Etihad Deals

[Tommo]

Just curious to know the deals that the vic clubs have with Ethiad. Some seem to be doing well out of it others less so.
What exactly do the deals involve? How exactly are some clubs getting ripped off?

 

[Wernumberone]

Just curious to know the deals that the vic clubs have with Ethiad. Some seem to be doing well out of it others less so.
What exactly do the deals involve? How exactly are some clubs getting ripped off?

Essendon have the best deal.

The first team to sign was always going to get the best deal and this was flagged by the management and taken up by us.

All the other clubs had the same chance but may not have had the exact same deal as many wouldn't have such a large supporter base.

No idea what the actual deal is and most likely isn't public knowledge.

 

[grimface_87]

I think Essendon's "break even attendees" is a lot lower than North/Bulldogs/St Kilda with Carlton being in between (and A-League being well below Essendon)

 

[Papa G]

I think Essendon's "break even attendees" is a lot lower than North/Bulldogs/St Kilda with Carlton being in between (and A-League being well below Essendon)

The "break even" attendance figure at Footy Park is 27,000. Given that Port and the Crows play all games bar 1 against "low drawing interstate opposition", it would have to be the harshest in the country given the fact that the SANFL actually own the joint outright. Would Essendon's or in fact any other teams break even point be below this figure?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

North are paying off far more than their fair share of a multibillion dollar asset that all clubs will own in 15 years time.

That's why we get a limited amount of that back via the AFL.

That's all you need to know.

 

[Tommo]

So does it simply boil down to the stadium charging different clubs different amount to host games there?
Do the deals get renegotiated? or are clubs locked in?
It will be interesting to see what arrangements are made in Perth when we get our new stadium.
Obviously learning from any mistakes made with Etihad would be important.

 

[IheartCarrots]

When people complain about the stadium "deals" they usually claim clubs like North have a horrible deal that is orders of magnitude worse than the deals of clubs like Essendon or Carlton.

It's purely a case of bums-on-seats. All the A league teams complain about "stadium deals" but it's simply a case of it costing x amount for the stadium to break even and then the stadium management having a target profit. Less people through the gates = less cash flow so the stadium management needs a higher percentage of the gate takings to meet their requirements.

A club with proof of higher average attendances such as Essendon will always be able to secure a better percentage of gate takings/spendings because the stadium management know it'll be more likely to reach their minimum targets. Etihad could take 25% less for an Essendon or Carlton game and still turn more profit than a Norf game.

So, yes, Etihad charges less money to the bigger clubs because they are more likely to still make more money.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

When people complain about the stadium "deals" they usually claim clubs like North have a horrible deal that is orders of magnitude worse than the deals of clubs like Essendon or Carlton.

It's purely a case of bums-on-seats. All the A league teams complain about "stadium deals" but it's simply a case of it costing x amount for the stadium to break even and then the stadium management having a target profit. Less people through the gates = less cash flow so the stadium management needs a higher percentage of the gate takings to meet their requirements.

A club with proof of higher average attendances such as Essendon will always be able to secure a better percentage of gate takings/spendings because the stadium management know it'll be more likely to reach their minimum targets. Etihad could take 25% less for an Essendon or Carlton game and still turn more profit than a Norf game.

So, yes, Etihad charges less money to the bigger clubs because they are more likely to still make more money.

Heh, you do understand Carlton had a very shitty deal and that's why they joined the lobbying led by the Dogs and North that saw the deals improved?

EVERY CLUB apart Essendon had a crappy deal.

 

[Lach72]

What is the minimum cost for Etihad?

 

[IheartCarrots]

Heh, you do understand Carlton had a very shitty deal and that's why they joined the lobbying led by the Dogs and North that saw the deals improved?

EVERY CLUB apart Essendon had a crappy deal.

And we still come out of it with more money than North. Want to know why? Because we bring crowds in. We have more bargaining power with Etihad to negotiate a better deal than you do. Want to know why? Because we average 20,000 people more per game than you do.

Even if North and Carlton recieve the exact same percentage per person, Carlton is still better off.

 

[KarlHungus]

Heh, you do understand Carlton had a very shitty deal and that's why they joined the lobbying led by the Dogs and North that saw the deals improved?

EVERY CLUB apart Essendon had a crappy deal.

Then why did the clubs sign these deals? Were they forced?

 

[grimface_87]

And we still come out of it with more money than North. Want to know why? Because we bring crowds in. We have more bargaining power with Etihad to negotiate a better deal than you do. Want to know why? Because we average 20,000 people more per game than you do.

Even if North and Carlton recieve the exact same percentage per person, Carlton is still better off.

No-one is disputing that.

 

[IheartCarrots]

No-one is disputing that.

So do you agree how "bad" a deal is is directly proportional to the number of spectators through the gates?

