MCG lowers food prices

[Rob]

Are you buying this whole afl conspiracy though? It's even reported spotless will talk to other stadia now, but apparently that's just a smokescreen

Fwiw I think this is Subi knowing they have no competition, the party ends soon, and having zero interest in reducing prices. After all, what competition do they have, or incentive to give something back?

Personally I think the MCC reply would have been the same as subis if not for the recent soft crowds

I dunno about a conspiracy, but it's a fair question to ask given Gil's initial comments when he took the job as well as the questionable economics of it for Spotless.

 

[Rob]

The stories in the WA and SA press?

It was front page on Wednesday. Front f**king page.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I dunno about a conspiracy, but it's a fair question to ask given Gil's initial comments when he took the job as well as the questionable economics of it for Spotless.

I think the leap to the afl secretly funding food however is a big one.

Remember the afl has a lot of soft power on this. They have defended the stadiums under vlad, but switching to Gilligan it's clear that defense is lost, and the stadia have been copping a lot of heat here. Also you have the issue of alt food.

Afl defended the ban on Nandos in the past, but if the afl started publicly saying "punters should be able to bring in store bought food" it would be ugly.

You also have the concourses. I believe it's the council who control the vans (happy to be corrected), logging them for more and new alternatives creates a direct competitor to the in stadium sales

Not saying these happened btw, but just showing the afl could have been doing things to help encourage spotless and the MCC to make a deal without actually being involved in the deal itself

 

[Kwality]

I think the leap to the afl secretly funding food however is a big one.

Remember the afl has a lot of soft power on this. They have defended the stadiums under vlad, but switching to Gilligan it's clear that defense is lost, and the stadia have been copping a lot of heat here. Also you have the issue of alt food.

Afl defended the ban on Nandos in the past, but if the afl started publicly saying "punters should be able to bring in store bought food" it would be ugly.

You also have the concourses. I believe it's the council who control the vans (happy to be corrected), logging them for more and new alternatives creates a direct competitor to the in stadium sales

Not saying these happened btw, but just showing the afl could have been doing things to help encourage spotless and the MCC to make a deal without actually being involved in the deal itself

so the AFL get increased crowds at the G, a stated 2015 claim even offering free entry at some games & the stadium manager & the caterer pay for it, is that the scenario as you see it.
Forget the red herrings, bringing food in & food vans have nothing to do with a decision by the stadium manager & catering contractor to drop prices, all because Gil asked them to.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

so the AFL get increased crowds at the G, a stated 2015 claim even offering free entry at some games & the stadium manager & the caterer pay for it, is that the scenario as you see it.
Forget the red herrings, bringing food in & food vans have nothing to do with a decision by the stadium manager & catering contractor to drop prices, all because Gil asked them to.

take off the conspiracy specs for five minutes

the stadiums in melbourne have seen a softening in numbers. Part due to crap scheduling, but part is due to the change in supporter habits.

we used to walk up, but more and more we are now members. I know there have been days when its 11C, pissing with rain, and Ive said "**** it, club already has my money for this game. I'll watch from home/pub and enjoy it in comfort on the big screen with cheap beer.

This is why the AO thing is such a big deal. a stadium has realised it needs to work with the clubs to make going to the footy an event too good to say "**** it" to. In 2014 we had gouging food prices, virtually no match day imagery, and most of the in stadium promotion was about "the people ground" rather than our footy clubs.

Cutting the margins on food makes sense because its one less reason for punters to watch from home.

Contrary to what you think, this literally has NOTHING to do with WA, and the AFL ****ing it over. This is about the MCC realizing it cant keep treating people with contempt when you want to have a minimum of 40k plus rocking up to each game.

 

[The_Wookie]

so the AFL get increased crowds at the G, a stated 2015 claim even offering free entry at some games & the stadium manager & the caterer pay for it, is that the scenario as you see it.

its the Scenario that was announced by the MCC and Spotless - who said that Mclachlan had been told just before the press conference. Ive no reason not to believe it - especially when Spotless say they are going to chase the same deal with other venues they cater for - most of which have nothing to do with the AFL.

 

[Kwality]

take off the conspiracy specs for five minutes

the stadiums in melbourne have seen a softening in numbers. Part due to crap scheduling, but part is due to the change in supporter habits.

we used to walk up, but more and more we are now members. I know there have been days when its 11C, pissing with rain, and Ive said "**** it, club already has my money for this game. I'll watch from home/pub and enjoy it in comfort on the big screen with cheap beer.

This is why the AO thing is such a big deal. a stadium has realised it needs to work with the clubs to make going to the footy an event too good to say "**** it" to. In 2014 we had gouging food prices, virtually no match day imagery, and most of the in stadium promotion was about "the people ground" rather than our footy clubs.

Cutting the margins on food makes sense because its one less reason for punters to watch from home.

