They can stick that levy up their...

[CJH]

An article in this morning's Herald Sun states that the AFL wish to charge a $2 levy on all adult patrons - inclusive of MCC and AFL members, Corporates and General Admission - who attend games at the MCG.

The reasoning for this is that the AFL wish for the fans to partly fund the offer made to the MCC to grant access rights for the broadcasters.

The MCC have rejected this offer - quite rightly - on the basis that it is unfair to the patrons attending the games.

Wayne Jackson is quoted as saying that the payment of 'access' rights will be used as a 'development' fee for the construction of the new Northern Stand and therefore is not related to broadcasting rights.

To rephrase, Jackson logic goes like: We will not pay access rights fee but will instead call it a 'development' fund. Therefore, since the payment is now not linked to broadcast rights, the AFL have no obligation to fund it out of money generated through the sale of these TV rights. Oh please, this is insulting to our intelligence!

This is an unacceptable abuse of the goodwill of all football patrons and should not be allowed to proceed. The AFL is in the midst of procuring TV rights for the next 5 years and surely could negotiate for the TV rights to include payment to ground owners to cover access rights.

If the owners then choose to use this revenue to fund developments such as a new Northern Stand then that is their prerogative.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

[This message has been edited by CJH (edited 18 November 2000).]

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Hey CJH mate,
there bastards arn't they?
Money-grubbing pigs...

------------------
"Collingwood forever"

 

[Mags]

I was reading this last nite! And i was pissed off as hell!
Wayne Jackson u gready gready thucking sa c word! If i was your boss u wouldnt even have a thucking job!

How much more money are u going to try get out of us true afl/vfl fans?

**** I hate the Afl!

Mags

 

[Tom FC]

What the AFL are doing is basically destroying the MCG's reputation in order to pay their contribution to the new developments.
Fans already pay this levy de facto to the MCC. The AFL are shirking their responsibilities in the most underhanded way imaginable.

 

[lioness]

Instead of driving people away by hiking up the prices, why don't they just set up a fund where people can make voluntary donations to assist with the re-development..........ummm no wait, that's too easy, they would never go for it

 

[Mr Ripper]

Tom FC states:
The AFL are shirking their responsibilities in the most underhanded way imaginable.

The AFL, underhand? Never!

 

[lioness]

So come ON mags, let's get your league up and running and then we won't have topics like this one to bitch about lol

 

[Mags]

I need money to get it up and going!

The abc will get the tv rigths too! NO LEVY CRAP EITHER!

 

[Dan26]

CJH,

I'm with you on this, but I would like to get your opinion, on something.

The AFL says that the 4 million access fee that has to be paid, will be paid through this $2 levy. Now, the AFL will soon be getting 100 million from TV rights, correct ? The AFL also say they won't pay the 4 million is one lump sum out of this 100 million, because effectively, the MCC are then getting 4 million of the 100 million from broadcasting rights. The AFL say, that the MCC shouldn't get part of the broadcasting rights, because that is all for the AFL. Why should the MCC get 4 million of the 100 million. It's the AFL's money. That's the AFL's logic.

What are your thought's on that ? I've got my thought's, but I want to hear yours first.

 

[Maggie (Magpie) Greg]

I think the levy on all footy supporters sho go to the MCG is a great idea.

Just think, every time a Bomber or Blues or Tiger supporter pays the levy, they are helping build Collingwoods new social club in the new Northern Stand.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[Same Old's]

That's reason enough not to go to the MCG again.

 

[lioness]

wooooohooooooo mags, the ABC!!!!!! What commentators do they have though????

hehehehe

 

[CJH]

Dan,

I believe that the AFL are posturing themselves in this manner in order to limit their potential liability.

As we know, recently Carlton took the AFL to court to seek judgement on whether the ground owner retains and subsequently is able to sell the 'access rights' to the relevant broadcaster. Apparently this was settled out of court with the details remaining undisclosed. I believe the AFL took this course because they knew there was a very real chance that they would lose.

If the AFL pay a 'development' fee to the MCG Trust instead of an 'access rights' fee they have effectively limited their liability. This is because if they did pay the 'access rights' fee to the MCG Trust, all other grounds would be putting their hands out saying "me too!". This would expose the AFL to quite a significant payout when considering the Gabba, SCG, Colonial (?), Kardinia Park, Football Park, Subiaco, Manuka Oval and York Park.

