the $problems at Etihad continue

[SaintsSeptember]

I suspect that is about as accurate as saying playing at the same venue as Essendon earns them the same amount as Essendon. St Kilda wouldn't get, for instance, Collingwoods MCG deal just like they don't get Essendon's Docklands deal.

No its based on the deals that got with both Stadiums now.

The Stadium charges are not necessarily a reflection of the costs.
They charge as much as they possibly can get away with.
The competition is limited so supply vs demand favours demand.

 

[Underarm]

etihad stadium 50,000 cap built in 1999 for $460m

metricon stadium 20,000 cap built in 2010 for $160m

even not taking into account inflation thats three times the price
How much of the $460 went to equipt the place to hold rectangualr spoerts and concerts - for which it doesnt really work - eg the socceroos still play the MCG, and acts prefer several shows at tennis center to one show at etihad


Vision back in 199 would have built a 25,000 afl stadium at docklands, another similar one at waverley and a soccer one at olympic park, which would have meant MORE savings with no need for the current AAMI park

Sale of waverely lans around stadium would have helped fund stadium

moderate update to princess park and you have 3 local grounds for crowds up to 25,000, (plus geelong of cournse) all the bigger games at the MCG, whch can accomodate 3 per weekend = 66 over a season or 6 per victorian club

logical groupings for the vic clubs for smaller grounds would be - Haw-StK-mel at waverley coll carl rich at PP and ess wb Nth at docklands

Wow. Where to start.

• part of the $460m went into adding a retractable roof and underground parking. Also, Metricon looks like a dogs breakfast with stands starting and ending at weird points. Etihad is practically symetrical.
• Victory, heart, and Storm all play games there though. IR will be there
• 25k stadiums in Melbourne are Pointless, which is why PP stopped being used for matches. Richmond, Collingwood, carlton, essendon and Hawthorn would fill them all for matches against any melbourne sides, and some interstate sides. So why would you need 3 grounds for 4 lesser melbourne sides?
• Richmond and Collingwood will never play home games at Carlton's Princes Park.
• Despite the poor deal at Etihad, IMO its still the best design for Melbourne's second stadium. a 80k(waverly) is too big when you compare it to the MCG, and 30k(pp) is too small when you compare it the MCG. 50k is the perfect size for the market.

 

[MarkT2]

No its based on the deals that got with both Stadiums now.

So the deal and cowds are the same accross the board?

 

[Scotland]

Thats correct, you have to also allow for items such as 90% of revenue generated at Subi is kept by Freo and the Eagles, whilst the figure is closer to 35-40% at Docklands for the Eithad tenant clubs. Rent paid by some clubs verus nil rent versus others, the break even point for each ground etc.

People who say 'we only get x% of revenue while you get y%' either don't understand how stadium deals work or are being disingenuous.

If North Melbourne had the exact same 'great stadium deal' that West Coast have at Subiaco Oval they would be squealing about it like stuck pigs.

 

[The_Reaper]

Thats correct, you have to also allow for items such as 90% of revenue generated at Subi is kept by Freo and the Eagles, whilst the figure is closer to 35-40% at Docklands for the Eithad tenant clubs. Rent paid by some clubs verus nil rent versus others, the break even point for each ground etc.

Is this of our neglible gate takings?

And discounting the money we have to pay each year to the WAFC- as the only two clubs funding Western Australian football?
And discounting the money we pay to help fund football in the eastern states? (with the exception of SA- which like us is self funding).

 

[Sttew]

Oh arent Geelong just so clever. I suppose they buil/paid for that Stadium too.

This jealousy of Victorian opposition supporters towards Geelong is startling. Lets get a few facts right.

Sure tax payers contributed to the development of Skilled Stadium (or whatever the latest sponsored name is).

Several years ago the Geelong FC hierarchy consciously decided its future would be at Kardinia Park, and not in Melbourne, and the club came up with a blue print to develop the stadium into an all-seat facility. The stadium isn't owned by the football club; it is on crown land vested in the local council. And the local council and state government are astute enough to realise that the long term return to the Geelong community from the development of the stadium will be far outweigh their financial investments.

In Victoria, apart from Melbourne FC, we are the only side to have retained its home ground. And I am bloody grateful the club stuck to its guns.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

If North Melbourne had an identical stadium deal to Essendon would North Melbourne supporters be happy? I imagine not.

The problem is not the deal itself, its the lack of choice - the basis of St Kilda's argument is that they want to play the games at the MCG.

Essendon would be complaining to the AFL too if they had no home games at the MCG (they had 4 in 2011).

 

[Hill2Pav]

People who say 'we only get x% of revenue while you get y%' either don't understand how stadium deals work or are being disingenuous.

If North Melbourne had the exact same 'great stadium deal' that West Coast have at Subiaco Oval they would be squealing about it like stuck pigs.

