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

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

The land at the MCG and surrounding car park area etc is owned by the MCG Trust. Their only other asset of any signficance is the items in the National Sports Museum collection. They have no debt on their balance sheet. They have issued management rights to the Melbourne Cricket Club. It is the Melbourne Cricket Club who have taken out the debt to build the Great Southern Stand and the Northern Stand and they show these assets as leasehold improvements in their books against the debt.

I was technically incorrect to say all 3 grounds are owned by government trusts with respect to all the assets. But the land the stadiums are built on are all owned by government trusts.. The Gabba and SCG, the land and buildings are owned by a government trust and those trusts have management rights. But in the case of the MCC it is close enough to government owned as the MCC don't distribute their profits the same way the SANFL does to its 9 clubs.

The land that Adelaide Oval is on is a 99 year crown lease from the Adelaide City Council as far as I am aware from my readings about the oval over the years. The buildings on the land are owned by the SACA and they show this in their accounts as leashold improvements. You will see that at note 10 of the 2007-08 SACA annual accounts. So the SACA and its set up at Adelaide Oval is different to the MCG Trust/MCC set up. It is also different to the Gabba and SCG set up.

The MCG Trust has a fair amount of influence on the MCC management of the ground. Not so much from a day to day running of the place but when the big decisions have to be made the MCG Trust get involved or are lobbied.

 

[Relativity]

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

Cheers.

 

[Corpuscles]

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.

I would hate to upset a FACT based thread by "impression" or "hear say"a I no longer have the inside "connections" I once had. BUT...."here it is" anyway

... impressions...pretty "clean" deals in each . The F & B is obviously venue controlled/shared at both. BUT Swans make a killing from corporate boxes and functions ....particularly at ANZ !

The deal at Homebush/ ANZ must be a ripper!... that is one reason why Swans always aim for finals.... it has saved the P&L many times before.

Sydney clean up for "home finals" . Swans members pay full admittance, merchandise goes through the roof, and everyone is pissed! ...even the "know nuffin" corporate bandwagonners

"Block busters" there attract the limited game "sometimes" wannabe members or the casual "at least I can get a seat" mentality

The SCG is a worry because of the 9K+ venue members... they don't pay, expect the best, and unpredictable as to when & how many will show up.... could be as simple as "just a beautiful sunny day but not hot enough for the beach, or "the orchestra at opera house is booked out".

Therefore to take the risk of direct hiring F & B and ground staff ...would be a nightmare!




-------------------------------

Next question

As an ex Crow eater myself.... have you posted thoughts on Adelaide oval re development prospects?

If so pls link me up.

If transport access & facilities were improved... it would be the best place for Port to play ...IMHO!

 

[Ford Fairlane]

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

Here's our main rolling thread on where to play our games. There are some other smaller threads around that comment on this topic too.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Sydney clean up for "home finals" . Swans members pay full admittance, merchandise goes through the roof, and everyone is pissed! ...even the "know nuffin" corporate bandwagonners

I guess it depends on the stadium deal they have. The AFL collect 100% of all finals ticket sales and pay the ticket companies their % and pay rent for hiring the stadium. The SANFL love finals as they still make a killing from catering, corporates, parking, advertising and rent and the SA clubs get nothing.

"Block busters" there attract the limited game "sometimes" wannabe members or the casual "at least I can get a seat" mentality

I guess especially out at Homebush and those great priced 3 game superpasses which this year turned into a 4 game superpass.

The SCG is a worry because of the 9K+ venue members... they don't pay, expect the best, and unpredictable as to when & how many will show up.... could be as simple as "just a beautiful sunny day but not hot enough for the beach, or "the orchestra at opera house is booked out".

Therefore to take the risk of direct hiring F & B and ground staff ...would be a nightmare!

For Port there is obviously a risk but a fair % of our supporters sit in the members area. A clean stadium or relative clean one like Subiaco would see the SANFL members area maybe decrease from 16,000 to 5,000 and the 2 SA clubs would have access to the better seats and the premium that goes with that and the SANFL gets rent for those seats.