If you take $4,000,000 as being the figure per year at the MCG and if you have 48 games being played their next year (43 H&A, 4 finals and 1 Ansett Cup match), this will equate to about $83,333 per game 'access rights' fees. The AFL could not afford this overhead for every game played at the above listed venues.

None of this reasons should detract from my opinion that the AFL should not be slugging the average punter for this sum of money.

Reasons for this are:

• The AFL are coming off a disastrous year in terms of Public Relations and Operations. Attendances are falling and public sentiment is stormy. Imposing a levy upon the patrons would do nothing but make the public even more angry.
• I don't see why this is the AFL's problem in the first place. The crux of the problem is that that AFL do not have the right to dictate which broadcaster is allowed to enter the stadia; This belongs to the respective owners. Why doesn't the broadcasting body that purchases the TV rights then negiotiate directly with the relevant stadia management?
• The AFL is in a postion to either negotiate or facilitate a resolution to this problem. Previously the stadia have made their money through retaining advertising space withing the relavant stadium. With the advance in technology, it is now possible for the broadcaster to overlay this advertising with a digital image for their own sponsor. Now the AFL could make it a condition of the TV rights that the advertising space of the stadium owners be preserved, thus enabling income to be generated in this manner.

It is because of this last point that the whole mess began. A few years back, Australia played New Zealand in a Bledisloe Cup fixture. The network that was going to broadcast back to New Zealand (Sky?) were planning to overlay the signage at the 'G with their own digital versions. The MCG Trust stepped in and prevented this network from accessing the stadium.

If protecting the stadia advertising space is unworkable - the TV Broadcaster will be paying a fortune in rights and needs to maximise it's own advertising dollar in order to profit - then it still should be up to the owners and the broadcaster to come to some arrangement.

It is unfair to slug the patron of the stadium as the consumer of the TV broadcast is the lug sitting at home watching it on telly, not the individuals who actually attend. Instead their needs to be a means to levy the couch potato, and this cost should be born by the broadcaster who then pays directly onto the stadium.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[Mags]

Ah The Mcc Are C words! There even worse then the afl!

I HATE THE MCC!

 

[Olmy]

Originally posted by lioness22:
Instead of driving people away by hiking up the prices, why don't they just set up a fund where people can make voluntary donations to assist with the re-development..........ummm no wait, that's too easy, they would never go for it

The only thing that people would possibly volunteer their services to the AFL for, is to shut the entire scummy institution down!

Reverse the Crawford Report!!!

 

[Mags]

Im already trying to shut the scummy place down!

Any ideas are greatfull!

 

[walshy1993]

i dont see the problem with it
its to finance the new stand and to improve the ground

no different to paying tolls to finance a new improved freeway

simple as this, dont like it dont go to the footy

 

[Dan26]

Walshy,

If someone owns a house, and they have tenants in that house, who pay rent, the tenants don't have to pay for a house extension, do they? The owner pays for it.

The owner of that house could be living elsewhere, but if the owner decidesto add a pool, or an extra room to the house, the OWNER pays for it.

 

[Dan26]

CJH,

Can you explain something to me about this. It seems to me, this access rights fee has to be paid by Channel 7 to the MCC.

If a cricket match is taking place at the MCG, then channel 9 would have to pay this access fee.

Can you explain why the AFL themselves are involved ? Why were they involved in the legal wrangle with Carlton when the issue was that the broadcaster (channel 7) would have to pay an access fee to the owners of Optus Oval.

I'm a bit confused as to the AFL's role.

 

[James2]

Dan,

It's pretty simple.

I think you're right regarding the broadcaster paying the access fee, although I'm not sure.

The AFL's role can be explained like this:

1) The AFL has a contract with Channel X to broadcast AFL games.

2) If the MCG or Optus Oval refuse the broadcaster access to the ground, the state of the broadcasting contract would be up for dispute. Channel X could (although unlikely) discharge the contract, leaving the AFL with zip and a healthy legal bill!!

3) If the broadcaster were denied access to the MCG, the value of the broadcast rights would be compromised, as all the so-called blockbusters are played at the MCG, including the Grand Final. This would influence what a prospective broadcaster would be willing to pay. It is unlikely that Channel X would pay $100 million if they could not broadcast the "big games."

I think this explains the AFL's proactive role in the dispute.

You point regarding Channel 9 and the cricket is an interesting one.

As far as I know, channel nine don't pay an access fee (7 aren't at the moment) nor are they likely to. Football rakes in far more dough for the MCC then cricket ever will.

Hope that helps???

[This message has been edited by James2 (edited 20 November 2000).]

[This message has been edited by James2 (edited 20 November 2000).]

 

[CJH]

Initially posted by James2:
2) If the MCG or Optus Oval refuse the broadcaster access to the ground, the state of the broadcasting contract would be up for dispute. Channel X could (although unlikely) discharge the contract, leaving the AFL with zip and a healthy legal bill!!

James, I think this would be the other way around. If the broadcaster was denied access I think it would be them that are in default of the contract and liable for penalty (even though this was beyond their control).

I agree with what you say about the value of the TV rights being diminished - this intangible asset, really just an intellectual contruct, is the single biggest asset the AFL have to sell. It really is a beautiful thing - a vague concept that you 'sell' for an obscene amount of money and then resell again in 5 years time for an even more obscene amount of money. The AFL must do all they can to protect the quality of their asset.

Originally quoted by Dan24:
Can you explain why the AFL themselves are involved ? Why were they involved in the legal wrangle with Carlton when the issue was that the broadcaster (channel 7) would have to pay an access fee to the owners of Optus Oval.

I'm a bit confused as to the AFL's role.

I can only come up with one reason further to James' comments.

Five years ago when the last set of TV rights were sold, this concept of 'access rights' was unheard of. It is only with the advent of digital imaging that one of the stadium owners revenue streams - advertising signage - has been threatened.

With the sale of the previous set of TV rights, the concept of 'access rights' may have also been implicitly sold with them as well (notwithstanding that the concept probably didn't exist then!). This implicit act may actually make the AFL liable - they have sold something that they had absolutely no right to.

I have more thoughts on this topic, but I don't wish for the discussion to get ahead of itself yet.

Dan, you mentioned that you too had some thoughts on this topic. I am waiting with bated breath for them.




------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[James2]

CJH,

In regard to your response to my second point:

The contract would be frustrated. Frustration is a legal "excuse" for non-performance. Basically, frustration describes a situation where an event occurs (without the fault of either party) which significantly changes the nature of the outstanding contractual rights and obligations.

In layman's terms, channel X has a contract to be the SOLE broadcaster of the football. If the MCG refuses access to channel X and, instead negotiates its own deal ( the interveining event), then channel X would no longer be the sole broadcaster. Therefore the outstanding contractual rights and obligations would be changed.

Frustration discharges both parties form their obligations- the broadcasting contract would no longer exist. The AFL would need to renogotiate a new deal, which (unless the MCC and AFL cut a deal regarding access), would be worth nothing like $100 million. Who would pay that much to broadcast the football, if they couldn't televise the finals and grandfinal?

 

[CJH]

Point taken James.

I did a contract law subject about 12 years ago at RMIT and should have known about frustration; sadly I had forgotten most of it!

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[CJH]

FYI

From the Herald Sun, 21 Nov 2000, p11

"THE AFL will today tell TV networks the timetable for bidding for its broadcast rights.

Seven bosses will meet the AFL to be told of the timing of the final tender process for the broadcast rights.

MCC and MCG Trust chiefs meanwhile met network bosses in Sydney yesterday to discuss access rights to the MCG.

MCG chief executive officer Stephen Gough, MCG board chairman John Wylie and MCC president Bruce Church said last Friday they were frustrated at being shut out of the TV negotiations by the AFL.

They were also concerned the AFL appeared to be close to awarding the new rights while it had not settled the broadcast access dispute with the MCC.

Despite speculation about bids, no network has formally made an offer to the AFL for the next broadcast rights.

Channel Nine has told the AFL it will bid for the total rights package -- free to air, pay-TV and Internet -- in partnership with Channel Ten, Foxtel and Telstra. The package is said to be worth $80 million a year.

The tender process requires Seven to make its first formal presentation and offer for the rights. Other bidders will then make their counter offers."

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[CJH]

Dan???

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.