Etihad

[Wayne42]

Buying the stadium is one thing, assisting clubs at Edihad to have better financial models at tnis inner city shite box is a seperate topic

[saint-stu]

There was no point buying it if the deals aren't going to be improved. The AFL would have taken ownership in time anyway.

[Jacks Back]

So with the ownership change, will the stadium be renamed for the fourth time? I'd like to propose the new name of Neocolonial Stadium.

From http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-07/d ... m-purchase

What happens to naming rights?
Etihad Airways has naming rights to the stadium until 2019, and that contract will remain in place. There is also an option for the airline to extend that deal.

Surely the AFL will get their moniker in the title a la VFL Park - So will it be Etihad AFL Stadium?

[Jacks Back]

There was no point buying it if the deals aren't going to be improved. The AFL would have taken ownership in time anyway.

Exactly. The people saying we (and the other tenant clubs) will not be better off deal wise are kidding themselves. What's the point of spending 200 million if you can just pay 30 bucks in a few years time?

[citywest]

Stuff Etihad.
Move 4 of our home games to the MCG, 3 to New Zealand and only keep 4 at Etihad. Do this and our financial woes will be gone for good. Keep playing 11 home games at Etihad and we are doomed.

Settle pettle. Maybe 2 home games at the G and 2 away games there.

You clearly don't understand that a better stadium deal makes Etihad worthwhile.

Can you comprehend the OP or do you need further help??

You don't comprehend my friend. The Grand Final is played at the MCG. So apart from the money aspect it's also about the flag aspect. How many Docklands based teams have won flags, do you know my friend?

[saint-stu]

Stuff Etihad.
Move 4 of our home games to the MCG, 3 to New Zealand and only keep 4 at Etihad. Do this and our financial woes will be gone for good. Keep playing 11 home games at Etihad and we are doomed.

Settle pettle. Maybe 2 home games at the G and 2 away games there.

You clearly don't understand that a better stadium deal makes Etihad worthwhile.

Can you comprehend the OP or do you need further help??

You don't comprehend my friend. The Grand Final is played at the MCG. So apart from the money aspect it's also about the flag aspect. How many Docklands based teams have won flags, do you know my friend?

Well the Etihad tenants are poorer due to their terrible deals. Money can buy better facilities, more coaches, more medical staff etc.

[Bluthy]

There was no point buying it if the deals aren't going to be improved. The AFL would have taken ownership in time anyway.

Exactly. The people saying we (and the other tenant clubs) will not be better off deal wise are kidding themselves. What's the point of spending 200 million if you can just pay 30 bucks in a few years time?

If you think it was purely to improve our contracts you are naive. The AFL would have crunched the numbers with revenue for the next 8 years from Etihad (including concerts, soccer etc) vs cost of buying early and decided the numbers worked for them. The icing on cake is ability to give tenants a better deal and more control re fixturing , set up etc.

[Bluthy]

Stuff Etihad.
Move 4 of our home games to the MCG, 3 to New Zealand and only keep 4 at Etihad. Do this and our financial woes will be gone for good. Keep playing 11 home games at Etihad and we are doomed.

Settle pettle. Maybe 2 home games at the G and 2 away games there.

You clearly don't understand that a better stadium deal makes Etihad worthwhile.

Can you comprehend the OP or do you need further help??

You don't comprehend my friend. The Grand Final is played at the MCG. So apart from the money aspect it's also about the flag aspect. How many Docklands based teams have won flags, do you know my friend?

Bulldogs just did but benefited hugely from playing a team in the prelim who played only one game in a month and were badly undercooked.

[saint-stu]

There was no point buying it if the deals aren't going to be improved. The AFL would have taken ownership in time anyway.

Exactly. The people saying we (and the other tenant clubs) will not be better off deal wise are kidding themselves. What's the point of spending 200 million if you can just pay 30 bucks in a few years time?

If you think it was purely to improve our contracts you are naive. The AFL would have crunched the numbers with revenue for the next 8 years from Etihad (including concerts, soccer etc) vs cost of buying early and decided the numbers worked for them. The icing on cake is ability to give tenants a better deal and more control re fixturing , set up etc.

If it was so far in the AFLs favour, why would the previous owers sell? I would have thought its more about control that money to the AFL.

[saint-stu]

My guess is the AFL paid overs in order to gain early control. They no longer have to deal with a third party, they can give the clubs a good deal and they can bring the facilities up to the MCG standard.

[Bluthy]

There was no point buying it if the deals aren't going to be improved. The AFL would have taken ownership in time anyway.

Exactly. The people saying we (and the other tenant clubs) will not be better off deal wise are kidding themselves. What's the point of spending 200 million if you can just pay 30 bucks in a few years time?

If you think it was purely to improve our contracts you are naive. The AFL would have crunched the numbers with revenue for the next 8 years from Etihad (including concerts, soccer etc) vs cost of buying early and decided the numbers worked for them. The icing on cake is ability to give tenants a better deal and more control re fixturing , set up etc.

If it was so far in the AFLs favour, why would the previous owers sell? I would have thought its more about control that money to the AFL.

It was in the contract they could. Yes the AFL love control - thats what they are paying for (such as being able to do a revamp the way they want) but its still a number crunching exercise. If they would lose much money I doubt they would have gone early.

[saint-stu]

There was no point buying it if the deals aren't going to be improved. The AFL would have taken ownership in time anyway.

Exactly. The people saying we (and the other tenant clubs) will not be better off deal wise are kidding themselves. What's the point of spending 200 million if you can just pay 30 bucks in a few years time?

If you think it was purely to improve our contracts you are naive. The AFL would have crunched the numbers with revenue for the next 8 years from Etihad (including concerts, soccer etc) vs cost of buying early and decided the numbers worked for them. The icing on cake is ability to give tenants a better deal and more control re fixturing , set up etc.

If it was so far in the AFLs favour, why would the previous owers sell? I would have thought its more about control that money to the AFL.

It was in the contract they could. Yes the AFL love control - thats what they are paying for (such as being able to do a revamp the way they want) but its still a number crunching exercise. If they would lose much money I doubt they would have gone early.

Agree they cruched the numbers which is why they bought now rather than last year or the year before.

[The Recruit]

Anyone that does not think this is a good result for the saints is a d**khead

[Trev from the Bush]

Anyone that does not think this is a good result for the saints is a d**khead

Agree. Citywest doesn't think it's a good result, so I agree.

[saintspremiers]

Remember that the current owners had at least $100M of debt I believe in the stadium.

The AFL will pay cash for the stadium so break even is way less.

[Jacks Back]

Anyone that does not think this is a good result for the saints is a d**khead

Agree. Citywest doesn't think it's a good result, so I agree.

+1