1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Not gonna happen- these are corporate memberships and they pay $5k a year for them you think they're gonna be forced to log on to a website days in advance to notify if theyre gonna use the seat theyve already paid for?

 

10 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

One punter suggested that you could make them have to log on several days/weeks prior to cinfirm they were going to be used and if they weren't, then they could be offered up for sale at an premium to GA.  I think a variation on this could work quite well, where if the member was not going to use them, then they could offer them up for sale, with the member and the AFL sharing the profits.

I agree absolutely, but I think there would be some that would be willing to receive back some of their investment if they were sufficiently incentivised.

On 07/10/2016 at 8:54 PM, DubDee said:

Any chance if a 30 day money back gaurantee?

who'd the afl buy it off anyway? Drunken online purchase no doubt 

Geez. Better check the credit card. I might have bought it last night.....

19 hours ago, bandicoot said:

I like the ground. Easy to get to. Great view from every seat and you don't get wet. Can't blame the ground for Melbourne's poor record 

So do I, can never see the problem, been to Victoria Park in the old days and Waverley, as for the roof, if you are on Level 2A at the G and it is a nice sunny day, you have the same issue, think some of the whingeing about Etihad is whingeing for whingeing sake

Agreed with bolded as well

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

So do I, can never see the problem, been to Victoria Park in the old days and Waverley, as for the roof, if you are on Level 2A at the G and it is a nice sunny day, you have the same issue, think some of the whingeing about Etihad is whingeing for whingeing sake

Agreed with bolded as well

The price of getting inside that shitbox Stadium?

The price of food one is forced to pay inside that Shitbox Stadium?

You may call it whingeing Satyr

i call it Theft

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The price of getting inside that shitbox Stadium?

The price of food one is forced to pay inside that Shitbox Stadium?

You may call it whingeing Satyr

i call it Theft

My membership gets me in for nothing

I take my own food, same as I do for the G

Quite like the stadium, been to worse

Never quite understood the issue supporters have, apart from MFC playing record there

 

35 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The price of getting inside that shitbox Stadium?

The price of food one is forced to pay inside that Shitbox Stadium?

You may call it whingeing Satyr

i call it Theft

I find it quaint that because of some ridiculously "pure" internal policy, the ABC refuses to call the stadium by its sponsored name. But I can't see any reason why they couldn't use this moniker. 

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

My membership gets me in for nothing

I take my own food, same as I do for the G

Quite like the stadium, been to worse

Never quite understood the issue supporters have, apart from MFC playing record there

 

You take your own food

you must be the only one

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You take your own food

you must be the only one

well it's pretty hard to buy a banana when you get there, wyl

and then there is the mandatory thermos.........

On 10/8/2016 at 10:37 PM, monoccular said:

Errrr  because he used to wear tracky pants  at training and IIRC at warm up

Oh, is this the real answer? If so it is a very poor nickname, should we start calling Garlett beanie then!?

Well the AFL have paid $200M today rather than waiting 9 years and paying $30!

Where does the $200M come from?.....from money that could have been distributed to the clubs. 

Would $10M to each club today have solved a lot of problems?  Certainly would have.

If they think they can reduce the annual payments to St.Kilda, Bulldogs, North and yes... Carlton & Essendon then they are fooling themselves. 

While the Medallion club seats are not available for those clubs to sell as upgraded seating/memberships, then no further income will come to them.  That is why the Bulldogs sold out of ALL their higher grade memberships within days.  They only have a few bays on level 1 to sell.  And who would pay extra to sit on level 3?

The other concern is that the AFL is not a stadium manager.  To protect the surface, events which previously held at the stadium and conflicted with football, will now be refused.  So less income. 

A very real possibility of less money to tenant clubs, and definitely no money to all the other clubs.  Sound like a great way to waste $200M to me.

18 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Well the AFL have paid $200M today rather than waiting 9 years and paying $30!

Where does the $200M come from?.....from money that could have been distributed to the clubs. 

Would $10M to each club today have solved a lot of problems?  Certainly would have.

If they think they can reduce the annual payments to St.Kilda, Bulldogs, North and yes... Carlton & Essendon then they are fooling themselves. 

While the Medallion club seats are not available for those clubs to sell as upgraded seating/memberships, then no further income will come to them.  That is why the Bulldogs sold out of ALL their higher grade memberships within days.  They only have a few bays on level 1 to sell.  And who would pay extra to sit on level 3?

The other concern is that the AFL is not a stadium manager.  To protect the surface, events which previously held at the stadium and conflicted with football, will now be refused.  So less income. 

A very real possibility of less money to tenant clubs, and definitely no money to all the other clubs.  Sound like a great way to waste $200M to me.

George, I have no idea about the maths but you've left out of your analysis the payments being made by the AFL and its constituent clubs to the former stadium owners. If that had continued over the next 9 years that may have constituted quite a bit. Whether it would be more, less or anywhere near $200m I have no idea.

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

George, I have no idea about the maths but you've left out of your analysis the payments being made by the AFL and its constituent clubs to the former stadium owners. If that had continued over the next 9 years that may have constituted quite a bit. Whether it would be more, less or anywhere near $200m I have no idea.

Beat me by that = much LDC.

I think it is a good move over the long term, the value will only rise and if re development happens it is better to be the owner than a tenant IMO.

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Beat me by that = much LDC.

