Adelaide Footy League Division 2 - 2017

[jo172]

I know there were a lot of clubs around that were (or are) on what they call peppercorn leases, which is where you pay a minuscule fee for renting the oval if you have a really long term lease.

I remember PNU used to be on one until they upgraded the lights, not sure if they still are. Jo will know

Our lease got extended for 10 years in April last year. $1 fee per annum to lease the ground and facilities

What LGA is Hope Valley in? Campbelltown?

[Pag]

I know there were a lot of clubs around that were (or are) on what they call peppercorn leases, which is where you pay a minuscule fee for renting the oval if you have a really long term lease.

I remember PNU used to be on one until they upgraded the lights, not sure if they still are. Jo will know

Our lease got extended for 10 years in April last year. $1 fee per annum to lease the ground and facilities

What LGA is Hope Valley in? Campbelltown?

Tea Tree Gully I believe.

Those numbers from the eastern suburbs councils seem unbelievably money-grabbing.

[morell]

Does anyone else's council (apart from other clubs in the Campbelltown council area) get charged ridiculous rates like this for oval hire?

We are on what the Council assures us is 25% of what the Council spends to maintain the ground.

Given what this 25% ends up being I fail to understand why Payneham Oval doesn't have a full retractable roof, car parking under the centre square and a large replay screen.

Seriously, given the Council would be obliged to mow the lawn/top dress whether someone is playing football there or not, and we could paint lines etc. ourselves it's a constant bug-bear.

Without disclosing anything to confidential, this 25% equates to essentially a football season's worth of bar profit.

This gobsmacks me.
Don't citizens pay rates in order for the council to maintain recreation reserves?

Rates are calculated based on that years operating costs, maintenance costs, depreciation and new project initiatives being summarised together and then divided by the value of the housing stock (as provided by the AG) in the Council area.

This provides a rate in the dollar figure, which is then used to calculate what ratepayers pay based on the value of their home.

It is *not* a fee for service.

[Q.]

Also, oval maintenance costs an absolute fortune when you factor in top dressing, aeration, dethatching etc.

[jo172]

Also, oval maintenance costs an absolute fortune when you factor in top dressing, aeration, dethatching etc.

But if you own the reserve as trustee for purpose/public benefit of it being used as sporting fields you're obliged to do that regardless of whether you can pass the cost on. Passing it on reeks of opportunism. Particularly where there is a dearth of similar facilities in your lga.

[Pag]

Does anyone else's council (apart from other clubs in the Campbelltown council area) get charged ridiculous rates like this for oval hire?

We are on what the Council assures us is 25% of what the Council spends to maintain the ground.

Given what this 25% ends up being I fail to understand why Payneham Oval doesn't have a full retractable roof, car parking under the centre square and a large replay screen.

Seriously, given the Council would be obliged to mow the lawn/top dress whether someone is playing football there or not, and we could paint lines etc. ourselves it's a constant bug-bear.

Without disclosing anything to confidential, this 25% equates to essentially a football season's worth of bar profit.

This gobsmacks me.
Don't citizens pay rates in order for the council to maintain recreation reserves?

Rates are calculated based on that years operating costs, maintenance costs, depreciation and new project initiatives being summarised together and then divided by the value of the housing stock (as provided by the AG) in the Council area.

This provides a rate in the dollar figure, which is then used to calculate what ratepayers pay based on the value of their home.

It is *not* a fee for service.

Fair enough, but if the cost to maintain are going up wouldn't this be passed on to the ratepayers? Not dumped onto the sporting clubs?

[morell]

+ labour costs
+ admin overheads (WHS/Finance/HR)

Paying a bunch of blokes $25/hr to maintain green areas adds up and adds up quickly.

I am obviously biased, but there have been a bunch of studies done recently in regards to efficacy with public money spending. Local Government provide comparatively good value for money.

[jo172]

+ labour costs
+ admin overheads (WHS/Finance/HR)

Paying a bunch of blokes $25/hr to maintain green areas adds up and adds up quickly.

I am obviously bias, but there have been a bunch of studies done recently in regards to efficacy with public money spending. Local Government provide comparatively good value for money.

Come on mate, you're better than that

[morell]

Also, oval maintenance costs an absolute fortune when you factor in top dressing, aeration, dethatching etc.

But if you own the reserve as trustee for purpose/public benefit of it being used as sporting fields you're obliged to do that regardless of whether you can pass the cost on. Passing it on reeks of opportunism. Particularly where there is a dearth of similar facilities in your lga.

Fair enough, but if the cost to maintain are going up wouldn't this be passed on to the ratepayers? Not dumped onto the sporting clubs?

Its probably a correction and reaction to sporting clubs utilising public land/buildings and turning them for a profit using sub leases.

