One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 10, 2008, 02:53:57 PM
-
There's an article in the Herald-Sun today showing the difference in Stadia deals between clubs.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23514557-19742,00.html
The hardcopy paper has a chart and Richmond is 13th.
West Coast - over $14 m
Fremantle - over $12 m
Sydney - $12 m
Collingwood - $11.5 m
Brisbane - over $ 9 m
Essendon - $ 8.5 m
Adelaide - $ 8.25 m (league average)
Geelong - ~ $ 8 m
St Kilda - over $ 7 m
Hawthorn - over $ 7 m
Bulldogs - over $ 6 m
Carlton - $ 6 m
Richmond - $ 6 m
Melbourne - $ 5.5 m
Port Adel. - $ 5.4 m
North Melb. - over $ 5 m
-
The MCC taking us for granted once again ::). We have had the two biggest crowds for the year so far and more people have seen us in the first 3 weeks than anyone else yet we get stuff all back in return for it compared to clubs that get half the attendances.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2008.html
-
The MCC taking us for granted once again ::). We have had the two biggest crowds for the year so far and more people have seen us in the first 3 weeks than anyone else yet we get stuff all back in return for it compared to clubs that get half the attendances.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2008.html
Bit off topic but it's much like the football team. And yet I'll be back watching TV on Sunday for another dose punishment, 75% chance.
-
Fresh doubt on Gold Coast deal
Michael Gleeson | July 15, 2008
THE AFL's push into the Gold Coast could still hit a stumbling block if it fails to change the stadium deals crippling Victorian clubs, according to Richmond president, Gary March.
While the plans for the Gold Coast team gather momentum, March said the broad club approval needed should not be assumed unless the AFL deals with the stadium issue.
March's comments came after Collingwood president Eddie McGuire warned that the change in economic conditions since the presidents last met with the AFL and gave in-principle agreement to press ahead with expansion plans, meant that caution should now be exercised.
McGuire said the economic downturn was such that while the Gold Coast should still be on the agenda, a new team in Western Sydney should not.
"I certainly agree with Eddie on putting the 18th team on ice, but I think there is a fair bit of work to do before they convince us on the 17th team as well," March said.
"They are still to address the issues we asked of them at the last meeting and that was to sort out the stadia deals for the clubs and make sure we are all on a level playing field, and where deals cannot be altered, establish a mechanism that better recognises those inequities and deals with them.
"I don't think the Gold Coast is a fait accompli until they fix the inequalities in the stadia deals and they show us all the details on the concessions they will offer to the new club, which could cripple any side that happens to be down the bottom."
While Collingwood and Richmond are sceptical of the haste for expansion, other clubs believed there was no "right time" and that failing to act would be a bigger mistake.
The AFL has about $100 million available to it in a future fund which it believes would be wiser to use now to expand into important new markets.
St Kilda chief executive Archie Fraser said that everyone accepted that Sydney would be "a harder market to break into".
"But I believe we have to be there in terms of the population growth and there is never a good time to do it," he said.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/fresh-doubt-on-gold-coast-deal/2008/07/14/1215887542175.html
-
AFL to get tough with MCG, Telstra Dome
Caroline Wilson | September 24, 2008
THE AFL and its two Melbourne stadiums are headed for a showdown, with the league not ruling out relocating more home-and-away games in Sydney and Canberra should the MCG and Telstra Dome refuse to improve their financial deals with Victorian clubs.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou and his team told the club presidents two days ago that Victorian teams were indirectly subsidising their rugby and soccer rivals, with clubs such as the Melbourne Victory receiving significantly better deals from the Docklands stadium than home teams such as cash-strapped Western Bulldogs or North Melbourne.
Demetriou and his team at Monday's pre-Brownlow presidents' meeting vowed to negotiate new agreements with both stadiums and indicated that the competition would use big-drawing AFL games as leverage.
While the AFL has already threatened to build a third stadium in Melbourne, it has also not ruled out removing fixtures involving tenant clubs such as Richmond and Hawthorn from the MCG. Telstra Dome, whose deal with the AFL reverts to a minimum 30 games a season in coming years, will also be placed under pressure to reward big crowds for home AFL clubs.
The meeting two days ago left the 16 club presidents determined to band together for the sake of the competition, with favoured MCG and Telstra Dome tenants Collingwood and Essendon respectively willing to join forces with clubs such as Richmond, Melbourne, St Kilda and Carlton in a bid to improve the ground agreements, which are crippling poorer Victorian teams.
Not only does the Melbourne Victory have a favourable Telstra Dome deal but international soccer and Bledisloe Cup fixtures at both stadiums have reaped significantly greater returns for those clubs and codes than the regular AFL games that the stadiums could not survive without.
Fuelling the AFL's frustration is the fact that the soon-to-be-built rectangular stadium in the Olympic Park precinct is expected to be commercially "clean", allowing tenant clubs at that ground full access to profitable signage and pourage agreements.
Demetriou indicated to the clubs that the AFL's campaign to improve the stadium deals was placed as a top priority, along with the Gold Coast and West Sydney push, and that the league hoped to lower and even eventually remove special assistance to clubs as a result of its negotiations with the stadiums.
A surprising revelation from the AFL's investigation into the MCG and Telstra Dome was that the MCG currently servicing some $350 million worth of debt paid even worse profits to clubs than Telstra Dome.
The 2009 fixture is not expected to be affected by the AFL's push, although some clubs left Monday's talks believing more games could be scheduled at the ACT's Manuka Oval and Sydney's ANZ Stadium next year as part of bargaining.
The MCG deal with the AFL was renegotiated with the rebuilding of the northern stand and runs until 2032, guaranteeing the stadium 45 home-and-away fixtures, including 10 of the best 12 in a season, along with the grand final and an average of one final a week over each finals series, fixtures that can be banked over the first two weeks of the finals.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/afl-gets-tough-with-mcg-dome/2008/09/23/1221935640755.html
-
I have read that three times and it doesnt get any better or much clearer. :-\
Bottom line, we shouldnt have to put up with any more games away from the MCG.
-
I don't think there's anything there we didn't already know but once again no real solution offered.
