Billy nails Brawshaw on footy show

[RandB]

What he failed to mention was the fact that these clubs get such good stadium deals because they are the major tenants at their stadiums and draw 25-30000 of their fans to games week in, week out.

If we rest on our laurels with that then why don't the Sydney Swans try to play every home game at ANZ stadium? By your rationale, Sydney are the still the major tenant so why not go with the bigger stadium? It is because of economies of scale. Sydney are a classic example, they have the luxury of playing the bigger games at ANZ and the smaller games at the SCG where they can cash in on the economies of scale and hence get a decent deal. I am not disputing the economics of return of comparing the bigger clubs to the smaller clubs but it is a reality that some Vic clubs can not optimise their return due to the venues they must play at.

If your comparing like for like, North drew 36000 to their 8 Melbourne based home games last year (6 vs. Vic clubs, 2 vs. Non Vic clubs) 6 at the TD, 2 at the MCG. That is, 6 games that drew 70% capacity and 2 games that drew 35% capacity (compare that to Fremantle/Sydney/Brisbane that draw 80%+ capacity week in, week out)

Exactly, these interstate sides are not forced to play at the MCG or TD for that matter even though they play before similar sized crowds. Brayshaw (I think) was not disputing why some other clubs get better stadium deals, he was saying as a result of the circumstances that the Kangas are in they should be compensated as they are not in a situation where they can get a decent stadium (like say a team like Sydney who can pick and chose where they play to optimise return).

In 6 of those games North probably had 40-50% crowd support with the other 2 drawing 70-80% crowd support (approx)
In other words, probably 18-19k North fans attend home games in Melbourne. Compare that to Fremantle (35k), Sydney (30k) and Brisbane (25k)
The reason why North have such a poor stadium deal is because they don't get enough North supporters coming to games to warrant the returns.

The proportion of supporters for/against within a crowd does not change the fact that as a result of that Kangas home game there was still a crowd of high 30,000s. It is not rocket science, if the Kangas along with some other Vic clubs played at a smaller venue they would get a better deal. Apart from say the Crows and Eagles most other interstate clubs benefit from a small to medium capacity stadium. Obviously more Kangas supporteres at home games lifts the crowd figures but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Kangas game had a similar sized crowd regardless of supporter proportion.

On top of that, supporters of non Victorian clubs generally fork out more for reserve seating. An average Lions reserve seat will set you back $300-400, even a decent seat at the GABBA will set you back $50 minimum...compare that to the MCG/TD where you can purchase a decent seat for $20-30

Exactly, in a smaller stadium the price of a seat will increase and hence bring about a better stadium deal. Again, Brayshaw is arguing for compensation on the grounds that the Kangas are do not have the luxury of playing at such a stadium.
Personally I think some of the struggling Vic clubs (including my beloved Dees) should come together to get a boutique stadium up and running so they can be more competitive. You wouldn't get too many conflicts of say the Dees, Roos or Dogs all playing an interstate side at home in the same week.

 

[Rob]

If we rest on our laurels with that then why don't the Sydney Swans try to play every home game at ANZ stadium? By your rationale, Sydney are the still the major tenant so why not go with the bigger stadium? It is because of economies of scale. Sydney are a classic example, they have the luxury of playing the bigger games at ANZ and the smaller games at the SCG where they can cash in on the economies of scale and hence get a decent deal. I am not disputing the economics of return of comparing the bigger clubs to the smaller clubs but it is a reality that some Vic clubs can not optimise their return due to the venues they must play at.
Exactly, these interstate sides are not forced to play at the MCG or TD for that matter even though they play before similar sized crowds. Brayshaw (I think) was not disputing why some other clubs get better stadium deals, he was saying as a result of the circumstances that the Kangas are in they should be compensated as they are not in a situation where they can get a decent stadium (like say a team like Sydney who can pick and chose where they play to optimise return).
The proportion of supporters for/against within a crowd does not change the fact that as a result of that Kangas home game there was still a crowd of high 30,000s. It is not rocket science, if the Kangas along with some other Vic clubs played at a smaller venue they would get a better deal. Apart from say the Crows and Eagles most other interstate clubs benefit from a small to medium capacity stadium. Obviously more Kangas supporteres at home games lifts the crowd figures but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Kangas game had a similar sized crowd regardless of supporter proportion.
Exactly, in a smaller stadium the price of a seat will increase and hence bring about a better stadium deal. Again, Brayshaw is arguing for compensation on the grounds that the Kangas are do not have the luxury of playing at such a stadium.

Which is his right. But people in the media should be questioning this stance - without any shadow of a doubt, North Melbourne play out of the best stadiums in the country. TD is a far, far better ground than Subiaco, AAMI and the SCG. And consequently is more attractive to spectators.
Do North really want the stadium deal that Freo and WC have? Pay $3 million rent a year + operating costs and try and fill a 3rd rate shithole every week while charging double the ticket price? I doubt it. Crowds would drop substantially, their paltry corporate support would fall even further and they'd be in the same position whinging about poor stadium deals. Freo and West Coast make big dollars because they can fill the ground and sell 150 corporate boxes a week at a few grand a pop, despite the shite stadium deal.
Essentially what North would be doing is paying $3 million a year for Optus Oval. And we all know how great people think that venue is. Seriously, does anyone really think that North would be selling out every available seat (at $40-$50 each) and box at that place?

Personally I think some of the struggling Vic clubs (including my beloved Dees) should come together to get a boutique stadium up and running so they can be more competitive. You wouldn't get too many conflicts of say the Dees, Roos or Dogs all playing an interstate side at home in the same week.