People who say 'we only get x% of revenue while you get y%' either don't understand how stadium deals work or are being disingenuous.

I know eaxactly how they work, thats why I mentioned, % of revenue, break even points, rent etc etc all have an affect upon returns on stadiums by clubs.

If North Melbourne had the exact same 'great stadium deal' that West Coast have at Subiaco Oval they would be squealing about it like stuck pigs.

Can you provide a cost benefit analysis of each stadium deal for us?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=554729

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This jealousy of Victorian opposition supporters towards Geelong is startling. Lets get a few facts right.

Sure tax payers contributed to the development of Skilled Stadium (or whatever the latest sponsored name is).

Several years ago the Geelong FC hierarchy consciously decided its future would be at Kardinia Park, and not in Melbourne, and the club came up with a blue print to develop the stadium into an all-seat facility. The stadium isn't owned by the football club; it is on crown land vested in the local council. And the local council and state government are astute enough to realise that the long term return to the Geelong community from the development of the stadium will be far outweigh their financial investments.

In Victoria, apart from Melbourne FC, we are the only side to have retained its home ground. And I am bloody grateful the club stuck to its guns.

My comment isnt so much jealousy, its an "is" from my point of view, and I dont really mind.
But its not because your club has done something clever or special.

You and I both know that having a dozen home stadiums in various parts of melbourne would not have made any sense at all in light of the modern game. They would be incredibly under utilised.

However as a single ground/venue for a City of a couple of hundred thousand it makes sense. Its actually a similar size to a Stadium that exists in similarly sized Townsville. No doubt it is a bigger/better facility than it would be if Geelong didnt have an AFL franchise.

 

[Tas]

I buy a membership to support my club, knowing full well I may not go to all games at Kardinia Park and that there are more members than capacity. This is a small way I can support my club.

I accept that but it is AFL policy that a club can not sell more memberships than the capacity of their stadium, it is why Crows and Eagles are at membership caps. Geelong is let off the hook because they play a few games in Melbourne.

I used to go every year to Kardinia park but no longer go there, parking is inadequate and since the bandwagon came rolling in it has been difficult to find it difficult to find a good place to watch the game, most of the decent areas are reserved for geelong members.

It is effectively cutting short the number of games we get access to because we get stuck with Geelong as an away game every freaking year because the AFL manipulates the draw for some clubs to make money, at the expense of others.

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

I hope long into the future when the proceeds of the sale of Etihad Stadium are divided up, that North, the Bulldogs and the Saints are appropriately compensated and recognised for what they've been forced to sacfrice by carrying the burden of playing their home games there and copping the financial hits there from day one.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

All the clubs would be worse off if they had to carry the expense of maintaining a large stadium for a maximum of 11 games year.

 

[grimface_87]

Could North Melbourne raise ticket prices?

The AFL sets ticket prices

 

[Pessimistic]

Wow. Where to start.

• part of the $460m went into adding a retractable roof and underground parking. Also, Metricon looks like a dogs breakfast with stands starting and ending at weird points. Etihad is practically symetrical.
• Victory, heart, and Storm all play games there though. IR will be there
• 25k stadiums in Melbourne are Pointless, which is why PP stopped being used for matches. Richmond, Collingwood, carlton, essendon and Hawthorn would fill them all for matches against any melbourne sides, and some interstate sides. So why would you need 3 grounds for 4 lesser melbourne sides?
• Richmond and Collingwood will never play home games at Carlton's Princes Park.
• Despite the poor deal at Etihad, IMO its still the best design for Melbourne's second stadium. a 80k(waverly) is too big when you compare it to the MCG, and 30k(pp) is too small when you compare it the MCG. 50k is the perfect size for the market.

Are you Rob with another name?.

You are arguing my 'what' if points
Like for example the "easthetics' of metricon - who gives a stuff - its cheaper by a huge factor

it still doesnt prove etihad is not a huge problem -over specced. over priced over everything and stuffed.

Read the Article EVERYONE agrees. Im sick of arguing over peanuts

 

[Papa G]

Are you Rob with another name?.

You are arguing my 'what' if points
Like for example the "easthetics' of metricon - who gives a stuff - its cheaper by a huge factor

it still doesnt prove etihad is not a huge problem -over specced. over priced over everything and stuffed.

Read the Article EVERYONE agrees. Im sick of arguing over peanuts

No I don't think he is, just more than one person disagrees with your continual bullshit about how 80,000 people would magically trudge out to Waverly in the cold and rain, but only 14,000 would pay $20 to go to the best and only indoor football stadium in the country in it's prime, central and transport linked location.

 

[Pessimistic]

No I don't think he is, just more than one person disagrees with your continual bullshit about how 80,000 people would magically trudge out to Waverly in the cold and rain, but only 14,000 would pay $20 to go to the best and only indoor football stadium in the country in it's prime, central and transport linked location.

