Football Club response to Sea Eagles request for less than 10 games at Brookie

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
I am for the survival and believe that the numbers to move a game are false on the bottom line hence there is no advantage to move it.

and if there is no advantage then why move?

Very roughly a 20% reduction in games = a 20% reduction in revenue from membership, that alone is circa 400K.

Given the biggest windfall was the Perth game at 400K the maximum we could gain is a few hundred thousand - no way will that make or break a $15M+ turnover club.
 
Ok someone explain to me how a full slate of games at Brookie is financially viable?

People need to realise the Penn's own the club and can pretty do as they please. This is an unavoidable truth. So bury your heads in the sand and bitch and moan or move past the sooking about the sad state of affairs and come up with something that you think works.

A lot people here are stuck at anger and denial as far as the 5 stages of grief go. Get over yourselves and accept what is and let's try to work out how to make this club we all want and love.
I hear what you are saying, but the Penns became sole owners knowing full well the current state of affairs with respect to the Football Club, the preference share, and the state of Brookvale Oval. No point THEM bitching and moaning and sooking when they cop backlash about trying to take games away from Brookie. And where is their clear and well communicated plan for the future ? If they have one let's here it and debate the relative merits of it.

All I've seen is propaganda in the DT about the financial impracticality of Brookie as a venue and a written request to the FC to reduce the minimum number of games at Brookvale AND change the constitutional status of the preference share in this respect. How many games ? where to ? for how long ? Do you know the answers to these questions Loobs ?? I don't.

All the FC club did was respond to the request in a manner that I, as a member, am fully in agreeance with and frankly I'd be disappointed if that wasn't the response. How stupid are they if they think that they are just going to give an open ended agreement to play games wherever they like and for however long they like. If they are trying to bluff the council here than don't use the FC as your pawn. You keep saying that others should come up with a plan or a solution, but where is the MWSE plan ?? If they have one let's see it and talk about it, if it is viable everyone will work with them to achieve what we all want - a successful team playing at Brookvale Oval.

I don't think most people are necessarily anti-Penn, I'm not. I'm happy they are stumping up their cash and keeping my team alive, and I understand that gives them certain rights. But how about a bit of communication and engagement with the supporter base and the membership. Let us know what you are trying to achieve and we'll get on board if it is a workable solution.
 
I hear what you are saying, but the Penns became sole owners knowing full well the current state of affairs with respect to the Football Club, the preference share, and the state of Brookvale Oval. No point THEM bitching and moaning and sooking when they cop backlash about trying to take games away from Brookie. And where is their clear and well communicated plan for the future ? If they have one let's here it and debate the relative merits of it.

All I've seen is propaganda in the DT about the financial impracticality of Brookie as a venue and a written request to the FC to reduce the minimum number of games at Brookvale AND change the constitutional status of the preference share in this respect. How many games ? where to ? for how long ? Do you know the answers to these questions Loobs ?? I don't.

All the FC club did was respond to the request in a manner that I, as a member, am fully in agreeance with and frankly I'd be disappointed if that wasn't the response. How stupid are they if they think that they are just going to give an open ended agreement to play games wherever they like and for however long they like. If they are trying to bluff the council here than don't use the FC as your pawn. You keep saying that others should come up with a plan or a solution, but where is the MWSE plan ?? If they have one let's see it and talk about it, if it is viable everyone will work with them to achieve what we all want - a successful team playing at Brookvale Oval.

I don't think most people are necessarily anti-Penn, I'm not. I'm happy they are stumping up their cash and keeping my team alive, and I understand that gives them certain rights. But how about a bit of communication and engagement with the supporter base and the membership. Let us know what you are trying to achieve and we'll get on board if it is a workable solution.
I'd like the exact same thing. Definitely not in favour of no limit. I've said all along 8 Brookie games until it's sorted out.

I also think the stuff in the papers is maneuvering aimed at weakening the Councils position though. If you have media in your pocket why not use them to aide your position in this.

I'm not for a massive redevelopment of Brookie either because Brookvale the suburb is not some diamond in the rough. It's the rough. I lived there. It is what it is. Sticking a high rise in there would make it even worse. My personal opinion is if a full redo is in order, wait till the councils amalgamate and do it at Narrabeen where there is space for a big ground and need for parking (for a bigger park and ride), plus better traffic flow. But that's my 2 cents.

And mate, I know nothing of what they want or will do. I am not a Penn or affiliate or anything. Don't give two ****s about Scott or his daddies money or what they do with it. Just want the club to thrive.
 
^ Brookie is perfectly placed ,its easy to get too from all over the northern beaches.
 
1 & 2 have been covered a lot with the how games at different venues are funded.

3. The Council own the ground so unless you take games away, what leverage do you have with them to cut their fee? Unless you are actually willing to move them it's just an empty threat that they can see through.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like all 12 games at Brookie if the model for doing so worked but it doesn't and with more live games on TV will continue to get worse. We want the owners of the club to operate something that isn't a massive drain on finances so that this part of the club becomes a non factor and they can focus on football. But with us the finances are always hanging over our heads.

