Perth Stadium (Optus Stadium)
- Thread starter HaroCant
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I don't think you'd want to see it.
So catch a train. Parking is a problem at Subiaco though. Wilson Parking has effectively destroyed the shoppimg experience there.
That figure *was* leaked. And West Coast came out and said that they would be better off at Subi. Funnily enough, Freo have been a lot more quiet about it. Which is interesting because they've got more to lose.
That's not the problem of the AFL clubs. They only need the ground 22 days a year.
You reckon the Scorchers and Cricket Australia will be charged $1 million a day? So $5 million for a test match? Hell, the government are paying the ARU to play there. You can see why the 2 AFL clubs would be pissed given they're the ones that are going to fill the place. Never mind the restrictions that the government are trying to impose on the clubs usage.
FootyFan96
Senior List
Extracted from: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the...p/news-story/12de720f92b3ae0ba6995f5cd27b58be
"BEST VALUE AFL CLUB
11-game general admission membership adult — Essendon $170
11-game general admission membership family — Brisbane $390
11-game reserved seat membership adult — Essendon $245
11-game reserved seat membership family — Essendon $595
MOST EXPENSIVE AFL CLUB
11-game general admission membership adult — Adelaide $250
11-game general admission membership family — Adelaide $560
11-game reserved seat membership adult — West Coast $475
11-game reserved seat membership family — West Coast $1334"
*these are the cheapest seats
When you have the most expensive memberships and your price is nearly double the 2nd most expensive, I don't think there is a problem with a club being crippled. The only thing that would cripple the club is when the public are given more options to buy individual tickets and people decide not to take up a membership.
Which means that it becomes more affordable eventually for everyone. Remember WCE an Freo have the best stadium deal (maybe 2nd to Geelong) in Australia and have been getting away with it for too long. I'm not saying they have too pay it off but at least pay enough so it can be held to a high enough standard so it doesn't become as disgraceful as what the WAFC have let Subi become.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
What is the most expensive seat on the wing for an adult with no extra benefits. That should be the comparison + how many seats in that category for all 18 clubs.
That is the real issue with Subi's lack of supply - there are more of the expensive seats, not so much that the most expensive membership is so much more expensive than the other 16 clubs.
That is the real issue with Subi's lack of supply - there are more of the expensive seats, not so much that the most expensive membership is so much more expensive than the other 16 clubs.
LOL wut? Both WA clubs have arguably the *worst* stadium deal in Australia.
Dan Baker
Club Legend
FootyFan96
Senior List
They have a much higher rental bill than any other club. For what is arguably the worst stadium in the country.
On what possible grounds could anyone suggest that it's even remotely close to the best????
FootyFan96
Senior List
Found this at: http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=447
Its a few years old but I'm pretty sure none of the deals have changed.
WCE pay a bit more for rent because they have their HQ and training facilities there. But from a purely gameday perspective like Freo they get 3rd (not 2nd, my bad) best match returns of any club with Gold Coast and Geelong the only ones beating them because they run their own stadiums. Obviously not taking into account the venues where clubs sell home games too.
Perth3 will end up there
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
Football outgrew Subiaco because the government cheaped out with the stadium design.
Parking is irrelevent because we're all supposed to take public transport to the football - it's in the ticket price.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
I'm talking in the initial consultations, supposing they did do consultations.
I don't know how many cricket matches they will have at the stadium. If cricket is charged like the AFL then I cannot see many events at all.
As I said before, they should work out some pro-rata charge and try and try to accomodate as many events as possible.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
It'll be laughable if the only tenants at the new stadium are those being paid to play there.
There is no question that AFL sholuld pay to play at the new stadium but shouldn't everybody else ?
Shouldn't there just be a going rate that's across the board ?
What sport could afford to pay the rate that they're asking the AFL to pay ?
AT $! million per event, you're going to have an empty stadium - pure and simple.
If it comes to the worst , football can simply remain status quo. The government has to come down from it's high horse.
FootyFan96
Senior List
I don't get why everyone thinks its he government holding things up. The problem is that the AFL clubs, especially WCE, have been used to getting what they want, which is rooted from the WAFC. The clubs are most likely the ones holding up negotiations.
Yes the AFL will be the primary tenant but it doesn't mean they should be allowed to pay nothing to be there. The government would rather have an empty stadium then be losing money every time there is an AFL game there.
Also being the primary tenant means they are the events the stadium need to make money off. The logic some people have is that because there will be at least 22 games it doesn't matter if the stadium loses money off them. But that is incorrect, those are the days the stadium needs to make money on its own. Remember AFL games won't attract international coverage and most games here are only showed on FTA in Perth, especially with the new broadcast deal. The real money maker for the state are the big one-off events such as State of Origin, Bledisloe Cup, EPL club preseason games, International cricket.
So AFL and BBL make money for stadium for upkeep and upgrades, Big one-off events money and coverage maker for the state. Thats why the government needs to have a fair share as well.
Also no one is saying the stadium needs to pay itself off, it just needs to make sure it doesn't need to cost more in upkeep. So the $million is crap.
- Moderator
- #4,293
Not really. being able to claim all corporate/catering revenues from match days is a huge deal and more than makes up for the rent they pay to the WAFL...who pay bugger all rent. Those corporate hospitality revenues are worth almost as much as memberships to the clubs in WA. (seriously coprorate, advertising and functions revenue was 17 million in 2015 for WCE).
Only Geelong and Gold Coast can offer a better arrangement.
West Coast pay more than 4 million in rent - but they also use the stadium all year round. Victorian and SA clubs dont use The MCG/Docklands/Adelaide Oval for regular training or administration and rarely for non matchday events.
- Moderator
- #4,294
I think its actually the WAFC holding things up. I think the AFL clubs would go now if there was no increase to their rental terms, the problem as i see it is, the WAFC want that 7 million in annual rent still, and so the WA government stadium rent would be on top of that, leaving the WA AFL clubs with both a government AND WAFC charge to use the stadium.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
So we have a.more expensive stadium to run, a govt rent to pay as well, but everyone expects the same profit margins they had at subi?
is it JLT Community Series ready?
- Moderator
- #4,297
The WAFC has made it abundantly clear they expect no loss of revenue., as guaranteed by the Government.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...l/news-story/c54ce0962b74fcfee09c25c9ac1cebd3
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Isnt that like selling your Yaris for an A6 and being angry your paying more to drive the car?
That's got more to do with the ability of West Coast to generate that income than the quality of the stadium deal itself. Every other club would be incapable of generating that sort of of corporate income under the same circumstances.
Seriously, what would be the point of a club paying a heap for corporate space they can't sell?
They also don't pay anywhere near $4 million a year. Most other clubs 'rent' is forgoing space in the ground for MCC, AFL members, Medallion club, SANFL members, SCG members, etc. Other than the Adelaide clubs and perhaps the large Vic clubs in a good year, most of this space is seats that they couldn't sell anyway. This arrangement is especially generous to the smaller Victorian clubs, who avoid big rental bills and lose very little in matchday revenue as all that space would just be empty if they had to pay millions for the whole ground. A huge rental charge would send them broke, especially if it was for a stadium the quality of Subiaco and they continued to charge the cheap prices that they do.
There's a reason why clubs campaigned the league not to play at Optus Oval - a ground comparable in quality.
That table tells you little about the stadium deal itself. It doesn't even mention rent (I believe Geelong pay about $600k a year, the Suns about a million and a half).
West Coast and Fremantle get high match returns because they fill the ground whilst charging the highest prices in Australia. Virtually nothing to do with the stadium deal.
If they only half filled the ground and charged Victorian prices, the match returns would be horrible, yet the stadium deal wouldn't change at all to what it is now. Never mind that if some other clubs had the same deal they would be signficantly worse off than what they are now.
Last edited:
