Adelaide Oval Review

[redandblack]

However much I might disagree with fellow Adelaide fans about the SANFL (and I think the Penberthy article puts a different perspective on it), I am now somewhat chastened.

I read two pages on the Port board on this topic. That was a mistake.

Apart from the ritual slagging of West Adelaide as being totally useless (come back to Westies, Hamish), the rest of their diatribe has left me in a state of shock. I don't think I've read denial and blame-shifting on such a massive scale before.

It's all the SANFL's fault and one of their posters wants to do as much damage to the SANFL as possible. It's like the wounded soldier wanting to kill the Red Cross volunteer who saved him.

It's my own fault, though, but once bitten, twice shy. I'll avoid that board like the plague fom here on in.

Scary. I didn't think there were that many people with a logic bypass all in the one place.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Nah sando is a bit wimpy, buddy!

Yeah, I would liken you more to Craigy

 

[redandblack]

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2774/

So there is $45m worth of debt on the SANFL'S books...... Still.

That makes Ports portion look miniscule.

So if there was $37m of SANFL debt and they paid $10. That means the SANFL clubs owe $18m

Way to run a league SANFL!

I'm a bit confused about this.

Are you saying that the SANFL can't run a league and are broke, while at the same time saying they're rich and should give the AFL clubs more?

They're not broke.

They do have problems.

I'd be very happy to have their equity.

 

[1970crow]

Mate, The power were using Tarps to fill the stadium, enough said, where they expecting to earn anything? Because if they were that would have meant someone losing!

Mate, the question I was asking was whether they would have generated more revenue if they had the exact same deal that the Dogs do at etihad. It's a yes or no answer, possibly with supporting financial figures. The bottom line results of other clubs is irrelevant.

But the point that if port got more, then the sanfl must get less is valid. My question is where the SA clubs stadium deals sit amongst the industry average. I thought this relevant because if we're discussing port being a major factor amongst the sanfl's debt levels, then we can ask whether sanfl over-profiteering at footy park was a contributory factor amongst ports losses. Not the ONLY factor, but rather one of many.

Well before this AO thingy was on the radar, many AFC supporters and BF posters were discussing our deal at footy park and whether it was a factor in keeping us mid-table in terms of match-day revenue. Even though the deals are dead, it's still an interesting topic as being a factor regarding our mediocre and port's disastrous financial performances. Again to be clear, A FACTOR. 1.

 

[marty36]

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2774/

So there is $45m worth of debt on the SANFL'S books...... Still.

That makes Ports portion look miniscule.

So if there was $37m of SANFL debt and they paid $10. That means the SANFL clubs owe $18m

Way to run a league SANFL!

Good to see you think the SANFL are responsible.

Had a quick look at the WAFL V SANFL 2013 annuals with the SANFL with around $10 Million less in equity, gee could have been ahead if it wasnt for giving the Power $16 Million

 

[marty36]

Yeah, I would liken you more to Craigy

And you to Jars

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

And you to Jars

When did Jars coach the Crows - not in his own mind...

 

[1970crow]

The only reason I brought up other clubs and loses was you brought up the Western Bulldogs and the Stadium deal saying why cant Port have one like theirs have a read

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...e-on-price-for-early-sale-20130318-2gad9.html

Not much in there, but it's a start. I don't actually know the answer, which is why I posed the question. The bulldogs deal could be a damn sight worse than port's at footy park for all I know. But, as I said in my earlier post, if port (and us) were getting reamed at FP, then it's worth taking it into account when discussing the amount of money that the sanfl had to lend port. It might rebate the figure by $1 or $1m, I don't know, but I'd like to before I take aim at port. Especially considering we've been complaining about ours for years.

 

[marty36]

Not much in there, but it's a start. I don't actually know the answer, which is why I posed the question. The bulldogs deal could be a damn sight worse than port's at footy park for all I know. But, as I said in my earlier post, if port (and us) were getting reamed at FP, then it's worth taking it into account when discussing the amount of money that the sanfl had to lend port. It might rebate the figure by $1 or $1m, I don't know, but I'd like to before I take aim at port. Especially considering we've been complaining about ours for years.

How can you even suggest they were getting reamed they were using TARPS to cover seats so the stadium didnt look empty FFS, use a bit of common sense

 

[*PAF]

The point, which you intentionally sidestep, is that revenue from stadium deal is a key source of revenue. If Carlton had the same deal as Port do, maybe they would be announcing a $5m loss. Maybe Carlton wrote down a key asset which contributed to the loss or Perhaps they have a loss-making pokie pub. My question is whether IF port had the same deal as the dogs do at etihad and put the same bums on seats, would the stadium deal have generated more REVENUE than their footy park deal does. How they spend it Marty or whether they overspend is irrelevant to the revenue question that was posed.

I'm not sure where the conversation has gone since the post I'm quoting but the way I've always looked at it is if Port had made a decent profit when they had the crowds to do it they wouldn't have had to cut back on the off field side of things to the same level they did, and as a result crowds wouldn't have dropped off as much as they did. Had that been the case the bailout may not have been needed, so yeah I do agree with your post.

As a follow up, if the Crows cannot make a profit with the crowds you pulled last year the in 10 years time you too will need a bailout.

 

[Mattrox]

I'm a bit confused about this.

Are you saying that the SANFL can't run a league and are broke, while at the same time saying they're rich and should give the AFL clubs more?

They're not broke.

They do have problems.

I'd be very happy to have their equity.

I'm not saying they *can't* do it. They are not doing it very well.

Too many footballers running business? Too many businessmen running football? Too many politicians?

It doesn't matter how much your equity is if your debt is greater than your cash flow can service, you are stuffed.