Unless you're Collingwood at the 'G, Essendon at the Dome or Geelong at Kardinia Park, you get pathetic returns from the stadia management. For a club like Richmond that consistently attracts top 4 crowds we get taken for granted by the MCC. They must make a killing out of us yet we don't see our fair share of $$$ from it.
So brainiac Demetriou if both the 'G and Dome offer poor stadia deals and you want to move us away from the 'G where are meant to play? Honolulu?! ::) Sounds like an excuse to just make us play Hawthorn down in Tassie and more home games at the Dome in 2009 which is what Demetriou wanted us to do this year ::) :banghead.
Rather than use the RFC as some guinea pig bargaining chip ::), wouldn't the simplest solution, which actually would benefit Richmond and give it some leverage in discussions with the MCC, be to give us all 11 home games at the MCG plus 2 games each and every year against the other top 4 attendance clubs. Give us some fixture certainty to offer to the MCC.
-
10 Victorian clubs here to stay: AFL
Caroline Wilson | September 26, 2008
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has declared his support for 10 clubs in Victoria and reminded all 16 clubs that the Victorian teams have been subsidising the competition for years.
On the eve of the first all-Victorian grand final since 2000, Demetriou has pointed out that the most recent $750 million broadcast rights deal was underpinned by the massive interest in the game generated from Victoria.
Demetriou, who has pledged to attract a fairer deal for all the MCG and Telstra Dome home teams, also reminded the wealthier and non-Victorian clubs that the annual AFL special assistance fund of $6 million ploughed into poorer Melbourne teams was a small price to pay.
Demetriou's stand took place at Monday's meeting of the 16 club presidents, at which the AFL revealed its strategy to remove the additional special distribution (ASD) to poorer clubs such as Melbourne, North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs and replace it with fairer stadium deals.
But the AFL chief executive and his commission moved to quash any disquiet about clubs surviving on welfare by pointing out that the traditional AFL states Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia provided the interest that generated the richest broadcast deal in Australian sport.
While the next commission meeting, scheduled for next month, was initially expected to reach a decision on ASD funding beyond 2009, the AFL now plans to push the MCG and Telstra Dome to lower the costs of their prohibitive ground agreements with a view to allowing the clubs to survive independently.
"It was terrific news for the clubs, I must say," Geelong president stuff Costa said last night. "We were all very encouraged by the AFL's viewpoint.
"I know how hard clubs like the Western Bulldogs work and how innovative some of their ideas are but when they can't make money out of a 30,000 crowd at Telstra Dome and we can make good money out of a 24,000 crowd at the ground we are lucky enough to own, then the equalisation policy needs to be improved."
Telstra Dome's deal with the AFL reverts to a 30-game minimum in 2014, with the stadium this year hosting 46 home-and-away fixtures, while charging Melbourne Victory significantly less than most AFL tenant clubs upon which it relies for revenue.
The MCG, which hosted its agreed minimum 45 games in 2008, will finish the season with total attendances of some 2.85 million but has a contractual minimum attendance agreement of 1.7 million. The MCG has managed to significantly reduce its debt on the back of its big AFL attendances.
The AFL has continued to float the possibility of building another stadium to add weaponry to its bargaining position but in the first instance will also point out to both Melbourne stadium bosses, Stephen Gough and Ian Collins, that the extra games emanating from a nine-team competition will not be played at grounds that charge AFL clubs more than any other football code in the country.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/victorian-clubs-to-stay-afl/2008/09/25/1222217431839.html
-
Call for state help on venue deals
Michael Gleeson | November 27, 2008
ANGRY Victorian AFL club presidents have sought an urgent meeting with the State Government to intervene on their behalf to improve their deals with Melbourne stadiums.
Alarmed that the continued poor stadium arrangements, combined with the economic crisis, could lead to the death of at least one local club, the 10 clubs yesterday were unanimous in pushing the need for revision of the arrangements with the MCG and Telstra Dome.
The Victorian clubs have long believed they were being poorly treated by the stadiums at which they played, and yesterday, at a meeting with AFL commission chairman Mike stuff and chief executive Andrew Demetriou, they discovered how badly.
The clubs were as one in their outrage at the figures that showed the Melbourne stadiums retained about 70 per cent of revenue from a match and returned 30 per cent to clubs.
In all other stadia around the country, the balance was almost the opposite.
Those figures are exemplified by the fact that West Coast averages $34 a head from its games, while Carlton returns about $13 a head.
Geelong is by far the best-placed Victorian club due to its arrangements at Kardinia Park.
With about 30,000 members and an average home attendance at the ground of 24,000, the Cats could gross about $650,000 a match.
The Bulldogs, meanwhile, have had superior membership and average attendances than the Cats in 2008, yet they are $5 million a year worse off than Geelong.
The key difference is the stadium deals.
A delegation from the 10 Victorian clubs Bulldogs president David Smorgon, Geelong's stuff Costa, Collingwood's Eddie McGuire, Carlton chief executive Greg Swann and Richmond chief executive Steven Wright will now seek a meeting with Victorian Sports Minister James Merlino as soon as possible to lobby the Government to intercede on their behalf.
The MCG trust is the Victorian Government-appointed body that works with the MCC to run the MCG, and the Government, theoretically, would have the best chance to influence arrangements at that ground.
"We have 353,000 members of clubs in Melbourne, we contribute significantly to Victoria socially and the Victorian economy, so we think this is an important issue for the State Government," Smorgon said yesterday.
"I don't believe it is alarmist to say that these stadium deals have the capacity to see the death of clubs in Victoria.
"These deals are the single most important factor hurting the clubs.
"Last year, 2.7 million people went to the MCG, and less than 700,000 went there for all other events. Football is not recognised appropriately by the venue.
"This is not just an issue of the poor clubs pleading poor and whingeing, this is an unanimous position of the 10 Victorian clubs."
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/call-for-state-help-on-venue-deals/2008/11/26/1227491635495.html
-
AFL goes to war with government over stadium deals
Damian Barrett | November 26, 2008
VICTORIA'S 10 AFL clubs are set for a showdown with the State Government after tiring of unjust financial returns on the millions of dollars they generate for the state.
After a tense and revealing meeting at the AFL's Docklands headquarters yesterday, the clubs agreed to unite on the topic and have demanded a meeting with Sports Minister James Merlino.
