Swans over a barrel re: SCG redevelopment

**Damien** · 19 August 2006, 11:37 AM

Wonder when the current contact is up for renewal?

Think the Swans need to start reminding the Trust that they could be losing a few extra games to Telstra at this point because of their inability to help their only option for a winter tennant.

The Trust can refer to the current agreement with a smirk on their face in regards to next year, but with Telstra's popularity soaring as a Sports venue in Sydney, they should be looking after us as much as possible.

**bricon** · 19 August 2006, 11:39 AM

Any ground re-development will cause some inconvenience and even (short-term) financial strain. It must be pointed out to the ?Telstra Stadium is our Panacea? proponents that; although the reduced SCG capacity will impinge on the club?s (short term) income stream, all matches played there are likely to be profitable. On the other hand, if anything other than blockbuster type games are switched to Homebush they will almost certainly lose money for the club.

The break-even figure required at Homebush for AFL matches is astronomical.

**Tuco** · 19 August 2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by bricon
Any ground re-development will cause some inconvenience and even (short-term) financial strain. It must be pointed out to the ?Telstra Stadium is our Panacea? proponents that; although the reduced SCG capacity will impinge on the club?s (short term) income stream, all matches played there are likely to be profitable. On the other hand, if anything other than blockbuster type games are switched to Homebush they will almost certainly lose money for the club.

The break-even figure required at Homebush for AFL matches is astronomical.

I think you might be understimating the impact this development is actually going to have on the club's bottom line.

Colless and co certainly aren't.

The real concern will be the lack of public seating. Amongst other negatives, it will make it a dead year for recruiting new fans for the club.

Frankly having a million dollar loss but giving an extra 20k-30k noobs a chance to see thier first or second Aussie Rules game at Telstra is better than having a million dollar loss and barely even having room for the members we already have.

**Bart** · 19 August 2006, 12:09 PM

It would be better for the club to bite the bullet and move all matches to TS for the duration of the redevelopment. Give the SCG members free access to TS as compensation. The ground is big enough

**adnar** · 19 August 2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Bart
It would be better for the club to bite the bullet and move all matches to TS for the duration of the redevelopment. Give the SCG members free access to TS as compensation. The ground is big enough

It's not up to them, the SCG trust have told them that they have a contract and that is that.

**ROK Lobster** · 19 August 2006, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by adnar
It's not up to them, the SCG trust have told them that they have a contract and that is that.

If the contract does not provide for the Swans to be compensated while the redevelopment works take place, then their legal representatives, whether they be internal or not, need sacking. A compensation claim for damage to developnment of the game is an interesting idea to ponder, though I doubt it would carry much weight in court.

**JF_Bay22_SCG** · 19 August 2006, 01:06 PM

Re: Swans over a barrel re: SCG redevelopment

Originally posted by Tuco
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/foo...E19742,00.html

Well this doesn't sound too good. Losing 11,500 seats due to the lame redevelopment of the SCG with no hope of compensation for the massive loss of income the Swans will be hit with, whilst simultaneously being locked into a contract that won't allow the Swans to play more games at Telstra?

Essentially the plan is to reduce capacity by 25% for the sake of adding a pissweak 2800 more seats.

Get ready for a financial crisis at the Swans next season.

Note to Colless: time to rethink the SCG. Joke venue that produces a weaker footy product and where the Swans are simply regarded as second class tennants and as an inconvenience while they get their cricket seasons sorted.

Man, I couldn't agree with you more. The SCG Trust have once again shown their true colours. They have never been AFl friendly & have a rep of trying to rip off pretty much all of their tenants. Why do you think that St George and Souths no longer play at the Footy Stadium?!

They say they have a contract (That comment is so "Priscillia Queen of the Desert" I tell you... "I your wife. I have contract!") Well, I say "Bugger their contract".. If we can get 35000 + to a game against pretty much every team in the league besides maybe Freo, why continue playing at a construction site which can hold 28 k max?

This is where Demetriou has to step in and force his power where it is needed. Matches NEED to be sent out to Homebush if there is any risk of the SCG reaching its capacity.

