New proposal for Ballarat development.

[The_Wookie]

That's a pretty big qualification!

What do you reckon - that Etihad is just about to fall into the AFL's lap without the AFL having orchestrated any aspect of it?

Of course they built it - as in they are the ones who organised the building of it, financed by:

1. the sale of Waverley (owned by the AFL)
2. the promise to play so many AFL games there for 25 years.

How else could any one view that?

Please don't start sounding like these soccer people who honestly believe that the government has given Etihad to the AFL.

Signing a lease to own agreement is not the same as building a stadium for yourself.

1. the sale of Waverly didnt finance Etihad - money was used to draw down AFL debt, and paid to the clubs over the next 4 years. The money for the freehold buyout supposedly came from Channel 7s payment for first and last rights in 2002 (paid in 1999). The AFL hasnt paid a cent since for the stadium (and depending on how you read the notes in last years Annual Report, may not have even paid for the freehold yet, but merely have the option to buy it within six months of the lease ending).
2. Its a big part of WHY the stadium was built, it doesnt mean they built the stadium any more than soccer or rugby league built Aami Park or GWS built Spotless Stadium.

 

[Gigantor]

Signing a lease to own agreement is not the same as building a stadium for yourself.

I know you have some background in finance, so I know you would know this statement to be barely half-true.

There is very, very little difference, in substance, between organising to own an asset via a leaseback agreement and owning it via other forms of debt you put your name to directly.

In either situation, regardless of the manner in which the AFL structured its debt on the stadium - they organised the building of the stadium - they built it - they built it with the intention of owning it outright.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Signing a lease to own agreement is not the same as building a stadium for yourself.

1. the sale of Waverly didnt finance Etihad - money was used to draw down AFL debt, and paid to the clubs over the next 4 years. The money for the freehold buyout supposedly came from Channel 7s payment for first and last rights in 2002 (paid in 1999). The AFL hasnt paid a cent since for the stadium (and depending on how you read the notes in last years Annual Report, may not have even paid for the freehold yet, but merely have the option to buy it within six months of the lease ending).
2. Its a big part of WHY the stadium was built, it doesnt mean they built the stadium any more than soccer or rugby league built Aami Park or GWS built Spotless Stadium.

Indirectly or directly depending on which way you look at it, the clubs and the AFL have paid plenty for the stadium and will continue to do so, there is only one reason they continue to play and guarantee a minimum amount of games there, and that is to own it as per the terms they signed for.

I wonder if anyone has a clue how much the AFL games combined with pourage, signage, carparking etc etc has paid to stadium management over the journey and i wonder if we add up every other event over the journey how much they have payed.

I also wonder if the AFL was not going to own the stadium then how many Essendon and other games would have been moved to the MCG.

 

[telsor]

Indirectly or directly depending on which way you look at it, the clubs and the AFL have paid plenty for the stadium and will continue to do so, there is only one reason they continue to play and guarantee a minimum amount of games there, and that is to own it as per the terms they signed for.

Clubs yes, AFL no (well, I suppose you could call that the AFL working 'indirectly' paying through the clubs). The AFL actually takes money (some of which they distribute to the clubs).

I wonder if anyone has a clue how much the AFL games combined with pourage, signage, carparking etc etc has paid to stadium management over the journey and i wonder if we add up every other event over the journey how much they have payed.

I'm sure the numbers exist, it's a company after all. As for them ever becoming public, probably not.

I also wonder if the AFL was not going to own the stadium then how many Essendon and other games would have been moved to the MCG.

If the AFL wasn't going to own the stadium, the deal(s) would be significantly different, so clubs might actually prefer to play there. That said, there are limits to how many games can be played at either ground.

 

[The_Wookie]

Indirectly or directly depending on which way you look at it, the clubs and the AFL have paid plenty for the stadium and will continue to do so, there is only one reason they continue to play and guarantee a minimum amount of games there, and that is to own it as per the terms they signed for.

Thats not building it.

I wonder if anyone has a clue how much the AFL games combined with pourage, signage, carparking etc etc has paid to stadium management over the journey and i wonder if we add up every other event over the journey how much they have payed.

The AFL collects signage and pourage revenues from Etihad for distribution. So probably not as much as you think.

I also wonder if the AFL was not going to own the stadium then how many Essendon and other games would have been moved to the MCG.

Essendon werent forced to play there by the AFLl. Essendons contract was signed separately and of their own accord as a foundation tenant of the stadium. Chances are it would be no different. Essendon werent forced to leave the MCG.

 

[Gigantor]

It is a pretty good story, sounds like good value.