Great, so do it. Of course, when you can only get 10-20,000 a game and be financially worse off, don't come crawling back with your hand out for compensation.

Small, 3rd rate stadiums are not some sort of financial utopia - you need a large, hard core support base to fill it and be very attractive to the corporate market to make big dollars. Those clubs have neither.

 

[RandB]

Essentially what North would be doing is paying $3 million a year for Optus Oval. And we all know how great people think that venue is. Seriously, does anyone really think that North would be selling out every available seat (at $40-$50 each) and box at that place?

You really are obsessed with Optus Oval. I am no expert on these things but I fail to see why you would extrapolate the exact circumstances of Fremantle and WCE to the Kangas situation with regards to costings. Also are you really saying that because a smaller ground may not have a really flash roof like TD and a pretty big scoreboard that there would be less people going to the games? That is pure speculation.

Great, so do it. Of course, when you can only get 10-20,000 a game and be financially worse off, don't come crawling back with your hand out for compensation.

Small, 3rd rate stadiums are not some sort of financial utopia - you need a large, hard core support base to fill it and be very attractive to the corporate market to make big dollars. Those clubs have neither.

umm so you are actually ridiculing clubs for taking some initiative. You paint a pretty tainted view of a boutique stadium. Why speculate on the standard of any hypothetical stadium and crowd attendances dropping when you have absolutely no idea of the circumstances. I doubt the AFL would allow AFL clubs to play at a 3rd rate stadium. I am not saying that a fantastic boutique stadium would just land in their laps but you are simply plucking scenarios out your ass.

Also you don't understand that Subiaco have some bargaining power as both Freo and WCE play all home games there. Dogs, Dees and Roos could still use the other home ground options if they would get a better crowd. In 2006 Melb v Coll got a crowd of just under 79,000 at the MCG, albeit mostly Pies supporters but still a big crowd none the less . Oviously we wouldn't play the big teams like the Pies at a boutique stadium only the fluff teams like Freo.

 

[grayham]

Optus Oval could be plausible. Perhaps Messrs Pratt, Brayshaw, Smorgon, Gardiner and Westaway could all get together for a little chat on how to put Collo out of a job?

i can only assume you havent been following footy long enough to remember optus oval

By christ you're a halfwit. You are aware that we get $400,000 every time we play there? I'm almost certain I have seen you repetitiously refer to this on your daily ramblings of the evils of the NMFC.

You. Idiot.

400k per game means revenue of about $5m for 11 home games.....exactly what brayshaw is whinging about.

ie. the same venue you are abandoning to get -400k for those games.
to put it in context, sydney get over $1m per home game.

At the end of the day I comfort myself in the knowledge that you are only "Doctor Jolly" cyberknob, and no-ones whose opinions are of any real relevance, let alone bordering on factual.

The only thing that I'm really interested in is that you attend your Sydney Football Club (AKA NMFC's piggy bank) games, buy those crappy products advertised on television during the half time breaks and keep that money coming south.

these sort of posts dont do your cause any favours.
name calling is really for school children. grow up.

 

[AngelEyes]

I don't think you can compare to interstate clubs and Geelong. A private deal that a club has on a ground you wouldn't play on has little relevance to your deal. I'm sure the Kangaroos could get a fairly cheap rent of Kardinia Park (where breakeven could be as small as 5k) if they would play there. However, I doubt they would. Different states and sporting bodies have different incentives for clubs based partially on their needs. I have problem comparing to other teams in Melbourne but the comparison to interstaters is silly and irrelevant.

I believe that all Victorian clubs should have the same deal for the same stadiums. I think there is a genuine case for the Roos to complain about a better deal given to a Collingwood or Essendon IF these clubs get better deals. I don't mean profit per head as its likely that these clubs will get bigger crowds and hence increase the profit per head. I mean if the Kangaroos need 28k to break even and the Bombers need to 25k to break even then I see an issue. However, I don't consider Essendon making more per head if they have the same deal such as:

50% of ticket sales over 28,000 people or something.

If Essendon sell more then they should make more money per head but thats because of the formula rather than a structurally unfair deal. However, all clubs should have the exact same deals at Telstra Dome and the MCG. One thing too that isn't mentioned is ticket prices. Interstaters and Geelong pay alot more per head than Kangaroos fans don't they and they need reserved seating.

 

[Rob]

You really are obsessed with Optus Oval. I am no expert on these things but I fail to see why you would extrapolate the exact circumstances of Fremantle and WCE to the Kangas situation with regards to costings. Also are you really saying that because a smaller ground may not have a really flash roof like TD and a pretty big scoreboard that there would be less people going to the games? That is pure speculation.

I use Optus Oval simply because it is very very similar to Subiaco in size, facilities and location. Just outside the CBD, similar capacities, not that easy to get to.
And why? Because Brayshaw brought it up. He claims to be jealous of the 'stadium deal' that Fremantle has. Well, i've just told you what it is. A comparable stadium deal for North (or any Melbourne team) would be to pay $3 million a year + operating costs for Optus Oval. If you're going to suggest that Fremantle has a stadium deal that North (or any other club) should aspire to, then start thinking about the consequences of such a stadium deal. Then it might dawn on you that it's not the stadium deal that brings in the dollars at all.

umm so you are actually ridiculing clubs for taking some initiative. You paint a pretty tainted view of a boutique stadium. Why speculate on the standard of any hypothetical stadium and crowd attendances dropping when you have absolutely no idea of the circumstances.

