View Full Version : Crows consider netting the Sixers
crows98
24 May 2006, 10:50
ADELAIDE Football Club chairman Bill Sanders has confirmed the Crows are considering the viability of purchasing the Adelaide 36ers basketball team.
"We have considered and are assessing that as a business proposition," Sanders said last night. "There is still a lot of work to be done. There is no conclusion one way or the other as yet. It's simply a matter of us assessing it as a commercial opportunity and we are still doing that."
Bidding for the Sixers, the Distinctive Homes Dome and the Adelaide Lightning has been extended from May 25 to June 9 because of strong buyer interest. Sales of the teams and Dome are not expected to recoup the money - believed to be between $12 million and $14 million - owed to taxpayers by the Basketball Association of SA.
It has been reported on ABC Radio news at 7AM that the Adelaide Crows will not be pursuing the sale of the Adelaide 36ers any further.
They confirmed that the club's board did look at buying the Adelaide 36ers and the Dome, but the AFC general manager of commercial operations, Phil Harper has said that the club won't be pursuing the matter any further. He said: "We can't see the value in it for Adelaide Football Club getting behind it".
Oh well it would have been nice to have a multi dimensional sporting club that involved both summer and winter activities but it’s not going to happen.
RogerRabbit69
24 May 2006, 10:56
I'm glad actually. Footy's almost a 12-month-a-year operation nowadays. I'm happy for the club to concentrate its efforts on its core business - football.
maccas_no1
24 May 2006, 11:02
I'm glad actually. Footy's almost a 12-month-a-year operation nowadays. I'm happy for the club to concentrate its efforts on its core business - football.
Exactly spot on Basketball is 2nd rate in this country. NBA or European Basketball or nothing.
Exactly spot on Basketball is 2nd rate in this country. NBA or European Basketball or nothing.
A few years back Basketball was seen by many to be the one sport in Australia that could mount a challenge against the supremacy of AFL footy.
Well those thoughts are now in decline as Basketball as of late has been struggling for popularity/$$ in this country.
Would like to have seen the 36s become part of our "rapidly expanding empire" (that little tid-bit is for you-know-who :) ) but not at a cost that could blow right out.
Stiffy_18
24 May 2006, 12:10
A few years back Basketball was seen by many to be the one sport in Australia that could mount a challenge against the supremacy of AFL footy.
Well those thoughts are now in decline as Basketball as of late has been struggling for popularity/$$ in this country.
Would like to have seen the 36s become part of our "rapidly expanding empire" (that little tid-bit is for you-know-who :) ) but not at a cost that could blow right out.
I agree.
I would have liked to see us net the sixers and bring them back to the level that they deserve to be at.
There would have been some strong positives in having Crows own the sixers.
drakeyv2
24 May 2006, 12:11
There would have been some strong positives in having Crows own the sixers.
How would owning the sixers help Adelaide?
I'm glad actually. Footy's almost a 12-month-a-year operation nowadays. I'm happy for the club to concentrate its efforts on its core business - football.
So BHP should stick to making steel?
Companies can and do have diverse business operations. Just because the AFC are ''in football'' doesnt make the idea less viable. I would assume there would be a minimal AFC people involved.
I posted on the Port board when this came up in regards to Port buying it , that it is an extra revenue stream, it can be branded however you wish it to be and is an opportunity to cross promote and gain new members
Happy to see them having ideas outside the square
crows98
24 May 2006, 12:23
I agree.
I would have liked to see us net the sixers and bring them back to the level that they deserve to be at.
There would have been some strong positives in having Crows own the sixers.
Economies of scale would have been a major influencing factor in the AFC decision to look into the Adelaide 36ers NBL licence
By having the AFC own the Adelaide 36ers the two organizations administration could become one and would have allowed for the club to save money, printing, larger catering contracts, (stuff like that) would have allowed them to implement ‘economies of scale’ If the AFC could have simply purchased the NBL licence then I guess they may have been more willing to venture into a diverse sporting market
One of the main reasons I genuinely think the AFC didn’t look into this venture with more gusto would have been the purchasing price of the dome; approximately $10,000,000 would have been extremely hard for them to recoup.
The Sixers in SA are a good thing and being owned by the Adelaide Football Club would have given them a few thousand extra supporters.
drakeyv2
24 May 2006, 12:24
It is an extra revenue stream, it can be branded however you wish it to be and is an opportunity to cross promote and gain new members
My understanding is that it is a money looser. Also do we want to be promoting a sport that is in competition with us for players?
How would owning the sixers help Adelaide?
Ladies and Gentlemen the AFC are proud to announce our association with the Adelaide 36ers basketball side. Some of the benefits of this is that more people can get to see the great Adelaide sides compete with our Membership packages .
You can be a Dribbler ... kids membership to Crows and 36ers .
You can be a Passer ... teen membership to both clubs
You can be a Scorer.. adult membership to both clubs
The new and exciting range of memberships will provide parking at either stadium, you will recieve discounts on a wide variety of sporting gear at our new store ''36 West Lakes'' . You will also be pushed ahead of the waiting line to receive Full Membership at the AFC
------------------------------
Cross promotions will draw a few more people to the BBall which increases $$. I can see many more benefits if it happened.
showdownhero
24 May 2006, 12:27
My understanding is that it is a money looser. Also do we want to be promoting a sport that is in competition with us for players?
Could be a draft pool
Look at huddo and big ivan
crows98
24 May 2006, 12:27
My understanding is that it is a money looser. Also do we want to be promoting a sport that is in competition with us for players?
NBL = summer
AFL = winter
No in direct competition as European sporting clubs are owned by the same person all the time.
My understanding is that it is a money looser. Also do we want to be promoting a sport that is in competition with us for players?
Investigate the reasons it is a money loser and half the problem is solved.
drakeyv2
24 May 2006, 12:38
NBL = summer
AFL = winter
No in direct competition as European sporting clubs are owned by the same person all the time.
I don't mind the club branching out into other businesses etc. My concern would be in buying a Franchise & stadium that are loosing money in a competition that is struggling to be viable, in a sport which seems to be going backwards.
Would we suddenly become responsible for basketball development in SA? If so how much football money would be diverted?
drakeyv2
24 May 2006, 12:39
Investigate the reasons it is a money loser and half the problem is solved.
My understanding is that they have investigated the reasons it is loosing money & that is why it is up for sale.
Capitalist
24 May 2006, 12:47
I don't mind the club branching out into other businesses etc. My concern would be in buying a Franchise & stadium that are loosing money in a competition that is struggling to be viable, in a sport which seems to be going backwards.
Would we suddenly become responsible for basketball development in SA? If so how much football money would be diverted?
I wouldn't get to concerned about the AFC buying it - by losing money it will probably help the Crows anyhow - they also have the funds to push into it to improve the stadium which is also beneficial to the Crows balance sheet (or Profit and Loss )
Von Douche
24 May 2006, 12:55
Would they be re-badged though or would they remain the Sixers?
I reckon it'd be awesome.
*Double-up memberships
*Membership to one entitles you to first access to all public access games of the other (except showdowns)
*Crows vs 36ers game becomes an even more popular annual event than it already is
*Further income to the ever expanding AFC
*Gives us further training facilities to utilise at our own free will
*Ivan could keep his training up in the off season :p
I reckon it'd put more bums on seats for the 36ers and help raise the profile of another sport in SA.
SpringChoke
24 May 2006, 13:01
Waste of money. The novelty of basketball has died in this country.
Von Douche
24 May 2006, 13:05
Waste of money. The novelty of basketball has died in this country.
No need to worry mate, we won't be picking it up. :(
drakeyv2
24 May 2006, 13:14
Waste of money. The novelty of basketball has died in this country.
That's pretty much my opinion too. I can see plenty of potential benefits for the sixers, & Crows supporters who are basketball fans but I'm not convinced the benefits to the AFC would outway the risks. I would have thought we would be better off buying pubs & poker machines.
The only national sporting franchise based in Adelaide I see as being worth buying would be Adelaide United.
RogerRabbit69
24 May 2006, 13:30
So BHP should stick to making steel?
Companies can and do have diverse business operations. Just because the AFC are ''in football'' doesnt make the idea less viable. I would assume there would be a minimal AFC people involved.
That's hardly a valid comparison. Perhaps citing other sporting clubs that have diversified into other sports might have been more relevant.
I don't have a problem with Crows admin thinking outside the square - but I also don't think they need to take unnecessary risks just because they happen to lob in their laps.
Without being an expert on basketball politics, it seems most NBL clubs are very marginal operations from a financial perspective. There have been quite a few that have gone down the gurgler in the past decade. There's nothing to suggest the Sixers are much different.
The fact that the Crows have decided not to pursue things any further perhaps tells a story in itself.
Anyway, it's not going to happen, so we don't need to worry about it.
RogerRabbit69
24 May 2006, 13:34
Ladies and Gentlemen the AFC are proud to announce our association with the Adelaide 36ers basketball side. Some of the benefits of this is that more people can get to see the great Adelaide sides compete with our Membership packages .
You can be a Dribbler ... kids membership to Crows and 36ers .
You can be a Passer ... teen membership to both clubs
You can be a Scorer.. adult membership to both clubs
The new and exciting range of memberships will provide parking at either stadium, you will recieve discounts on a wide variety of sporting gear at our new store ''36 West Lakes'' . You will also be pushed ahead of the waiting line to receive Full Membership at the AFC
------------------------------
Cross promotions will draw a few more people to the BBall which increases $$. I can see many more benefits if it happened.
Plenty of positives from a basketballing perspective - but not too many from the football side of things. The club's already over-subscribed as far as memberships go. And somehow I don't think people who have been on a waiting list for a couple of years would be big fans of your last suggestion.
crows98
24 May 2006, 14:55
I don't mind the club branching out into other businesses etc. My concern would be in buying a Franchise & stadium that are loosing money in a competition that is struggling to be viable, in a sport which seems to be going backwards.
Would we suddenly become responsible for basketball development in SA? If so how much football money would be diverted?
The same exact question could have been asked of the initial board of the Adelaide Football Club. The AFL in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s was on no way a strong financial operation as it is today.
The AFL was standing still and no one could envisage the competition would be this successful. The NBL’s move in to Asia could lead to the same sort of revenue the AFL is experiencing now, and the move into Asia will give the competition a brand new lease on life, something the AFL experienced 15 years ago.
The NBL will not turn into a super competition over night as it will take 10 year to build up but it certainly has the potential to rival the AFL and A league soccer.
crows98
24 May 2006, 14:58
Would we suddenly become responsible for basketball development in SA? If so how much football money would be diverted?
No they would not, BSA are still going to going just because they are selling the Sixer, Lightning and Dome doesn’t mean they are going to disband. They will still look after the grassroots basketball; they just won’t have the 36ers as a major asset.
Kane McGoodwin
24 May 2006, 15:11
The concern would have been continuous losses being a burden on AFC. Just need to look at what happened to Collingwood & Carlton with their failed ventures with soccer.
If the 36'ers can be viable, then there may be some advantages of linking them to AFC.
johnnypanther
24 May 2006, 16:33
i would rather the AFC spend their surplus money on a Reserves team so that all our players can develop together. Perhaps with the addition of players from say the Nth Territory and play as the 10th side in the SANFL.
Greatness23
24 May 2006, 18:52
I think it would be good, for one it would eliminate the ridiculous amount of sponsors on the Sixers jersey and court.
Crow-mo
24 May 2006, 23:13
So BHP should stick to making steel?
Companies can and do have diverse business operations. Just because the AFC are ''in football'' doesnt make the idea less viable. I would assume there would be a minimal AFC people involved.
I posted on the Port board when this came up in regards to Port buying it , that it is an extra revenue stream, it can be branded however you wish it to be and is an opportunity to cross promote and gain new members
Happy to see them having ideas outside the square
err. companies have been trying to avoid diversification since the 1980's.
that is a trend long gone.
in short, there are whole rafts of books and stuff written on this very topic, but the idea is that diversification shifts investor risk, but it costs a lot more for the company to do it, when the shareholders can diversify their portfolio for free.
BHP is a commodity based business, it is essentially cyclical. They could buy a business that had a negatively correlated business cycle, so that they are always at half mast on the cycle, but this is expensive. you acquire a target company, pay on average a 40% control premium, then you stock it with your management, which distracts and takes away focus from your core activities, and the overall cost to your business is huge. not least of all, is your management does not know how to run the new business.
whereas exactly the same diversification can be achieved virtually for free by the investor. He has 100 shares in BHP, and he goes and buys 50 shares in ABC. takes 5 minutes, costs a few dollars in commission. he has the same exposure.
diversification is old economics.
Crow-mo
24 May 2006, 23:15
NBL = summer
AFL = winter
No in direct competition as European sporting clubs are owned by the same person all the time.
the structure of the NBL industry, is very different to the AFL.
If I was the crows, I am not sure I'd have taken on the 36'ers for free, let alone paid for the priviledge.
Crow-mo
24 May 2006, 23:16
Investigate the reasons it is a money loser and half the problem is solved.
care to explain?
surely if it were that simple, the existing club wouldn't be losing money
Crow-mo
24 May 2006, 23:17
That's hardly a valid comparison. Perhaps citing other sporting clubs that have diversified into other sports might have been more relevant.
I don't have a problem with Crows admin thinking outside the square - but I also don't think they need to take unnecessary risks just because they happen to lob in their laps.
Without being an expert on basketball politics, it seems most NBL clubs are very marginal operations from a financial perspective. There have been quite a few that have gone down the gurgler in the past decade. There's nothing to suggest the Sixers are much different.
The fact that the Crows have decided not to pursue things any further perhaps tells a story in itself.
Anyway, it's not going to happen, so we don't need to worry about it.
yep, well said.
The Crows Truth
25 May 2006, 00:03
err. companies have been trying to avoid diversification since the 1980's.
that is a trend long gone.
in short, there are whole rafts of books and stuff written on this very topic, but the idea is that diversification shifts investor risk, but it costs a lot more for the company to do it, when the shareholders can diversify their portfolio for free.
BHP is a commodity based business, it is essentially cyclical. They could buy a business that had a negatively correlated business cycle, so that they are always at half mast on the cycle, but this is expensive. you acquire a target company, pay on average a 40% control premium, then you stock it with your management, which distracts and takes away focus from your core activities, and the overall cost to your business is huge. not least of all, is your management does not know how to run the new business.
whereas exactly the same diversification can be achieved virtually for free by the investor. He has 100 shares in BHP, and he goes and buys 50 shares in ABC. takes 5 minutes, costs a few dollars in commission. he has the same exposure.
diversification is old economics.
some of your finest :thumbsu: pdp.au is an often qouted example in the last decade