Adelaide Oval Review

[*PAF]

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.

I could reply to this post as it is a fair question and has answers that can be debated, but not in this thread as it will be derailed by the usual suspects. A thread of its own here or even better on the Port, and open to all that are willing to discuss it in a non bay 13 manner, as in no Poort or Cow stuff, could actually turn out to be quite a good thread.

wrt the review at the end of the day it will be about costs and divvying up the profit over and above projected revenue.

Some, including papa Cornes, are saying why should the AFL clubs get more than what was projected with lower crowds, but conversely why should the SANFL get more than what was projected?

The answer most would like to see is that all parties should get more and the split of this extra revenue/profit whatever is what needs to be agreed on.

Apart from the "costs" side of things, from a while back it sounds as if there is about 5mil to carve up.
Originally the SANFL wanted all of it and the clubs were after 4mils to be divided something like 1.5 to Port and 2.5 to the AFC. No doubt the clubs would be able to explain why the carve up between the clubs is different.
The SANFL seems to be fighting the good fight to minimise that split as much as they possibly can or delay it for as long as possible by saying nothing this year but we'll get to near that over a few years. However every time they seem to be on the back foot they go for the cheap point scoring diversion of playing the Poort card, but that seems to have run its course as it has nothing to do with how the deal at AO should be structured. It has to be the same deal for both clubs and one where they get the returns they deserve, not more but equally not less.


What we will end up with, opinion only, is the clubs getting a smaller amount this year building up to that percentage next year or the one after that.

 

[*PAF]

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

Yeah at 1:30am it can be a tad hard to be diplomatic and one should probably try harder or wait until the next day before replying, even more so when the post you replied to, by an AFC poster, talked about not using Port as a diversion but your reply did nothing but that.

 

[redandblack]

I could reply to this post as it is a fair question and has answers that can be debated, but not in this thread as it will be derailed by the usual suspects. A thread of its own here or even better on the Port, and open to all that are willing to discuss it in a non bay 13 manner, as in no Poort or Cow stuff, could actually turn out to be quite a good thread.

wrt the review at the end of the day it will be about costs and divvying up the profit over and above projected revenue.

Some, including papa Cornes, are saying why should the AFL clubs get more than what was projected with lower crowds, but conversely why should the SANFL get more than what was projected?

The answer most would like to see is that all parties should get more and the split of this extra revenue/profit whatever is what needs to be agreed on.

Apart from the "costs" side of things, from a while back it sounds as if there is about 5mil to carve up.
Originally the SANFL wanted all of it and the clubs were after 4mils to be divided something like 1.5 to Port and 2.5 to the AFC. No doubt the clubs would be able to explain why the carve up between the clubs is different.
The SANFL seems to be fighting the good fight to minimise that split as much as they possibly can or delay it for as long as possible by saying nothing this year but we'll get to near that over a few years. However every time they seem to be on the back foot they go for the cheap point scoring diversion of playing the Poort card, but that seems to have run its course as it has nothing to do with how the deal at AO should be structured. It has to be the same deal for both clubs and one where they get the returns they deserve, not more but equally not less.


What we will end up with, opinion only, is the clubs getting a smaller amount this year building up to that percentage next year or the one after that.

"Originally the. SANFL wanted all of it".

What is the evidence for this statement?

IMO, what we will end up with is the clubs getting much the better if the deal, due to AFL, Gov't and media pressure.

 

[*PAF]

"Originally the. SANFL wanted all of it".

What is the evidence for this statement?

IMO, what we will end up with is the clubs getting much the better if the deal, due to AFL, Gov't and media pressure.

It was all linked at one stage. That was when marty was saying the 4mil figure was made up by BF posters.
I won't go back looking for old posts or links but they are here or in the main board thread.

 

[1970crow]

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.

Regarding your first paragraph, I didn't comment on any other article other than Cornes'. There was no reference at all to any other and nor have I ever referenced it. Actually I did query the $15 profit per attendee figure a week ago as seeming to be a bit high. But that's it. Regarding propaganda, my comment was regarding the structure of the piece whereby he glosses over the reality that both clubs are asking for more from this review but he ends up focussing on Port because this whips up much more sympathy for the poor old SANFL.

