Australian Rugby / RA

[stoff]

We will now have the pleasure of paying the AFL for any matches we play at Etihad. They have decided to buy it now for $200m instead of waiting nine years when they would have got it for nothing. Interesting in the context of the head of the RFU saying that the relatively broke Southern Hemisphere unions would not be if they owned their own stadiums last week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

How insightful from the RFU head.
If we were rich,we wouldn't be poor.
When has the ARU ever been in a position to own a stadium?

 

[Train Without a Station]

ILTW maybe after 2003 but that ignores the key differences.

The AFL purchased Etihad at a discounted price of $200M. The state government agreed to the deal because presently there was a deal in place for the AFL to purchase the stadium for a dollar in 2025 or there abouts.

The price of this deal was very poor stadium deals for the 5 AFL teams that were obligated to play out of there.

The AFL in their code also has 5 tenants that will play approx 11 home games at that venue. That's a minimum of 55 games.

Etihad also appeals to other tenants because a lack of real competition. The next largest stadium is 30k so big events go there, and the only competitor for big events has double the capacity and the associated price.

Because of its configuration it is also suitable for BBL.

Hypothetically say the ARU purchased the SFS in 2004 (ignoring the lack of leverage through guaranteed tenants), how many tenants are there to make it viable?

3 year round. Due to geography and viable alternatives there is minimal capacity to appeal to new tenants. Etihad for example is 15 mins drive from the heartland of its furthest tenant.

So yes it would be good to own a stadium, but the most popular sports (AFL and cricket) are played on different stadiums and the Sydney geography limits the appeal of a single stadium.

 

[Quick Hands]

How insightful from the RFU head.
If we were rich,we wouldn't be poor.
When has the ARU ever been in a position to own a stadium?

Concord Oval 1980s?

 

[Highlander35]

Still seems odd to me that Sports here, both at State level and National level never really seemed bothered with the owning a stadium bit, and never manage it successfully enough if they do.

Even the Clubs in the AFL, League and all levels of Soccer, by and large still seem to have semi-permanent leases with council rather than having outright purchased grounds.

 

[mst]

Most of the AFL clubs have or do own their own grounds but their are historical reasons why councils are involved - generally as the land was originally gifted under a community benefit justification.

It simply comes down to logical cost benefit scenario. Teams play a home and away format which means their grounds are used alternate weeks and only during the season. So the vast majority of the year they remain unused unless you share with other sports or levels and you may get overlap and lose exclusivity.

You also need to consider ground wear and tear during winter (grass, rain & high use = mud).

Then you have bum accommodation challenges -EG: do you have a monster 100K seating stadium to cope if you are having great success (huge costs) or have a too small 30-50K seater that works for mid season games but is limiting?

So if you don't have the 60 -100K seater, final and big gate revenue opportunities are non-existent.

Now all sports need a big capacity stadium for final etc. But they are costly and if unused (as everyone has their own grounds) does it sit empty for 99% of the year.

Thus why the AFL for example have gone to a shared common, good access (via public transport etc) stadium arrangement that minimise cost and allows multi use without any liabilities.

 

[Highlander35]

As I said, it's just a little curious.

Glasgow has 3 50k+ Stadiums alone, SFA own Hampden at 52k, Rangers own Ibrox at 51k and Celtic own Paradise at 60k.

Taking the adding the Ayrshires and Inverclyde to consider a "West of Scotland", we've also got Rugby Park, 18k owned by Kilmarnock, Cappielow at 12k owned by Greenock, Somerset at 10k owned by Ayr United, Firhill Park at 10k Owned by Partick Thistle and Broadwood is the first one owned by the Local council at 8k, along with the similarly sized St. Mirren Park, owned by St. Mirren. Scotstoun (where Glasgow play) is owned by Glasgow City Council at 6.5k without temporary stands.

Can't do much about it though I guess. With the exception of Broadwood, almost all of them were first built/bought in the late 19th or first half of the 20th Centuries.

 

[Quick Hands]

As I said, it's just a little curious.

Glasgow has 3 50k+ Stadiums alone, SFA own Hampden at 52k, Rangers own Ibrox at 51k and Celtic own Paradise at 60k.

Taking the adding the Ayrshires and Inverclyde to consider a "West of Scotland", we've also got Rugby Park, 18k owned by Kilmarnock, Cappielow at 12k owned by Greenock, Somerset at 10k owned by Ayr United, Firhill Park at 10k Owned by Partick Thistle and Broadwood is the first one owned by the Local council at 8k, along with the similarly sized St. Mirren Park, owned by St. Mirren. Scotstoun (where Glasgow play) is owned by Glasgow City Council at 6.5k without temporary stands.

Can't do much about it though I guess. With the exception of Broadwood, almost all of them were first built/bought in the late 19th or first half of the 20th Centuries.

For whatever reason, the Australian model was for shared cricket and football use over the course of the year - hence all of the older grounds have a cricket pitch in the middle. The MCG and SCG are the two most obvious examples.

In fact, until the late 1980s pretty much all major league and union games in Sydney were held at the SCG.

 

[Lindommer]

Most of the AFL clubs have or do own their own grounds.....

Yeah, which ones? Apart from Etihad I can't think of another one they own. Even the old VFL grounds were owned by the local councils, albeit with long leases.

 

[Highlander35]

The SANFL owns football park (nee AAMI Stadium).

AFL Cairns owns Cazeley.

The Fitzroy group technically owns Brunswick street AFAIK, don't know if that's the one that merged with the Bears, the one that merged with the Reds in the VAFA, whether they're one and the same or whether it's independent of all of them.

Otherwise you're looking at long term understandings or leases between the Clubs and the local councils. It's ultimately why so many have ended up moving playing grounds/training bases from their traditional homes, it's simply a matter of new leases.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yeah, which ones? Apart from Etihad I can't think of another one they own. Even the old VFL grounds were owned by the local councils, albeit with long leases.

I think that you are right with that. Victoria Park owned by Yarra Council, Punt Road owned by City of Melbourne, as is Princes Park and Arden St, Whitten Oval by Maribynong council, Glenferrie Oval by Boroonara Council, Junction Oval owned by Victorian government.

 

[TOCC]

I think there's some confusion between management rights and ground ownership.. Some teams in Australia hold management rights to their respective grounds but don't actually own them.

 

[Lindommer]

The SANFL owns football park (nee AAMI Stadium). AFL Cairns owns Cazeley. The Fitzroy group technically owns Brunswick street AFAIK.....

Could you be more obscure.

 

[Highlander35]

Could you be more obscure.

absotively. Pronounce Milngavie.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Effectively none of the AFL clubs own their grounds, they are tenants. It's certainly the case with the three cricket grounds in use (MCG, Gabba and Adelaide Oval) and their respective clubs and the new stadium in Perth will be the same (with the Eagles currently holding out on a tenancy deal with the WA govt). I would think that the AFL owning the Docklands would be a bit of an anomaly with the football codes here.

I can't see there being anything gained by the ARU owning real estate. After all, they play test matches in four major cities currently.

 

[mst]

The SANFL owns football park (nee AAMI Stadium).

AFL Cairns owns Cazeley.

The Fitzroy group technically owns Brunswick street AFAIK, don't know if that's the one that merged with the Bears, the one that merged with the Reds in the VAFA, whether they're one and the same or whether it's independent of all of them.

Otherwise you're looking at long term understandings or leases between the Clubs and the local councils. It's ultimately why so many have ended up moving playing grounds/training bases from their traditional homes, it's simply a matter of new leases.

Spot on. Its all about lease arrangements as the clubs cant sell the land. Its all a bit like here in the ACT. Nobody technically owns the land; its all leased. You may own all the structure on it and be considered the owner, but in fact the land is leased.

I am pretty sure that the MCG and Eitihad are on leased land.

 

[Strewthcobber]

HIggers signing is great news for us Reds fans but it does make me wonder about what future there is for rugby in this country.

If the Force and Rebels can't get any big name signings, while at the same time over a couple of years the Reds can sign Douglas, QC (Quade Cooper), Higgers, George Smith, Moore, Houston as well as have the big name cross-coder in Hunt, there's something wrong with our salary cap/equalisation efforts.

Do the ARU want there to be good teams outside of the east coast?

 

[neilc]

HIggers signing is great news for us Reds fans but it does make me wonder about what future there is for rugby in this country.

If the Force and Rebels can't get any big name signings, while at the same time over a couple of years the Reds can sign Douglas, QC (Quade Cooper), Higgers, George Smith, Moore, Houston as well as have the big name cross-coder in Hunt, there's something wrong with our salary cap/equalisation efforts.

Do the ARU want there to be good teams outside of the east coast?

I think there are some geographical reasons for most of these - i.e. they come from Brisbane (QC (Quade Cooper), Moore, Higgers) or have family links here (Douglas' wife has family here), Higgers also is a partner in cafes in Brisbane, and I believe that Smith wanted to move here for family reasons as well. Along the way people like Higgers and Moore move away for playing reasons (attractive team prospects or money prospects) but are now at a stage where they want to choose their location for other reasons. Hunt had always stayed around SE Qld even in AFL.

But having said all that I take your point, the ARU could do something to assist the teams who don't have the local depth to draw from, much as the AFL have done with their expansion teams.

 

[Slim 293]

Wallabies look to be returning to Canberra next year..........

The ACT government is still working with the Australian Rugby Union in a bid to host the Wallabies clash against Argentina next year and secure Canberra's return to the international rugby calendar.

The ARU published the Rugby Championship schedule on Wednesday night, with Tests locked in for Sydney, Perth and Brisbane.

The Wallabies' match against Argentina on September 16 was left without a venue and it is understood Canberra is on the verge of winning rights to the fixture.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/b...entina-test-in-september-20161130-gt17r9.html

 

[Scrubber2050]

Wallabies look to be returning to Canberra next year....



http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/b...entina-test-in-september-20161130-gt17r9.html

Great for the locals but a terrible place for a test match (Canberra)

I normally go to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane tests but Canberra, no way.