Victorian Government Stadium Funding Agreement details

[barrackers]

Caroline Wilson's take

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/in...al-for-the-next-40-years-20180413-p4z9jq.html

The deal that has secured the occasionally fraught and historically turbulent relationship between the AFL and the MCG for the next four decades was born out of a meeting one year ago in Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ office at No. 1 Treasury Place, just a five-minute stroll from the home of football.

League CEO Gillon McLachlan, MCG bosses Steven Smith and Stuart Fox and Collingwood president Eddie McGuire began the conversation with the Premier who was then considering a $300 million AFL request for funding to rebuild the relatively shabby Etihad Stadium and its Docklands surroundings.

The elephant in the room was football’s historic home and its long-term future. The unspoken position of Melbourne Cricket Club chairman Smith and his new CEO Stuart Fox was that the government couldn’t possibly consider a massive funding package for the AFL-owned Etihad without involving the MCG in the deal.
McGuire, a close confidant of Andrews, had unwittingly or otherwise proved the stalking horse for the AFL, putting forward an unfeasible but headline-grabbing alternative for a third stadium. As a key MCG tenant he played an influential role in setting up the dialogue.

What followed was 12 months of negotiations between McLachlan, Fox and Andrews’ key negotiator Justin Hanney. While McLachlan could not proceed with redeveloping Etihad, moving the AFL’s headquarters and capitalising on his political love child, the AFL Women’s, he was unwilling initially to grant the MCG grand finals on a long-term basis.

But the MCG returned serve with an offer of about $8 million each year for its tenant clubs, roughly guaranteeing an extra $170,000 for each tenant club and every home. Having traded away a guaranteed preliminary final, the MCG bosses demanded long-term grand final security. McLachlan, knowing any alternative was unfeasible, agreed.

The only Victorian clubs overlooked in the complex multi-stadium deal were Essendon, whose government submission came in late, North Melbourne and Richmond. Hawthorn, which spent much of 2017 in an administrative black hole and is still finalising plans for its new Dingley home, did not apply.

The Andrews government decision proved bitter-sweet for Richmond. Although the new MCG deal is worth an extra $2 million annually to the Tigers, CEO Brendon Gale said he was ‘‘shocked and deeply disappointed’’ to learn their submission to upgrade their sporting, community and Indigenous education facility at an overcrowded and under-resourced Punt Road Oval as well as providing facilities for their forthcoming AFL Women’s team was rejected.

 

[Fizzler]

An equal roofline at the MCG is probably Part 1 of having a complete roof on top of the G.
And if/when they build a complete roof I am curious to see if they’ll be able to redevelop it again. Etihad will probably never be able to be redeveloped and when it gets into a bad state, what will they do? Bulldoze it and rebuild? That’s what I don’t like contiguous structures for stadiums. The MCG is fine because it’s in 2 parts that get developed about 20 years apart.

 

[Kwality]

The $225M revamp of etihad includes renewal of the area around etihad, much of it not AFL assets presumably, and improving the convertability for rectangular sports and contractual requirement to "open it up" for those sports. It also appears to have come with a further agreement with the MCC which has locked the GF there for a further 20 years

The AFL is apparently worth $3B a year to Victoria and immeasurable social and cultural value. It is root and branch a no for profit as are its clubs of which there are 10 Victorian ones ranging from 115 to 160 years old. The AFL contributes tens of millions annually to grass roots, pathways and community facilities each year in Victoria

The Grand Prix, alternatively, apparently costs the Vic government net $50M a year as a point of comparison. A three day event once a year that is owned by a foreign private entity that we have to rebid for periodically. Major events Victoria has handed 10s of millions to private foreign soccer clubs and promoters over the last few years to play at the MCG which was largely built off the AFL's back

Presumably the loan offer is available to community clubs that otherwise don't successfully qualify for grants. In effect, these would in effect be like lease increases where the interest costs and most of the risk will be born by the government

Anyway, I suspect you are committed to your misinformed hand wringing so I'll leave you too

Did the AFL prepare a business case for this deal you think, no doubt about the V in AFL benefits, just wondering about the A?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Did the AFL prepare a business case for this deal you think, no doubt about the V in AFL benefits, just wondering about the A?

the AFL hosts 50 odd games a year at the MCG (over 1/4 of all games in the AFL), controls a quarter of its seating (all in the GSS), and a chunk of the corporate spaces. its in the financial interests of the AFL to ensure the MCG - especially the GSS - is kept up to a standard that meets corp expectations and the quality needed to keep punters preferring it to TV

if the afl is pushing this, it has two options. provide the coin needed for the changes, or guarantee the income streams so the govt/mcc take the risk themselves. with games maxed out, the pies deal, and minimal other offers available, GF rights are its best card

 

[Kwality]

the AFL hosts 50 odd games a year at the MCG (over 1/4 of all games in the AFL), controls a quarter of its seating (all in the GSS), and a chunk of the corporate spaces. its in the financial interests of the AFL to ensure the MCG - especially the GSS - is kept up to a standard that meets corp expectations and the quality needed to keep punters preferring it to TV

if the afl is pushing this, it has two options. provide the coin needed for the changes, or guarantee the income streams so the govt/mcc take the risk themselves. with games maxed out, the pies deal, and minimal other offers available, GF rights are its best card

Not arguing with any of your points, just like some assurance this wasnt friends & relo's acting in their own self interest, remember this: if you're not living in Sydney, you're camping out"

We've got Gil acting in concert with the MCC in this deal, bit hard to believe he was interested in the fans outside Vic, even though he did seem to acknowledge home ground advantage on GF day.

 

[The_Wookie]

Not arguing with any of your points, just like some assurance this wasnt friends & relo's acting in their own self interest, remember this: if you're not living in Sydney, you're camping out"

We've got Gil acting in concert with the MCC in this deal, bit hard to believe he was interested in the fans outside Vic, even though he did seem to acknowledge home ground advantage on GF day.

AFL distributions to clubs and state bodies are only partly derived from TV rights. A large part of AFL revenue will come from the operation of Etihad and the 30% of revenue it directly recieves from the MCC for footballl events at the ground (not club revenue) + 60,000 AFL members.

Remember any deal has to be approved by the Commission, not just Gil acting as an island. Theres a number of non vics on that Commission these days, not least being the Chairman.

 

[Kwality]

AFL distributions to clubs and state bodies are only partly derived from TV rights. A large part of AFL revenue will come from the operation of Etihad and the 30% of revenue it directly recieves from the MCC for footballl events at the ground (not club revenue) + 60,000 AFL members.

Remember any deal has to be approved by the Commission, not just Gil acting as an island. Theres a number of non vics on that Commission these days, not least being the Chairman.

No argument, still how the A in AFL benefit remains unexplained & should be addressed, if not by Gil certainly by Richard Goyder.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not arguing with any of your points, just like some assurance this wasnt friends & relo's acting in their own self interest, remember this: if you're not living in Sydney, you're camping out"

We've got Gil acting in concert with the MCC in this deal, bit hard to believe he was interested in the fans outside Vic, even though he did seem to acknowledge home ground advantage on GF day.

thats where we have to trust the governance practices of the commission. they are there to represent all clubs and the "A"

remember this is an afl that is sending tens of millions a year right now into GC/GWS, and has been funding a massive expansion of school age footy north of vic. if it was all about victoria, that s**t would have been killed years ago

 

[Kwality]

thats where we have to trust the governance practices of the commission. they are there to represent all clubs and the "A"

remember this is an afl that is sending tens of millions a year right now into GC/GWS, and has been funding a massive expansion of school age footy north of vic. if it was all about victoria, that s**t would have been killed years ago

All good, just time the non V in AFL was evaluated given the overly generous locking up of the GF for 40 years. Check out the opportunity available when back door deals are the norm & why scrutiny needs to be applied so we all know there arent sweetheart deals.

Caros article in the Fairfax press opens with:
The deal that has secured the occasionally fraught and historically turbulent relationship between the AFL and the MCG for the next four decades was born out of a meeting one year ago in Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ office at No. 1 Treasury Place, just a five-minute stroll from the home of football.

League CEO Gillon McLachlan, MCG bosses Steven Smith and Stuart Fox and Collingwood president Eddie McGuire began the conversation with the Premier who was then considering a $300 million AFL request for funding to rebuild the relatively shabby Etihad Stadium and its Docklands surroundings.

The elephant in the room was football’s historic home and its long-term future. The unspoken position of Melbourne Cricket Club chairman Smith and his new CEO Stuart Fox was that the government couldn’t possibly consider a massive funding package for the AFL-owned Etihad without involving the MCG in the deal.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...al-for-the-next-40-years-20180413-p4z9jq.html

 

[Ned_Flanders]

All good, just time the non V in AFL was evaluated given the overly generous locking up of the GF for 40 years. Check out the opportunity available when back door deals are the norm & why scrutiny needs to be applied so we all know there arent sweetheart deals.

Caros article in the Fairfax press opens with:
The deal that has secured the occasionally fraught and historically turbulent relationship between the AFL and the MCG for the next four decades was born out of a meeting one year ago in Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ office at No. 1 Treasury Place, just a five-minute stroll from the home of football.

League CEO Gillon McLachlan, MCG bosses Steven Smith and Stuart Fox and Collingwood president Eddie McGuire began the conversation with the Premier who was then considering a $300 million AFL request for funding to rebuild the relatively shabby Etihad Stadium and its Docklands surroundings.

The elephant in the room was football’s historic home and its long-term future. The unspoken position of Melbourne Cricket Club chairman Smith and his new CEO Stuart Fox was that the government couldn’t possibly consider a massive funding package for the AFL-owned Etihad without involving the MCG in the deal.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...al-for-the-next-40-years-20180413-p4z9jq.html

your point?

I get youre western australian, so you dont get this, but this sport is a religion in this town. IMO any govt here that saw the GF leave Melbourne would be defeated. It would be uglier than if Melbourne Cup was made a work day.

This means the vic govt would be up to its eyeballs in this issue. Just as it was when Sydney tried to get the rights for the grand prix, and the Australian Open, and the Boxing Day Test. Do you think the govt should have done nothing?

just as the wa govt does whats in the best interests for its own when dealing with the afl, so does the vic govt

not everything is an anti-wa/pro-vic conspiracy

 

[Roogal]

An equal roofline at the MCG is probably Part 1 of having a complete roof on top of the G.
And if/when they build a complete roof I am curious to see if they’ll be able to redevelop it again. Etihad will probably never be able to be redeveloped and when it gets into a bad state, what will they do? Bulldoze it and rebuild? That’s what I don’t like contiguous structures for stadiums. The MCG is fine because it’s in 2 parts that get developed about 20 years apart.

A rebuild of the Southern Stand would not increase capacity one single seat. The Northern Stand (Ponsford, Members and Olympic Stands) which occupies a similar footprint of boundary line as the Southern Stand was designed in line with 2003 standards as opposed to the Great Southern Stand that was built to a 1989 standard and a lot less fat people ... just to seriously put things into politically uncorrect perspective. Ever wonder how they got 121,000 into the G in 1970 with a much smaller ground? Truth is that people were smaller and thinner back then and they also had bench seating.

A 2028 version of a Great Southern Srand would definitely be considerably bigger, higher and probably seat around the same number of people.

 

[Roogal]

your point?

I get youre western australian, so you dont get this, but this sport is a religion in this town. IMO any govt here that saw the GF leave Melbourne would be defeated. It would be uglier than if Melbourne Cup was made a work day.

This means the vic govt would be up to its eyeballs in this issue. Just as it was when Sydney tried to get the rights for the grand prix, and the Australian Open, and the Boxing Day Test. Do you think the govt should have done nothing?

just as the wa govt does whats in the best interests for its own when dealing with the afl, so does the vic govt

not everything is an anti-wa/pro-vic conspiracy

AFL is taken every bit as religiously serious in Perth and Adelaide as it is in Melbourne, believe me. I would argue instead that shifting the Grand Final from not only its traditional stage, but also the biggest sporting stage in the country, and further again from what will be the biggest city in the country in 20 years from now would diminish the event.