Next question

As an ex Crow eater myself.... have you posted thoughts on Adelaide oval re development prospects?

If so pls link me up.

If transport access & facilities were improved... it would be the best place for Port to play ...IMHO!

I put a bit of info in a couple of posts on this at page 4 of this thread. However the bit that might be relevant to footy is;

Adelaide Oval AFL bid

My understanding of the proposed Adelaide Oval redevelopment, not the current one to get the capacity up to 37,000 with the new members stand, but the 50-55,000 capacity proposal, is to knock down the current Bradman stand and build a new bigger stand all the way around to the Chappell stands, ie get rid of the grassed mounds at the southern end. The Chappell stands could even go depending on $$$ and final size.

The proposal at the northern end is to leave those aesthetics as Papa G has mentioned. So the grassed mounds in the northern end would be covered with seats with a need for a bit of landscaping to improve the angle, but there would be no northern ground stand. The same for the area in front of the scoreboard and the grass mounds towards the Chappell Stands. Most of those grass mounds would be replaced with seats but not with a new grandstand set up. I'm not sure how much standing room would be left in front of the scoreboard, but there would be some.

And in this thread on our off topics board, SANFL president Ian McLachlan sent the SACA members a letter about the redevelopment and footy. In the second post I put a link to the SACA newsletter called New Boundary which talks about the current redevelopment to take the capacity to 36k.

A Letter from Ian McLachlan Now here

 

[_Christoh_]

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

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.

Firstly, great thread, ive loved reading it.

Secondly, I hope this report covers all the bases. Surely this cant be far away now.

I can only begin to imagine what recommendations are going to be included. Wouldnt be surprised to hear a SANFL club go, Port straight to Adelaide Oval (after western stand development) with the crows to follow after a second redevelopment. I think the big carrot for the SACA is better facilities/bigger capacity funded by footy as opposed to trying to suck footy dry for revenue.

Out of the major issues between AAMI, the SANFL clubs, AFL, PAFC and AFC, AAMI stadium is the glaring problem. Its location is going to hold footy back and its already holding PAFC back. Who knows how much it has been holding the crows back as well.

Not sure we are going to see a shift in control of footy being taken over by the AFL in this state but if it doesnt happen im sure a plan will be put in place for this to happen. When the SANFL clubs arent producing its fair share of AFL talent then they begin to lose their relevance. If the SANFL clubs dont have the cash to splash at ex-AFL players then they might have to develop some better juniors, which isnt the case at the moment. It goes against everything i belive but i think there needs to be a limit to mature age interstate or ex-AFL player recruits. Maybe that will be curbed further by a hold on the salary cap, but the SANFL club dont have much respect for it anyways, maybe they will if the AFL are policing it.

Id be interested to hear your thoughts REH on what you believe will be in this report and where you think the SANFL are leaning to. I think you are aware of what massive changes could be ahead as you seem to read the landscape better than most.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Id be interested to hear your thoughts REH on what you believe will be in this report and where you think the SANFL are leaning to. I think you are aware of what massive changes could be ahead as you seem to read the landscape better than most.

Like all consultants reports it will be dependant on 2 main facts. Firstly how wide or specific were the terms of reference that the SANFL gave them to look at things and secondly consulting firms have a habit of writing what the client wants to hear rather than being controversial as they want follow up work. Now that doesn't mean E&Y will not do a god job or it wont be a full and frank report.

When I heard Whicker first talk about it he said that it will cover all aspects of the SA football economy. So my expectation is that it will be very broad. I will try and see if I posted a link to his 5AA interview/podcast where he discussed the report.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Not sure we are going to see a shift in control of footy being taken over by the AFL in this state but if it doesnt happen im sure a plan will be put in place for this to happen. When the SANFL clubs arent producing its fair share of AFL talent then they begin to lose their relevance. If the SANFL clubs dont have the cash to splash at ex-AFL players then they might have to develop some better juniors, which isnt the case at the moment. It goes against everything i belive but i think there needs to be a limit to mature age interstate or ex-AFL player recruits. Maybe that will be curbed further by a hold on the salary cap, but the SANFL club dont have much respect for it anyways, maybe they will if the AFL are policing it.

The WAFL have introduced a points systems for the WAFL clubs and their 55 man squads to try to restrict the number of ex AFL players who may be recruited by WAFL clubs from outside WA. It encourages developing juniors and also getting back to the individual clubs the players who have been drafted onto AFL lists from that club, when they finish their AFL careers. Here is an article explaining the system and some of the concerns the WAFL clubs have. I got this link from thepowerfromport.com

WAFL ratings under fire

19th January 2009, 10:15 WST

WAFL clubs fear their league will evolve into an under-23 competition if urgent changes aren’t made to the radical player points system to be introduced later this month.

Under the scheme, designed to help equalise the league, each player is rated according to experience and clubs must not exceed 130 points for their 55-man senior squads.

Several clubs believe ratings for seasoned players wanting to move are too high and will eventually force them out of the competition as coaches favour younger players who are cheaper on the points scale.

East Perth have made a submission to the WA Football Commission, requesting changes to the points scheme before it is endorsed later this month. Subiaco, Swan Districts and South Fremantle have also expressed concerns about the system.

Although players produced from a club’s zone attract just one point, others with more than 100 games of WAFL experience wanting to transfer to a rival team are rated 10 points.

There is a grandfather clause that allows interstate players who have been at a WAFL club before September 2005 to be rated one-point locals.

Former AFL stars Peter Bell, Jeff Farmer and Ashley Sampi have flagged their intentions to return to WAFL action with South Fremantle this season and are all rated as one-point players because they are returning to their original club.

However, Royals football manager Mark Winnett highlighted the plight of Melbourne-born Simpson medallist Chris Bossong, who has left Perth after 132 games.

“That is someone 90 per cent of clubs won’t be able to fit into their squad,” Winnett said. “He is a one-point player to Perth because he is classified as a naturalised local district player but to anyone else he’s an interstate player and is worth 10.

“You’re pigeon-holed to where you can play because of your value. You can see the league moving to an under-23 competition in that sense.

“We’ve asked the commission to look at a change that allows senior WAFL players with over 120 games to have their points halved. It is such a young competition and to have players of quality is very important. But clubs will look to offload them because they can’t fit them in.”

The Royals also called for the abolition of the six interstate recruits quota and the easing of the five-point rating for players from interstate leagues.

Luke Daniher, son of West Coast football operations manager Neale Daniher, was training at East Perth but because he’d had VFL experience he was rated at 10 points.

“He was told early on he would be lucky to get on our list because of points restrictions,” Winnett said. “So he has to go home or go to the country.”

WAFL operations manager Clint Roberts said the WAFC had set up a football affairs committee, consisting of four commissioners, to consider clubs’ concerns over the system.

“As a new concept there was the expectation there might be some tweaking needed and clubs can make applications to the football affairs committee,” Roberts said.

ROSS LEWIS

So in WA the WAFL have half the salary cap of the SANFL and a system that discourages going out and recruiting interstaters to play for the WAFL clubs. That means the WAFC who make money out of the 2 WA AFL clubs have a smaller demand on them than come up with money to support the WAFL than the SANFL set up.

And I note the WAFL beat the SANFL by a point on Saturday, for the first time since 1994.
http://www.abc.net.au/grandstand/afl/sanfl/

Here is the draftee history of the two comps from the National and Rookie drafts since 2005

2005
SANFL 14+8=22
WAFL 12+3=15

2006
SANFL 12+6=18
WAFL 18+13=31

2007
SANFL 4+10=14
WAFL 15+10=25

2008
SANFL 13+5=18
WAFL 16+12=28

2009
SANFL 12+13+ 2 to the GFC = 27
WAFL 18+8=26

Source: AFL annual reports - National and International Development section of each annual report.

