|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. So you're suggesting that these costs aren't passed on to other clubs when they rent stadiums that they don't own? 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!). 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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volkz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 463,
Visits: 0
|
Nothing makes me laugh more atm than the Croatians who are fuming over this bid.
- Lou Sticca's cash grab
- There's no way they got 3k
- Melbourne Knights the only team who get 3k on a match day (despite averaging 500-600)
- Mark Viduka being forced by Lou Sticca (his good mate) to take a photo
- No club should play this club for a friendly
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNothing makes me laugh more atm than the Croatians who are fuming over this bid. - Lou Sticca's cash grab - There's no way they got 3k - Melbourne Knights the only team who get 3k on a match day (despite averaging 500-600) - Mark Viduka being forced by Lou Sticca (his good mate) to take a photo - No club should play this club for a friendly Most former NSL fans from the area would have genuine concerns about this "club"
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities...
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xNothing makes me laugh more atm than the Croatians who are fuming over this bid. - Lou Sticca's cash grab - There's no way they got 3k - Melbourne Knights the only team who get 3k on a match day (despite averaging 500-600) - Mark Viduka being forced by Lou Sticca (his good mate) to take a photo - No club should play this club for a friendly Most former NSL fans from the area would have genuine concerns about this "club" It's not the NSL fans that the Western United club are looking to target, especially since the NSL ended in 2004. Whilst the whole Viduka thing is amusing any Knights fan knows where his loyalty has always lay.
|
|
|
|
|
T1m
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 135,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. So you're suggesting that these costs aren't passed on to other clubs when they rent stadiums that they don't own? 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!). Wouldn't the club use the stadium as an admin and training base hence reducing those expenses as well? Then there will be events that they will rent the stadium out for (inc functions). Its not just the 14 or so games they play there.
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. So you're suggesting that these costs aren't passed on to other clubs when they rent stadiums that they don't own? 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!). Wouldn't the club use the stadium as an admin and training base hence reducing those expenses as well? Then there will be events that they will rent the stadium out for (inc functions). Its not just the 14 or so games they play there. Absolutely. But what he is getting at is there will be a lease agreement between the club entity and the stadium entity. This is common practice. The owner of the company I work for also owns the premises the business operates out of. The company pays rent to the owner of the premises even though it's the same person. It's done this way for a number of reasons, however in the case of WU it will be basically a way to get more money (in the form of rent) to the owners than they would be able to get if there was only one entity. The WU club entity will be running at a loss and could be doing so for some time (10, 20 maybe even more years, who knows). They will be basically just shifting money around, but they wouldn't be able to do that if it was just one entity running at a loss.
|
|
|
|
|
Blew.2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
Why the limit on Foundation Membership? This is an exclusive chance for new members to secure their reserved seat at Australia’s first purpose-built football stadium due to be completed for the 2021/22 Hyundai A-League season. This limited release is limited to only 5,000 memberships. “We’re most excited about the future of this Club, which is why we’ve also opened up 5000 Foundation Member seats at our future home in Tarneit. This opportunity to be one of the first members with a reserved seat at our new stadium is a chance for our new fans to be part of history,” Bisetto said. How can I become a Wyndham Stadium Foundation Member and what is the cost?
To become a Wyndham Stadium Foundation Member a full season 1 (2019/2020) membership such as Premium Reserved, General Admission or Active Supporter must be purchased first. This is a nonrefundable payment of $95 per member that will be deductable from each individual membership package on the first season at Wyndham Stadium. Limited release of 5,000 seats available. A current club membership needs to be maintained from season to season to maintain your foundation seat. Can I purchase a Wyndham Stadium Foundation Membership anytime during season 2019/2020?Becoming a foundation member of Wyndham Stadium can be purchased any time up until the end of January 2020. You can only purchase this membership if as above you have a full season membership with the Club.Members may choose to purchase a full season membership when going on sale initially and then decide to purchase later to become a Wyndham Stadium Foundation Member for season 2021/2022. All you will need to do is log on to your Western United member account and click on Wyndham Stadium Foundation Member package. From here please select the number of package/s reflective of the number of full memberships that you have previously purchased for season 2019/2020. Then proceed to the checkout.
