stadium deal ....fight

[chook23]

$20m for Melbourne clubs in AFL action against Etihad StadiumFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Patrick Smith and Greg Denham | April 04, 2009
Article from: The Australian
MELBOURNE AFL clubs will share a $20million bonanza and more that would secure their long-term future, if action before the Supreme Court against the city's second biggest venue, Etihad Stadium, is successful.

The court move, begun on March 11, seeks discovery of documents critical to rich revenue streams the AFL believes have been due to the league since the Docklands stadium went on line as a league venue in 2000.

Chief Justice Marilyn Warren reserved judgment, though all parties to the action expect a decision soon.

While the claim for discovery appears to revolve around the venue owners, Stadium Operations Ltd, changing the naming rights from Telstra to Etihad without seeking AFL permission, more critically, the AFL is also seeking discovery on two other issues that could reap the clubs a fortune and secure their future.

Club officials said the AFL case involves documents relating to ownership of pouring rights at the stadium. Senior club officials have been told by the AFL the league negotiated the rights when the user agreement between the stadium and the league was drawn up in the late 1990s.

The club officials have been told the AFL has not received one cent from the pourage deal - that's the right to income from beer, soft drink and food sales at the ground. The league maintains the stadium managers have on-sold the rights to third parties.
The AFL discovery request also seeks documents that detail the negotiations and terms of the contract between tenant soccer club Melbourne Victory and the stadium.

According to the clubs briefed by the league's legal heavies, the user agreement stresses that no other code can be given a better deal than an AFL club. It has been, of course, a major concern, that the returns from the stadium for AFL clubs have been meagre to the point that they have threatened the future of the clubs.

One spokesman for the clubs told The Weekend Australian last night: "We know the AFL has been getting a poorer deal than Victory for a long time. The user agreement says that cannot happen."

The AFL also believes the matters must be addressed retrospectively, in which case clubs have been told the immediate windfall could be as much as $20m. The non-Victorian clubs have told the AFL Commission that any monies due from the stadium should be given to the Melbourne clubs alone. The revenue from pourage rights and reworked deals in line with Melbourne Victory's contract would ensure the local clubs a steady income to 2025 when the AFL takes over the stadium.

If Justice Warren's decision on discovery falls the AFL's way then the league is expected to take immediate legal action to recoup the millions it believes it is rightly owed under clauses in the user-agreement contract.

The clubs case is strengthened because they argue that in November last year, Docklands chief executive Ian Collins, in recognition of the revenue omissions, struck a deal at AFL House that would have delivered the Melbourne clubs $6m a year for an unspecified period of years.

The AFL considered the contract settled by Collins was blocked by Stadium Operation Ltd's Sydney office.

The AFL refuses to acknowledge the change in the venue name from Telstra Dome to Etihad Stadium because it believes legally it was entitled to be consulted. The Etihad sponsorship is in conflict with a significant AFL sponsor in Qantas.

While it appears the Abu Dhabi-based carrier Etihad and Qantas will form a loose partnership, the league contends the breach of the user agreement occurred when it was not consulted on the sponsorship change.

The AFL is also in negotiations with the MCG Trust which oversees the MCG. While the AFL argument with Etihad is strictly legal, the issue with the MCG is being fought on moral grounds.

The AFL contends it has delivered more than required in the deal with the MCG that runs until 2032. Football crowds at the MCG last year were 700,000 above what the league and the venue budgeted for. The AFL maintains it should get some compensation for driving the MCG economy.

The MCG Trust has agreed, in part, and offered an extra $90,000 a game to every Melbourne club that is scheduled at the ground as the home club. The AFL has knocked back the offer.

[saintbrat]

http://www.sportsentral.com/pro/main/st ... 843&sr=all
in related media
SEN: Saints add flair for TV 07-04-2009 10:39:14 AM St Kilda President Greg Westaway has questioned the AFL and free-to-air broadcasters about St Kilda's match coverage for season 2009.

Westaway spoke to SEN's Kevin Bartlett about the draw, and claimed that the Saints were missing out on sponsorship opportunities due to the lack of television coverage.

