1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

How much longer do you think the tenant clubs at Etihad/Marvel would have put up with their deal as they stood before the AFL purchased it? What would they have borrowed against to survive COVID if they didn't have it?

You don't think $8M PROFIT in 2 years is worth it? I would argue $8M profit is certainly a different scenario to the "wasted money" you originally said it was.

They borrowed $280M, but they paid under $200M for the stadium, which as of 2018, was worth $237M.

Look, I'm no financial wiz, but I don't understand how you think a massive asset that generates a profit is going to end up in 'reduced distributions'. In fact, I would suggest that (at the very least) the tenant clubs would tell you otherwise.

 

They borrowed $200-280M to get a facility 9 years early.  It would have been free in 2025.  The maths says it needs to earn $25-$30M per year profit just to break even, disregarding any interest payments.  It only returned $3M in 2016 $5M in 2017 and probably made losses in the past 2 years. 

The only benefit was to North, St.Kilda and Essendon who have been charged less for the use of the stadium...i.e. reduced profit to the new owner, the AFL.  They simply should have paid more in distributions to these clubs and finished up with the stadium regardless. 

With less money in the kitty, the AFL has less to distribute to clubs like us.

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

With less money in the kitty, the AFL has less to distribute to clubs like us.

From what I can find, we got:

$14.8M in 2016
$15.6M in 2018
$16.3M in 2019

With COVID and reduced soft caps the AFL brought down payments via a new model across the board for 2022. That, combined, with our financial success through the sale of The Bentleigh Club ($23.7M) and a premiership year ($2.1M profit) has meant our overall payment from the AFL has been slightly reduced (can't find an exact figure atm), but the 'rich' clubs bore the brunt of reductions.

I find your 'clubs like us' argument a bit strange too. We've consistently been middle to high on the list for money received from the AFL for as long as I can remember. It's not the AFL that has held us back from being able to build a home base, I'm sure you are more than aware of the full context of that situation and how much more broad it is than that.

Fact is, by all professional financial analysis I've seen, the AFL purchasing Docklands has been a very wise decision and certainly not "wasted money".

 

Clubs like us = all clubs.

Docklands would have cost $30 if the AFL had waited for 9 years. And any capital gain would have accrued to the AFL= all clubs.

To spend $200-$280 M was a waste of money.= all the clubs money.

Edited February 16, 20223 yr by george_on_the_outer

8 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Clubs like us = all clubs.

Docklands would have cost $30 if the AFL had waited for 9 years. And any capital gain would have accrued to the AFL= all clubs.

To spend $200-$280 M was a waste of money.= all the clubs money.

“It might ultimately save the game, the purchase of that stadium.”

Gerard Whateley agreed, saying it will help the AFL massively for two reasons.

“There could never have been a better time to own (Marvel Stadium) than now and the foresight to buy it, they could have waited about a generation and bought it for $1, but they did spend the money out of the future fund,” he said.

“I imagine it is going to serve them on a number of fronts. One is against the line of credit, but two will be the staging of a season when that comes.

“It’s going to be the most important asset that the AFL has and I think we’ll look back and marvel at their management to buy it at the time that they did, without being able to forecast what would happen.”

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/03/24/the-asset-that-puts-the-afl-in-a-much-stronger-survival-position-than-the/

 

The AFL has offloaded a prime piece of central Melbourne real estate, originally earmarked for the redevelopment around Marvel Stadium, for an estimated $60 million.

In 2018 McLachlan struck an agreement with the Victorian government to invest $225 million into the Docklands precinct redevelopment as well as guaranteeing the grand final at the MCG until 2057.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-sell-docklands-real-estate-20200616-p5537q.html

 

4 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

How much longer do you think the tenant clubs at Etihad/Marvel would have put up with their deal as they stood before the AFL purchased it? What would they have borrowed against to survive COVID if they didn't have it?

You don't think $8M PROFIT in 2 years is worth it? I would argue $8M profit is certainly a different scenario to the "wasted money" you originally said it was.

