Melbourne deserves a multi-purpose stadium

Fussball ist unser leben - thanx for getting back to it - - it's interesting to follow through a topic properly and I know I don't know it all. It's interesting to get prodded along a bit - - - so, for your part, I thank you. btw - , never tried to claim the AFL as having a legal ownership stake. What is clear though is that like in many other cases, the AFL is pumping far more money than any other sports body into venues in which the AFL has no legal ownership. I presume the 'sanctity' of the AFL members is purely contingent upon the AFL 'licence' at the venue being paid up and in force. THe main 'basic' right the AFL has is the first option during footy season - - and that's the right that they are willing to release for up to 10 weeks for a successful WC bid. The main thing I hope I've illustrated - - the AFL has done pretty well for the people of Victoria and the MCC continues to wield perhaps more power than the cricket club alone should warrant!!!! and the common misperception especially outside of Victoria that the MCG is a 'public funded' public asset is in first part false and second part probably false too. cheers, I reckon we can call an end to this one.

Thanks Michael C Appreciate your diligence and effort to try to convince me. Whilst my memory of undergrad Land Law lectures is slowly fading, based on: a) what you have stated b) what I have read and c) the behaviour of the relevant parties (State Government of Victoria, MCG Trust and the AFL) I think it is very unlikely that the AFL would ever be viewed as having any "legal ownership of the MCG stadium". The AFL certainly does NOT appear to have even the most basic rights, which would be associated with "leagal ownership of a building" - e.g. the ability to grant a lease on any part of the Stadium.

Fussball ist unser leben - if you're still interested, there were a couple of clarifications (in part or full), around the 'liceence' agreement, and the technicality of who actually 'owns' the venue vs the land.

btw - this is one of the best succints of it I've seen --- sadly it's off bigfooty, but, I've seen enough of the info to know this person has it on the nose. So without the federal and state government capital grants the MCC would have made a $1.1 mil profit in 2008 and a $4.1mil profit in 2007. The debts of the MCC to redevelop the ground are in their balance sheet. Quote: Interest bearing loans and borrowings__ 2008__ 2007 Current Liabilities ($’000 )_________9,629 17,626 Non- Current Liabilities ($’000 )__ 318,518 327,983 The MCG redevelopment cost $434mil. The state government chipped in $77mil when the federal government pulled out it’s $90mil proposed contribution because it wanted certain workplace conditions on the site for them to hand over the monies. Grollo constructions and the unions had an agreement the feds didn’t like so no monies were granted. The MCC went out and borrowed $357mil to pay for the redevelopment. . The MCC having 99,000+ members allowed them to go and borrow $357mil for the redevelopment The deal struck with the AFL was that they would contribute $6mil per year for 32 years and from members funds $29mil for 20 years would be allocated to repayments. The MCC only put up fees by a bit less than $100 per year once the new stands were finished. At a bit more than $500 it’s a great deal and that’s why they have 175,000 on the waiting list. So football people, via the AFL it's members and it's clubs and fans and MCC members who really want to watch the 40+ games of footy are paying for the redevelopment. As can be see from above the MCC aren’t screwing footy fans as they don't make huge profits without those government grants So when a crowd of 30,000 turns up, it is the MCC bankers who do well out of the footy people rather than the MCC or the AFL clubs. The clubs don’t get much of the other revenue streams from the MCG. Collingwood were able to get a good deal because they have the numbers and were able to negotiate better facilities for their corporates. Maybe the MCC members need to pay a little more if the AFL clubs are going to do better out of the MCC and this is what transpired basically last year, the MCC members pay a tad more for a pretty good value proposition anyway, and the AFL clubs get a bit more on games at the 'G.

