Who will see out the Optus Contract till '06?

[dan warna]

Listen pal it's got nothing to do with some i'm richer than you bull********, it's got to do with the AFL and them wanting as many as possible of it's members being a strong operating entity. Carlton (believe it or not DAN) are a very important cog in the league's scheme of things, not only do we have one of the biggest supporter bases (MUCH bigger than st kilda's) but we inspire passion from opposition fans like no other save possibly collingwood. All things being equal we're the biggest rival of probably all three of this city's big 4 clubs. The AFL can no doubt see this and probably realise that once Carlton get to a bigger ground they have a lot of scope for growth which will equate to increased attendences for both our home games as well as everyone else's home games against us. This will equal more $$$$$$$$ for everyone.

Now, what part of this will you be disagreeing with i wonder?

then if your so big and strong at carlton why do you need handouts to clear your debts from stupid contracts laddy boy?

why not give everyone the same handout and see how they go?

Saints didn't get handouts and traded themselves out of debt, why can't carlton?

where's the equity in that?

whats to stop carlton running up another stupid debt and then putting their hands out for another bail out?

why not bail out richmond, their supporter base is traditionally huge? why not bail out the doggies, and then where does it stop?

Carlton as far as Im concerned are just another club.

Now the OTHER argument that you are being FORCED out makes sense, your lame a r s e argument that it makes good business sense to bail out carlton for their stupidity makes NO sense.

 

[Headplant]

come on.

Why not give st kilda the premiership now, I can see it being good for the game, then next year the doggies, then sydney, that would do wonders there, maybe the cats after that...why bother with a competition at all.

I thought Carlton were being forced out, this sounds like an excuse to bail carlton out after success years of bad management, dodgy contracts etc.

I think after having some sympathy for carlton being "forced" from their home (after similar efforts v hawks and st kilda), if this is purely a business decision, and not pressure from the AFL as you attest, the Carlton, should pay out their own contract. additional AFL money should NOT go to carlton, Carlton should be pay out their own contracts.

Carlton Board wanted to play home games at the G, after an attractive offer from the G. However, the AFL refused to schedule games there, and want the CLub to play home games at TD, where Ron Evans Spotless has no contract. Hence the offer of the $2.6M, since the AFL wins financially despite the payment to CFC. This is does not require an IQ of 136 to understand (just as well eh? )

There are strong rumours that shouting was heard from the corridoors of OO around the time of negotiations with Demetriou. Collo not present as he has not been involved in those negotiations. Must have been a coincidence.

The AFL has a conflict of interest, refusing the offer of a prelim final by the MCG in preference to scheduling CFC games at TD, to the financial disadvantage of CFC

 

[Tas]

They will put the low membership clubs to play interstate teams at OO, since we (Kangaroos) generally play our games against interstate clubs at Manuka I would be surprised if we had much room to schedule games there. They could attempt to schedule our game against Bulldogs there.

Either way it will be a financial disaster for the AFL, will be a very poor turnout for non-carlton home games there. That stadium is really in a crappy position because public transport there is limited and its the worst place to get a park.

I do not see why Carlton can not play games there. There are only a handful of games a year they would play where they would expect to exceed the capacity of OO easily and they have never played those at OO in the past so what does it matter?

I cant see how Carlton will make more money playing interstate teams at TD than they would have playing them at OO and they will have a weaker home ground advantage, interstate teams play at TD a fair bit.

Carlton members who are unhappy about the arrangement should ask the club to provide a copy of the independant financial feasability report, assuming Collo did the right thing and got independant advice given his conflict of interest.

Most members are not aware of the rights AND obligations they have to a club, it is not just access to a seat at the game. Most members are not aware that if a club folded and was unable to pay its debts then members would be in part liable for part of the debt. Some clubs get qualified auditor reports because they fail to inform members of their rights and obligations in accordance to the legislation, not sure if Carlton is one of those clubs.

It is important members have competent people in charge of the club. NMFC is a little different because it is not follow the normal rulse for a non-profit club, it is a listed company and has different rules associated to it.

If Cartlon was looking down the barrell of massive losses I would want to make sure the club is being honest with the members about its financial position and the decisions they make, because it has a very real impact for members.

 

[Headplant]

They will put the low membership clubs to play interstate teams at OO, since we (Kangaroos) generally play our games against interstate clubs at Manuka I would be surprised if we had much room to schedule games there. They could attempt to schedule our game against Bulldogs there.

.

No, the contracts relating to OO will be terminated. Noone is going to play there. It is believed the $2.6M for CFC to play the 6 games at TD is coming from the stadium owners (effectively ch 7) via the AFL.

The biggest issue for CFC in termination of game sat OO is the catering contract with Spotless ... and we know who owns that company don't we?

Registered voting Members are liable for a maximum of $50 should the Club be wound up. Directors are personally liable and responsible for their decisions. This is why the Membership cannot tell the CLub where to play games. The Board is elected to represent the Members, and act in accordance with the best interests of the Club and Members.

All corporations, including your local softball Club, has to have the books audited under corporations law.

The ground is a white elephant around the Club's neck, as it is financed by only one Club, and opposition supporters in articular hate going there. As a result of this and the lack of FTA TV coverage, it is extremely difficult to attract sponsors for home games at OO.

Your points re transport, lack of parking are valid. The run down condition of facilities at the ground for corporate sponsors is also an issue. The ground has had no infrastructure maintenance investment for many years. It is even less viable if you run fewer games there, because the capital investment required to improve it would be necesssary regardless of the number of games.

The training facilities have not changed since the late 70s. The ground will be redeveloped as a state of the art training facility. The state govt will put money in, but only if Carlton do no play games there. It will become a facility with community acces, like Olympic Park. The old stands will be pulled down, a 50m pool will replace the Pratt stand. The Legend and Elliot stands will remain for the game swhich are played there (e.g. TAC games).

Full disclosure of all the figures is not possible, due to commercial in confidence issues relating to TD, MCG and AFL.

The Club has made a huge loss this year due to the lack of home game sponsorship at OO.

Carlton Members who are unhappy need to understand that their Club cannot survive at OO. It will be insolvent in less than 2 years. this is the fact, and has been expected by the Board from the moment they took over. The sponsorship nightmare (6 sponsorships all terminating at the same time) this season simply confirmed it.

 

[Kildonan]

If geelong can make 500k plus from a small crowd at KP, and the best most clubs can get from a packed capacity at TD is in the vicinity of 600k, why can't Carlton make a similar amount from Optus with their 30k plus capacity, plus sole signage and ground sponsorship?

It seems that at TD carlton will find it hard for the Optus sponsorship to be as good as it has been, plus it will have to share signage with the other clubs, and even essendon's BEP is requires an attendance in the vicinity of 28 to 30k people.

while Carlton have always argued the BEP at OO is around 10k.

so if saints make 500k from an attendence of 50k people thats 20k = 500k profit, PLUS signage.

Carlton lose signage, and can still get 20k above the BEP at OO, without the loss making potential of less than 30k attendance. PLUS the loss in Optus telecoms.

If your arguement is that you can't pay of the formerly known as Elliot and legends stand, then thats stupid contracting, why is it anyone elses problem if you ordered for stuff you can't pay for, sound like stupidity to me.

It seems to me that it is YOU and YOUR Team that doesn't understand business, running up massive debts, selling your future dividends and making contracts to play at OO that you don't intend to keep.

As someone who has been involved in multimillion dollar contracts, its not something you fork up and then go ask someone to bail you out of of.

DER.

have a good look in the mirror before you make stupid comments Deej.

Good post Dan.

It looks as if the CFC's poor business decisions have left them with little alternative but to cut their losses and leave.

The AFL seems to be offering the lure to Telstra Dome as a political move against the MCG. By offering Carlton an attractive package to move but only if they move to TD. This means of course that Carlton are being used as a political pawn - showing the MCG that if they do not renegotiate certain agreements then further AFL benefits will not be forthcoming.

 

[BlueMark]

There is no doubt the AFL is a dictatorship. I figure if we can get 2.7mil to move one year early, then I am for it.

I thought we should have moved to the G instead of building the White Elephant stand.

 

[Headplant]

Good post Dan.

It looks as if the CFC's poor business decisions have left them with little alternative but to cut their losses and leave.
.

Dan's post ignores a range of issues, not the least being that Geelong and Carlton are in different environments, regional vs urban. Optus sponsorship was groud sponsor, not game sponsor, except for the 2 home games we had this season at TD. They have indicated they will remain as ground sponsor next season ... not sure whether in reduced capacity.

I have stated the issues re sponsorship above. This indicates where the problems come from. Geelong have had a huge cash injection into their ground as part of the stadium redevelopment and the stat govt regional development initiative. OO needs a large amount of money spent to upgrde it.

Since you and Dan follow other Clubs and don't really pay much detailed attention to Carlton issues, I don't expect you to have a reasonable grasp of the complexities of Carlton cost finances ... so why carry on with some ill-informed light hearted analysis as if you do know it all? I cannot comment on what Geelong or St Kilda make from their games, have not seen the figures myself ... I know Carlton have significantly restructured their finances and staffing levels to cut costs but still cannot survve at OO. Those crowd/cost figures produced by Elliot were imaginative at best. Accuracy was never his strong suit as Carlton President, bulldust was.

Have never seen Deej arguing that Elliot did not make our mess. We all know he did. We were the strongest Club financially in the late 80s and early 90s ... in fact until a few years after Essendon moved from Windy Hill and Elliot lost the plot (after Collo and Fitzy left). We also for a time had the largest membership. But things changed and Elliot and his cronies did not change with them.