I know of countless examples where Councils have leased a facility to a community club, under the proviso that they're using it to provide a "public good" but sub lease it to some other organisation for a hefty fee and in turn use that money to then flush their own bank accounts.

In the new age of potential rate capping and cost shifting from other spheres of government, Councils have to get stricter and tougher on potential funding gaps.

[S Demon]

I know there were a lot of clubs around that were (or are) on what they call peppercorn leases, which is where you pay a minuscule fee for renting the oval if you have a really long term lease.

I remember PNU used to be on one until they upgraded the lights, not sure if they still are. Jo will know

Our lease got extended for 10 years in April last year. $1 fee per annum to lease the ground and facilities

What LGA is Hope Valley in? Campbelltown?

Tea Tree Gully

[jo172]

Also, oval maintenance costs an absolute fortune when you factor in top dressing, aeration, dethatching etc.

But if you own the reserve as trustee for purpose/public benefit of it being used as sporting fields you're obliged to do that regardless of whether you can pass the cost on. Passing it on reeks of opportunism. Particularly where there is a dearth of similar facilities in your lga.

Fair enough, but if the cost to maintain are going up wouldn't this be passed on to the ratepayers? Not dumped onto the sporting clubs?

Its probably a correction and reaction to sporting clubs utilising public land/buildings and turning them for a profit using sub leases.

I know of countless examples where Councils have leased a facility to a community club, under the proviso that they're using it to provide a "public good" but sub lease it to some other organisation for a hefty fee and in turn use that money to then flush their own bank accounts.

In the new age of potential rate capping and cost shifting from other spheres of government, Councils have to get stricter and tougher on potential funding gaps.

The Building is one thing, but the rates for the patch of grass which the Council has to maintain regardless of whether the Sport is played there irks me. Can deal with sub-leasing etc easily enough through contractual arrangements.

[Trader]

Also, oval maintenance costs an absolute fortune when you factor in top dressing, aeration, dethatching etc.

But if you own the reserve as trustee for purpose/public benefit of it being used as sporting fields you're obliged to do that regardless of whether you can pass the cost on. Passing it on reeks of opportunism. Particularly where there is a dearth of similar facilities in your lga.

Fair enough, but if the cost to maintain are going up wouldn't this be passed on to the ratepayers? Not dumped onto the sporting clubs?

Its probably a correction and reaction to sporting clubs utilising public land/buildings and turning them for a profit using sub leases.

I know of countless examples where Councils have leased a facility to a community club, under the proviso that they're using it to provide a "public good" but sub lease it to some other organisation for a hefty fee and in turn use that money to then flush their own bank accounts.

In the new age of potential rate capping and cost shifting from other spheres of government, Councils have to get stricter and tougher on potential funding gaps.

The Building is one thing, but the rates for the patch of grass which the Council has to maintain regardless of whether the Sport is played there irks me. Can deal with sub-leasing etc easily enough through contractual arrangements.

Correct, the Council would have to maintain it anyway.
However, let's not forget the cost of maintenance goes up signficnatly when you run footy teams over it from 4pm to 8pm Monday-Friday, plus 10 am to 5pm Saturday and Sunday.

During those periods the ground is also exclusively yours, and not available for the public to access.

34 hours a week it is exclusively yours, and they are the "best" 34 hours in a week.
25% of the cost seems more than fair.

[Pag]

But if you own the reserve as trustee for purpose/public benefit of it being used as sporting fields you're obliged to do that regardless of whether you can pass the cost on. Passing it on reeks of opportunism. Particularly where there is a dearth of similar facilities in your lga.

Fair enough, but if the cost to maintain are going up wouldn't this be passed on to the ratepayers? Not dumped onto the sporting clubs?

Its probably a correction and reaction to sporting clubs utilising public land/buildings and turning them for a profit using sub leases.

I know of countless examples where Councils have leased a facility to a community club, under the proviso that they're using it to provide a "public good" but sub lease it to some other organisation for a hefty fee and in turn use that money to then flush their own bank accounts.

In the new age of potential rate capping and cost shifting from other spheres of government, Councils have to get stricter and tougher on potential funding gaps.

The Building is one thing, but the rates for the patch of grass which the Council has to maintain regardless of whether the Sport is played there irks me. Can deal with sub-leasing etc easily enough through contractual arrangements.

Correct, the Council would have to maintain it anyway.
However, let's not forget the cost of maintenance goes up signficnatly when you run footy teams over it from 4pm to 8pm Monday-Friday, plus 10 am to 5pm Saturday and Sunday.

During those periods the ground is also exclusively yours, and not available for the public to access.

34 hours a week it is exclusively yours, and they are the "best" 34 hours in a week.
25% of the cost seems more than fair.

