SCG light towers go missing

[Damien]

miles baron hay is now claiming compensation should be payed to swans from the scg trust because the grounds capacity has been reduced from 43k to 34k...miles wake up to yourself , why should the scg trust provide any compensation to the swans , after all the swans at the scg only averaged 31k last season...storm in a tea cup created by uninformed media and uninformed rwo members.case closed..new thread please, this one is boring me @@@@less

The compensation talk has been around for over 12 months, including an attempt by the swans to play more games at Telstra, which was rejected by the Trust.

The Swans are in the right here - it's one thing to say we only averaged 31,000, fair enough, but we averaged that on the back of strong general admission sales, something that isn't going to be available to the Swans in 2007 at the SCG. The loss of revenue could be quite large this year on that basis.

[goswannie14]

''Seriously, I hear that contingency plans were well under way for all of this to happen way back when the draw was announced last year. It is just that the media have cottoned on to things now.'' quote jf-bay -22

this is the first sensible thing you have said in a long time.

and to all the ill-informed or un-informed people , ( yes including you baron hay).
the light towers have come down due to ground redevelopment ( thats not unreasonable and contingency plans have been in place) The afl voiced concern about this last week , hence jill lindsay from the afl , the head of foxsports , and the swans met with the scg trust to dicuss this .the scg trust have plans for temporary lighting . the swans have known about this for a long time.
the swans have also known about the grounds redevelopment and had input into facilities. they demanded these improvements before signing off on deal to continue at the scg.
miles baron hay is now claiming compensation should be payed to swans from the scg trust because the grounds capacity has been reduced from 43k to 34k...miles wake up to yourself , why should the scg trust provide any compensation to the swans , after all the swans at the scg only averaged 31k last season...storm in a tea cup created by uninformed media and uninformed rwo members.case closed..new thread please, this one is boring me @@@@less

Having read two of your magnificent posts today I have one word of advice...go back to bed and get out the other side.

[melbloods78]

didn't they use temp lighting at the gabba without a problem a couple years back.

[swansrock4eva]

''Seriously, I hear that contingency plans were well under way for all of this to happen way back when the draw was announced last year. It is just that the media have cottoned on to things now.'' quote jf-bay -22

this is the first sensible thing you have said in a long time.

and to all the ill-informed or un-informed people , ( yes including you baron hay).
the light towers have come down due to ground redevelopment ( thats not unreasonable and contingency plans have been in place) The afl voiced concern about this last week , hence jill lindsay from the afl , the head of foxsports , and the swans met with the scg trust to dicuss this .the scg trust have plans for temporary lighting . the swans have known about this for a long time.
the swans have also known about the grounds redevelopment and had input into facilities. they demanded these improvements before signing off on deal to continue at the scg.
miles baron hay is now claiming compensation should be payed to swans from the scg trust because the grounds capacity has been reduced from 43k to 34k...miles wake up to yourself , why should the scg trust provide any compensation to the swans , after all the swans at the scg only averaged 31k last season...storm in a tea cup created by uninformed media and uninformed rwo members.case closed..new thread please, this one is boring me @@@@less

I think you'll find the point is more that yes, the redevelopment has been on the cards for quite some time, but there's a big difference between "We have signed off on the proposed changes and we expect them to be put in place sometime in the near future (read, sometime in next 5 years or so, with plenty of time to make the necessry adjustments)" and "It has been announced these changes will be occurring over the next 12 months" (read, we've just had notice they've decided NOW is the time to go for it and there's nothing we can do). While contingency plans have been in place as part of the reconstruction works, it seems the time of implementation of various aspects is what's causing frustration, rather than the implementation in the first place. Also, it's interesting that these works HAD to be completed during football season - as if the Trust was EVER going to allow these works during cricket season. It doesn't matter to them if the Swans lose some serious cash because they still rate cricket as the more important sport and always will do.

[hammo]

storm in a tea cup created by uninformed media and uninformed rwo members.case closed..new thread please, this one is boring me @@@@less

Then there is a simple option for you - don't read it.

