The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[The Great Dane]

My mistake then. Thanks for the info

In that case, it represents chronic underspend on maintenance and upkeep by the Federal authorities. That is one of the things rental income is supposed to be used for.

That's just the thing, there hasn't been underspending on maintenance and upkeep, as I said before the ACT government has sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into Bruce since 1990.

It's just at the end of it's useful life and nobody wants to accept responsibility for it. Can't really blame the ACT government either, why should they be expected spend the better part of a billion dollars to rebuild a stadium they don't own?

 

[Perth Red]

That's just the thing, there hasn't been underspending on maintenance and upkeep, as I said before the ACT government has sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into Bruce since 1990.

It's just at the end of it's useful life and nobody wants to accept responsibility for it. Can't really blame the ACT government either, why should they be expected spend the better part of a billion dollars to rebuild a stadium they don't own?

And thats fair enough for the Bruce site, but there isnt anything stopping them building a replacement stadium they do own on land they have. presuming they can afford to finance it?

With stadium costs these days even a basic thing is well over $300mill. Thats probably a big chunk to find for a small'ish Govt.

 

[Wb1234]

The Raiders/NRL would be sitting on a fortune now had they bought land in a good spot in Canberra and built a respectable boutique stadium on it in 2014. Land and property values have gone insane over the last ten years.

A stadium in Canberra would have at least 3 full time tenants, possibly more depending on the size and design of the stadium, and that kind of infrastructure would attract large international events that are currently skipping Canberra to go Newcastle, the Gold Coast, Townsville, etc, because of the state of the facilities.

It's funny how these arguments only ever apply to Canberra as well, and never white elephants like Townsville or Penrith that really are single tenant venues.

Not like the Raiders don’t already have property assets over 125 million anyway including multiple licensed premises

Avg budget is a billion in deficit so not like they are flush

ACT budget deficit now almost a billion dollars due to greater demand for healthcare - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

But tassie govt has a similar deficit and they found hundreds of millions for the two stadia they are upgrading

 

[The Great Dane]

The only viable relocation places are central coast Adelaide chch or Wellington

That's not how this kind of business works.

You'd sound out all the state governments and larger cities to see if they were interested, and consider any offers and opportunities. Some would be more likely than others, but you wouldn't rule any out until they'd been explored.

For example the first thing I'd do if I was the Raiders is go to WA and undercut PVL's offer for an expansion side. He and the NRL have shown no loyalty and offered no help to the Raiders, so why not reciprocate?

Brisbane/SEQ, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, even Tasmania hypothetically, along with many others, would all be on the table.

Given how much property assets raiders own in Canberra it’s an empty threat

Relocating the NRL club would have zero impact on the Raiders other assets, many of which aren't in Canberra in the first place.

I wonder if they crossed the border and went back to seiffort oval whether the nsw govt would be more amenable to stadium funding but is there even a town centre there that could benefit from tourism

There's zero chance of the NSW government spending the better part of a billion dollars on a stadium in Queanbeyan.

Moving their home games to Queanbeyan would be a death sentence for the club anyway.

Can’t blame Furner for trying something

You definitely can.

A. Them selling a home game to Queensland has nothing to do with the stadium deal, assuming that's what this announcement actually is.

They're just finding a new buyer for their 12th home game now that the deal with Wagga has run out, and the NRL doesn't need them to host games at Magic Round (which they never should have agreed to in the first place) or Vegas. Any connection made to Bruce isn't a negotiating tactic, it's just an excuse for their greed.

B. It's way too little, way too late. As I said earlier, the club is only in this position because of Furner and the board's weakness, inaction, and, frankly, entitlement.

All of this could have been avoided if they were more proactive.

I suspect if they have a breakout year and make the too four and get Bruce stadium full a lot that would also help their cause

Wouldn't make a ounce of difference.

The ACT government can't afford the costs of constructing the light rail and to build a new stadium at the same time. They won't pause construction of the light rail, so the stadium will have to wait until there's gap in it's the construction.

Only way to change that is to make the stadium a bigger political issue than the tram, or for the Feds to get involved.

Doesn’t help the brumbies average around 6k and the womens a league team would be hundreds

Brumbies attendances are up significantly so far this year.

They've only had two home games, but they were against the Force and Dura who aren't traditionally big draws, and both were somewhere around 10-15k. They're expecting big crowds against the Tahs and Reds later in the season, and the Crusaders should draw a healthy crowd as well.

United have never played at Bruce and never will, so that's a non-issue.

 

[Wb1234]

That's not how this kind of business works.

You'd sound out all the state governments and larger cities to see if they were interested, and consider any offers and opportunities. Some would be more likely than others, but you wouldn't rule any out until they'd been explored.

For example the first thing I'd do if I was the Raiders is go to WA and undercut PVL's offer for an expansion side. He and the NRL have shown no loyalty and offered no help to the Raiders, so why not reciprocate?

Brisbane/SEQ, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, even Tasmania hypothetically, along with many others, would all be on the table.

Relocating the NRL club would have zero impact on the Raiders other assets, many of which aren't in Canberra in the first place.

There's zero chance of the NSW government spending the better part of a billion dollars on a stadium in Queanbeyan.

Moving their home games to Queanbeyan would be a death sentence for the club anyway.

You definitely can.

A. Them selling a home game to Queensland has nothing to do with the stadium deal, assuming that's what this announcement actually is.

They're just finding a new buyer for their 12th home game now that the deal with Wagga has run out, and the NRL doesn't need them to host games at Magic Round (which they never should have agreed to in the first place) or Vegas. Any connection made to Bruce isn't a negotiating tactic, it's just an excuse for their greed.

B. It's way too little, way too late. As I said earlier, the club is only in this position because of Furner and the board's weakness, inaction, and, frankly, entitlement.

All of this could have been avoided if they were more proactive.

Wouldn't make a ounce of difference.

The ACT government can't afford the costs of constructing the light rail and to build a new stadium at the same time. They won't pause construction of the light rail, so the stadium will have to wait until there's gap in it's the construction.

Only way to change that is to make the stadium a bigger political issue than the tram, or for the Feds to get involved.

Brumbies attendances are up significantly so far this year.

They've only had two home games, but they were against the Force and Dura who aren't traditionally big draws, and both were somewhere around 10-15k. They're expecting big crowds against the Tahs and Reds later in the season, and the Crusaders should draw a healthy crowd as well.

United have never played at Bruce and never will, so that's a non-issue.

8k and tba

And sure raiders getting 20k each week does put pressure on the chief fumbler

That’s how politics works

Loads of govts have said no to funding stadia until they give in eg 40 millon for leichardt oval or 800 million for Tasmania

Reality was brumbies were averaging around 5k and the raiders 15k so the he govt can argue a new 25k stadium wasn’t really needed

Just like Brookie selling out so many times will end up forcing an upgrade through

 

[The Great Dane]

And thats fair enough for the Bruce site, but there isnt anything stopping them building a replacement stadium they do own on land they have. presuming they can afford to finance it?

With stadium costs these days even a basic thing is well over $300mill. Thats probably a big chunk to find for a small'ish Govt.

For the millionth time; they can't afford it and the light rail, and they won't cease construction of the light rail willingly.

Unless there's massive political, which I can't see happening, the best you'll get out of the ACT government before roughly 2045 (likely post 2050 tbh) is a glorified upgrade of Bruce or Manuka being converted into a "multipurpose". But again, they're resistant to continuing to invest that kind of money into an asset they don't own, and investment into Manuka is largely outside the Raiders and NRL's control at this point.

If you want to change those circumstances you either have to force their hand or get the Federal government involved. I can't see the later happening unless the NRL starts taking the issue seriously, which is never going to happen. The prior is doable, but very risky, basically a 50/50 chance of the club being forced to relocate or making themselves a complete laughingstock.

 

[The Great Dane]

8k and tba

The Brumbies don't report their attendances, haven't for about a decade at this point, and Austadiums isn't reliable. In other words those numbers are little more than guesstimates made by somebody with no association with the club and who wasn't even at the game.

Firstly, 8k is would still be a significant increase on last year. Secondly people in the know say their attendances were larger, and you'd be wise to listen to them if you're looking for the most accurate information.

And sure raiders getting 20k each week does put pressure on the chief fumbler

That’s how politics works

Loads of govts have said no to funding stadia until they give in eg 40 millon for leichardt oval or 800 million for Tasmania

Reality was brumbies were averaging around 5k and the raiders 15k so the he govt can argue a new 25k stadium wasn’t really needed

Just like Brookie selling out so many times will end up forcing an upgrade through

That's not how democracy works.

People do all sorts of mental gymnastics to pretend this isn't the case, but democracy is transactional. People trade power to representatives in the hopes of getting things they want in return. In some cases that might be a change in legislation, in other case that might be investment infrastructure or projects, more often than not it's something much more esoteric, but democracy is always a case of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

I'll spare you the boring reasons why, but the reality of ACT politics is that the coalition that supports the tram is significantly larger than the one that supports a new rectangular stadium, and ACT voters have the least powerful votes in federal politics.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The Raiders/NRL would be sitting on a fortune now had they bought land in a good spot in Canberra and built a respectable boutique stadium on it in 2014. Land and property values have gone insane over the last ten years.

A stadium in Canberra would have at least 3 full time tenants, possibly more depending on the size and design of the stadium, and that kind of infrastructure would attract large international events that are currently skipping Canberra to go Newcastle, the Gold Coast, Townsville, etc, because of the state of the facilities.

It's funny how these arguments only ever apply to Canberra as well, and never white elephants like Townsville or Penrith that really are single tenant venues.

The difference is, Townsville and Penrith have been funded by their respective State Governments. Those clubs do not own the grounds.

 

[i0Nic]

A 25k 500m rectangular stadium that's more centrally located is what's needed in Canberra.

 

[beave]

The difference is, Townsville and Penrith have been funded by their respective State Governments. Those clubs do not own the grounds.

QCB also had federal money go towards it and some of the surrounding infrastructure......

Cowboys did put in $10mil to help build it but this was also the first 10 years of rent paid up front. Maybe the Raiders need to look at something like that, in the current ridiculous world we live in they'd probably have to pay $30mil to have the same effect.

 

[Steel Saints]

The Raiders/NRL would be sitting on a fortune now had they bought land in a good spot in Canberra and built a respectable boutique stadium on it in 2014. Land and property values have gone insane over the last ten years.

A stadium in Canberra would have at least 3 full time tenants, possibly more depending on the size and design of the stadium, and that kind of infrastructure would attract large international events that are currently skipping Canberra to go Newcastle, the Gold Coast, Townsville, etc, because of the state of the facilities.

It's funny how these arguments only ever apply to Canberra as well, and never white elephants like Townsville or Penrith that really are single tenant venues.

Yep, and it would be a busy stadium too. If there is going to be a new stadium in Canberra, then the NRL, Rugby Australia and Football Australia all have to work together and lobby for government funding. The more noise the three rectangular codes create, the better.

Sure, the NRL is more high profile and wealthier of the three codes, but they can't do it alone, because they only have one voice.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Did the seer The Great Dope buy land in Canberra in 2014?

I'm assuming you're rolling in it because you did, being so insightful and all.

 

[yakstorm]

QCB also had federal money go towards it and some of the surrounding infrastructure......

Cowboys did put in $10mil to help build it but this was also the first 10 years of rent paid up front. Maybe the Raiders need to look at something like that, in the current ridiculous world we live in they'd probably have to pay $30mil to have the same effect.

It would actually be something the club could afford. The CDRFLC has $52m in cash revenues, over $140m in assets and made a healthy $17m in profit last year. They're definitely better placed than most to make a decent contribution.

That said, unless the NRL, FFA, RA and Federal Government are all prepared to throw some cash in the pot as well, I don't see anything happening in the next few years at least.

 

[Wb1234]

It would actually be something the club could afford. The CDRFLC has $52m in cash revenues, over $140m in assets and made a healthy $17m in profit last year. They're definitely better placed than most to make a decent contribution.

That said, unless the NRL, FFA, RA and Federal Government are all prepared to throw some cash in the pot as well, I don't see anything happening in the next few years at least.

Based on those figures they could borrow the money and build their own stadium but probably wouldn’t want to risk everything they have on that but it could be a money spinner with two other tenants plus concerts and internationals across various codes

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Where does the money come from to maintain it?

 

[Trifili13]

Apart from Shark Park, which is sub-standard, I can't think of another NRL, AFL or A League club that own their own ground. Lower level clubs own their grounds in some instances but they are not the standard required for professional sport and are basically enclosed parks with a grandstand and lack the facilities. If it was so lucrative ot cost effective for NRL, AFL and A League clubs to fund the build and then pay to maintain their own grounds you would assume more would have done it by now.

 

[yakstorm]

Based on those figures they could borrow the money and build their own stadium but probably wouldn’t want to risk everything they have on that but it could be a money spinner with two other tenants plus concerts and internationals across various codes

How much would it cost to build? If CommBank was $360m back in 2017, they're possibly looking at $500m just for build. If the Raiders do it solo, they'd also need to purchase land, though let's just assume the $500m includes everything (maybe they make a smaller stadium so they can purchase the land all under that total)

Their cash reserves would cover a 10% deposit, so they'd have to borrow roughly $450m. They'd be charged at least an investor home loan rate of 7.59% (most likely more for the type of investment) and would most likely need to pay it off in 20 years considering the average life of a stadium before it needs significant investment.

So that's works out to be $44.4 per annum. Even if they did have 30 years to pay, annual cost would be around $38.4m, which is greater than their current profit margin.

Sure they could potentially sell some of their assets, though majority of those assets are revenue generating , so by selling them, it impacts their ability to pay back the debt. Yes the stadium offers a new revenue stream, but it pretty much needs to make roughly $9-15m in profit to allow the organisation to break even annually (making the assumption that the other assets continue to make roughly $30m net profit annually)

I can't find anything more recent, but between 2000 - 2010, the biggest profit the ACT Stadium Authority made in a year was $700,000 (venue made roughly $5m - $7m annually in revenue, though had pretty large costs). I imagine revenues have grown significantly, and arguably costs can be reduced in a more modern stadium, but I'm not sure where a 15x - 20x multiplier from previous results are coming from.

Now I've made a lot of assumptions, simplifications and so on, but at a surface level it doesn't add up. The debt, if it didn't cripple the club, it would greatly inhibit their ability to operate freely.

 

[Wb1234]

How much would it cost to build? If CommBank was $360m back in 2017, they're possibly looking at $500m just for build. If the Raiders do it solo, they'd also need to purchase land, though let's just assume the $500m includes everything (maybe they make a smaller stadium so they can purchase the land all under that total)

Their cash reserves would cover a 10% deposit, so they'd have to borrow roughly $450m. They'd be charged at least an investor home loan rate of 7.59% (most likely more for the type of investment) and would most likely need to pay it off in 20 years considering the average life of a stadium before it needs significant investment.

So that's works out to be $44.4 per annum. Even if they did have 30 years to pay, annual cost would be around $38.4m, which is greater than their current profit margin.

Sure they could potentially sell some of their assets, though majority of those assets are revenue generating , so by selling them, it impacts their ability to pay back the debt. Yes the stadium offers a new revenue stream, but it pretty much needs to make roughly $9-15m in profit to allow the organisation to break even annually (making the assumption that the other assets continue to make roughly $30m net profit annually)

I can't find anything more recent, but between 2000 - 2010, the biggest profit the ACT Stadium Authority made in a year was $700,000 (venue made roughly $5m - $7m annually in revenue, though had pretty large costs). I imagine revenues have grown significantly, and arguably costs can be reduced in a more modern stadium, but I'm not sure where a 15x - 20x multiplier from previous results are coming from.

Now I've made a lot of assumptions, simplifications and so on, but at a surface level it doesn't add up. The debt, if it didn't cripple the club, it would greatly inhibit their ability to operate freely.

I was thinking six percent or less on 400 million

Or maybe do it in stages over time

It’ll never happen but they have the capability especially in a years time when rates are down 1 percent or more

The arl could also look at investing in something like this if the returns stack up