$700,000 loss

[Bart]

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.

AFL get the gate from ALL finals. I don't see what the issue is. Always have, always will.

[barry]

Originally posted by Bart
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.

No doubt TS is a good ground.

But for this $700K loss to occur, if it exists at all, where did it come from.
- Membership seems at a reasonable level.
- Crowds seem at a reasonable level
- Sponsorship should be up due to increased TV exposure.
- Footballing costs have been savaged.
- We arent spending the full cap.

The only places I can see are:
- Still paying out some redundancies/deals.
- Overestimated crowds at Ess and Pies games due to rugby clashes.
- or, TS deal is bad for us.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bart
AFL get the gate from ALL finals. I don't see what the issue is. Always have, always will.

Yeah - I know. But it would make sense for clubs to get at least a share of the gate from finals matches. Especially when you have a circumstance like the Sydney one, if indeed Rob is correct.

Bear - if you know better than Rob, ok, tell us... but I too was under the impression that the Swans suffered higher overheads per match because the original deal was for six matches including Roos games.

[Country Member]

Robbieando: how about a retraction for your ridiculous, ill-informed comments on the financial beat-up by Greg Denham of The Australian. As I have said before, and this goes for a lot of other morons that apparently live for this site, leave running the Club to the grown-ups. Get your facts in order before you go shooting your mouth off about TS being responsible for losses the Swans and the AFL have said did not occur.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by barry
But for this $700K loss to occur, if it exists at all, ...

It doesn't exist. It's crap. See my previous post in this thread.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Charlie
Yeah - I know. But it would make sense for clubs to get at least a share of the gate from finals matches.

But it doesn't really Charlie. The AFL believe it or not is a non-profit organisation. All net proceeds are are redistributed to the 16 clubs and the grassroots through its development programmes. Take a cut of finals revenue, and the distributio would be reduced, and even worse for the 16 team comp, the poorer clubs who don't make the finals get weaker and weaker.

[Bear]

Originally posted by Charlie
Bear - if you know better than Rob, ok, tell us... but I too was under the impression that the Swans suffered higher overheads per match because the original deal was for six matches including Roos games.

I'm not here to spoon-feed people with the research they should do themselves, but let me leave you with one thought...

As I posted in another thread, do you think we are going to gain broad acceptance from the population of Sydney (and hence greater TV ratings and exposure, sponsorship, membership, etc) if we don't go beyond our eastern suburbs/north shore markets??

Bagging TS is simplistic and ill-informed and I think Country Member has said it all for me.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bear
I'm not here to spoon-feed people with the research they should do themselves, but let me leave you with one thought...

As I posted in another thread, do you think we are going to gain broad acceptance from the population of Sydney (and hence greater TV ratings and exposure, sponsorship, membership, etc) if we don't go beyond our eastern suburbs/north shore markets??

Bagging TS is simplistic and ill-informed and I think Country Member has said it all for me.

Ah - so the point of contention was the effect on the club's supporter base? I thought you were refuting the North Melbourne backing out bit, which I have always understood to be fact.

I'm not bagging Stadium Australia - I support the concept, but I believe there are aspects of the current operation there that aren't being done as well as they could be. The most obvious is fixturing: Carlton in 2003 and Melbourne in 2004 stand-out as terrible planning. The three-match passes should be, if at all possible and if they aren't already, for Stadium Australia AND SCG games... that way, people in the West might be slightly more inclined to venture into the city to go to matches if they already have a ticket available to them.

BTW - nobody is asking to be spoon-fed, but this site exists to spread information, not to hoard it. Could you imagine if nobody spread the knowledge they had? Most of the world would be trying to work out how their mates made fire...

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bart
But it doesn't really Charlie. The AFL believe it or not is a non-profit organisation. All net proceeds are are redistributed to the 16 clubs and the grassroots through its development programmes. Take a cut of finals revenue, and the distributio would be reduced, and even worse for the 16 team comp, the poorer clubs who don't make the finals get weaker and weaker.

Who said take it all?

And, believe it or not, the original purpose of the AFL Commission and associated bureaucracy was to run the AFL, not the entire sport. The 16 clubs are the most important assets footbal has (note, I didn't say the most important assets the AFL has), and if one of them is struggling to break even because of a faulty deal, then the AFL's priority should be to do what they can to solve the problem, not come in and take the cream off the top.

[Schneiderman]

From my understanding the games being played at TS are used to pay off the money borrowed to build them. Both the Swans (H&A games) and the AFL (finals) use the gate-takings to do this. From what I have read, if the crowds are too low the Swans end up out of pocket, and anything over 50,000 people makes us a profit (hence the great turn-around last year courtesy of the Collingwood game).

The AFL has shown the commitment to the TS and the Swans by changing the fixture to a Brisbane one this year, hoping to draw a large crowd.

IMO lets wait till we see what our board has to say before making comments and forming opinions. Why listen to journos anyway??

[Mark]

Originally posted by Bear
I'm not here to spoon-feed people with the research they should do themselves, but let me leave you with one thought...

As I posted in another thread, do you think we are going to gain broad acceptance from the population of Sydney (and hence greater TV ratings and exposure, sponsorship, membership, etc) if we don't go beyond our eastern suburbs/north shore markets??

Bagging TS is simplistic and ill-informed and I think Country Member has said it all for me.

Good to see the over playing of cheer cheer when we win games has not taken your focus off being a pompous know it all !!!!

[cruiser]

Originally posted by Mark
Good to see the over playing of cheer cheer when we win games has not taken your focus off being a pompous know it all !!!!

You deserved that Bear. You need to be able to back up your claims with evidence. Its rubbish to suggest we that should be looking for it.

[robbieando]

I would like to say and make perfectly clear that I'm in no way against playing matches at Telstra Stadium, nor do I suggest we rip up the contract. I'm a fan of the stadium and believe it is a better venue in all areas than the SCG. I also believe long term the ground will play a major role in growing the code out West and to pull out of the area by taking games back to the SCG will cost us more than any other decision the club has made in the past.

All I was doing was saying what I thought I knew about the contract between us and TS management, if my information is wrong, fair enough I take back what I said. But in any case I'm yet to see anything from Bear or Country Member that suggests any different other than pointless name-calling and baseless big-noting. Again, if I'm wrong I'm more than happy to admit so, but until I'm given information that suggests that I stand by my understanding of the contract.

Ok it turns out that the reports of a $700,000 were wrong, but the question has to be asked would the profit we make this season be any bigger if the brake-even for TS games was smaller??? We aren't making the sort of money we should be by playing out of TS stadium.

However I'm sure most will agree the limiting of profits from these games is worth it for the exposing of the code to the people of the West and that in turn could mean more memberships, bums on seats at SCG matches and even sponsorship.

[peterh_oz]

Originally posted by robbieando
However I'm sure most will agree the limiting of profits from these games is worth it for the exposing of the code to the people of the West and that in turn could mean more memberships, bums on seats at SCG matches and even sponsorship.

And remember what it can do to tv ratings etc. Look at Brisbane - it is now getting 22 Live (or 30min delay for home games) Sat nights, even when the Lions aren't playing! One day we'll get it in Sydney. One day ...

If that happened in Sydney thenwatch the tv contract go UP in $$. And that benefits ALL 16 clubs, not just ours.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Bear
I'm not here to spoon-feed people with the research they should do themselves

Why? Are we being assessed in an exam at the end of the year...