One club official said last night "we've had enough" of watching the Government provide resources and money for rival codes and their clubs that show huge discrepancies when compared with AFL clubs' deals.
The clubs' anger is fuelled in part by the State Government-backed construction of a rectangular stadium for soccer's Melbourne Victory and rugby league's Melbourne Storm, as well as Cricket Australia's lucrative deal with the MCG.
Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon will head a delegation that will represent the clubs in the meeting with Merlino. He will be accompanied by his counterparts at Collingwood (Eddie McGuire) and Geelong (stuff Costa), along with Greg Swann (Carlton CEO) and Steven Wright (Richmond CEO).
When contacted by the Herald Sun last night, Smorgon confirmed a meeting with the State Government had been requested by the clubs "as a matter of urgency".
"We were very concerned to see where the money goes," Smorgon said.
Weaker clubs, including the Dogs and North Melbourne, that suffer most from the stadium deals, have the support of the more powerful ones.
Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett strongly expressed that view at yesterday's meeting, chaired by the AFL's Mike stuff and Andrew Demetriou. The AFL presented figures that infuriated the clubs at the meeting, to which each club's president and chief executive were invited.
The figures revealed financial returns of all sports at Melbourne's two main sports stadiums, the MCG and Telstra Dome. One example was a 15,000 "break-even" difference in crowds between NRL and North Melbourne matches at Telstra Dome.
The discussions with the Government will likely have to centre on the MCG, as it is controlled by the Government-involved MCG Trust. Telstra Dome is privately run.
"Our main focus is to explain the overall situation to Government, as football is big business to Victoria. It generates a lot of income, a lot of fans," Smorgon said.
"We need to talk to them so they are fully briefed and then we can work out an action plan of where we go from there.
"We need to talk to the Government about the MCG, and what AFL football does for the state, and effectively see where the money goes to. Football has done great things for the MCG and we want to ensure we are getting a fair return on behalf of our grounds."
Smorgon would not reveal the discrepancy between returns for AFL clubs and other sports.
"We got a run-through of the AFL's analytical work and, to a club, everyone was really concerned and alarmed at the variances in a number of the deals," he said.
"There was some concern and alarm, almost an admission of, `Hang on, we never understood this before', but the facts have come to light. "
Smorgon said the clubs, in conjunction with the league, had formed a group to represent the Melbourne AFL clubs.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24713778-19742,00.html
-
The clubs were as one in their outrage at the figures that showed the Melbourne stadiums retained about 70 per cent of revenue from a match and returned 30 per cent to clubs.
In all other stadia around the country, the balance was almost the opposite.
So basically we get a 70k crowd against Carlton yet it's only like 21k turn up in terms of revenue. Talk about daylight robbery >:(.
-
Clubs sweat on stadium decision
Glenn McFarlane | Sunday Herald-Sun | 07 Dec 2008, Page S03
THE 10 Victorian AFL clubs expect an answer this week from Sports Minister James Merlino on whether the State Government will assist their push for fairer stadium rights deals.
Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon said the clubs were united in wanting to fight for what they say is fair recompense for the millions they help generate for the state.
Smorgon, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire, Geelong president stuff Costa, Carlton CEO Greg Swann and Richmond CEO Steven Wright met Merlino last week.
"We made it clear that we totally respect and appreciate the Government's support of all Victorian AFL clubs over the past few years,'' Smorgon said.
"However . . . the AFL has presented figures to us that highlighted the windfall profits made by the cricket club (the MCC) and Telstra Dome.
"AFL football and therefore the clubs and the fans are not getting a fair go.
"From what we understand, there has been no argument from those organisations on the numbers. What is in dispute is where those dollars end up.''
Smorgon said it was in the long-term interest of the game that the clubs were the leading beneficiaries.
"We need the MCC and Telstra Dome, but they also need us because we are the biggest drawing sport to both those grounds,'' he said.
Smorgon said there was a "misunderstanding'' that the push came from the less affluent clubs.
"We are all equal in this because we are all concerned about it,'' he said.
-
Ground deal dispute causes club ructions
Caroline Wilson | February 18, 2009
AFL boss Andrew Demetriou and Telstra Dome chief Ian Collins unofficially shook hands before Christmas last year on a deal that would have resulted in $6 million a season being distributed to the Victorian clubs that played at the Docklands ground.
Demetriou was so confident that he had secured an improved stadium agreement for the struggling clubs that he mentioned it at a meeting of club chiefs soon after.
At least one club North Melbourne was so confident of the improved new deal that it included an extra $750,000 in its initial financial estimates for 2009. The multimillion-dollar cash injection would have involved a massive re-writing of the special assistance fund, an annual $3.1 million of which is shared by the Kangaroos and the Western Bulldogs.
However, Collins later told Demetriou that the deal was off after the Telstra Dome chief executive took it to his board and its representatives which included superannuation funds that, in turn, knocked back the agreement that could have secured the medium-term future of several Victorian clubs.
It was after the deal fell apart that the AFL launched legal action against the board of directors of the stadium it will one day own, claiming Football Federation Australia had been handed a more generous ground agreement than several of the AFL clubs that created Telstra Dome.
Among the AFL's legal grievances was its claim that the new naming-rights sponsor of the stadium, Etihad, contravened the league's deal with its official airline, Qantas.
"We were told by Andrew that he had made a deal with 'Collo'," Bulldogs chairman David Smorgon confirmed to The Age. "However, Collo came back and said that after consulting with others I can only assume he meant his board that the deal was off."
The Kangaroos now face a budget shortfall of $750,000 for 2009 exactly the amount it had hoped to reap from the new Telstra Dome deal. Of the five home clubs, the Bulldogs fare the worst out of their ground agreement, followed by North, St Kilda, Carlton and anchor tenant Essendon.
Those five clubs would have secured the lion's share of the $6 million, a portion of which would have been handed to all the Victorian clubs that play home games at Telstra Dome, which will have its name changed next month.
While Demetriou and Collins the latter was Demetriou's immediate predecessor as the AFL's football operations manager have continued to meet and attempted to negotiate, the relationship between the Docklands stadium and its major tenant remains strained.
