The entire point of the bid was a real-estate grab. They even said their logo is based on the aerial view of rooftops. The club is very much the secondary purpose of this bid.

They pitched the ownership of the stadium as a "game-changer" for Australian sport, so I would imagine it would defeat the entire point of the bid if they were going to charge the club that much. 

Weve5 always looked west. We have a partnership with mariybnong college . Plus land down the west is cheaper 

If he is, it’s likely because things didn’t go his way with the supporters groups.

I do find it interesting that MV continue to look west when it has a chance to find options out in the East/South-East regions that will likely be untouched by this expansion.

The more that the MV and MC leave that area largely neglected, the more chance that a strong entry to a 2nd tier will come from out that way. They are largely safe now though in terms of more expansion in Victoria given the new independent A-Leagues views on that topic (new markets only).

Viduka played football as well, I don't see a problem here.  :w00t::hehe:

Wilco wouldnt lie. 
Also big Jim seems to be back with mv or seems to be since he is posting on mv for footscray park  alot

Is this for real?

On Paper but the land is ear marked, Seen nothing to say the land has changed hands yet.
(It is a nice concept drawing as well)

Knights fans, or any NSL fans for that matter, aren't going to let them get away with such an absurd statement.

Club is getting absolutely slaughtered online for trying to grasp at some connection to Viduka. 

What a fucking embarrassment. 

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that if you own a stadium, you are liable for all of those costs. if the club entity owns the stadium it will be liable for all of those costs for 52 weeks of the year. If a club rents a stadium, they rent it on a 'per match' or per season basis and don't have to pay for those costs separately. 

Think of it this way. Let's say the same entity owns the stadium and the club.
Compare if you are renting an apartment for 12 months so that you only visit it 14 nights during those 12 months as opposed to renting that same apartment on air b and b 14 times during a 12 month period. The cheaper option for the renter is the air b and b one, even though they pay a high nightly rate.

I've already set out above why I reckon different entities will own each asset (stadium vs club) and why you'd charge yourself full market rent (and even more!).

So you're suggesting that these costs aren't passed on to other clubs when they rent stadiums that they don't own?

No it does not. 

In the buying/selling of any business there is a process called “normalisation” where any over or under charges (or costs) are returned to a “normal” level for the purposes of valuation. 

So the stadium can charge the club what it likes. 

Much of the costs associated with clubs renting the stadium though are not just the rental costs, it’s the greed of the management companies in the middle that make good profits out of tenants before charging them for the stadium  - central coast, Adelaide and Glory should all be managing their own stadiums at reduced (or shared) costs. 

If WU get just the management costs down it will be a huge win. 

It's also important to charge the club full rent to form a solid business case for the stadium entity should they decide to sell the entity in the future. For example, If they were to charge the club $1 rent per year it devalues the stadium entity. The owners are real estate developers after all. The stadium business is way more important than the club.

The stadium costs money to run, 52 weeks of the year, even when no one is using it. Rates, land tax, power, water, drainage, essential services inspections, insurance premiums, staffing, cleaning, maintenance, repairs etc.
If the football club is the owner, they will have to pay for all of those costs.
I suspect the football club and stadium ownership/management operating entity will be formed as two (maybe 3) different companies. The stadium company will lose millions on the books in the first year through loan repayments and depreciation of the value of the stadium. It makes sense for them to charge full market rent to the football club entity and the football club to rack up more time at the stadium. This will help ensure the football club records a loss rather than a profit on the books. After all, why would you want to pay any tax when you can essentially move your money from one entity to another.
Eventually, you get to the point where you fully own the stadium asset, its land value is high, and you have an asset you can sell or borrow against. 

Tarneit is probably a good place to hold a car jacking conference

This  but wu probably still want some cash to hold small events there. Werribee tigers have a function centre at Avalon so they can make money during the off season.  Wu if smart can make extra cash if they have a small function area ro cater for corporate functions and or parties.  

You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right?

Plenty of small English clubs hold corporate events at their little, out of the way stadiums. Not everyone has to host U2. 

Roar, Glory pay $2m per season to rent stadiums - that’s a killer. 

That's part of the problem. Who's going to hold their concert or corporate event in Tarneit? If this stadium was in the inner city, they'd be rolling in cash eventually, but I don't see them getting any other events apart from a Matildas game every decade or so.

Actually,you’re looking at it the wrong way.

Stadium costs will be the most expensive in the league. The company that owns the stadium will have to pay for running costs.They will be able to charge rent to generate income. They will lose money through depreciation of the asset (stadium).
I expect the company that owns the football club will be paying the highest rent of any club in the league on a yearly basis.

Eventually, the stadium operating company will get other tenants (eg concerts on field, events in function spaces), but they will need to load up the rent payable by the football club until that time.

Jurman to trail next week if he knocks back the Nixs(I wish).

Ok, so that's a risk. Basically gambling on the housing market.


10k seems like a big ask IMO, given that City's average minus derbies is 6,787.

I don't dispute that, but again "levels of support" are not the end - they're simply the means of a club attaining financial viability. As Gyfox has pointed out, the stadium costs will probably be the cheapest in the country as only operation and maintenance will have to be covered by attendees and they actually own the stadium itself (so they won't be fucked over by shitty arrangements). 

My point is that if they can field a quality team of 11 players and be financially viable (while only getting 8k average) into that 15k ground of theirs, does it really matter that they'll never be as big as Victory? The answer is no imo. Plenty of leagues in Europe do just fine with far lower average attendances than us. 

The stadium gets paid for by the profits from the development of 4 large parcels of residential and commercial land surrounding the stadium site.  Attendance will have to pay for operation and maintenance of the stadium only.

I remember reading or seeing somewhere that 10k was a 'break even' type of attendance standard for A League clubs years ago, but I don't ever recall seeing anywhere an actual calculation of what sort of attendance figure is needed to sustain a fully professional team. It might very well be 8k or 7k at average admission/membership prices, but we haven't been told. 

In my opinion, this is the work that needs to be done and publicised. this will then informalities any new bidders for either the top or second division what they need to aim for.

Cook Park is further from Sydney and from Parramatta than Caroline Spring is from Melbourne. :\

Well, if they don't get good attendances, it'll take a long time to pay off that stadium. Also, attendances as well as memberships are a gauge of support in general.

For me, CCM almost get a pass because they're in such a small market. But at their best, they've shown they're capable of averaging well over 15k.

For the other clubs, 10k is really the minimum.

Attendance itself means fuck all in the end, it's just a means to an end for the financial viability of a club. Once WU get in their stadium and can sustain itself playing infront of an 8k average crowd, does it really matter?