Given I advocate a 25,000 stadium in my dicussion you seem to be putting words in my posts and then denigrating me on those fictitious comments.

25 or 30k stadium for hawks to play the teams we now play in tasmania, same for a couple of other vic clubs..

I note that another club who bagged waverley back then - melbourne, is now talking about home games in casey

Games against other melbourne clubs at the MCG - there is ALREADY a stadium in an even better quote 'prime central linked location'

 

[Scotland]

Can you provide a cost benefit analysis of each stadium deal for us?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=554729

I know eaxactly how they work, thats why I mentioned, % of revenue, break even points, rent etc etc all have an affect upon returns on stadiums by clubs.

You're the expert, why don't you do it?

Some great stuff in RussellEbertHandball's thread...

Net Stadium Returns - 2005

WCE $10.93m (Average home attendance in 2005 was 40,267)
Bris_ $10.84m (33,267)
Col_ $10.30m (41,759)
Fre_ $10.29m (35,224)
Syd__ $7.62m (32,346)
Ess__ $7.49m (46,198)
Adl__ $7.28m (42,341)
Clt___$7.18m (36,976)
Gee__ $7.06m (27,783)
Mel__ $6.10m (39,869)
Stk__ $6.03m (36,856)
PA___ $5.93m (32,911)
Haw__ $5.65m (30,541)
Ric___ $5.57m (35,800)
Kan__ $5.14m (30,795)
WB___ $4.64m (28,321)

From that link provided the following was the gross membership returns of clubs in 2006 including seat premiums:

1. West Coast $11.045m
2. Adelaide $7.917m
3. Collingwood $7.541m
4. Brisbane Lions $6.982m
5. Geelong $6.375m
6. Fremantle $6.279m
7. Essendon $6.13m
8. Port Adelaide $5.667m
9. Sydney $5.416m
10. St Kilda $4.957m
11 Richmond $4.108m
12. Carlton $4.072m
13 W Bulldogs $3.594m
14 Hawthorn $3.225m
15 Melbourne $3.181m
16 Kangaroos $2.981m

I'm aware that get to use the 'clean' Subiaco Oval - for which we pay $3m a year in rent, but I reckon the $8m gulf in membership revenue might have something to do with the $5m difference in net stadium return between WC & NM...

 

[MightyHawks]

Could North Melbourne raise ticket prices?

The AFL sets ticket prices

Well this is true... the AFL do set the ticket prices

But anyone who goes to Etihad chooses how much they want to pay.

Don't quote me on these figures...
Level 2 seating = $57 i think
Level 1 seating = $47
Level 3 seating = $25

If you want to attend an average match that won't sell out you can choose how much you want to pay. If more people spend more $ then Etihad get more $ and more $ is distributed to the home team.

If Hawthorn was playing Essendon, Carlton, North and the Dogs at Etihad then I'd probably pay for the better seats when we're playing the Dons and the Blues and go for the cheaper ones against Kangas and Dogs.

If I was a North supporter I'd be buying a level 2 reserved seat membership package (unless they were sold out in which case I'd buy level 1 on the wing...

 

[theflea]

We're turning a very tidy profit whilst building an entirely new facility without having to borrow anything.

Thank you for your concern.

i thought you were going to have about a 5m debt carryover?

 

[theflea]

It should be done with the TV rights $$, which I believe is what is happening. The AFL would not have the ability to take profits from clubs and redistribute them. You can't penalise clubs for being financially successful.

i sort of agree but the reason they have the bad deals is on the back of the dons and pies mega deals!!

 

[theflea]

It’s the AFL’s fault – they wanted a shiny new stadium to replace Waverley, but couldn’t afford to pay for it. So private investment was required, and now the clubs are repaying those investors.

To add insult to the situation, whenever there’s public debate about the issue, THE AFL are out there pulling the heartstrings about broke clubs and how the big bad investors at Etihad are bleeding the peoples’ clubs dry. The investors who simply want the return on their money that they were promised. But supposedly it’s their fault because the ********s downstairs at the AFL have buyer’s remorse.

Clubs should be fully reimbursed by the AFL (I believe they are to some extent) – the league wanted the stadium, the clubs are paying for it.

I’m generally not as critical of the AFL administration as some, but on this issue their behaviour has been and continues to be ****ing disgraceful.

snap!!

 

[MightyHawks]

Sadly - the private investors, such as super funds - the AFL is a rock solid investment and they wouldn't want to get out super fast (so to speak!).

Sure you'd be welcome to buy the Stadium until 2025, you'd get a good deal too. Wouldn't cost $460million. Much less...

Hawks presiednet Ian Dicker took one look at the stadium deal and shifted Hawks games to Tasmania. So even then it was just the fools who got sucked in.

