yaco55
Hall of Famer
Why would the AFL buy Etihad now, when they take ownership in 2025 for free.
the $problems at Etihad continue
- Thread starter Kwality
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Because they are having to lend financial support to the teams based there.
I think there is a good chance they will buy it out early, but it wont be for a while.
It would cost 14 years of massive profits right now, which would be way above the support the teams are given.
The equation has also changed since the late 1990s when the proposition of Docklands was on the table. Back then, one might have assumed that come 2011, should North Melb be playing - that they would be based on the Gold Coast or in West Sydney.
That we have a 2012 draft with North Melbourne a tennant of Docklands and hosting Gold Coast, Freo, Adelaide and Brisbane, and if not for Hobart would also be hosting GWS and the Eagles - - well, it's clear that part of the outcome will have pushed towards the financial planning modelling of worst case scenarios.
That and the hullabaloo at Princes Park which saw that venue taken out of the fixture.
So, for the AFL, perhaps Docklands is costing football more than was anticipated. It's clear that it's not the money generating gold mine that was promoted, for some clubs. And as long as the AFL fixtures clubs there (to meet the AFL's OWN obligations of matches at the venue), then, the AFL has a responsibility to help broker better conditions. After all, no doubt the AFL leaned on clubs to NOT declare the surface unfit for football and cancel games at the venue back in the early days (I was there that night North played Brisbane on the beach, sand was kicked up and from a distance it looked like players were running through the shallows at the beach with big splashes.....but of sand and not water!! - - disgraceful that was!).
The AFL also, at Docklands, has seen the true colours of a corporate stadium manager. And, look around the country, and it's pretty clear that a corporate stadium management model only really works if it's bleeding the AFL. (and in Melb, we have effectively two, the MCG being the other - the AFL needs to break that stranglehold, and early buy out would be highly judicious in doing so.)
You would think that the best possible strategy for the AFL would be to minimise the profits going to the Stadium Management.
However they dont seem to be doing this, to the extent that they even book the Stadium for things like the draft trials and trade week.
I believe that the Stadium would work profitably without bleeding the AFL, but they can do it , so they do. Most non charitable businesses would.
However they dont seem to be doing this, to the extent that they even book the Stadium for things like the draft trials and trade week.
I believe that the Stadium would work profitably without bleeding the AFL, but they can do it , so they do. Most non charitable businesses would.
- Thread starter
- #180
How do you see AFL ownership overcoming the problem of clubs like North?
- You see the current profitability of the place as the problem?
- Do you see the AFL stumping up the deal Essendon have (is that at Norths expense?)? If so, for how long?
- Given the age of the stadium when the AFL get it 100% would you see major capital expense to keep the stadium up to taxpayer subsidised MCG?
- Will clubs like North need to compete for members with both the stadium owner (the AFL Members) & the stadium owner (the Medallion Club) - will the clubs stand 3rd in line?
I see the Eagles traipsing around the country to play games against teams that cant pull a crowd at home, & I live in Melbourne !!! Guess the game at Blacktown is a first.
- Banned
- #181
North Melbourne played Friday nights because other clubs (originally Melbourne and Richmond) would play Saturday afternoons at the MCG.
Had nothing to do with being 'pioneers' or whatever they try to claim now.
Had nothing to do with being 'pioneers' or whatever they try to claim now.
Around the late 80s North got a few Sunday arvo games at the MCG - and Friday night or any night footy was still in the main not deemed attractive because Melbourne crowds etc related it too much to freezing out at 'Arctic Park' and dew making ball handling much harder.
It did take North effectively agreeing to take on the slot. And it also took the MCG field being relaid and not being a winter mudheap. Once the ground got sorted, and able to handle rain, and the centre wickets removed - well, suddenly a bit of dew was the greatest concern rather than just one of many.
Personally I find Friday nights the biggest issue for me going to see my team.
Friday nights boost the profile of the team and are a huge TV ratings grab for the AFL, but I find it incredibly difficult to get away from work to see a game, particularly if I want to go with my family ( get home, then get back into city, or take two cars ).
I guess its probably offset by those who work or live in the CBD.
Much easier for me to go home and watch ( even a delayed telecast ) on FTA.
Friday nights boost the profile of the team and are a huge TV ratings grab for the AFL, but I find it incredibly difficult to get away from work to see a game, particularly if I want to go with my family ( get home, then get back into city, or take two cars ).
I guess its probably offset by those who work or live in the CBD.
Much easier for me to go home and watch ( even a delayed telecast ) on FTA.
Funny thing about "Arctic park" is it wasnt particularly cold at night games.
Maybe the phenomenon came from rapid changing weather conditions during the day ?
Maybe the phenomenon came from rapid changing weather conditions during the day ?
Yianni
Norm Smith Medallist
Is the spread of talent all that much thinner?
Population has grown since the old days of 10 or 12 teams in the VFL.
The game is now national.
The spread of talent is perhaps just more focussed on a certain 18-26 demographic and outside of that the current system tends to discard many reasonable players who would help provide a better perception of talent.
The clear issue is how to 'develop' players within the system whilst not being seen to undermine the 'spread of talent' by having too many green 18-19 yr olds running around.
The irony is that the GCFC and GWS compromised drafts have seen some clubs look closer at 'mature age' talent - and the lesson there is that there IS talent around.
Not sure that this has much to do with Etihad - other than, I don't see it as a reason to cast aside a club like North Melbourne.
Population has grown since the old days of 10 or 12 teams in the VFL.
The game is now national.
The spread of talent is perhaps just more focussed on a certain 18-26 demographic and outside of that the current system tends to discard many reasonable players who would help provide a better perception of talent.
The clear issue is how to 'develop' players within the system whilst not being seen to undermine the 'spread of talent' by having too many green 18-19 yr olds running around.
The irony is that the GCFC and GWS compromised drafts have seen some clubs look closer at 'mature age' talent - and the lesson there is that there IS talent around.
Not sure that this has much to do with Etihad - other than, I don't see it as a reason to cast aside a club like North Melbourne.
Article on Eithad;
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ce-not-yet-right/story-e6frf9jf-1226206666257
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ce-not-yet-right/story-e6frf9jf-1226206666257
Etihad Stadium price not yet right
- by: Mike Sheahan
- From: Herald Sun
- November 26, 2011 12:00AM
0
The AFL is keen to secure the lucrative management rights of Etihad Stadium prior to assuming ownership in 2025. Picture: Trevor Pinder Source: Herald Sun
PUT a genuine buyer in front of an owner willing to sell and a sale surely is a matter of time.
And so it will prove to be with the AFL and Melbourne Stadiums Ltd, which manages football's biggest fixed asset, Etihad Stadium.
While the AFL will assume ownership of the venue from March 8, 2025, it is keen to secure the lucrative management rights to the stadium sooner rather than later.
A deal seemed imminent about three months ago, but the AFL has since cooled on the basis of the gap between asking price and offer.
The commission has decided to back away, waiting for what it regards as a more realistic price.
It is understood that Melbourne Stadiums Ltd, acting on behalf of the five major stakeholders in Etihad, wants more than $300 million for the remaining 13 years of the arrangement and the management rights.
The issue for the AFL is whether an early acquisition of the stadium is worth more than $300 million when it will take ownership of the stadium and all associated benefits for $1 after another 13 years.
The subject was discussed at commission level in Sydney earlier this week, with a decision to put the prospective purchase on hold.
Both parties have declared an interest in a deal.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou told the Herald Sun: "If it ever became available at the right price, the AFL would do its due diligence and look at it.
"The door is always open; it's all about return on investment."
MSG's Ian Collins said this week: "Yes, there'd be interest from our investors.
"It's fair to say there's probably an opportunity there. There have been fleeting discussions for a period of time."
Collins said discussions between the two parties (Demetriou and him) had been "quite serious".
"There's been ongoing discussions at various times, but it's never got down to a situation of 'that's the price and everybody is happy'," he said.
"I think there was a tacit discussion around a figure (three months ago) which wasn't at a price at which somebody would sell.
"I didn't think there was a huge gap, no."
Etihad is owned by several investors, which are basically Australian superannuation funds. They are the Retail Employees superannuation trust, JF Infrastructure yield fund, Westscheme, National Australia Bank group superannuation fund and Statewide superannuation trust.
The AFL secured future ownership of the stadium with $30 million paid on March 8, 2000.
Collins recently told Superfooty's Front & Square that the venue could be worth $1.2 billion when it is handed over in 2025.
Asked if Etihad was a profitable stadium, Collins said: "Do you think they'd (investors) be here if it wasn't making some money."
The attraction to the AFL is the opportunity to boost match-day returns for the disadvantaged clubs that play home games at Etihad - St Kilda, North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs.
There's also the revenue from special events such as concerts and conferences, naming rights, signage, pourage and parking (capacity 2500).
It will happen. It is a question of when rather than if.
Footnote: Etihad Airways holds naming rights for a further two years.
- Thread starter
- #188
So the bottom line is $300mil for the management rights pre 2025.
My question is what does the competition get for that $300 mil?
Some clubs/fans seem to think their club will get a windfall, the loss making stadium deal becomes a profit all the while ignoring their inability to put bums on seats.
If the loss making deals become profitable what happens to the sweetheart deals, e.g the Bombers, will they be terminated OR will the rest of the comp keep funding them?
My question is what does the competition get for that $300 mil?
Some clubs/fans seem to think their club will get a windfall, the loss making stadium deal becomes a profit all the while ignoring their inability to put bums on seats.
If the loss making deals become profitable what happens to the sweetheart deals, e.g the Bombers, will they be terminated OR will the rest of the comp keep funding them?
The AFL 2010 annual report listed the future fund as standing at $69 million. The main concern currently might be the players trying to get their hands on as much cash as possible and limiting the capacity of the AFL to build that fund more on the back of the new broadcast deal.
For $300 mill or whatever the figure might be - the AFL would no longer be locked into a deal with the venue for X number of matches and Y,YYY number of patrons.
This provides greater freedom, and the 'break even' points will change markedly if the venue isn't being used to generate profits for private investors.
The extension then is that the AFL would get greater bargaining power at the MCG. The MCG after all has had about a $576 million 100% rebuild since 1990 - with only $77 mill of that from Govt. It's deemed to be the 'people's ground', but, the 'people' have barely paid for any of it. The AFL is the key revenue stone upon which the stadium is built. Let's say the AFL takes over Docklands early - then pressure can be applied back to the MCC/MCG Trust and state govt to pull their finger out and provide some cash to ease the burden on the AFL. After all, a State Govt not long ago found about $267 mill or so for the rectangular stadium that wasn't even going to be used had a 2022 WC bid been successful.
And this is the other point - Govt's don't have that soccer focus that might have happened - so, the more bargaining power the AFL get's sooner rather than later can then be wielded more effectively.
How quickly would the AFL pay off whatever debt that might be incurred? dunno. How much would it be worth annually? Would the AFL no longer need to provide extra funding to North and Doggies? Dunno.
Similar threads