 

[marty36]

I'm not saying they *can't* do it. They are not doing it very well.

Too many footballers running business? Too many businessmen running football? Too many politicians?

It doesn't matter how much your equity is if your debt is greater than your cash flow can service, you are stuffed.

How do you think the $16 Million given to Port affected their ability to service their debt level, are you saying they should have let them fold?

 

[Mattrox]

How do you think the $16 Million given to Port affected their ability to service their debt level, are you saying they should have let them fold?

They should have had a serious think about it before the OneClub merger.

 

[marty36]

They should have had a serious think about it before the OneClub merger.

It would have been worse for SA footy allowing them too fold but by not it means they need greater income sources to service thsi debt or sell assets which they have done which is going to affect the future!

 

[LC40]

However much I might disagree with fellow Adelaide fans about the SANFL (and I think the Penberthy article puts a different perspective on it), I am now somewhat chastened.

I read two pages on the Port board on this topic. That was a mistake.

Apart from the ritual slagging of West Adelaide as being totally useless (come back to Westies, Hamish), the rest of their diatribe has left me in a state of shock. I don't think I've read denial and blame-shifting on such a massive scale before.

It's all the SANFL's fault and one of their posters wants to do as much damage to the SANFL as possible. It's like the wounded soldier wanting to kill the Red Cross volunteer who saved him.

It's my own fault, though, but once bitten, twice shy. I'll avoid that board like the plague fom here on in.

Scary. I didn't think there were that many people with a logic bypass all in the one place.

Mate it's brutal over there. The hatred drips from the pages, it seems 1990 is seared in the psyche.

They truly want the SANFL dead and buried and no rational arguments will get a hearing. As for ever taking ownership of poor performance or low crowds...external factors always came into play.

 

[Mattrox]

It would have been worse for SA footy allowing them too fold but by not it means they need greater income sources to service thsi debt or sell assets which they have done which is going to affect the future!

If they "had to keep" Power for the good of SA football then the debt cannot be held against them in the stadium deal. They are independent of the SANFL now and the past is not KT and Kochie's fault.

Conversely the SANFL could have given (sold) Power to the AFL with the debt....... and kept them as an AAMI tennant.

 

[Mattrox]

Oh and the SANFL needed increasingly large revenue to service their increasing debt and the Crows became their cash cow.

An untenable situation really. So the SANFL NEEDED AO so the "broken lease agreement" argument falls apart.

 

[Papa G]

Who's idea was the Northern Grandstand, the Crows or the SANFL'S?? John Ulcer just said that's where the rest of the debt lies. Interestingly he for once didn't solely blame Port for the other part of the debt but indicated it helped both AFL clubs. Fagan must be getting to him.

 

[marty36]

If they "had to keep" Power for the good of SA football then the debt cannot be held against them in the stadium deal. They are independent of the SANFL now and the past is not KT and Kochie's fault.

Conversely the SANFL could have given (sold) Power to the AFL with the debt....... and kept them as an AAMI tennant.

You could say that but most governing bodies have a responsibility towards the body they are governing. The past is the past but the legacy being the debt is still there and it needs to be serviced.

Maybe by keeping AAMI as an asset and income stream it would have been easier to service but they were not allowed to as the AFL wanted them to move! And if the Stadium deal wasn't as it was, there would be more reason to say that!

Its a bit like the government use the taxes I pay to pay unemployed people or the aboriginal communities. Do I specifically want my taxes to go to a dole bludger? No but there is a responsibility to society.

 

[marty36]

Who's idea was the Northern Grandstand, the Crows or the SANFL'S?? John Ulcer just said that's where the rest of the debt lies. Interestingly he for once didn't solely blame Port for the other part of the debt but indicated it helped both AFL clubs. Fagan must be getting to him.

Over $16 Million of the debt being requiring to be serviced is there because of Port can you see that, no lets worry about Westies $150000 scoreboard!

 

[Mattrox]

You could say that but most governing bodies have a responsibility towards the body they are governing. The past is the past but the legacy being the debt is still there and it needs to be serviced.

Maybe by keeping AAMI as an asset and income stream it would have been easier to service but they were not allowed to as the AFL wanted them to move! And if the Stadium deal wasn't as it was, there would be more reason to say that!

Its a bit like the government use the taxes I pay to pay unemployed people or the aboriginal communities. Do I specifically want my taxes to go to a dole bludger? No but there is a responsibility to society.

What if there are more dole payments than tax reciepts?

Sounds like Power were not the only dole bludgers.

 

[Papa G]

$16 Million of the debt being requiring to be serviced is there because of Port can you see that, no lets worry about Westies $150000 scoreboard!

How does a big scoreboard help grass roots footy?

The Footy Park business model that the Sanfl put in place was defunct as was the stadium. Asset rich but cash flow poor. You can blame Port all you want. But that is the reality. If AO didn't come along SA football would have plunged further into debt and probably killed port which even you have admitted would have been to the detriment of football in this state. The AO has opened up the ability to save SA footy. The debt will be gone for the SANFL and a nest egg to help fund themselves going forward. What the AFL clubs are fighting for, Port in particular, is a fairer deal so that in 5 or 10 years it isnt Groundhog Day. Surely, even in your own twisted reality, you can see that?

 

[*PAF]

Now they're bringing in the "rent" you haven't paid. Seriously?
What about the cash that "lack of rent" made you.
And something doesn't add up about the grandstand. I'm not sure exactly what but I'll do some research.

 

[Papa G]

ABC just reported the debt is $55 million. WTF?

 

[*PAF]

Old but ...

http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/a...nds-to-be-repaid/story-e6frecjc-1226592730178