They borrowed $280M, but they paid under $200M for the stadium, which as of 2018, was worth $237M.

Look, I'm no financial wiz, but I don't understand how you think a massive asset that generates a profit is going to end up in 'reduced distributions'. In fact, I would suggest that (at the very least) the tenant clubs would tell you otherwise.

 

It also contributed to the deal with the MCG to upgrade the southern stand which I don't think the AFL is contributing anything to as well as securing additional funds for other upgrades

Edited February 16, 20223 yr by Dr. Gonzo

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

They borrowed $200-280M to get a facility 9 years early.  It would have been free in 2025.  The maths says it needs to earn $25-$30M per year profit just to break even, disregarding any interest payments.  It only returned $3M in 2016 $5M in 2017 and probably made losses in the past 2 years. 

The only benefit was to North, St.Kilda and Essendon who have been charged less for the use of the stadium...i.e. reduced profit to the new owner, the AFL.  They simply should have paid more in distributions to these clubs and finished up with the stadium regardless. 

With less money in the kitty, the AFL has less to distribute to clubs like us.

And the AFL has had to distribute less additional funds to North, dogs and Saints due to a better stadium deal which has to be factored in

 

I just realised that only 4 weeks until Round 1. My family unfortunately contracted COVID last week whilst on holiday in NSW and I’m the last one in isolation finishing today. Wasn’t pleasant for us but wasn’t too bad either. The bummer was that our holiday was completely ruined and the weeks we spent being careful and doing the right things were undone in probably a brief moment of letting down our guard.
 

The silver lining for us is that the next 4-6 weeks at least will give us immunity to the Omicron strain and hence peace of mind for a few weeks at the footy for my son and I.

Edited February 16, 20223 yr by CYB

"Western Australia has set a goal to re-open its borders on the weekend of March 12-14.

The tentative date, which a WA government source confirmed as the state’s preferred scenario to foxfooty.com.au, would be a huge win for the AFL and Cricket Australia.

Both organisations are awaiting official confirmation but have always been confident the WA border would ease by mid-March at the latest".

WA to open borders mid March

That's a good start!

15 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

"Western Australia has set a goal to re-open its borders on the weekend of March 12-14.

The tentative date, which a WA government source confirmed as the state’s preferred scenario to foxfooty.com.au, would be a huge win for the AFL and Cricket Australia.

Both organisations are awaiting official confirmation but have always been confident the WA border would ease by mid-March at the latest".

WA to open borders mid March

That's a good start!

Why would that be seen as a win for Cricket Australia? What's going after mid-March in cricket? (Please treat as a rhetorical question - I really don't care about cricket once footy has started.)

No crowd limits for round 1. Great for footy and great for the city. Melbourne might the busiest it's been since 2019. Five games in Melbourne. Three at night.

heard some discussion on radio this morning that highlights that covid will once again impact fringe players badly.

It was about travelling squad sizes. Instead of taking away 22 players plus 3 emergemcies it may now require 22 players and say 9 emergencies. There goes any chance that week for match practice for the 9 emergencies. A similar issue for holding back players if the VFL team plays locally on a Saturday afternoon and your AFL match is Saturday night or Sunday.

Of course if the AFL does no testing the positive numbers will drop off massively

 

34 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

heard some discussion on radio this morning that highlights that covid will once again impact fringe players badly.

It was about travelling squad sizes. Instead of taking away 22 players plus 3 emergemcies it may now require 22 players and say 9 emergencies. There goes any chance that week for match practice for the 9 emergencies. A similar issue for holding back players if the VFL team plays locally on a Saturday afternoon and your AFL match is Saturday night or Sunday.

Of course if the AFL does no testing the positive numbers will drop off massively

I was speaking to a friend in America about the NFL's health and safety protocols and he was saying how that during the season each weeks a number of players were out each week with COVID but then miraculously during the playoffs not one single player was out with COVID. Funny that.

