$700,000 loss

[barry]

I read some article last week that said the Swans were heading for a $700K loss this year.

How can this be? I though with the increased membership based on a couple of sucessful seasons, and some internal restructuring and cost cutting, we were quite healthly.

[penga]

lower telstra stadium attendances?

[blinddog]

Can't remember the source but someone once told me that unless we get 50000 people at the Telstra Stadium it ends up costing ther Swans

[Nico]

Originally posted by blinddog
Can't remember the source but someone once told me that unless we get 50000 people at the Telstra Stadium it ends up costing ther Swans

If that's the case then stay at the MCG, otherwise the AFL pays for any shortfall or small profit at worst. It's like running a business from an office you can't afford.

[motorace_182]

Originally posted by Nico
If that's the case then stay at the MCG,

Anything for more games in Melbourne....

[Mark]

Telstra stadium = huge financial yoke around Swans neck

[robbieando]

Basically the Swans are paying for the Kangaroos pulling out of the Telstra Stadium contract. Once the Roos bolted from Sydney with their tail between their legs, it left the Swans to either play 6 matches a season at TS paying a normal ground rent and in doing piss off the majority of its North Shore supporter base or play 3 games a season at TS and pay double the normal rent.

This deal is killing us

[Damien]

Originally posted by robbieando
Basically the Swans are paying for the Kangaroos pulling out of the Telstra Stadium contract. Once the Roos bolted from Sydney with their tail between their legs, it left the Swans to either play 6 matches a season at TS paying a normal ground rent and in doing piss off the majority of its North Shore supporter base or play 3 games a season at TS and pay double the normal rent.

This deal is killing us

It is criminal that we have been left with this deal.

Anyone know when it runs out?

[The Boot]

Originally posted by Damien
It is criminal that we have been left with this deal.

Anyone know when it runs out?

Probably when the MCC "deal" runs out too. The same mental midget was probably involved in that too.

[cruiser]

The report of a $700,000 loss was wrong. This cut and paste is from the Swans site:

In other news, AFL Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Demetriou, yesterday released a statement regarding the Swans financial situation that was incorrectly reported on earlier this week.

"We noted a press report earlier this week which indicated that the AFL was concerned with the financial performance of the Sydney Swans,? he said.

"To the contrary, the AFL is very pleased with the financial performance of the club.

"The latest information available to us is that the club will report a profit this year, not a loss of $700,000 as reported.

"Like many clubs, Sydney has faced some financial challenges in recent seasons but led by its Board and Chief Executive Officer, Myles Baron-Hay, the club has made several significant changes and this year's result is a very positive achievement," Mr Demetriou said.

"We are very confident about the club's off-field direction".

[Bart]

Originally posted by cruiser
The report of a $700,000 loss was wrong. This cut and paste is from the Swans site:

In other news, AFL Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Demetriou, yesterday released a statement regarding the Swans financial situation that was incorrectly reported on earlier this week.

"We noted a press report earlier this week which indicated that the AFL was concerned with the financial performance of the Sydney Swans,? he said.

"To the contrary, the AFL is very pleased with the financial performance of the club.

"The latest information available to us is that the club will report a profit this year, not a loss of $700,000 as reported.

"Like many clubs, Sydney has faced some financial challenges in recent seasons but led by its Board and Chief Executive Officer, Myles Baron-Hay, the club has made several significant changes and this year's result is a very positive achievement," Mr Demetriou said.

"We are very confident about the club's off-field direction".

A good move by the AFL. Its amazing the damage wrong information can do.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Damien
It is criminal that we have been left with this deal.

Anyone know when it runs out?

All the more so considering that the AFL has taken the money from the two finals there and run.

We're footing the bill for stupid Richmond and Melbourne decisions, but when we get 70,000 to a preliminary final, the AFL gets the cash.

[Bear]

Originally posted by robbieando
Basically the Swans are paying for the Kangaroos pulling out of the Telstra Stadium contract. Once the Roos bolted from Sydney with their tail between their legs, it left the Swans to either play 6 matches a season at TS paying a normal ground rent and in doing piss off the majority of its North Shore supporter base or play 3 games a season at TS and pay double the normal rent.

This deal is killing us

this is ill-informed BS

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Charlie
All the more so considering that the AFL has taken the money from the two finals there and run.

We're footing the bill for stupid Richmond and Melbourne decisions, but when we get 70,000 to a preliminary final, the AFL gets the cash.

That is why they are still 'pleased' with us I think.

They know what cashcow our club can be when we are successful.

So, come on Swans, get successful!

JF

[Bart]

Originally posted by robbieando
Basically the Swans are paying for the Kangaroos pulling out of the Telstra Stadium contract. Once the Roos bolted from Sydney with their tail between their legs, it left the Swans to either play 6 matches a season at TS paying a normal ground rent and in doing piss off the majority of its North Shore supporter base or play 3 games a season at TS and pay double the normal rent.

This deal is killing us

Well this is a revelation ! The Swans were always slated for 5 games of their own. The Kangaroos had long disappeared off the scene when The Swans negotiated their own original deal from 5 down to 3, due to TS reneging on not having the ground ready for 2001 when we were supposed to play there first.

Also I have asked many times where on earth people get their information from that TS is crippling us.

It is pure scuttlebutt on this board. The deal was originally struck that set costs of running a match there on a per head basis.

It was the massive pre-match entertainment costs of the first few games there that resulted in the big loss of 2002. However, in flogging any new product, you invest upfront in marketing it and you breakeven afterwards. It was reported at the time that 20,000 people who attended that first ever match had never been to an AFL game before.

TS must be persisted with. 3 games is right IMO. No more, no less. If we want to continue to be a niche player in the Sydney market then lets stay at the SCG, world class facility that it is and fantastic landlords that the SCG Trust have been to us over the years.

Its laughable to see a $700k loss being mentioned, then all the financial whizzkids blaming TS for the loss, when there was in fact no $700k loss to speak of.

TS is good for the Swans and good for competition. I doubt very much if we would have had arguably the best player facilities in the country bulit for us had TS not eventuated.

It will be a funny quirk of fate if cricket head to TS, and we are the only tenant at the SCG. The balance of power suddenly shifts.