We must be doing something right

[Freo2012]

Wow that really is incredible, this can't be well known. Tell me more...

If you are interested here are a few sites with info:

http://www.sro.wa.gov.au/blogs/westralia-shall-be-free-western-australian-secession-referendum-1933

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_secession_referendum,_1933

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessionism_in_Western_Australia

 

[Rob]

How much does the stadium get per seat each game?

If we owned our own stadium we could secure the finances of the club forever, once the initial investment is paid.

Nah. We pay just over $3 million a year in rent. A new stadium that size would cost at least $200 million, and that's if it was built on the cheap. You could put that in the bank and earn $8 million a year.

 

[Taylor]

Nah. We pay just over $3 million a year in rent. A new stadium that size would cost at least $200 million, and that's if it was built on the cheap. You could put that in the bank and earn $8 million a year.

Damn, that would mean the West Coast games would need to be played there too as well as big concerts.

I guess Freo get the money from members without having to get anyone to the seats anyway.

 

[wild side]

We'll have to be careful with this new stadium and the deal we get. Apparently the Adelaide teams are getting screwed at the new cricket ground! Which i can't for the life of me understand.

 

[Freo88]

We'll have to be careful with this new stadium and the deal we get. Apparently the Adelaide teams are getting screwed at the new cricket ground! Which i can't for the life of me understand.

I thought a large part of them moving grounds was so they could get a better deal? They were ripped at Footy Park as far as i know

 

[Darcy 2 Fyfe]

Jeepers, I'm carrying you blokes.

I spent around $54.00 in two Pav300 hats. So that caters for around 20 non-spenders plus myself. Didn't see the scarves (lucky for my cc)

I covered a fair portion of the city end of the ground. My signed and framed Pav 300 jumper was $1200 plus $45 delivery.

 

[wild side]

I thought a large part of them moving grounds was so they could get a better deal? They were ripped at Footy Park as far as i know

On the commentary last nite they said port only banked $50k from the showdown, which was a sellout!

 

[freoextra]

On the commentary last nite they said port only banked $50k from the showdown, which was a sellout!

Disgraceful, but a very timely reminder to our football Commission to get the best possible deal!

 

[Rob]

On the commentary last nite they said port only banked $50k from the showdown, which was a sellout!

Probably because most of the attendees are members, and therefore pay nothing at the gate.

Bear in mind we lose money every single game at Subi. The gate receipts, of which there is very little, do not cover the cost of renting and running the stadium on match day. Not even close actually.

 

[Freo2012]

Probably because most of the attendees are members, and therefore pay nothing at the gate.

Bear in mind we lose money every single game at Subi. The gate receipts, of which there is very little, do not cover the cost of renting and running the stadium on match day. Not even close actually.

not how you calculate the cost/benefit - you have to add the revenue share of members game seats - so membership $ less realistic cost of the other than seat benefits = total member seat payments, divide by number of home games = $revenue per game by members, whether they attend or not, then add the cash ticket sales for individual games.

 

[Rob]

not how you calculate the cost/benefit - you have to add the revenue share of members game seats - so membership $ less realistic cost of the other than seat benefits = total member seat payments, divide by number of home games = $revenue per game by members, whether they attend or not, then add the cash ticket sales for individual games.

Yes, but that's not how Port would have calculated their '50k profit from the Showdown' figure. It's also not how Melbourne clubs work out their match day profit.

 

[Freo2012]

Yes, but that's not how Port would have calculated their '50k profit from the Showdown' figure. It's also not how Melbourne clubs work out their match day profit.

yes, but it should be on total seat revenues and that by any accounting method or logic means including the member seat portion

The purely cash "on the day" basis is for the simple or those trying to mislead.

Which would you prefer:

1. no member seats and 100% seat revenues from on the day, remember members do not attend every game,
2. near total membership level and very low "on the day" $

Clubs and AFL do (as every friggin business in the world does) calculate the best result and the only reason there are member seats is because it results in overall more $ seating revenue than purely "on the day" per game ticketing.

 

[Bender571]

A question I have wanted to know the answer to for a while, if the Afl caps a clubs football department spending for equalization, where will a club be able to spend its money?
Where is the incentive to make a financially powerful club?

It won't be a cap, it'll be a tax after a certain threshold.

 

[Freo2012]

It won't be a cap, it'll be a tax after a certain threshold.

There'l also be "off the books" payments for various footy department inputs - they'll have to audit clubs much like they do players for 3rd party arrangements. Going to be a lot harder for the AFL to uncover footy department spends (or partials) made by sponsors etc than it is for them for players. EG. A club could easily pay a trainer $50k per year and have a sponsor pay them $100K and have the trainer do a simple session a week for the sponsors employees - no way AFL would probably uncover it or be able to do anything to prove it is to get around the footy department spend rules.

 

[Rob]

yes, but it should be on total seat revenues and that by any accounting method or logic means including the member seat portion

The purely cash "on the day" basis is for the simple or those trying to mislead.

Which would you prefer:

1. no member seats and 100% seat revenues from on the day, remember members do not attend every game,
2. near total membership level and very low "on the day" $

Clubs and AFL do (as every friggin business in the world does) calculate the best result and the only reason there are member seats is because it results in overall more $ seating revenue than purely "on the day" per game ticketing.

Hey, I agree with you. I really do. I'm just saying that's how many clubs calculate their match day return. If it was the correct way, Port would have made $1 million plus (probably a big plus too) from the Showdown, but that doesn't let them get in the media and have a whinge about stadium costs. Victorian clubs have been doing this for years.

 

[sportsmaniac89]

So we pay money to the WAFC and yet we're going to get taxed in the name of equalisation

Something stinks rotten here

 

[Freo2012]

So we pay money to the WAFC and yet we're going to get taxed in the name of equalisation

Something stinks rotten here

don't forget the $4 per seat/member per game that goes to the AFL now, for equalisation to prop up the minnow clubs and also so the AFL can subsidize Melb supporters ticket/member seat prices - another way they tax WA to benefit Vic supporters

And none of the Vic clubs fund any lower level football (except partially their reserves teams), yet our clubs fund the WAFC and all WA lower level footy