When the $6 million deal was rejected the AFL established a working party consisting of three club presidents Smorgon, Collingwood's Eddie McGuire and Geelong's stuff Costa along with two Victorian club chief executives in Carlton's Greg Swann and Richmond's Steve Wright to represent the clubs.
The group has already met once with the Victorian Government in an attempt to state its case regarding financial returns from the MCG, which the AFL believes is handing a superior financial deal to other football codes despite its total reliance on Australian rules football.
Demetriou refused to comment on the Collins deal when contacted by The Age, while Collins was unavailable for comment.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/ground-dispute-hurts-club/2009/02/17/1234632812119.html
-
Edit: Scratch that. SEN didn't realise it was last week's MCC offer which was rejected by the clubs when they reported it this arvo :P.
According to SEN the MCC and the AFL have done a deal over the stadia agreement at the 'G.
$50m over 10 years effective as of Thursday night so Richmond as the home team will be the first club to benefit.
Offer is $90,000 extra per match to the home side. If the clubs can exceed $2.1 million patrons they get a bonus. They gave an example of Melbourne potentially earning $2m from the new deal.
SEN believes that an agreement has been reached but they need to confirm from the AFL and the clubs.
-
Just our luck that a decent deal won't be agreed upon until after we get 95k to a home game :scream. MCC is offering the RFC $720k extra per year if the AFL and clubs accept their offer. Yet Melbourne would get an extra $900k. We get bigger crowds yet the Dees would get more $$$. Che! ???
-
Probably due to our game on the Gold Coast plus a couple of home games at Telstra Dome (not by choice)
-
Ta Infamy that's probably the reason. Having said that I would've thought we still drag more people through the MCG gates than the Dees even with 2 less MCG home games (our 8 to their 10). We had last year 479k to our 11 home games to the Dees 338k. No way 140k can be made up from 2 Docklands games.
-
$20m for Melbourne clubs in AFL action against Etihad Stadium
Patrick Smith and Greg Denham | April 04, 2009 | The Australian
MELBOURNE AFL clubs will share a $20million bonanza and more that would secure their long-term future, if action before the Supreme Court against the city's second biggest venue, Etihad Stadium, is successful.
The court move, begun on March 11, seeks discovery of documents critical to rich revenue streams the AFL believes have been due to the league since the Docklands stadium went on line as a league venue in 2000.
Chief Justice Marilyn Warren reserved judgment, though all parties to the action expect a decision soon.
While the claim for discovery appears to revolve around the venue owners, Stadium Operations Ltd, changing the naming rights from Telstra to Etihad without seeking AFL permission, more critically, the AFL is also seeking discovery on two other issues that could reap the clubs a fortune and secure their future.
Club officials said the AFL case involves documents relating to ownership of pouring rights at the stadium.
Senior club officials have been told by the AFL the league negotiated the rights when the user agreement between the stadium and the league was drawn up in the late 1990s.
The club officials have been told the AFL has not received one cent from the pourage deal - that's the right to income from beer, soft drink and food sales at the ground. The league maintains the stadium managers have on-sold the rights to third parties.
The AFL discovery request also seeks documents that detail the negotiations and terms of the contract between tenant soccer club Melbourne Victory and the stadium.
According to the clubs briefed by the league's legal heavies, the user agreement stresses that no other code can be given a better deal than an AFL club. It has been, of course, a major concern, that the returns from the stadium for AFL clubs have been meagre to the point that they have threatened the future of the clubs.
One spokesman for the clubs told The Weekend Australian last night: "We know the AFL has been getting a poorer deal than Victory for a long time. The user agreement says that cannot happen."
The AFL also believes the matters must be addressed retrospectively, in which case clubs have been told the immediate windfall could be as much as $20m. The non-Victorian clubs have told the AFL Commission that any monies due from the stadium should be given to the Melbourne clubs alone. The revenue from pourage rights and reworked deals in line with Melbourne Victory's contract would ensure the local clubs a steady income to 2025 when the AFL takes over the stadium.
If Justice Warren's decision on discovery falls the AFL's way then the league is expected to take immediate legal action to recoup the millions it believes it is rightly owed under clauses in the user-agreement contract.
The clubs case is strengthened because they argue that in November last year, Docklands chief executive Ian Collins, in recognition of the revenue omissions, struck a deal at AFL House that would have delivered the Melbourne clubs $6m a year for an unspecified period of years.
The AFL considered the contract settled by Collins was blocked by Stadium Operation Ltd's Sydney office.
The AFL refuses to acknowledge the change in the venue name from Telstra Dome to Etihad Stadium because it believes legally it was entitled to be consulted. The Etihad sponsorship is in conflict with a significant AFL sponsor in Qantas.
While it appears the Abu Dhabi-based carrier Etihad and Qantas will form a loose partnership, the league contends the breach of the user agreement occurred when it was not consulted on the sponsorship change.
The AFL is also in negotiations with the MCG Trust which oversees the MCG. While the AFL argument with Etihad is strictly legal, the issue with the MCG is being fought on moral grounds.
The AFL contends it has delivered more than required in the deal with the MCG that runs until 2032. Football crowds at the MCG last year were 700,000 above what the league and the venue budgeted for. The AFL maintains it should get some compensation for driving the MCG economy.
The MCG Trust has agreed, in part, and offered an extra $90,000 a game to every Melbourne club that is scheduled at the ground as the home club. The AFL has knocked back the offer.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25287148-5012432,00.html
-
Hopefully the AFL wins, it will be good for the clubs, by the way isnt the chief justice a Richmond supporter ? Richmond ruling the court rooms lol ... our abilities never cease to amaze ;D
-
Clubs hit stalemate in MCG talks
Greg Denham and Patrick Smith | April 09, 2009
The Australian
THE impasse between the Melbourne stadiums and the AFL has intensified with the MCG Trust flatly rejecting a counter offer by the clubs for a better financial deal at the MCG.
After the clubs and the AFL rejected the Melbourne Cricket Club's offer of about $50million to help its Victorian tenant clubs over the next 10 years, the clubs, via the Victorian Government, last week sought a revised offer which has not been entertained by the MCG Trust.
Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon, acting as chief delegate on behalf of all 16 clubs, yesterday said he put a proposition to Victorian Minister for Sport James Merlino, who later told Smorgon the club's demand was unacceptable to the government-appointed MCG Trust.
