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

[El_Scorcho]

Probably most importantly, why is this being funded by the state government? It offers minimal benefit to the vast majority of the population and will probably lessen the appeal of the oval for many.

The government have said it's because the SMA can't secure a commercial loan because they don't own the asset. They've also argued it's to shore up the financial viability of the SMA.

How are these charlatans making so little money despite having 40,000 people at their sparkling new state of the art venue ~30 times a year that they need extra help to be financially viable?

 

[Vagabond0]

None!

There is an act of parliament that stops it from happening. The government of the day wont get support in the upper house with minor parties having the balance of power in SA for over 40 years. Even when the Liberals smashed Labor in 1993 due to the state bank disaster they only controlled 11 of the 22 Legislative Council seats.

You will have to get about 250 consecutive genuine lock out games at AO ie 10 years+ before you get even close to a movement to change the law.

Impressed by the detailed knowledge, is that off the top of your head or do you an extensive library of reference material

 

[DaTBird187]

Impressed by the detailed knowledge, is that off the top of your head or do you an extensive library of reference material

It's best not to question these things.

 

[Doctor Feel]

the financial viability of the SMA lmao, i've seen their financials. They aren't paupers.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Impressed by the detailed knowledge, is that off the top of your head or do you an extensive library of reference material

I watched the debate over AO closely. McLachlan assured SACA members before the vote, that legislation would lock in the scoreboard and northern end. I have read the legislation several times.

I know Steele Hall removed the Liberal-Country party's gerrymander before the 1970 election which the libs lost. I know Dunstan had a big win in 1973, a smaller one in 1975 a one seat win in 1977, so I'm assuming he got control of the upper house in 1975, but he might not have. I know Tomkin and then Bannon governments never had control and I remember being staggered that if Labor could be reduced to less than a cricket team in the lower house in 1993, but Liberals couldnt get a majority in the upper house, then another government probably never will unless they manage two huge consecutive election wins in a row, which I don't recall any government around Oz doing, since Fraser in 1975 and 1977.

 

[Papa G]

the financial viability of the SMA lmao, i've seen their financials. They aren't paupers.

Income from Trading Activities increased by $9 mill from 2016 - 2017. Up to $76 mill.

Distributions to the SANFL and SACA (reported together) were $25.5 Million in 2017.

 

[badbeats]

Income from Trading Activities increased by $9 mill from 2016 - 2017. Up to $76 mill.

Distributions to the SANFL and SACA (reported together) were $25.5 Million in 2017.

Profit though?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Profit though?

Corporate boxes, Stadium Club memberships, AO Footy Club memberships and commission on sales of food and beverage as per the 2013 agreements with SACA and SANFL - my guess is 20-25%. See my spreadsheet I worked out in 2015 on page 2015 for a breakdown.

 

[Papa G]

Profit though?

REH would be better explaining this but it would appear to me that showing large profit would not be in the best interests of the SMA and it appears that most of the profit they show goes into a sinking fund.

Apart from that $25.5 mill shown as a a distribution from to the SACA/SANFL, there is also this note that I found interesting.....

....AOSMA receives and distributes ticketing and other funds as agent of SACA and SANFL, which are not included within the Statement of Comprehensive Income. These distributions are net of servicing fees and replace the funds formerly generated directly by SACA when it held the lease over Adelaide Oval, and for SANFL when AFL football was played at AAMI Stadium. AOSMA receives and distributes ticket funds as agent on behalf of other venue hirers. These amounts are not included within these statements or within this note....

So there's more cream that what is reported.

 

[Alberton Proud]

REH would be better explaining this but it would appear to me that showing large profit would not be in the best interests of the SMA and it appears that most of the profit they show goes into a sinking fund.

Apart from that $25.5 mill shown as a a distribution from to the SACA/SANFL, there is also this note that I found interesting.....

....AOSMA receives and distributes ticketing and other funds as agent of SACA and SANFL, which are not included within the Statement of Comprehensive Income. These distributions are net of servicing fees and replace the funds formerly generated directly by SACA when it held the lease over Adelaide Oval, and for SANFL when AFL football was played at AAMI Stadium. AOSMA receives and distributes ticket funds as agent on behalf of other venue hirers. These amounts are not included within these statements or within this note....

