View Full Version : OT - Enron Vs Worldcom Vs Port Power Inc
SpringChoke
17 Feb 2006, 08:10
In this day and age, its refreshing to see a club, the peoples club, make an unlselfish decision that is ultimately for the good of the game. Well done to The Colonel and the AFC for being able to recognise the bigger picture.
Unfortunately, and not unexpectedly, our selfish and insular mates down the road can't see past the gates at Alberton.
CROWS PASS BUCK
By MICHELANGELO RUCCI
17feb06
ADELAIDE, the second richest club behind West Coast, is pulling back its hand from the big money grab expected shortly in the carve up of the AFL's extra $60 million a year secured in the new television rights deal.
Crows chairman Bill Sanders wants the AFL to underpin the development of Australian football - with juniors, umpires, State leagues, medical training, new coaches and even facilities - rather than fatten the balance sheets of AFL clubs and pay packets of AFL players. [/B[B]]"If we don't protect the underbelly of the game," said Sanders yesterday, "we run the risk of all Australian football being worse off. And then the dominoes fall, finishing off with less money in future television rights."
Already - and emphasising how the TV rights will fracture the clubs - this position is at odds with Port Adelaide. Power president Greg Boulton yesterday said the new television money needs to be spread between players, game development and, in the main, the clubs. "It is time the pendulum swings back in favour of the clubs; we definitely believe the clubs should get a significant priority and share of the television money," said Boulton.
All 16 AFL clubs will gather late next month for the league's annual meetings on March 28 in Melbourne where no issue will be more contentious than how the league plans to allocate the $780m-a-year to be banked from television rights from 2007-11.
A handful of clubs want more money to secure their futures. The players' union will seek a significant pay increase. State leagues will demand greater support, particularly the SANFL which has suffered cutbacks in junior funding in the past three years. And the AFL has its own projects.
Adelaide's board already has taken the stance, as Sanders declared yesterday, "that the majority of the extra $60 million must go to the game's development".
"And not just in Queensland and NSW but also in the traditional football states," Sanders said.
"The reality is developing Australian football goes beyond putting a football in the hands of a young child. We need to put substantial money into football below the AFL."
Sanders noted two AFL reports - the Carter study on the game's development in 2001 and his own investigation into umpiring in 2003 - call on the AFL to invest more money and time away from its elite 16-team league.
"The stock response each time," Sanders said, "was 'how are we going to fund these projects and recommendations from the Carter and umpiring reports?'
"Now we have the money and the opportunity - if not obligation - to look after every element of the game if we are going to maximise its growth."
Adelaide's board has agreed, unanimously, that the windfall from the new television deal with Channel 7 and its partners be split with the players, clubs, State leagues and, in the main, the game's development.
How much is given to each category remains undecided by the Crows, who also want the 16 AFL clubs to be more involved in developing the game.
"What we are firm on," adds Sanders, "is we now have the perfect opportunity to underpin the game. Our club is strong in its resolve to ensure there is an enormous commitment to the game from this television deal."
I agree with the Colonel on this subject as without a viable grass-roots presence of footy in the suburbs & regional areas then all AFL clubs will struggle in the future.
Anyway i thought the AFL had a special pool of funds on the side for clubs like PA that are struggling to make ends meet. ;)
relapse
17 Feb 2006, 09:17
Rucci would be hating this, unless he can try and find a negative spin for the AFC.
It doesnt surprise me that Port have its hands out as usual for money.
Rucci would be hating this, unless he can try and find a negative spin for the AFC.
It doesnt surprise me that Port have its hands out as usual for money.
Why would RUCCI be hating this? He is fully aware the PAFC have helped to build football in SA since 1870, it's great that the Crows now want to do their bit too!
portentous
17 Feb 2006, 09:37
Who is "Port Power"? :)
crows98
17 Feb 2006, 09:38
Why would RUCCI be hating this? He is fully aware the PAFC have helped to build football in SA since 1870, it's great that the Crows now want to do their bit too!
With all the good Port Adelaide did for South Australian Football in 130 years the Adelaide Crows have doubled in 15 years
If the Adelaide Crows had a balance sheet like the Port Adelaide Power have had since 1991, more than half of the SANFL club would have fallen over by now.
