SCG light towers go missing

[GoBloods]

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 scg didnt think that the removal of two light towers and installing of temporary lighting would be an issue. the two light towers at the randwick end were remove and temp towers were to be brought in and the broadcasters were to do testing.
The scg neighbours FOX Studios refused the scg permission to erect the temp lighting on their grounds until the day of the fixture. hence this becoming an issue and the afl investigating...Jill lindsay- afl ground ops , the head of foxsports, the head of channel 10 broadcasting , all inspected the venue with lighting experts last saturday night , when the scg had the temp towers brought in and it was given the all clear
secondly , the mcg had no problem with redevelopment or lighting because they had complete access around the exterior of their venue.
The eastern side and randwick end of the scg backs on to fox studios.
Fox own the land and therefore the scg trust do not have access to the exterior of these areas .so all work has to be done internally

[GoBloods]

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. -quote robbieando


what an inane comment - the swans had a major say on the design of the new grandstand. they demanded new private boxes and dining rooms to meet their corporate needs. once the plans had been completed , all parties were informed of commencement date.
by the way , the swans want all these new corporate facilities, but last week vs brisbane , more than a dozen private boxes were still available for season hire.

[GoBloods]

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.



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

ok , to clarify one common mistake that non scg members make(ie that scg members get into matches for free ), the scg trust members ( that we share the ground with ) paid annual fees .their fees are then passed on the ground hirer whenever they attend a match...example, if 5000 members attend swans v brisbane, the scg trust plays the swans 5000 x whatever their (swans/scg) agreed price is.
so the swans dont lose out here, which many of you believe...

secondly , the scg trust greedy decision not to let the swans move their games to homebush.....why would ANY BUSINESS allow this to happen. the swans have an agreement to play at the scg. why should the trust allow them to break this agreement . the trust would lose plenty of revenue...the scg is not a CHARITY
think with your head on this issue , not your heart....if you were in private business and a client/hirer were wanting to do the same thing you would stop it as well.
if this were collingwood and the mcg , events company and a convention centre or any other example , you would probably agree...but seeing its the swans and the scg . the scg are immediately in the wrong

[robbieando]

the scg didnt think that the removal of two light towers and installing of temporary lighting would be an issue.

Well they certainly thought wrong, didn't they. From everything from the AFL discussing about the possabilty of moving the SCG night matches to FOX Studios refusing to give the SCG trust permission to erect lighting towers from crains until the DAY of the match, its clear the SCG Trust didn't think this one out as well as they SHOULD have.

At least with the issue coming out when it did, it forced the AFL to act and get the answers as to what sort of quality the lighting the would be getting come this weekend, hence the match goes ahead as planned and at the SCG.

The eastern side and randwick end of the scg backs on to fox studios.
Fox own the land and therefore the scg trust do not have access to the exterior of these areas .so all work has to be done internally

So why didn't the Trust come up with a plan that had temp light erected upon their own land and not somebody elses?? Wouldn't that of been a smarter move.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Any chance we could just play in the dark next saturday? we might kick a winning score.

[robbieando]

what an inane comment - the swans had a major say on the design of the new grandstand.

So your saying that the Swans had the biggest say of all interested parties in the building of the new stand?? Give me a brake. Should they would of been consulted as to what type of things they would of like in such as private boxes and dining rooms, but even if the Swans weren't consulted do you think those things wouldn't of been included?? No of could they would have. This stand was getting build without or without the Swans say so, but it goes without saying the Swans are more than happy with the fact its being built and the resulting faciltites that result from it.

once the plans had been completed , all parties were informed of commencement date.

No @@@@.

by the way , the swans want all these new corporate facilities, but last week vs brisbane , more than a dozen private boxes were still available for season hire.

That's a moot point in anycase because they have lost a total of zero corporate facilities in the redevlopment so far. All they have lost is seating on a hill basically.

[ROK Lobster]

Give me a brake.

Sccrrreeeeeeech

[robbieando]

ok , to clarify one common mistake that non scg members make(ie that scg members get into matches for free ), the scg trust members ( that we share the ground with ) paid annual fees .their fees are then passed on the ground hirer whenever they attend a match...example, if 5000 members attend swans v brisbane, the scg trust plays the swans 5000 x whatever their (swans/scg) agreed price is.
so the swans dont lose out here, which many of you believe...

That's not the issue. Regardless of the fact if SCG Trust members get in for free or somewhere down the line end up paying the Swans via the Trust (though a % of their membership fee) my point was, because we have to accomadate them, along side our Sydney based members means that we have TWO problems this because of the limited capacity at the SCG which end up cost us money.

1) We can't expand our membership base in Sydney too much higher as we can't find room for them (depsite the fact we were well under capacity last week, thats because members with seats didn't turn up)

and 2) The normal General Admission allotment has been cut to basically nothing, thus meaning we can't make the same amount of money off GA tickets to people who go to odd game, rather than buy membership.

That's what I have a problem with. The cut in capacity doesn't hurt the SCG Trust members or even the Club members themselves because we have enough seats for them (and as you pointed out still get the money from them), but forget trying to grow our membership base or get first timers to rock up and buy GA tickets (thats where we lose money this year).

secondly , the scg trust greedy decision not to let the swans move their games to homebush.....why would ANY BUSINESS allow this to happen.

Ah, yes. The MCG did during the redevelopment and during the 4 week of last season. They also did agreed to do away with the MCG Final each week of the finals agreement.

the swans have an agreement to play at the scg. why should the trust allow them to break this agreement.

Maybe because the Swans are one of their major tennents who are facing losing money by playing at the SCG this season, so if by agreeing to move just two of the 8 games from the SCG to Telstra Stadium (which in reality of only be braking the Swans/SCG contract by the one game) helps them over come those losses and then is able to use that next time both side come to the table to work out an agreement as a reason why the Swans should keep playing 8 games a season at the SCG then maybe they should look into it.

the trust would lose plenty of revenue...the scg is not a CHARITY

On the flip side the Swans are losing revenue by playing at the SCG. By that token are we a Charity??

think with your head on this issue , not your heart....if you were in private business and a client/hirer were wanting to do the same thing you would stop it as well.

If I was in private business (lets say I owned a major shopping centre) and I decided to redevlop the Shopping Centre, I would at least give the storeholders a lower rent during the time of the redevlopment to lessen the blow against the likely event that less shoppers come to the shopping centre because of the dispution to the Centre and the likelyhood the stores would be making less sales. That is common sense.

[ROK Lobster]

If I was in private business (lets say I owned a major shopping centre) and I decided to redevlop the Shopping Centre, I would at least give the storeholders a lower rent during the time of the redevlopment to lessen the blow against the likely event that less shoppers come to the shopping centre because of the dispution to the Centre and the likelyhood the stores would be making less sales. That is common sense.

Hehehe. No you wouldn't. You would put a clause in their lease that said that if they could prove to you that they had lost revenue because of your redevelopment that you would compensate them for their loss.

[ScottH]

Hehehe. No you wouldn't. You would put a clause in their lease that said that if they could prove to you that they had lost revenue because of your redevelopment that you would compensate them for their loss.

And put the rent up after the renovations (just like Westfield Doncaster are doing ATM)

[royboy42]

ROK and Scott H are exactly right!..This is business ..whether it's football or selling hot dogs, it's about maximising profits and enforcing contracts..signage, corp boxes and existing contracts will mean the SCG wins....always! They have the ownership!

[jazzamcc]

Hope these work. Looks okay to me.

[Damien]

First pic is OK.

The second one, I am guessing none of the other lights are on??? (well hoping)

Because that looks like lights good enough for training maybe, but not playing a Senior AFL match.

[Wardy]

If I was in private business (lets say I owned a major shopping centre) and I decided to redevlop the Shopping Centre, I would at least give the storeholders a lower rent during the time of the redevlopment to lessen the blow against the likely event that less shoppers come to the shopping centre because of the dispution to the Centre and the likelyhood the stores would be making less sales. That is common sense.

You've never dealt with Business such as Westfield , Stockland or Lend Lease have you ? they dont give an inch, you will find the other bit players in that area of business are aspiring to be just like the big 3. Tenants are their by choice, they have to abide by the owners guidelines and contracts & hand over a percentage of their profits.

The SCG Trust are , as per usual, holding the strings to maximize their return, like it or not - its business and the contract between them and the Swans is binding. Its by no means perfect, but its binding.

[Industrial Fan]

Sccrrreeeeeeech

I was nearly the vocab police on that post myself...

As it stands, you're a bitch