Clearly yes.

Fine - and I did it the same way and asked the obvious question: would people have trouble pronouncing Westham.

He wrote it that way because they spelled the street that way.

It was actually written as one word by a regular correspondent on the previous page.

I'm guessing that since you don't know it's two separate words you're probably one such person.

Witty response.

Sure mate.

The onus is on me?

The AFL takes over full ownership in 2025.

Make of that what you will.

One of the early owners was a TV station.

Hands up here anyone who thinks the government would hand over a $500M dollar facility to a TV station for nothing?

We've got some live ones on here tonight.

Page 18 of the AFL's 1997 annual report states that" During march the AFL announced it had reached an agreement with the Melbourne Docklands Authority to ultimately acquire the unencumbered freehold title of Dockland Stadium."

https://secure.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/86509/AFL_Annual_Report_1997.pdf

I didn't make the claim, I don't have to prove anything, that onus is on you mate.

i also have a hunch. its that you dont know shit. provide evidence or gtfo.

Trolling the troll - did the new dawners lose patience with the previously agreed cold shoulder treatment?

I am honoured by your reverence, even if demonstrated unwittingly.

Let's call it a hunch.

I'm 100% sure you will find zero evidence of any Government contribution.

But can you support your claim that not "one cent" of government money has been spent?

I have followed the development of Docklands from when it was first announced in the mid-90s, and it's widely known that Waverley (built and fully owned by the VFL/AFL was sold to fund the development of Etihad, which is 100% privately owned, and the deal was such that with the deposit from the AFL of some $30 million, plus a long term agreement to play 40+ AFL games per season, that ownership would revert to the AFL in 2025 (no one is disputing the last bit).

Now seriously, who here believes the Government would fund Etihad and then hand it over in full to private owners who would then hand it over in full to the AFL?

I mean seriously, who honestly believes such a thing is possible?

Even with the MCG, which is funded 90% by the AFL, they have don't have ownership.

Anyway, refer to this site (amongst others):
http://footybusiness.wordpress.com/stadiums/current-afl-stadiums/docklands-etihad/

Worth noting:





From the word go, the stadium has been developed and owned by private interests, and the AFL has been at the centre of the deal with the seed funding, the long term deal to play games and the right to take over the stadium in 2025.

Folks, you don't broker a deal to take over a major facility 100% without somehow being front and centre of it. I'm talking full ownership, not long term lease, land and buildings, full ownership.

All the AFL fans who have been trolled, I imagine.

You keep claiming this yet haven't posted any proof?

(not hating just curious).

You're wrong - full stop - there was not a cent of government money.

Well, that looks like a website full of journalistic integrity :lol:

The below link is an article which clearly states Etihad was built with Government money and the intention was that ownership would return back to the Govenment after 25 years. The AFL was offered the opportunity to purchase the ownership rights in 2025 for a paltry $30 million which they duly accepted.

Where is the AFL investment in Etihad.....there wasn't any!

http://www.angelfire.com/oh3/archives/2001season/report.html

I wonder if anyone has trouble pronouncing Westham.

Old Trafford Way. Tottenham Grove. Elland Place. Westham Crescent. :lol:

They sold Waverley off to a developer and invested in the Docklands project - the return on their investment being ownership of what will be at that time an outdated venue with high maintenance costs.

As a curious aside - if anyone wants a bit of a giggle - the developer who purchased the Waverley site handed over the planning to a chap who is a football fan rather than an Aussie rules fan - as a result the new streets in the area have a distinctly non-AFL flavour to them. Google maps it - you'll have a laugh.

National game? You mean Cricket?

PS: Still no proof the AFL invested anything into Docklands. ;)

This thread is just full of cringe.

Yes.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

The AFL have invested small amounts in a few projects but gained significantly more in the process.

In our case, we dont have the money to outlay and even if we did, the influence that we have would never get us as much as they have.

Was great to see the Vic Premier Dennis Napthine at the MV match on Friday though. Hopefully that can geberate some benefits :)

I've just found millions in Government funding in the last seven years for the MCG

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2034-vic-coalition-govt-and-mcc-fund-major-upgrade-of-mcgs-great-southern-stand.html

http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=222

Edited by Joffa: 8/4/2013 05:45:59 PM

Those of us who have followed footy for a long time, know the history of Waverley, the MCG and Docklands.

My experience in these sorts of discussions is that people from the Northern states, particularly those who might dislike the national game, have trouble getting their heads round the fact that the VFL and then the AFL, built their own world class stadiums with zero funding from Government, and even with the MCG, the AFL funds 90% of it.