Adelaide Crows, The team for all South Australians >>>>>>>>>> Port Adelaide Power > look out for number 1.
PowerKat
17 Feb 2006, 09:45
Sanders noted two AFL reports - the Carter study on the game's development in 2001 and his own investigation into umpiring in 2003 - call on the AFL to invest more money and time away from its elite 16-team league.
"The stock response each time," Sanders said, "was 'how are we going to fund these projects and recommendations from the Carter and umpiring reports?'
Promoting extra support for his own report?
I have to agree that more money should be spent at grass roots level, but that needs to be balanced with ensuring all clubs remain viable. Port aren't alone in their point of view and it's a reasonable point for them to make considering their financial circumstances. The crows can promote the 'good of the game' message - it's good PR and they are awash with cash.
Malibu#27
17 Feb 2006, 09:58
I dont know why anyone would be suprised even remotely by this article.
All clubs want money going back into grass roots football.
Boulton said the money should be: "spread between players, game development and, in the main, the clubs."
I cant imagine the AFL is going to spend an extra 100 million (plus) a year on grass roots footy, so its logical the money will be split between various outlets.
Now isnt it reasonable to assume that clubs that are runing closer to the financial break even point (or are behind the 8-Ball) as Port is are going to be happy to accept extra money/or ask for extra money if it is available ..... why because it helps them.
Similarly - isnt it logical to assume that clubs that have no financial worries (Adelaide/West COast/Collingwood etc) are likely to suggest less money being given to the clubs ... why? In part its the Grass roots football thing ... but lets face it ... if the clubs with less money dont get the extra money .... then the richer clubs have an advantage over them.
Capitalist
17 Feb 2006, 10:15
This thread is hilaroius – Port supporters implying but not directly saying that the Power needs the money.
Its like watching two guys at a dole queue argue over who dropped a $1
Every one knows that Grassroots football in the heartland states need the money so does umpiring, we also know that footballers get paid well and clubs that have good administrators make money
The problem is convincing them that if they raise the amount given to clubs it could prove detrimental in the long run because the chances are TV rights payment will drop at the next agreement are fairly high.
Clubs like Port need to pull their heads in and so do some of the players who want more money, otherwise its going to be to little to late and our smaller comps will start falling away
Toots Hibbert
17 Feb 2006, 10:17
I think it's just great that the Crows are going to go it alone and give their part of the loot to the grassroots. Oh wait they're not going to do that? Shame, it was looking good for a few minutes there. :thumbsd:
Maybe five years after Port has finished paying off it's licence fee the club might be able to take the same attitude. :)
Nice piece of work Chokie. :D
Malibu#27
17 Feb 2006, 10:38
This thread is hilaroius – Port supporters implying but not directly saying that the Power needs the money.
Port made a loss this year .... until we pay off our debts of course we need money.
Every one knows that Grassroots football in the heartland states need the money so does umpiring, we also know that footballers get paid well and clubs that have good administrators make money
Or is it clubs that have lots of income streams make money. Adelaide makes lots of money because it has a huge supporter base and as a result lots of sponsors. Adelaide would need a terrible administration not to make money.
Clubs that have good administration win matches.
Clubs like Port need to pull their heads in and so do some of the players who want more money, otherwise its going to be to little to late and our smaller comps will start falling away
Get off your high horse.
creature-beast
17 Feb 2006, 10:40
Port made a loss this year .... until we pay off our debts of course we need money.
port made a loss BEFORE paying out to the SANFL. after that payment it just became a bigger loss...
Malibu#27
17 Feb 2006, 10:42
port made a loss BEFORE paying out to the SANFL. after that payment it just became a bigger loss...
thanks for that. I was referring to making a loss after paying out license fee and setup costs.... these are nearly paid off - hence my comment "until we pay off our debts".
I think it's just great that the Crows are going to go it alone and give their part of the loot to the grassroots. Oh wait they're not going to do that? Shame, it was looking good for a few minutes there. :thumbsd:
Maybe five years after Port has finished paying off it's licence fee the club might be able to take the same attitude. :)
Nice piece of work Chokie. :D
We have been doing that since day 1 Toots ever since we became the first club from SA to join the AFL competition.