 

[*PAF]

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

On the ABC up here late this arvo.

The NT Government is looking at being a "major" sponsor to an AFL club in a similar way to the Tasmanian Government. Logo etc.
They are looking at 2 home games in Darwin and a pre season game in the Alice. On top of that clubs need to commit to clinics (Darwin and Communities one would assume and generally have a presence rather than the usual money grab.

The AFL is keen and 4 clubs have (supposedly) expressed interest, the Bulldogs, Melbourne, North Melbourne and Port Adelaide.

 

[Woodpecker Warrior]

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

Firstly, great thread, ive loved reading it.

Secondly, I hope this report covers all the bases. Surely this cant be far away now.

I can only begin to imagine what recommendations are going to be included. Wouldnt be surprised to hear a SANFL club go, Port straight to Adelaide Oval (after western stand development) with the crows to follow after a second redevelopment. I think the big carrot for the SACA is better facilities/bigger capacity funded by footy as opposed to trying to suck footy dry for revenue.

Out of the major issues between AAMI, the SANFL clubs, AFL, PAFC and AFC, AAMI stadium is the glaring problem. Its location is going to hold footy back and its already holding PAFC back. Who knows how much it has been holding the crows back as well.

Not sure we are going to see a shift in control of footy being taken over by the AFL in this state but if it doesnt happen im sure a plan will be put in place for this to happen. When the SANFL clubs arent producing its fair share of AFL talent then they begin to lose their relevance. If the SANFL clubs dont have the cash to splash at ex-AFL players then they might have to develop some better juniors, which isnt the case at the moment. It goes against everything i belive but i think there needs to be a limit to mature age interstate or ex-AFL player recruits. Maybe that will be curbed further by a hold on the salary cap, but the SANFL club dont have much respect for it anyways, maybe they will if the AFL are policing it.

Id be interested to hear your thoughts REH on what you believe will be in this report and where you think the SANFL are leaning to. I think you are aware of what massive changes could be ahead as you seem to read the landscape better than most.

First thing you need to understand is that the priority for SANFL clubs is to win premierships. Development for future AFL players comes a long way down the list. Development of juniors to reach their full potential comes second. If the player reaches his potential be that to AFL or SANFL league then the club has fulfilled its requirements.
If there is concern that clubs are signing ex AFL players and not developing juniors , then perhaps higher financial rewards should be given to the SANFL clubs,country and metro clubs for developing these players.
I've watched a lot of SANFL and can honestly say that if a junior is good enough to play league football then he will be selected. At Woodville we have dropped ex AFL players for lack of form and selected juniors who have then cemented spots in the league side and then gone on to be drafted in the AFL and Port currently have two on their list from this scenario.
Your beef is with the SANFL not the SANFL clubs in regards to a fair return from match days. talking about a fair return from assets, hows 2% dividend from assets owned sound as a good return? Thats what the 9 SANFL clubs currently receive from its SANFL dividend which makes up about 7% of their yearly revenue.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Leigh Whicker's interview on 5AA in March when the AFL handout story broke in March. It's about 16 minutes long and at about the 7 minute mark he talks about the E&Y report.

http://podcast.fiveaa.com.au/drive090318.mp3

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Your beef is with the SANFL not the SANFL clubs in regards to a fair return from match days. talking about a fair return from assets, hows 2% dividend from assets owned sound as a good return? Thats what the 9 SANFL clubs currently receive from its SANFL dividend which makes up about 7% of their yearly revenue.

It depends on what you are valuing the assets on and what you think is a fair return.

In the 1990 SANFL annual report, the SANFL's net assets was $9.363mil. That was after valuing Footy Park at cost and depreciation charged against it. The SANFL recorded a profit of $1.885mil and distributed $1.667mil to the then 10 clubs. Now that was a good return for the 10 clubs when they were the ones driving the revenue generated.