I think it is a good move over the long term, the value will only rise and if re development happens it is better to be the owner than a tenant IMO.

lessee, od, not owner. it's on crown land

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

lessee, od, not owner. it's on crown land

Still struggling to see the down side dc.

I have lots of complaints about the AFL but up to now they seem to have make a good fist of things financial.

21 minutes ago, old dee said:

Still struggling to see the down side dc.

I have lots of complaints about the AFL but up to now they seem to have make a good fist of things financial.

with the lack of details and financial breakdowns i wouldn't have a clue if it is a good or bad idea, od

as usual we are the mushrooms. 

(and i still detest shiteyhad stadium)

Just now, daisycutter said:

with the lack of details and financial breakdowns i wouldn't have a clue if it is a good or bad idea, od

as usual we are the mushrooms. 

Yes dc I can handle a little darkness but it is hard to like the taste of BS

At a sale price of $200M it looks like the current owner did not do too well...... (in reality with the $30 buy out clause operable in 2025 it was more a limited income stream deal as compared to a land deal for the present owner.) More importantly under that form of ownership there was little if any incentive for the present owner to improve the stadium.

"The stadium was announced on 31 October 1996 as a replacement for the much larger Waverley Park as a headquarters for the Australian Football League.^[6] Originally developed by the Docklands Stadium Consortium and thereafter controlled by the Seven Network, the remaining leasehold interest in the stadium was sold to James Fielding Funds Management on 21 June 2006 for A$330 million.^[7] Under the terms of the agreement governing construction and operation of the venue, in 2025 the AFL were to win ownership of the stadium for a $30 fee.^"

Full article here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Stadium

 

4 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Well the AFL have paid $200M today rather than waiting 9 years and paying $30!

Where does the $200M come from?.....from money that could have been distributed to the clubs. 

Would $10M to each club today have solved a lot of problems?  Certainly would have.

If they think they can reduce the annual payments to St.Kilda, Bulldogs, North and yes... Carlton & Essendon then they are fooling themselves. 

While the Medallion club seats are not available for those clubs to sell as upgraded seating/memberships, then no further income will come to them.  That is why the Bulldogs sold out of ALL their higher grade memberships within days.  They only have a few bays on level 1 to sell.  And who would pay extra to sit on level 3?

The other concern is that the AFL is not a stadium manager.  To protect the surface, events which previously held at the stadium and conflicted with football, will now be refused.  So less income. 

A very real possibility of less money to tenant clubs, and definitely no money to all the other clubs.  Sound like a great way to waste $200M to me.

Not to mention the current owners had to upgrade the facilities before handover in 2025 so you can add that cost on too.

Footy had been used to subsidise other users of the stadium so theoretically tenant clubs should be getting better deals out of the AFL. Will be interesting to see whether soccer and other users maintain their current deals.

On 10/10/2016 at 9:13 AM, george_on_the_outer said:

Well the AFL have paid $200M today rather than waiting 9 years and paying $30!

Where does the $200M come from?.....from money that could have been distributed to the clubs. 

Would $10M to each club today have solved a lot of problems?  Certainly would have.

If they think they can reduce the annual payments to St.Kilda, Bulldogs, North and yes... Carlton & Essendon then they are fooling themselves. 

While the Medallion club seats are not available for those clubs to sell as upgraded seating/memberships, then no further income will come to them.  That is why the Bulldogs sold out of ALL their higher grade memberships within days.  They only have a few bays on level 1 to sell.  And who would pay extra to sit on level 3?

The other concern is that the AFL is not a stadium manager.  To protect the surface, events which previously held at the stadium and conflicted with football, will now be refused.  So less income. 

A very real possibility of less money to tenant clubs, and definitely no money to all the other clubs.  Sound like a great way to waste $200M to me.

$200m will be paid back to the AFL through profits over the next 10 years. 

Assuming no debt, the stadium makes an annual profit of $25m. Giving $10m to each club is a sure way for the AFL to go broke. 

The stadium has also been running numerous events throughout the year without compromising on games. I can't see this changing. 

I'm backing the AFL's corporate advisers over your 'back of the envelope' accounting. 

Just noticed a later press release re Etihad

Seems that the first deal was for ownership of the freehold/leasehold.

They needed to do another deal to acquire the management rights.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-07/afl-acquires-management-rights-of-etihad-stadium

Makes sense..... wonder how much it cost

Obviously Dee supporters are not the only ones that do not like Etihad:  http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-trying-to-reinvent-etihad-stadium-as-a-fanfriendly-venue-20161028-gsdaeh.html

The AFL plan to make it more 'fan friendly'.  I was dubious at first, then I read '...the AFL seconding  Melbourne Football Club's marketing boss to work over the summer to help transform the venue in time for 2017...Jennifer Watt, who has led the rebranding of the Demons over the past two years, has been given the task of reinventing Etihad as a fan-friendly venue more closely aligned with its home clubs".

Quite a feather in Ms Watt's cap to be selected for this role.  Its good to see an MFC person chosen.  We are being noticed in more ways than one! 

Also, another feather in PJ's cap to have selected another excellent person at at MFC.  He has clearly overhauled our beloved club in more ways than we can see or will ever know.

its very easy to make it more fan friendly. Involves use of CAT D9's

making etihad fan-friendly

 

now that Watts is in charge of the the AFL new toy all of our old problems are solved !