[goswannie14]

Then there is a simple option for you - don't read it.

That was to be my next suggestion, if number 1 didn't work.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

''Seriously, I hear that contingency plans were well under way for all of this to happen way back when the draw was announced last year. It is just that the media have cottoned on to things now.'' quote jf-bay -22

this is the first sensible thing you have said in a long time.

Gee, thanks for that. I do aim to please, you know.

JF

[robbieando]

the scg trust have plans for temporary lighting . the swans have known about this for a long time.

It's one thing to have plans in place and another for the Swans to know about them, but its another thing entirely for the AFL itself not to be informed of these "plans" until 4 weeks before a night match is to take place at the SCG. Hence the SCG Trust has a MAJOR issue at hand because the AFL has to

a) write off on the condition of the ground under the new lighting system you it is able to pass the playing arena safe for its players.

and

b) allow their boardcasters to write off on the lighting so that their boardcasting standards aren't effected in anyway.

Now you might not think this is such a great deal, but for the SCG Trust to NOT inform the AFL of any removal of lighting towers and hencefore a new lighting system until only 4 weeks before a night match at the SCG is just plain stupid. You can claim the AFL should of known, but they have just gone though the MCG redevlopment which didn't require the removal of ANY of the grounds 6 light towers, so for if the SCG Trust don't say otherwise what do you think the AFL should think is happening?

the swans have also known about the grounds redevelopment and had input into facilities. they demanded these improvements before signing off on deal to continue at the scg.

We as a club wanted inprovements yes, but don't be so stupid as to believe that the SCG Trust was waiting on our approval to go ahead with this redevelopment.

miles baron hay is now claiming compensation should be payed to swans from the scg trust because the grounds capacity has been reduced from 43k to 34k...miles wake up to yourself , why should the scg trust provide any compensation to the swans , after all the swans at the scg only averaged 31k last season

So a club that has 25,000 members in Sydney and shares the ground on matchdays with the SCG Trust's Members, loses all ability to sell General Admission Tickets to SCG Games or even sell extra Sydney based memberships. No of course the impact of lowering the capacity of the SCG for a season and half won't hurt us in any shape or form

Nor was the SCG Trust's greedy decision to not allow the Swans to shift some matches out to Telstra Stadium so we can make some sort of finanical win on our home matches this season.

...storm in a tea cup created by uninformed media and uninformed rwo members.case closed..new thread please, this one is boring me @@@@less

More like your the one who is a little bit uninformed and a little bit out of touch with reality if you think our season average at the SCG last season is grounds for not getting compensation when the lowering of capacity takes away the possabilty of membership growth in Sydney at the time of the teams greatest on field success and removes the ability of walk up ticket sales which generate money for the club on a game to game basis.

Now your the one who is boring us

[Doctor]

Well said. Couldn't agree more. The decision to enforce their contract to the letter and not allow us to move a couple more games to Homebush this year was the most galling of them all.

[ROK Lobster]

If the SCG and the AFL have communication problems that is no real concern of the club. The temporary lights will be fine, 3 or 4 weeks is plenty to organise that.

As for the contract between the club and the SCG, I am sure that both organisations will exercise its own rights to the maximum extent possible - neither are a charity. If there is no provision by which the Swans are to be compensated for lack of revenue, then the club need to look very closely at their legal advisers. Clauses like that are boilerplate. If it has gone from the contract it is very likely that it would have been negotiated out and the Swans would likely have got something fairly decent in return (such as the refurbishment of the rooms?). It may also be that the method of calculating the loss has not been drafted in a way that is favourable to the club. It could well relate directly to average numbers. If the capacity has not dropped below that then the club may be entitled to nought.

Remember that the club is tied into a 20 year deal at the SCG. They did so with their eyes open, and with full knowledge that Homebush existed. They are a commercial entity as are the SCG Trust. The deal was done, and both parties would have been happy with it. I cannot really see how the SCG Trust are the bad guys here if they are enforcing obligations that the club agreed to in return for rights of their own.

[robbieando]

If the SCG and the AFL have communication problems that is no real concern of the club. The temporary lights will be fine, 3 or 4 weeks is plenty to organise that.

Organising the lighting isn't the issue here, because as far as we know the SCG Trust has got that all set in place ready for the game against the Demons. What is the issue, is the fact that the AFL a) didn't know about it (which as you said is most likely because of a communication brake down) and b) that the AFL and Channel 10 therefore need time before the match takes place to "test" the output of the lighting so that the safety of the players isn't an issue for the AFL and that the quailty of the TV boardcast isn't effected for Channel 10.

From the sounds of things the new lighting system won't be in place until less than a week before the match giving the AFL and Channel 10 few options if the system isn't up to the standard required and a change of venue is needed.

As an aside, if the AFL want to they can move the game regardless of what the SCG Trust's views are. The AFL's is only contracted to play 7 matches at the SCG per season and 3 at Telstra Stadium with the 11th Swans home game not contracted to be played anywhere other than the fact it has to be played in metro Sydney. So if the AFL wanted to it can remove a game from the SCG and give it to Telstra Stadium and not be braking any contracts in doing so.

As for the contract between the club and the SCG, I am sure that both organisations will exercise its own rights to the maximum extent possible - neither are a charity.

Your quite right the SCG Trust is well within its rights to exercise its contract if it wants, but on the other hand the Swans can't be expected to sit back and just welcome a redevelopment which could cost them money when they should be making money. This wouldn't be such an issue if we didn't have so many Sydney based members and also had to take into account the SCG Trust members, which wipes out any hope a) growth in membership and b) sales of GA tickets. The SCG Trust are playing hardball here when they DON'T have to. We are playing the same amount of games at the SCG regardless of the redevelopment, yet they couldn't do us a favour in return, such as keeping the possibility open of a switch venues open if the need arised or in an extreme case not give SCG Trust members access to Swans games this year or at least limited their access to the two members stands (I know not a popular idea but give and take means these kind of crazy ideas)

If there is no provision by which the Swans are to be compensated for lack of revenue, then the club need to look very closely at their legal advisers. Clauses like that are boilerplate. If it has gone from the contract it is very likely that it would have been negotiated out and the Swans would likely have got something fairly decent in return (such as the refurbishment of the rooms?).

I'm sure there is no clause in our contract, otherwise why would we be making such a fuss over compensation. Either that or the compensation offered takes into account memberships, sponsors and crowds from a season like 2002 for example when we had a down year and not 2006 when we were coming off a Premiership.

It may also be that the method of calculating the loss has not been drafted in a way that is favourable to the club. It could well relate directly to average numbers. If the capacity has not dropped below that then the club may be entitled to nought.

If that's case then a) whoever did the deal was stupid and b) our average last season takes into account, club members, SCG Trust members and Game to Game Ticket Sales. The lowering of the capacity hurt only us because we can't increase our membership in Sydney by too much more without outsell the SCG's capacity (taking into account the SCG Trust members reserve) and the GA Ticket's are basiscally non-exsisant (only a handful for fans of the away club and members from Melbourne who buy though the Melbourne Office, weeks in advance.

Remember that the club is tied into a 20 year deal at the SCG. They did so with their eyes open, and with full knowledge that Homebush existed.

End of the day I bet two things swayed their decision.

1. The SCG was where they had their training facilities and club offices and
2. The SCG's match day rent would be a hell of alot cheaper than that of Homebush.

They are a commercial entity as are the SCG Trust. The deal was done, and both parties would have been happy with it. I cannot really see how the SCG Trust are the bad guys here if they are enforcing obligations that the club agreed to in return for rights of their own.

The only thing I see the SCG Trust have done wrong is basically not allowing the club the "option" to move games to Homebush if the need is there. So far if that option was in place we wouldn't be looking at moving any of our games (save the Demons game which would be because of the lighting issues). That would a) allow the club to make back some of the money they will lose this season by playing games at the SCG. Everything else the SCG Trust has been entited to do

[ROK Lobster]

The only thing I see the SCG Trust have done wrong is basically not allowing the club the "option" to move games to Homebush if the need is there. So far if that option was in place we wouldn't be looking at moving any of our games (save the Demons game which would be because of the lighting issues). That would a) allow the club to make back some of the money they will lose this season by playing games at the SCG. Everything else the SCG Trust has been entited to do

But if the option was not in the contract, either because the club did not ask for it or were not prepared to pay for it, the the Trust do not have to give it to us.

Reading between the lines a little bit (and this is pure speculation) I reckon it is likely that the club and the SCG are in disagreement at the moment about whether or not the compensation clause is triggered by the development. At this stage they would be testing each other out, and the club has decided to apply a little bit of pressure through the media. Dispute resolution will come next and ultimately silks at 20 paces.Would not like to see it come to that.

[robbieando]

But if the option was not in the contract, either because the club did not ask for it or were not prepared to pay for it, the the Trust do not have to give it to us.

Of course we don't. We have to provide the SCG Trust with 7 games a season and unless the SCG Trust stuffs up their end of the contract (for example not presenting the SCG to the Swans at an AFL standard for a match, which is what I would think the lighting issue falls under) then they don't have to budge from their position in the contract.

Reading between the lines a little bit (and this is pure speculation) I reckon it is likely that the club and the SCG are in disagreement at the moment about whether or not the compensation clause is triggered by the development. At this stage they would be testing each other out, and the club has decided to apply a little bit of pressure through the media. Dispute resolution will come next and ultimately silks at 20 paces.Would not like to see it come to that.

Surely the club would know by now if they are entitled to any compensation and if they are, any disagreement with the trust over compensation has to do with how much we get from the Trust. If we aren't entitled by the contract I would really like to know how the club is going to work out this one other than saying "when the contract was signed there was no talk of a redevelopment".

Basically a thin concept to base a court action upon.

[GoBloods]

I think you'll find the point is more that yes, the redevelopment has been on the cards for quite some time, but there's a big difference between "We have signed off on the proposed changes and we expect them to be put in place sometime in the near future (read, sometime in next 5 years or so, with plenty of time to make the necessry adjustments)" and "It has been announced these changes will be occurring over the next 12 months" (read, we've just had notice they've decided NOW is the time to go for it and there's nothing we can do). While contingency plans have been in place as part of the reconstruction works, it seems the time of implementation of various aspects is what's causing frustration, rather than the implementation in the first place. Also, it's interesting that these works HAD to be completed during football season - as if the Trust was EVER going to allow these works during cricket season. It doesn't matter to them if the Swans lose some serious cash because they still rate cricket as the more important sport and always will do.

you dont just decide to build a grandstand . This had been planned for a fair while and all parties ( including cricket australia and swans) were informed of commencement date and finish date. its time for the swans to be honest about this.
as it is anticapted to be 18 months in the building ( not just this football season), yes it will effect the swans attendances , but it will also effect cricket australia in 2006-07 with their test series australia v india( a game that would pull full houses every day )...so i think that using your model the cricket will lose serious cash as well. but hang on , that wouln't equate will your opinion that the trust only looks after cricket

[ROK Lobster]

Surely the club would know by now if they are entitled to any compensation and if they are, any disagreement with the trust over compensation has to do with how much we get from the Trust.

Same thing. To be able to be compensated you have to show that you have lost money. If the average home crowd last year was less than it's current capacity then the Swans will struggle.

What the contract says is a completely different thing, and what it means cannot ever really be settled untila judge says what it means. The clause itself will be ambiguous, because lawyers for both sides would have had a go at and used all their quirky drafting skills to try and make it seem like it was fair but was weighted in their own client's favour. As such, it probably means very little. Lawyers don't draft to give effect to the intentions of the parties, they draft to show how clever they are.