The Adelaide Oval Deal Discussion

[AdsGoNads]

Like the SANFL's own forensic accountant before it, I imagine this review is going to paint the SANFL in a ridiculously bad light and yet again I expect absolutely nothing to change.

Someone needs to Audit the SANFL - when was the last time they had an independent review as an organisation?

Time for Jay to order a review of such a great state asset, before it becomes completely mothballed..

I would not be surprised if they decide to sack the board + Start again!

 

[El_Scorcho]

Someone needs to Audit the SANFL - when was the last time they had an independent review as an organisation?

Time for Jay to order a review of such a great state asset, before it becomes completely mothballed..

I would not be surprised if they decide to sack the board + Start again!

This is really my biggest issue with the whole thing.

Maybe the SANFL really, really need the amount of money they are getting from the Adelaide Oval. Maybe it's absolutely required to fund football in this state. Maybe Whicker and Olsen live like paupers and maybe Chaz McSullivan is right and the salary cap is too low. Maybe Richmond Oval getting a big screen has brought a massive amount of value to grass roots football and was a terrific investment. Maybe the SANFL are running like a Swiss watch and every dollar they reluctantly take is adding maximum value to football in South Australia.

But we'll never know, because they wont tell us. There is zero accountability on their part and zero risk. They take what they want, spend it how they want, and nobody (bar Port supporters and now a proportion of Crows supporters who have opened their eyes) ever questions their financials or efficiency.

If the SANFL were totally transparent then none of this would be an issue because everyone paying attention would know the state of play. The SANFL could claim "it's all Port's fault" and back it up with " and here are our financials to prove it"

 

[Kwality]

Someone needs to Audit the SANFL - when was the last time they had an independent review as an organisation?

Time for Jay to order a review of such a great state asset, before it becomes completely mothballed..

I would not be surprised if they decide to sack the board + Start again!

Is the SANFL a state government body?

 

[The_Wookie]

Is the SANFL a state government body?

no

 

[AdsGoNads]

Is the SANFL a state government body?

No, its not, but it should be a major concern of the minister for Sports and Recreation.

 

[Kwality]

No, its not, but it should be a major concern of the minister for Sports and Recreation.

So how does the Government take any action at all regarding the SANFL - you on a dream machine Nads?

 

[hitthepost]

SANFL probably get some government assistance, as a community sport organisation (not League level). Could threaten things like that.

 

[AdsGoNads]

So how does the Government take any action at all regarding the SANFL - you on a dream machine Nads?

Not sure if you're taking the piss - but I'll highlight a few machine pieces of the reality machine.
a - The government just invested a few $m into a central sporting facility, because they want to see our two AFL teams succeed, not for pride, but because sport in this state stimulates the economy - thats the easy one. How does this affect the SANFL? Well they clearly wish to use this stadium, take some of its revenue + to do so, would argue that they contribute to developing young AFL talent in this state - Yes, this is common knowledge, but already you should have picked up that the Govt. has the SANFL by the balls.
b - Aussie rule football in this state is one of the largest social + recreational participation sports, therefore the Dept. of Recreation + Sport has a major interests in the health of this Sport in our state. Read their Policies if you like, but the summary is making sure people lead healthy lives through regular exercise, why? Because tons of research shows, healthy people are smarter, more successful + will advance the wealth of the state. The SANFL is the pinnacle in the sport, furthermore is the AFL, but in this state the SANFL provides a dream to strive for or an admiration of others success.
c - Not only do SANFL clubs, but more so the grass roots Clubs give so much back to community, charities, programs, purpose, jobs.
But not to forget, the success of the two AFL clubs is the greatest stimulator of this states economy through sport.
This is getting far to long. The short of it is - the State Govt. doesn't want the SANFL to be poorly governed, become white anted + mothballed.
But the SANFL is not higher than our two AFL clubs who represent the state on the National stage.
The state Govt. will not allow the SANFL to be profitable at the expense of the AFL teams.

 

[Redline]

Any chance we could keep all the Port finger pointing at the SANFL over on the Port / Crows board? I realise it is 'stadium related' but we will just end up with yet another thread going around in circles over the stadium deal.