"I spoke on behalf of the clubs and the AFL to the sports minister James Merlino and put to him a concept that we were prepared to entertain," Smorgon said.
"He came back four days later and said he'd spoken to the MCG and the issue that is not negotiable, is they want a 10-year extension. He said 'Absolutely non-negotiable, nothing to talk about' and things are at a stalemate."
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou yesterday said the league had no intention of extending its current contract with the MCG beyond its expiry in 2032.
"We're just not interested in the 10-year extension," Demetriou said.
Tenant clubs playing home games at the MCG were initially offered an additional $90,000 a match from the start of this year. As well the MCC was prepared to pay the AFL $1-per-person each year for exceeding the AFL's requirement to attract 2.1million spectators to the ground each season.
Last season the code attracted 2.8million people to the MCG, which would have equated to an additional payment to the AFL of $700,000, under the cricket club's proposal. Smorgon said the clubs' counter proposal was for $100,000 a match and a $2-for-one deal on the overall crowd number exceeding 2.1million.
"We also floated the idea that we would give them a lesser extension," Smorgon said. "They came back after four days and at a meeting at the MCG, they said 'If it's not for 10 years we've got absolutely nothing to talk about'."
The AFL last month slammed the cricket club for seeking a 10-year contract extension, saying it would continue to deliver greater benefits to the stadium rather than to the clubs.
The league said its financial forecast was that the MCC would generate $1.6billion in football income by the proposed contract extension, far in excess of the $5million a year it was offering clubs over the next decade.
As well as the MCG stalemate, the AFL is locked into a Supreme Court battle with Melbourne's other major venue Etihad Stadium, which involves seeking discovery of documents critical to rich revenue streams for the clubs.
As exclusively reported in The Weekend Australian, Victorian clubs could share a $20million bonanza from the stadium's owner retrospectively, and much higher future revenue streams from match returns if legal action is successful.
While the claim for discovery appears to revolve around the venue owners, Stadium Operations Ltd, changing the naming rights from Telstra Dome to Etihad Stadium without seeking AFL permission, more critically the AFL is also seeking discovery on two other issues that could reap the clubs a fortune and secure their future.
Club officials say the AFL want to see documents relating to ownership of pourage rights at the stadium. The competition believes the AFL negotiated the rights when the user agreement between the stadium and the league was drawn up in the late 1990s, but no monies have been paid to the league in 10 years.
The AFL discovery request also seeks documents that detail the negotiations and terms of the contract between tenant soccer club Melbourne Victory and the stadium.
According to the clubs briefed by the league's legal team, the user agreement stresses that no other code can be given a better deal than an AFL club.
Past and future revenue from pourage rights and reworked deals in line with Melbourne Victory's contract would ensure struggling tenant clubs a steady income to 2025 when the AFL takes ownership of the stadium.
If the court's decision favours the AFL, it is expected to take immediate legal action to recoup the millions it believes it is rightly owed under clauses in the user-agreement contract.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25311386-5012432,00.html
-
stuff it. They own all the cards and that slight amount of increase is negligence if they're going to hold for another 10 years anyway before allowing clubs to be able to negotiate a real fair deal.
Ultimately, we really should be blaming whoever signed the bloody contract. :banghead
-
eff it. They own all the cards and that slight amount of increase is negligence if they're going to hold for another 10 years anyway before allowing clubs to be able to negotiate a real fair deal.
Ultimately, we really should be blaming whoever signed the bloody contract. :banghead
That'd be the AFL although our poor on-field record does us no favours.
-
Clubs hit stalemate on Melbourne Cricket Ground deal
Rod Nicholson | April 12, 2009
VICTORIA'S AFL clubs will meet this week to forge a new strategy after a stalemate in negotiations for a better financial deal from the MCG and State Government.
Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon, acting as chief delegate, said the clubs would meet the AFL "because negotiations haven't worked and we are a long way apart".
Smorgon said there was encouraging news during the week that Adelaide Oval may return as a major football venue - hinting Victorian clubs would consider shifting games from the MCG and Etihad Stadium as part of a long-term strategy to gain financial independence.
"Adelaide may be down the track a bit, but other interstate options are available," he said.
"Victorian clubs don't want to play at the worst and second worst grounds in the competition in terms of financial rewards.
"We rejected the offer from the MCG and State Government, and Victorian Minister for Sport James Merlino last week rejected a counter proposal, saying the 10-year extension of the current contract to 2042 was non-negotiable.
"So it's a complete stalemate. I don't think there is much more we can do around the negotiation table.
"Now we are going to meet the AFL to come up with the next course of action. We haven't given up by any means. We're just disappointed."
The clubs and the AFL rejected the MCC's offer of about $50 million to help its Victorian tenant clubs over the next 10 years.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has said the league has no intention of extending its current contract with the MCG beyond its expiry in 2032.
"We're just not interested in the 10-year extension," Demetriou said.
The MCC offered tenant clubs playing home games at the MCG an additional $90,000 a match from the start of this year.
As well, the MCC was prepared to pay the AFL $1 a person each year for exceeding the AFL's requirement to attract 2.1 million spectators to the ground each season.
Last season the code attracted 2.8 million people to the MCG, which would have equated to an additional payment to the AFL of $700,000.
Smorgon said the clubs' counter proposal was for $100,000 a match and $2 a person deal on the overall crowd number exceeding 2.1 million.
"We also floated the idea that we would give them a lesser extension," Smorgon said.
"They came back after four days and, at a meeting at the MCG, they said, 'If it's not for 10 years we've got absolutely nothing to talk about'."
The AFL last month slammed the cricket club for seeking a 10-year contract extension, saying it would continue to deliver greater benefits to the stadium rather than to the clubs.
The AFL said its financial forecast was that the MCC would generate $1.6 billion in football income by the proposed contract extension, far in excess of the $5 million a year it was offering clubs over the next decade.
MCC secretary Stephen Gough said negotiations were at a stalemate.
"They don't like our offer and we don't like their offer," Gough said.
"People must bear in mind that the MCC is the one who has the debt ($320 million for grandstand developments) and we must make the payments.
"We have offered some significant benefits outside the current contract that we can deal with, but at significant cost to us.
"We can do no more."