The question is how much of the next 18 years investment in Footy Park should the SANFL clubs derive? I'm not sure if you can say that the clubs should be making a huge return on the capital appreciation of land that Footy Park sits on. Any business that owns land and has its business on it doesn't get the benefit of that capital appreciation until it sells the land.

 

[_Christoh_]

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

First thing you need to understand is that the priority for SANFL clubs is to win premierships. Development for future AFL players comes a long way down the list. Development of juniors to reach their full potential comes second. If the player reaches his potential be that to AFL or SANFL league then the club has fulfilled its requirements.
If there is concern that clubs are signing ex AFL players and not developing juniors , then perhaps higher financial rewards should be given to the SANFL clubs,country and metro clubs for developing these players.
I've watched a lot of SANFL and can honestly say that if a junior is good enough to play league football then he will be selected. At Woodville we have dropped ex AFL players for lack of form and selected juniors who have then cemented spots in the league side and then gone on to be drafted in the AFL and Port currently have two on their list from this scenario.
Your beef is with the SANFL not the SANFL clubs in regards to a fair return from match days. talking about a fair return from assets, hows 2% dividend from assets owned sound as a good return? Thats what the 9 SANFL clubs currently receive from its SANFL dividend which makes up about 7% of their yearly revenue.

Then why arent we producing our fair share of drafted recruits?

I have no beef with the SANFL clubs trying their utmost to win a flag, just concerned with their recruiting focus on mature interstate recruits. I believe this is a hinderence to producing more SA draftees. The clubs get financial returns on players drafted so more players drafted equals more cash flowing back. Maybe your right and there needs to be bigger rewards for producing AFL drafted players, but will that money be spent on the recruiting zone or a mature age recruit?

REH's previous post shows the glaring problem i was getting at with the comparison to the number of drafted players WA are producing, with smaller dividends flowing back from the WCE and Freo. Im guessing the SANFL clubs make more from gate takings and memberships compared to the WAFL clubs.

I still dont know what to make of it.
Is it that extra $ doesnt mean better development (SANFL) or that $ dont matter when it comes to development and its development paths that work better (WAFL). There is something glaringly wrong when the supposedly second best comp in the country, sucking more money from its 2 AFL sides, has produced less AFL talent and gets beaten by the WAFL too.
It could just be the water, who knows??

Maybe the new u/18 comp will help correct this, but i still believe getting out there and working the recruiting zone will reap better returns than $40,000 on a has been that never was. The WAFL are proving this to be true.

Im happy for PAFC to be paying dividends/sub-license fees to the SANFL clubs as we recruit from SA, as do 14 other clubs who dont help make this happen.

As for the SANFL losing the state game by a point i think thats more a reflection of Darel Hart than the standard of the competition.

 

[FishingRick04]

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

Then why arent we producing our fair share of drafted recruits?

I have no beef with the SANFL clubs trying their utmost to win a flag, just concerned with their recruiting focus on mature interstate recruits. I believe this is a hinderence to producing more SA draftees. The clubs get financial returns on players drafted so more players drafted equals more cash flowing back. Maybe your right and there needs to be bigger rewards for producing AFL drafted players, but will that money be spent on the recruiting zone or a mature age recruit?

REH's previous post shows the glaring problem i was getting at with the comparison to the number of drafted players WA are producing, with smaller dividends flowing back from the WCE and Freo. Im guessing the SANFL clubs make more from gate takings and memberships compared to the WAFL clubs.

I still dont know what to make of it.
Is it that extra $ doesnt mean better development (SANFL) or that $ dont matter when it comes to development and its development paths that work better (WAFL). There is something glaringly wrong when the supposedly second best comp in the country, sucking more money from its 2 AFL sides, has produced less AFL talent and gets beaten by the WAFL too.
It could just be the water, who knows??

Maybe the new u/18 comp will help correct this, but i still believe getting out there and working the recruiting zone will reap better returns than $40,000 on a has been that never was. The WAFL are proving this to be true.