The SCG Trust have this monopoly attitude. They even say on their website that the ground is "the perfect purpose build facility for cricket".

Let's make those bastards crawl & want us back! The Swans should have the upper hand here, not the SCG Trust!

JF

**ROK Lobster** · 19 August 2006, 01:12 PM

Re: Re: Swans over a barrel re: SCG redevelopment

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
They say they have a contract (That comment is so "Priscillia Queen of the Desert" I tell you... "I your wife. I have contract!") Well, I say "Bugger their contract".. If we can get 35000 + to a game against pretty much every team in the league besides maybe Freo, why continue playing at a construction site which can hold 28 k max?

The word is "damages" and unless you want memberships to treble or more, I think they should honour the contract.

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
This is where Demetriou has to step in and force his power where it is needed. Matches NEED to be sent out to Homebush if there is any risk of the SCG reaching its capacity.

What the @@@@ can Andy do? The Swans have a contract with the SCG Trust. Andy could say what he likes. If the Swans breach the contract, the SCG has a right to sue.

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
The SCG Trust have this monopoly attitude. They even say on their website that the ground is "the perfect purpose build facility for cricket".

Well, it is a purpose built facility for cricket. It is a cricket ground.

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
Let's make those bastards crawl & want us back! The Swans should have the upper hand here, not the SCG Trust!

That comment is so George Costanza, but the Swans do not have the upper hand. They go to Telstra, they lose millions. They stay at the SCG, they lose a bit. As I said in an earlier post, if the contract does not provide for this situation it is only the Swans who are to blame.

**Refried Noodle** · 19 August 2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by bricon
The break-even figure required at Homebush for AFL matches is astronomical.

Can someone explain this bit a bit more. Cos I see South Sydney play there every couple of weeks and draw 6000-7000 people....how do they get a profit? if at all?

Did Stadium Australia do a deal with the NRL or something?

**Glenn** · 19 August 2006, 01:17 PM

Considering there are 12k SCG Members, 24k Swans members(figures from the DT 18/8)
I really can't see any other way out of other than a full time move to Telstra

Edit: AFAIK Souths had some deal for a reduced rent at Telstra

**adnar** · 19 August 2006, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Refried Noodle
Can someone explain this bit a bit more. Cos I see South Sydney play there every couple of weeks and draw 6000-7000 people....how do they get a profit? if at all?

Did Stadium Australia do a deal with the NRL or something?

TS pay $150,000 (maybe 100k) per game to the NRL clubs to play there full time, even though they obviously make a loss on this, it's something to do with the depreciation of the stadium is more cost effective if it's being used than if it's empty.

If the swans moved out there full time then maybe it would be an option.

**Damien** · 19 August 2006, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Refried Noodle
Can someone explain this bit a bit more. Cos I see South Sydney play there every couple of weeks and draw 6000-7000 people....how do they get a profit? if at all?

Did Stadium Australia do a deal with the NRL or something?

Yeah the Stadium pay Souths 70 grand a game to play there.

The Swans overheads aren't that bad out there now, initially we had to deal with an awful agreement the AFL made with Telstra Stadium which involved Kanagroo games also, so the three games we had out there in 2002 and 2003 were basically subsidising something like 11 promised games.

That has been sorted now plus the Swans received a cash injection at the time to make up for the deal from the AFL.

The overheads aren't that bad at all there now.

**Dave** · 19 August 2006, 04:43 PM

The saddest thing of all is that the ground is still going to be the same size and they are still leaving the Ladies and Members stands intact.

It will still be just as crap as ever when it's finished.

I had to laugh at the artist's impression in the Swans magazine we just got - it shows the centre square with a nice gap between it and the forward 50 arcs. As if!

**barry** · 19 August 2006, 05:46 PM

Maybe the AFL can schedule a few North v Port type games at the SCG to live up to the 8 or 9 required games, and play more home games for the swans out at telstra.

The SCG Trust attitude is summed up with their line on whether they will compensate the Swans: "Why should we?". Doesnt sound like they respect their biggest client too much.

Swans over a barrel re: SCG redevelopment

Swans over a barrel re: SCG redevelopment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment