The Great 2009 MCG Deal Rescue

[Kwality]

AFL has learnt from Eithad, they wont let that happen....at least, not as badly.



Why would there be fewer? Vic has crap stadium deals, and little support for junoir graes but produces the majority of draftees.

The G deal was rescued by the Vic taxpayer.

Draftees: see population. That WA & SA produce more players for the player pool than their clubs use is beyond question, arguably contributing to the shortfall across the rest of Aus (acknowledging the Tas & NT draftees).

 

[The_Wookie]

The G deal was rescued by the Vic taxpayer.

Um say what now?

 

[telsor]

The G deal was rescued by the Vic taxpayer.

Draftees: see population. That WA & SA produce more players for the player pool than their clubs use is beyond question, arguably contributing to the shortfall across the rest of Aus (acknowledging the Tas & NT draftees).

What's this about the G deal?

As for draftees, the claim being questioned was that less money to the WAFC would mean fewer draftees. While what you say is correct, I'm not sure how your comment relates to that.

 

[Starburns_]

The G deal was rescued by the Vic taxpayer.

LOL, what?

 

[Kwality]

What's this about the G deal?

As for draftees, the claim being questioned was that less money to the WAFC would mean fewer draftees. While what you say is correct, I'm not sure how your comment relates to that.

http://www.mcg.org.au/Yarra Park/Agreement.aspx
2. AFL clubs playing home games at the MCG receiving at least an additional $4.6 million a year – or $100,000 a game – for the next 10 years from MCG revenues.

 

[The_Wookie]

http://www.mcg.org.au/Yarra Park/Agreement.aspx
2. AFL clubs playing home games at the MCG receiving at least an additional $4.6 million a year – or $100,000 a game – for the next 10 years from MCG revenues.

That doesnt mean any deal was 'saved' - this was part of the renegotiation for better stadium returns that happened at the same time the Etihad deal was done.

From the 2009 AFL Annual Report, AFL Chairmans Report

The Victorian Government played a significant role in agreement being reached with the Melbourne Cricket Club and MCG Trust. The government also agreed to provide $36 million to upgrade facilities in the AFL members’ reserve in the Great Southern Stand, which will also boost the financial return for tenant clubs.

The new agreements with the MCG and Etihad Stadium were the culmination of more than 12 months’ work, which indicated that some of the Victorian-based clubs’ stadium returns were between $5 million and $7 million less than the returns enjoyed by clubs in other cities.

In Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth and Sydney, AFL clubs received 70 per cent of the revenue generated by stadiums from AFL matches while AFL clubs in Victoria received 30 per cent of such revenue. The agreements with the MCC and Etihad Stadium will provide an additional $145 million in improved match returns to the tenant clubs during the next 10 years at the MCG and 14 years at Etihad Stadium.

But more information, including the AFL side of things was contained in the CEO's Report

In September, the Melbourne Cricket Club and Victorian Government announced a new agreement for Victorian-based AFL clubs playing at the MCG. AFL clubs playing home games at the MCG will receive a minimum of $100,000 per game, backdated to the start of the 2009 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. The AFL has extended its agreement to play the Grand Final at the MCG until 2037 and will schedule at least 10 of the 12 best attended home and away matches in Melbourne at the MCG. The Victorian Government will also contribute $30 million towards a major refurbishment of the AFL Members’ Reserve in the Great Southern Stand.

The AFL and Melbourne Stadiums Ltd (MSL), the owner of Etihad Stadium, also reached a new agreement that will provide a major financial boost to Victorian AFL clubs playing home matches at the stadium. MSL has agreed to provide AFL clubs an additional $5.5 million per year from 2010 until the expiration of its lease in March 2025. In return, the AFL has agreed that the minimum number of contracted home and away games scheduled at Etihad Stadium will increase by at least 130 during the term of the lease.

So, standard negotiating, no deals were "saved" by the taxpayer.

 

[Kwality]

That doesnt mean any deal was 'saved' - this was part of the renegotiation for better stadium returns that happened at the same time the Etihad deal was done.

From the 2009 AFL Annual Report, AFL Chairmans Report



But more information, including the AFL side of things was contained in the. CEO's Report



So, standard negotiating, no deals were "saved" by the taxpayer.

Sub standard whatever/rescue, the taxpayer funded the deal. I prefer the MCG version of events. No such white knight at Etihad, we taxpayers wont toss in a couple of $mil to stump up clubs on the rough end of a stadium deal with AFL fingerprints across it .