I would not dare to sit here as a Carlton supporter and criticse Saints finances when I know nothing about its cost structures .. so I suggest you do the same.

 

[Kildonan]

Carlton are the one with a contract with Optus. Any payout from the AFL to payout Carltons obligations are a handout to Carlton.

Why should the AFL payout Carlton anyway? The compensation to leave Waverly was made because the AFL pulled the rug out from the Hawks and Saints, knowing it would cost them attendences and members. That's why they were compensated. Carlton are moving by choice. Hawthorn and StKilda had none. Cartlon are doing it to increase memberships and attendences. Closing Waverly guarenteed the opposite.

If the "good for football" arguement is to be taken (that Carlton at the bigger venues is good for the competition), why pay them to play specifically at the dome? If big attendences and memberships are good for Calrton and in turn "football", why not let them go to the venue with the best offer, and on face value, take away the AFL handout, and the MCG looks far more attractive.

It looks as if the CFC's poor business decisions have left them with little alternative but to cut their losses and leave.

The AFL seems to be offering the lure to Telstra Dome as a political move against the MCG. The AFL are offering Carlton an attractive package to move but only if they move to TD. This means of course that Carlton are being used as a political pawn - showing the MCG that if they do not renegotiate certain agreements then further AFL benefits will not be forthcoming.

Carlton Board wanted to play home games at the G, after an attractive offer from the G. However, the AFL refused to schedule games there, and want the CLub to play home games at TD, where Ron Evans Spotless has no contract. Hence the offer of the $2.6M, since the AFL wins financially despite the payment to CFC. This is does not require an IQ of 136 to understand (just as well eh? )

The AFL has a conflict of interest, refusing the offer of a prelim final by the MCG in preference to scheduling CFC games at TD, to the financial disadvantage of CFC

No, the contracts relating to OO will be terminated. Noone is going to play there. It is believed the $2.6M for CFC to play the 6 games at TD is coming from the stadium owners (effectively ch 7) via the AFL.

The biggest issue for CFC in termination of game sat OO is the catering contract with Spotless ... and we know who owns that company don't we?

Registered voting Members are liable for a maximum of $50 should the Club be wound up. Directors are personally liable and responsible for their decisions. This is why the Membership cannot tell the CLub where to play games. The Board is elected to represent the Members, and act in accordance with the best interests of the Club and Members.

All corporations, including your local softball Club, has to have the books audited under corporations law.

The ground is a white elephant around the Club's neck, as it is financed by only one Club, and opposition supporters in particular hate going there. As a result of this and the lack of FTA TV coverage, it is extremely difficult to attract sponsors for home games at OO.

Your points re transport, lack of parking are valid. The run down condition of facilities at the ground for corporate sponsors is also an issue. The ground has had no infrastructure maintenance investment for many years. It is even less viable if you run fewer games there, because the capital investment required to improve it would be necesssary regardless of the number of games.

The training facilities have not changed since the late 70s. The ground will be redeveloped as a state of the art training facility. The state govt will put money in, but only if Carlton do no play games there. It will become a facility with community acces, like Olympic Park. The old stands will be pulled down, a 50m pool will replace the Pratt stand. The Legend and Elliot stands will remain for the game swhich are played there (e.g. TAC games).

Full disclosure of all the figures is not possible, due to commercial in confidence issues relating to TD, MCG and AFL.

The Club has made a huge loss this year due to the lack of home game sponsorship at OO.

Carlton Members who are unhappy need to understand that their Club cannot survive at OO. It will be insolvent in less than 2 years. this is the fact, and has been expected by the Board from the moment they took over. The sponsorship nightmare (6 sponsorships all terminating at the same time) this season simply confirmed it.

Since you and Dan follow other Clubs and don't really pay much detailed attention to Carlton issues, I don't expect you to have a reasonable grasp of the complexities of Carlton cost finances ... so why carry on with some ill-informed light-hearted analysis as if you do know it all?

I have read your posts and your statements backed me up.

Why so touchy?

 

[Headplant]

I have read your posts and your statements backed me up.

Why so touchy?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Dan's post indicated he could see no reason why Carlton could not make money from playing home games at OO. It was that aspect with which I took issue. I guess it is a sensitive issue with us at the moment, as there is a ot of misinformation being propagated re our need to move by parties opposing the Board decision to finally get out of OO.

No problem with the other things.

 

[dan warna]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Dan's post indicated he could see no reason why Carlton could not make money from playing home games at OO. It was that aspect with which I took issue. I guess it is a sensitive issue with us at the moment, as there is a ot of misinformation being propagated re our need to move by parties opposing the Board decision to finally get out of OO.

No problem with the other things.

Actually I was having a go at Deejs stupidity.

I actually said I think in this thread or others, that I empathise with the argument of being forced out of OO by the AFL but the more economical at TD than OO is a joke.

as for parking etc, who cares? people should PT it to OO given its location, parking is no better at TD.