Football Park's phantom bucket seats...

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:14 pm

They look great.

As for an NSL final, I think the pitch is too big. Then again, if the demand is there...

Hiraldo · Post by **Hiraldo** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:17 pm

yob wrote:Does the NSL still have the absolute disgrace of a finals system that they did last season?

No, thankfully. Back to the old (and best) system now.

So how much does this place hold now with bucket seats?

yob · Post by **yob** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:26 pm

Waz · Post by **Waz** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:20 am

Yob, were those rumours of yours about corporate facilities above the AFC side just rumours, or is that going to take place?

Can't wait to see footy park evolve even more

yob · Post by **yob** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:13 am

Waz · Post by **Waz** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:53 am

yob wrote:What I really want is a nice and stylish dark blue glass roof built around the uncovered parts of the stadium - the number one complaint about Football Park is that if it rains, you're plain old f***ed.

That would be good.... but cost would be enormous... It'd be hard to do because of the horizontal distance from the concourse level all the way to the ground... If the place had a greater angle on the terrace level (ie better sight lines too), it'd be easier to do, as the roof wouldn't have to be as big. As it's been built the way it has, I'd say it'd be too hard

perthsmike · Post by **perthsmike** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:15 pm

AFC only made over $2million profit. That wouldn;t pay for much would it? Eagles made just under $3million but we only get to keep about $500,000 thanks to our stupid unfair pathetic royalty system that punishes us

mike

Waz · Post by **Waz** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:09 am

perthsmike wrote:AFC only made over $2million profit. That wouldn;t pay for much would it? Eagles made just under $3million but we only get to keep about $500,000 thanks to our stupid unfair pathetic royalty system that punishes us

We have a system similar to that, but I believe we lose a lot lot less... was that royalty system something to do with the WAFC's 1986 spur of the moment decision to go with the VFL?

perthsmike · Post by **perthsmike** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:38 pm

yeh the SA teams also have to pay royalities but in comparison eagles have to pay 80% of profits, adelaide 20%.

I think the eagles have to pay so much more to A. support the WAFL B. continue payments on the stadium C. everything else. When it comes down to it, West Coast is carrying WA footy on its back which personally annoys the sh*t outta me. freo are a burden to football in this state.

mike

yob · Post by **yob** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:40 am

perthsmike · Post by **perthsmike** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:53 pm

ohok my mistake. but i think that highlights my point even so, compare $475,000 to $2,100,000 and you get the picture

mike

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:07 pm

Perthsmike I remember you saying "I dont hate the dockers".

The royalty system, is something that the eagles dont have to shelve all there profits to as, they are owned by the company that they give the funds too. Of course all the funds are delivered to reduce debt, of the WA Footy Commission, but they own the eagles.

What I find ridiculous is that the Eagles and Dockers have to pay rent on the ground which is owned by the"parent company" which was taken away from there profit figure. I think the total payed to the footy commission was 4 million dollars from the Eagles. The Dockers have been deferring payments due to debt, but they will probably start paying royalty this season, and there membership is increasing and theyve signed a million dollar contract with BankWest.

In regards to the quote from Jeffles that the field at Football Park is too big. There have been three grand finals and about 3 other finals at the venue which I have watched NSL soccer at Subiaco, as long as your not situated directly behind the goals the viewing is ok. I would think for a shorter ground length wise Football Park it would be even closer to the action. The Second Tier is better sitting then 1st tier and I would think maybe in the current system that 35,000 would go to an NSL Final in Adelaide, especially now they have bucket seating.

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:18 am

Paying rent to the parent company would is a common business charge. Government enterprises still pay tax. It is all part of ensuring fair practice and getting your worth. I'm sure the WAFC put the money to good use (junior development, debt servicing, etc).

perthsmike · Post by **perthsmike** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:51 pm

egan, i dont hate the dockers to the point where im planning to kill them but i do dislike them a hell of a lot. I understand that the WAFC own the eagles but dont they see that by draining the club of most of its own profits that it will eventually lose its position as one of the most financially stable clubs? i would love to see west coast ditch the WAFC and become an indepentant club like collingwood and essendon.

mike

yob · Post by **yob** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 3:51 pm