 

[vjknight]

do any of the deals consider the following..........

with an expectation of say no more than 20000, etihad only open the ground floor seating, and in excess of that requires some or all of the upper levels ?

if this is the case, you could see essendons high attendances ensuring a full house easily offset the costs of operating the whole stadium, versus 30000 means the the upper level costs are barely met. likewise soccers lower attendances ensure operating costs are kept down.

i know the deals are different as well, but wondering if these types of scenarios are taken into consideration.

 

[IheartCarrots]

do any of the deals consider the following..........

with an expectation of say no more than 20000, etihad only open the ground floor seating, and in excess of that requires some or all of the upper levels ?

if this is the case, you could see essendons high attendances ensuring a full house easily offset the costs of operating the whole stadium, versus 30000 means the the upper level costs are barely met. likewise soccers lower attendances ensure operating costs are kept down.

i know the deals are different as well, but wondering if these types of scenarios are taken into consideration.

Valid point. I know they do in other codes, but is it the same in the AFL?

Wasn't there an A league team in Queensland that would only let 5000 people through the gates otherwise they lost too much money on the game?

 

[Tommo]

do any of the deals consider the following..........

with an expectation of say no more than 20000, etihad only open the ground floor seating, and in excess of that requires some or all of the upper levels ?

if this is the case, you could see essendons high attendances ensuring a full house easily offset the costs of operating the whole stadium, versus 30000 means the the upper level costs are barely met. likewise soccers lower attendances ensure operating costs are kept down.

i know the deals are different as well, but wondering if these types of scenarios are taken into consideration.

I know they do this with many stadiums around the world. Pretty sure they were looking at closing upper levels of stadium wa for low capacity events. Surely this sort of thing could be looked at, with Etihad to ensure a lower break even number, for curtain games.

 

[IheartCarrots]

I know they do this with many stadiums around the world. Pretty sure they were looking at closing upper levels of stadium wa for low capacity events. Surely this sort of thing could be looked at, with Etihad to ensure a lower break even number, for curtain games.

Good luck trying to convince North of that though. If a club, for example, North, averages 27,000 a match and the lower level seats 30,000 (no idea how many it actually seats) do you really think they'd agree to close off the top level?

 

[Lach72]

How much do Etihad charge per game?

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

Eithad Stadium is about to enter it's 12th year.

Talk about it's stadium deals have been going on for 15 years.

Has anybody every articulated these deals on BigFooty in those 15 years? No.

Many hundreds of threads have been devoted to the topic, but nobody knows the details.

So unless you work for SOL and know the intimate details, this thread is another example of pissing in the wind.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The "break even" attendance figure at Footy Park is 27,000. Given that Port and the Crows play all games bar 1 against "low drawing interstate opposition", it would have to be the harshest in the country given the fact that the SANFL actually own the joint outright. Would Essendon's or in fact any other teams break even point be below this figure?

Break-even for some clubs at Etihad (e.g. North, Richmond) has been reported as ~28K.

 

[Tommo]

Eithad Stadium is about to enter it's 12th year.

Talk about it's stadium deals have been going on for 15 years.

Has anybody every articulated these deals on BigFooty in those 15 years? No.

Many hundreds of threads have been devoted to the topic, but nobody knows the details.

So unless you work for SOL and know the intimate details, this thread is another example of pissing in the wind.

Just thought that perhaps with vic clubs being member-run organisations joe average member might be more privy to this sort of info. More then say the very private entities we have in Freo and WCE.

 

[A Living God]

North are paying off far more than their fair share of a multibillion dollar asset that all clubs will own in 15 years time.

That's why we get a limited amount of that back via the AFL.

That's all you need to know.

1) North, or any of Docklands tennants, are not paying a cent towards the AFL acquistion of the Docklands stadium.

2) The value of stadium would be no more than $300m, possibly considerably less.

 

[Groggyk]

I know they do this with many stadiums around the world. Pretty sure they were looking at closing upper levels of stadium wa for low capacity events. Surely this sort of thing could be looked at, with Etihad to ensure a lower break even number, for curtain games.

Yeah closing the top level has been done before, Roos vs Lions.

It ended up being a fiasco.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Then why did the clubs sign these deals? Were they forced?

Bluntly, yes, by the AFL's ground rationalisation policy.

Now North, we moved to the MCG early in the piece.

We then broke and developed a brand new timeslot there. That became the most lucrative in the game.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

1) North, or any of Docklands tennants, are not paying a cent towards the AFL acquistion of the Docklands stadium.

2) The value of stadium would be no more than $300m, possibly considerably less.

1) Yes we are.

2) The land it sits on, in the middle of a booming inner Melbourne, with water views and outstanding transportt links, might just be you know.