I don't see the issue providing the AFL properly consult with our club, avoid disrupting out training at the venue and give the club some kind of commission for returning the venue to its former glory.
Can't wait myself, hope it happens should be worth a couple of million each year if we can negotiate a goos deal for the club.
Mmmmm, financial powerhouse.
But they've already said if they (AFL) chose it as the new boutique stadium then we would have to relocate while it is getting done = disruption to training
And how would it be worth a "couple of million each year" to the RFC? We wouldn't receive one $ from any match day receipts, catering etc for AFL games that are played there and the ability for us to host VFL games there which would be worth $$$ to us would be pratically no existent as AFL games would clearly have priorirty.
As I posted a couple of days ago we are talking about the AFL here their focus in this situation is not to help the RFC but those smaller clubs that they shafted when they shuntyed them off to Etihad a decade ago.
WP, who owns the rights to the ground? Is it the council, the cricket club ie. who gets any proceeds from the AFL and/or the clubs who would need to pay the stadium operator to use the ground. Bit naive I know but I just made the assumption that we had year round access to the ground - therefore we might reasonably expect some access to the funds to pay for using it.
If its a 20k capacity stadium, why wouldn't it attract $200k per game?
That must be half what Etihad are charging if a club can't make money until they get more than 30k through the gate.
Etihad situation is very different, it is privately owned.
Yes we hold the lease to operate Punt Road so yes there is an argument that as operators we'd charge some sort of fee.
But the biggest difference is we hold a licence to play in the AFL and who issues that licence? The good old AFL, now call me cynical but they hold the biggest ace in the pack when it is all said and done. Bottom line is I don't trust them and despite the faith I have in the RFC to do the right thing by us the members I can see the AFL screwing us.
I cannot see the AFL agreeing to a usage fee of $200k a game, $20k probably but the end of the day they want the gate receipts going to the struggling clubs so they don't have to keep propping them up
The only thing I can see us successfully "bargaining" for is a guarantee for all our home games at the MCG.
As I said call me cynical.....
WP, see below in the Hun from a few weeks ago
"GEELONG is inviting the Western Bulldogs to play home games at Simonds Stadium next year with the lure of a $750,000 cheque for crowds of 22k.
As the idea of a third boutique stadium again gained momentum yesterday, the Cats revealed they had made overtures to the AFL about rivals using their redeveloped stadium.
The Cats are not only prepared to sacrifice up to 20 per cent of their profit to rivals as part of equalisation measures, they say there is no need for a boutique ground.
Rather than writing a cheque to Etihad Stadium management for crowds in the low 20,000s, the Bulldogs could make a cash windfall from playing in Geelong.
Geelong chief executive Brian Cook said the offer was on the table for the Bulldogs and other clubs.
Talk of a boutique stadium invariably raises its head when the AFL is bargaining with its existing stadiums, but Cook said his door was also open to other clubs.
"We have had a couple of discussions with the AFL on the continual redevelopment of our stadium, and we are completing stage three now," he told the Herald Sun.
"We have spoken to the AFL on several occasions about the Doggies coming down in particular and playing other AFL clubs.
"
We are very willing for that to happen. They would make very good money. Our capacity crowd was 22,000 last year and we made about $750,000 profit per game
Etihad Stadium is contracted to host 46 games until 2014, and at least 40 matches a year from 2015 to 2025, when the AFL takes ownership of the ground.
The AFL said yesterday that while the boutique stadium option had been discussed among clubs again recently, it did not make sense to inject $150 million into Punt Rd or Visy Park when the league would inherit its own stadium for $1.
In 2011, North Melbourne made just $97,540 from 11 home-games at Docklands before guaranteed top-ups of $100,000 per game, with seven losses on games with crowds of less than 28,000.
Geelong has warned the fabric of the competition was threatened if the gap continued to grow between the haves and have-nots."
WP:-
If 20k crowds can make $750k in Geelong, why not Punt Rd?
How is the Geelong model any different to the Tigers? In fact why on earth would we not want to replicate a very successful model from Geelong up here at Punt Rd?
Why wouldn't the AFL skim 30% off that profit to the Tigers? Based on KPs model, clubs still stand to make over $500k per game.
Why wouldn't any other Melbourne club in the AFL be very open to the Punt Rd model given the alternatives at Etihad (cost) and Geelong (travel)?
Why can't the AFL re-develop the stadium around the ground and ME Bank - every other ground in the history of sport has continued to operate whilst being re-developed?
Why are we up in arms over letting the ground out to the AFL for effectively 8 days or about 50 hours EACH YEAR when it might deliver $2m in revenue that goes straight to the bottom line?
WP, while you might be very right to doubt the AFL motives, you should also back our executive to negotiate the best deal.
I reckon 65 is on the money though, this is a red herring to force Etihad managements hand 