Clear Contact There
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities... Yeah, this seems too unbelievable to be true. If this was the case then no sports team on the planet would own their own stadium.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities... Yeah, this seems too unbelievable to be true. If this was the case then no sports team on the planet would own their own stadium. I take it you've never owned or run any business. Please see my comments and someguyjcs comments above, or alternatively, arrange a meeting with an accountant and ask to learn about profit and loss and taxation.
|
|
|
|
|
Ark-O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 494,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities... Yeah, this seems too unbelievable to be true. If this was the case then no sports team on the planet would own their own stadium. I take it you've never owned or run any business. Please see my comments and someguyjcs comments above, or alternatively, arrange a meeting with an accountant and ask to learn about profit and loss and taxation. Flog
|
|
|
|
|
Heart_fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8K,
Visits: 0
|
Seems that WU now have another pre-season match next Tuesday night against North Geelong Warriors.
With the game against Preston Lions this week, it’s been a fairly good increase in activity for the side after taking their time to getting to start pre-season matches compared to some other clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSeems that WU now have another pre-season match next Tuesday night against North Geelong Warriors. With the game against Preston Lions this week, it’s been a fairly good increase in activity for the side after taking their time to getting to start pre-season matches compared to some other clubs. Any idea when they first meet A League opponents?
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities... Yeah, this seems too unbelievable to be true. If this was the case then no sports team on the planet would own their own stadium. I take it you've never owned or run any business. Please see my comments and someguyjcs comments above, or alternatively, arrange a meeting with an accountant and ask to learn about profit and loss and taxation. I have some experience in commerce but let's put it this way. Holding Entity (Stadium Owner) charges Operating Entity (Club), $1m per month for rent. Operating Entity pays and reports it as an expense of $1m which will form part of the operating loss. Holding Entity receives and reports revenue of $1m which will form part of its taxable income. The point which I was trying to make is, you have not considered the Holding Entity income.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities... Yeah, this seems too unbelievable to be true. If this was the case then no sports team on the planet would own their own stadium. I take it you've never owned or run any business. Please see my comments and someguyjcs comments above, or alternatively, arrange a meeting with an accountant and ask to learn about profit and loss and taxation. I have some experience in commerce but let's put it this way. Holding Entity (Stadium Owner) charges Operating Entity (Club), $1m per month for rent. Operating Entity pays and reports it as an expense of $1m which will form part of the operating loss. Holding Entity receives and reports revenue of $1m which will form part of its taxable income. The point which I was trying to make is, you have not considered the Holding Entity income. Yes, but holding entity will have expenses in the form of all running costs and will be able to write down the value of the stadium asset through depreciation. They can afford to take a high rent and not generate a profit on the books which they would pay tax on. All the while, the value of the land the stadium sits in increases.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities... Yeah, this seems too unbelievable to be true. If this was the case then no sports team on the planet would own their own stadium. I take it you've never owned or run any business. Please see my comments and someguyjcs comments above, or alternatively, arrange a meeting with an accountant and ask to learn about profit and loss and taxation. I have some experience in commerce but let's put it this way. Holding Entity (Stadium Owner) charges Operating Entity (Club), $1m per month for rent. Operating Entity pays and reports it as an expense of $1m which will form part of the operating loss. Holding Entity receives and reports revenue of $1m which will form part of its taxable income. The point which I was trying to make is, you have not considered the Holding Entity income. Yes, but holding entity will have expenses in the form of all running costs and will be able to write down the value of the stadium asset through depreciation. They can afford to take a high rent and not generate a profit on the books which they would pay tax on. All the while, the value of the land the stadium sits in increases. That would be done for any entity owning the stadium though.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities... Yeah, this seems too unbelievable to be true. If this was the case then no sports team on the planet would own their own stadium. I take it you've never owned or run any business. Please see my comments and someguyjcs comments above, or alternatively, arrange a meeting with an accountant and ask to learn about profit and loss and taxation. LMAO So I take it you you must be smarter than the financial department of any club in world football that owns their own stadium? Why don't you ring up Florentino Perez and ask him for a gig? I'm sure he'll be impressed by your experience running the fish and chips shop.