My question is, does the SANFL look after football in SA. I understand that they are the administrators of the States premier comp, but if they folded tomorrow, would the entire amateur and school system fall over with them. It is marty36 claim that the SANFL needs money for grass-roots football. I'm yet to be provided with any evidence that grass-roots footy requires the SANFL whatsoever.

 

[1970crow]

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

You don't think another body would run umpiring courses? The SANFL fall over and that's the end of umpiring courses. That's it, that's why the SANFL is critical to grass-roots footy.

 

[Cleric]

Its interesting watching this thread. Not that long ago it was all about how the Adelaide clubs had a terrible stadium deal that was the reason Poort made a loss and why the Crows werent a West Coast type financial powerhouse. Then when the other clubs stadium revenue is compared to ours, and we blow away nearly every single team, some by millions and millions, the thread has turned into one about the SANFL and if its doing a good job or not.

 

[redandblack]

Precisely, cleric.

As for what the SANFL do, here's their Annual Report for 2013.

http://www.sanfl.com.au/files/_system/File/PDFs/2014/2014AR.pdf

I really fail to understand the hate towards the SANFL. By all means disagree with some things, but the hate is inexplicable.

If the AFL ran football in SA, we'd all go backwards at a great rate as they favoured the eastern states. They don't give a rat's arse about us.

 

[redandblack]

It was all linked at one stage. That was when marty was saying the 4mil figure was made up by BF posters.
I won't go back looking for old posts or links but they are here or in the main board thread.

There was a significant uplift factor in the agreement right from the start. The clubs now want more. Fact.

 

[1970crow]

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.

Genuine question Cleric. Is it the SANFL who require finances to develop the grass-roots players in that zone or is it the SANFL club that earns their own coin plus the $500k distribution. What control does a club actually exert upon its zone. I played rep footy in u15's for Rosewater which was in the Woodville zone in those days. But we didn't use SANFL ovals. The only time we played at Woody oval was grand finals and a country v city game. What was the SANFL's involvement in my junior career at Woody South and then Rosewater. I'm trying to get a handle on why the SANFL is so crucial to junior and grass-roots football. To me, i would have thought the amateur league is much more responsible for that and that the SANFL is merely the premier league in the state. It used to be where we all wanted to play, for me it was West Adelaide. I doubt many kids grow up playing footy dreaming of playing in the SANFL these days.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You don't think another body would run umpiring courses? The SANFL fall over and that's the end of umpiring courses. That's it, that's why the SANFL is critical to grass-roots footy.

No, because it doesn't make financial sense to run umpiring courses. It (like most development activities) doesn't make money.

Running any grassroot activity (for any sport) relies on money filtering down from the national body, which in our case is mostly from AO and the two AFL clubs, and from government funding that all sports receive. There is a bit of user pays along the way but not much. All programs are heavily subsidised (facility development, Auskick, school footy, coaching courses, umpiring courses, talent squads, school promotional activities and all the stuff the SANFL do).

The question is whether we'd be prepared to have grassroots football run by the AFL, as they do in other states.

For the SANFL their focus is on football - players, coaches, clubs, associations, umpires, administrators. The AFL have a slightly different agenda. For them it is about developing fans - kids who watch football on tv, kids who buy memberships, who go to games, who buy merchandise, who visit websites, who do dream team. Creating the next generation of fans. If they choose to play football regularly for a club too... great. Bonus, but not necessarily the focus.

It would be a significant shift in thinking here.

If the AFL took over I think there'd be quite a major stripping back of what is done currently. For instance, Glenelg have country talent squads in all age groups U13-U18 and have individual programs for those players run in Mt Gambier, Naracoorte, Millicent and Bordertown. Pretty in-depth programs, full on for the kids, regular sessions, great for their development. Good for Glenelg FC as they get some players out of it and they've had a few AFL draftees from those areas over the years. Good for the country clubs because their players improve and keep playing football. Every SANFL club runs similar stuff in their country zones.

If the AFL took over they would look at something like that and say it's a luxury, doesn't make financial sense and there is a cheaper way to do it. They'd scale it back. Rather than a regular program run in every area of SA, those country kids can just travel to Adelaide during the school holidays for a camp. Cheaper, quicker, easier.

Every activity run would get similar scrutiny as to whether it is really needed.

I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing by the way.

 

[1970crow]

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.