No, but the idea of it would be that the ground would be cheap - no point building an expensive ground if the aim is to reduce costs. And you pay for what you get.
It would be very very unlikely, given what we know about Melbournians and their attendance patterns, that a cheap stadium where large reserved seat premiums were charged on every seat, that it would draw better than deplorable crowds. Then you'd have certain club presidents complaining that the big clubs get to play in the bigger, more comfortable stadiums and can attract more supporters.

I doubt the AFL would allow AFL clubs to play at a 3rd rate stadium. I am not saying that a fantastic boutique stadium would just land in their laps but you are simply plucking scenarios out your ass.

Got a better realistic one?

It's ridiculous to suggest that someone's going to spend $300 million on a state of the art 30k seater with first rate corporate facilities and then expect it to be cheap for the tenants. That may be the case in fantasy land, but unfortunately we operate in the real world.

Also you don't understand that Subiaco have some bargaining power as both Freo and WCE play all home games there. Dogs, Dees and Roos could still use the other home ground options if they would get a better crowd. In 2006 Melb v Coll got a crowd of just under 79,000 at the MCG, albeit mostly Pies supporters but still a big crowd none the less . Oviously we wouldn't play the big teams like the Pies at a boutique stadium only the fluff teams like Freo.

So go ahead. Just don't fool yourself that a cheap stadium would be first rate, and attract anywhere near the same crowds that would show up at the far superior TD or MCG, especially when you're going to be charging the most expensive prices in Victoria. And of course, such a stadium would give corporates yet another reason to prefer the bigger Vic clubs - that's where the big dollars come in, and where the smaller Melbourne clubs already fall behind badly in revenue.

 

[Rob]

I mean if the Kangaroos need 28k to break even and the Bombers need to 25k to break even then I see an issue.

And if you're going to start comparing stadium deals, then you can't measure it in numbers through the gates. Numbers don't pay the bills, dollars do. If 28k people at a North game raise $500k gross, and 25k at an Essendon game raise $800k, then you can't say North have a bad stadium deal because they need more people to break even.

They might have a bad deal for other reasons - but not even the North people know what their deal is.

 

[RandB]

I use Optus Oval simply because it is very very similar to Subiaco in size, facilities and location. Just outside the CBD, similar capacities, not that easy to get to.
And why? Because Brayshaw brought it up. He claims to be jealous of the 'stadium deal' that Fremantle has. Well, i've just told you what it is. A comparable stadium deal for North (or any Melbourne team) would be to pay $3 million a year + operating costs for Optus Oval. If you're going to suggest that Fremantle has a stadium deal that North (or any other club) should aspire to, then start thinking about the consequences of such a stadium deal. Then it might dawn on you that it's not the stadium deal that brings in the dollars at all.

I have no idea (and neither do you for that matter) as to what kind of analysis Brayshaw based his opinions on with respect to his comment about Fremantle. However, unless you know the complete aspects of the current deals that the Kangas have in place then how can you either be for or against what Brayshaw is saying?

No, but the idea of it would be that the ground would be cheap - no point building an expensive ground if the aim is to reduce costs. And you pay for what you get.
It would be very very unlikely, given what we know about Melbournians and their attendance patterns, that a cheap stadium where large reserved seat premiums were charged on every seat, that it would draw better than deplorable crowds. Then you'd have certain club presidents complaining that the big clubs get to play in the bigger, more comfortable stadiums and can attract more supporters.

ok, first of all you are putting up a worst case scenario of a cheap stadium, expensive seats and low crowds co-existing similtaneously. I doubt whether the market forces of supply and demand would allow for such a situation to perpetuate. If crowds are low then prices adjust. Getting back to my point about more than one team sharing a boutique stadium, it could be an absolute pipe dream I understand that but if it did work you could be looking at a scenario of each of the participating clubs sharing the costs. I am getting out of my depth here but who can honestly say that it couldn't work? Also even if a boutique stadium is ordinary to start of with, what is to say that you can't improve it over time - especially if multiple teams are involved? There are simply too many variables involved for either of us to discuss success or failure of such a venture. This is over the top of both of our heads.

Got a better realistic one?
It's ridiculous to suggest that someone's going to spend $300 million on a state of the art 30k seater with first rate corporate facilities and then expect it to be cheap for the tenants. That may be the case in fantasy land, but unfortunately we operate in the real world.

No I don't have a better realistic scenario but that is kind of my point, I am happy to admit I have absolutely no idea of the viability of any of these things but I am not pretending that I do (unlike yourself). The real world is where you listen to expert advice, fantasy land is where you hop on the net and pretend you know everything.

So go ahead. Just don't fool yourself that a cheap stadium would be first rate, and attract anywhere near the same crowds that would show up at the far superior TD or MCG, especially when you're going to be charging the most expensive prices in Victoria. And of course, such a stadium would give corporates yet another reason to prefer the bigger Vic clubs - that's where the big dollars come in, and where the smaller Melbourne clubs already fall behind badly in revenue.

Again this is pure speculation, less crowds and the highest prices. I'm guessing that the corporate factor of say Melb v Freo at the MCG compared to Melb v Freo at a smaller ground probably would have been part of the club's analysis along with many other factors. I'll stick my head out and say that AFL clubs have more of an insight into this sort of thing than you do, don't take it personally you might know more about this than I do but I think you are just relying on too many hypotheticals.

 

[Rob]

I have no idea (and neither do you for that matter) as to what kind of analysis Brayshaw based his opinions on with respect to his comment about Fremantle. However, unless you know the complete aspects of the current deals that the Kangas have in place then how can you either be for or against what Brayshaw is saying?

Because I know what Fremantle's stadium deal is, and Brayshaw is putting it up as being a massive advantage for the club. He clearly wants Fremantle's stadium deal. So i'm just telling you what a comparable deal would be. I don't claim to know what North's deal is, but it doesn't really matter.

