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

[Kwality]

This.

Cut on catering would potentially disadvantage the crows as port supporters generally spend more at games. Actually it probably wouldn’t disadvantage the crows but it would be more advantageous to Port.

Any arrangement that would advantage port over the crows would never be entertained by the SMA or the state in general.

See the model of the sanfl reserves for port and crows- gradually our preferred model of having a community/club structure was eroded until it is a mirror image of the basic crows structure.

Bear with me, I'm viewing from afar, how has the club structure at Port been changed?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Quite right, only IF you thought something was not right, maybe the clubs are happy, only need to ask the question.

How, you'd need to know the system to work it out.

If its skimming, the question is, is it worth doing a fully blown audit?

The trouble is that from day 1 of the redeveloped AO the count has been dodgy and that has left us cynical.

We know the SMA counted staff in the official crowd figure in 2014 and it wasn't picked up until the EF against Richmond, because the AFL have 100% control of the ground for finals ticketing and when they reconciled $$$ collected to tickets sold there was a discrepancy and the official records were adjusted down by 800+ from approx 50,600 to 49,800 after the season ended. The AFL only adjusted this game for 2014.

The first game in 2014 there was a stuff up. A few hundred people got really excited and went to AO several hours before the game as they were in the western/members stand which was unreserved seats, and got in thru an unlocked gate on the SW corner of the ground. They weren't counted. They also didn't count a lot of the corporate box level 4 attendees as they had their own entrance area for the game, which now has attendants scanning tickets. The "official" figure was 50,397 and many people said there is no way you can squeeze in another 3,200 people. Little did we know that the non staff included figure was about 49,600.

So from day 1 there has been dodgy counting. But in 2014 there was no $/attendee stadium deal. That come in, in 2015 as part of the stadium deal review.

2015 about Rd 5 I started posting the adjusted figures for staff, I got from ex AFL statistician Kevin Taylor and all hell broke lose. People thought it was bullshit that this couldn't be true. But it was and the cynicism towards the SMA went to a new level.

All year the SMA announced one figure and the AFL adjusted figure was another one, released a week or so later. Good example of that was the Phil Walsh showdown a couple of weeks after his murder.

Port said to the SMA, lets let in as many people as we can really fit in, because there was massive demand for the game as people wanted to show their respect for Walsh and attend the game and find out what the real maximum capacity.

It got close to an actual lock out, but didn't happen. The SMA still in mid July still were announcing staff included figure of 54,468 even though it had been made public what was happening with crowds and adjustment for staff members counted. From AFL Match Centre page for the game where they published the SMA announced figure straight after the game. See

https://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2015/16/port-v-adel
Official crowd: 54,468 at Adelaide Oval

The AFL at end of 2015 adjusted all their records and removed the staff counted in the 2015 games and the game is now in the record books as having 53,518.
https://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2015/011320150719.html

The clubs didn't care because in 2015 they were getting $2/attendee and if the SMA were including 800-900 staff and getting $2/staff employed game day for them, then that was more money for them.

Its why the AFLW GF figure of 53,034 is a farce when compared to that night's crowd and there have been 2 games since the Phil Walsh showdown with marginally more people. 53,698 Port's home showdown in April 2017 and the 2017 crows v geelong Preliminary final 53,817. See
https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/vn_adelaide_oval.html

So at the end of 2015 and after 2 years of battling Port for the GDV that's when the dodgy figures for Port crowds seem to start. The $2 per staff member would have been removed from the equation. Its since 2016 that Port supporters have mainly been questioning the announced crowd.

Lets say the SMA skims 1,000 -1,500 off the crowd. How do you audit that and catch them out? You would want to do an audit without them knowing. Why would AFL waste resources on it having to employ an outside software consultant? So you couldn't just rock up and monitor their systems because they could prepare for that and do the necessary adjustments to the software.

The only way I can think of, is to get a print out from the SMA of all the attendees passes numbers scanned thru their turnstiles and the data re tickets purchased online and at the gate. The clubs do get reports from the SMA for each game. Matthew Richardson showed me one and its about 50 pages with lots of breakdowns.

Its also why the club sometimes contacts members and asks them why they aren't attending because they can access that data from those scanned passes numbers.

But unless you got a print out of all the membership access codes that the SMA recorded and then rang / communicated with all the members who weren't reported as attending on that print out, you wouldn't know 100% for sure if everyone has been counted.

