the $problems at Etihad continue

[tazaa]

Posters on here are telling us to get more people to our games.
Were not exactly Collingwood flying at the moment. Success does help a bit. And due to Hawks, Pies and Blues being better at the moment were copping the sunday twilights. How do you get people to support when its a shit timeslot.
And nuff nuffs telling us to be innovative. We bit the bullet and played Friday Nights, we started playing interstate. Now every other team does it cause its a successful initiative.
Were ****ed if we do ****ed if we dont.
Were a boutique club. We have our own niche. Were getting bled dry at the moment by a deal done with an admin who didn care about the club (North) and an admin that wanted to kill clubs (AFL).

 

[MightyHawks]

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.

I do believe that Hawthorn wanted to stay at Waverley.

Both the Hawks and the Saints had a contract to play at Waverley.

Hawthorn tried to convince the Saints to dig in and stay at Waverley but the Saints were led up the garden path to the new shiny stadium in the Pixie Garden.

Your admin clearly thought it was going to be a good idea, and signed the deal. They were pretty happy about it too.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

We bit the bullet and played Friday Nights

That was not to do with helping your financial state, it was done because the MCG had too many tenant clubs to give them all Saturday home games.

 

[MeestaNob]

For christs sake Bulldogs, play Freo and Port at Western Oval.

Renovate the Doug Hawkins wing, get some seating there and some shitters that work, ask the council to upgrade West Footscray station to accommodate gameday passengers.

Even just 15,000 people would be 5x times the profit than what would be made at CollinsDome for the same two encounters.

 

[tazaa]

That was not to do with helping your financial state, it was done because the MCG had too many tenant clubs to give them all Saturday home games.

Not surprising considering one team could only do it each week.

 

[MadBomberman]

We would be much better off at the MCG. I think we are stuck at Etihad until 2025 or something like that. By that time, Carlton and probably St Kilda would have moved there. It is pretty annoying seeing that we make much less than the interstate clubs despite having bigger crowds. It says that we make 15$ per person where as West Coast get 32$ per person. That is a huge difference.

Can anyone see teams build their own stadiums in the future? Like 1 stadium for each club? For example, Essendon building a 55,000-70,000 stadium next to our new facility or demolishing windy hill and building the stadium there or something. We can call it the Essendon Stadium and make it red and black. Collingwood can build theirs in Victoria Park. Melbourne keep the G. Someone keeps Etihad (St Kilda?). Its weird how one stadium has 4-5 tenants.

 

[Plugger35]

I do believe that Hawthorn wanted to stay at Waverley.

Both the Hawks and the Saints had a contract to play at Waverley.

Hawthorn tried to convince the Saints to dig in and stay at Waverley but the Saints were led up the garden path to the new shiny stadium in the Pixie Garden.

Your admin clearly thought it was going to be a good idea, and signed the deal. They were pretty happy about it too.

Well I don't think St Kilda ever liked Waverley as much as Hawthorn did, the big ground never really suited us as a team either.

Can understand why they jumped at the chance to move to a brand new indoor stadium but they probably should have given more consideration to the deal they were entering into. I don't think the clubs fully realised how shit the deal was there until a year or two down the track.

We would be much better off at the MCG. I think we are stuck at Etihad until 2025 or something like that. By that time, Carlton and probably St Kilda would have moved there. It is pretty annoying seeing that we make much less than the interstate clubs despite having bigger crowds. It says that we make 15$ per person where as West Coast get 32$ per person. That is a huge difference.

Can anyone see teams build their own stadiums in the future? Like 1 stadium for each club? For example, Essendon building a 55,000-70,000 stadium next to our new facility or demolishing windy hill and building the stadium there or something. We can call it the Essendon Stadium and make it red and black. Collingwood can build theirs in Victoria Park. Melbourne keep the G. Someone keeps Etihad (St Kilda?). Its weird how one stadium has 4-5 tenants.

Could be a possibility I guess, after all the EPL clubs all have their own stadiums, although the EPL doesn't have nine clubs all in the same city. Nine independent footy stadiums in Melbourne would probably be a bit much.

 

[redmonkeyman]

The AFL funnily enough are looking at buying back Etihad early probably due to clubland pressures and increased media/public perception and pressure.

The issue the AFL will have is that the venue needs content to be sustainable so that means concerts, rugby, cricket, soccer etc.

Facts are the financial model is built and relies on a few key revenue streams namely -

Stadium membership (medallion, axcess one, corporate boxes and diamond club)

If there is only AFL events it'll be pretty hard to sell $5,000 seats wouldn't it particulary the content is shite!

Car parking

Should be safe and grow with increased businesses popping up in Docklands.

Catering rent

AFL would deliver perhaps 50% of stadium catering rents so where will it come from?

It's clear the AFL want to buy it earlier and perhaps that's why recent scheduling ie 2010 and 2011 has dropped average attendance at the joint therefore devaluing the asset.

If AFL own it you'd be assured Essendon and Carlton would be playing mainly at Etihad in the Friday and Saturday night slot to boost attendances therefore boosting revenue and they'd be extra aggressive selling concerts in the October - December period.

 

[Groggyk]

Where are you getting this info from, redmonkeyman?

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Not surprising considering one team could only do it each week.

With two clubs you can always have one playing at home and the other away. As a third club (North Melbourne) made it their home the MCG had to be used at times other than Saturday afternoon.

 

[redmonkeyman]

Common sense mainly plus research and media pieces written previously.

Why?

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[MightyHawks]

Well I don't think St Kilda ever liked Waverley as much as Hawthorn did, the big ground never really suited us as a team either.

No it didn't suit you, but Hawthorn were looking at ideas of reducing the playing surface and increasing the number of undercover seats.

Can understand why they jumped at the chance to move to a brand new indoor stadium but they probably should have given more consideration to the deal they were entering into. I don't the clubs fully realised how shit the deal was there until a year or two down the track.

And here's the problem... the Stadium provided all the figures showing the Saints projected earnings based on crowd numbers and breakdown of the number of people paying extra for premium seating etc... Our club realised it was a bad deal. Ian Dicker especially didn't want Hawk fans having to 1) travel to the other side of town, 2) pay big $$$ to attend the games, and 3) limit our maximum attendance. Maybe Hawthorn was smarter than the Saints.

 

[greennick]

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.

Is it Essendon that is subsidised or Essendon makes more profit and hence gets a better deal??

 

[greennick]

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.

What difference does it make. Either way there is the same subsidy. Not saying it is bad to have the subsidy, but there is no difference in:

- AFL giving Pies 10m, then taxing them 2 to give to North
- AFL giving Pies 8m and North 12m

 

[greennick]

For christs sake Bulldogs, play Freo and Port at Western Oval.

Renovate the Doug Hawkins wing, get some seating there and some shitters that work, ask the council to upgrade West Footscray station to accommodate gameday passengers.

Even just 15,000 people would be 5x times the profit than what would be made at CollinsDome for the same two encounters.

It probably will cost you $50m+ to get it to AFL standard. Who is going to pay for that? You can't just go back to VFL spec because you have VFL crowds. You still need AFL quality stadiums. Even shitty small ones like Metricup still cost $$$$.

 

[greennick]

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...

This will be conveniently ignored. The AFL should just force up the price of all Vic club memberships. It is not like a significant number of people are not going to get a membership because it is $50-100 more expensive. They are all competing for membership numbers instead of revenue.

 

[Kim Hagdorn]

For christs sake Bulldogs, play Freo and Port at Western Oval.

If you want/have to play opposition at a suburban dump just drop back down to the VFL.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Can anyone see teams build their own stadiums in the future? Like 1 stadium for each club? For example, Essendon building a 55,000-70,000 stadium next to our new facility or demolishing windy hill and building the stadium there or something. We can call it the Essendon Stadium and make it red and black. Collingwood can build theirs in Victoria Park. Melbourne keep the G. Someone keeps Etihad (St Kilda?). Its weird how one stadium has 4-5 tenants.

Quite honestly - no I can't see it happening. The cost is just way too much. To build a stadium that size you're talking at least half a billion dollars, probably more. The new Perth stadium (60,000 seater) has a starting price of over a billion dollars already. I just can't see AFL clubs getting the finance to start building something like that, no bank in their right minds would lend the money. The interest and repayments on such a venture would bankrupt a club even before the building works were completed. Just waaaay outside their means.

 

[Scotland]

This will be conveniently ignored. The AFL should just force up the price of all Vic club memberships. It is not like a significant number of people are not going to get a membership because it is $50-100 more expensive. They are all competing for membership numbers instead of revenue.

If fans of Etihad Stadium clubs could mount arguments that aren't emotional nonsense I'd actually be on their side.

The stadium has been balls up after balls up since day dot, and the fact that clubs are forced to play there and not allowed to explore more financially viable options is a joke - but unfortunately the only supporting evidence that seems to be provided is "you get 70% returns and make big profits, we don't and it's not fair".

 

[greennick]

If fans of Etihad Stadium clubs could mount arguments that aren't emotional nonsense I'd actually be on their side.

The stadium has been balls up after balls up since day dot, and the fact that clubs are forced to play there and not allowed to explore more financially viable options is a joke - but unfortunately the only supporting evidence that seems to be provided is "you get 70% returns and make big profits, we don't and it's not fair".

Spot on. I would love to see the costs broken down into revenue and profit, but funnily enough the AFL only shows the stats that support what they want. I don't think teams are ever going to be able to explore other stadium deals, it will be a contribution of additional funds to support the lower revenue clubs and a requirement for increasing membership revenue.

 

[Pessimistic]

Quite honestly - no I can't see it happening. The cost is just way too much. To build a stadium that size you're talking at least half a billion dollars, probably more. The new Perth stadium (60,000 seater) has a starting price of over a billion dollars already. I just can't see AFL clubs getting the finance to start building something like that, no bank in their right minds would lend the money. The interest and repayments on such a venture would bankrupt a club even before the building works were completed. Just waaaay outside their means.

Metricon $160m apparently. only 20,000 but shows you dont always need a ferrari.
peth stadium will be expensive because labour costs are outlandish over there

Not saying they should, but we were ripped a new one financially with etihad stadium - AND that was a decade ago

 

[Pessimistic]

This will be conveniently ignored. The AFL should just force up the price of all Vic club memberships. It is not like a significant number of people are not going to get a membership because it is $50-100 more expensive. They are all competing for membership numbers instead of revenue.

fans can buy higher memeberships if they wish.

For the bigger clubs you need a reserved seat to be on level one or two already

 

[Hill2Pav]

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

Some great stuff in RussellEbertHandball's thread...


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...

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

Because I am not the poster gobbing off about stadium deals, I will leave that to you.

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..

And thats why I said it is not just one issue that causes the difference in stadium returns by each club, but you seemed to miss that little point again.

 

[bulletproof]

Has anyone from the AFL ever admitted that getting rid of Princess Park was the biggest blunder of this administration? Basically allowed docklands admin to charge what they want because there is no alternative. Princess Park was in better shape than Kardinia Park a decade ago. And who, other than whinging supporters after being belted down there, would claim Kardinia Park is not suitable?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Has anyone from the AFL ever admitted that getting rid of Princess Park was the biggest blunder of this administration? Basically allowed docklands admin to charge what they want because there is no alternative. Princess Park was in better shape than Kardinia Park a decade ago. And who, other than whinging supporters after being belted down there, would claim Kardinia Park is not suitable?

There was one problem with Princess Park.
It belonged to Carlton.
Carlton didnt want to play there because as one of the bigger drawing clubs they wanted to play the MCG.
To make it a home ground for other clubs, it probably would have needed to be purchased by the AFL or a third party.
If Princes park had belonged to North Melbourne things would have been very different.

Personally I think the location is good, and could be improved if the roads and rail were looked at a bit, and some walkways put in.
The stands arent great though, I went to a NAB cup game there a few seasons back, and after seeing a lot of footy at the G and Etihad, you felt like you were down very low and not able to see the other side of the ground very well.