Perth Stadium (Optus Stadium)

[mightymouse75]

The problem here us a battle between afl, wafl, state government & the clubs. Afl want control of our clubs but they haven't been able to do it as wafc makes too much money out of subi. With the new stadium the state government are going to need money coming in to pay for it locking out the wafc already. And the state government want the afl to chip for the stadium. Either way we are going to be squeezed while the pokie sponsored victorian teams will get cheap seats. Boo

 

[holybishop]

Freo have been communicating with its members over seating at the new stadium - does it indicate the financial deal on using the stadium is closer for AFL footy ? Until the dollars are settled & the seating available to the clubs is locked, future planning will be problematic.

"The club is currently sending members information regarding the seat allocation process for the Perth Stadium for the 2018 season," the club's general manager of business operations, David Pitts said.
"It is the first step in a process to offer all of the club's full season seated members the ability to nominate the people they wish to sit with at the stadium at no charge, which has always been our intention.
"We are also planning for the member relocation process for the Perth Stadium to be conducted based on years of membership, also at no charge to our valued members."

http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/frema...-for-seat-at-new-stadium-20160811-gqqgl8.html

This is the letter that was circulated to members last week.

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL ...ansition Letter Final Version for Website.pdf

Pretty much, we'll be lifted and moved to a seat in a similar location and category. I'll be interested to see what happens to my seat. I'm on the wing right behind the Freo bench but in the first few rows so my category is a level below Premium (the row right behind me is premium, so I really lucked out).

 

[Galileo9]

 

[Fletch Pewterschmidt]

This is the letter that was circulated to members last week.

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Fremantle/Files/Perth Stadium Transition Letter Final Version for Website.pdf

Pretty much, we'll be lifted and moved to a seat in a similar location and category. I'll be interested to see what happens to my seat. I'm on the wing right behind the Freo bench but in the first few rows so my category is a level below Premium (the row right behind me is premium, so I really lucked out).

I'm a 15 year WCE member (who coincidentally sits in a similar location at Subi - block 105 row HH, which is standard seating and one row in front of premium) and the offer outlined in that letter is exactly what I want. Similar location and same category.

Need to check with the Mrs as she's a Freo member and I don't think she's received that letter yet.

 

[Spirit Level]

Drove past it for the first time the other day, very impressive!

 

[Kwality]

The problem here us a battle between afl, wafl, state government & the clubs. Afl want control of our clubs but they haven't been able to do it as wafc makes too much money out of subi. With the new stadium the state government are going to need money coming in to pay for it locking out the wafc already. And the state government want the afl to chip for the stadium. Either way we are going to be squeezed while the pokie sponsored victorian teams will get cheap seats. Boo

Bit simplistic to suggest the WAFC have been locked out of the discussions on the financials of the new stadium, they own both AFL licences & are an arm of the State Government.
The money the AFL put into stadiums is tiddlypoop in the overall cost, less than $5m into Adelaide.
My biggest concern is the stadium operator competing for members with the footy clubs, as happens in Melbourne with the MCC, the Medallion Club & also with the AFL thru the AFL Members. Leeches all of them !

 

[mightymouse75]

Either way we will get screwed and dreams of cheap footy seats will have to wait for interstate holidays

 

[andana]

Is that looking west?

 

[Billy ray]

Yes

Is that looking west?

 

[Kwality]

Either way we will get screwed and dreams of cheap footy seats will have to wait for interstate holidays

Your values mouse? Happy to pay for a hol on the east coast, not so the footy? You could follow the 2nd tier?

 

[mightymouse75]

Happy to go there and visit family and get a cheap game in as a bonus.

Your values mouse? Happy to pay for a hol on the east coast, not so the footy? You could follow the 2nd tier?[/QUOT

 

[mightymouse75]

Your values mouse? Happy to pay for a hol on the east coast, not so the footy? You could follow the 2nd tier?

It would be nice if we could watch the footy at the same price as the viccos. When our teams has to send equalisation money back east for the leacher cluB's to survive we shouldn't have to be hit with exorbitant prices for our bums to sit down.
At the start of the year the afl gave free entry to a western bulldog game and a couple of others so people would attend. So in a round about way we were paying for s**t teams supporters to go to the footy as well. Lol

 

[The_Wookie]

It would be nice if we could watch the footy at the same price as the viccos. When our teams has to send equalisation money back east for the leacher cluB's to survive we shouldn't have to be hit with exorbitant prices for our bums to sit down.
At the start of the year the afl gave free entry to a western bulldog game and a couple of others so people would attend. So in a round about way we were paying for s**t teams supporters to go to the footy as well. Lol

Pricing at Subiaco and the cost of WA memberships has nothing to do with the Victorian clubs. You are hit with exorbitant prices because thats how the WAFL wants it done. No other reason or have you never wondered why no one else charges the same?

 

[Kwality]

Pricing at Subiaco and the cost of WA memberships has nothing to do with the Victorian clubs. You are hit with exorbitant prices because thats how the WAFL wants it done. No other reason or have you never wondered why no one else charges the same?

That'd be the WAFC & the AFL clubs do price based on demand - exhorbitant pricing? WA footy spending is the principal beneficiary.

The so called equalisation funding method is on the way out for good reason, although a tax on excessive footy dept spending is a necessary when faced with a soft cap, why soft?

There will always be those who don't want to pay the price for something. How much is the new stadium costing the taxpayer?

 

[The_Wookie]

That'd be the WAFC & the AFL clubs do price based on demand - exhorbitant pricing? WA footy spending is the principal beneficiary.