It's on the SANFL website under umpiring my friend. Geez some people are emotionally invested in this debate.

 

[bomberclifford]

There was a significant uplift factor in the agreement right from the start. The clubs now want more. Fact.

So does the SANFL.

 

[1970crow]

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.

That's irrelevant. We, our club, are also at the table demanding/asking for more from this review of the stadium agreement. Concerning yourself with Port's ability to manage its income has nothing to do with what our club is negotiating to achieve. If you don't like our club trying to get more money from the stadium deal then send your membership back to the club with a note explaining why.

I cannot understand how it is possible for an Adelaide supporter to back the SANFL against our own best interests just because it will adversely effect Port Adelaide. "Yeh, we shouldn't get an extra $mill because that means Port will as well and they'll just waste it on a GPS expert." Eff me.

 

[redandblack]

As far as country footy goes, every SANFL club would have volunteers who have close contact with their country zones. West are currently running a junior Academy in the Riverland and we attend all major events in the Riverland and Mallee areas. Each club has an SANFL paid development officer who oversees junior development in junior clubs and the country.

Each club's Football Manager would also spend a lot of time with local clubs and in their country zone.

The football spend of an SANFL club includes all junior teams costs and probably isn't that much mire than Darren Burgess's salary.

So much of the work done by SANFL clubs is by volunteers, often people with a long history of volunteering for the club they've always supported.

 

[redandblack]

So does the SANFL.

Nonsense. It's all about how much more the clubs will get,

 

[Pdub]

Crows by 2 million bucks a year for 25 years. $50 million dollars

Because if a property is worth $2mil/year now it must have also been worth $2mil/year 25 years ago. Why do all port supporters have a primary school level understanding of property values?

 

[1970crow]

Its interesting watching this thread. Not that long ago it was all about how the Adelaide clubs had a terrible stadium deal that was the reason Poort made a loss and why the Crows werent a West Coast type financial powerhouse. Then when the other clubs stadium revenue is compared to ours, and we blow away nearly every single team, some by millions and millions, the thread has turned into one about the SANFL and if its doing a good job or not.

That's because Marty has always, always argued that grass-roots footy is at risk if the review results in the AFL clubs extracting the full uplift from the un-expected extra crowds. And apart from yourself and old Red and Black there aren't really any other Adelaide 'supporters' arguing against the club reaping a greater benefit from 48k attendances. Although, I think your Port hatred is clouding your judgement whereas Marty and r&b are genuinely concerned about the health of SA footy, which they consider the SANFL to be solely responsible for. Hence the recent discussion topic.

 

[redandblack]

Thanks 1970 crow.

It might come as a shock to some, but I don't think I have ever argued against Adelaide getting more money from the deal.

All I have done, as you point out, is to defend the SANFL and its clubs from some of the bile and hatred heaped on it by a few.

 

[1970crow]

No, because it doesn't make financial sense to run umpiring courses. It (like most development activities) doesn't make money.

Running any grassroot activity (for any sport) relies on money filtering down from the national body, which in our case is mostly from AO and the two AFL clubs, and from government funding that all sports receive. There is a bit of user pays along the way but not much. All programs are heavily subsidised (facility development, Auskick, school footy, coaching courses, umpiring courses, talent squads, school promotional activities and all the stuff the SANFL do).

The question is whether we'd be prepared to have grassroots football run by the AFL, as they do in other states.

For the SANFL their focus is on football - players, coaches, clubs, associations, umpires, administrators. The AFL have a slightly different agenda. For them it is about developing fans - kids who watch football on tv, kids who buy memberships, who go to games, who buy merchandise, who visit websites, who do dream team. Creating the next generation of fans. If they choose to play football regularly for a club too... great. Bonus, but not necessarily the focus.

It would be a significant shift in thinking here.

If the AFL took over I think there'd be quite a major stripping back of what is done currently. For instance, Glenelg have country talent squads in all age groups U13-U18 and have individual programs for those players run in Mt Gambier, Naracoorte, Millicent and Bordertown. Pretty in-depth programs, full on for the kids, regular sessions, great for their development. Good for Glenelg FC as they get some players out of it and they've had a few AFL draftees from those areas over the years. Good for the country clubs because their players improve and keep playing football. Every SANFL club runs similar stuff in their country zones.

