Stadium Australia as home ground?

[Bart]

Originally posted by Mark
Fair enough Julian, take your points and understand your frustration but it is easy to confuse what is best for us individually (or as a cheer squad), and what is best for the club/overall membership.

Like it or not Sydney is a unique AFL market and whether we like or not will always be so. Oh and bye the way, good on you for not spitting the dummy and actually reading what i said, it is nice to have some genuine debate ! Not always the case on here !

Stellation and Bart, been over this a hundred times on this site before. At the time the deal was struck between the AFL and stad Aus both the Dogs and North were looking to play additional games in Sydney, hence the deal. It was heavily reported at the time (and No, four years on i dont have the links !)

The club have on numerous occassions in the press highlighted the need for 45,000-50,000 (depending on outlets open, merketing and premetch expenses) paying customers, just to break even on these games.

The move west is a financial nightmare for the Swans and a big dividend for the AFL. They get all the BIG money earners THE FINALS. We get Carlton, Melbourne, Richmond or the Pies during the home and away season !!!!

I REPEAT, SO FAR IT HAS COST THE CLUB OVER $1,000,000 WE CANT AFFORD IT !!!!!

My undrestanding and this is purely from what I read in the media, is that the losses incurred by the Swans were largely due to the costs of the extravagant prematch entertainment for the first two games there.

My understanding also is that the hire of the venue is directly linked to the crowd size and as such is not fixed.

Happy to be corrected on this.

The $1m figure you mention, as I said is not hiring costs but prematch entertainment.

As I also said if not for the Collingwood match the Swans would be in a far deeper hole now than. Looks like the Stadium was highly profitable for the club last year. And wasn't it mentioned in the media that 20,000 attendees at the first match had never been to an AFL game before. Surely this is a good thing. In addition like any new product launch, you suffer early losses in marketing it in order to be profitable in the long term

Besides our argument is probably irrelevant as it looks like they are there for the long haul

maybe we should email the CEO and get clarification from the horses mouth

[Mark]

I understand your what you are saying but you have missed the point (IMHO).

Yes, the prematch expenses were cut because they could not be recouped. No, they were not the main reason for the $1,000,000 loss, club admitted this was subsantially hiring and partially marketing costs!!!.

Yes, the hire of the venue is directly linked to the crowd size and as such is not fixed. This merely means they cut the number of outlets open and reduce staff accordingly. Against Carlton this was half the outlets, making buying beer and food a nightmare. You get what you pay for. I am in the Bradman and dont suffer at the SCG but i understand this can be a problem at SCG outlets.

"As I also said if not for the Collingwood match the Swans would be in a far deeper hole now than. Looks like the Stadium was highly profitable for the club last year".

This is the most common error.

Yes, "if not for the Collingwood match the Swans would be in a far deeper hole". NO "Looks like the Stadium was highly profitable for the club last year". This is because the club budgeted for a smaller crowd (at the start of the year) and due to circumstances were (from a budget sense) suprised by the attendance. This in effect reduced the budgeted "LOSS" from that seasons venture west. !!! The reports in the paper quoted from Colless were our budget expected loss, taking reduced attendences (SCG and Telstra) and memberships into account.

"And wasn't it mentioned in the media that 20,000 attendees at the first match had never been to an AFL game before. Surely this is a good thing"

Only if it does not send the club bankrupt, we are not an evangalist charity !!! We cannot afford to make losses of over $1,000,000 in a vain attempt to get more people interested in the AFL. Especially as you cannot gaurantee any of those 20,000 will ever come back again.

Sydney is a very fickle market, many many other sports have tried to capitalise on the so called "western corridor" population boom. Every single one has been an abject failure !!!!

[Ryan Bomford]

I can't complain (too much) about either venue because I have good seats at both. But is it my imagination or is it fact that the physical size of the seats, and the room between them at TS is smaller than the SCG.

OK, I'm well endowed in the back side area but I remember a game last year where I was stuck in between two big guys and we had to agree to coordinate our breathing, early in the game so we wouldn't crush each other!! BTW, couldn't laugh hee-hee-hee (not enough room), had to laugh ho-ho-ho.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Mark
I understand your what you are saying but you have missed the point (IMHO).

Yes, the prematch expenses were cut because they could not be recouped. No, they were not the main reason for the $1,000,000 loss, club admitted this was subsantially hiring and partially marketing costs!!!.

Yes, but Templeton had approximately 80 people flown down from PNG for the Kokoda game. Similar expenditure was made for the first Narn Grook match against Essendon.

There WAS definitely exhorbitant spending in the club office. I know that as a fact. Henceforth Kelvin Templeton and Colin Seery were sacked.

JF

[Bart]

Originally posted by Mark
[BSydney is a very fickle market, many many other sports have tried to capitalise on the so called "western corridor" population boom. Every single one has been an abject failure !!!! [/B]

mark, we'll just have to disagree. I just can't understand how 70k at 2 matches last year could be considered a failure. Those numbers were beyond anybody's wildest estimates even assuming the Swans were going to go well.

The seed has been sown, and the challenge is to make the new audience stick.

I don't want the Swans to be a niche club in Sydney.

[Charlie]

The break-even crowd is something like 50,000, yes? This is because the contract with Stadium Australia was based on 6 games a year, but for reasons unknown we had to pay the same amount despite only using it for three games.

So, whatever we're paying is obviously what they wanted for 6 games. If we played 12 games there (remembering my original question was how you'd feel if we used Stadium Australia solely as a home ground), and doubled the payments we're making, so that the Stadium is getting the same per match as they originally agreed to, our breakeven figure becomes 25,000.

That's pretty damn good. I could see us making profits nearly every year on that basis, and I reckon that nullifies the financial question as a factor.

[Damien]

Originally posted by Charlie
The break-even crowd is something like 50,000, yes? This is because the contract with Stadium Australia was based on 6 games a year, but for reasons unknown we had to pay the same amount despite only using it for three games.

So, whatever we're paying is obviously what they wanted for 6 games. If we played 12 games there (remembering my original question was how you'd feel if we used Stadium Australia solely as a home ground), and doubled the payments we're making, so that the Stadium is getting the same per match as they originally agreed to, our breakeven figure becomes 25,000.

That's pretty damn good. I could see us making profits nearly every year on that basis, and I reckon that nullifies the financial question as a factor.

How long is the SA contract for? and what are the conditions of our SCG contract?

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that by the time our commitments at the SCG are over, s we will be able to negotiate a new SA and SCG contract on our terms - both will be falling over themselves to have us as tennants.

[barry]

Originally posted by Damien
How long is the SA contract for? and what are the conditions of our SCG contract?

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that by the time our commitments at the SCG are over, s we will be able to negotiate a new SA and SCG contract on our terms - both will be falling over themselves to have us as tennants.

Especially as we have proven that we can pull big crowds out at homebush.

Our negotiating position with the SCG isnt as strong as it would seem though, as the trust also run the adjacent rugby ground (Aussie home loans stadium ??), so they can afford to have the SCG vacant during the winter, if they are still pulling in money from the rugbies, if it ever got to that.

[Damien]

Originally posted by barry
Especially as we have proven that we can pull big crowds out at homebush.

Our negotiating position with the SCG isnt as strong as it would seem though, as the trust also run the adjacent rugby ground (Aussie home loans stadium ??), so they can afford to have the SCG vacant during the winter, if they are still pulling in money from the rugbies, if it ever got to that.

The Trust need the Swans - in the past 5 years they have lost all the major Rugby League games, State of Origin, some finals and the Grand Final, and their two RL tennants haven't drawn very well, despite the Roosters great past few years. Also, the Waratahs crowds go up and down.

I am very confident that we are in a position of strength. I just hope they utilise it. The AFL in general seems to enjoy locking it self into unreasonable arrangements with venues, when these venues have no alternative to AFL in the first place.

[BAM_BAM]

another point nobody has thought about is how other sports using SA will effect the Swans. If we move there, do we monopolise the venue, or will we be made to stand aside to things like the State of Origin for League and the tri nations for Union?

For mine, if we're the ones using it most we should have priority. I guess it's up to what deal we broker during the intial negotiations (should we go down that track)