And importantly, Brayshaw has an interest in making his club look disadvantaged. If he can convince the AFL, his club gets more money. If he can convince the stadium operators, his club gets more money. If he can convince the public, the public can put pressure on stadium operators and the AFL to give them more money.
This is the same thing that inspires people like Gardner to come out and say 'it's not my fault we're broke, it's because we can't sell out a cheap stadium'. Public opinion is important for these guys.

ok, first of all you are putting up a worst case scenario of a cheap stadium, expensive seats and low crowds co-existing similtaneously. I doubt whether the market forces of supply and demand would allow for such a situation to perpetuate.

Of course not. That's the point! These clubs that Brayshaw is comparing his 'stadium deal' to play mostly out of cheap stadiums and charge far higher ticket prices. And they've got the support to warrant it. Yet Brayshaw still asks why a 35k crowd for them where it's $20 a ticket doesn't earn as much as a 35k crowd where people pay $50 a ticket. Is he stupid, or has he just not done his homework?

If crowds are low then prices adjust.

Correct, but that doesn't result in the same revenue does it? You don't seem to understand that it's about dollars, not people. That's because dollars pay the bills.

Getting back to my point about more than one team sharing a boutique stadium, it could be an absolute pipe dream I understand that but if it did work you could be looking at a scenario of each of the participating clubs sharing the costs. I am getting out of my depth here but who can honestly say that it couldn't work? Also even if a boutique stadium is ordinary to start of with, what is to say that you can't improve it over time - especially if multiple teams are involved? There are simply too many variables involved for either of us to discuss success or failure of such a venture. This is over the top of both of our heads.

Once again, you use existing facts that we do know to form a reasonable conclusion. That doesn't make any result certain by any stretch. But when you're looking at spending a shitload of money on a new stadium, you need to take these things into account.

No I don't have a better realistic scenario but that is kind of my point, I am happy to admit I have absolutely no idea of the viability of any of these things but I am not pretending that I do (unlike yourself). The real world is where you listen to expert advice, fantasy land is where you hop on the net and pretend you know everything.

No I don't. But I use what I do know to form a reasonable conclusion.

Again this is pure speculation, less crowds and the highest prices. I'm guessing that the corporate factor of say Melb v Freo at the MCG compared to Melb v Freo at a smaller ground probably would have been part of the club's analysis along with many other factors. I'll stick my head out and say that AFL clubs have more of an insight into this sort of thing than you do, don't take it personally you might know more about this than I do but I think you are just relying on too many hypotheticals.

Hypotheticals like 'you pay for what you get' and 'lower ticket prices means less revenue'. Revolutionary stuff.

You're living in a dream world mate. If you're going to compare 'stadium deals' between clubs, then you can't compare just one aspect of it (eg. crowds) without comparing other aspects. Subiaco is a cheap, nasty stadium. Ticket prices are exorbidant. Both tenant clubs have huge support bases. Yet some people have the audacity to suggest that the only thing separating their club financially from the WA clubs is the stadium deal.

 

[RandB]

Because I know what Fremantle's stadium deal is, and Brayshaw is putting it up as being a massive advantage for the club.
He clearly wants Fremantle's stadium deal. So i'm just telling you what a comparable deal would be. I don't claim to know what North's deal is, but it doesn't really matter.

Well it does matter, as you stated in your first reply that you doubt whether North realy want a similar deal to Fremantle. You are trying to say that they want their cake and eat it too yet you know nothing about their situation.

And importantly, Brayshaw has an interest in making his club look disadvantaged. If he can convince the AFL, his club gets more money. If he can convince the stadium operators, his club gets more money. If he can convince the public, the public can put pressure on
stadium operators and the AFL to give them more money.
This is the same thing that inspires people like Gardner to come out and say 'it's not my fault we're broke, it's because we can't sell out a cheap
stadium'. Public opinion is important for these guys.

Every club has an interest in moulding public perception about their position if it will give them an advantage in any capacity. If a club feels that it is genuinely disadvantaged then what is wrong with putting that sentiment on the table? Ultimately the AFL will decide whether there is merit in what each and every club puts forward and if Brayshaw is successfull in his endeavours then good luck to him.
With public perception it works both ways. Brayshaw saying what he said can also encite criticism and work against you. Your sentiments are a
testiment to that.

Whether Paul Gardner effects public opinion or not has no baring on the validity of his statements. Furthermore if what he says gets more people
on board with the club then what business is it of anyones if the AFL comes to the party?

BTW, Was that meant to be a quote: 'it's not my fault we're broke, it's because we can't sell out a cheap stadium' or are you making up more
rubbish again?

Of course not. That's the point! These clubs that Brayshaw is comparing his 'stadium deal' to play mostly out of cheap
stadiums and charge far higher ticket prices. And they've got the support to warrant it. Yet Brayshaw still asks why a 35k crowd for them where
it's $20 a ticket doesn't earn as much as a 35k crowd where people pay $50 a ticket. Is he stupid, or has he just not done his homework?

I don't think he is that stupid. Like I said before I believe he was putting this in terms of compensation for the club given those factors. I may be
wrong. Whether he has a case is up to the AFL.

Correct, but that doesn't result in the same revenue does it? You don't seem to understand that it's about dollars, not
people. That's because dollars pay the bills.

I get it! seats x price/seat = $ thanks for that. What you don't get is that you are still making up hypothetical situations. You did not address any of my other points such as multiple clubs sharing such a boutique stadium and splitting costs. You continually ascert that crowd numbers would drop to the point that it would all be a disaster and no matter how many times I point out to you that it is speculation, you stick with it.