Contrary to what you think, this literally has NOTHING to do with WA, and the AFL ******* it over. This is about the MCC realizing it cant keep treating people with contempt when you want to have a minimum of 40k plus rocking up to each game.

No conspiracy here just commercial reality at the G & others are asking for equity. AFL want higher crowds & facilitated lower food prices - the quid pro quo was the way Gerard Healy put it and you are a denier.
WA & SA are involved because food prices are on a par with those before the AFL negotiated on behalf of some (only) fans.

 

[Kwality]

its the Scenario that was announced by the MCC and Spotless - who said that Mclachlan had been told just before the press conference. Ive no reason not to believe it - especially when Spotless say they are going to chase the same deal with other venues they cater for - most of which have nothing to do with the AFL.

Keep an eye out for the ASX announcement on changes to catering division profits - here is the link http://www.spotless.com/investors/asx-announcements

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No conspiracy here just commercial reality at the G & others are asking for equity. AFL want higher crowds & facilitated lower food prices - the quid pro quo was the way Gerard Healy put it and you are a denier.
WA & SA are involved because food prices are on a par with those before the AFL negotiated on behalf of some (only) fans.

You keep saying this, but you are yet to show ONE piece of evidence showing the afl has done anything like this

Does this mean we all get to just make shit up now to fit our agenda?

 

[Kwality]

You keep saying this, but you are yet to show ONE piece of evidence showing the afl has done anything like this

Does this mean we all get to just make shit up now to fit our agenda?

The AFL get more crowds to the G & others pay, OK. Proof in a commercial transaction, Spotless have not made any material loss as proven by no ASX announcement & they are the only party in the transaction required to keep the public informed.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL get more crowds to the G & others pay, OK. Proof in a commercial transaction, Spotless have not made any material loss as proven by no ASX announcement & they are the only party in the transaction required to keep the public informed.

You're basing this entirely on assumptions that fly in the face of released data from both Spotless and the MCC who say the AFL wasnt involved. There is nothing to gain by the AFL NOT being involved. When have you not known the AFL to grab any publicity it can with both hands - especially with all the crap its had lately?

Not releasing a statement to the ASX isnt proof - What if Spotless expect to make up the investment - as its put by the MCC - in terms of an extended contract (which we know was granted) and increased sales resulting from reduced prices, and thus break revenue neutral on the whole deal?

 

[Kwality]

You're basing this entirely on assumptions that fly in the face of released data from both Spotless and the MCC who say the AFL wasnt involved. There is nothing to gain by the AFL NOT being involved. When have you not known the AFL to grab any publicity it can with both hands - especially with all the crap its had lately?

Not releasing a statement to the ASX isnt proof - What if Spotless expect to make up the investment - as its put by the MCC - in terms of an extended contract (which we know was granted) and increased sales resulting from reduced prices, and thus break revenue neutral on the whole deal?

Your faith in the AFL is not shared by me.

 

[The_Wookie]

Your faith in the AFL is not shared by me.

Its not about faith. Its about seeing whats in front of me and not adding my own spin to it based on "feelings".

 

[telsor]

The AFL get more crowds to the G & others pay, OK. Proof in a commercial transaction, Spotless have not made any material loss as proven by no ASX announcement & they are the only party in the transaction required to keep the public informed.

The key word here is 'material'. Banks don't report to the ASX every time they change an interest rate.

Spotless's half year results had a profit (after tax) of $60.2M, for this adjustment to be 'material' to that (or more correctly to the full year result which is presumably comfortably above $100M), it would probably need to make somewhere between $5M and $20M difference to that (Companies have a great deal of discretion on such matters....Remember, we're talking after tax net profits, not revenue...Their gross revenue was ~1.3Billion).

I'd be rather surprised if AFL catering makes a big enough share of their profits to qualify as 'material' except in hugely extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Kwality]

The key word here is 'material'. Banks don't report to the ASX every time they change an interest rate.

Spotless's half year results had a profit (after tax) of $60.2M, for this adjustment to be 'material' to that (or more correctly to the full year result which is presumably comfortably above $100M), it would probably need to make somewhere between $5M and $20M difference to that (Companies have a great deal of discretion on such matters....Remember, we're talking after tax net profits, not revenue...Their gross revenue was ~1.3Billion).

I'd be rather surprised if AFL catering makes a big enough share of their profits to qualify as 'material' except in hugely extraordinary circumstances.

Material, correct interpretation - did you visit the IPO prospectus?

 

[telsor]

Material, correct interpretation - did you visit the IPO prospectus?

Why would I? There is nothing requiring them to refer back to it unless they're *materially* different.

 

[Kwality]

Why would I? There is nothing requiring them to refer back to it unless they're *materially* different.

It was an IPO.

 

[telsor]

It was an IPO.

So? It's forecasts are no more significant than any other.