So there's more cream that what is reported.

The Olsen slush fund

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I was going to put this up a couple of weeks ago when I downloaded it from the Auditor General's website.

Rucci was partly right. He was saying the sinking fund had to have a contribution of $2.7m a year from year one. That wasn't the case but first contribution had to be made by September 2016 which was $2.68m and the minister then set the amounts. In 2017 it was $2.74m.

With the rent going up $200k a year starting with 2015/16 and reaching $1m by 2019/20 then being indexed for CPI, this is why the SMA is looking at new money making ventures, like doing the roof climb business, a hotel, providing catering services to a new stadium in the precinct, trying to run more activities with alcohol in the precinct that North Adelaide members don't like, concerts etc.





The Sinking Fund note





The Related Party note - I reckon the Roof Climb stuff (COT) is over $2 million of that $25.5m distribution to related parties so its not all SANFL and SACA.

 

[Chrizzt]

I watched the debate over AO closely. McLachlan assured SACA members before the vote, that legislation would lock in the scoreboard and northern end. I have read the legislation several times.

I know Steele Hall removed the Liberal-Country party's gerrymander before the 1970 election which the libs lost. I know Dunstan had a big win in 1973, a smaller one in 1975 a one seat win in 1977, so I'm assuming he got control of the upper house in 1975, but he might not have. I know Tomkin and then Bannon governments never had control and I remember being staggered that if Labor could be reduced to less than a cricket team in the lower house in 1993, but Liberals couldnt get a majority in the upper house, then another government probably never will unless they manage two huge consecutive election wins in a row, which I don't recall any government around Oz doing, since Fraser in 1975 and 1977.

Playford's LCL government 1968-1970 was the last to have control of the upper house. The introduction of proportional representation in 1985 for the Legislative Council then made it easier for minors/independents to get elected to the upper house further diminishing the ability of the two majors to hold an outright majority. In 1993 the Libs won 6 seats to Labor's 4 but the Dems won their second seat to stave off a government upper house majority.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

REH would be better explaining this but it would appear to me that showing large profit would not be in the best interests of the SMA and it appears that most of the profit they show goes into a sinking fund.

Apart from that $25.5 mill shown as a a distribution from to the SACA/SANFL, there is also this note that I found interesting.....

....AOSMA receives and distributes ticketing and other funds as agent of SACA and SANFL, which are not included within the Statement of Comprehensive Income. These distributions are net of servicing fees and replace the funds formerly generated directly by SACA when it held the lease over Adelaide Oval, and for SANFL when AFL football was played at AAMI Stadium. AOSMA receives and distributes ticket funds as agent on behalf of other venue hirers. These amounts are not included within these statements or within this note....

So there's more cream that what is reported.

Nah that is the SMA saying they are great blokes and they collect monies for Port and the crows and pass that onto them as agents, take out a services fee, plus the AFL, Cricket Australia, concerts, other sporting events, other events as well as monies they collect on trust for SACA and SANFL and COT the roof climb mob.

For example the 32 x 18 people superboxes that cost $125,000 for 12 months back in 2014 and are around $132,000 now, this revenue of $4m isn't shown in the SMA's P&L which has revenue of $75.9m, but is collected on trust for the SACA and SANFL and distributed to them and is part of the $25.5m related party distribution. See page 228 for my spreadsheet breakdown of how it worked in 2014 and 2015.

The Port and crows revenue collected by the SMA on their behalf isn't shown in either figure.

They are trying to say they are really big like the MCG, but we dont put those amounts in there.

 

[Papa G]

What do you reckon is the breakdown of the $25.5 mill is REH? Not counting finals, you have 22 AFL games vs a Test Match, 6 x Strikers games and an One Day International or T20. You'd have to factor in the average spend per patron would have to be at least double at a test match, the spend per Strikers games would probably be similar to a footy game, and the T20/One Dayer might be around the same but lower crowds. Rough calc 55/45 split between the SANFL/SACA?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

What do you reckon is the breakdown of the $25.5 mill is REH? Not counting finals, you have 22 AFL games vs a Test Match, 6 x Strikers games and an One Day International or T20. You'd have to factor in the average spend per patron would have to be at least double at a test match, the spend per Strikers games would probably be similar to a footy game, and the T20/One Dayer might be around the same but lower crowds. Rough calc 55/45 split between the SANFL/SACA?

On page 228 I calculated that if all the 1) 32 Superboxes and 2) all the 1,455 Audi Stadium Club and 3) all the8,000 AO footy memberships were sold in 2015, and with the 2015 stadium deal review and the increase in footy memberships in 2015 went up by $100 for adults (less for concession and juniors) the 2 clubs got $50 each of that increase, I estimated net of GST
SANFL got $10.511m
SACA got $2.542m - remember the SACA sell 27,000 memberships at approx $300 direct to members
Port got $326k
Crows got $326k

That is only from those 3 revenue streams. See
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...shift-happening.554729/page-228#post-37385795

Rooch said the SANFL got $14.9m from AO in 2014 which suggests Catering Commission of $4.4m. The stadium deal review said that if Port and the crows kept their 2014 crowds up, which neither has, and with access to more corporate inventory and advertising, then by 2017 Port would earn $2m and the crows $2.1m - the difference being the $2/attendee part of the deal and crows drew an extra 40,000 than us in 2014.

In the SACA's 30 June 2017 accounts - above for SMA is for 31 October 2017 they showed
Catering revenue $3.82m
Ground revenue $4.332m ( their membership revenue was $10.6m)

So all that suggests to me COT Bridge Climb $2.5m, SACA $10m and SANFL $13m = $25.5m

If the SACA share is indeed only $3.82m+$4.332m = $8.1m then the SANFL gets $14.9m.

Remember when the SMA sells a beer at the footy or cricket say for $9.90 - 90 cents is GST and goes to the government and the SMA pay the SACA and SANFL somewhere between 20% and 25% ie between $1.80 and $2.25 gets counted in that $25.5m.

 

[Papa G]

SACA would also make a fair bit out of Strikers tickets as well. It's much cheaper than the footy, but they own the team.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

SACA would also make a fair bit out of Strikers tickets as well. It's much cheaper than the footy, but they own the team.

In their accounts they have $22m of Cricket Revenue which would include ticket sales online and at the gate ie non memberships. I think you can buy a 4 game pass for the Strikers only. Not sure if that counts as membership revenue or cricket revenue. Plus SACA get a large distribution from Cricket Australia each year which is covered under Cricket Revenue. I think $10m+

 

[Doctor Feel]

lol this isn't happening.

Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor prepared to lead campaign against proposed Adelaide Oval hotel

SHE has only been in power for just two weeks but Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor is already protecting her prized patch of turf, the CBD parklands, from “commercial development”.

She is deeply concerned a proposed 128-room boutique hotel at Adelaide Oval would set a precedent for other projects to lay claim over the parklands.

Ms Verschoor has put herself at odds with Premier Steven Marshall, and their differences risk igniting tension between the newly elected council — many of whom are Liberal-aligned members — and the State Government.

She was responding to Sunday Mail inquiries about parklands policy, along with Mr Marshall, Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas and federal Adelaide ALP candidate Steve Georganas.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...l/news-story/fbdae6d1bba6a38b4c77da95b49b2f40

 

[FishingRick04]

Good Oke Adelaide

 

[NTRabbit]

lol this isn't happening.

Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor prepared to lead campaign against proposed Adelaide Oval hotel

SHE has only been in power for just two weeks but Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor is already protecting her prized patch of turf, the CBD parklands, from “commercial development”.

She is deeply concerned a proposed 128-room boutique hotel at Adelaide Oval would set a precedent for other projects to lay claim over the parklands.

Ms Verschoor has put herself at odds with Premier Steven Marshall, and their differences risk igniting tension between the newly elected council — many of whom are Liberal-aligned members — and the State Government.

She was responding to Sunday Mail inquiries about parklands policy, along with Mr Marshall, Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas and federal Adelaide ALP candidate Steve Georganas.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...l/news-story/fbdae6d1bba6a38b4c77da95b49b2f40

Good. Says something when a mayor in favour of growing and developing the city is leading the campaign against your development.

 

[Schulzenfest]

The one time these 'but muh parklands' NIMBY's come in handy.

 

[Doctor Feel]

lol, Peter Goers.

Peter Goers: What next for the Oval? An amusement park?
I would like the SA Government to fund a hotel my group of developers is demanding to build in the parklands.

Imagine if I’d founded the Women’s Shot Put, Tiddlywinks and Rodeo Stadium Management Authority and the Government had given it $535 million to build a stadium on Pinky Flat opposite the Adelaide Oval, and now we want to build a luxury hotel next to it and the Government is giving us $42 million of taxpayer’s money to build it. And we’d also like a $40 million footbridge to bring patrons to the stadium and hotel — and we imagine all this is our right. Cue outrage.

Well, that’s exactly what’s happening as the Government continues to throw money at the wealthy Stadium Management Authority which runs Adelaide Oval (The Adelaide Club with a lawn) which is owned by the people.

The SMA was given $535 million to develop the most beautiful oval in the world on free land on which it pays no land tax or rates, and now it wants another huge slice of the parklands and more taxpayers’ millions to further develop the site with a hotel which will be yet another licence to print money. And it is crying poor.

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

He finishes the article with this line:

Any parklands development is suspect but the better option would have been a sorely needed Crows nursing home next to the Adelaide Oval.

lol.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...k/news-story/33ef45cead0c1c6b36c2f3ac03e1da70

 

[The_Wookie]

The government have said it's because the SMA can't secure a commercial loan because they don't own the asset. They've also argued it's to shore up the financial viability of the SMA.

Which is a little bizarre, given what the MCC can get for the MCG in essentially the same position - long term lease on an asset they dont own.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Which is a little bizarre, given what the MCC can get for the MCG in essentially the same position - long term lease on an asset they dont own.

Difference might be the MCG Trust - the government body that owns the land - might go guarantor

MCG set up
MCC - manage stadium + own stands + go take out borrowings to build stands
MCG Trust - own crown land of MCG + crown land of Yarra Park +minor asset of National Sport Mueum + rent out land to MCC - make a contribution to MCC to help with loan.

AO set up
Adelaide City Council - own land, 80 year lease of land to Minister Department Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI)
SA Government - own buildings in DPTI books + Minister sub-leases land to SMA
SMA - manage stadium, only owns minor capital assets pays rent to SA government

 

[DaTBird187]

lol, Peter Goers.

Peter Goers: What next for the Oval? An amusement park?
I would like the SA Government to fund a hotel my group of developers is demanding to build in the parklands.

Imagine if I’d founded the Women’s Shot Put, Tiddlywinks and Rodeo Stadium Management Authority and the Government had given it $535 million to build a stadium on Pinky Flat opposite the Adelaide Oval, and now we want to build a luxury hotel next to it and the Government is giving us $42 million of taxpayer’s money to build it. And we’d also like a $40 million footbridge to bring patrons to the stadium and hotel — and we imagine all this is our right. Cue outrage.

Well, that’s exactly what’s happening as the Government continues to throw money at the wealthy Stadium Management Authority which runs Adelaide Oval (The Adelaide Club with a lawn) which is owned by the people.

The SMA was given $535 million to develop the most beautiful oval in the world on free land on which it pays no land tax or rates, and now it wants another huge slice of the parklands and more taxpayers’ millions to further develop the site with a hotel which will be yet another licence to print money. And it is crying poor.

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

He finishes the article with this line:

Any parklands development is suspect but the better option would have been a sorely needed Crows nursing home next to the Adelaide Oval.

lol.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...k/news-story/33ef45cead0c1c6b36c2f3ac03e1da70

Hahaha good old Peter.