Once again, you use existing facts that we do know to form a reasonable conclusion. That doesn't make any result certain by any stretch. But when you're looking at spending a shitload of money on a new stadium, you need to take these things into account.

That is exactly right so why bother making a conclusion at all when you know so little of the existing facts and even less of the circumstances?
My original point was that if there were say three clubs in a joint venture for a boutique stadium then that could possibly be of more value for each
of the clubs than if a club did that individually. It had nothing to do with what Brayshaw said.

No I don't. But I use what I do know to form a reasonable conclusion.

What you know is not much and to even make a conclusion at all is foolish, especially when you are confusing yourself with what I originally
spoke about regarding a boutique stadium.

Hypotheticals like 'you pay for what you get' and 'lower ticket prices means less revenue'. Revolutionary stuff.

Those are not the factors that I was referring to as hypotheticals as you well know. I am talking about hypotheticals such as how much would a
stadium cost? The capacity? The quality? The location? How many clubs involved? Price/seat? Who would aid in financing it? What sort of crowds
would it get? Which games would be played there? etc... those are real world issues that neither of us have a clue about yet you seem to have all
the answers and I have already stated where I think those answers came from.

You're living in a dream world mate. If you're going to compare 'stadium deals' between clubs, then you can't compare just
one aspect of it (eg. crowds) without comparing other aspects. Subiaco is a cheap, nasty stadium. Ticket prices are exorbidant. Both tenant clubs have huge support bases. Yet some people have the audacity to suggest that the only thing separating their club financially from the WA clubs is the stadium deal.

I'm not living in a dream world. Point out where Braywhaw or anyone else (myself included) said that the only thing separating their club financially
from the WA clubs is the stadium deals. As far as I know Brayshaw stated that he wished his club had better stadium deals and (apparently)
used Fremantle as an example case as a club who has that type of deal he was referring to. Again it is up to the AFL to decide whether the
Kangaroos have a case for compensation. He didn't argue behind why that was the case. He merely stated that some clubs just can't get the same deals and it hurts the club.

Subiaco may be cheap but do you think you may be getting a little bit carried away. We are still talking about modern stadiums and what idea do
you have of the kind of stadium that is or isn't acheivable for a budget that is yet to be determined - dare I say it hypothetical? This entire debate is rediculous. You are getting mixed up with my different points.

If Paul Gardner came out and said that the difference between Melbourne and other clubs was purely the stadium deals I would disagree. Paul
Gardner used stadium deals as a way to illustrate where Melbourne as a club is not operating as optimally as it could be and we need to address that. In relation to this all I ever stated was that a potential deal between 3 clubs could possibly be a positive approach with regards to a new stadium.

 

[Rob]

Well it does matter, as you stated in your first reply that you doubt whether North realy want a similar deal to Fremantle. You are trying to say that they want their cake and eat it too yet you know nothing about their situation.

Nothing? Bullshit. I know that most of their members are general admission. I know that $20 gets you a decent seat at most Roos matches. I know that their corporate support last year was the lowest in the league.
The picture becomes very clear as to why Fremantle's 'stadium deal' earns so much more income. And it's got little to do with the stadium deal, and everything to do with the revenue you bring in. If you're only bringing in 30-40% of the revenue through the gates compared to another club, is it any surprise that your 'income earned from stadiums' is about 30-40% of that earned by that club?

Every club has an interest in moulding public perception about their position if it will give them an advantage in any capacity. If a club feels that it is genuinely disadvantaged then what is wrong with putting that sentiment on the table? Ultimately the AFL will decide whether there is merit in what each and every club puts forward and if Brayshaw is successfull in his endeavours then good luck to him.
With public perception it works both ways. Brayshaw saying what he said can also encite criticism and work against you. Your sentiments are a
testiment to that.

Whether Paul Gardner effects public opinion or not has no baring on the validity of his statements. Furthermore if what he says gets more people
on board with the club then what business is it of anyones if the AFL comes to the party?

Uh, it's our business?
Isn't that why we get on here and have a crack at each other?

BTW, Was that meant to be a quote: 'it's not my fault we're broke, it's because we can't sell out a cheap stadium' or are you making up more
rubbish again?

Obviously not a direct quote, but the implication from Gardner (and Brayshaw on Thursday night) a month ago was loud and clear.

I get it! seats x price/seat = $ thanks for that. What you don't get is that you are still making up hypothetical situations. You did not address any of my other points such as multiple clubs sharing such a boutique stadium and splitting costs. You continually ascert that crowd numbers would drop to the point that it would all be a disaster and no matter how many times I point out to you that it is speculation, you stick with it.

Because there is factual evidence to back that up. ____ me, Melbourne supporters don't even go to Telstra Dome! What bloody chance have we got getting them to go to a cheap stadium?

That is exactly right so why bother making a conclusion at all when you know so little of the existing facts and even less of the circumstances?
My original point was that if there were say three clubs in a joint venture for a boutique stadium then that could possibly be of more value for each
of the clubs than if a club did that individually. It had nothing to do with what Brayshaw said.



What you know is not much and to even make a conclusion at all is foolish, especially when you are confusing yourself with what I originally
spoke about regarding a boutique stadium.



Those are not the factors that I was referring to as hypotheticals as you well know. I am talking about hypotheticals such as how much would a
stadium cost? The capacity? The quality? The location? How many clubs involved? Price/seat? Who would aid in financing it? What sort of crowds
would it get? Which games would be played there? etc... those are real world issues that neither of us have a clue about yet you seem to have all
the answers and I have already stated where I think those answers came from.

