you found the info useful Corpuscles. Do you have any info on the SCG deal the swans have. Its seems to sit somewhere between a clean stadium deal of the Gabba and non clean deal of the MCG. All 3 are owned by government Trusts.

The high rent is a trade off for transfering the risk from the venue owner to the hirer. The Brisbane Lions will still make money if the draw a 20k crowd. However if the rent was double what it currently is then they might not with a 20k crowd. The definative answer can only be given if you know all the arrangements. The benefit of a clean stadium is that it gives the club the incentive to run the stadium as hard as they can.

So for corporates, a club may value add what it can sell a corporate box for and charge a higher fee if it collects the money rather than if the venue owner collects all the corporate revenue. Eg a corporate box at Footy Park sells for $x if the SANFL sells it. But if Port had control of that box they might sell it for $x + $y and ensure that every game there is a past player and or a current injured player in the box with the corporates. Some corporates would be pay extra for this.

I talked about this risk vs return trade off in the following post which was before I did this large thread, which repeats some stuff I wrote in the intial post, but crow-mo responded to what I wrote re higher fixed rent trade off with the current deal and I then replied to his post.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13916046&postcount=2

 

[Relativity]

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

Good to hear that you found the info useful Corpuscles. Do you have any info on the SCG deal the swans have. Its seems to sit somewhere between a clean stadium deal of the Gabba and non clean deal of the MCG. All 3 are owned by government Trusts.

The high rent is a trade off for transfering the risk from the venue owner to the hirer. The Brisbane Lions will still make money if the draw a 20k crowd. However if the rent was double what it currently is then they might not with a 20k crowd. The definative answer can only be given if you know all the arrangements. The benefit of a clean stadium is that it gives the club the incentive to run the stadium as hard as they can.

So for corporates, a club may value add what it can sell a corporate box for and charge a higher fee if it collects the money rather than if the venue owner collects all the corporate revenue. Eg a corporate box at Footy Park sells for $x if the SANFL sells it. But if Port had control of that box they might sell it for $x + $y and ensure that every game there is a past player and or a current injured player in the box with the corporates. Some corporates would be pay extra for this.

I talked about this risk vs return trade off in the following post which was before I did this large thread, which repeats some stuff I wrote in the intial post, but crow-mo responded to what I wrote re higher fixed rent trade off with the current deal and I then replied to his post.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13916046&postcount=2

Forgive my ignorance REH but the MCG isn't owned by the MCC? Is this the same with Adelaide Oval (ie owned by government trust rather than SACA)? Just wondering as government trust ownership would be open to government influence which doesn't seem to happen with Adelaide Oval. Does it happen with the MCG (ie government influence)?