Fancy that 2009 Messrs Fitzpatrick & Wiley achieving a mutually acceptable arrangement & the same duo in 2013 were doing a backroom deal to end the Essendon fiasco - bit more of your standard negotiating Wookie style.

 

[The_Wookie]

Sub standard whatever/rescue, the taxpayer funded the deal. I prefer the MCG version of events. No such white knight at Etihad, we taxpayers wont toss in a couple of $mil to stump up clubs on the rough end of a stadium deal with AFL fingerprints across it .

Fancy that 2009 Messrs Fitzpatrick & Wiley achieving a mutually acceptable arrangement & the same duo in 2013 were doing a backroom deal to end the Essendon fiasco - bit more of your standard negotiating Wookie style.

The MCC version of events is hardly any different and at no point mentions a rescue. The MCC literally increased stadium returns, and the Vic Government chipped in 30 million for facility upgrades to AFL members areas in return for guaranteed blockbuster numbers and a 5 year extended contract (from 2032 to 2037). No "rescue" was required. Besides this was an improvement of an existing deal, not a brand new one.

 

[The_Wookie]

Fancy that 2009 Messrs Fitzpatrick & Wiley achieving a mutually acceptable arrangement & the same duo in 2013 were doing a backroom deal to end the Essendon fiasco - bit more of your standard negotiating Wookie style.

wookie style?

 

[telsor]

Sub standard whatever/rescue, the taxpayer funded the deal. I prefer the MCG version of events. No such white knight at Etihad, we taxpayers wont toss in a couple of $mil to stump up clubs on the rough end of a stadium deal with AFL fingerprints across it .

Fancy that 2009 Messrs Fitzpatrick & Wiley achieving a mutually acceptable arrangement & the same duo in 2013 were doing a backroom deal to end the Essendon fiasco - bit more of your standard negotiating Wookie style.

So, in the world of Kwality, $36Million from the government is a 'rescue'.

What does that make the WA government paying the best part of a billion for the Burswood casino's football ground?

 

[Starburns_]

I wonder how much of the government's $36 million would be made back by the 5 extra Grand Finals they got in exchange for it.

 

[telsor]

I wonder how much of the government's $36 million would be made back by the 5 extra Grand Finals they got in exchange for it.

Hey, $36Million gets the clubs $4.6Million/year...That's one hell of a rate of return.

If that's all it was, then someone at the MCG trust should have been sacked.

 

[Kwality]

wookie style?

The Fitz/Wiley relationship will be the subject of more probing by the press in 2014, similar to the Patrick Smith governance campaign at Essendon. Standard negotiating will be probed ... tongue in cheek, wookie style !!

 

[Kwality]

That doesnt mean any deal was 'saved' - this was part of the renegotiation for better stadium returns that happened at the same time the Etihad deal was done.

From the 2009 AFL Annual Report, AFL Chairmans Report



But more information, including the AFL side of things was contained in the CEO's Report



So, standard negotiating, no deals were "saved" by the taxpayer.

& it was the deal for better returns from the G that was rescued by the taxpayer. Despite the rhetoric at the time, Etihad has no delivered better returns.
The MCC was never/ever going to increase returns to clubs from its own pocket.

Deny it all you like by running off at a tangent.

 

[telsor]

& it was the deal for better returns from the G that was rescued by the taxpayer. Despite the rhetoric at the time, Etihad has no delivered better returns.
The MCC was never/ever going to increase returns to clubs from its own pocket.

Deny it all you like by running off at a tangent.

So the AFL extending the GF guarantee, an playing more/better games there had nothing to do with it?


Also, as I asked before...If $36Million is 'rescue', what's a billion for a new stadium?

 

[The_Wookie]

& it was the deal for better returns from the G that was rescued by the taxpayer. Despite the rhetoric at the time, Etihad has no delivered better returns.

The MCC was never/ever going to increase returns to clubs from its own pocket.

Deny it all you like by running off at a tangent.

The deal was NOT rescued. Neither the MCC or AFL annual reports of the time indicate that there was any real trouble that required intervention. Returns were improved in exchange for a 5 year contract extension, and an improvement in facilities. This was a simple re-negotiation of terms. Deny it all you like, Im utterly convinced you're a troll and posts like

The Fitz/Wiley relationship will be the subject of more probing by the press in 2014, similar to the Patrick Smith governance campaign at Essendon. Standard negotiating will be probed ... tongue in cheek, wookie style !!

only serve to confirm it.