"I believe that there is probably a fair bit of pressure from the TV stations, and then there's probably an influence from the AFL. It's a perception thing, but it's just totally disappointing because it makes it a tough commercial year for us," Westaway said.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To hear the interview with Greg Westaway in full, click here; http://www.podsentral.com/sites/default ... odcast.mp3 or go to PodSENtral.


and in related news on TV deals.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 72,00.html

[saintbrat]

Impasse continues
MCC reject AFL counter offer

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html

Tenant clubs playing home games at the MCG were initially offered an additional $90,000 a match from the start of this year.

As well the MCC was prepared to pay the AFL $1-per-person each year for exceeding the AFL's requirement to attract 2.1million spectators to the ground each season.

Last season the code attracted 2.8million people to the MCG, which would have equated to an additional payment to the AFL of $700,000, under the cricket club's proposal.

Smorgon said the clubs' counter proposal was for $100,000 a match and a $2-for-one deal on the overall crowd number exceeding 2.1million.

"We also floated the idea that we would give them a lesser extension," Smorgon said.

"They came back after four days and at a meeting at the MCG, they said 'If it's not for 10 years we've got absolutely nothing to talk about'."

The AFL last month slammed the cricket club for seeking a 10-year contract extension, saying it would continue to deliver greater benefits to the stadium rather than to the clubs.

The league said its financial forecast was that the MCC would generate $1.6billion in football income by the proposed contract extension, far in excess of the $5million a year it was offering clubs over the next decade.

As well as the MCG stalemate, the AFL is locked into a Supreme Court battle with Melbourne's other major venue Etihad Stadium, which involves seeking discovery of documents critical to rich revenue streams for the clubs.

As exclusively reported in The Weekend Australian, Victorian clubs could share a $20million bonanza from the stadium's owner retrospectively, and much higher future revenue streams from match returns if legal action is successful.

While the claim for discovery appears to revolve around the venue owners, Stadium Operations Ltd, changing the naming rights from Telstra Dome to Etihad Stadium without seeking AFL permission, more critically the AFL is also seeking discovery on two other issues that could reap the clubs a fortune and secure their future.

Club officials say the AFL want to see documents relating to ownership of pourage rights at the stadium. The competition believes the AFL negotiated the rights when the user agreement between the stadium and the league was drawn up in the late 1990s, but no monies have been paid to the league in 10 years

[stinger]

it would seem that plans are afoot for the afl to gain control of the dome earlier.......then they could exert some pressure on the mcc trust.......

i think the afl has forgotten that's the reason that afl park was built in the first place........they were going to play the grannie ther.e.....until the government joined in with the mcc trust to screw over the afl...then called the vfl......

...how quickly they forget.....

[saintbrat]

more information keeps coming out as the clubs ramp up pressure

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 22,00.html

In a number of earlier games we had to write a cheque to the stadium for playing there, but we've been on a fixed formula over the past three years," Smorgon said.

The long-time president said the Western Bulldogs now received gate takings of $15,000 for each Etihad Stadium game against a non-Victorian club, and $45,000 against Victorian clubs.

But there is still an inequality between the powerful Melbourne clubs and the traditionally lower-drawing sides. Collingwood is guaranteed a minimum $200,000 for home games at Etihad Stadium no matter who it plays.

The other massive imbalance is between Melbourne clubs and a majority of their non-Victorian rivals.

Bulldogs chief executive Campbell Rose said his club last year averaged a crowd of 34,500 in nine games at Etihad Stadium, yet Brisbane netted almost $6million from the Gabba for its 11 home games in 2008 on a season-average attendance of less than 27,000.

Clubs believe Collins' formula for the additional $6 million was based broadly on providing them with an extra $3 per head of total attendances per home club.

Smorgon said discussions have continued among clubs to assemble a supporter-led revolution to better inform the public about their inadequate stadium deals.

He said clubs would consider using their 360,000 members in Victoria to petition against the "unfairness" of the deals, and another action included lobbying local members of parliament.

[remboy]

The club officials have been told the AFL has not received one cent from the pourage deal - that's the right to income from beer, soft drink and food sales at the ground. The league maintains the stadium managers have on-sold the rights to third parties.

If that's the case why has it taken so long for this to become an issue? Shouldn't questions have been asked after the first season? Given the price of food and drinks at the ground this would have been incredibly useful to all the clubs but especially us and the Bulldogs who need every cent we can get.

[saintbrat]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

MELBOURNE'S financially vulnerable clubs will be forced to pay to play matches at Etihad Stadium this season. The revelation comes after venue management withdrew commitments to provide fixed match returns.

In an escalation of the bitter stand-off between the AFL and the stadium's operators, the development will affect all clubs, including Collingwood, which use the venue for a home match.

Of the stadium's regular users, it is likely to most hurt the Western Bulldogs and St Kilda, as North Melbourne and Carlton have been operating without set deals for some time.

The AFL has taken Etihad Stadium management to court and is also in a major stand-off with the MCG Trust.

It informed its clubs of the Etihad Stadium decision in an email which read, in part, "they have advised that they will not be continuing with the current fixed match return arrangements that some clubs have had in place for the last three years".

While Etihad Stadium crowds in the 46,000 vicinity will provide for the home team the possibility of making $150,000, crowds of 30,000 or less will require the club to write a cheque to the ground's operators.

Financial returns will drop sharply when crowds fall below 40,000, a crowd which would on most occasions reap about $50,000 for the home team.
Some club-stadium deals expired at the end of last year, and the clubs had assumed they would roll on in to 2009 and beyond.

Get your self to games if at all possible......................

[bigmicka]

Edit Brat posted it already.

This could be very bad for the club.

I thought the perfect time to renegotiate would be when the contract expired. So why haven't we been in talks?

mic

[saintspremiers]

Edit Brat posted it already.

This could be very bad for the club.

I thought the perfect time to renegotiate would be when the contract expired. So why haven't we been in talks?

mic

We are on the variable deal know as far as I know....correct me if I'm wrong.

We were on the fixed rate deal.

So we need to average above 35K to make anything significant.

At the end of the day, it's Demetriou's fault for not doing enough years ago on this issue.

He has sat on his hands for too long.

You can't trust a prick like Collo, and a measly poor little club like ours (or Footscray, North or the once broke Carlton!) have no financial/power grunt.

Anyway, his time will come soon enough (Collo's that is). The stress of all this can't be good for his dodgy body!

[saintbrat]

Edit Brat posted it already.

This could be very bad for the club.

I thought the perfect time to renegotiate would be when the contract expired. So why haven't we been in talks?

mic

a quick check with Michael N- would get exact dates

but to my knowledge the clubs have been in discussion with Docklands since mid last year,
I'm guessing as the article states all clubs assumed that the deal would roll over till new agreement signed- NOT the case in the current economic situation.... docklands shareholders wanting the best for themselves

saintspremiers
initially saints were on the - "more through the door- more money deal"
due to poor attendances in those early years - 2000- 2003
when it was renegotiated they went to the guaranteed amount- as stated in the article-- of course the numbers gods were against the saints and they then began to regularly draw MORE than 35,000

Essendon are on a " no one gets better than us ' deal as first tenants"
Victory are on a better deal than most Victorian clubs.

even Collingwood are going to suffer with the- 'you haven't signed so pay up' attitude of Docklands management.

Greg and Archie both intimated ( not sure if I've heard Andrew AFL say the same) that the fight would go on for some time as in well into this year.

[saintspremiers]

bratty - yes, that's what I thought, but I thought we are now on our third deal with Docklands (1st - variable, 2nd - fixed, current - variable).

It's our tenth season at the venue....if both the first two deals lasted five years, you'd be right and we'd be in the final year of the 2nd variable deal.

I'm confused!!!

[saintbrat]

bratty - yes, that's what I thought, but I thought we are now on our third deal with Docklands (1st - variable, 2nd - fixed, current - variable).

It's our tenth season at the venue....if both the first two deals lasted five years, you'd be right and we'd be in the final year of the 2nd variable deal.

I'm confused!!!

to my reading of it- the third deals haven't been sealed- hence this 'discussion' between clubs and Docklands- were due at end of 2007 or start of 2009... the current" discussions' are part of the re dealing.

from reading the above article and information from AGM etc... but checking with Michael N would be best way to check.

[ausfatcat]

I hope they settle this soon

I understand that the docklands is expensive and respect that but if the rumors are true and the Victory games run at loss but yet they get more money in their pockets than us when we pull the bigger crowds is deplorable.

Also on the side note if the AFL does secure 20 mill from this I would like to think it would be split amongst the teams based on home games played at Docklands rather than split evenly, how anoying would it be if say Collingwood and Geelong get the same amount as the saints when obviously we were a lot more effected by this rubbish.

[saintbrat]

but they ( Docklands) have benefited greatly to the point of having 20 mill go through the gates

Etihad Stadium is set to welcome its 20 millionth patron through the turnstiles

http://www.saintscentral.com.au/Message ... =6510#6510

can I trade in the prize for $ and use as I see fit?

[Marcus1232]

just make sure u r one of the last ones in :p

[saintbrat]

the very last I would think
http://www.saints.com.au/season2009/new ... fault.aspx

given they need 40,000 + and we are playing Freo
North/ ess patrons may have better chance

[Marcus1232]

maybe the supporters will show up in droves as we r more than likely gonna inflict a beating

[saintspremiers]

the very last I would think
http://www.saints.com.au/season2009/new ... fault.aspx

given they need 40,000 + and we are playing Freo
North/ ess patrons may have better chance

I'll give some credit here to our club.

It's a bit of free spin, and anything to get try and get a bigger crowd is worthwhile.

[saintbrat]

Caro's take-

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews ... 63969.html

League fails clubs on stadium agreements
Caroline Wilson | May 10, 2009

IT IS more than six years ago since the AFL gathered senior journalists to a media briefing in a bid to put some positive spin on the stadium which seems to have now become its mortal enemy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

[ace]

[quote="remboy"][quote="chook23"][b]The club officials have been told the AFL has not received one cent from the pourage deal - that's the right to income from beer, soft drink and food sales at the ground. The league maintains the stadium managers have on-sold the rights to third parties. [/b][/quote]

If that's the case why has it taken so long for this to become an issue? Shouldn't questions have been asked after the first season? Given the price of food and drinks at the ground this would have been incredibly useful to all the clubs but especially us and the Bulldogs who need every cent we can get.[/quote]


Someone was too busy counting his own 7 figure salary to count the money that the AFL was entitled to and which would then go to the clubs.
Asleep at the wheel Mr Dimwit.

[ace]

I hope they settle this soon

I understand that the docklands is expensive and respect that but if the rumors are true and the Victory games run at loss but yet they get more money in their pockets than us when we pull the bigger crowds is deplorable.

Some of you have missed the obvious.
The AFL (Demetriou or his successor) get the ground for FREE in 2025.
That means each of the 16 clubs gets a 1/16th share in the stadium.
The clubs that play home games at Docklands are buying the shares for those clubs that don't.

It is like a state government public private partnerships.
The developer funds the project.
The developer borrows the money, builds the stadium, takes on all risks, pays interest, repays the principle, makes a profit.
And the developer has to pay all operating costs for the next 25 years.

25 year corporate loans pay a higher interest rate than a 25 year housing loan, but the interest is tax deductible at 30% tax rate.
For every million borrowed the developers need to make in the ball park of $100,000 a year to cover the loan repayments.

I don't know what the stadium cost but with around 50 matches per year the stadium needs to make a profit of $2,000 a game per million borrowed.
If the stadium cost $500 million then that is $1,000,000 proift per match or $30 per person for a 33,000 crowd.
And that is just the price to build the stadium.

Now do you get it.
St Kilda and the other clubs playing home games are paying for the AFL ownership of this stadium come 2025.

[plugger66]

I hope they settle this soon

I understand that the docklands is expensive and respect that but if the rumors are true and the Victory games run at loss but yet they get more money in their pockets than us when we pull the bigger crowds is deplorable.

Some of you have missed the obvious.
The AFL (Demetriou or his successor) get the ground for FREE in 2025.
That means each of the 16 clubs gets a 1/16th share in the stadium.
The clubs that play home games at Docklands are buying the shares for those clubs that don't.

It is like a state government public pivate partnerships.
The developer funds the project.
The developer borrows the money, builds the stadium, takes on all risks, pays interest, repays the principle, makes a profit.
And the developer has to pay all operating costs for the next 25 years.

25 year corporate loans pay a higher interest rate than a 25 year housing loan, but the interst is tax deductible at 30% tax rate.
For every million borrowed the developers need to find in the ball park of $100,000 a year.

I don't know what the stadium cost but with around 50 matches per year the stadium needs to make a profit of $2,000 a game per million borrowed.
If the stadium cost $500 million then that is $1,000,000 proift per match or $30 per person for a 33,000 crowd.

Now do you get it.
St Kilda and the other clubs playing home games are paying for the AFL ownership of this stadium come 2025.

Just in case no one has told you St Kilda and the AFL are the same thing. If the AFL own the ground so do we. Do you think we should belong to some other league or are you unhappy we will own the ground.

[ace]

I hope they settle this soon

I understand that the docklands is expensive and respect that but if the rumors are true and the Victory games run at loss but yet they get more money in their pockets than us when we pull the bigger crowds is deplorable.

Some of you have missed the obvious.
The AFL (Demetriou or his successor) get the ground for FREE in 2025.
That means each of the 16 clubs gets a 1/16th share in the stadium.
The clubs that play home games at Docklands are buying the shares for those clubs that don't.

It is like a state government public pivate partnerships.
The developer funds the project.
The developer borrows the money, builds the stadium, takes on all risks, pays interest, repays the principle, makes a profit.
And the developer has to pay all operating costs for the next 25 years.

25 year corporate loans pay a higher interest rate than a 25 year housing loan, but the interst is tax deductible at 30% tax rate.
For every million borrowed the developers need to find in the ball park of $100,000 a year.

I don't know what the stadium cost but with around 50 matches per year the stadium needs to make a profit of $2,000 a game per million borrowed.
If the stadium cost $500 million then that is $1,000,000 proift per match or $30 per person for a 33,000 crowd.

Now do you get it.
St Kilda and the other clubs playing home games are paying for the AFL ownership of this stadium come 2025.

Just in case no one has told you St Kilda and the AFL are the same thing. If the AFL own the ground so do we. Do you think we should belong to some other league or are you unhappy we will own the ground.

I am unhappy that we wont own the ground.
The ground will be owned by ALL clubs, including interstate and MCG tenants.
But only the Docklands tenants will have paid for it.
And the AFL will no doubt charge us to use their ground after 2025.
If the AFL gets stadium worth $500 million then they should be paying $500 million to the clubs with home games there.
That's $20 million per year of 25 years.
That's like $4 million per year the AFL should be paying to St Kilda.
$350,000 per home game.

Now do you see where the money is going.

[plugger66]

I hope they settle this soon

I understand that the docklands is expensive and respect that but if the rumors are true and the Victory games run at loss but yet they get more money in their pockets than us when we pull the bigger crowds is deplorable.

Some of you have missed the obvious.
The AFL (Demetriou or his successor) get the ground for FREE in 2025.
That means each of the 16 clubs gets a 1/16th share in the stadium.
The clubs that play home games at Docklands are buying the shares for those clubs that don't.

It is like a state government public pivate partnerships.
The developer funds the project.
The developer borrows the money, builds the stadium, takes on all risks, pays interest, repays the principle, makes a profit.
And the developer has to pay all operating costs for the next 25 years.

25 year corporate loans pay a higher interest rate than a 25 year housing loan, but the interst is tax deductible at 30% tax rate.
For every million borrowed the developers need to find in the ball park of $100,000 a year.

I don't know what the stadium cost but with around 50 matches per year the stadium needs to make a profit of $2,000 a game per million borrowed.
If the stadium cost $500 million then that is $1,000,000 proift per match or $30 per person for a 33,000 crowd.

Now do you get it.
St Kilda and the other clubs playing home games are paying for the AFL ownership of this stadium come 2025.

Just in case no one has told you St Kilda and the AFL are the same thing. If the AFL own the ground so do we. Do you think we should belong to some other league or are you unhappy we will own the ground.

I am unhappy that we wont own the ground.
The ground will be owned by ALL clubs, including interstate and MCG tenants.
But only the Docklands tenants will have paid for it.
And the AFL will no doubt charge us to use their ground after 20025.

Firstly can you do the quoting right as it is really hard understand what is going on. Secondly why would the AFL charge us for using the ground. Have you seen that in writing. Thirdly we chose to go to that ground so we would have known that the ground has to make a profit. The deal we have is terrible by the sounds of it but so are the deals at the G and they aint paying to buy the ground. Clearly they are all bad deals.

[ace]

I have asked before, please tell me how to do the quoting right.
I know it doesn't display correctly on my screen but I don't know how to fix it.