Our ground isn't exclusively ours during training nights. If a father/son who live across the road want to have a kick down in a pocket or roll an arm over in the nets, we have no right whatsoever to ask them to leave.

I'm with jo here, if they think not for profit organisations like local football clubs who provide a service to the community are able to consistently stump up costs like what Athelstone seem to be getting, clubs will start disappearing. I'm speaking from experience with my own club only, but there's no way we'd be able to cough up what Campbelltown are slugging the Raggies on a weekly basis.

[jo172]

Trade, I suspect you and I are coming from a different philosophical position. If the position is a purely neoliberal user-pays system then your reasoning above is sound (and fair).

My view is that their is sufficient public benefit in having community sporting organisations operating in an area, particularly where Council need not assist in the administrative issues other than grounds/facilities. As such I'm of the view a community sporting organisation should be subsidised by the Council more than what would be a fair, commercial user-pays rate.

If the provision of Council services was based solely on a user-pays philosophy things like libraries and play-groups would for example be hard to justify. However, there is a public benefit in having libraries and as such we generally accept there is a need for them to be subsidised.

[jo172]

Our ground isn't exclusively ours during training nights. If a father/son who live across the road want to have a kick down in a pocket or roll an arm over in the nets, we have no right whatsoever to ask them to leave.

I'm with jo here, if they think not for profit organisations like local football clubs who provide a service to the community are able to consistently stump up costs like what Athelstone seem to be getting, clubs will start disappearing. I'm speaking from experience with my own club only, but there's no way we'd be able to cough up what Campbelltown are slugging the Raggies on a weekly basis.

Doesn't tend to happen at Football games as much, but I've certainly seen parts of ovals with active cricket games on appropriated for other uses by passers by. Not at Payneham Oval, but I've seen a particularly willing family try and set up a picnic at one club's playing field during a cricket game (albeit I suspectthere was some local politics at play there).

[Trader]

Trade, I suspect you and I are coming from a different philosophical position. If the position is a purely neoliberal user-pays system then your reasoning above is sound (and fair).

My view is that their is sufficient public benefit in having community sporting organisations operating in an area, particularly where Council need not assist in the administrative issues other than grounds/facilities. As such I'm of the view a community sporting organisation should be subsidised by the Council more than what would be a fair, commercial user-pays rate.

If the provision of Council services was based solely on a user-pays philosophy things like libraries and play-groups would for example be hard to justify. However, there is a public benefit in having libraries and as such we generally accept there is a need for them to be subsidised.

I'd suggest the 34 hours a week you get (ie: any time the sun is up and people aren't at School/Work) are worth at least 80% of the value. Therefore by paying only 25%, you are in fact getting a significant subsidy, which I agree you should get.

I don't however agree that you should get a 100% subsidy.
Looking at a library, if I want to borrow a book, I can, I might have to wait up to 2 weeks for the book to be returned, but essentially I can get it in a reasonable amount of time, and that applies to any and everyone.
If I want to book Payneham Oval at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon, it doesn't matter how long I am willing to wait, I can't do it.

You are essentially getting 80% of the value for every 25% you put in. Do you think you should be getting more than 3.2:1?

I certainly think sporting clubs should be supported by the council.
I don't think they should get exclusive use for no cost.

The above applies to all Council assets for mine, eg: the renting of Council function centres. They should be available to the public at a discounted rate, but shouldn't be free.

[morell]

Our ground isn't exclusively ours during training nights. If a father/son who live across the road want to have a kick down in a pocket or roll an arm over in the nets, we have no right whatsoever to ask them to leave.

Many leases enable you to do exactly that.

[Pag]

Our ground isn't exclusively ours during training nights. If a father/son who live across the road want to have a kick down in a pocket or roll an arm over in the nets, we have no right whatsoever to ask them to leave.

Many leases enable you to do exactly that.

Morell out of interest, would MP be able to pay what Athelstone have to? Like I said, we wouldn't be able to, and if these rates force sporting clubs to shut down surely that's doing more harm to the council area than good?

[jo172]

Our ground isn't exclusively ours during training nights. If a father/son who live across the road want to have a kick down in a pocket or roll an arm over in the nets, we have no right whatsoever to ask them to leave.

Many leases enable you to do exactly that.

The characteristic of a lease is indeed the right to exclusive possession.

Reason we're generally on a licence and permit (building/oval).

[Trader]

Our ground isn't exclusively ours during training nights. If a father/son who live across the road want to have a kick down in a pocket or roll an arm over in the nets, we have no right whatsoever to ask them to leave.

Many leases enable you to do exactly that.

Morell out of interest, would MP be able to pay what Athelstone have to? Like I said, we wouldn't be able to, and if these rates force sporting clubs to shut down surely that's doing more harm to the council area than good?

I recon the difference with Athelstone is it was a full function centre, rather than say just a ground with some change rooms.