Does anyone know what they are building out the back of the members in the South / Western pocket?

Also there is a fair bit of confidence within tennis circles that an upgrade of Memorial Drive which is next door to Adelaide Oval will be granted some government money for an upgrade in the next month.

 

[marty36]

No one can explain the biggest question at all, why did the two clubs agree to signing a long term agreement even when the review meant nothing could be changed?

 

[AdsGoNads]

No one can explain the biggest question at all, why did the two clubs agree to signing a long term agreement even when the review meant nothing could be changed?

The clubs had very little control over this, as the SANFL still held the licences.

 

[marty36]

The clubs had very little control over this, as the SANFL still held the licences.

In what way? The licenses were sub leased to the clubs not run by the SANFL!

 

[Kwality]

In what way? The licenses were sub leased to the clubs not run by the SANFL!

Lulled into a false sense of security believing big brother aka the AFL, were looking after their best interests (i.e the clubs best interests not the AFLs best interests) ???
Just a replay of the AFL dealings at both Etihad & the MCG, every club for themselves. The AFL look after themselves.

Sadly no one is being hung, drawn & quartered thanks to the confidentiality agreement. Oh for an investigative journo but all we've got is AFL accredited hacks.

 

[Kwality]

Not sure if you're taking the piss - but I'll highlight a few machine pieces of the reality machine.
a - The government just invested a few $m into a central sporting facility, because they want to see our two AFL teams succeed, not for pride, but because sport in this state stimulates the economy - thats the easy one. How does this affect the SANFL? Well they clearly wish to use this stadium, take some of its revenue + to do so, would argue that they contribute to developing young AFL talent in this state - Yes, this is common knowledge, but already you should have picked up that the Govt. has the SANFL by the balls.
b - Aussie rule football in this state is one of the largest social + recreational participation sports, therefore the Dept. of Recreation + Sport has a major interests in the health of this Sport in our state. Read their Policies if you like, but the summary is making sure people lead healthy lives through regular exercise, why? Because tons of research shows, healthy people are smarter, more successful + will advance the wealth of the state. The SANFL is the pinnacle in the sport, furthermore is the AFL, but in this state the SANFL provides a dream to strive for or an admiration of others success.
c - Not only do SANFL clubs, but more so the grass roots Clubs give so much back to community, charities, programs, purpose, jobs.
But not to forget, the success of the two AFL clubs is the greatest stimulator of this states economy through sport.
This is getting far to long. The short of it is - the State Govt. doesn't want the SANFL to be poorly governed, become white anted + mothballed.
But the SANFL is not higher than our two AFL clubs who represent the state on the National stage.
The state Govt. will not allow the SANFL to be profitable at the expense of the AFL teams.

Your original suggestion was bordering on the ridiculous, particularly as you now outline that you do understand.

Question Nads, have you contacted your MPs?

 

[marty36]

Lulled into a false sense of security believing big brother aka the AFL, were looking after their best interests (i.e the clubs best interests not the AFLs best interests) ???
Just a replay of the AFL dealings at both Etihad & the MCG, every club for themselves. The AFL look after themselves.

Sadly no one is being hung, drawn & quartered thanks to the confidentiality agreement. Oh for an investigative journo but all we've got is AFL accredited hacks.

Correct the AFL were looking after their own best interests, if the AO didnt service Football in this state, you do realise who the next cab of the rank would be to have to foot the bills or watch the sport take a backwards step!

 

[Kwality]

Correct the AFL were looking after their own best interests, if the AO didnt service Football in this state, you do realise who the next cab of the rank would be to have to foot the bills or watch the sport take a backwards step!

Indeed but more to the point is every one of those involved in this fiasco should be shamed into acknowledging their incompetence, there is only 100 cents in the dollar & the deal seems to assume a magic pudding of 130 cents in the dollar.
Parties have been deliberately misled, akin to a conspiracy.

