A judgment is expected soon in a Dh50 million court case between the owners of Melbourne's Etihad Stadium and the Australian rules football league, according to media reports. The Australian Football League (AFL) is claiming up to 20 million Australian dollars (Dh53m) from Melbourne Stadiums Limited (MSL), according to The Australian newspaper. A decision is understood to be imminent.
The stadium, in Melbourne's Docklands, has been a popular Australian rules football venue for a decade and recently changed its named from Telstra to Etihad following the signing of a five-year sponsorship deal with the UAE's national airline in March. However, the AFL claims MSL acted illegally in selling on rights to income generated from the sale of refreshments at the stadium and has therefore deprived clubs of one of their major sources of income.
A spokesman for Etihad said the airline had no involvement in the case and had signed the sponsorship agreement in good faith. "The dispute is between the league and MSL and therefore we are not in a position to comment on any aspect of the case. "The Etihad Stadium is now the established name for the venue and is accepted and widely used throughout Australia. Although there has been much speculation Etihad have never disclosed the value of the deal."
The case has been an emotive one for the AFL and supporters of its clubs, some of which say they would face an uncertain future if they were not awarded the so-called "pourage" rights and compensation for lost earnings. According to The Australian, the bitterness of the AFL is compounded by the fact that Melbourne Victory, a football club also based in the stadium, are reported to have a far more lucrative contract.
The Australian also reported that the AFL had requested to view the Melbourne Victory contract and was demanding to have their contract redrawn on the same terms, with an additional payment for loss of interim earnings. If Justice Warren's verdict goes in their favour, the AFL has said that its clubs would be financially secure until 2025. Their case also asserts that the chief executive of the stadium, Ian Collins, reneged on an agreement made in November to award Melbourne clubs six million Australian dollars a year to compensate for the omission of revenue-generating conditions in the contract.
The AFL is understood to have opposed the Etihad deal and is reluctant to use the stadium's new name, partly in protest that it was not consulted on the agreement but also because the league is sponsored by the Australian airline Qantas, a rival to Etihad. tbrooks@thenational.ae