So we look at the things we do have a clue about. i.e why the clubs Brayshaw was comparing make money.
Big reserved seat premiums.
Big support base.
Big corporate support.

That's now you make money in the AFL. You might not know all this, but I do. If you haven't got any of these things, blaming the stadium deal is a cop out.

I'm not living in a dream world. Point out where Braywhaw or anyone else (myself included) said that the only thing separating their club financially
from the WA clubs is the stadium deals. As far as I know Brayshaw stated that he wished his club had better stadium deals and (apparently)
used Fremantle as an example case as a club who has that type of deal he was referring to. Again it is up to the AFL to decide whether the
Kangaroos have a case for compensation. He didn't argue behind why that was the case. He merely stated that some clubs just can't get the same deals and it hurts the club.

It was most definitely his implication. He was suggesting that if he had a better stadium deal, that his club would be earning millions upon millions more a year.
His argument was that the crowds they attract were similar to Sydney and Fremantle, so therefore why were they earning so much less income? It must be the stadium deal. You'd think he was a bloody simpleton.

Subiaco may be cheap but do you think you may be getting a little bit carried away. We are still talking about modern stadiums and what idea do
you have of the kind of stadium that is or isn't acheivable for a budget that is yet to be determined - dare I say it hypothetical? This entire debate is rediculous. You are getting mixed up with my different points.

Firstly, you've obviously never been to Subiaco. It is a dump. Very, very similar to Optus Oval. Stands from the 60's combined with very poorly designed new stands. Funnily enough, those new stands were cheap.

Secondly, get over your obsession with hypotheticals. Nothing wrong with them, as long as they're based on reasonable assumptions. If you don't agree with the assumptions, then come out and say so, and say why. That's the idea of a forum.

If Paul Gardner came out and said that the difference between Melbourne and other clubs was purely the stadium deals I would disagree. Paul
Gardner used stadium deals as a way to illustrate where Melbourne as a club is not operating as optimally as it could be and we need to address that. In relation to this all I ever stated was that a potential deal between 3 clubs could possibly be a positive approach with regards to a new stadium.

Great, so give us your reasons as to why it's so positive. IMO, it would be a disaster, for reasons that i've already explained.

 

[Nardz]

I don't care what interstate clubs get, but clubs cost to play at the same stadium should be the same, If it requires $25,000 (????) at TD for Essendon to break even than that should be the same for the Kangaroos.

ok so from TD's point of view.

it costs $25,000 to run a stadium for a night.

Collingwood will fill it with a pretty much guaranteed 45,000 people. That means a profit of food and drinks at $300,000

North melbourne match will get 22,500 people (halved for ease of calculation). This means a profit of food and drinks at $150,000

Collingwood already doesnt want to play games at telstra dome. why should they charge north and collingwood the same fee if they stand to make twice as much money from the collingwood game as they do the north game?

heck they can give the game to collingwood for free, and still be making profit of $300,000, and for TD to make a similar profit north would need to be charged $150,000.

Of course all the figures are very rough estimates and there would definitely be more variables..

But what really gets me angry is that Clubs should be able to choose where they play all their home games. Geelong wanted to play 9 SS games + 2 MCG games this year but got 8 SS + 3 TD games. so therefore we as a club should be duly compensated for that.

This part however i agree with. the afl is a money hungry grub of an organisation.

 

[Royal Flush]

Sydney, I appreciate your interest.

I'm obviously following this from a distance and so am probably not fully informed but I understand North are insisting on an outcome that could force the pies to play in something other than the sacred stripes against them next year. This is deeply offensive to most Collingwood supporters including myself and leaves deep teeth shaped punctures all over our collective hands

Chaz

Offensive my-asssss.
Coming from London you'd know that Clubs like Chelsea, ManU, Liverpool have many alternate strips. Clubs like these turn over more then the entire AFL. So why do 15 clubs in the AFL have alternate non clash strips?
Why does Collingwood behave like they are beyond providing a true non clash strip and not just a reverse mocking the entire AFL?
Sacred pre-ww2 collingwood-Pigs assss. It could be argued that Port Adelaide has a far more "scared history" with their premierships and history.

 

[Joey Bungle]

Didn't see it, don't care.

No Sam, not worth it. Heard it was crap anyway.

 

[telsor]

ok so from TD's point of view.

it costs $25,000 to run a stadium for a night.

I suspect you'll find it's LOTS more than that...

300million debt, lets say 10% interest & repayments, so they need to cover 30mill/year. ( remembering the owners hand it to the AFL for nothing in time, so need to pay the debt before that ).

~60 events ( AFL, concerts, soccer, etc )/year, so $500,000 per event, just for debt coverage. Then add staff, security, cleaning, lighting, etc and you'll be talking at least $7-800,000/match ( higher crowds bring higher expenses due to need for more security, cleaning, etc)

Food concessions cover a significant part of this, as does medallion club memberships and the like, so lets say gate takings have to cover half ( actually it's probably more )..

So you're talking about $350,000 + ~$2/person.

$15 average ticket price ( considering concession, family, members, etc..maybe a bit low, but it's just to give the idea ) would mean about ~27,500 tickets to break even ( not counting medallion club, they've already paid ).


I suppose the good news from this is that when the ground is handed over to the AFL, it'll be worth another $500,000/match to the teams that play there. The bad news is that until that happens, the cost structure will suck majorly.

 

[Royal Flush]

THIS IS THE POINT;

AFL control where games are played and when.
So if Brisbane Lions get 23k to the Gabba they make around 200-300k.
If NMFC get 30k to Telstra dome they make $0.

