Moved Thread What is Docklands worth ?.

[JRoo]

From reports if they buy it out early ... as in today ..... the price is $250 million.

I want $10 million for my house, it doesn't mean it is worth $10 million or that I would ever get a buyer to pay the price.

As I said land value alone will see Docklands stadium sitting on well inexcess of $100+ million by about 2025; if not already worth that amount.

 

[JRoo]

Typo


Billion

Asset worth 1.3 Billion

Sorry just saw your correction, billion not million.

 

[fabulousphil]

Sorry just saw your correction, billion not million.

Yes, but i have really no idea, so any guesstimates are welcome.

 

[The_Wookie]

Had me thinking answering another post.

Currently what is Docklands worth, minus what is owing on it (roughly) ?

What was Waverly sold for ?

What will Docklands be worth in 2025 ?. (guesstimate)

Good descision by the AFL or not ?.

Waverly was sold for $110 million according to the AFL 2001 Annual report.
The AFL paid $30 million up front for the ownership rights to Docklands. This was paid out of the 2002 broadcast rights.

Correctly speaking the AFL will own Docklands for $30,000,001.00.

 

[Rob]

What it's worth depends on how you want to value it.

It's resale value will be predominantly the value of the land - the stadium itself, whilst will have value, doesn't have much of a market in Melbourne. There are very few entities that would want to buy it to keep as a stadium (given the land value is likely to be massive) and a lot fewer that could afford it. Combined with the likely scenario of it being a lot more economic to bash down the stadium and build something else means that the land is what any prospective buyer will be after.

It's also got value in it's revenue generating ability, although the way some clubs are talking you'd think the AFL will let all clubs play there for free and will give them a clean stadium. But in any case, whatever revenue it can generate for the league has a value. Whatever that is.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

But in any case, whatever revenue it can generate for the league has a value.

Gee, thanks for pointing that out Rob.

I resent the fact that 8 interstate clubs who never put a cent in to the place will get an equal share. Some of them are so called "giants" that are effectively bludging on the likes of the Western Bulldogs, StKilda and North. What part of ANZ stadium or Pattersons Stadium will these clubs get in return?

 

[The Dice Man]

Doesn't hurt that Collingwood have only missed finals on 2 occasions since 02 whereas Essendon have only MADE finals on 2 occasions since 04 (and just scraped in on both occasions). That's not to say your point isn't without merit, but there's more to it than just that, kind of like what Lenny29 said.

Off topic, but how do you explain Richmond's last 30 years/Members Vs Essendon's last 30 years/members?

If its all about recent success then why is your club not top 4 in any respect whatsoever?

 

[Rob]

Gee, thanks for pointing that out Rob.

I resent the fact that 8 interstate clubs who never put a cent in to the place will get an equal share. Some of them are so called "giants" that are effectively bludging on the likes of the Western Bulldogs, StKilda and North. What part of ANZ stadium or Pattersons Stadium will these clubs get in return?

Yeah? I resent the fact that Victorian clubs get to play home games in a world class stadium while in Perth we're still stuck playing out of the rotting shed out the back. Hopefully in a few years that will all change.

But the AFL shouldn't be getting involved so much in stadiums in the first place. Clubs should organise where they play. The league should only have limited involvement, and they certainly shouldn't be owning stadiums for use by only a few clubs.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Yeah? I resent the fact that Victorian clubs get to play home games in a world class stadium while in Perth we're still stuck playing out of the rotting shed out the back. Hopefully in a few years that will all change.

Could you possibly be any more melodramatic if you tried?

I have spent many afternoons in the pouring rain watching the footy. I would gladly do it again tomorrow if it meant I got to see footy at Arden Street. Unfortunately, the nationalisation of my native competition, which led to the creation of your club, has robbed me of that enjoyment.

But the AFL shouldn't be getting involved so much in stadiums in the first place. Clubs should organise where they play.

The AFL shouldn't be getting involved with stacking the competition to serve a hand full of clubs either, but it happens.

The league should only have limited involvement, and they certainly shouldn't be owning stadiums for use by only a few clubs.

It's not as if those clubs get a great choice in the matter.

North are compelled to play at the 1/18th asset of the Fremantle football club. It's a form of taxation.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yeah? I resent the fact that Victorian clubs get to play home games in a world class stadium while in Perth we're still stuck playing out of the rotting shed out the back. Hopefully in a few years that will all change.

But the AFL shouldn't be getting involved so much in stadiums in the first place. Clubs should organise where they play. The league should only have limited involvement, and they certainly shouldn't be owning stadiums for use by only a few clubs.

To be fair Rob youd have a better argument if the SANFL and WAFL hadnt had separate stadiums of the same type as VFL park - for the same reason, a screw you to cricket.

 

[JRoo]

Waverly was sold for $110 million according to the AFL 2001 Annual report.
The AFL paid $30 million up front for the ownership rights to Docklands. This was paid out of the 2002 broadcast rights.

Correctly speaking the AFL will own Docklands for $30,000,001.00.

It's alot more than that when you consider the stadium owners receive all revenue from any AFL games upto 30,000 attendee's at a game at the stadium.

 

[JRoo]

Yeah? I resent the fact that Victorian clubs get to play home games in a world class stadium while in Perth we're still stuck playing out of the rotting shed out the back. Hopefully in a few years that will all change.

But the AFL shouldn't be getting involved so much in stadiums in the first place. Clubs should organise where they play. The league should only have limited involvement, and they certainly shouldn't be owning stadiums for use by only a few clubs.

If the WEST Aussie clubs are willing to see the stadium owners receive all revenue from the first 30,000 to 40,000 attendee's go straight to the stadium owners rather than their clubs, plus an almost halving in their % of the game day revenue from food/beverage sales you'd be able to have the world class stadium you want.

 

[The_Wookie]

It's alot more than that when you consider the stadium owners receive all revenue from any AFL games upto 30,000 attendee's at a game at the stadium.

I dont think this is strictly true either, I believe pourage and signage rights rest with the AFL - and those are distributed back to clubs as part of their distribution if you read the notes on AFL reports. Yes catering and other income is probably done as you say.

 

[BomberWatson]

Off topic, but how do you explain Richmond's last 30 years/Members Vs Essendon's last 30 years/members?

If its all about recent success then why is your club not top 4 in any respect whatsoever?

What kind of recent success have we had? At the end of the day, the most recent time we were any good was as a long ago as it was for your mob (2001). Granted our journeys in the following 12 years have been quite different, but it's still a valid point.

 

[JRoo]

I dont think this is strictly true either, I believe pourage and signage rights rest with the AFL - and those are distributed back to clubs as part of their distribution if you read the notes on AFL reports. Yes catering and other income is probably done as you say.

By revenue I meant the money generated from people coming through the gate not food/drinks etc.


Yep at Docklands the AFL I believe get's the pourage rights; I seem to remember that there was a figure online that compared the various deals re game day revenue at Docklands, MCG and Subiaco. Can't find the article as they are on another PC back in Australia but I seem to remember that west aussie clubs received something like 90% of all revenue generated on game day including pourage rights, food etc, whilst MCG tenants received 70% and Docklands clubs received 40%.

 

[western royboy]

I would have thought it was a relatively simple equation.

The current owners have a guaranteed contract with the AFL which will generate $X per year until 2025, plus whatever additional hirers they can attract.

Put those projections into a future value calculation and presto that's the value of it.

 

[Furn2]

Yep, the value is how much the current owners make a year, times how many years til they hand it over. But really youd have to account for interest , inflation etc. but that's too hard.

So say they make $20mil a year with 13 years left til 2025, they would want $260million for a buy out. Of course that $260 million could be invested at say 7% and be worth around $640mil by 2025.

 

[millsy29gopies]

Pretty sure Mirvac bought the actual Waverley Park stadium, not the land, for $1 as well. Land obviously a whole lot more.

 

[JRoo]

I would have thought it was a relatively simple equation.

The current owners have a guaranteed contract with the AFL which will generate $X per year until 2025, plus whatever additional hirers they can attract.

Put those projections into a future value calculation and presto that's the value of it.

I guess that's the question what is "X" and how much does it work out to be per game at the ground. You could work out a rough return per year for the owners from the stadium based upon their initial investment over the period of ownership.

 

[Kwality]

Gee, thanks for pointing that out Rob.

I resent the fact that 8 interstate clubs who never put a cent in to the place will get an equal share. Some of them are so called "giants" that are effectively bludging on the likes of the Western Bulldogs, StKilda and North. What part of ANZ stadium or Pattersons Stadium will these clubs get in return?

The AFL has a dismal record dealing with stadium management in Melbourne. ... the Cats demonstrated it can be done much better even in Vic.
WHY dont the MCC treat clubs like North as fairly as the WA model?
It was the Vic Govt that stumped up an extra $100k per game at the MCG - the MCC rip our game to benefit their members & still get money from Vic taxpayers year in, year out, the Etihad mob have their super fund members to put ahead of basket case footy clubs that cant put bums on seats, cant pull enough members or sponsors - surely you dont want to raid super funds of workers for your indulgence, a footy club ...

As for your resentment, you are simply sooking - club distributions for all AFL clubs are less as a result of the AFL management of games at Docklands. Vic footy is organised differently to say WA/Pattos@Subi -clubs dont kick in $s to run Vic footy like the Dockers/Eagles in WA. Pattos is controlled by the WAFC, more like Geelong than the Melbourne arrangement that promotes MCG membership/ AFL members club membership/Medallion club membership competing with footy clubs (North?) & sees the WAFC/Geelong as stadium managers.

If you are still in denial about the mess stadiums are in in good ol' Melbourne, check out how poorly competing clubs are treated on Grand Final day.

Last time I saw the numbers on what Docklands would do for the Div 2 Melbourne clubs was very unconvincing, Docklands is no silver bullet.

But all is well in footy in Melbourne ...

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Take your red card angst elsewhere.

 

[JRoo]

The AFL has a dismal record dealing with stadium management in Melbourne. ... the Cats demonstrated it can be done much better even in Vic.
WHY dont the MCC treat clubs like North as fairly as the WA model?
It was the Vic Govt that stumped up an extra $100k per game at the MCG - the MCC rip our game to benefit their members & still get money from Vic taxpayers year in, year out, the Etihad mob have their super fund members to put ahead of basket case footy clubs that cant put bums on seats, cant pull enough members or sponsors - surely you dont want to raid super funds of workers for your indulgence, a footy club ...

The various trustee's of the superfunds are required to put their members first and would be making a return on their members money otherwise they would be in significant trouble with the regulators.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ce-not-yet-right/story-e6frexx0-1226206666257

Etihad is owned by several investors, which are basically Australian superannuation funds. They are the Retail Employees superannuation trust, JF Infrastructure yield fund, Westscheme, National Australia Bank group superannuation fund and Statewide superannuation trust.

The AFL secured future ownership of the stadium with $30 million paid on March 8, 2000.
Collins recently told Superfooty's Front & Square that the venue could be worth $1.2 billion when it is handed over in 2025.

Asked if Etihad was a profitable stadium, Collins said: "Do you think they'd (investors) be here if it wasn't making some money."

The question is what is this return per year and how much is this cost per game to the current tenants at the ground?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

WHY dont the MCC treat clubs like North as fairly as the WA model?

The AFL compel North to play at Docklands.

Please try to get that through your thick head.

 

[Kwality]

The various trustee's of the superfunds are required to put their members first and would be making a return on their members money otherwise they would be in significant trouble with the regulators.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ce-not-yet-right/story-e6frexx0-1226206666257


The question is what is this return per year and how much is this cost per game to the current tenants at the ground?

Ask Fitz to run the numbers, he bought ANZ in Sydney, didnt buy Docklands - then to get the current owners to sell, you need to offer a better deal, say more $s.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL compel North to play at Docklands.

Please try to get that through your thick head.

Like the WAFC compel the Dockers/Eagles to play at Subi - clearly not, you are sooking, the WA clubs are getting on with footy.
There is a problem in stadium management in Melbourne (not Geelong) - its not just your own mob, take your blinkers off, stop sooking ... no white knights here ...