Fussball - yes, we've gone through the regular event and normal commercial operations revenue - - - which is the regular 'rental'/tenancy arrangements. You still haven't acknowledged the AFL annual payments as part of the funding mix for the stadium rebuilds back at the outset. You haven't acknowledged the $8 million 'AFL revenue' line item in the MCC's revenue statement. (did you scroll down - - it's page 20 of the document. re the 'license' arrangement - it's referred to here SGV-AFL Agreement 1. The licence agreement between the MCC and the AFL being extended by five years, ensuring football and the AFL Grand Final remains at the MCG until at least 2037. Note also re tenants - The tenancy of football and cricket authorities does not preclude other events such as concerts and rugby and soccer matches being staged at the ground when fixturing allows. Cricket is technically a tenant - - but, Cricket Victoria is not committing extra funding to the MCG redevelopment. That's left to the MCC and AFL. btw - what the AFL effectively 'bought' was the AFL members reserve, all of about 23,000 seats. By comparison the MCC members reserve is about 22,000 seats......so, b/w the 2, you're looking at 45,000 seats (important come GF day). At the time the AFL also got shiney new offices within the GSS at the MCG and was able to move out of the ancient Jolimont House. Obviously since, the AFL has it's HQ at Docklands within a complex it will within 15 years own outright. This is part of the complexity that over hangs that the old VFL had intended to take it's finals and GF to VFL park, and sold VFL park memberships on that premise. However, State Govt blocked planning approval to expand VFL Park over 100K capacity. And effectively blocked the movement of the GF out there. The AFL then effectively gave up on VFL Park (it was needed big time expenditure just to maintain, about $30 million - - which is the amount that AFL instead spent to buy the rights to own Docklands after 25 years). So, with the Govt screwing over the AFL/VFL in the '80s, the AFL focussed on the MCG and how to house it's VFL/AFL members at the MCG and clearly they needed some new and improved facilities. The Southern Stand was ancient, and the MCC had the Wing on the Northern Stand side. The MCC and cricket didn't really need to built a big new stadium. It was largely the want of the AFL and is why the AFL was contracted to pay for a good amount of it. Note re "the MCG is owned by the State Government of Victoria ", technically, the State Govt via the MCG trust only owns the land. The MCC carries the debt and also carries the asset value in it's accounts. The AFL doesn't carry either the debt or the asset value - - but is a critical partner in the arrangements. Alas, as partnerships go - - it's not been all smooth sailing, and that includes about 10 years back when Carlton in particular were testing dangerous waters around the right of a venue to 'own' the broadcast rights to the 'events' within that venue. The Brack's Govt supported the MCG against the AFL on this front. Don't ever underestimate the complexities behind the issue - - as it's evolved over the last 10 years you can see how huge the financials are for the code to own it's product rather than the venue. Sure, might be easy to say that it never would've gone the other way - - but, it did see Princes Park canned as a venue and Ian Collins and the AFL have had very strained relationship since (including his current role as management head at Docklands Stadium.)

Michael C Appreciate your input on this, but reckon we'll have to "agree to disagree". As far as I know, the MCG is owned by the State Government of Victoria (i.e. people of Victoria) - end of story. As far as I can observe, the MCC members subs and other "event revenue" (match day fees, access to the stadium, signage, etc.) are paying for the debt incurred during the MCG's redevelopment projects; just as the rent paid by tenants is used by the landlord to pay for renovations & capital works on his property. Sure, if there is no long term tenant, the landlord is unlikely to proceed with the renovation. I don't understand your closing paragraph about "the AFL's exclusive rights" amounting to a "licensing agreement"??. Exclusive rights to enjoy a property in peace is the cornerstone of the landlord/tenant contract (if I recall, from my undergrad days, it was referred to as "the touchstone" of a lease or tenancy!). I presume, the AFL's "exclusive rights" must refer to week-end exclusive rights since, in 2009 & 2010 our National Football team played a mid-week match at the MCG against Japan and New Zealand respectively, during the AFL season.

Fussball ist unser leben - it seems I'm unable to reply to you on the soccer tab, so, re the 'significant' investment by the AFL, I was referring to the 30 odd year commitment to the index $5 million per year estimated at that point at about $160 mill over 32 years. Note from your own linked MCC report that in the revenue declarations, there was about $48 million combined of 'event revenue' and 'commercial operations'. If the AFL were 'just' a renter, then that would about take care of it. The 2 soccer matches in that accounting time frame would be accounted in there. However, above the AFL generated revenue via events/operations, there is a stand alone 'AFL revenues' line item and that listed just over $8million for the financial year. This MCG information kit also describes the MCC's role in the MCG overall (distancing the 'peoples ground' from Government), and also highlights the 'special arrangements' required for the Great Southern Stand back around 1990-92. Apart from the Northern (now Olympic) Stand, towards which £100,000 was advanced by the State Government as an Olympic Games commitment, all grandstands at the MCG were financed entirely by Melbourne Cricket Club members' subscriptions, until the advent of the Great Southern Stand in 1992 when revenue from corporate entertainment facilities also became an important income stream. The massive $150 million Great Southern Stand project required special financial arrangements based on a long-term contract with the MCG Trust, the Australian Football League and the State Government. The AFL is not just a renter. The AFL is signed on to effectively cover a goodly portion of the MCG construction cost. If the AFL were just a renter, then, they wouldn't have a stand alone line item in that revenue summary. Sure, they might be broken down individually in the 'events revenue' along with cricket and soccer and any other events. Part of the 'arrangement' is the AFL's 'exclusive' rights across the 'footy season' and that is because it's more of a licensing agreement. Not just an event by event sports venue tenancy. This is what a lot of anti-AFL folk didn't comprehend with respect to the World Cup bid. The AFL has a purchased position, has paid for rights at the venue. If they were just a tenant, then it'd be rather different. (likewise at Docklands).

Fussball ist unser leben - would you care to illustrate your understanding of Govt funding into the MCG?? let me provide you the facts (careful, it's a 4 letter word..... F.A.C.T.,......don't let it stop you) 1992 Great Southern Stand opened - cost $142 million (came in below budget). Govt funding. Nil. Project was contingent upon the AFL signing a 40 year contract of minimum number of matches, attendees, and retention of finals and GF. 2006 - Ponsford, Olympic, Northern/Members stands - cost $434 million. Govt funding $77 million (State ONLY, no Fed) Total cost current config - - $576 million. Govt portion approx 13%. (signficant??). AFL current contracted across 45 years, 1992-2037. Please do tell - - - who is paying for the MCG??? Roughly 2.8 million AFL attendees annually, compared to less than 500,000 for cricket and stuff all else. It's a nice publicly owned venue though. It's a nice process. AFL/VFL were thwarted on expanding their own 100% owned venue and thwarted on holding the GF of their own competition there. They then wanted better facilities at the ageing MCG. State Govt had no money. AFL get's the facilities, has to commit to 40 years of revenue raising to fund it and at the end of that time frame has nothing but 40 years of Cricket club members attending AFL matches and finals. THose cricketers are ruddy lucky. Otherwise, they'd be like their Kiwi and Saffer counterparts, playing on postage stamp sized fields with a 20K capacity!!!

Fussball - football at a ground with a running track.......only seen that with exhibition matches in Canada I think it was with the players wearing runners and I think the whole pitch was synthetic anyway.....back in the late 80s. Hardly ideal. That's no concern for football in Melbourne at least.

5 AFL games drawing over 217,000 compared to the 1st HAL MVFC match at the new stadium with 'only' 20,000. It does make you wonder just how much the stadium 'novelty' factor was worth!! Noting Storm kicked off at the venue back in early May with over 20,000, and since have done 12,11,11, 10 and 9K returns. Obviously the nil points to earn isn't helpful......but, it'd suggest there should've still been a fair novelty factor out there for Hearts/MVFC to exploit. Perhaps come the warmer weather it'll happen. For now though - - - to see any compelling argument for another and a large other stadium..........it just ain't there.

ah yes - - a very odd post by this Androo person, and sadly an anti-AFL regular wasted no time in agreeing with and adding to the irrelevant rant.

Androo is a different character..... Andyroo has no idea what's going on in Tasmania and would like to keep it that way :)

Good post, agree 100%.

Ken - The lack of a dedicated rectangle stadium hasn't stopped Melbourne (MCG/Docklands) hosting major soccer and rugby (U and L) matches with very big crowds. re spiritual homes. Recall that the first ever test match was played at the MCG and just down the road at Sunbury is the Rupertswood estate laying claim as the birth place of the ashes. That alone is a pretty good starting point. btw - Sydney and cricket....was nothing until presented with some real inter colonial rivalry when Melbourne and Victoria got into it proper through the 1850s onwards. Noting whilst the first fully recorded cricket match in Aust was in Sydney in 1832, that the first inter colonial match was Vic v Tas in 1851. In fact, up to 1855, Vic v Tas occurred 3 times before NSW finally debuted (and defeated Vic) in 1855/56. In respect to GP racing both via the Tasman series (at Sandown) back to the Albert Park track first being laid out in 1953 when decent or permanent tracks were few and far between to the 'modern' F1 GP - - note, I didn't count Philip Island and the MotoGP, as, that'd be like counting Bathurst for Sydney!!! re Olympics - - I meant in the Australian context. Why did you talk about Athens re the Olympics whilst not challenging Melbourne and Cricket with Lords and London?? You might've taken my up on the Nags. The first racecourse opened in 1806 near the Hawkesbury River, whilst in 1825 the Sydney Turf Club was established. Alas, no one much cares about the Sydney Cup - - it's the Melbourne Cup that has built the aura and tradition for almost 150 years. My main point was that Bilbo narrowed his focus way too much. And that you've brought Adelaide, Brisbane and Athens in to support Sydney.........me thinx Melbourne wins still!!! (not that it matters that much - - but, again, back to my point - - Bilbo seemed restricting to codes of football only).

Hey MC, yeah wouldn't argue that Melbourne would get the nod on sporting capital, especially with their current ownership of F1 and Aus Open, but I think you're laying it on a bit thick. Bear in mind that at some point or other Sydney has hosted just about every event (or equivalent) you mentioned as well, Brisbane can lay claim to many and Adelaide is probably still a bit miffed about the F1 too! I think that bilbo made a reasonable point, it was quite an anomaly that a city like Melbourne, so proud of it's sport, didn't have a decent rectangular stadium. I understand the history of it, AFL has always been dominant there, but it still was an unusual omission. I do have to take you up on the spiritual home of Cricket part though. I think the SCG might have something to say about that - at the very least it would be a draw but since cricket was played in Sydney for half a century before Melbourne was even settled I'd probably put the decision on the north side. Spiritual home of the Olympics? I don't think anyone can claim that bar Athens, in any case there have been 2 Olympic cities in this country and both were much celebrated (in fact the other is often considered the best olympics ever)

How is Tasmania relevant to this discussion about Melbourne venues???

This weekend's attendances prove Zach's point. 9,000 to see Storm & 17,500 to see Victory. Meanwhile, in attrocious weather, 48,000 turn up at the MCG! All that money spent on the MRS, when AFL is the sport that attracts real crowds. Yes - soccer & rugby league (& shortly union) have done very well in Melbourne at tax-payers expense. Now let's see the AFL get proportinate funding!

Nice observations Andyroo And, of course, only recently, the NMFC received significant government assistance to finance the redevelopment of their Arden Street headquarters. Basically, NMFC has ended up with a glorfied gymnasium that is - after 6 months - looking like a "white elephant". Whenever I've driven past the facility the gym is empty and the lights are off. NOTE: 65% of the finance for this $15 million project came from the taxpayers - State Government, Federal Government & City of Melbourne. Source: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/component/content/article/9686.html

So, government money gets spent on a rectangular stadium in Melbourne to support 4 teams from leagues other than the omnipotent AFL. BFW. In Tasmania, something even dumber is about to happen. Millions of dollars in government money is likely to be spent on upgrading Bellerive Oval to accommodate Melbourne's worst AFL brand ... The North Melbourne Football Club. And all because it can't pull in enough punters to pay the bills at its Melbourne home ground. Its a strategically dumb investment decision that is more akin to welfare gone stupid. And the AFL Commission is directly to blame. A club that doesn't deserve propping up financially will be done so at the expense of a club which enjoys huge support from the Tasmanian football market and is more deserving of their discretionary dollar, if not their tax dollar. Richmond. Many many millions of dollars have already been spent by Tasmanian taxpayers turning only one AFL club - Hawthorn - into a financial powerhouse. The current 5 year deal alone was worth $16 million of government money. Add the cost of stadium redevelopment, premiership bonus and the figure keeps on rising. I think I'll have a Becks and a good lie down. I see coming a 50-line reply of superfluous facts and figures from the Myles Barlow of Australian sports blogging in defense of North Melbourne.

if by "converted" you mean burnt to the ground and a new stadium built, I agree. ANZ is the worst stadium ever constructed. The stands are ridiculously shallow so you are a mile away from the action. "converting" it will not fix that fundamental problem. How come Brisbane can get it so very right with Suncorp, and Sydney gets it so very wrong time and time again.....