Adelaide Oval Review

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Their courses (coaching and umpiring) are subsidised and run by the SANFL

Clubs pay coaches, leagues pay umpires. Clubs pay an affiliation to play in a league.

 

[*PAF]

Have they built any aqua ducts?

 

[marty36]

Why would it cost so much money to establish a governing body? Are you talking about travel allowance, meeting room hire, lunches? What's the cost? What if the highest level of football in SA was the amateur league and the AFL funded elite u16 and u18 competitions. As far as a 10 year old lacing up their boots, what will be different in the football landscape in SA apart from the lack of it's 'premier' league competition?

The AFL seem very happy to have strong vibrant state league, and although it doesn't mean too much it is without question the strongest state league in Australia out of the second smallest state, that is an endorsement in itself. As for the SANFL being greedy, they don't have surplus cash they invest all this income into grass roots footy and the state league, for a state of our size I seriously doubt the AFL would question the results they are getting.

Yes they are demanding and seem to negotiate very hard, there is no coincidence of the results they are getting for our great state by being as ruthless as they are. They totally understand if they allow the AFL to push them around we as a state are screwed, remember we had that great event the grand prix once.

The Powers KT is a really really nice guy but simply isn't forcefull and a bit too nice to negotiate as hard as a seasoned campaigner like Olsen with his political background. I haven't seen enough of Fagan, he may broker a good result for Adelaide, but remember that the deal was entered into on the provision of moving to AO with a number of non negotiables for the SANFL which no doubt one would be, we will not be worse off and in fact included an increase in the return. I cant see them changing these non negotiables can you?

 

[1970crow]

The AFL seem very happy to have strong vibrant state league, and although it doesn't mean too much it is without question the strongest state league in Australia out of the second smallest state, that is an endorsement in itself. As for the SANFL being greedy, they don't have surplus cash they invest all this income into grass roots footy and the state league, for a state of our size I seriously doubt the AFL would question the results they are getting.

Yes they are demanding and seem to negotiate very hard, there is no coincidence of the results they are getting for our great state by being as ruthless as they are. They totally understand if they allow the AFL to push them around we as a state are screwed, remember we had that great event the grand prix once.

The Powers KT is a really really nice guy but simply isn't forcefull and a bit too nice to negotiate as hard as a seasoned campaigner like Olsen with his political background. I haven't seen enough of Fagan, he may broker a good result for Adelaide, but remember that the deal was entered into on the provision of moving to AO with a number of non negotiables for the SANFL which no doubt one would be, we will not be worse off and in fact included an increase in the return. I cant see them changing these non negotiables can you?

Yeh, question not answered mate. Re-read my post and respond to the questions within it or don't bother. If I want to read a press statement, I don't have to come here mate.

 

[marty36]

Yeh, question not answered mate. Re-read my post and respond to the questions within it or don't bother. If I want to read a press statement, I don't have to come here mate.

I know you don't have to come here, none of us do, you choose to!!!!

 

[1970crow]

I know you don't have to come here, none of us do, you choose to!!!!

Yes, and I ask questions of the more knowledgeable SANFL posters. You are constantly referring to grass roots footy and the dangers of the SANFL being under-funded. And yet you refuse to identify a single area that would suffer if the SANFL collapsed right now. That's all I'm asking, identify how the local amateur league club's under 10's will suffer if Norwood weren't playing Westies next year. Would the ammo's and school systems collapse? It's a very simple question, because to me that's grass roots footy.

 

[1970crow]

Their courses (coaching and umpiring) are subsidised and run by the SANFL

Clubs pay coaches, leagues pay umpires. Clubs pay an affiliation to play in a league.

To what degree are they subsidised. Basic course quoted $50 and appears to be conducted over a single day. So, COGS is uniform, lunch, whistle and admin fee. Let's say that swallows the entire $50. That would mean that the SANFL's subsidy to umpiring is the cost of the facilitator divided by the number of attendees. Surely you're not suggesting that grass roots footy would be devastated if the SANFL wasn't subsidising umpire training.

 

[The_Wookie]

Nah Jesper is wrong

From what I am aware, we received a naming right dividend from the Crows Tavern, but it was always a wholly owned and operated SANFL venue. It was effectively a token payoff from the SANFL because we were prevented via our license from having any venues of our own. I am also fairly sure that part of the termination agreement from the naming rights was that the SANFL allowed us to open the Selection Table Café.

If it was just a naming right, you wouldnt have taken a $900,000 hit when it wrapped up.

 

[redandblack]

It's wonderful how the ex-SANFL, then AFL, Cornes' article is propaganda, but the ex-SANFL Thomas's Club Press Release is 100% right.

There is a clear distinction here between those who understand why the SANFL have earned the right to look after football in SA and those who think football in SA is purely about the 2 AFL clubs.

It would be worthwhile for the latter group to read an SANFL Annual Report. That would quickly show you what they do. As for country football, it has an equal vote with the SANFL clubs and is represented by Rob Kerin.

The whole final negotiation is probably over a million dollars or so, thus rendering all this detailed discussion about revenues, etc, meaningless.

The clubs are looking for the best deal, so are the SANFL.

Simple as that.

 

[Cleric]

How can you say that it's not about how many get drafted?
Tell that to the kids that dream of playing footy and give up on so many things that other kids take for granted.

Are state teams allowed to play overage players? I am not telling but actually asking.

And who hates the SANFL? They are the ones that made a claim that they need all this money not to prop up a comp to beyond where it currently sits but to run footy state wide. It is only fair that people ask to see the proof.

The reason SA kids didnt represent as much in the draft compared to the Nationals success is that they were on the smaller side than is the fad in todays AFL (Caleb Daniel if he was 20 cms bigger would have gone top 5). Genetics isnt something the SANFL has the ability to change, however they were the best coached and developed team for the last two years, even with the AFL trying to give Vic Metro an advantage.
To not give the SANFL their dues for this shows your bias.

 

[Papa G]

Had a good couple of years in the juniors but hadn't won a title since 1995. Let's not overstate how great SA junior development is.

 

[*PAF]

...

As for country football, it has an equal vote with the SANFL clubs and is represented by Rob Kerin.

...

Ah yes the community "delegate" there to ensure that the interests of grassroots football are represented at the highest level.
His voice is one 9 on board of directors who amongst other things are also responsible for appointing the elected members to the SAFC.

The other 8 are there to represent?
Surely not one from each of the 8 SANFL club and nobody else?

 

[*PAF]

Had a good couple of years in the juniors but hadn't won a title since 1995. Let's not overstate how great SA junior development is.

The original "question" was about how many kids actually get drafted and not just in 2014.

That was in response to those suggesting that the SANFL does much better than other states in regards to junior development.
In other words if you are going to make a bold statement then provide the proof.

 

[Cleric]

Had a good couple of years in the juniors but hadn't won a title since 1995. Let's not overstate how great SA junior development is.

Lets just agree that the SANFL has done a better job at jr development than Port has done. Over a decade now without producing a top ten draft pick. Thats pretty damming. Obviously they have neglected their zone and it will no doubt benefit when other teams take it over.

 

[*PAF]

Lets just agree that the SANFL has done a better job at jr development than Port has done. Over a decade now without producing a top ten draft pick. Thats pretty damming. Obviously they have neglected their zone and it will no doubt benefit when other teams take it over.

Are you now comparing a whole state to a single club? Wow.

 

[relapse]

It's wonderful how the ex-SANFL, then AFL, Cornes' article is propaganda, but the ex-SANFL Thomas's Club Press Release is 100% right.

There is a clear distinction here between those who understand why the SANFL have earned the right to look after football in SA and those who think football in SA is purely about the 2 AFL clubs.

It would be worthwhile for the latter group to read an SANFL Annual Report. That would quickly show you what they do. As for country football, it has an equal vote with the SANFL clubs and is represented by Rob Kerin.

The whole final negotiation is probably over a million dollars or so, thus rendering all this detailed discussion about revenues, etc, meaningless.

The clubs are looking for the best deal, so are the SANFL.

Simple as that.

I still think the big issue that the SANFL seems to be continually trying to divert attention away from the apparent $13,000,000 financial black hole that exists in SA football.

Genuine questions need to be asked as to the competence of the SANFL when it comes to the financial management of SA Football. More to the point, how has SA football reached a point where it needs to rely on an annual $13,000,000 cash grab from AFL revenue to stay afloat ? and what is being done to address it ?

People are sick of is the attitude from the SANFL and their belief that it is their god given right to take whatever cash they need without any justification especially when the money is coming from the supporters of the 2 AFL clubs. The supporters should have every right to know where this money is actually going especially when it's not going to their club.

It's high time that the SANFL stops worrying about what the AFL clubs are doing and instead focuses on trying to make SA football financially self sufficient. The answer isn't just throwing more and more money down the financial black hole, it's about actually addressing and rectifying the problems. Personally I believe that an comprehensive independent review of SA footy is well overdue and the review of Adelaide Oval should be dependant of a review actually taking place.

 

[RonSon]

It's wonderful how the ex-SANFL, then AFL, Cornes' article is propaganda, but the ex-SANFL Thomas's Club Press Release is 100% right.
There is a clear distinction here between those who understand why the SANFL have earned the right to look after football in SA and those who think football in SA is purely about the 2 AFL clubs.
It would be worthwhile for the latter group to read an SANFL Annual Report. That would quickly show you what they do. As for country football, it has an equal vote with the SANFL clubs and is represented by Rob Kerin.
The whole final negotiation is probably over a million dollars or so, thus rendering all this detailed discussion about revenues, etc, meaningless.
The clubs are looking for the best deal, so are the SANFL.
Simple as that.

I read that there was an article in the local messenger stating the West Adelaide FC was asking the council to defer a $200k debt repayment so the club doesn't become insolvent.

Why would the SANFL repay a no interest debt to the AFL before helping out one of it's clubs?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I read that there was an article in the local messenger stating the West Adelaide FC was asking the council to defer a $200k debt repayment so the club doesn't become insolvent.

Why would the SANFL repay a no interest debt to the AFL before helping out one of it's clubs?

What would you pay first and place a greater level of importance on?

Your own mortgage or your brothers speeding fine?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

To what degree are they subsidised. Basic course quoted $50 and appears to be conducted over a single day. So, COGS is uniform, lunch, whistle and admin fee. Let's say that swallows the entire $50. That would mean that the SANFL's subsidy to umpiring is the cost of the facilitator divided by the number of attendees. Surely you're not suggesting that grass roots footy would be devastated if the SANFL wasn't subsidising umpire training.

If they weren't running umpiring courses then footy would be significantly worse

 

[redandblack]

I read that there was an article in the local messenger stating the West Adelaide FC was asking the council to defer a $200k debt repayment so the club doesn't become insolvent.

Why would the SANFL repay a no interest debt to the AFL before helping out one of it's clubs?

The West Adelaide FC doesn't have a debt with the Council for $200K or anything like it and hasn't asked for any deferral obviously.

West are also quite solvent, nowhere near insolvency.

 

[redandblack]

I still think the big issue that the SANFL seems to be continually trying to divert attention away from the apparent $13,000,000 financial black hole that exists in SA football.

Genuine questions need to be asked as to the competence of the SANFL when it comes to the financial management of SA Football. More to the point, how has SA football reached a point where it needs to rely on an annual $13,000,000 cash grab from AFL revenue to stay afloat ? and what is being done to address it ?

People are sick of is the attitude from the SANFL and their belief that it is their god given right to take whatever cash they need without any justification especially when the money is coming from the supporters of the 2 AFL clubs. The supporters should have every right to know where this money is actually going especially when it's not going to their club.

It's high time that the SANFL stops worrying about what the AFL clubs are doing and instead focuses on trying to make SA football financially self sufficient. The answer isn't just throwing more and more money down the financial black hole, it's about actually addressing and rectifying the problems. Personally I believe that an comprehensive independent review of SA footy is well overdue and the review of Adelaide Oval should be dependant of a review actually taking place.

What a load of nonsense. What $13 million 'black hole'?

You don't seem to grasp that Port and Adelaide were playing in a stadium built by the SANFL. They're entitled to a return. If there are any questions of competence, they should be directed to Port, who even with a huge uplift, will still make a loss. They then appoint a GPS expert on no doubt a large salary.

Let's not have this sort of nonsense which is just AFL club propaganda regurgitated without any factual basis or understanding of the management of football in SA.

You all want a body which has looked after football in SA for about 137 years to hand everything over to 20 year old clubs which they either supported or bailed out financially.

 

[*PAF]

What a load of nonsense. What $13 million 'black hole'?

You don't seem to grasp that Port and Adelaide were playing in a stadium built by the SANFL. They're entitled to a return. If there are any questions of competence, they should be directed to Port, who even with a huge uplift, will still make a loss. They then appoint a GPS expert on no doubt a large salary.

Let's not have this sort of nonsense which is just AFL club propaganda regurgitated without any factual basis or understanding of the management of football in SA.

You all want a body which has looked after football in SA for about 137 years to hand everything over to 20 year old clubs which they either supported or bailed out financially.

Gotta love it how whenever SANFL cronies don't know how to answer something they bring Port into it.

If it wasn't for the AFL teams we'd be rich.
We've given Port 16.5 million dollars and subsidised the ungrateful Crows by 2 million bucks a year for 25 years. $50 million dollars total that is.

That is the reason we ended up with a $66.5 million dollar debt.
******* Port pricks. Have I said Port are a bunch of pricks yet?
What about 16.5 MILLION DOLLARS? Have I mentioned that yet?

Sheesh, gimme a break.


EDIT: Just remembered that the debt is $70 and not $66.5 million dollars.
Obviously the other $3.5mils must be due to sponsoring grassroots footy.

 

[Redline]

To what degree are they subsidised. Basic course quoted $50 and appears to be conducted over a single day. So, COGS is uniform, lunch, whistle and admin fee. Let's say that swallows the entire $50. That would mean that the SANFL's subsidy to umpiring is the cost of the facilitator divided by the number of attendees. Surely you're not suggesting that grass roots footy would be devastated if the SANFL wasn't subsidising umpire training.

Must have been a while since you have attended a training course. You get nothing for $50. You are just making up numbers and then expecting people to explain them.

 

[Redline]

Gotta love it how whenever SANFL cronies don't know how to answer something they bring Port into it.

If it wasn't for the AFL teams we'd be rich.
We've given Port 16.5 million dollars and subsidised the ungrateful Crows by 2 million bucks a year for 25 years. $50 million dollars total that is.

That is the reason we ended up with a $66.5 million dollar debt.
******* Port pricks. Have I said Port are a bunch of pricks yet?
What about 16.5 MILLION DOLLARS? Have I mentioned that yet?

Sheesh, gimme a break.


EDIT: Just remembered that the debt is $70 and not $66.5 million dollars.
Obviously the other $3.5mils must be due to sponsoring grassroots footy.

My whole issue with Port is that no matter what seems to be allowed to happen they still take no responsibility for their financial management.

The One Club model was supposed to save everything as was the move to Adelaide Oval. I just feel even if the SANFL accepted all their demands they would be back again in 12 months with a whole new list of demands to justify their financial loss.

 

[redandblack]

Gotta love it how whenever SANFL cronies don't know how to answer something they bring Port into it.

If it wasn't for the AFL teams we'd be rich.
We've given Port 16.5 million dollars and subsidised the ungrateful Crows by 2 million bucks a year for 25 years. $50 million dollars total that is.

That is the reason we ended up with a $66.5 million dollar debt.
******* Port pricks. Have I said Port are a bunch of pricks yet?
What about 16.5 MILLION DOLLARS? Have I mentioned that yet?

Sheesh, gimme a break.


EDIT: Just remembered that the debt is $70 and not $66.5 million dollars.
Obviously the other $3.5mils must be due to sponsoring grassroots footy.

Well,that struck a nerve, didn't it.