If the AFL took over they would look at something like that and say it's a luxury, doesn't make financial sense and there is a cheaper way to do it. They'd scale it back. Rather than a regular program run in every area of SA, those country kids can just travel to Adelaide during the school holidays for a camp. Cheaper, quicker, easier.

Every activity run would get similar scrutiny as to whether it is really needed.

I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing by the way.

I couldn't read all that because it was clear early that you forget that there's an amateur league that is responsible for a damn sight more participants than the SANFL. If the SANFL didn't exist, do you really think that your lad or your mates lad won't be lacing up for the local u10's. It's just a league mate. When the SAFA folded, did all the clubs and the pathways to them go as well.

Outside of an elite pathway for u16's or u18's, how would the absolute demise of the SANFL affect kids playing organised football?

 

[Redline]

It's on the SANFL website under umpiring my friend. Geez some people are emotionally invested in this debate.

My point is you don't know the actual cost to run it. I'd guess the SANFL subsidise it.

 

[1970crow]

Thanks 1970 crow.

It might come as a shock to some, but I don't think I have ever argued against Adelaide getting more money from the deal.

All I have done, as you point out, is to defend the SANFL and its clubs from some of the bile and hatred heaped on it by a few.

Agree, when I re-read that I realised that I shouldn't have referred to you arguing against a better deal for the clubs. You've always been about a fair compromise and rationally discussing the topic .

 

[Pdub]

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

The SANFL doesn't want the AFL to have any power over them.

That's because Marty has always, always argued that grass-roots footy is at risk if the review results in the AFL clubs extracting the full uplift from the un-expected extra crowds. And apart from yourself and old Red and Black there aren't really any other Adelaide 'supporters' arguing against the club reaping a greater benefit from 48k attendances. Although, I think your Port hatred is clouding your judgement whereas Marty and r&b are genuinely concerned about the health of SA footy, which they consider the SANFL to be solely responsible for. Hence the recent discussion topic.

If the SANFL are in charge of SA football development they will want to make it the best in the country, thanks to state pride and ego. If the AFL are in charge then SA football development then their attitude will be "if it's not broken, it's good enough," their priority is the NRL states.

 

[Redline]

I couldn't read all that because it was clear early that you forget that there's an amateur league that is responsible for a damn sight more participants than the SANFL. If the SANFL didn't exist, do you really think that your lad or your mates lad won't be lacing up for the local u10's. It's just a league mate. When the SAFA folded, did all the clubs and the pathways to them go as well.

Outside of an elite pathway for u16's or u18's, how would the absolute demise of the SANFL affect kids playing organised football?

Wasn't it mentioned earlier the clubs run a number of the junior leagues? I don't know, I'm asking. The SAAFL has more than its fair share of problems before it picks up any slack and extra costs.

What I don't get in particular on a number of posts on bigfooty board is why are so many people determined to say the SANFL competition is irrelevant? The SANFL is what it is and offers a good semi professional league for players that are not good enough for AFL.

Just because you follow it doesn't mean you are misguided as to where it sits in the pecking order. Its no different to someone saying they support Seaton Ramblers in the SAAFL and copping flack for following a team not in the top league.

Any sport needs a pathway up and also down from the top level. The more people involved the better, I think the SANFL is a vital in the structure of football in this state.

 

[1970crow]

As far as country footy goes, every SANFL club would have volunteers who have close contact with their country zones. West are currently running a junior Academy in the Riverland and we attend all major events in the Riverland and Mallee areas. Each club has an SANFL paid development officer who oversees junior development in junior clubs and the country.

Each club's Football Manager would also spend a lot of time with local clubs and in their country zone.

The football spend of an SANFL club includes all junior teams costs and probably isn't that much mire than Darren Burgess's salary.

So much of the work done by SANFL clubs is by volunteers, often people with a long history of volunteering for the club they've always supported.

If we just talk about the distribution from the stadium deal. $14m is at least 100 development staff on $80k plus costs and an admin system to control them. Taking into account the above, there's presently about 16 paid staff performing that type of role. If it's purely about development then the SANFL system appears to be squandering a fair bit of their revenue. My question is simple, remove the league itself, still control the AO money and how does it negatively impact grass-roots footy? My suspicion is that the SANFL are running their premier league at the expense if grass-roots footy development.