Adelaide Oval Review

[feenix67]

Here's a fact PAF*

When a business doesn't make a profit because they don't hit revenue KPIs (eg attendances), that's an operating issue. When they exceed KPIs but still make a loss, that's a budgeting issue.

Saying "oh we didn't understand the contract" is a competency issue.

 

[Sanders]

The SANFL played a major part in that so called value destruction, but I suppose most, not all but most, non Port people struggle to see that.

That's a lot easier to say than support

That could also be why both of our last two non Port "SANFL plants" in Haysman and KT, ended up No1 on the SANFL's most wanted and hated list only a handful of months after starting their job.

Plants? C'mon man you're better than that

They were forced to hand back money Port should have had in the first place, do not forget the AFC too made losses on over 30k average crowds at AAMI.

Should have had???

 

[*PAF]

That's a lot easier to say than support



Plants? C'mon man you're better than that



Should have had???

1. Yeah hard to support opinions, but not all opinions are wrong or baseless.

2. Should have been "supposed plants" as that is what was being said at the time. That wasn't an opinion as I was trying to use the words used to describe their appointments at the time. Both were chosen and appointed by the SANFL. If you recall KT was named in parliament even before he got the job.

3. Yeah should is the right word. "Should" the Crows have made a decent profit this year? How would you describe any "handouts" from the SANFL to the Crows due to not having made a decent profit this year?

 

[Mattrox]

I have zero probs with the SANFL not being worse off with the AO stadium deal than what they got an AAMI, which was excessive but hey it is what it is, but they shouldn't be doing better and they should start fixing some of the problems rather than ponce about on the sum i good attedance and a hit load of comped tickets to their GF every year whilst 2/3rds of the rest of the Clubs are destitute.

Amen to that.

 

[Sanders]

3. Yeah should is the right word. "Should" the Crows have made a decent profit this year? How would you describe any "handouts" from the SANFL to the Crows due to not having made a decent profit this year?

We got £3m+ more this year than we would have if we were still at AAMI.

Where the heck did this extra money go?

What does it look like without this extra money? I don't think these are questions for the Sanfl to answer.

Where has it all gone????

 

[*PAF]

We got £3m+ more this year than we would have if we were still at AAMI.

Where the heck did this extra money go?

What does it look like without this extra money? I don't think these are questions for the Sanfl to answer.

Where has it all gone????

$3mil gross.
You had been running at a loss.
There would be some one off costs.
Now that you have more things to sell and organise they too will add to the costs.

 

[bomberclifford]

We got £3m+ more this year than we would have if we were still at AAMI.

Where the heck did this extra money go?

What does it look like without this extra money? I don't think these are questions for the Sanfl to answer.

Where has it all gone????

What's your best guess on where it's gone, Sanders?

My understanding is that the 'uplift' that was promised was a gross figure, not a nett one.

Based on what I've read, and what I've heard from people linked to Port, is that there were extraordinary expenses attached with AO that they anticipated and budgeted for, but on top of this there was a massive increase in other game related expenses and costs that the SMA were passing onto the two clubs. The latter is one of the issues that they are negotiating on, and was also a sticking point prior to signing.

It's not just about revenue cut, it's also about who bears the cost of certain gameday expenses.

Once the clubs announce their official figures, it will be interesting to see the breakdown and comparison to last season.


The way I see it is that Port are roughly $2mil 'behind' the Crows in terms of financial performance and this feels about right.

Given that Port has a way to go to sell corporate inventory and increase its sponsorship revenue, it's fair to say that a break even or even a small loss would have been about par given the circumstances.

On the other side, If the Crows made a ~$2mil profit, given payouts etc then that also feels about right.

I know it's simplistic, and it is intentionally so, but this means the stadium deal needs to provide a combined $4mil extra to both AFL clubs.

This is very doable considering the amount of revenue the stadium generates.

 

[Cleric]

Cleric given it is your board I generally stay away from Port debates but do not make the mistake of believing that I agree with the anti Port poop that gets posted.
To be perfectly honest I find both the anti Port poop on this board and the anti Crows poop on our board boring and tiring.

Yeah we had people saying we hadn't done enough to make a decent profit on 33/40th just like you now have some saying the AFC haven't done enough to make a decent profit this year. That is not me talking but facts.
Another fact is that if you are unable to bank enough of your income you will not be able to pay for your electricity when that bill comes, and it will come. This too is a fact and not too unrelated to the first one.

PAF, as you are one of the few decent Poort supporters that post on our board I dont give you a hard time. But you do need to step back and see the big picture without your Poort glasses on. I, along with alot of other people here are just sick and tired of Poort over spending and under performing. Now even when we look at the Magpies its the same s**t over and over. The Maggies have the biggest supporter base in the SANFL, they had pokie venues and yet how many friggen times did you cry poor and beg for handout money. Most other SANFL clubs do far more with far less. Not only were you guys crying poor but you were pathetic on the field and havent produced a top 10 draft pick for well over a decade, with one of the best zones in SA, so the money hasnt been spent on jr development thats for sure. You then bitched on about the one club merger, that would fix all the money problems for both clubs. So you then wanted what you agreed you wouldnt want and begged the SANFL and the clubs to just let you get together. No doubt well written case studies put forward showing how this would end your woes and so you got your way. That didnt friggen help or fix your problems. Then it was all about how AAMI was too much like a Crows home ground so they put in teal seats to make you guys feel better, yet that didnt help. Then you get bailed out by the SANFL for around 14 million, you get the whole football landscape changed for you and you get to AO, you get better than budgeted upswing and still you cant stop bleeding money. You got the first game at AO etc etc etc. You dont think we are sick and friggen tired of Poort Adelaide whining and moaning? And when you get that extra 2-5% extra revenue you want from AO that is going to be a piss in the bucket compared to you loss and you will still loose money.

 

[feenix67]

So why did both clubs knock back the SANFLs offer to give them the additional uplift they recieved above budget this year? If they're so poor, wouldn't they welcome this goodwill gesture? Wouldn't they also accept the 68 cents in the dollar deal, which scales up to 72 cents in the dollar over five years, exceeding the 70 cents in the dollar the club's were demanding?

Perhaps this media campaign against the SANFL, that so many have blindly bought into, is a well orchestrated attempt by the club's to leverage uninformed public opinion to gain FAR more of the pie than originally negotiated?

 

[Mattrox]

Where the heck did this extra money go?

Hiring bands and equipment for match day would chew through a chunk of change.

 

[Mattrox]

So why did both clubs knock back the SANFLs offer to give them the additional uplift they recieved above budget this year? If they're so poor, wouldn't they welcome this goodwill gesture? Wouldn't they also accept the 68 cents in the dollar deal, which scales up to 72 cents in the dollar over five years, exceeding the 70 cents in the dollar the club's were demanding?

Perhaps this media campaign against the SANFL, that so many have blindly bought into, is a well orchestrated attempt by the club's to leverage uninformed public opinion to gain FAR more of the pie than originally negotiated?

I'd love to know what the string were.

 

[baldandbroke]

ClericTo be perfectly honest I find both the anti Port poop on this board and the anti Crows poop on our board boring and tiring.

Yeah, agree ... but it will always be there.

Most Port and Crows supporters I know are only having a go on the surface - sure when it AFC vs PAFC on the day then it's real - but otherwise I'd say the old 80/20 rule applies.

 

[brucetiki]

Hiring bands and equipment for match day would chew through a chunk of change.

As does sending renewals in expensive C5 envelopes.

There are a few cost inefficiencies at the Crows they may want to look at before laying full blame for breaking even at the SANFL.

 

[*PAF]

As does sending renewals in expensive C5 envelopes.

There are a few cost inefficiencies at the Crows they may want to look at before laying full blame for breaking even at the SANFL.

Unless i am mistaken the extra revenue now is also thanks to things such as corporate boxes and advertising, they would have costs associated with them and there would be substantial one off costs such as setting up the change rooms etc.
Each extra membership also has some costs associated with it although they should have been known quantities.

In other words the turnover has gone up by $3mil but the costs to generate that turnover have also gone up plus there are those substantial one off costs, and if you do not get to keep a % of gameday (ticket) income generated by the extra members you have paid for, then it gets tricky.

Its not as simple as adding $3mil to the bottom line even more so if that 3mil has to cover any standard increases in player or off field staff payments.
You also had to pay out your ex coach.

 

[Mattrox]

As does sending renewals in expensive C5 envelopes.

There are a few cost inefficiencies at the Crows they may want to look at before laying full blame for breaking even at the SANFL.

It is the exorbitant road closure, security and clean up charges that they object to most.

If they use expensive stationary as that caters to the older demographic it is just the cost of doing business. Game day expenses are for the members benefit.

The main concern is a fair split of the matchday revenue taking into account the split of matchday costs.

The club is taking into account the higher cost of business at AO in next years membership.

 

[feenix67]

All things that should ha e been known and accounted for budget day, not things to cry about after the fact.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

All things that should ha e been known and accounted for budget day, not things to cry about after the fact.

Why isn't everyone on budget...

But, yes would be interesting to see actuals v budget...'

 

[Mattrox]

All things that should ha e been known and accounted for budget day, not things to cry about after the fact.

How are the Crows supposed to know that the clean up bill was going to be double? Or that road closures were to cost $7000, originally more, when at the MCG it was $800?

And it is disingenuous to argue that the revenue split and who picks up the tab were "agreed to" when the clubs were not happy and did not want to sign. They were coerced to by Vlad in the promise that it would be rectified later.

"But your honour he confessed to the charges.......... I mean I let go from twisting his arm out of its socket. If he didn't want to confess he shouldn't have!"

 

[Geoffa32]

What's your best guess on where it's gone, Sanders?

My understanding is that the 'uplift' that was promised was a gross figure, not a nett one.

Based on what I've read, and what I've heard from people linked to Port, is that there were extraordinary expenses attached with AO that they anticipated and budgeted for, but on top of this there was a massive increase in other game related expenses and costs that the SMA were passing onto the two clubs. The latter is one of the issues that they are negotiating on, and was also a sticking point prior to signing.

It's not just about revenue cut, it's also about who bears the cost of certain gameday expenses.

Once the clubs announce their official figures, it will be interesting to see the breakdown and comparison to last season.


The way I see it is that Port are roughly $2mil 'behind' the Crows in terms of financial performance and this feels about right.

Given that Port has a way to go to sell corporate inventory and increase its sponsorship revenue, it's fair to say that a break even or even a small loss would have been about par given the circumstances.

On the other side, If the Crows made a ~$2mil profit, given payouts etc then that also feels about right.

I know it's simplistic, and it is intentionally so, but this means the stadium deal needs to provide a combined $4mil extra to both AFL clubs.

This is very doable considering the amount of revenue the stadium generates.

The deal is fundamentally flawed when the entity that gains the most with our higher than expected crowds is an entity that has little to do with generating the crowds.

SANFL gaining the most from both club's excellent attendances is a dammed disgrace. They did nothing to generate this increase yet gained all of the extra revenue.


Surely a simple change would be to allow the catering revenues above a certain dollar amount (ie dollar amount calculated above 35,000 people) each day be split 80/20 in the club's favour. Not 100% in the SANFL's favour as it is now. Keep everything else in place. This will ensure the SANFL get the budgeted amount each year, and the AFL club gains from the extra crowd. Making this change also keeps the safety net that is place to protect the AFL clubs from a drop in crowds.

 

[Deaneus!]

I'm really looking forward to the next AGD report...

On the off chance it tells us something

 

[Deaneus!]

The deal is fundamentally flawed when the entity that gains the most with our higher than expected crowds is an entity that has little to do with generating the crowds.

SANFL gaining the most from both club's excellent attendances is a dammed disgrace. They did nothing to generate this increase yet gained all of the extra revenue.


Surely a simple change would be to allow the catering revenues above a certain dollar amount (ie dollar amount calculated above 35,000 people) each day be split 80/200 in the club's favour. Not 100% in the SANFL's favour as it is now. Keep everything else in place. This will ensure the SANFL get the budgeted amount each year, and the AFL club gains from the extra crowd. Making this change also keeps the safety net that is place to protect the AFL clubs from a drop in crowds.

Right now it's 80/200 in the SANFL's favour

 

[Jim Dixon]

PAF, as you are one of the few decent Poort supporters that post on our board I dont give you a hard time. But you do need to step back and see the big picture without your Poort glasses on. I, along with alot of other people here are just sick and tired of Poort over spending and under performing. Now even when we look at the Magpies its the same s**t over and over. The Maggies have the biggest supporter base in the SANFL, they had pokie venues and yet how many friggen times did you cry poor and beg for handout money. Most other SANFL clubs do far more with far less. Not only were you guys crying poor but you were pathetic on the field and havent produced a top 10 draft pick for well over a decade, with one of the best zones in SA, so the money hasnt been spent on jr development thats for sure. You then bitched on about the one club merger, that would fix all the money problems for both clubs. So you then wanted what you agreed you wouldnt want and begged the SANFL and the clubs to just let you get together. No doubt well written case studies put forward showing how this would end your woes and so you got your way. That didnt friggen help or fix your problems. Then it was all about how AAMI was too much like a Crows home ground so they put in teal seats to make you guys feel better, yet that didnt help. Then you get bailed out by the SANFL for around 14 million, you get the whole football landscape changed for you and you get to AO, you get better than budgeted upswing and still you cant stop bleeding money. You got the first game at AO etc etc etc. You dont think we are sick and friggen tired of Poort Adelaide whining and moaning? And when you get that extra 2-5% extra revenue you want from AO that is going to be a piss in the bucket compared to you loss and you will still loose money.

Geeze buddy anyone would think it was your money we 'lost'.

 

[feenix67]

How are the Crows supposed to know that the clean up bill was going to be double? Or that road closures were to cost $7000, originally more, when at the MCG it was $800?

And it is disingenuous to argue that the revenue split and who picks up the tab were "agreed to" when the clubs were not happy and did not want to sign. They were coerced to by Vlad in the promise that it would be rectified later.

"But your honour he confessed to the charges.......... I mean I let go from twisting his arm out of its socket. If he didn't want to confess he shouldn't have!"

So blame Demetriou, who calls it his crowning achievement, not the SANFL.

But really, the road closures are a council issue. The clean up is quoted on a per capita basis. The list of known variables goes on and on, and really, should have been estimated at the outset and monitored far more dilligently during the season. Perhaps then we wouldn't have wasted money on a stupid crow and the potbelleez.

 

[feenix67]

Geeze buddy anyone would think it was your money we 'lost'.

Well it sure as hell wasn't yours.

 

[Mattrox]

I'm really looking forward to the next AGD report...

On the off chance it tells us something

Oh it will tell you something. If you look at the last one it does have enough to tell you how much the SANFL recieve.

This one coming up will be telling. The SANFL will have until Feb to negotiate and save face. If they stall until after the report is released they will be smashed from pillar to post in the court of public opinion.