Gough said the MCC would meet again to discuss the impasse, but said the offer would not remain on the table indefinitely.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25322121-19742,00.html
-
AFL's ground rationalisation costs clubs
Jake Niall | April 16, 2009
A GENERATION of kids never had the privilege of standing near the "animal enclosure" at Moorabbin. They haven't jostled for a spot under the windsock at Windy Hill, haven't experienced the unique hospitality, and saliva, that Victoria Park extended to visitors from other clubs.
If they're lucky, they might have caught a game at the most pristine of the old fortresses, Princes Park, before it was closed as an AFL venue.
Some would say good riddance to suburban grounds, which were antiquated hovels in comparison with the comfortable, shiny Docklands, the refurbished MCG and the modern interstate venues. These local grounds, symbols of the old Victorian order, were sacrificed on the altar of progress and the national competition.
We were told that these grounds had to go, for the sake of the game and the economic future of the clubs, which were better off closing the run-down family home and renting either at the MCG or what is now known as Etihad Stadium.
Ground rationalisation, the '80s agenda pushed by the current Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel, was an example of the AFL's willingness to make the tough business decisions in the game's long-term interest.
Those who had misgivings about jettisoning all the old grounds were merely foolish romantics who didn't understand the AFL's hard-headed wisdom.
These sentimental Luddites were blind to the dollars and sense of ground rationalisation. Preserving club histories and identities was just narrow parochialism.
Funny how ideologies get mugged by reality and history bends in an unexpected direction.
As the AFL struggles to obtain a fair deal for its clubs at the MCG and Docklands, it's become apparent that these old grounds were over-rationalised. How much better off would the clubs be financially if the AFL had kept at least one of its suburban grounds?
The AFL has huffed and puffed about shifting games interstate, tried to get the State Government to heavy the MCG Trust, and yet negotiations remain mired in Middle Eastern mode. The MCG has a contract and doesn't need to budge. What the AFL doesn't have and even delusional romantics understand this is leverage.
There is no third ground, because, in its sociopathic drive to remove all vestiges of suburbanism from an expanding competition, past AFL administrations forced the closing of the smaller grounds. A policy that made a certain amount of economic sense, was over-cooked and the clubs have been badly burnt.
Consider the negotiating tactics available to Andrew Demetriou and co, who, to be fair, inherited the two-stadium agenda. "If you don't give the clubs a better deal, we'll
" Build another stadium? Move games to Geelong or Canberra? It's not easy to complete that sentence with a feasible threat. The MCG is controlled by a trust, Etihad is privately owned and its shareholders want the best possible return.
The logical ground to have remained open for business was Princes Park, which, until recent renovations, could still accommodate 35,000 in relative comfort. It would have required relatively few dollars to upgrade to AFL standard Carlton went broke building the ground, in the belief that it would find a niche as Melbourne's third (or more optimistically, second) stadium once Waverley was turned into real estate.
Clubs have, belatedly, woken to the fact that bums on seats doesn't necessarily translate into dollars. Geelong makes about as much from a typical home game as Richmond earned from a sold-out MCG in round one. Had the AFL sufficient foresight to keep a 25,000-35,000 boutique ground, the low-drawing games against Freo, West Coast, Port et al some of which are sold off to other states would earn a pretty penny.
The AFL, sadly, failed to heed its own dysfunctional history with the MCG. The league created Waverley, in part because it was sick of being ripped off and dictated to by the Melbourne Cricket Club.
How did the AFL's decision makers, otherwise pretty astute, fail to read the play? Well, the obvious point is that they envisaged fewer Victorian clubs at least two and maybe three teams were expected to merge or relocate. But, instead, we've seen the birth of new clubs, with the 17th and 18th babies on the way. The additional games won't draw many fans in Melbourne. Ideally, they'd be hosted by a low-cost, smallish capacity ground.
They call it a boutique stadium. I call it a suburban ground.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/no-way-home/2009/04/15/1239474935832.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
-
Does anyone know where you can find the AFL figures on football department spending?
I know they mentioned us on the radio in the bottom 5 just ahead of Melbourne?, Essendon :o, Port and North but I can't find the actual figures published anywhere. The Swans were the biggest spenders along with the Pies out of interest. Geelong and Hawthorn were 5th/6th.
-
Does anyone know where you can find the AFL figures on football department spending?
I know they mentioned us on the radio in the bottom 5 just ahead of Melbourne?, Essendon :o, Port and North but I can't find the actual figures published anywhere. The Swans were the biggest spenders along with the Pies out of interest. Geelong and Hawthorn were 5th/6th.
its no coincidence that the 4 clubs you mentioned in Pies, Hawks, Cats and Swans have all been regular finals particpants whilst we languish as per usual near the bottom.
we dont put enough money into this department and lets hope it all changes in 09 with our new coach who should open the cheque book and get Balmy back to Punt Road.
Our new footy department will include Sheeds, Bartlett, balmy and coach Malthouse
now thats a magic line up if ever ive seen one
-
have a look at p3 of the age sport section today. it has Richmond about 5th last at a bit under $13.5m.
also has a chart with us taking lowest stadium return of any team in the league, somewhere around $12.5 per attendee (all figures for 2008).
i guess you could get the afl annual report from ASIC.
-
have a look at p3 of the age sport section today. it has Richmond about 5th last at a bit under $13.5m.
also has a chart with us taking lowest stadium return of any team in the league, somewhere around $12.5 per attendee (all figures for 2008).
i guess you could get the afl annual report from ASIC.
Cheers gtig. I'll check it out :cheers
-
also has a chart with us taking lowest stadium return of any team in the league, somewhere around $12.5 per attendee (all figures for 2008).
That doesn't surprise me at all considering we are regularly the 3rd biggest drawing side in the competition. Divide a crap total by more attendees and our per person number will be very low.
-
dogs, collingwood and hawks are all around the $22 per person mark.
i think from memory the rfc annual report mentioned footy department spending would be up by about $1m extra? that would put us around the middle, where the saints are.
the idea that throwing mountains of money out the door is going to fix our problems or turn us into permanent finalists worked wonders in the mid 80s. :lol :banghead
-
I've typed it out from the Age. The figures are roughly around the mark as they are read from graphs rather than exact numbers.