 

[Kwality]

The deal was NOT rescued. Neither the MCC or AFL annual reports of the time indicate that there was any real trouble that required intervention. Returns were improved in exchange for a 5 year contract extension, and an improvement in facilities. This was a simple re-negotiation of terms. Deny it all you like, Im utterly convinced you're a troll and posts like



only serve to confirm it.

Merely the opinion of one poster, YOU !!

To increase returns to clubs at the G, the MCC were not in the game, need an external source (both the G & Etihad were to deliver improved returns to Melbourne clubs), the Yarra Park parking deal provided recurring income ... there was no other solution beyond a gift, a backhander, calico bag .. selling the Grand Final rights without seeking competitive tenders reeks of poor governance/a sweetheart deal with fellow travellers, ranking with the extension of the MCG management rights ignoring public tender under the MCC Trust/MCG deal.

AFL apologists like your good self seek to cast critics as trolls for your own purposes, and whether a ticket bearer can handle a conflict of interest is in the eye of the beholder.

PS: the Fitz/Wiley issue has a long way to go, & in case you go with the troll stuff again, saw Fitz play his 1st game for Subi, open the bowling with breeze for Scarboro (Mick Malone in to the breeze), Fitz & Malone were members of Subis 1973 premiership ending a 49 year drought, Mr Fitz (Cliff) was a mate of my father, a president of Subi, 100 game WAFL umpire - I've followed Fitzs career but this time he has acted in what he believed to be the AFLs best interest but in a way that fails the basic of ethics tests. He has a case to answer.

 

[The_Wookie]

Merely the opinion of one poster, YOU !!

To increase returns to clubs at the G, the MCC were not in the game, need an external source (both the G & Etihad were to deliver improved returns to Melbourne clubs), the Yarra Park parking deal provided recurring income ... there was no other solution beyond a gift, a backhander, calico bag .. selling the Grand Final rights without seeking competitive tenders reeks of poor governance/a sweetheart deal with fellow travellers, ranking with the extension of the MCG management rights ignoring public tender under the MCC Trust/MCG deal.

AFL apologists like your good self seek to cast critics as trolls for your own purposes, and whether a ticket bearer can handle a conflict of interest is in the eye of the beholder.

PS: the Fitz/Wiley issue has a long way to go, & in case you go with the troll stuff again, saw Fitz play his 1st game for Subi, open the bowling with breeze for Scarboro (Mick Malone in to the breeze), Fitz & Malone were members of Subis 1973 premiership ending a 49 year drought, Mr Fitz (Cliff) was a mate of my father, a president of Subi, 100 game WAFL umpire - I've followed Fitzs career but this time he has acted in what he believed to be the AFLs best interest but in a way that fails the basic of ethics tests. He has a case to answer.

NOWHERE does anyone say it was rescued. In fact until you wrote it, Id never heard of it anywhere. Dont give me this "its the opinion of one poster crap" because thats even more so the case with what you wrote.

The MCC 2009 reports doesnt say it need intervention, MCG 2009 trust reports dont mention intervention (it acknowledges a crucial role), the AFL report doesnt mention a rescue. Media reports dont mention a rescue. but you somehow figured it all out despite there literally being no evidence to suggest it was anything other than routine negotiation. Provide a single source, a single reference that says things were in dire need of a rescue.

Selling the Grand Final rights? The AFL isnt the NRL. It doesnt get paid to hold the AFL Grand Final at the MCG. It doesnt sell the rights to the Grand Final. There has never been a public tender for a grand final venue that is literally based on tradition.

Why should the MCG management go for public tender? Pattersons wasnt to public tender for management, the new (and old) Adelaide Oval wasnt, Football park wasnt, the SCG and Gabba werent. Hell, Im not sure ANY major stadium in the country had a public tender for management rights, ANZ Stadium might be the only exception.

Both the G and Etihad were both negotiated with extended contracts, more games, guaranteed finals/replacements and blockbusters in return for an increased revenue. THERE was literally no rescue of the negotiations. Show me a single report that says either rescue or intervention.

The Fitz/Wiley stuff is further not the subject of this thread or even relevant to the discussion. As it is Ill be splitting this discussion off from the original thread, as we've gone far afield indeed.