It was obvious even then there would still be smaleer games - and now with GWS and GCS we have many more of those

Some stupidly run clubs got sucked into believing that their crowds would increase AND people would be happy to pay more to go to games.

Blind Freddy should've realised that no one wants to pay $60 for a good seat to see North vs. Freo when you can just rock up for $22...

It’s the AFL’s fault – they wanted a shiny new stadium to replace Waverley, but couldn’t afford to pay for it. So private investment was required, and now the clubs are repaying those investors.To add insult to the situation, whenever there’s public debate about the issue, THE AFL are out there pulling the heartstrings about broke clubs and how the big bad investors at Etihad are bleeding the peoples’ clubs dry. The investors who simply want the return on their money that they were promised. But supposedly it’s their fault because the ********s downstairs at the AFL have buyer’s remorse.

Just quietly, Etihad Stadium was a terrible investment. Revenues from AFL, other sporting events and concerts haven't come close to projected revenues.
Not once has the stadium come close to making a profit.
Collo is simply trying to minimise the loss.

The stadium design means it's not a cheap stadium to run.

Clubs should be fully reimbursed by the AFL (I believe they are to some extent) – the league wanted the stadium, the clubs are paying for it.

I’m generally not as critical of the AFL administration as some, but on this issue their behaviour has been and continues to be ****ing disgraceful.

Why should clubs be reimbursed by the league if they sign deals that they shouldn't have...

St. Kilda were particularly silly to leave Waverly for a Stadium on the other side of town that requires far higher average crowds than they ever got at Moorabbin or Waverly just to break even

 

[theflea]

Geelong should be playing 11+ home games at KP a year. It's our home ground and we should be playing everyone there and making so much money that we realistically couldn't spend it all. See thats the advantage of having a real home ground...

You can blame the AFL all you want but at the end of the day your club cant find members and it cant get people to attend your games, stop trying to argue that other clubs should be brought down to your clubs level. Something is really wrong when the only argument clubs in Norths position can mount is "screw over the successful clubs so we can survive". 10 years ago we were in a pretty shitty position too and we made some tough choices at the time to set up where we are today. Mainly committing to playing home games at KP rather than moving the majority to Melbourne.

Also id be surprised if there was many "corporate boxes" at KP and if those that are there make Geelong a heap of cash, and also the "reserved seating" you speak of is pretty much all sold at the start of the year to you know...supporters (people who turn up to games to watch there team play, in case you weren't sure what that term meant down at North). They turn up to watch whether we play a Victorian club or a non-Victorian club, cause the players deserve our support at games, not silence in the stands.

yep but i think your not understanding the situation. when the cats were broke they went to the banks and negotiated a new repayment deal the the creditors. fair enough. but the reason the banks said yes was because they had a plan. they went to the owners of kk which is the geelong council with permission to try to get gov funding for upgrades but also of control of all ground revenue. this way they have sold all revenue rights which goes directly back to the club, ie corporate sponsors,superboxes and the like. they all have priority seating and minimal opp fan seating. what this did was effectively having your own clean stadium to do what you want with, with no third party payment to be given out. by all means very astute by the club and good on them. i guess my point is no other club has this option so to use geelongs example is simply wrong. it wouldnt matter if the roos had 15k more fans aon game day as it probably would only equate to 100k more for the year.

 

[laminex]

When 3/4 of our games are sunday twilight games live on foxtel against interstate clubs during a rebuild phase?

Carlton couldn't crack 20k in the same period.

Ultimately, moving up the ladder will improve our schedule and will improve the crowds.

Profitability is really having the right stadium suited for the size of your club. Us playing at a 55k stadium doesn't help our profitability, Geelong is just fortunate they can play games at their stadium, AFL has bent the rules by allowing them to sell memberships beyond the stadium's capacity and not following the ground equalisation policy which requires matches that would draw a crowd in excess of the capacity have to be shifted to a more suitable stadium.

Geelong should realistically not be allowed to sell more memberships than the capacity of their stadium or to host a game at Geelong against a Victorian club but it is these games which sell out all the reserved seating and all the corporate boxes which make Geelong a mint of money despite the crowd realistically being poor by comparison to a Collingwood or Essendon game.

Essendon should also pay their way at Docklands and not rely on being subsidised by smaller clubs.

you had a point then you lost it.

 

[Plugger35]

St. Kilda were particularly silly to leave Waverly for a Stadium on the other side of town that requires far higher average crowds than they ever got at Moorabbin or Waverly just to break even

They were demolishing Waverley and old suburban grounds like Moorabbin were no longer in use so what other choice did they have? Only a certain number of clubs could have the MCG as their home ground which basically left clubs like St Kilda, North and the Western Bulldogs no other option than to use Etihad Stadium as their home ground.