Adelaide Oval Review

[Mattrox]

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.

Because it's Vlad's fault the the SANFL would not negotiate acceptable terms prior?

 

[Jim Dixon]

Well it sure as hell wasn't yours.

As a paid up member, more likely to be my money at stake then yours. Unless you are one of those 10,000 '3 gamers' we keep hearing about.

 

[Southerntakeover]

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!"

Of course, in support of your statement no one from the club has ever claimed that they were 'coerced'.

 

[Mattrox]

Of course, in support of your statement no one from the club has ever claimed that they were 'coerced'.

Well, what word would you choose? Told to? Forced?

Given the clubs were not ready to sign the agreement on the eve if the season and it was starting to cause Vlad some embarrassment and he said "it must be done" it certainly wasn't a satisfactory situation and I'd hardly call it "agreeing".

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

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.

So should the Sma been upfront to clubs about these costs?

Harder to budget when cost increases are not disclosed at the time of the deal...

 

[Redline]

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

Plus the pyrotechnics display

 

[feenix67]

Well, what word would you choose? Told to? Forced?

Given the clubs were not ready to sign the agreement on the eve if the season and it was starting to cause Vlad some embarrassment and he said "it must be done" it certainly wasn't a satisfactory situation and I'd hardly call it "agreeing".

See the flaw in your argument there is that by implication the clubs held the upper hand. No one gets "forced" to do anything when they hold all the cards.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Well, what word would you choose? Told to? Forced?

Given the clubs were not ready to sign the agreement on the eve if the season and it was starting to cause Vlad some embarrassment and he said "it must be done" it certainly wasn't a satisfactory situation and I'd hardly call it "agreeing".

I wouldn't use any of those words. This is your claim.

If the AFL had the power to force us into an agreement it wouldn't be necessary for us to sign the agreement in the first place.

Were coercion responsible for our having signed a contract with is apparently detrimental to our survival as a football club I would expect that we would be in the courts litigating that point.

Of course, no one with any relationship to the matter is saying that as far as I'm aware.

 

[Papa G]

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?

This is virtually verbatim what Grandpa Cornes said on radio. No body else has said this. nobody.

 

[baldandbroke]

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.

What? Expensive envelopes! The nerve. I hope they didn't double staple any of those pieces of paper either ... just preposterous !!

It's like Apple with their bloody waste of resources nice boxes for their products ... it's almost like AFC are trying to create some delusion of brand quality? Maybe an SMS message telling members to go online and download the renewals would be a better idea? Think of the savings in paper and envelopes alone.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Mattrox]

See the flaw in your argument there is that by implication the clubs held the upper hand. No one gets "forced" to do anything when they hold all the cards.

There is no implication of any upper hand.

The SANFL wanted "X" terms the clubs did not want to sign up yo those terms.

 

[Mattrox]

If the AFL had the power to force us into an agreement it wouldn't be necessary for us to sign the agreement in the first place.

That paragraph makes no sense.

The AFL want the clubs to get the best desl they can so there are less bail outs. However, given the clubs weren't agreeable to the SANFL terms they "encouraged" an interim "agreement" for expediency.


Throughout this negotiation Fagan and Chapman have been very guarded in their public comments about the deal out of respect to the process. They are becoming increasingly frustrated. There is no sign that they were happy with the original terms and every sign that the original terms were unacceptable to the club.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Just out of interest, what does the SMA spend their money on?

Where do those profits go?

 

[Mattrox]

Just out of interest, what does the SMA spend their money on?

Where do those profits go?

The SMA itself spends money on electricity, water and the emergency services levy.

The SACA and SANFL seem to collect dividends sans expenses.

 

[FR0GGY]

Just out of interest, what does the SMA spend their money on?

Where do those profits go?

Managers, there's too many of them and they aren't any good at their job.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

The SMA itself spends money on electricity, water and the emergency services levy.

The SACA and SANFL seem to collect dividends sans expenses.

And that's fair enough but shouldn't the SMA operate as a not for profit organisation.

Meaning any left over money they have accumulated over the year get divided between the 4 major tenets (sanfl, saca, crows and power)

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Managers, there's too many of them and they aren't any good at their job.

Not being funny but no idea what you mean.

 

[Mattrox]

And that's fair enough but shouldn't the SMA operate as a not for profit organisation.

Meaning any left over money they have accumulated over the year get divided between the 4 major tenets (sanfl, saca, crows and power)

I think they are trying to build up surpluses for renovations and future development.

They made $500k profit this year but I imagine debt reduction is a 1st priority.

 

[Don Muraco]

Just out of interest, what does the SMA spend their money on?

Where do those profits go?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I think they are trying to build up surpluses for renovations and future development.

They made $500k profit this year but I imagine debt reduction is a 1st priority.

Fair enough.

Thanks for answering.

 

[feenix67]

This is virtually verbatim what Grandpa Cornes said on radio. No body else has said this. nobody.

Well has anyone come out and said that's not the case? Nope, probably because the club's are driving the media agenda.

 

[Southerntakeover]

That paragraph makes no sense.

The AFL want the clubs to get the best desl they can so there are less bail outs. However, given the clubs weren't agreeable to the SANFL terms they "encouraged" an interim "agreement" for expediency.


Throughout this negotiation Fagan and Chapman have been very guarded in their public comments about the deal out of respect to the process. They are becoming increasingly frustrated. There is no sign that they were happy with the original terms and every sign that the original terms were unacceptable to the club.

The paragraph makes every sense. The AFL do not have the power to agree to contracts on behalf of the AFC, nor can they compel us to enter a contract.

Our being dissatisfied with a contract now does not indicate that we did not freely agree at the time of the contract. It would not be uncommon for negotiators to become unhappy with a deal in hindsight.

 

[Mattrox]

The paragraph makes every sense. The AFL do not have the power to agree to contracts on behalf of the AFC, nor can they compel us to enter a contract.

So all the reports that Vlad stepped in are false. And the the clubs would have signed anyway without his involvement?

 

[raman]

Sincere question, have you guys considered pushing for the AFC to dumb S. Rowe as an ambassador, given that he has openly chosen to put the priorities of the SANFL above those of the Crows?

 

[Deaneus!]

Sincere question, have you guys considered pushing for the AFC to dumb S. Rowe as an ambassador, given that he has openly chosen to put the priorities of the SANFL above those of the Crows?

Now, I'll assume that's a typo, but a great one. If he wants to be an ambassador, get on board, or get off.

Too many ambassadors. I'd have no problem getting rid of half of them at least, I find the concept... disturbing to say the least, and somewhat incestuous.