I have to be honest I don't quite understand how the funding of the games works at this stage so I won't comment on that.

The second point though that the only way of reducing the fee from the council is to move games is utterly ridiculous. There is no foundation to the assumption that the fee from the council will reduce should we move games. That is simply cutting your nose off to spite your face.
 
  • 🤝
Reactions: Rex
I have to be honest I don't quite understand how the funding of the games works at this stage so I won't comment on that.

The second point though that the only way of reducing the fee from the council is to move games is utterly ridiculous. There is no foundation to the assumption that the fee from the council will reduce should we move games. That is simply cutting your nose off to spite your face.
The argument there is that it’s more a negotiation tactic to avoid this scenario:


Council: This is the fee. Pay it because you have to play at Brookvale so you have no other option.


Club: Ummm, we can take games away.


Council: Yeah sure you will.


*awkward silence*


Club: OK, bluff called. Here is all the money based on you holding us to ransom.
 
The fee is an annual fee, doesn't matter if 8/10/12 games are played.

Considering they must get a reduction in ticketed membership income ( unless they reckon people will pay the same as they do now and get two less) I fail to see how moving more games away increases the income UNLESS it's for an unusual big pay day.

Sometimes there can be a big windfall , the double headers in Brisbane when we became the home team V the Bronco's are a perfect example , Dave Perry told me that was worth $450k to them, even after factoring in the static costs for BO.

I'm not anti the Penn's, I think they are handling us as members very poorly, and have made some crap decisions BUT they own the joint so should be entitled to run things to make a profit or at least not make a loss.

However talking to us about their plans , reasons to want to move might be a good start.

The FC are at least good for their word and acting in our best interests PLUS keeping us informed !!
 
I don't think we want to compare ourselves to the basket case clubs. Set the bar a bit higher.
Well the nrl do have a rather large cash flow locked in and are the ones who issue the licenses and make the rules.
 
The argument there is that it’s more a negotiation tactic to avoid this scenario:


Council: This is the fee. Pay it because you have to play at Brookvale so you have no other option.


Club: Ummm, we can take games away.


Council: Yeah sure you will.


*awkward silence*


Club: OK, bluff called. Here is all the money based on you holding us to ransom.

The point I am making is that this is narrow minded. There are other sides of this that need to be considered, for example:

The council: They have a piece of land which is prime real estate and is worth huge money to them if sold to a developer. By taking more and more games away from Brookie, they could see it as a tactic to drive us out and thereby not reduce the fee, or pro rata it and therefore keep us paying similar amounts; next

The NRL: If they had their way would move us to Homebush or Allianz quick smart, therefore you are providing ammunition to them to force through a move

In short to argue that if we move away games it strengthens our hand within a negotiation is illogical. Simply look up the definition of false dichotomy.
 
The point I am making is that this is narrow minded. There are other sides of this that need to be considered, for example:

The council: They have a piece of land which is prime real estate and is worth huge money to them if sold to a developer. By taking more and more games away from Brookie, they could see it as a tactic to drive us out and thereby not reduce the fee, or pro rata it and therefore keep us paying similar amounts; next

The NRL: If they had their way would move us to Homebush or Allianz quick smart, therefore you are providing ammunition to them to force through a move

In short to argue that if we move away games it strengthens our hand within a negotiation is illogical. Simply look up the definition of false dichotomy.
The land is NOT owned by the Council.
It is held in a Perpetual Trust for the benefit of the People of Manly Warringah.:!!:

That is why the Council hates it, as they have to maintain it, whether Manly use it or not :cool:

The multiplex facility that the Penns want to replace the Southern Stand with contravenes the free access stipulation of the bequest - so Council can not approve it. Decades of legal wrangling is required to re interpret the Deed's aspect, so don't hold your breath.

Moving more games away is for the benefit of the Penns.
I don't get how they don't first take the 2 home games they have now, to somewhere profitable like Perth, Dunedin and not bloody Albury @:rolleyes:
 
Do we know what the fee per game was last year? The previous year?

yes, take the yearly fee and divide it by how many games we play.

The fee per first grare game is about 40K (400K per year/10 games) However Manly playes a lot more game on it and iirc the finals for the juniors are also played there under the MWSE banner. In reality there are probably close to 50 games per year for the 400K (U20's, NSW cup + juniors).
So all this talk about cost is over less that 400K per year (Does anyone henestly think we should not pay?)

The cost to maintain the oval is about 600K per year by the council. (not sure on how accurate that figure is)
 
yes, take the yearly fee and divide it by how many games we play.

The fee per first grare game is about 40K (400K per year/10 games) However Manly playes a lot more game on it and iirc the finals for the juniors are also played there under the MWSE banner. In reality there are probably close to 50 games per year for the 400K (U20's, NSW cup + juniors).
So all this talk about cost is over less that 400K per year (Does anyone henestly think we should not pay?)

The cost to maintain the oval is about 600K per year by the council. (not sure on how accurate that figure is)
Thanks for that.
Now, maybe I am mathematically challenged, so, please cut me some slack...
Where does the $130K per game come in?
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom