TOPIC:

Bazza, 5 mill is not alot debt I reckon, not for a stadium thats full every week

Not sure that's correct about the federal government only contributing to redevelopments as a potential $250m in funding was withdrawn by the Federal Govt towards the Perth Stadium build when Australia's bid to host the 2022 World Cup was unsuccessful.

I'm torn whether the AFL should have contributed.

Given that the WA AFL sides are the anchor tenants and will contribute the largest annual income to the Stadium via the venue hire fees they pay and the income that the venue managers will earn via food & beverage sub-lease agreements, venue naming rights etc.

Can you ask tenants to pay for the original construction costs of a house or office or do you just charge them a usage fee in terms of weekly rent?

Are Cricket Australia, the FFA, NRL or ARU or music artists that hire the venue then also expected to pay an extra pro-rata fee towards the $1.6b construction cost?

anchorman wrote: I think you will find it is correct TT.It was said when the WA Gov asked for money and I am sure the FG said we only contribute to redevelopments,not new stadiums.That was in the time of the Rubble Gov.

Townsville Stadium is a brand new build that the FG contributed $100m towards the total spend of $250m. Only just commenced construction in August.

Tiger of old wrote: Bazza, 5 mill is not alot debt I reckon, not for a stadium thats full every week

5 Million is owned on Subi, since when has that been full every week , its sits in moth balls for half the year.

Tiger Tales wrote:

anchorman wrote: I think you will find it is correct TT.It was said when the WA Gov asked for money and I am sure the FG said we only contribute to redevelopments,not new stadiums.That was in the time of the Rubble Gov.

Townsville Stadium is a brand new build that the FG contributed $100m towards the total spend of $250m. Only just commenced construction in August.

When plans were announced the Barnett Government asked for 100 Million from the Commonwealth towards it, it was refused on the basis that Infrastructure grants had been given for other projects.

Townsville's grant might have been part of a wider package, fed wise I don't think there is any special fund sports stadiums more for city development, i.e. Perth City Link received substantial funding and there is a chance the Feds contributed to the Rail infrastructure for the new stadium in any case.

Did the AFL contribute towards the MCG rebuild? Spotless? Im not sure if the AFL is a key tenant, more the two franchises, but they also get a venue provided with no capital out lay to show case their business, and if that's not important then why would they purchase Docklands outright.

Anyway the good thing is , its there and an outstanding stadium.

BC wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Tiger of old wrote: What I think is really insulting is the federal government contributing bugger all.
I think everybody's a bit quick here to bag out the afl and wafc for playing hardball. Now I will admit I'm not too clued up on all the details of this business, but I do know that wa footy is in a bloody strong position at the moment with bugger all debt left on subi oval and strong income streams from having control over subi oval. And without WA footy the new stadium hasn't got a leg to stand on so I'm inclined to think that if they're not happy with the deal the government is offering, then good on them for holding off on signing.

Wtf should the Federal Government be paying?

The Federal Government have regularly contributed significant funding to other sports stadium developments:
Townsville Stadium - $100m
SCG - $50m
Adelaide Oval - $30m
Metricon Stadium - $36m
Simmonds Stadium - $14m
Blundstone Arena - $15m
Brookvale Oval - $10m
Aurora Stadium - $4m

Seems unusual that the federal government wouldn't contribute some funding to Perth Stadium.

That's great but why should they when the biggest beneficiary the AFL hasn't put a single cent in?

In the main - they all look like upgrades on your list in any case.

...and Crown as well who'll make squillions on game day/night.

Yep I agree Crown should of done something, didn't they own the land it was on as part of the Golf Course ? Or maybe that was a lease arrangement that the State could just take back?

I think it was the latter...I wonder if the state government had to pay Crown compensation if the lease still had time to run?

BC wrote: I think it was the latter...I wonder if the state government had to pay Crown compensation if the lease still had time to run?

Didnt they receive the land the Towers was eventually built on at a fairly hefty reduced rate BC?

BC wrote: I think it was the latter...I wonder if the state government had to pay Crown compensation if the lease still had time to run?

Imagine how much Packer will make when Collingwood come over,

Beasley Hutton wrote:

BC wrote: I think it was the latter...I wonder if the state government had to pay Crown compensation if the lease still had time to run?

Didnt they receive the land the Towers was eventually built on at a fairly hefty reduced rate BC?

I'm not sure about that one but you could be right.