Im happy for PAFC to be paying dividends/sub-license fees to the SANFL clubs as we recruit from SA, as do 14 other clubs who dont help make this happen.

As for the SANFL losing the state game by a point i think thats more a reflection of Darel Hart than the standard of the competition.

Maybe the SANFL can't let go of the 80's and earlier when we thought our comp was the equal to the VFL. Therefore the view our SANFL could just be a feeder comp to the AFL is perhaps belittling to the adminsitration.

 

[_Christoh_]

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

Maybe the SANFL can't let go of the 80's and earlier when we thought our comp was the equal to the VFL. Therefore the view our SANFL could just be a feeder comp to the AFL is perhaps belittling to the adminsitration.

I guess that is offensive to proud SANFL clubs who have proud histories and produced players equal to the best in the country and then lost them for 30 years plus. But the basic relationship of the SANFL clubs and the AFL is, one provides the cash the other provides the players, they are codependent. The competition itself has lost focus and being the second best comp in the land doesnt really mean anything anymore. If we produce any less AFL drafted players than what we do now, what exactly are we funding with the dividends being returned to the clubs?

Its costing us more to produce less AFL players compared to WA. This worries me a bit, the football structure isnt delivering in the most important area for us or the AFL.

The Western Australians are showing the way on the best state based football structure.

 

[Wash]

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

I think population might have something to do with it too- historically, Adelaide has been as large as Perth but in the last twenty years or so, Perth has become significantly a bigger city, and as such can be expected to produce more AFL footballers. The point about cost efficiencies though is still an issue, but we might not have the population anymore.

 

[Papa G]

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

I guess that is offensive to proud SANFL clubs who have proud histories and produced players equal to the best in the country and then lost them for 30 years plus. But the basic relationship of the SANFL clubs and the AFL is, one provides the cash the other provides the players, they are codependent. The competition itself has lost focus and being the second best comp in the land doesnt really mean anything anymore. If we produce any less AFL drafted players than what we do now, what exactly are we funding with the dividends being returned to the clubs?

Its costing us more to produce less AFL players compared to WA. This worries me a bit, the football structure isnt delivering in the most important area for us or the AFL.

The Western Australians are showing the way on the best state based football structure.

Exactly, and when your state side consists of less than a third actual South Australians, what is the point?

 

[FishingRick04]

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

I think population might have something to do with it too- historically, Adelaide has been as large as Perth but in the last twenty years or so, Perth has become significantly a bigger city, and as such can be expected to produce more AFL footballers. The point about cost efficiencies though is still an issue, but we might not have the population anymore.

And it's going to only get worse and worse IMO. YEs Adelaide is great, especially if you want to develop a family or retire otherwise for the young other cities, which are more vibrant and can offer more work are the epicentre of Adelaide. We are just above ACT, TASSIE and NT. So I would expect all this to get worse before it gets better anyway. We need a mining boom.

ANd I'll say damn the yellow pages and their statistics

 

[Ford Fairlane]

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

Maybe we should re-open the old Hindmarsh Rollerdrome for the Freo game. (Man, that really dates me ... )

 

[sigur]

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

Maybe the SANFL can't let go of the 80's and earlier when we thought our comp was the equal to the VFL. Therefore the view our SANFL could just be a feeder comp to the AFL is perhaps belittling to the adminsitration.

Fishing Rick - imagine this for a scenario (and excuse any historical inaccuracies).

April 1996 Bob Hammond from the crows rings up the Port Adelaide footy club.

Bob : You're not doing enough on your junior development program.

Stephen Williams: Why should I care. My league side is doing great, reckon we're going to get another flag. That'd be 34. Thirty Four, hey, can you count that high Bob?

Bob: Yeah, whatever. Flags aren't important any more, you should be focussed on the youth. I believe that children are the future, we should teach them well and let them lead the way. That's what a feeder league is all about. And about that league side. Listen, we've just recruited this gun forward from Perth, bloke called Ian Perrie. Gonna be a star, just needs a bit of confidence. We want you to put him full forward, so can you shift that Warren Tredreau kid back to the reserves? Don't want him crowding young Ian.

Stephen Williams: It's Tredrea, not Tredreau.

Bob: Yeah, whatever. And whilst you're there, about this "We exist to win premierships" business. We'd like you to change that to "We exist to provide draftees for the Adelaide Crows"

Stephen Williams: <hangs up>

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Was on the Geelong board to get the Geelong team for tomorrow's game and saw this interesting post from Hoops about Geelong stadium's return that CEO Brian Cook told the Senate Inquiry into a Tasie team.

Found this in the Senate committee transcript for the Establishment of an AFL team in Tassie. All though we all knew it to be the case, it's good to have some raw numbers.

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.

Another intersting thing Cook said at the Inquiry.

2.28 Mr Cook also indicated that only a 'handful' of clubs make a profit on football activities alone. A Tasmanian club would therefore require non-football revenue from activities such as gaming, merchandise or travel

Another thing is that the so called option of Port to Tassie isn't even mentioned in the report. I assume this 25 June report is the final report given that the terms of reference talked about "On 28 August 2008, the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for inquiry and report by 30 June 2009." So much for Cornes' great rumour.

 

[Relativity]

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

Was on the Geelong board to get the Geelong team for tomorrow's game and saw this interesting post from Hoops about Geelong stadium's return that CEO Brian Cook told the Senate Inquiry into a Tasie team.



Another intersting thing Cook said at the Inquiry.



Another thing is that the so called option of Port to Tassie isn't even mentioned in the report. I assume this 25 June report is the final report given that the terms of reference talked about "On 28 August 2008, the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for inquiry and report by 30 June 2009." So much for Cornes' great rumour.

Any idea what the profit to Port would be for a crowd of 25000 at Footy Park?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

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

Any idea what the loss for Port would be for a crowd of 25000 at Footy Park?

Edited for accuracy.

 

[Mitch Power]

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

Edited for accuracy.

I recall Haysman recently saying on radio that in round 1 against Essendon, Port made a loss of $14,000 after attracting 28,000 to the game. He was comparing our stadium deal with that of Essendon at the Dome where they made a "significant" profit after attracting 26,000.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

The AFL has made a break through with the MCC and the MCG Trust and the Vic government yesterday, for clubs who play home games at the MCG. The cost is another 5 more years guaranteed GF's at the MCG, until 2037.

AFL wins better stadium deal for MCG tenants

By Mic Cullen
5:34 PM Thu 03 September, 2009

THURSDAY'S announcement by the state government of a new MCG deal means one stadium deal is resolved and only the vexing issue of Etihad Stadium remains.

Under the new MCG agreement, clubs will receive at least an additional $100,000 per game for the next 10 years of the regular season.

The deal will also see the Victorian government contribute $36 million towards a major refurbishment of the Great Southern Stand and a key water-saving project for the surrounding Yarra Park, management of which will transfer to the MCG Trust, guaranteeing car parking for matches at the ground.

The grand final will be held at the MCG until at least 2037 under the extended agreement, and at least 10 of the 12 biggest drawing home-and-away matches in Melbourne each year will be scheduled there.

link

So the Vic clubs who play home games at the MCG, have an improvement in their MCG stadium deal. You can see the big drawing Vic clubs doing a lot better than $100k for some of their games. And Docklands continues to be bypassed, as no deal is resolved with them, and all clubs will push to play at the MCG and only the minimum number of contracted games will be played at Docklands.

Meanwhile back at the ranch Leigh, the SANFL and SAFC are still trying to work out what to do with our stadium deal.

The Melbourne clubs and SA clubs are like a company paying a 75% tax rate and its competitors, in the clubs in Qld, WA, NSW and Geelong with clean stadium deals are paying a 30% tax rate. This deal probably gets the MCG home game clubs to maybe 45% tax rate. Clubs playing home games, particularly the majority of their home games at Docklands are still stuffed.