FOOTBALL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE 2008
$ (million)
Sydney 16.95
Collingwood 16.4
West Coast 16.2
Fremantle 15.2
Hawthorn 15.1
Geelong 15.08
Brisbane 14.6
St Kilda 14.25
Melbourne 14.2
Adelaide 14.1
Carlton 13.6
Richmond 13.3
Port Adelaide 13.3
Essendon 13.2
W.Bulldogs 12.8
North Melb 12.7
STADIUM RETURNS
Net return from stadium per attendee 2008 ($)
West Coast 41
Fremantle 35
Geelong 31
Sydney 30.5
Brisbane 30
Port Adelaide 22.5
Hawthorn 22
Collingwood 22
W.Bulldogs 21
North Melb 21
Adelaide 19.5
Essendon 18
Melbourne 17
Carlton 15
St Kilda 15
Richmond 13
Top 4 average: $34.40
Middle average: $22.00
Bottom average: $15.20
Source: The Age, Thurs May 7, 2009
-
Interesting that 7 of the past 8 premiers make up the top 7 in footy dept spending. Money does talk except at Collingwood and Freo :wallywink.
That's an absolute disgrace how much we are being screwed by the MCG and Docklands >:(. And North and Dogs think they are the worst off because of stadia deals yet they get almost twice as much in return as we do ::).
I'm not sure how they come up with their stadia return figure but if it's simply dollar revenue from 11 home games divided by total home attendances per year then ~500k x $8 = ~$4m we miss out on even using North's return figure. That would pay off our bank overdraft completely in just one go in one year :scream.
We bring the crowds and get bugger all return from it :banghead.
-
That's an absolute disgrace how much we are being screwed by the MCG and Docklands >:(. And North and Dogs think they are the worst off because of stadia deals yet they get almost twice as much in return as we do ::).
But is is an absolute credit to the RFC that they continue to the profits that they do in light of the crap returns from their stadium deals.
Seeing those numbers makes me understand why we've sold a home game to the Gold Coast
-
That's an absolute disgrace how much we are being screwed by the MCG and Docklands >:(. And North and Dogs think they are the worst off because of stadia deals yet they get almost twice as much in return as we do ::).
But is is an absolute credit to the RFC that they continue to the profits that they do in light of the crap returns from their stadium deals.
Seeing those numbers makes me understand why we've sold a home game to the Gold Coast
Very true WP.
We've got 15 years of this daylight robbery to go too :banghead
-
The AFL yesterday told clubs that no deal had yet been forged with the MCG over a better stadium deal, although progress continued.
Hopes have been raised the MCG might award clubs an extra $100,000 a home game without a ridiculous extension of the current contract, with an announcement imminent.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25483708-19742,00.html
-
At there's more good news off-field....
The clubs that hosted the 46 home-and-away matches at the MCG in 2009 will receive an additional $100,000 a game in an agreement that will cap future home-and-away matches at 46 games a year - at a minimum cost to the MCG each year of $4.6 million.
This is immediate good news for Collingwood, Melbourne and Richmond, which play the majority of their home games at the 'G, and also for Geelong and - particularly - Hawthorn, given those two clubs fare beautifully from Skilled and Aurora Stadium as well.
In fact, the deal should cost the MCG more like $5.6 million conservatively given that in May the stadium offered to pay a bonus when annual attendances exceeded 2.1 million. Clubs would get an indexed $1 a head when annual attendance exceeded 2.1 million at the ground, and the bonus would rise to $2 a head if crowds reached 2.5 million.
Last year, 2.8 million attended games at the MCG, meaning the ground would have distributed an additional $1 million incentive payment pro rata to each home club, although numbers are slightly down this year - largely the fault of the AFL's fixturing.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/mcg-deal-puts-docklands-in-gun/2009/08/15/1249756482994.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
-
MCG stadia deal down. MCG Clubs get an at least extra $100k.
Premier welcomes deal to make MCG home of footy until 2037
Matt Johnston, John Ferguson | September 03, 2009 UPDATE 11.03am:
THE Premier has described a deal to make the MCG the home of footy until at least 2037 as a "great step forward".
Speaking this morning, John Brumby would not confirm details about the deal, which was revealed by the Herald Sun this morning, but said once negotiations had been completed an announcement will be made.
"When we make that announcement, I think you will see its a great step forward, a huge step forward for sport in our state," Mr Brumby said.
As a government we have been great supporters of football, of the AFL.
You will see with this deal arrangements that will be great for football, great for sport and great for the MCG.
Mr Brumby said discussions were complex but were nearing completion
A massive overhaul of the Great Southern Stand to improve the standard of facilities is a feature of the strategy.
Clubs playing home games at the MCG would receive at least an extra $100,000-a-game in revenue.
At least 10 of the 12 most popular home and away games will be played at the MCG under conditions thrashed out by powerbrokers, including AFL chief Andrew Demetriou and Sports Minister James Merlino.
City of Melbourne would lose control of the Yarra Park precinct.
The fine print is still being debated, but key parties are confident it will be signed before the grand final.
The Brumby Government is believed to be planning to spend $30million on revamping the Great Southern Stand to bring it closer to the standard of the MCC members' facilities.
AFL clubs will receive at least an extra $100,000 for each home game at the MCG - costing $4.6million a year.
A new licence agreement between the Melbourne Cricket Club and the AFL will ensure the grand final stays at the ground until 2037 - an extra five years on the current agreement.
The AFL and MCG-based clubs stand to gain financially if there is a dramatic increase in the number of people who attend matches.
It will be worth $1.50 a head for MCG attendances between 2.1-2.5million over the season. The fee structure would rise to $2 per head for between 2.5-3million patrons and $3 for every patron above three million.
The City of Melbourne faces a sting in the tail, losing control of Yarra Park which raises hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for parking.
Drivers currently pay $8 per vehicle on match days.
Yarra Park will be transformed with $6million to be spent on the parkland and facilities.
The MCC will take day-to-day responsibility for the site.
The breakthrough in negotiations comes after Victorian-based clubs complained about the financial arrangements at the two Melbourne grounds.
The deal will put pressure on powerbrokers to resolve the spat at Etihad Stadium.
Sources said the deal became possible because of the strong relationship between the AFL, the Government and the MCG.
