the $problems at Etihad continue

[Bunk Moreland]

My understanding is that Geelong make a Shit load from the catering at Cardinia Park.
At Etihad and the G SOMEONE is making a shit load but I dont know who it is.

The stadiums themselves. They slug the operators astronomical rent to set up and sell their stuff.

Hence why you grab a beer and a pie and get little change out of $50.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The stadiums themselves. They slug the operators astronomical rent to set up and sell their stuff.

Hence why you grab a beer and a pie and get little change out of $50.

Hence why I no longer grab a pie and a beer at the footy.

One of the problems it seems to me is that the AFL's biggest priority is to maximise the television market for footy, yet the clubs priority is to maximise the live market.
Given that this is the case the suggestion that the AFL pay the rent for all clubs isnt so silly.
I know there are North Melbourne supporters all over the place up at Wagga, the AFL make money from them via the television deals. Pretty sure most of them dont get to the game.

 

[FoxC]

When 3/4 of our games are sunday twilight games live on foxtel against interstate clubs during a rebuild phase?

Carlton couldn't crack 20k in the same period.

Ultimately, moving up the ladder will improve our schedule and will improve the crowds.

Profitability is really having the right stadium suited for the size of your club. Us playing at a 55k stadium doesn't help our profitability, Geelong is just fortunate they can play games at their stadium, AFL has bent the rules by allowing them to sell memberships beyond the stadium's capacity and not following the ground equalisation policy which requires matches that would draw a crowd in excess of the capacity have to be shifted to a more suitable stadium.

Geelong should realistically not be allowed to sell more memberships than the capacity of their stadium or to host a game at Geelong against a Victorian club but it is these games which sell out all the reserved seating and all the corporate boxes which make Geelong a mint of money despite the crowd realistically being poor by comparison to a Collingwood or Essendon game.

Essendon should also pay their way at Docklands and not rely on being subsidised by smaller clubs.

Say WHAAAT? Possibly the most stupid things I've heard on BF.

If you and your fellow supporters get off your asses and attend your club's matches it wouldn't be in this sh*t.

 

[Goady138]

Say WHAAAT? Possibly the most stupid things I've heard on BF.

If you and your fellow supporters get off your asses and attend your club's matches it wouldn't be in this sh*t.

North could also choose to accept the very lucrative offers that have been put to them. 7 games in Tassie would have seen them through.

 

[Hawker55]

Was one of the terms of the new Hawks Tassie deal that it's a 'clean' stadium? ie we'll be getting similar margins to what Geelong/WCE/Freo get at their stadiums?

You'd hope that North also got that deal in Hobart as well - although I'm not hopeful.

 

[grimface_87]

Was one of the terms of the new Hawks Tassie deal that it's a 'clean' stadium? ie we'll be getting similar margins to what Geelong/WCE/Freo get at their stadiums?

You'd hope that North also got that deal in Hobart as well - although I'm not hopeful.

We do.

 

[peppy la pew]

When 3/4 of our games are sunday twilight games live on foxtel against interstate clubs during a rebuild phase?

Carlton couldn't crack 20k in the same period.

Ultimately, moving up the ladder will improve our schedule and will improve the crowds.

Profitability is really having the right stadium suited for the size of your club. Us playing at a 55k stadium doesn't help our profitability, Geelong is just fortunate they can play games at their stadium, AFL has bent the rules by allowing them to sell memberships beyond the stadium's capacity and not following the ground equalisation policy which requires matches that would draw a crowd in excess of the capacity have to be shifted to a more suitable stadium.

Geelong should realistically not be allowed to sell more memberships than the capacity of their stadium or to host a game at Geelong against a Victorian club but it is these games which sell out all the reserved seating and all the corporate boxes which make Geelong a mint of money despite the crowd realistically being poor by comparison to a Collingwood or Essendon game.

Essendon should also pay their way at Docklands and not rely on being subsidised by smaller clubs.

Massive victim mentality right there,

Stop blaming other clubs for showing initiative, and running a successful business model.

If Geelong sell more membership packages than seating allows, then good luck to Geelong. It means they are a popular brand.

They don't rely on other clubs' fan base to buy Geelong memberships, out of pity.

 

[Munro_Mick]

It’s the AFL’s fault – they wanted a shiny new stadium to replace Waverley, but couldn’t afford to pay for it. So private investment was required, and now the clubs are repaying those investors.

To add insult to the situation, whenever there’s public debate about the issue, THE AFL are out there pulling the heartstrings about broke clubs and how the big bad investors at Etihad are bleeding the peoples’ clubs dry. The investors who simply want the return on their money that they were promised. But supposedly it’s their fault because the ********s downstairs at the AFL have buyer’s remorse.

Clubs should be fully reimbursed by the AFL (I believe they are to some extent) – the league wanted the stadium, the clubs are paying for it.

I’m generally not as critical of the AFL administration as some, but on this issue their behaviour has been and continues to be ****ing disgraceful.

the way I've seen it is that it wasn't so much the AFL chasing a shiney new stadium. In the mid '90s, Victoria was pretty well broke. Kennett was selling everything - but, wanted to kick off a 'Docklands' precinct urban renewal project. But, they needed a lure. The initial plans were looking at a rectangular stadium - but, with no Govt funds - it was reliant on generating private investment. There was none.

Graeme Samual had a bit of a 'conflict of interest', but, was able to bring the AFL to the table - and that in turn attracted investors. The AFL stumped up $30 mill up front to buy the rights to outright ownership after 25 years. However, along the way, they have deals in place for X number of games, and YYYY patronage.

Would the current admin have signed the deals that are in place?? dunno.

It's been suggested though that the AFL future fund is being built for an early buy out.

I gather for Docklands, it cost about $450-460 million, and there was zero Govt cash - but, Govt provided the land. The AFL will in 2025 take full 100% ownership of land, stadium and management rights. And early buy out would be short term costly, but, would provide an ongoing licence to print money.

The MCG as well, puts a combined tally of over $1 billion of stadia infrastructure (given MCG completed rebuild since 1990). Effectively all funded by the AFL (of the about $576 mill at the 'G, $77 mill was Govt - the rest MCC debt which is underpinned by AFL revenues and payments). It's still astounding that the AFL get's so little financial assistance in it's home state - oh, a little here and there for a training venue upgrade, but, those venues are all council owned anyway and co-funded by AFL and clubs.

Compare the Govt investment in AFL stadia outside of Vic (such as Gold Coast, Adelaide, Gabba), and compare to Govt investment in Vic (such as Rectangular stadium).

There's a massive gap - and back during the WC bid it was clear how many people mistakenly believe the MCG to be 'publicly' funded.

 

[Pessimistic]

etihad stadium 50,000 cap built in 1999 for $460m

metricon stadium 20,000 cap built in 2010 for $160m

even not taking into account inflation thats three times the price
How much of the $460 went to equipt the place to hold rectangualr spoerts and concerts - for which it doesnt really work - eg the socceroos still play the MCG, and acts prefer several shows at tennis center to one show at etihad


Vision back in 199 would have built a 25,000 afl stadium at docklands, another similar one at waverley and a soccer one at olympic park, which would have meant MORE savings with no need for the current AAMI park

Sale of waverely lans around stadium would have helped fund stadium

moderate update to princess park and you have 3 local grounds for crowds up to 25,000, (plus geelong of cournse) all the bigger games at the MCG, whch can accomodate 3 per weekend = 66 over a season or 6 per victorian club

logical groupings for the vic clubs for smaller grounds would be - Haw-StK-mel at waverley coll carl rich at PP and ess wb Nth at docklands

 

[Hill2Pav]

So if the Saints had played their games at the MCG and achieved the same crowds they would have earnt $4.9 million for the year, versus the $1.9 million they achieved at Eithad.

The question is, what is the $3 million or $210,000 per game difference being used for and by whom? The owners of the stadium to get a return on their money, and/or is being used by the owners as payment towards handing the ground to the AFL in 2025?

 

[Silent Alarm]

When does the AFL take over Etihad?

And what ever happened to those whispers about an return to Optus Oval? Did it just die through a realisation of "hey, this would cost too much"?

 

[neroblack]

etihad stadium 50,000 cap built in 1999 for $460m

metricon stadium 20,000 cap built in 2010 for $160m

even not taking into account inflation thats three times the price
How much of the $460 went to equipt the place to hold rectangualr spoerts and concerts - for which it doesnt really work - eg the socceroos still play the MCG, and acts prefer several shows at tennis center to one show at etihad


Vision back in 199 would have built a 25,000 afl stadium at docklands, another similar one at waverley and a soccer one at olympic park, which would have meant MORE savings with no need for the current AAMI park

Sale of waverely lans around stadium would have helped fund stadium

moderate update to princess park and you have 3 local grounds for crowds up to 25,000, (plus geelong of cournse) all the bigger games at the MCG, whch can accomodate 3 per weekend = 66 over a season or 6 per victorian club

logical groupings for the vic clubs for smaller grounds would be - Haw-StK-mel at waverley coll carl rich at PP and ess wb Nth at docklands

I'm guessing you mean we'd just train at princes park then?

 

[neroblack]

So if the Saints had played their games at the MCG and achieved the same crowds they would have earnt $4.9 million for the year, versus the $1.9 million they achieved at Eithad.

The question is, what is the $3 million or $210,000 per game difference being used for and by whom? The owners of the stadium to get a return on their money, and/or is being used by the owners as payment towards handing the ground to the AFL in 2025?