If a club misses out $2,400 to $3,600 because of skimming 1,000-1,500 people is it worth spending all those resources getting in contact with say 10,000 to 20,000 members who the SMA didn't attend as well as corporate box owners to see that they didn't attend as reported by the SMA?? Sure you could do a sample size of 500 and maybe find 5 or 10 people not included, but that doesn't prove much, unless you did it every week and a pattern clearly emerged. But once again does the club have the resources to spend on that?

It just might not be worth it, to prove that skimming is happening. Doesn't make the skimming right though.

One more cynical thought. $3,600 x 11 games = $39,600. $40,000 is the profit the SMA expected to make from running the GDV.

 

[Forzaport]

To me, it's like the SMA views Adelaide as the golden goose and sets their pricing structure according to how much alcohol their crowds consume, which is why they will try to recoup all of their cost in the first transaction. They know that lowering the price by $1.20 isn't going to encourage Adelaide fans to buy another beer, because an Adelaide fan will most likely only buy one beer no matter what the price is. You can see this mentality with how they treat the Crows regarding their match day banners etc.

Think of it like this:

An Adelaide crowd buys 45,000 units of catering @ $9 - $2.40 per patron = $297k

A Port Adelaide crowd buys 40,000 units of catering @ $9 - $2.40 per patron = $264k

Adelaide is the golden child, right? The SMA makes $6.171m. But lets change the pricing structure and lower the price by $1.20.

An Adelaide crowd buys 45,000 units of catering @ $7.80 - $2.40 per patron = $243k. They don't feel the need to buy any more because they aren't the sort of crowd that gets on the cans, so the SMA has lost $54k by lowering their prices.

A Port Adelaide crowd buys 40,000 units of catering @ $7.80 - $2.40 per patron = $216k. However, because the prices are reasonable, the patrons go back for another round, buying another 40,000 units of catering @ $7.80....this time without the patron surcharge. An extra $312k.

Adelaide = $243k

Port Adelaide = $528k

Port Adelaide is now the golden child, and the SMA makes $8.481m. An extra $2.31m a year.

However...hell will freeze over before the SMA sees Port as a better tenant than Adelaide, so they will build this shitty hotel instead.

This is why a percentage of revenue is a better outcome for all but nope, the SMA gotta SMA.

 

[Forzaport]

Also, if the SMA's revenues are determined by the attendance count, it's a massive conflict of interest that they determine the attendance count. We just have to trust that they're honest. After all, John Olsen never did anything dodgy did he?

 

[Chrizzt]

This.

Cut on catering would potentially disadvantage the crows as port supporters generally spend more at games. Actually it probably wouldn’t disadvantage the crows but it would be more advantageous to Port.

Any arrangement that would advantage port over the crows would never be entertained by the SMA or the state in general.

See the model of the sanfl reserves for port and crows- gradually our preferred model of having a community/club structure was eroded until it is a mirror image of the basic crows structure.

Again, is this just an assumption or is it based on a reported figure somewhere?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This.

Cut on catering would potentially disadvantage the crows as port supporters generally spend more at games. Actually it probably wouldn’t disadvantage the crows but it would be more advantageous to Port.

Any arrangement that would advantage port over the crows would never be entertained by the SMA or the state in general.

See the model of the sanfl reserves for port and crows- gradually our preferred model of having a community/club structure was eroded until it is a mirror image of the basic crows structure.

Yes and no.

Someone - not associated with the 2 clubs or SMA - in confidence - has showed me figures for 4 game day catering revenue earned, 2 Port games and 2 crows games, and the figures showed Port fans per capita buy more booze and food, but overall revenue more is collected at Crows games because they draw bigger crowds.

I think the general s**t fight of SA footy is why they have gone a fixed fee per attendee rather than % of sales figure. I'm pretty sure the clubs never saw the catering revenue figures until the SMA's submission to the Select Committee.

At this post I cut and pasted the revenue items table from the SMA's submission on page 304 of this thread
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...paradigm-shift-happening.554729/post-60119383

It shows that in 2018 where about 1.8m people attended footy and cricket game day events, and catering revenue averaged about $12/attendee (net of GST). Catering revenue from corporate boxes on game day is about 2/3rds of that generated from the general public.

Corporate boxes, attendees get sloshed, eat heaps they don't have to pick up the tab and that's why its so high. Remember there are about 3,000 corporate box seats and corporate function rooms allocated to the 2 clubs, SANFL and SACA, that generate 2/3rds of what the potential 50,000 general public attendees catering sales.

That would be another reason not to go with % of turnover. That's another area to have a s**t fight

 

[El Zorro]

To me, it's like the SMA views Adelaide as the golden goose and sets their pricing structure according to how much alcohol their crowds consume, which is why they will try to recoup all of their cost in the first transaction. They know that lowering the price by $1.20 isn't going to encourage Adelaide fans to buy another beer, because an Adelaide fan will most likely only buy one beer no matter what the price is. You can see this mentality with how they treat the Crows regarding their match day banners etc.

Think of it like this:

An Adelaide crowd buys 45,000 units of catering @ $9 - $2.40 per patron = $297k

A Port Adelaide crowd buys 40,000 units of catering @ $9 - $2.40 per patron = $264k

Adelaide is the golden child, right? The SMA makes $6.171m. But lets change the pricing structure and lower the price by $1.20.

An Adelaide crowd buys 45,000 units of catering @ $7.80 - $2.40 per patron = $243k. They don't feel the need to buy any more because they aren't the sort of crowd that gets on the cans, so the SMA has lost $54k by lowering their prices.

A Port Adelaide crowd buys 40,000 units of catering @ $7.80 - $2.40 per patron = $216k. However, because the prices are reasonable, the patrons go back for another round, buying another 40,000 units of catering @ $7.80....this time without the patron surcharge. An extra $312k.

Adelaide = $243k

Port Adelaide = $528k

Port Adelaide is now the golden child, and the SMA makes $8.481m. An extra $2.31m a year.

However...hell will freeze over before the SMA sees Port as a better tenant than Adelaide, so they will build this shitty hotel instead.

Why are Port fans going for seconds but Crows fans aren't? Interesting assumption.

 

[Janus]

Why are Port fans going for seconds but Crows fans aren't? Interesting assumption.

It’s been widely reported that Port fans consume more alcohol than Adelaide fans do at games by a fair margin.

 

[Forzaport]

It’s been widely reported that Port fans consume more alcohol than Adelaide fans do at games by a fair margin.

I've been to a few Crows home showdowns and plenty games pre-97. They pack the whole ******* kitchen with them.

 

[ROBBBO]

The Crows have the highest amount of concession members in the league !!

 

[El Zorro]

It’s been widely reported that Port fans consume more alcohol than Adelaide fans do at games by a fair margin.

Double?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Janus]

Double?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

It’s an arbitrary figure. Significantly more than Adelaide.

 

[FPPF]

To go back to the issue of useless security at the oval, and a post I made regarding one of them at the south gate.
If you look at The Pear's latest vlog from the Port training session, the guard standing in the background is the muppet I was talking about.
Just an FYI to be wary of that campaigner.

 

[Papa G]

Was there really only 36k there last night? One of the rare occasions I've missed but on TV it looked a decent crowd. The Hill looked pretty fully which generally indicates a decent crowd. A case of fudging again?

 

[Prison bar Pete]

Was there really only 36k there last night? One of the rare occasions I've missed but on TV it looked a decent crowd. The Hill looked pretty fully which generally indicates a decent crowd. A case of fudging again?

36K seems about right. Western stand was pretty sparse, and it was not so much of a crush over the footbridge after the game

 

[PowerBaz]

Was there really only 36k there last night? One of the rare occasions I've missed but on TV it looked a decent crowd. The Hill looked pretty fully which generally indicates a decent crowd. A case of fudging again?

Numbers are down for Port this yr. Which means $ are down.

Well down.

 

[Doctor Feel]

#BYOatAO

 

[DSL64]

Was there really only 36k there last night? One of the rare occasions I've missed but on TV it looked a decent crowd. The Hill looked pretty fully which generally indicates a decent crowd. A case of fudging again?

I thought it looked a bigger crowd than 36k.

 

[ibd77]

#BYOatAO

AO Catering Manager for Power Home Games...

 

[LFC2010]

Was there really only 36k there last night? One of the rare occasions I've missed but on TV it looked a decent crowd. The Hill looked pretty fully which generally indicates a decent crowd. A case of fudging again?

No it was small. Wasn’t one bit surprised by that figure. How Richmond game was 38k, and the ground a lot more packed than what it was Friday night.

 

[Malibu#27]

I think this post belongs here as much as anywhere.

So it appears there’s a footy related movie or film currently being filmed that’s getting some filming done in Adelaide this weekend - at the showdown. Aerial shots and perhaps inside the stadium .... anyway the clubs seem happy enough - but not the SMA. Refusing to allow it without a 10K fee.

Personally I would have thought the game IP was owned by the clubs/afl but it appears the SMA have some reach over it. Mr Olsen could obviously smell a buck.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I think this post belongs here as much as anywhere.

So it appears there’s a footy related movie or film currently being filmed that’s getting some filming done in Adelaide this weekend - at the showdown. Aerial shots and perhaps inside the stadium .... anyway the clubs seem happy enough - but not the SMA. Refusing to allow it without a 10K fee.

Personally I would have thought the game IP was owned by the clubs/afl but it appears the SMA have some reach over it. Mr Olsen could obviously smell a buck.

MCG tried to pull this sort of stunt, but more complicated in 1998 and 1999 as the new TV deal, that 7 lost to 9/10/Foxtel consortium at the end of 2000 started to be negotiated and was going to be substantially more than in previous years. The AFL basically told them no way, but it was part of a larger negotiation re further development as Comm Games was coming to the MCG, and a new CEO of MCC Stephen Gough, wanted to impose himself like he did as Carlton CEO. See

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=468

I can understand how the SMA can get away with a $10k fee to allow cameras inside the ground - would be like allowing a vendor inside - but don't know how they can charge for aerial shots from a plane, helicopter or drone.

Sounds like the Jack Thompson and Shane Jacobson movie about Vietnam Veterans trying to escape a dodgy nursing home that we talked about early April here
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/lets-talk-ports-part-2.1167713/page-271#post-60159466

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If you are in a footy club in a marginal seat, both state and federal, you get the gifts.

Labor yesterday pledged $20m for Kardinia Park Stage 5 development. The 4 stages so far have cost $179m and Geelong contributing around $14m, with the state government the biggest component $118m and the feds $24m the balance between the City of Geelong Council and the AFL.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ba-stadium-redevelopment-20190515-p51nkj.html
Labor has committed $20 million to assist with the final stage of the redevelopment of GMHBA Stadium in Geelong should it win the federal election.

The Kardinia Park Stadium Trust has already received a funding commitment of $102 million from the state Labor government to build stage five of the stadium redevelopment, which is scheduled to begin after the Women's Cricket World Cup finishes in 2020.

The $20 million will assist with plans that are understood to have been costed at between $100-140 million and will lift the stadium capacity to 40,000, which will add strength to the Cats' argument they should play a home final at the stadium if they qualify for one. Geelong CEO Brian Cook has driven the redevelopment of the stadium during his time at the Cats, which is now considered the country's best regional stadium, hosting Geelong for nine home games a season as well as Big Bash games and the A-League's new Western United franchise. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ba-stadium-redevelopment-20190515-p51nkj.html

 

[Janus]

If you are in a footy club in a marginal seat, both state and federal, you get the gifts.

Labor yesterday pledged $20m for Kardinia Park Stage 5 development. The 4 stages so far have cost $179m and Geelong contributing around $14m, with the state government the biggest component $118m and the feds $24m the balance between the City of Geelong Council and the AFL.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ba-stadium-redevelopment-20190515-p51nkj.html
Labor has committed $20 million to assist with the final stage of the redevelopment of GMHBA Stadium in Geelong should it win the federal election.

The Kardinia Park Stadium Trust has already received a funding commitment of $102 million from the state Labor government to build stage five of the stadium redevelopment, which is scheduled to begin after the Women's Cricket World Cup finishes in 2020.

The $20 million will assist with plans that are understood to have been costed at between $100-140 million and will lift the stadium capacity to 40,000, which will add strength to the Cats' argument they should play a home final at the stadium if they qualify for one. Geelong CEO Brian Cook has driven the redevelopment of the stadium during his time at the Cats, which is now considered the country's best regional stadium, hosting Geelong for nine home games a season as well as Big Bash games and the A-League's new Western United franchise. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ba-stadium-redevelopment-20190515-p51nkj.html

I don’t mind money being given to Geelong as long as they ******* make the ground wider so it looks like an oval instead of the s**t they have right now...

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I don’t mind money being given to Geelong as long as they ******* make the ground wider so it looks like an oval instead of the **** they have right now...

haha no dollars for extra grass, just concrete and steel.