Etihad Stadium returns batter Saints, Kangaroos and Bulldogs

[bornadog]

Michael Warner, Matt Windley From: Herald Sun

THE AFL's battler clubs are being left behind after another year of disastrous financial results at Etihad Stadium.

McGuire was responding to a Herald Sun report that revealed North Melbourne received a paltry total of $97,540 from its 11 home games at Docklands this year.

He said all clubs were feeling the effects of the poor stadium deal – which remains in effect until the AFL takes complete ownership.

“The greatest disaster in football is Etihad Stadium,” McGuire said on Triple M.

“It’s a great stadium, great to watch – shocking deals.

“This was meant to be the salvation of all the clubs … we’re just copping it left right and centre.”

McGuire said he particularly felt for clubs such as the Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and the Kangaroos - who have received the worst of the deals at Etihad – and laid the blame firmly at the feet of the AFL.
“It’s going to be a long 20 years for a lot of clubs,’’ he said.

“We’re all paying for it now, everyone’s paying for it because now the AFL have shifted the dividends around.

“It’s been a shocking deal. It’s the black hole in football – fix up Etihad Stadium and everyone makes money in footy.

“They don’t always get it right, the AFL and the commission.”
North Melbourne's dismal return included losses on seven matches at Etihad Stadium that attracted crowds of less than 28,000.

The Western Bulldogs wrote a cheque to Etihad management on three occasions for the privilege of hosting games at the ground this year.

St Kilda says it misses out on $210,000 for every home game not played at the MCG.

The Saints estimate they would bring in $4.9million from 11 home games at the 'G, compared to $1.89million at Etihad.

This year's results would be worse if not for guaranteed bonus payments of $100,000 for all clubs playing home games at Etihad and the MCG under a deal struck by the AFL two years ago.

Despite that initiative, some clubs are unable to bridge the gap.

"Everyone is aware there is a problem," Kangaroos chief executive Eugene Arocca said yesterday.

"In the simplest terms, a home team playing a single MCG blockbuster almost nets the same profit as we do from our 11 home games at Etihad, even with the $100,000 bonus per match factored in.

"We increased our home game attendances by 10 per cent in 2011 for an overall difference in match returns of just $60,000 for the year and are doing everything possible to make the best out of the situation."

Bulldogs chief Simon Garlick said: "The AFL has recognised the structural inequities that exist within the competition and the need to ensure there is adequate compensation in place so that those clubs most affected are not continually disadvantaged.

"In line with this we are continuing to have positive discussions with the AFL and Etihad Stadium to maximise the opportunity for a more even playing field."

A confidential AFL document released last month shows gate returns at Etihad continue to sit well below those at the MCG.

It revealed the Roos, Saints and Dogs pocket just 36 per cent of revenues for matches played at Etihad attracting crowds of 32,000.

Geelong's share at Skilled Stadium was estimated at 90 per cent, and West Coast and Fremantle at Patersons Stadium at 77 per cent.

The AFL document said the league had an "ongoing strategic objective to change stadia arrangements, especially Etihad".

An AFL funding and equalisation strategy announced by Andrew Demetriou last month was aimed at bridging the gap.

But the struggling clubs fear the divide will continue to grow after interstate rivals cash in on new stadiums in Perth and Adelaide in the next five years.

Etihad is contracted to host 46 matches a year until 2014, and at least 40 matches a year from 2015 to 2025, when the AFL takes ownership of the ground.

"The funding arrangements announced in late September specifically took into account those clubs that have lesser stadium arrangements," league spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday.

Etihad Stadium boss Ian Collins said: "We don't feel we can add to the debate as nothing has changed since the variation to the Etihad Stadium AFL 'User Agreement', which was announced in September 2009".

[bornadog]

We have been screwed from day one at Docklands Stadium.

Great place to watch footy, but expensive, food stinks and Collo the manager.

[The Coon Dog]

ETIHAD Stadium is "the greatest disaster in football" according to Collingwood president Eddie McGuire.

McGuire was responding to a Herald Sun report that revealed North Melbourne received a paltry total of $97,540 from its 11 home games at Docklands this year.

He said all clubs were feeling the effects of the poor stadium deal – which remains in effect until the AFL takes complete ownership.

“The greatest disaster in football is Etihad Stadium,” McGuire said on Triple M.

“It’s a great stadium, great to watch – shocking deals.

“This was meant to be the salvation of all the clubs … we’re just copping it left right and centre.”

McGuire said he particularly felt for clubs such as the Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and the Kangaroos - who have received the worst of the deals at Etihad – and laid the blame firmly at the feet of the AFL.

Link

[soupman]

TCD have you been beaten on posting a link???

[westdog54]

TCD have you been beaten on posting a link???

The world must be ending!!!

I remember I was in year 12 the year that Docklands (I refuse to name it by any of its sponsored names) opened, and as part of one of my assignments I gave a presentation in favour of the notion 'That the AFL has sold out the average fan in favour of corporate sponsorship', and Docklands was a massive part of the presentation.

Nothing has changed.

[ledge]

I think TCD was peed off because he posted it under the original post, dont ever beat TCD to the draw!

[Dancin' Douggy]

What is the most successful model? The Geelong one.
So copy it.

If we redeveloped the Whitten oval as an AFL venue, played our home games there like the Cats do, and offer it up as a 35,000 seat stadium for the smaller Melbourne teams to play against interstate sides, how can we fail?

With the numbers Geelong are raking in we'd have no trouble getting investors and it would pay itself off pretty quickly. If Geelong can do it, why can't we?

According to the Hun the cats pull in $700,000 per home game.
Times 11 home games and other teams playing there we could be raking in over $10,000,000 a year.