The plan to pay at least $100,000 extra per game will favour clubs including Collingwood and Hawthorn.
Anger over poor payments led to threats by the Government to build a second stadium in Docklands.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,26019821-19742,00.html
-
Let's hope we use this to push to have all our home games at the 'G. :pray
Compo deal planned for not playing at MCG
Rod Nicholson From: Herald Sun September 14, 2009
ALL AFL clubs that play home matches at Etihad Stadium have asked to play them, instead, at the MCG next season.
Obviously unable to fulfil the request, the AFL will this month announce a distribution fund to help those clubs that are not regular combatants at the MCG.
"There is a lot of pressure on Etihad Stadium to come to properly reward tenant clubs, as the MCG has done," AFL chief operating officer Gillon McLachlan said.
The AFL has negotiated with the State Government and the MCG to give $100,000 a match to the home team for each match for the next six years.
It is understood that a bonus pool of $1.5-$2 million a year will go to all teams that play there.
Yet the AFL is aware that MCG tenant clubs will have a huge financial advantage over those playing at Etihad.
Collingwood could be $1.1 million better off for 11 home games at the MCG, while North Melbourne this season said it would net only $77,000 from its 10 home games at Etihad.
The AFL is aware that all clubs have worked together for better venue income and is determined that the rich clubs do not prosper at the expense of those playing at Etihad.
"We will be making an announcement about a special distribution to non-MCG tenant clubs within three or four weeks," McLachlan said. "I can't say any more because the clubs haven't been informed yet.
"We don't want there to be a massive financial advantage to those clubs who play at the MCG as against those who play at Etihad.
"We would prefer the Etihad management to come to the party, and we will continue to negotiate with them.
"Etihad clearly may face some problems. All of the clubs who play there have asked to have games played at the MCG next season.
"This could be a problem for Etihad. The clubs are united on better stadium deals."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/compo-deal-planned-for-not-playing-at-mcg/story-e6frf8w6-1225772439129
-
Richmond expected to reap $2.5 million from the new stadia deals......
Cash for clubs as ground war ends with Etihad Stadium deal close
Greg Denham | September 22, 2009
VICTORIAN clubs are poised for a huge financial windfall as the long-running standoff between Melbourne's second venue, Etihad Stadium, and the AFL appears headed for a settlement, as early as this week.
A meeting in Melbourne yesterday between the AFL and its clubs was told by the league that the frustrating stadium battle, which has been crippling clubs that play home games at Etihad Stadium, could be drawing to a close.
The AFL is understood to have agreed to a compromise, which has been put to Etihad Stadium's Sydney-based board of owners.
Positive dealings between Etihad Stadium and the AFL have moved quicker since an agreement was reached this month between the AFL and the MCC/MCG Trust, which controls the code's No 1 venue, the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
The pre-Brownlow Medal awards meeting at AFL House was hosted by the league's executive and commission, with each of the 16 clubs represented by their president and chief executive.
Disadvantaged clubs were told by the league that their annual special distribution payments would continue beyond this year after completion of a review, with some clubs set for bonus payments this year and in 2010.
Clubs who play home games at Etihad Stadium are set to get similar financial benefits as those gained by MCG tenant clubs.
While the MCG clubs receive at least an additional $100,000 per home game from the start of this season, Etihad Stadium clubs could get the same financial gain from the start of 2010.
And in keeping with a promise to Etihad Stadium clubs from the AFL almost three weeks ago that they would not be disadvantaged, it is understood that St Kilda, the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne will share in a combined one-off bonus of $1.6 million this year.
St Kilda, which this year played all 10 Melbourne home games at Etihad Stadium, is set to receive the maximum AFL bonus of $800,000, with the Bulldogs and Kangaroos each receiving $400,000.
Next year, should the Etihad Stadium deal be finalised as expected, the biggest financial winners will be the Bulldogs, Kangaroos, Melbourne, Richmond and the Saints. With improved stadium deals, annual special distribution remaining at similar levels as this year, and with discretionary AFL bonuses to enhance equalisation, the Dogs, Kangaroos and Demons are expected to have their revenue increased by up to $3.3m. Richmond and St Kilda are expected to reap almost $2.5m.
The AFL's compromise in dealings with Etihad Stadium owners is to guarantee more and better-quality games at the Docklands venue.
In return for a better deal for tenant clubs, it is understood the venue has been guaranteed 46 games from next season, an increase on the AFL's minimum obligation up to 2015.
And then 42 premiership matches each season from 2015, when the league has the capacity to reduce its content to just 30 home-and-away games and five pre-season fixtures.
It is not known whether further Supreme Court action by the AFL against Etihad Stadium management will continue should an agreement be reached.
The league had been preparing court action to recover as much as $20m it claims is owed in supply and pourage rights at the stadium since it began operating in 2000.
As exclusively reported in The Australian last month, the forecast of cash benefits to struggling clubs has come about after the AFL commission approved a revolutionary new financing scheme to ensure, for the first time, that all clubs have sufficient resources to compete equally on the playing field.
New AFL funding to clubs, plus the expected uniform Melbourne stadium deals, will not only guarantee the future existence of Victoria's 10 clubs, but will ensure that every club can meet basic industry costs for recruiting, drafting, rookie lists, additional services and salary cap payments.
Demetriou said the commission wanted every club to have the capacity to pay the full amount of the salary cap ($7.95m in 2010) as well as additional services commitments, which are promotion and marketing payments to players and worth up to $555,000 per club next year.
"We can benchmark what it costs to run a football department, we have all those figures," Demetriou said. "It's all to do with getting a competitive AFL team on to the field."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26106114-5013406,00.html
-
$2.5mil ...hmmm...that would certainly pay for an extra recruiting person, development coach, more fitness experts and perhaps a stand alone VFL side ;D
-
$2.5mil ...hmmm...that would certainly pay for an extra recruiting person, development coach, more fitness experts and perhaps a stand alone VFL side ;D
And hopefully pay off our overdraft debt within 2 years.
-
SEN saying there'll be an announcement from the AFL today on stadia deals. Apparently $17 million for Victorian clubs to secure their future.
-
and perhaps a stand alone VFL side ;D
Oh How I wish that were a real possibility. :pray