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

I was speaking to a friend in America about the NFL's health and safety protocols and he was saying how that during the season each weeks a number of players were out each week with COVID but then miraculously during the playoffs not one single player was out with COVID. Funny that.

It looks like they used a combination of tightened their rules around how players/coaches interacted with others and then reduced the time needed in quarantine for those who were fully vaxxed - only 24 hrs if non-symptomatic.

I wouldn't be surprised if teams go into some sort of bubble type setting on the eve of finals, it might not be to play at the same venue, but all players/coaches might be living at the same resort, eating together, taking the same transport etc. with harsh restrictions on any outside movement. Clubs might be happier with this knowing it's only for the finals period. Of course that all depends where the virus is up to and how many vaccinations are needed by then?

10 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

It looks like they used a combination of tightened their rules around how players/coaches interacted with others and then reduced the time needed in quarantine for those who were fully vaxxed - only 24 hrs if non-symptomatic.

I wouldn't be surprised if teams go into some sort of bubble type setting on the eve of finals, it might not be to play at the same venue, but all players/coaches might be living at the same resort, eating together, taking the same transport etc. with harsh restrictions on any outside movement. Clubs might be happier with this knowing it's only for the finals period. Of course that all depends where the virus is up to and how many vaccinations are needed by then?

Didn't they only test players if they were symptomatic as well in the end? 

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Why would that be seen as a win for Cricket Australia? What's going after mid-March in cricket? (Please treat as a rhetorical question - I really don't care about cricket once footy has started.)

It's interesting (and notable) that we haven't heard or seen one Western Australian D/land member speak in a disparaging way about McGowan's historical decisions to keep covid out of the WA state ... not a word, nothing (as far as I can see)

And we have a number of WA members here and many of those WA 'landers post in a fairly prominent way

Why should they have their lives disrupted just because our lives have been disrupted in the Eastern States?

They were in a unique position to be able to isolate so isolate is what they've done.  Good on them, I say.  Health comes before sport

We'd do the same if we were in their position and in many ways all the States have acted in the same way on occasions throughout the pandemic anyway

Plus, from what I've read  they don't really have the hospital systems to cope with a large outbreak of covid anyway

So with the 177 cases in WA today they could be in a better position to cope with a covid outbreak after holding out for so long.  I hope so anyway

Edited February 18, 20223 yr by Macca

Covid numbers and hospitalisation still trending downwards.  indoor mask rules about to be eased

Season is kicking off at a great time (feel for the women though).  should be some massive crowds and will be so good to be back at the G

25 days..... CANNOT WAIT!

20 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Covid numbers and hospitalisation still trending downwards.  indoor mask rules about to be eased

Season is kicking off at a great time (feel for the women though).  should be some massive crowds and will be so good to be back at the G

25 days..... CANNOT WAIT!

And hopefully we'll be able to attend games in August/September this year.

 

 

On 2/18/2022 at 2:14 PM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

And hopefully we'll be able to attend games in August/September this year.

 

We will. Close to election time.

On 2/18/2022 at 9:37 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

heard some discussion on radio this morning that highlights that covid will once again impact fringe players badly.

It was about travelling squad sizes. Instead of taking away 22 players plus 3 emergemcies it may now require 22 players and say 9 emergencies. There goes any chance that week for match practice for the 9 emergencies. A similar issue for holding back players if the VFL team plays locally on a Saturday afternoon and your AFL match is Saturday night or Sunday.

Of course if the AFL does no testing the positive numbers will drop off massively

If they had a proper reserves comp it wouldn't be a problem

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If they had a proper reserves comp it wouldn't be a problem

Amen to that Dr.

Announcement by the Victorian government this morning of more lessening of restrictions, including mask wearing. Looking good for Round 1.

23 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Announcement by the Victorian government this morning of more lessening of restrictions, including mask wearing. Looking good for Round 1.

Masks required in the indoor elements of stadiums approved for over 30k people.

The other news is that isolation for close contacts is being considered for general removal. Would help on the player availability issue.

Edited February 21, 20223 yr by Diamond_Jim