 

[The_Wookie]

Specifically the reports on the matter

1. The MCG Trust Annual Report 2009

• First, key elements of our contract with the AFL were extended by five years to 2037, providing additional long term security of content for the MCG.
• Second, for the first time, control over the management of Yarra Park surrounding the MCG has been secured by the MCG Trust and the Melbourne Cricket Club (MCC). We sought this outcome not simply for the sake of control, but to invest in the Park, to revitalise it and to ensure its long term sustainability as public parkland and its availability as a public asset to support sport at the MCG.
• Third, key infrastructure at the ground will be upgraded as a result of the agreement. At least $30 million will be spent on a major refurbishment of the Great Southern Stand.
• Finally, for the next ten years significantly more money will go to Victorian AFL clubs playing home matches at the MCG. This will be at least $4.6 million per year in aggregate, and potentially more depending on attendances. Financially sound clubs should be more competitive and successful on the field, which should in turn be good for the long term health of Australian Rules football here in its home state of Victoria and for attendances at the MCG.

This agreement was able to be reached because the finances of the MCG were sufficiently strong to allow the MCG to make this investment in its future. That is a testament to the way the ground has been managed by the MCC, despite its $300 million debt obligations still outstanding from the Northern Stand redevelopment. It is also a tribute to the strong support of the Victorian Government, which played a crucial role in the agreement. The Government has made a $6 million commitment to the renewal of Yarra Park and will provide $30 million towards the refurbishment of the Great Southern Stand. Its support will provide important long term benefits to the sports-loving community of Melbourne and is greatly appreciated.


2. The MCC 2009 Annual Report


AFL-VictoriAn GoVernment AGreement
In September 2009 the MCC, together with the MCG Trust, reached agreement with the AFL and the Victorian Government on some important developments concerning the future of the MCG and the surrounding Yarra Park precinct. The main aspects were:

1. The licence agreement between the MCC and the AFL has been extended by five years, ensuring football (and the AFL Grand Final) is played at the MCG until at least 2037.
2. AFL clubs playing home games at the MCG will receive at least an additional $4.6 million a year — or $100,000 a game — for the next 10 years from MCG revenues. Furthermore, an incentive program based on attendances will see the AFL receive $1.50 per head for attendances between 2.1 million and 2.5 million patrons, $2 per head for attendances between 2.5 million and three million and $3 per head for attendances in excess of three million.
3. The management of Yarra Park has been transferred to the MCG Trust, which in turn has delegated operational management to the MCC, with a key water and landscaping project to secure the future of the trees in the park and preserve existing car parking entitlements.
4. The Victorian Government will deliver a capped contribution of $30 million towards a refurbishment within the AFL Members Reserve in the Great Southern Stand and $6 million towards the project in Yarra Park.

This is a beneficial outcome for all parties as it reinforces the connection between the stadium, the code, the clubs and the MCC for an additional five years to 2037.


3. The AFL 2009 Annual Report


Chairmans Report


The Victorian Government played a significant role in agreement being reached with the Melbourne Cricket Club and MCG Trust. The government also agreed to provide $36 million to upgrade facilities in the AFL members’ reserve in the Great Southern Stand,which will also boost the financial return for tenant clubs.

 

[telsor]

So, in the world of Kwality, $36Million from the government is a 'rescue'.

What does that make the WA government paying the best part of a billion for the Burswood casino's football ground?

Also, as I asked before...If $36Million is 'rescue', what's a billion for a new stadium?

If you can't answer the question, you're either a troll or a hypocrite...which is it?

 

[fabulousphil]

If you can't answer the question, you're either a troll or a hypocrite...which is it?

TBH, i have thought for awhile he is a troll, goes conveniently missing when questions are asked on claims he has made.

 

[The_Wookie]

to be air, he's copped a threadban. Not from me either.

 

[fabulousphil]

to be air, he's copped a threadban. Not from me either.

I probably should be a bit fairer as well, he does make some good points, and possibly he is trying to play devils advocate, but much of the time he seriously smells of troll.

 

[telsor]

I probably should be a bit fairer as well, he does make some good points, and possibly he is trying to play devils advocate, but much of the time he seriously smells of troll.

While I have my own opinions, I think it best not to talk about people when they can't reply.

 

[finders]

1. "The management of Yarra Park has been transferred to the MCG Trust, which in turn has delegated operational management to the MCC, with a key water and landscaping project to secure the future of the trees in the park and preserve existing car parking entitlements".

So wookie who gets all the money from the car parking? which would be a tidy sum The MCC or do they share it with the AFL?