The playing field must be even.
Don't give me any crap about Collingwood bringing in 50k spectators against Fremantle and making for the venue an additional $500k in food and beverage turnover.
There will always be big clubs and small clubs. The way it is around the world and exciting if you ask me. If 16 clubs in a 16 team comp were exactly like Collingwood how boring would that be?

If NMFC get 30k to a game they should make as much money as any other club that got 30K to an AFL game.
IF Collingwood get 80k to a game then they should get as much money for it as any other club that gets 80k to an AFL game.

Nothing complicated about that?
The difference would be Collingwood would make more money then NMFC, but the point is NMFC would make money just as any other club would.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

THIS IS THE POINT;

AFL control where games are played and when.
So if Brisbane Lions get 23k to the Gabba they make around 200-300k.
If NMFC get 30k to Telstra dome they make $0.

The playing field must be even.
Don't give me any crap about Collingwood bringing in 50k spectators against Fremantle and making for the venue an additional $500k in food and beverage turnover.
There will always be big clubs and small clubs. The way it is around the world and exciting if you ask me. If 16 clubs in a 16 team comp were exactly like Collingwood how boring would that be?

If NMFC get 30k to a game they should make as much money as any other club that got 30K to an AFL game.
IF Collingwood get 80k to a game then they should get as much money for it as any other club that gets 80k to an AFL game.

Nothing complicated about that?
The difference would be Collingwood would make more money then NMFC, but the point is NMFC would make money just as any other club would.

Not quite. All 23K at the Brisbane game are Brisbane fans. The lions are bringing 23K to the game. In the North game, 15,000 (tops) would be North fans. Is it fair that North attracts 8000 less fans, yet gets the same money ? Of course not.

If North got the same as the lions for a 23K crowd, then gate receipts would be heavily skewed to Melbourne teams because of the high number of games against fellow melbourne sides....which bring their own supporters.

And you are conveniently forgetting that Brisbane ticket prices are also significantly higher than North ticket prices ?
I'm sure if you charged like Brisbane, you'd be on the parity you so covert.

 

[Royal Flush]

Not quite. All 23K at the Brisbane game are Brisbane fans. The lions are bringing 23K to the game. In the North game, 15,000 (tops) would be North fans. Is it fair that North attracts 8000 less fans, yet gets the same money ? Of course not.

If North got the same as the lions for a 23K crowd, then gate receipts would be heavily skewed to Melbourne teams because of the high number of games against fellow melbourne sides....which bring their own supporters.

And you are conveniently forgetting that Brisbane ticket prices are also significantly higher than North ticket prices ?
I'm sure if you charged like Brisbane, you'd be on the parity you so covert.

Not true, please get your facts right before you spend time putting forward meaningless and incorrect opinions that I will never respect.

15k tops? sometimes, sometimes not. Take the low attendance against Port Adelaide in last years final 27k.
Yes terrible for a final but that will give you more accurate anecdotal evidence regarding Norths Current support. (Don't come out with some crapy opinion that 12k were port supporters to suit your arguement.
Then you can look at the 70k against Geelong. I disagree that only 15k NMFC people turned up.

Regardless of who we play 30k at Telstra dome makes no money depending on which team you are and which deal you have made by the afl on your behalf. So if Sydney makes 200-300k for 25k attendance(I don't really know what Swans make), then regardless of our opposition we should be making something. Even if it was 1/3 rd of Brisbane's total takings for a 23k crowd. I have paid $30-$50 for the Dome and $30 plus for Gabba. SO I don't know really if there is much of a difference?

At the Gabba, I was there along with another 1000k NMFC supporters. So I'm not sure what you mean by Brisbane only crowd

 

[Oscarman]

With Telstra Dome, my understanding is that Essendon (as the first club to move there) have a clause in their contract that no other tenant can get an equal or better deal than the Bombers have. If this is true, fair enough, and this should be honoured. If clubs can nail a better deal than another club, then so be it. The AFL is a business, even if many don't like it. It's all structured to deliver the biggest possible return to the AFL and the clubs, and the CBF or whatever it's called now attempts to balance this out.

 

[Bonuspoints]

I've always wondered why the clubs negotiated deals for the stadiums individually and not collectively. I get that the big clubs like Collingwood can sit at the table and have more bargaining power, but surely they can more with the other clubs backing it up. Why the AFL didn't have a lead negotiator working with the clubs to forge the deals is a surprise to me. I guess there was nothing to stop the clubs coming together to sit at the table. The clean stadium rant by Brayshaw has been something he's been consistent with and very vocal on.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Offensive my-asssss.
Coming from London you'd know that Clubs like Chelsea, ManU, Liverpool have many alternate strips. Clubs like these turn over more then the entire AFL. So why do 15 clubs in the AFL have alternate non clash strips?
Why does Collingwood behave like they are beyond providing a true non clash strip and not just a reverse mocking the entire AFL?
Sacred pre-ww2 collingwood-Pigs assss. It could be argued that Port Adelaide has a far more "scared history" with their premierships and history.

What has EPL clubs or their turn over got to do with Collingwood wanting to only wear black and white stripes? I like the EPL but I'm not so start struck and prone to the cultural cringe as to think whatever practice that occurs here is some gold standard we should aspire to. Teams being made to change their shirt colours has been around in association football since the 19 th century. And in recent decades regular changes to home and away kits have occurred purely as a marketing ploy to make money of their supports. As far as I 'm aware every club in the top few divisions are either privately owned or publicly listed profit seekers, as opposed to the mainly member based AFL clubs.

Collingwood was playing in its black and white stripes (it had played in since it was established in 1882) against 7 to 9 teams non of which it "clashed" up to 1925. Then it was playing against 11 teams none of which it clashed with (check out what your mob wore in the first few years of the VFL). At some point North Melbourne riverted back to its pale blue and white striped jumper it had worn in the VFA along with multiple others. At that stage it was obviously not considered a clash jumper.