"Make sure we look after the foot soldiers or the elite shall suffer eventually"
quote from the great Greek general Hortamultist. :thumbsu: :)
It's true that Adelaide make a large profit because they have the majority of supporters in SA (by a margin roughly 2:1) and consequently they have little trouble in attracting sponsors.
However, that does little to forward the argument that even less well off clubs can turn a profit.
Take, for example, Geelong. Geelong do not have the largest supporter base in the AFL, though they would have a very high support rate in their own community. When run badly, they made some bad losses. However, the current administration have turned things around completely and they are now one of the few AFL clubs to consistently return a profit.
Some clubs are so wealthy that even an idiot could run them profitably (WCE, Adelaide, Collingwood, Essendon). Some are so poorly supported that they'll probably never turn a profit again (Footscray & North Melbourne). The other ten teams are in a situation where they would be capable of operating profitably if the management were competent.
Toots Hibbert
17 Feb 2006, 11:46
How many of you here follow this corporate oriented line of thinking from your colleague?
Should the AFL consider private ownership of the clubs ? With clubs continuing to ask for handouts , is it time the AFL allowed a business consortium the opportunity to run the clubs , under the charter of the AFL, and to make the clubs responsible for the debt and not the AFL?
I can see a few problems, mainly that if the businesses go bust the AFL are obliged to rescue the club and prop it up once more. Or are they? Certainly the name and logo etc are AFL owned, and any debt would be the problem of the businesses and the liquidation agent. ie any player owed money would need to chase the liquidator and not the AFL.
Should all 16 clubs be privately owned? I think a balance can be struck. The SANFL and WAFL hold the licences and keep an eye on the clubs but basically dont interfere as such in the running. Though rumours persist that the WAFL did ask Fremantle a few questions in regards to how the club was run etc.
I see this as an option for the Melbourne based clubs. Smorgon Steel could buy the Bulldogs etc. The AFL must retain the logo and name but anything else would basically be for sale. I guess the term should be lease. The businesses then could float the club on the market and let the fans truly become shareholders in their clubs.
Anyone else want to expand on this?
:D
Panthers64
17 Feb 2006, 12:17
I'm sick to death of Port and their small band of supporters sooking about money.
It's well known that they filter funds through the various club structures and foundations.
If Port were so worried about money why do they continually waste it sending players on pre season training camps on the gold coast and the grampians ?
The crows who could afford excessive training camps decided that they would take an economical view and send their players to strathalbyn.
If your making losses, show some financial constraint and stop asking for hand outs.
Cove Cobra
17 Feb 2006, 17:35
Meh.
maccas_no1
17 Feb 2006, 18:03
Currently the AFC pay more into South Australian football than Port do but Im pretty sure that is only due to the fact that Port are still paying their AFL licence, Im pretty sure once they make their final payment (which is this year) then Port too will put just as much money back into SA Footy like the AFC.
Rucci making a mountian out of a molehill again.
That's the difference between a club like the Crows and a basket case like Port Power. The Crows have top-notch financial management who want to give back to the community while Port Power are only interested in grabbing money so they can waste it on themselves and go broke.
Spin the crap and the faithful will believe anything. ;)
Crow-mo
17 Feb 2006, 19:41
Already - and emphasising how the TV rights will fracture the clubs - this position is at odds with Port Adelaide. Power president Greg Boulton yesterday said the new television money needs to be spread between players, game development and, in the main, the clubs. "It is time the pendulum swings back in favour of the clubs; we definitely believe the clubs should get a significant priority and share of the television money," said Boulton.
isn't it interesting. The melbourne president has also come out and said "more money for us, **** grassroots development". the poorly administered clubs, financially speaking want hand outs to cover their inexactitudes of their administration; whereas the more stable clubs are looking further forward.
Maybe it's the chicken or the egg, that the forward thinking clubs are the successful ones or vice versa?
There is plenty of money to go round, the players can get some, development can certainly get some, and there will be more for the clubs. Very strange that the pigs in the trough are worried they won't get enough.
How long before the Power wants some more under the table AFL dosh ;)
... Very strange that the pigs in the trough are worried they won't get enough.
...
And the pigs in the trough are?