Etihad Stadium have shareholders they need to keep satisfied. That makes any kind of deal that you be acceptable to the clubs close to impossible unless the AFL come to the rescue prior to 2025 (my understanding anyway!).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

the way I've seen it is that it wasn't so much the AFL chasing a shiney new stadium. In the mid '90s, Victoria was pretty well broke. Kennett was selling everything - but, wanted to kick off a 'Docklands' precinct urban renewal project. But, they needed a lure. The initial plans were looking at a rectangular stadium - but, with no Govt funds - it was reliant on generating private investment. There was none.

Graeme Samual had a bit of a 'conflict of interest', but, was able to bring the AFL to the table - and that in turn attracted investors. The AFL stumped up $30 mill up front to buy the rights to outright ownership after 25 years. However, along the way, they have deals in place for X number of games, and YYYY patronage.

Would the current admin have signed the deals that are in place?? dunno.

It's been suggested though that the AFL future fund is being built for an early buy out.

I gather for Docklands, it cost about $450-460 million, and there was zero Govt cash - but, Govt provided the land. The AFL will in 2025 take full 100% ownership of land, stadium and management rights. And early buy out would be short term costly, but, would provide an ongoing licence to print money.

The MCG as well, puts a combined tally of over $1 billion of stadia infrastructure (given MCG completed rebuild since 1990). Effectively all funded by the AFL (of the about $576 mill at the 'G, $77 mill was Govt - the rest MCC debt which is underpinned by AFL revenues and payments). It's still astounding that the AFL get's so little financial assistance in it's home state - oh, a little here and there for a training venue upgrade, but, those venues are all council owned anyway and co-funded by AFL and clubs.

Compare the Govt investment in AFL stadia outside of Vic (such as Gold Coast, Adelaide, Gabba), and compare to Govt investment in Vic (such as Rectangular stadium).

There's a massive gap - and back during the WC bid it was clear how many people mistakenly believe the MCG to be 'publicly' funded.

Good point, an early buyout now would cost more than 14 years profit , but every year it will get cheaper.
Given that the AFL is having to give handouts to the clubs, at some point it will be worthwhile to do it.

 

[Hill2Pav]

Etihad Stadium have shareholders they need to keep satisfied. That makes any kind of deal that you be acceptable to the clubs close to impossible unless the AFL come to the rescue prior to 2025 (my understanding anyway!).

Yep pretty much.

Here is a perfect example of the differences;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...laying-at-etihad/story-e6frg7mf-1226130915492

Two years ago against the Cats, the Saints made $156,264 at Etihad in front of a crowd of 54,444.

A year later at the MCG, the match attracted 58,208 and the Saints received $497,868.

 

[The_Reaper]

Would Port be dead if they played at Etihad?

They'd be better off because it's a better deal than they get at AAMI.

 

[Scotland]

^ my understanding is that Essendon cut a deal to take a small slice of everything at Etihad (being the first to move there).

However, the stadium deal at Etihad is less of an issue because of their larger membership base and the fact that they get scheduled to play some blockbuster Home games at the MCG (netting them a good return)

If North Melbourne had an identical stadium deal to Essendon would North Melbourne supporters be happy? I imagine not.

 

[SkittleCats]

Geelong should realistically not be allowed to sell more memberships than the capacity of their stadium or to host a game at Geelong against a Victorian club but it is these games which sell out all the reserved seating and all the corporate boxes which make Geelong a mint of money despite the crowd realistically being poor by comparison to a Collingwood or Essendon game.

Geelong should be playing 11+ home games at KP a year. It's our home ground and we should be playing everyone there and making so much money that we realistically couldn't spend it all. See thats the advantage of having a real home ground...

You can blame the AFL all you want but at the end of the day your club cant find members and it cant get people to attend your games, stop trying to argue that other clubs should be brought down to your clubs level. Something is really wrong when the only argument clubs in Norths position can mount is "screw over the successful clubs so we can survive". 10 years ago we were in a pretty shitty position too and we made some tough choices at the time to set up where we are today. Mainly committing to playing home games at KP rather than moving the majority to Melbourne.

Also id be surprised if there was many "corporate boxes" at KP and if those that are there make Geelong a heap of cash, and also the "reserved seating" you speak of is pretty much all sold at the start of the year to you know...supporters (people who turn up to games to watch there team play, in case you weren't sure what that term meant down at North). They turn up to watch whether we play a Victorian club or a non-Victorian club, cause the players deserve our support at games, not silence in the stands.

 

[Hill2Pav]

Geelong should be playing 11+ home games at KP a year. It's our home ground and we should be playing everyone there and making so much money that we realistically couldn't spend it all. See thats the advantage of having a real home ground...

You can blame the AFL all you want but at the end of the day your club cant find members and it cant get people to attend your games, stop trying to argue that other clubs should be brought down to your clubs level. Something is really wrong when the only argument clubs in Norths position can mount is "screw over the successful clubs so we can survive". 10 years ago we were in a pretty shitty position too and we made some tough choices at the time to set up where we are today. Mainly committing to playing home games at KP rather than moving the majority to Melbourne.

Also id be surprised if there was many "corporate boxes" at KP and if those that are there make Geelong a heap of cash, and also the "reserved seating" you speak of is pretty much all sold at the start of the year to you know...supporters (people who turn up to games to watch there team play, in case you weren't sure what that term meant down at North). They turn up to watch whether we play a Victorian club or a non-Victorian club, cause the players deserve our support at games, not silence in the stands.

Piad for by taxpayers.

 

[Scotland]

Yep pretty much.

Here is a perfect example of the differences;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...laying-at-etihad/story-e6frg7mf-1226130915492

Two years ago against the Cats, the Saints made $156,264 at Etihad in front of a crowd of 54,444.

A year later at the MCG, the match attracted 58,208 and the Saints received $497,868.

Interesting comparison, but attendance figures alone don't tell the full story.

If West Coast draw 40,000 to a game at Subiaco they'll make more than North Melbourne if they draw 40,000 to a game at Etihad Stadium or the MCG because our crowd will be made up of 39,500 season ticket holders paying $40+ a head.

Walk up starts paying $20 a head, AFL members, opposition members etc. put bums on seats but they don't provide the financial windfall of home season ticket holders.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Geelong should be playing 11+ home games at KP a year. It's our home ground and we should be playing everyone there and making so much money that we realistically couldn't spend it all. See thats the advantage of having a real home ground...

You can blame the AFL all you want but at the end of the day your club cant find members and it cant get people to attend your games, stop trying to argue that other clubs should be brought down to your clubs level. Something is really wrong when the only argument clubs in Norths position can mount is "screw over the successful clubs so we can survive". 10 years ago we were in a pretty shitty position too and we made some tough choices at the time to set up where we are today. Mainly committing to playing home games at KP rather than moving the majority to Melbourne.

Also id be surprised if there was many "corporate boxes" at KP and if those that are there make Geelong a heap of cash, and also the "reserved seating" you speak of is pretty much all sold at the start of the year to you know...supporters (people who turn up to games to watch there team play, in case you weren't sure what that term meant down at North). They turn up to watch whether we play a Victorian club or a non-Victorian club, cause the players deserve our support at games, not silence in the stands.

Oh arent Geelong just so clever. I suppose they buil/paid for that Stadium too.

 

[MarkT2]

Etihad has higher operating costs than Skilled which is understandable given it's location, age and facilities. It is not a reasonable comparrison, made more so by Geelong's success and ability to fill their ground regardless of opponent. Nor is it reasonable to compare a full MCG return to Etihad if you can't fill it.

The correct comparrison would be to a version of Skilled located in Melbourne - eg Carlton's ground. I don't know what the break even crowd was or would be there but there were nothing but complaints about it when it was utilsed and even Carlton left it behind. Of course it is expensive to use a privately owned, modern stadium with a roof. It also allows higher crowds in the depths of winter against opponents few care about - and therein lies one of the issues. Clubs like Port are a bigger iisue than their lack of home crowd indicate. They don't just lose their won money they lose North Melbourne's. The same in reverse.

I am quite sure that the deal done by Wayne Jackson had a mind to cull Melbourne Clubs and in view of that the deal was renegotiated recently. On top of that the AFL distribute funds to partly account for what is in reality financial issues born of lower drawing capacity which is what all the issues that are complained about stem from.

 

[Hill2Pav]

Interesting comparison, but attendance figures alone don't tell the full story.

If West Coast draw 40,000 to a game at Subiaco they'll make more than North Melbourne if they draw 40,000 to a game at Etihad Stadium or the MCG because our crowd will be made up of 39,500 season ticket holders paying $40+ a head.

Walk up starts paying $20 a head, AFL members, opposition members etc. put bums on seats but they don't provide the financial windfall of home season ticket holders.

Thats correct, you have to also allow for items such as 90% of revenue generated at Subi is kept by Freo and the Eagles, whilst the figure is closer to 35-40% at Docklands for the Eithad tenant clubs. Rent paid by some clubs verus nil rent versus others, the break even point for each ground etc.

 

[MarkT2]

So if the Saints had played their games at the MCG and achieved the same crowds they would have earnt $4.9 million for the year, versus the $1.9 million they achieved at Eithad.

I suspect that is about as accurate as saying playing at the same venue as Essendon earns them the same amount as Essendon. St Kilda wouldn't get, for instance, Collingwoods MCG deal just like they don't get Essendon's Docklands deal.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Could North Melbourne raise ticket prices?