Port Adelaide have a great history in their competition (longer than ours though not in the black and white), but had to add the teal as a condition of entry into the AFL.

So, we want to go on wearing the same black and white stripes in every match we have worn in every match (?) since our inception and since we break away with 7 other clubs to form the VFL which has evolved into todays league. The inverse stripes should easily create enough scope to work within once you've factored shorts.

I'm not one to stoop low and play the "your club is gonna die/merge/relocate card" but you don't help your cause when you carry on with no recognition of the fact that your ongoing existence is partly underpinned by heavy equalisation measures that supress the big clubs ability to dominate proportionate to their size.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

With Telstra Dome, my understanding is that Essendon (as the first club to move there) have a clause in their contract that no other tenant can get an equal or better deal than the Bombers have. If this is true, fair enough, and this should be honoured. If clubs can nail a better deal than another club, then so be it. The AFL is a business, even if many don't like it. It's all structured to deliver the biggest possible return to the AFL and the clubs, and the CBF or whatever it's called now attempts to balance this out.

"The AFL is a business" line is not exactly true. Neither the AFL or (in practice) any of the clubs are privately owned or public listed profit maximisers. The benefit of a corporate, revenue focussed structure is, in theory, it best resources the AFL to look after the health , growth, survival of the game.

The AFL's ground rationalisation policy has reduced the collective operating costs by reducing the number of stadiums requireing up keep to "AFL standard" and incresed the number of games played at each stadium and so spreading the development/ construction/ maintenace costs of the remaing stadiums.

This may have beneifted the game collectively but has disadvantaged the other the smaller clubs. The big two clubs signed preferential deals with the two remaining stadiums and the smaller clubs were forced to play out of stadiums that did not suit them.

 

[Rob]

THIS IS THE POINT;

AFL control where games are played and when.
So if Brisbane Lions get 23k to the Gabba they make around 200-300k.
If NMFC get 30k to Telstra dome they make $0.

The playing field must be even.
Don't give me any crap about Collingwood bringing in 50k spectators against Fremantle and making for the venue an additional $500k in food and beverage turnover.
There will always be big clubs and small clubs. The way it is around the world and exciting if you ask me. If 16 clubs in a 16 team comp were exactly like Collingwood how boring would that be?

If NMFC get 30k to a game they should make as much money as any other club that got 30K to an AFL game.
IF Collingwood get 80k to a game then they should get as much money for it as any other club that gets 80k to an AFL game.

Nothing complicated about that?
The difference would be Collingwood would make more money then NMFC, but the point is NMFC would make money just as any other club would.

Great solution brainiac, then every club would just charge $1 for entry and make shitloads by filling the stadium every week.
In such a scenario, where does the money come from to ensure these clubs turn a profit? You think clubs make money due to being paid by the stadium? They make money because their revenue exceeds their costs. Make more revenue, turn a bigger profit. Charge bugger all for your tickets, earn ____ all corporate income, no bloody surprise you struggle to turn a profit. Welcome to the real world.

 

[A Living God]

THIS IS THE POINT;

AFL control where games are played and when.
So if Brisbane Lions get 23k to the Gabba they make around 200-300k.
If NMFC get 30k to Telstra dome they make $0.

The playing field must be even.
Don't give me any crap about Collingwood bringing in 50k spectators against Fremantle and making for the venue an additional $500k in food and beverage turnover.
There will always be big clubs and small clubs. The way it is around the world and exciting if you ask me. If 16 clubs in a 16 team comp were exactly like Collingwood how boring would that be?

If NMFC get 30k to a game they should make as much money as any other club that got 30K to an AFL game.
IF Collingwood get 80k to a game then they should get as much money for it as any other club that gets 80k to an AFL game.

Nothing complicated about that?
The difference would be Collingwood would make more money then NMFC, but the point is NMFC would make money just as any other club would.

This is an example which I just made up.

Brisbane could sell 40,000 tickets at $20 with costs of $300,000
or Brisbane could sell 30,000 tickets at $35 with costs of $250,000.
They either make a profit of $500,000 or $800,000.

North Melbourne could selll 30,000 tickets at $20 with costs of $250,000
or North Melbourne could sell 15,000 tickets at $35 with costs of $200,000.
They either make a profit of $350,000 or $325,000.

Now explain why clubs who draw the same the crowd deserve to make the same profit.

 

[Royal Flush]

Great solution brainiac, then every club would just charge $1 for entry and make shitloads by filling the stadium every week.
In such a scenario, where does the money come from to ensure these clubs turn a profit? You think clubs make money due to being paid by the stadium? They make money because their revenue exceeds their costs. Make more revenue, turn a bigger profit. Charge bugger all for your tickets, earn ____ all corporate income, no bloody surprise you struggle to turn a profit. Welcome to the real world.

Whats your point?
What do you mean by $1? You obviously haven't thought about your point.
Who charges buggerall for their tickets?
Let me explain something to you, Every team that plays out of TD has a different arrangement, NMFC and certain other clubs do not make any money with 30k attendance. Other clubs make money at the same venue with 25k attendance. Ticket prices are the same, levels of corpoarte support may differ, not to the the point which sees a vast difference in earnings from home games.
Again simple terms Brisbane make 200-300k from 23k attendance.
NMFC and others make 0 from a 30k attendance.
Quick math $300,000 diveded by 23,000 = $13.

So whether a ticket costs $30 or $50 is slightly irrelevant to the clubs bottom line.