A grand final at the MCG is what every young aspiring football player dreams of. The MCG is not only home of the orignial Ashes cricket game, it is the original home of Australian Football. It hosted an Olympics and Commonwealth Games, World Cup soccer qualifiers, rugby union and Rugby League State of Origin. It is the penultimate arena in Australia, why would you take your biggest sporting event to an arena that is half the size?

 

[Hornberger]

A rebuild of the Southern Stand would not increase capacity one single seat. The Northern Stand (Ponsford, Members and Olympic Stands) which occupies a similar footprint of boundary line as the Southern Stand was designed in line with 2003 standards as opposed to the Great Southern Stand that was built to a 1989 standard and a lot less fat people ...

The northern stand holds more people than the southern stand. If you re-build the southern stand to the same height as the northern stand and applying the same 2003 standards, you would increase the capacity by approx 5,000.

Ever wonder how they got 121,000 into the G in 1970 with a much smaller ground? Truth is that people were smaller and thinner back then and they also had bench seating.

Bench seating, standing room and a disregard for people's health and safety .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

AFL is taken every bit as religiously serious in Perth and Adelaide as it is in Melbourne, believe me. I would argue instead that shifting the Grand Final from not only its traditional stage, but also the biggest sporting stage in the country, and further again from what will be the biggest city in the country in 20 years from now would diminish the event.

A grand final at the MCG is what every young aspiring football player dreams of. The MCG is not only home of the orignial Ashes cricket game, it is the original home of Australian Football. It hosted an Olympics and Commonwealth Games, World Cup soccer qualifiers, rugby union and Rugby League State of Origin. It is the penultimate arena in Australia, why would you take your biggest sporting event to an arena that is half the size?

did I say it would diminish the event? did i even say it was a good or a bad thing?

no, no i didnt

i said vic voters would lose their s**t, which has nothing to do with the above, and THAT is what poli's care about

 

[Kwality]

your point?

I get youre western australian, so you dont get this, but this sport is a religion in this town. IMO any govt here that saw the GF leave Melbourne would be defeated. It would be uglier than if Melbourne Cup was made a work day.

This means the vic govt would be up to its eyeballs in this issue. Just as it was when Sydney tried to get the rights for the grand prix, and the Australian Open, and the Boxing Day Test. Do you think the govt should have done nothing?

just as the wa govt does whats in the best interests for its own when dealing with the afl, so does the vic govt

not everything is an anti-wa/pro-vic conspiracy

That the non V States are treated with integrity is a responsibility of the AFL who seek to dominate the game - did the Vic Govt get value for its money into footy, more importantly did footy (the AFL) get value, e.g the 40 year GF deal again is not market tested.
I think the Vic Govt does really well out of footy, but I'm questioning whether the AFL does - its not anti Vic, its pro AFL, and thats said as a Victorian taxpayer.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

That the non V States are treated with integrity is a responsibility of the AFL who seek to dominate the game - did the Vic Govt get value for its money into footy, more importantly did footy (the AFL) get value, e.g the 40 year GF deal again is not market tested.
I think the Vic Govt does really well out of footy, but I'm questioning whether the AFL does - its not anti Vic, its pro AFL, and thats said as a Victorian taxpayer.

The afl gets a 100k stadium as the proxy jewel in its crown, without paying for it, and with a quarter of the capacity effectively owned by it

Afl didnt get involved in optus because it would have wanted rights the mcc is willing to give that they wont. Thats why perth isnt hosting a gf for at least 40 years

 

[Kwality]

The afl gets a 100k stadium as the proxy jewel in its crown, without paying for it, and with a quarter of the capacity effectively owned by it

Afl didnt get involved in optus because it would have wanted rights the mcc is willing to give that they wont. Thats why perth isnt hosting a gf for at least 40 years

Strangely I think its more about Victoria, nothing to do with the Stadium in Perth, nothing to do with the potential to earn more across the 40 years than we get over the next 10-15 years that this deal plays out over.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Strangely I think its more about Victoria, nothing to do with the Stadium in Perth, nothing to do with the potential to earn more across the 40 years than we get over the next 10-15 years that this deal plays out over.

How so? You talk the grand conspiracy, but where is the mega dollar offer to host the gf in perth? You talk about the financial opportunity missed, where is it?

 

[The_Wookie]

That the non V States are treated with integrity is a responsibility of the AFL who seek to dominate the game - did the Vic Govt get value for its money into footy, more importantly did footy (the AFL) get value, e.g the 40 year GF deal again is not market tested.
I think the Vic Govt does really well out of footy, but I'm questioning whether the AFL does - its not anti Vic, its pro AFL, and thats said as a Victorian taxpayer.

With the money being handed out for AFLW venues as well as Mars Stadium upgrades, better returns at the MCG locked in already, and money available for community club grants - its definitely beneficial to the Victorian side of the AFL equation, at presently thats half the league. Now you could make an argument that something that delivers a net benefit to the AFL and clubs in Victoria, provides an overall net benefit to the AFL by sheer weight of numbers.

Fact is, the AFL will make a lot of money out of Etihad, and does make a lot of money out of the MCG where the league and clubs get nearly 70% of revenue from football related events. If these results lead to less hq support being required for the "small" AFL clubs, that should lead to increased overall distributions to all clubs in the future.

Fact is overall, 300m is being provided to AFL/AFLW facilities in Victoria. In addition, the MCC will give up millions more starting almost immediately in the renegotiated arrangements when finalised - thats going to be worth a another 40-80 million for the clubs that play there too, and double that if it improves Etihad returns as has also been said.

 

[The_Wookie]

How so? You talk the grand conspiracy, but where is the mega dollar offer to host the gf in perth? You talk about the financial opportunity missed, where is it?

to be fair, no one was probably aware they could make an offer. The AFL has never said it was open for bids or that it would ever open for bids.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

to be fair, no one was probably aware they could make an offer. The AFL has never said it was open for bids or that it would ever open for bids.

you genuinely think this, in an era where clubs play for pay across the country, where states are pro-actively bidding for major sporting events?

off a rusty mem (gaming right now, so genuinely distracted), didnt NSW major events knock on the door re: the GF a few years ago

 

[Kwality]

How so? You talk the grand conspiracy, but where is the mega dollar offer to host the gf in perth? You talk about the financial opportunity missed, where is it?

Where do I talk about a grand conspiracy?
Maybe you read that into my quote from Caros article, its not a conspiracy its a statement of fact.
I am seeking some verification that the A in AFL was considered before the GF was locked away at the MCG until 2057.

 

[Kwality]

With the money being handed out for AFLW venues as well as Mars Stadium upgrades, better returns at the MCG locked in already, and money available for community club grants - its definitely beneficial to the Victorian side of the AFL equation, at presently thats half the league. Now you could make an argument that something that delivers a net benefit to the AFL and clubs in Victoria, provides an overall net benefit to the AFL by sheer weight of numbers.

Fact is, the AFL will make a lot of money out of Etihad, and does make a lot of money out of the MCG where the league and clubs get nearly 70% of revenue from football related events. If these results lead to less hq support being required for the "small" AFL clubs, that should lead to increased overall distributions to all clubs in the future.

Fact is overall, 300m is being provided to AFL/AFLW facilities in Victoria. In addition, the MCC will give up millions more starting almost immediately in the renegotiated arrangements when finalised - thats going to be worth a another 40-80 million for the clubs that play there too, and double that if it improves Etihad returns as has also been said.

Dont disagree with the facts as best we know them or that the V in AFL will do well from it, as will the State of Victoria.
The integrity of the AFL comp, different story.

 

[Kwality]

you genuinely think this, in an era where clubs play for pay across the country, where states are pro-actively bidding for major sporting events?

off a rusty mem (gaming right now, so genuinely distracted), didnt NSW major events knock on the door re: the GF a few years ago

The GF allows the MCC to borrow the money if we are to believe the detail of the deal as represented in the media.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The GF allows the MCC to borrow the money if we are to believe the detail of the deal as represented in the media.

this is a basic business practice. its about being able to prove a guarantee of future revenues. clubs for instance have done it with afl guarantees in the past re: distribution revenues