TOPIC:

swan42 wrote: ALL OF IT for the licences.

What was the amount the WAFL clubs contributed...all of it is not an amount!

I don't remember funds being paid by Claremont towards the purchase an AFL licence.

If we did I'd be interested to compare the cost of our original investment against the value of the licenses and the annual dividend that they return to each WAFL club and other stakeholders in the WA footy community.

Also remind me what events lead to the WAFC being formed and what the state governments contribution to WA footy was at the time?

Also as you previously avoided answering the question, what was SD's profit/loss last year?

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote: ALL OF IT for the licences.

What was the amount the WAFL clubs contributed...all of it is not an amount!

I don't remember funds being paid by Claremont towards the purchase an AFL licence.

If we did I'd be interested to compare the cost of our original investment against the value of the licenses and the annual dividend that they return to each WAFL club and other stakeholders in the WA footy community.

Also remind me what events lead to the WAFC being formed and what the state governments contribution to WA footy was at the time?

Also as you previously avoided answering the question, what was SD's profit/loss last year?

Join Swans as a member and you then will be able to get our Annual Report.

swan42 wrote:
Join Swans as a member and you then will be able to get our Annual Report.

Wouldn't bother, you clearly don't need the money as you can just ask the WAFC for all the cash you need to prop up your club.

Grassy wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Southerner wrote: Yeah well unfortunately the Television rights money that should have been available to distribute to all the stakeholders , which by the way is grassroot footy via the premier state leagues , has been spent buying Docklands Stadium in Victoria.
The WAFC remind me of a John Cleese script - it almost looks as they have no clue if the premier comp is gone they vanish with it , no need for a commish then

Nailed it ....

What,Tiger Tails?

No reply to Dwert and Southerner here?

Why on earth,not?

WA footy funding isn't directly related to AFL television deals.

If the purchase of Docklands didn't lead to a reduction of revenue from WAFCs management of Domain Stadiumor reduced profits for WC and Freo then its irrelevant to the discussion.

If the purchase of the Docklands means over the longer term that less money is redistrubuted from WC and Freo to help with the ailing Melbourne clubs and that in turn makes the WA AFL clubs more profitable it will be a benefit to WA footy.

If it contributes to the WA AFL clubs making a larger profit then the dividend that the WAFC receives would increase.

If the WA clubs invest it heavily in facility development and they make a smaller profit or even a loss then no. Really depends on how the WA AFL clubs utilise the funds from year to year.

swan42 wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote: ALL OF IT for the licences.

What was the amount the WAFL clubs contributed...all of it is not an amount!

I don't remember funds being paid by Claremont towards the purchase an AFL licence.

If we did I'd be interested to compare the cost of our original investment against the value of the licenses and the annual dividend that they return to each WAFL club and other stakeholders in the WA footy community.

Also remind me what events lead to the WAFC being formed and what the state governments contribution to WA footy was at the time?

Also as you previously avoided answering the question, what was SD's profit/loss last year?

Join Swans as a member and you then will be able to get our Annual Report.

The clubs never paid anything to the VFL for the Eagles licence.

This is the correct history.

The Directors of the WAFL voted unanimously to join the VFL, the clubs voted 6 for 2 against to join., SF and SD against.

The WAFL Paid $4 Million to the VFL for the Eagles Licence. the WAFL then formed Indian Pacific Pty. Ltd. that raised $13 Million on a public float, the WAFL then sub let the licence to Indian Pacific the $4 Million fee was then drawn from the $13 Million raised via the public float, another $1 Million was spent on clearances. legal costs (including the $60,000 wasted lost trying to get Harding in the Supreme Court) and players fees to form the first team.

Within 2 years the share price had collapsed, significant debt had accumulated ( this had been a problem since 1983 when the WAFL asked the State Government for financial assistance as the WAFL was failing to meet its payments on the new 2 tier stand loan) The State Government put a working party together the recommendation was to abolish the WAFL board, appoint Directors and a CEO. The WAFL also wanted the State Government to take over operating costs at Subiaco Oval however that was not taken up.

In 1989 in dire financial circumstances the WAFC was formed under a new constitution and the Burke Government extended an emergency grant of $1 Million , Subiaco Oval was gifted to the WAFC on a 99 year lease. Indian Pacific was wound up and the Eagles licence reverted to WAFC for basically nothing.

Burke wasnt premier in 89, finished up in 88

Cheers Bazza

That was my understanding of how the WAFC was formed and how the Eagles came about etc. A lot different to the Swan42s 'we paid for all of it' alternate facts.

So for $0 investment each WAFL club now receive $465k in annual dividends and WA Football owns two AFL licences which are worth a huge amount of money along with receiving further annual dividends which help other WA football stakeholders.

MarkOlsen wrote: Burke wasnt premier in 89, finished up in 88

Yep , it was Labor under Dowding by the end, but negotiations started under Burke, Dowding took over and finalised it.

Bazza...I'm not sure you're correct on the 99 year lease to the WAFC either....Subi Footy Club had the lease up until 2014 or there abouts with an option to extend....