|
|
|
|
|
Mozilla
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAttendance 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? 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. 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. 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. You do realise that the club owns the stadium, right? 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. Show me an example with numbers for both entities... Yeah, this seems too unbelievable to be true. If this was the case then no sports team on the planet would own their own stadium. I take it you've never owned or run any business. Please see my comments and someguyjcs comments above, or alternatively, arrange a meeting with an accountant and ask to learn about profit and loss and taxation. LMAO So I take it you you must be smarter than the financial department of any club in world football that owns their own stadium? Why don't you ring up Florentino Perez and ask him for a gig? I'm sure he'll be impressed by your experience running the fish and chips shop. The hallmark of the idiot is the tendency to take constructive advice as slights against their intelligence. MfC is right. You would be best advised to put further research into the topic if you are interested, because you clearly don't have a fucking clue.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Nice multi brah
I'm still waiting for any evidence that the claim is true btw
|
|
|
|
|
#Blessed
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 155,
Visits: 0
|
+xNice multi brah I'm still waiting for any evidence that the claim is true btw Nothing MfC has said on the subject is incorrect, take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Over 2,500 at their latest game. Must be doing something right.
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOver 2,500 at their latest game. Must be doing something right. Nothing increases attendances like free entry.
|
|
|
|
|
Mustang67
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 954,
Visits: 0
|
+xOver 2,500 at their latest game. Must be doing something right. Playing local clubs which is attracting the local fans. North Geelong on Tuesday night so we should see the same amount of fans turning out.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie pride
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOver 2,500 at their latest game. Must be doing something right. Nothing increases attendances like free entry. In fairness though to get anyone to go out mid week to watch a meaningless friendly in the cold they have to be half interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOver 2,500 at their latest game. Must be doing something right. Playing local clubs which is attracting the local fans. North Geelong on Tuesday night so we should see the same amount of fans turning out. lol ... riiii-ght happy to agree there’s local fans but that’s a lot of “local” fans for a meaningless friendly. What’s their typical average crowd for an NPL game , 2, 3, 4000?
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
just noticd our good friend Mr Football just commented on this subject  Mr Football@MrAusFootballReplying to @smfcmike @SMEMUFC and 3 othersI happened to be in the area last night so popped in for about 25mins during the 2nd half. There were around 350 people there. That’s it.I agree heads need to roll; starting with O’Rourke. It’s called taking the responsibility for your actions
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xjust noticd our good friend Mr Football just commented on this subject Mr Football@MrAusFootballReplying to @smfcmike @SMEMUFC and 3 othersI happened to be in the area last night so popped in for about 25mins during the 2nd half. There were around 350 people there. That’s it.I agree heads need to roll; starting with O’Rourke. It’s called taking the responsibility for your actions I didn’t know they’d let him out yet ....
|
|
|
|
|
Mustang67
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 954,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOver 2,500 at their latest game. Must be doing something right. Playing local clubs which is attracting the local fans. North Geelong on Tuesday night so we should see the same amount of fans turning out. lol ... riiii-ght happy to agree there’s local fans but that’s a lot of “local” fans for a meaningless friendly. What’s their typical average crowd for an NPL game , 2, 3, 4000? I meant the local fans of the club there playing.
|
|
|
|
|
Mustang67
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 954,
Visits: 0
|
+xjust noticd our good friend Mr Football just commented on this subject Mr Football@MrAusFootballReplying to @smfcmike @SMEMUFC and 3 othersI happened to be in the area last night so popped in for about 25mins during the 2nd half. There were around 350 people there. That’s it.I agree heads need to roll; starting with O’Rourke. It’s called taking the responsibility for your actions Mr.Football can't count there was 350 people in the line alone for the chavap.
|
|
|
|
|
nick1408
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 668,
Visits: 0
|
Am I right in thinking Western United still have two international spots to fill? Any rumours?
|
|
|
|