Ive no argument with that, Im just saying that its stupid to suggest that Victorian clubs are to blame for the pricing in WA. WA sets its own pricing above and beyond the rest.

The so called equalisation funding method is on the way out for good reason, although a tax on excessive footy dept spending is a necessary when faced with a soft cap, why soft?

I didnt agree with the equalisation funding as it was. But thats another story for another thread.

There will always be those who don't want to pay the price for something. How much is the new stadium costing the taxpayer?

How much of the cost of memberships and admissions do you think is going back to the taxpayer exactly. Especially if the amount of funding for the WAFL is guaranteed to the same level it was before. Dont make me laugh.

 

[swansfan51]

How much of the cost of memberships and admissions do you think is going back to the taxpayer exactly. Especially if the amount of funding for the WAFL is guaranteed to the same level it was before. Dont make me laugh.

If it is like the Subiaco Oval deal then the clubs will be making large profits and the taxpayer will be taking a loss.

 

[jatz14]

Ive no argument with that, Im just saying that its stupid to suggest that Victorian clubs are to blame for the pricing in WA. WA sets its own pricing above and beyond the rest.



I didnt agree with the equalisation funding as it was. But thats another story for another thread.



How much of the cost of memberships and admissions do you think is going back to the taxpayer exactly. Especially if the amount of funding for the WAFL is guaranteed to the same level it was before. Dont make me laugh.

I do not think the reference was blaming Vic club's, it was a sarcastic reference to WA members paying more, making the WA club's profitable, leading to the equalisation tax then shipping that money over East helping club's there be able to charge less.

Not entirely serious, but not entirely not serious.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Kwality]

Ive no argument with that, Im just saying that its stupid to suggest that Victorian clubs are to blame for the pricing in WA. WA sets its own pricing above and beyond the rest.



I didnt agree with the equalisation funding as it was. But thats another story for another thread.



How much of the cost of memberships and admissions do you think is going back to the taxpayer exactly. Especially if the amount of funding for the WAFL is guaranteed to the same level it was before. Dont make me laugh.

Laugh if you need - the financial arrangements are TBA.
How much will the new stadium cost the taxpayers? Plenty I'd say.
Footy provides the $base load as it does at Docklands ... lets hope (me) that's the only similarity.

 

[Kwality]

If it is like the Subiaco Oval deal then the clubs will be making large profits and the taxpayer will be taking a loss.

The taxpayer subsidy of WA footy has been transparent since the WAFC kicked off in the 90s - funding WA footy was the aim of the WAFC as the AFL club royalties paid year in / year out demonstrate.
That the AFL tried to divert money from WA footy through the equalisation fund fiasco was never likely to be acceptable to the Wa Govt on behalf of its taxpaying voters.

 

[The_Wookie]

Laugh if you need - the financial arrangements are TBA.

But its known that its the intent of the state government to ensure the WAFL remains at its present funding level. The only way that can be accomplished is if the clubs arent paying rent or if they are, that money will be a grant from the government in the same amount. Either way, the taxpayer loses.

How much will the new stadium cost the taxpayers? Plenty I'd say.

New stadiums of that size arent cheap.

Footy provides the $base load as it does at Docklands ... lets hope (me) that's the only similarity.

No taxpayer money in Docklands though.

That the AFL tried to divert money from WA footy through the equalisation fund fiasco was never likely to be acceptable to the Wa Govt on behalf of its taxpaying voters.

Hmm and the WA Government has said what about the AFL and its equalisation measures exactly? Please, lets see quotes here.

 

[wafti123]

Governments should not own professional footy teams.

 

[Kwality]

Governments should not own professional footy teams.[/QUOTE

Is that an academic philosophy or an acknowledgement of the economic reality of the AFL 2016 ?

 

[ScottFreo]

 

[Kwality]

But its known that its the intent of the state government to ensure the WAFL remains at its present funding level. The only way that can be accomplished is if the clubs arent paying rent or if they are, that money will be a grant from the government in the same amount. Either way, the taxpayer loses.
....
Hmm and the WA Government has said what about the AFL and its equalisation measures exactly? Please, lets see quotes here.

The WA Govt is responsible for spending its own money and the WAFC as a recipient of on going taxpayer funding has a far wider charter than just the WAFL. Given both major political parties have supported the current arrangement for WA footy, I'd conclude it has widespread voter support.
From the WAFCs stated aims 'Promote, develop and ensure the effective management of football matches at all levels of the football industry and recognise the WAFL as the pre-eminent league in the state of Western Australia.'
http://www.wafootball.com.au/wafc/about-us

I understand discussions reported in June 2015 included equalisation
While speculation has swirled that talks between football and the Government have become acrimonious, both sides were last night optimistic that a deal would be reached.

Sticking points include the detailed financial terms on which the clubs would use the ground, the extent to which the AFL gets priority access to the $1.4 billion venue during its season, and guarantees about the quality of AFL games which will be fixtured at the stadium.

..... after a day that saw Mr McLachlan and other AFL staffers locked away in negotiating meetings with senior government bureaucrats and Eagles and Dockers executives. Those meetings will resume today.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/s...ose-to-deal-on-use-of-burswood-stadium/#page1

 

[wafti123]

Is that an academic philosophy or an acknowledgement of the economic reality of the AFL 2016 ?

I love Australian Rules. I just don't think taxpayers should sponsor something that the majority can't access as a participant. This includes stadiums. Just my thoughts.

The new stadium looks nice nonetheless.