Crow-mo
17 Feb 2006, 20:55
And the pigs in the trough are?
shall we bring up your 200,000 odd under the table grant ;)
shall we bring up your 200,000 odd under the table grant ;)
No. I know you like giving answers that leave the door open for you to backpedal from, however you made a statement so just answer the question to clarify it.
The Crows Truth
17 Feb 2006, 21:20
No. I know you like giving answers that leave the door open for you to backpedal from, however you made a statement so just answer the question to clarify it.
Nah he will try back-dooring from this one. The inexactitudes of his preferred communication style don’t allow concise corporate style answers :thumbsu:
sworc36
17 Feb 2006, 22:23
Currently the AFC pay more into South Australian football than Port do but Im pretty sure that is only due to the fact that Port are still paying their AFL licence, Im pretty sure once they make their final payment (which is this year) then Port too will put just as much money back into SA Footy like the AFC.
Rucci making a mountian out of a molehill again.
So, Adelaide also paid a 4m licence and were also contributing a large amount of money to the SANFL at the same time so wts that got to do with it
maccas_no1
17 Feb 2006, 22:40
So, Adelaide also paid a 4m licence and were also contributing a large amount of money to the SANFL at the same time so wts that got to do with it
Im pretty sure while we were paying our licence we werent paying as much to the SANFL as what we are now, think Port shouldnt be bagged on their financial standing at this point in time. I think the debate between the AFC and PAFC over finances has run it's course.
Crow-mo
17 Feb 2006, 23:12
No. I know you like giving answers that leave the door open for you to backpedal from, however you made a statement so just answer the question to clarify it.
I think I just did. is it your position, that you didn't receive a grant from the AFL for over $200,000 this year? yes or no?
we can go from there.
Crow-mo
17 Feb 2006, 23:14
Nah he will try back-dooring from this one. The inexactitudes of his preferred communication style don’t allow concise corporate style answers :thumbsu:
I am surprised the bar boy knows about concise corporate style answers ;)
Spin the crap and the faithful will believe anything. ;)
Thats the Port motto not ours.
Im pretty sure while we were paying our licence we werent paying as much to the SANFL as what we are now, think Port shouldnt be bagged on their financial standing at this point in time. ...
Also you were the only team in SA. Pretty easy to establish yourself that way.
... I think the debate between the AFC and PAFC over finances has run it's course.
:thumbsu:
Kristof
18 Feb 2006, 00:00
Are we really so hard up for things to talk about?
Of course some of the money should go to developing the game - and some should go to the players and some should be invested in capital works for the supporters, etc etc.
Of course the Crows are going to be able to suggest more money gets invested as they don't need the increased invesment in the club's resources as much as their competitors.
And of course Port is going to want to keep the damn money as they have about a third of the supporter base of the Crows. People, please.
... Of course the Crows are going to be able to suggest more money gets invested as they don't need the increased invesment in the club's resources as much as their competitors.
...
They are not saying give us less money:
Adelaide's board already has taken the stance, as Sanders declared yesterday, "that the majority of the extra $60 million must go to the game's development".
They are saying instead of increasing it (ie giving it to others such as Melbourne, Bulldogs, North etc) use the money for other things. Easy thing to do when talking about money they will not get anyway.
Good PR if one doesn't bother to read between the lines. ;)
portentous
18 Feb 2006, 08:39
Can we forget the AFC vs PAFC debate for a second and look at the logistics of it all? What does "giving it to grass roots level" actually mean? Who would actually get the money and how would it be monitored? I can see a large portion of it disappearing in admin etc costs and not actually getting to where it's needed. What would be the best way of ensuring that the money goes to where it can really make a difference and who decides that anyway??
Markthirtytwo
18 Feb 2006, 09:14
Can we forget the AFC vs PAFC debate for a second and look at the logistics of it all? What does "giving it to grass roots level" actually mean? Who would actually get the money and how would it be monitored? I can see a large portion of it disappearing in admin etc costs and not actually getting to where it's needed. What would be the best way of ensuring that the money goes to where it can really make a difference and who decides that anyway??
I see it as giving it to the 9 local clubs to use exclusively in their recruiting areas. It should be given to the SANFL to distribute equally to all clubs and dictated how much for coaching clinics at their grounds, how much for school visits, how much for administration, etc.
Perhaps the latter could be achieved by the SANFL anyway.
This is esential for the game to continue.
Kristof
18 Feb 2006, 09:24
They are not saying give us less money:
Adelaide's board already has taken the stance, as Sanders declared yesterday, "that the majority of the extra $60 million must go to the game's development".
They are saying instead of increasing it (ie giving it to others such as Melbourne, Bulldogs, North etc) use the money for other things. Easy thing to do when talking about money they will not get anyway.
Good PR if one doesn't bother to read between the lines. ;)
Wait - are you sure? I think the point is we have $60m extra from the TV deal and the AFL can choose to give extra dividends directly to the clubs, or give less money to individual clubs and more money collectively to the game's development.
But Portentous makes an excellent point. Is it give it to the state leagues - which we already fund? To suburban leagues? To country and junior leagues? I think the end result will be that the administrators of the Para Hills West Footy Club are suddenly going to find they have more money to "reimburse" themselves, end of year trips will be a lot more fun, and those guys that get paid per game in country footy will be able to demand a payrise. These kinds of things are inevitable when unexpected funds get injected to organisations and nonprofits.
Wait - are you sure? I think the point is we have $60m extra from the TV deal and the AFL can choose to give extra dividends directly to the clubs, or give less money to individual clubs and more money collectively to the game's development.
...
I think the AFL will increase the dividends to the Clubs by a "little" (and the Crows have not said not to do that), a "little" extra to the players, put some away for the struggling clubs if they need it and the rest for increased admin and sundries including so called grass roots.
Call me doubting Thomas, but it does sound a bit like grandstanding by the Crows to me. If it sounds good and it will not impact me negatively, then why not say it.
... But Portentous makes an excellent point. Is it give it to the state leagues - which we already fund? To suburban leagues? To country and junior leagues? I think the end result will be that the administrators of the Para Hills West Footy Club are suddenly going to find they have more money to "reimburse" themselves, end of year trips will be a lot more fun, and those guys that get paid per game in country footy will be able to demand a payrise. These kinds of things are inevitable when unexpected funds get injected to organisations and nonprofits.
The problem in grass roots is getting money for full time management etc.
The under 18 carnival is one thing that would not go ahead without direct funding. Funding for administrators, coaches etc. Minor leagues cannot afford that on their own.
I doubt funds will be "directly" channeled to minor leagues in a big way, but for setting up an infrastructure for local youth carnivals, state carnivals followed by Australian carnivals plus increase in Aus-Kick programs.
They will look at grass roots mainly from a future AFL recruitment point of view.
Crow-mo
18 Feb 2006, 18:32
Can we forget the AFC vs PAFC debate for a second and look at the logistics of it all? What does "giving it to grass roots level" actually mean? Who would actually get the money and how would it be monitored? I can see a large portion of it disappearing in admin etc costs and not actually getting to where it's needed. What would be the best way of ensuring that the money goes to where it can really make a difference and who decides that anyway??
it's a very fair point. my only position would be to hark back to Wayne Jackson who has always said the grassroots was massively underfunded, and the league needs to shore this up. From this I presume, that there are areas indentified as needing support.
how this is administered etc, would need careful handling, but cyncism over how this is done should not prevent us from addressing what needs to be done.
Crow-mo
18 Feb 2006, 18:34
Easy thing to do when talking about money they will not get anyway.
Good PR if one doesn't bother to read between the lines. ;)
ok. if your position is that the AFC is talking about benevolent uses for money they will not get anyway, surely Port's asking for money they will not get anyway is awful PR?
ok. if your position is that the AFC is talking about benevolent uses for money they will not get anyway, surely Port's asking for money they will not get anyway is awful PR?
Are you saying the Crows have not received any money from the AFL ever?
Yes or No answer only please, not the usual rubbish.
Stiffy_18
18 Feb 2006, 18:49
Port made a loss this year .... until we pay off our debts of course we need money.
Or is it clubs that have lots of income streams make money. Adelaide makes lots of money because it has a huge supporter base and as a result lots of sponsors. Adelaide would need a terrible administration not to make money.
Clubs that have good administration win matches.
Get off your high horse.
And that is in no small part due to their administration and their managment. A good administration will build a good base and will get the club to become a strength through good advertising and all other aspects of marketing. Crap administration will ruin a strong club in a heart beat.
Adelaide and West Coast have those things you mentioned because they have great administrations.
Collingwood was an absolute rabble off the field before Eddie came in and turned the things around. A classic case of where good administration can build a strong club.
You making it sound like all the financially strong clubs didn't have to work for their current status which is a big load of crap.
Crow-mo
18 Feb 2006, 18:50
Are you saying the Crows have not received any money from the AFL ever?
Yes or No answer only please, not the usual rubbish.
ordinary. just ordinary old man,
Stiffy_18
18 Feb 2006, 18:54
How many of you here follow this corporate oriented line of thinking from your colleague?
:D
I don't know man. A corporation has a "me first attitude" and your mob seems to be displaying it for all to see with their willingness to take the money to suit their arses and think grass roots later.
A true club, the one that has people and good of the game as one of its priority is prepared to give all the money to the grass roots. You lot out of all people should be the last to call us a corporation when you acts like onemore than anyone else ;)
ordinary. just ordinary old man,
No definitive type of answer coming then? Thought so.
Ok, let's try another one.
When have Port begged the AFL for money to cover shortfalls, and how much have they received?
Again, be definitive and not just the usual spiel please.
Crow-mo
18 Feb 2006, 19:22
No definitive type of answer coming then? Thought so.
Ok, let's try another one.
When have Port begged the AFL for money to cover shortfalls, and how much have they received?
Again, be definitive and not just the usual spiel please.
do you know what a strawman is? I think you do ;)
by the way why do you spend so much time on here, it looks like your board has finally stopped picking on you, so...
do you know what a strawman is? I think you do ;)
by the way why do you spend so much time on here, it looks like your board has finally stopped picking on you, so...
Again no definitive answer, just childish personal jibes as per modus operandi. :rolleyes:
My board having a go at me? Must have missed that one. Another one of your crappy childish jibes with no substance to back it up is it? :thumbsu:
As far as this board having a go at posters, I have a long long long way to go before I get to your level. I think nearly everyone here has had run ins with you, moderators included, even though it is supposed to be your board.
We have no-one on our board that has reached that level either, be it in your current user name or your previous one. ;)
Time for me to learn how to use that ignore function me thinks. Never used it yet, but then again never saw any need for it before.
Crow-mo
19 Feb 2006, 02:35
~double post~
Crow-mo
19 Feb 2006, 02:40
Again no definitive answer, just childish personal jibes as per modus operandi. :rolleyes:
My board having a go at me? Must have missed that one. Another one of your crappy childish jibes with no substance to back it up is it? :thumbsu:
As far as this board having a go at posters, I have a long long long way to go before I get to your level. I think nearly everyone here has had run ins with you, moderators included, even though it is supposed to be your board.
We have no-one on our board that has reached that level either, be it in your current user name or your previous one. ;)
Time for me to learn how to use that ignore function me thinks. Never used it yet, but then again never saw any need for it before.
~edit~
1. if you make strawman arguments, don't whinge when you don't get answers.
2. if you want to see an example of where Port have asked for handouts, see post 1 of this thread.
3. seeing as you have become my personal deranged stalker recently, threats to ignore me are too funny!!
4. so how come you're here all the time?
4. so how come you're here all the time?
PAF is one of many Port Power supporters who prefers to spend time on our board rather than the Port Power board because the latter is just too boring with nothing going on apart from the occasional thread about how Warren Tredrea is a humble, caring person who is popular with his teammates.
Toots Hibbert
19 Feb 2006, 10:40
No definitive type of answer coming then? Thought so.
Ok, let's try another one.
When have Port begged the AFL for money to cover shortfalls, and how much have they received?
Again, be definitive and not just the usual spiel please.
You're dealing with BigFooty's answer to Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards here *PAF in case you hadn't realised.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/films/2003/07/eddie150.jpg
portentous
19 Feb 2006, 17:13
it's a very fair point. my only position would be to hark back to Wayne Jackson who has always said the grassroots was massively underfunded, and the league needs to shore this up. From this I presume, that there are areas indentified as needing support.
how this is administered etc, would need careful handling, but cyncism over how this is done should not prevent us from addressing what needs to be done.
I agree that grass roots does need more funding, I'm just hoping that the money gets to where it's actually needed......:(