The Whitten oval is perfectly situated and we are the right size team in terms of members and crowds to do it. Turn one of our weaknesses into a strength.
Instead of being thrown some scraps after the AFL feast every year we could really become the richest club in Melbourne.
Melbourne needs a smaller AFL stadium anyway for those embarrassing North v Port type games.

I would love our club to make a massive ballsy move like this.
Even just float the idea publicly.

We are being screwed by the stadium deal so let's build our own stadium and tell Collo and his
stormtroopers to shove it.
Seriously.

[bornadog]

What is the most successful model? The Geelong one.
So copy it.

If we redeveloped the Whitten oval as an AFL venue, played our home games there like the Cats do, and offer it up as a 35,000 seat stadium for the smaller Melbourne teams to play against interstate sides, how can we fail?

With the numbers Geelong are raking in we'd have no trouble getting investors and it would pay itself off pretty quickly. If Geelong can do it, why can't we?

According to the Hun the cats pull in $700,000 per home game.
Times 11 home games and other teams playing there we could be raking in over $10,000,000 a year.

The Whitten oval is perfectly situated and we are the right size team in terms of members and crowds to do it. Turn one of our weaknesses into a strength.
Instead of being thrown some scraps after the AFL feast every year we could really become the richest club in Melbourne.
Melbourne needs a smaller AFL stadium anyway for those embarrassing North v Port type games.

I would love our club to make a massive ballsy move like this.
Even just float the idea publicly.

We are being screwed by the stadium deal so let's build our own stadium and tell Collo and his
stormtroopers to shove it.
Seriously.

Sounds good in theory, but to turn the Whitten Oval into a 35,000 stadium it would cost over $200 million - for all seating, or do you do a cheaper version and put in seating around the outer areas only and go back to some standing room?

How do you find the money is the other small problem

[Dancin' Douggy]

Sounds good in theory, but to turn the Whitten Oval into a 35,000 stadium it would cost over $200 million - for all seating, or do you do a cheaper version and put in seating around the outer areas only and go back to some standing room?

How do you find the money is the other small problem

Thanks for your response. I've obviously fired this off as a raw idea.
I've got no idea about pricing but if we're looking at $200,000,000 as a rough guide.
and $10,000,000 per year in game revenue thats around 20 years to pay off.

That's not counting signage rights, concerts, summer sports, parking, catering.

I guess the money would come from private investors? State government? Rich Bulldog supporters? All 3?

Wouldn't you love to see it happen?

[Greystache]

We'd have to knock down a lot of the developments the government contributed to. I can't see any way they'd want to contribute to that.

[Mofra]

I've got no idea about pricing but if we're looking at $200,000,000 as a rough guide.
and $10,000,000 per year in game revenue thats around 20 years to pay off.

Who is going to give us $200m interest free?

If you know someone, PM me the number

[GVGjr]

Thanks for your response. I've obviously fired this off as a raw idea.
I've got no idea about pricing but if we're looking at $200,000,000 as a rough guide.
and $10,000,000 per year in game revenue thats around 20 years to pay off.

That's not counting signage rights, concerts, summer sports, parking, catering.

I guess the money would come from private investors? State government? Rich Bulldog supporters? All 3?

Wouldn't you love to see it happen?

It's a pipe dream though.

In essence we would have to knock down all the redevelopment including the ELC and the admin block, and buy out a lot of the neighbours including a major upgrade to the railway station just to get our own venue. I just don't see it happening. I think BAD's 200m estimate is very light on as well.

We've canvassed everyone we can like investors and state and federal governments plus the council just to get the redevelopment work done and yet we still owe 10m.

The AFL just wouldn't even let us look at turning our backs on Etihad.

[bornadog]

There was some talk about building a boutique ground, somewhere close to North Melbourne railway station that would hold around 25,000 to 30,000 just for interstate games. Not sure if the AFL are still looking at that. Personally I think it is a waste. I think the AFL has to try and make Eithad work for all clubs.

[Greystache]

There was some talk about building a boutique ground, somewhere close to North Melbourne railway station that would hold around 25,000 to 30,000 just for interstate games. Not sure if the AFL are still looking at that. Personally I think it is a waste. I think the AFL has to try and make Eithad work for all clubs.

Agree, it would be a rediculous waste. Eithad IS the stadium for lower drawing games, it's just the investment company that owns it has created such a complex organisational strucutre that they can syphon off revenue to increase their profits.

It's obsurd to think Melbourne Victory can get 15,000 there and make substantial profit, yet we get 30,000 there and have to write them a cheque. Why does it happen? Because Etihad management has to make the venue attractive for Victory so they choose to play there, whereas Etihad knows the AFL have negotiated themselves into a rediculously restrictive contract that prevents AFL clubs taking up more lucrative stadium offers.

The AFL have screwed the clubs that have no alternative to play elsewhere so they could have a free boutique stadium built for them. They should do the right thing and try to purchase Etihad now, its clearly profitable, and they could invest the revenue back into the clubs rather than into the pockets of shareholders and executives.

[bornadog]

Agree, it would be a rediculous waste. Eithad IS the stadium for lower drawing games, it's just the investment company that owns it has created such a complex organisational strucutre that they can syphon off revenue to increase their profits.

It's obsurd to think Melbourne Victory can get 15,000 there and make substantial profit, yet we get 30,000 there and have to write them a cheque. Why does it happen? Because Etihad management has to make the venue attractive for Victory so they choose to play there, whereas Etihad knows the AFL have negotiated themselves into a rediculously restrictive contract that prevents AFL clubs taking up more lucrative stadium offers.

The AFL have screwed the clubs that have no alternative to play elsewhere so they could have a free boutique stadium built for them. They should do the right thing and try to purchase Etihad now, its clearly profitable, and they could invest the revenue back into the clubs rather than into the pockets of shareholders and executives.

Excellent post