The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

[Greystache]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

Demetriou flagged the possibility of spending some coin on Punt Road or Princess Park rather than paying overs for taking Etihad early. What sort of coin would it take to get each up to scratch and, if it were to happen, which would be the better option?

I don't really know how it can happen at Princess Park these days. Carlton's training facility pretty much extends all the way onto the ground on one side. Spectators wouldn't be able to sit on that side at all, it's really only a training venue now other than games that only need to seat a couple of thousand at one end.

[Bornadog]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

I don't really know how it can happen at Princess Park these days. Carlton's training facility pretty much extends all the way onto the ground on one side. Spectators wouldn't be able to sit on that side at all, it's really only a training venue now other than games that only need to seat a couple of thousand at one end.

Same with Punt Rd

[Mofra]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

Thank you for reprogramming me: 97% of activist scientists.

Hilarious

(God I hope that's a parady)

[F'scary]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

Hilarious

(God I hope that's a parady)

Why?

[Greystache]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

Let's move on, I'm sure both sides of politics are certain they're right.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

I don't really know how it can happen at Princess Park these days. Carlton's training facility pretty much extends all the way onto the ground on one side. Spectators wouldn't be able to sit on that side at all, it's really only a training venue now other than games that only need to seat a couple of thousand at one end.

I wonder why Demetriou would suggest it if it is so unsuitable? Do you think he is looking for leverage to get a better deal?

I am pretty sure there used to be some leverage that was custom built for that reason. Then they decided to tear it down and give it to the Hawks. Hard to bargain when you throw your chips away.

[Greystache]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

I wonder why Demetriou would suggest it if it is so unsuitable? Do you think he is looking for leverage to get a better deal.

I'm sure that's the case, I can't see Stadiums Management blinking however.

[hujsh]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

Hilarious

(God I hope that's a parady)

It can't always be a Steven Colbert type character Mofra.

[jeemak]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

I'm sure that's the case, I can't see Stadiums Management blinking however.

Irrespective of the wishes I have for a boutique stadium in my post above, I'm under no illusion that it will happen.

The AFL and Stadium Management are doing a dance right now, kind of like what we see at the beginning of trade week (Lake case aside Sedat ) where everybody puffs out their chest and states their best, but most unrealisitic outcome with idle threats thrown in the mix.

If the AFL wants to help out the tenant clubs through buying Docklands earlier than the deal's expiry date it will. It's up to all clubs in the name of equalisation to lobby for that to happen though, as it's the most likely means to which equalisation can be achieved without the larger clubs having to give up as much of their own revenues as they otherwise might.

Lobbying for a boutique stadium is part of the process, though an inconsequential diversion. Let's get it over with and concentrate on the actual prize.

[Greystache]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

Irrespective of the wishes I have for a boutique stadium in my post above, I'm under no illusion that it will happen.

The AFL and Stadium Management are doing a dance right now, kind of like what we see at the beginning of trade week (Lake case aside Sedat ) where everybody puffs out their chest and states their best, but most unrealisitic outcome with idle threats thrown in the mix.

If the AFL wants to help out the tenant clubs through buying Docklands earlier than the deal's expiry date it will. It's up to all clubs in the name of equalisation to lobby for that to happen though, as it's the most likely means to which equalisation can be achieved without the larger clubs having to give up as much of their own revenues as they otherwise might.

Lobbying for a boutique stadium is part of the process, though an inconsequential diversion. Let's get it over with and concentrate on the actual prize.

The most rediculous apsect of the whole argument from Stadiums Limited is that they're negotiating hard to protect the superannuation funds of 3-4 million Australian workers, so they can retire comfortably.

They're demanding circa $250,000,000 for the last 12 years of their contract, which is close to the actual retail price. Yet divide $250,000,000 by 3-4 million fund holders and we're talking about about approx $71 per person. Do they seriously expect us to believe they give a shit about super customers getting $71 as opposed to $50 from the sale? It's all grandstanding to try to secure the management team as big a bonus from the deal as possible.

They lost more than $50 per customer per day for the years 2008-2011 without batting an eyelid.

[jeemak]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

Good point.

The only mitigating aspect I can think of is corporate governance determining minimum requirements for the sale of assets, that form part of a broader bunching of assets, whereby special consideration to sell can't be given to individual cases unless a particularly volatile climate would affect the future value of the asset in question.

There's no real compeition for Docklands that will risk a high return from its sale in the future. Stadium Management kind of holds the cards from this perspective, Docklands is money for jam as far as they're concerned.