 

[marty36]

Indeed but more to the point is every one of those involved in this fiasco should be shamed into acknowledging their incompetence, there is only 100 cents in the dollar & the deal seems to assume a magic pudding of 130 cents in the dollar.
Parties have been deliberately misled, akin to a conspiracy.

But why complain about it once you sign and seal the deal surely it started in 2009 you knew the landscape and when signing that dotted line you would be fully aware of the financial implications and the impact on your financial future. But then think to yourself gee I don't like that and through the dummy out of the cot!

 

[Kwality]

But why complain about it once you sign and seal the deal surely it started in 2009 you knew the landscape and when signing that dotted line you would be fully aware of the financial implications and the impact on your financial future. But then think to yourself gee I don't like that and through the dummy out of the cot!

You outline the extent of the conspiracy. Conned, dudded by a group of administrators, trusted ... therein lies the problem. Fully aware you say, dont buy that .. trust in other parties that has been prove to be poor judgement.

Put names on those people 36, Gil McLachlan at the AFL. Put a few names forward 36 ! For the SMA, for the SANFL, the SACA - was Uncle Ian still in the picture in 2009 36? 2009 though, you suggesting it goes back that far?

 

[marty36]

You outline the extent of the conspiracy. Conned, dudded by a group of administrators, trusted ... therein lies the problem. Fully aware you say, dont buy that .. trust in other parties that has been prove to be poor judgement.

Put names on those people 36, Gil McLachlan at the AFL. Put a few names forward 36 ! For the SMA, for the SANFL, the SACA - was Uncle Ian still in the picture in 2009 36? 2009 though, you suggesting it goes back that far?

I don't suppose two organisations who turnover millions of dollars would use their own consultants maybe the likes of KPMG or that sort of firm, but still got hoodwinked by some amateurs, your as bad as the Power supporters and the conspiracy theories, while your talking like that who killed JFK?

 

[The_Wookie]

But why complain about it once you sign and seal the deal surely it started in 2009 you knew the landscape and when signing that dotted line you would be fully aware of the financial implications and the impact on your financial future. But then think to yourself gee I don't like that and through the dummy out of the cot!

Why complain? Teams were effectively railroaded by their owner - the SANFL - into signing a deal that benefited the SANFL most of all. And you want to talk about conspiracies.

 

[AdsGoNads]

Your original suggestion was bordering on the ridiculous, particularly as you now outline that you do understand.

Question Nads, have you contacted your MPs?

Ok, so you're one of those..

 

[Kwality]

I don't suppose two organisations who turnover millions of dollars would use their own consultants maybe the likes of KPMG or that sort of firm, but still got hoodwinked by some amateurs, your as bad as the Power supporters and the conspiracy theories, while your talking like that who killed JFK?

Poor attempt to duck the issue 36. Stop your pontificating & put some flesh on the issues.

 

[Kwality]

Ok, so you're one of those..

Just trying to assess whether you are dinkum ... you arent ? Do you vote?

 

[Kwality]

Why complain? Teams were effectively railroaded by their owner - the SANFL - into signing a deal that benefited the SANFL most of all. And you want to talk about conspiracies.

Given the licences were in play, the AFL failed the clubs, just as they did in locking div2 Melbourne clubs into dud deals at Etihad.

I'd say both the AFL & the SANFL acted in their own best interests & the clubs were shackled with dud deals. Did they act independently in having the clubs sign the deals. Not surprised some find conspiracy confronting but call a spade a spade, stop trying to divert blame from every party involved, even running the consultants line eh 36.

 

[marty36]

Given the licences were in play, the AFL failed the clubs, just as they did in locking div2 Melbourne clubs into dud deals at Etihad.

I'd say both the AFL & the SANFL acted in their own best interests & the clubs were shackled with dud deals. Did they act independently in having the clubs sign the deals. Not surprised some find conspiracy confronting but call a spade a spade, stop trying to divert blame from every party involved, even running the consultants line eh 36.

I suppose you were thinking the SANFL would be more interested in the AFL and the two clubs financial interests rather than that of their own and the need for them to govern football here in South Australia? Why wouldn't they consider themselves first?