I could be wrong but I would've thought 'match-day revenue' would be defined as ticket sales on the day plus whatever the club's cut of merch and F&B is.
The ANZ up-front money would be stadium deal revenue paid annually at a best guess, and wouldn't form part of match day revenue?
Did a bit of googling, came up with this (2-parter)
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...t-home-20140425-zqzf1.html?rand=1398520570682
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...pays-off-for-sydney-clubs-20140426-zr05p.html
Some interest points
Souths had an awful deal in 2005 when they left the SFS making basically no money on game day.
They moved to ANZ for 100k per game, a necessary move at the time.
Their crowds have grown by ~5000 average since then on the back of on-field success.
Their new deal has no guaranteed upfront payment but they keep 100% of mach day profits.
(Parra and St George deals both have a flat guarantee + incentives)
58% of Souths members at time of writing lived in the very large area combing the inner west and greater western sydney (which imo is a misleading stat. Inner west is between ANZ and SFS giving no advantage either way. And doesn't take into account the highest concentration of fans is undoubtedly in South-East Sydney).
Roosters at the SFS keep 100% of ticket sales but lose out on merch and some signage opportunties which are taken by the SCG trust.
If I were Souths going forward I would use ANZ as leverage to force a better deal from the SFS.
I would argue that they are almost certain to draw a better crowd at the SFS than ANZ. And playing out of their home territory to me is a strong brand positive.
Question is what crowd increase is required to offset the less lucrative merchandise and signage?
It's hard to see this happening - reading the numbers it's certainly the less risky option to stay at ANZ. I think the SFS offers potentially better reward if things fall the right way though.