[Happy Days]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

I don't really know how it can happen at Princess Park these days. Carlton's training facility pretty much extends all the way onto the ground on one side. Spectators wouldn't be able to sit on that side at all, it's really only a training venue now other than games that only need to seat a couple of thousand at one end.

If Vlad wants to renovate Visy Park then maybe this is one time where his "I'm right because I say so and SHUT UP" style of leadership could actually generate something positive

[Greystache]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

Good point.

The only mitigating aspect I can think of is corporate governance determining minimum requirements for the sale of assets, that form part of a broader bunching of assets, whereby special consideration to sell can't be given to individual cases unless a particularly volatile climate would affect the future value of the asset in question.

There's no real compeition for Docklands that will risk a high return from its sale in the future. Stadium Management kind of holds the cards from this perspective, Docklands is money for jam as far as they're concerned.

That may be the case, but given Stadiums Limited has been open to negotiation I wouldn't think it would be so.

The competition for Stadiums Limited is effectively time. The stadium can be viewed as a despreciating asset from their perspective. Come 2025 they are contracted to hand it to the AFL for $1, the only benefit they can gain from the asset is what they can derive in the next 12 years. Each year that goes by is one less year they have control over the asset so in essence they lose leverage in negotiations every day. I'm sure they'll put the same argument forward as you just have, but it's a bluff. The AFL want to control it for the sake of the clubs that are tennants, but in reality they are under no real obligation to buy it. They could quite happily drip feed 3 or 4 clubs enough blood to keep them alive and get the stadium for nothing. It's only the constant media attention the tennant clubs draw to how unfair the situation is that causes the AFL any heart burn, and I'm sure if they want to they can live with that pretty confortably. It just sucks for us.

One thing you have to give to Vlad is he is an outstanding negotiator, the AFL hold the leverage and I'm pretty sure everyone in the negotiations would be made well aware of it.

[Greystache]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

If Vlad wants to renovate Visy Park then maybe this is one time where his "I'm right because I say so and SHUT UP" style of leadership could actually generate something positive

Personally I don't think for a second he has any interest in renovating Princess Park. I think it's just a tool to keep the media's attention diverted, and a distraction for Stadiums Limited during negotiations.

[jeemak]

Re: The Western Bulldogs could reap about $750,000 if they play home games in Geelong

That may be the case, but given Stadiums Limited has been open to negotiation I wouldn't think it would be so.

The competition for Stadiums Limited is effectively time. The stadium can be viewed as a despreciating asset from their perspective. Come 2025 they are contracted to hand it to the AFL for $1, the only benefit they can gain from the asset is what they can derive in the next 12 years. Each year that goes by is one less year they have control over the asset so in essence they lose leverage in negotiations every day. I'm sure they'll put the same argument forward as you just have, but it's a bluff. The AFL want to control it for the sake of the clubs that are tennants, but in reality they are under no real obligation to buy it. They could quite happily drip feed 3 or 4 clubs enough blood to keep them alive and get the stadium for nothing. It's only the constant media attention the tennant clubs draw to how unfair the situation is that causes the AFL any heart burn, and I'm sure if they want to they can live with that pretty confortably. It just sucks for us.

One thing you have to give to Vlad is he is an outstanding negotiator, the AFL hold the leverage and I'm pretty sure everyone in the negotiations would be made well aware of it.

Well, knowing your background versus mine this isn't really an arm wrestle I'd expect to walk away from without some third knuckle bruising on my right hand! So I'll leave the finance discussion at that .

Beyond that my major concern will be the trouble for our club if this isn't resolved prior to negotiations of the next round of broadcasting rights commencing. We benefitted from the last round (irrespective of our poor stadium deal), though I fear that the networks with the encroaching online and pay TV space will not be prepared to front up with the cash they did most recently. This will have a flow on effect to revenue distribution.

The heartburn you mention will only intensify once revenue is squeezed, and the bigger clubs increase their fight to ensure their slice of the pie does not diminish in any way. The self interest of the bigger clubs is completely understandable, irrespective of the level to which clubs like ours subsidise their riches, and in a climate where broadcasting revenue will potentially dry up we'll be one step closer to being completely screwed.

I'm also not too confident in Vlad being around for a great deal longer. While he's a great negotiator it's becoming very clear that a change in leadership within the administration is iminent. That's why action needs to be taken now to secure Docklands, it will limit the exposure against a poorer return from broadcasting revenue.