TOPIC:

Tiger Tales wrote:

Factor opinion wrote: The article says: “The WAFL will not be charged to hire the stadium for its grand final.” Perhaps there are other charges besides hiring the stadium? Eg event staff and security

It was always my understanding that the WAFL wasn’t charged a hire fee to use Optus Stadium for the GF but this free usage was tied to West Coast and Freo utilising Optus for their H&A and home finals.
Given that a regular AFL H&A season didn’t occur this year I’d presume that conditions of the contract weren’t met and as a result the clause providing free access for WAFL GF wasn’t triggered?

Yep, its tied in with what was made during the year there has to be a minimum return.

But that doesn't explain the loss made last year, there must be more to the ground costings.

I dont think anyone on here has the answer or has an intimate knowledge of the actual Optus contract (not the draft) and how it affects the WAFL, so all the posts are just "spitballing" if someone does know then please let us know. I have no idea who to contact about getting a definitive answer but I'll start by contacting my club to see if they can provide any advise. I do expect that the contract info will be severely restricted in line with the WAFC's long history of a lack of transparency.

Bazza wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

Factor opinion wrote: The article says: “The WAFL will not be charged to hire the stadium for its grand final.” Perhaps there are other charges besides hiring the stadium? Eg event staff and security

It was always my understanding that the WAFL wasn’t charged a hire fee to use Optus Stadium for the GF but this free usage was tied to West Coast and Freo utilising Optus for their H&A and home finals.
Given that a regular AFL H&A season didn’t occur this year I’d presume that conditions of the contract weren’t met and as a result the clause providing free access for WAFL GF wasn’t triggered?

Yep, its tied in with what was made during the year there has to be a minimum return.

But that doesn't explain the loss made last year, there must be more to the ground
costings.

Perhaps the ground security came from Melbourne Hotel security firm & included quarantine costs.

Senior Seagull wrote: I dont think anyone on here has the answer or has an intimate knowledge of the actual Optus contract (not the draft) and how it affects the WAFL, so all the posts are just "spitballing" if someone does know then please let us know. I have no idea who to contact about getting a definitive answer but I'll start by contacting my club to see if they can provide any advise. I do expect that the contract info will be severely restricted in line with the WAFC's long history of a lack of transparency.

Yes that is true SS and we were not privy to the finite points of the contract but considering virtually everything that has appeared in that posted leaked draft came to fruition and the WAFC did agree to it I am not sure too much was changed from it if any?

Beasley Hutton wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: I dont think anyone on here has the answer or has an intimate knowledge of the actual Optus contract (not the draft) and how it affects the WAFL, so all the posts are just "spitballing" if someone does know then please let us know. I have no idea who to contact about getting a definitive answer but I'll start by contacting my club to see if they can provide any advise. I do expect that the contract info will be severely restricted in line with the WAFC's long history of a lack of transparency.

Yes that is true SS and we were not privy to the finite points of the contract but considering virtually everything that has appeared in that posted leaked draft came to fruition and the WAFC did agree to it I am not sure too much was changed if any?

All that aside, based on the attendance and hospitality figues quoted, there is no good reason why the GF could not have been held at OPTUS.
An extra 5000 people paying $25 would have paid the $100,000 fee and the WAFC would still have made a $200k profit.
But let the WAFC still build there numbers with failed WAFL CEO's and all will be fine in the future.

Beasley Hutton wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: I dont think anyone on here has the answer or has an intimate knowledge of the actual Optus contract (not the draft) and how it affects the WAFL, so all the posts are just "spitballing" if someone does know then please let us know. I have no idea who to contact about getting a definitive answer but I'll start by contacting my club to see if they can provide any advise. I do expect that the contract info will be severely restricted in line with the WAFC's long history of a lack of transparency.

Yes that is true SS and we were not privy to the finite points of the contract but considering virtually everything that has appeared in that posted leaked draft came to fruition and the WAFC did agree to it I am not sure too much was changed from it if any?

The key is that the no cost bit appeared in the draft, we need to know if it's still there and if so why they still want the $100k, if not why was it removed.

Senior Seagull wrote: I dont think anyone on here has the answer or has an intimate knowledge of the actual Optus contract (not the draft) and how it affects the WAFL, so all the posts are just "spitballing" if someone does know then please let us know. I have no idea who to contact about getting a definitive answer but I'll start by contacting my club to see if they can provide any advise. I do expect that the contract info will be severely restricted in line with the WAFC's long history of a lack of transparency.

Exactly. In the meantime I'll take the premiership and the cash dividend and bank it - thank you very much.