Adelaide Oval Review

[Sanders]

You can say the exact same about the afl regarding the long view. However, the reason the thread keeps going is simply because the review is still going iotself. When it is concluded we'll have a dozen or so more pages on the result, but while it's still in progress the discussion explores more than just the basic end-point divvy up.

It's a lot of fun.

There hasn't actually been any discussion for a very long time.

Just look at how many people fail to recognise this is a review without any binding obligations on the people conducting it. A goodwill position of arguable merit will be found, and Whatever happens the same people will be complaining. About the same things.

the crows and port revenue streams are to the Sanfl like Diet Coke and fanta to Coca Cola inc - owned and guaranteed by law.

Once you accept that it all makes sense, and denying it is like denying climate change - irrelevant and pointless

Both the crows and port power are creations of the sanfl. Not independent things.

 

[1970crow]

There hasn't actually been any discussion for a very long time.

Just look at how many people fail to recognise this is a review without any binding obligations on the people conducting it. A goodwill position of arguable merit will be found, and Whatever happens the same people will be complaining. About the same things.

the crows and port revenue streams are to the Sanfl like Diet Coke and fanta to Coca Cola inc - owned and guaranteed by law.

Once you accept that it all makes sense, and denying it is like denying climate change - irrelevant and pointless

Both the crows and port power are creations of the sanfl. Not independent things.

Yes they have been. Not now and in 20 years time when the iron-clad agreement runs out, the balance of power shifts. It is a long game and the sanfl need to make shy while the sun shines. The agreement lasts 20 years, guaranteed by contract law. Nothing is guaranteed to the sanfl after that.

 

[redandblack]

Yes, reading about posters forecasting the end of the SANFL as the AFL build a new $500 million stadium in competition with Adelaide Oval IS fun.

Reading the delusion of some Port fans believing their club's propaganda that somehow the SANFL, having purchased Port's licence and ploughed over $16 million to keep them afloat, should be grateful to Port because the Magpies were the only team in the SANFL years ago IS definitely fun.

Reading the posts from both sides working out the intricacies of profit margins for catering and concerts was definitely a highlight.

Putting up questions that aren't answered, along with opinions put up as fact because the Port Board all agree IS definitely fun.

The fun won't last, though, it's likely we're close to a resolution, I'd say.

No doubt it will be a triumph for the AFL clubs and prove that the SANFL are all greedy crooks.

All good fun.

 

[Sanders]

I don't know that this 20 year thing is true at all. But for the sake of argument, if it were, then that would be reason to give nothing now

The crows have 2 realistic options to make more money:
1. Increase prices to reflect the best gameday experience in the country
2. Negotiate a higher share of high crowd numbers in exchange for sharing more risk of numbers decline; backing themselves in to keep supporters engaged, and banking on never needing to be called for soft crowd numbers

Or some combination of both

This waaambulance stuff is just tiresome though. If you want more upside, take on more downside risk. That's negotiation

 

[Sanders]

Yes, reading about posters forecasting the end of the SANFL as the AFL build a new $500 million stadium in competition with Adelaide Oval IS fun.

Finding a suitable sight would also be fun

Wait... I've heard there is some land near west lakes that might come onto market

 

[Papa G]

Only one poster who is a Crows supporter has suggested a new stadium. It is as silly as suggesting a relagation system. It won't happen. SANFL power is being eroded though. The old diehards are decreasing. I read Cornes articles and it doesn't even anger me any more. I just smirk. Public opinion actually holds currency in this business. The SANFL are losing it. They know it. Their God Given right to SA Great Kick a Vic Dogma doesn't get the same traction it once did. I actually want the SANFL to not give an inch. I hope they stick to their guns. It's a contract after all folks.

 

[redandblack]

Yes they have been. Not now and in 20 years time when the iron-clad agreement runs out, the balance of power shifts. It is a long game and the sanfl need to make shy while the sun shines. The agreement lasts 20 years, guaranteed by contract law. Nothing is guaranteed to the sanfl after that.

One of the frustrating things in this discussion has been the lack of knowledge of contract law and agreements, culminating in 1970crow talking about a 20 year term.

I thought if that was true, the SANFL were fools for agreeing to give up a major asset and then only have its replacement for 20 years.

I think it's 80 years, so I'd say the SANFL is secure for more than 80 years.

Agree, 1970crow and supporters?

 

[redandblack]

Only one poster who is a Crows supporter has suggested a new stadium. It is as silly as suggesting a relagation system. It won't happen. SANFL power is being eroded though. The old diehards are decreasing. I read Cornes articles and it doesn't even anger me any more. I just smirk. Public opinion actually holds currency in this business. The SANFL are losing it. They know it. Their God Given right to SA Great Kick a Vic Dogma doesn't get the same traction it once did. I actually want the SANFL to not give an inch. I hope they stick to their guns. It's a contract after all folks.

'smirk'.

Sums you up, mate.

The SANFL have an 80 year contract.

Smirk on that.

 

[1970crow]

One of the frustrating things in this discussion has been the lack of knowledge of contract law and agreements, culminating in 1970crow talking about a 20 year term.

I thought if that was true, the SANFL were fools for agreeing to give up a major asset and then only have its replacement for 20 years.

I think it's 80 years, so I'd say the SANFL is secure for more than 80 years.

Agree, 1970crow and supporters?

I've heard 20 years. Look, you can't sit on one side and say well played sanfl, you got what you wanted because you held all the cards (which they did), without being equally as pragmatic about what occurs at the end of that agreement. Their bargaining position, no oval, no ongoing contract and not owning the licenses, is a significantly less than where they were at when negotiating this deal. Do you see it differently?

 

[1970crow]

'smirk'.

Sums you up, mate.

The SANFL have an 80 year contract.

Smirk on that.

Well, if that's right and there's no goodwill from the sanfl, then it's likely that the only way for the clubs to be guaranteed more would be if the sa govt stepped in legislatively. And before you blab on, this would almost certainly result in the necessity for compensation to the sanfl, in which case, what would be the point.

 

[1970crow]

One of the frustrating things in this discussion has been the lack of knowledge of contract law and agreements, culminating in 1970crow talking about a 20 year term.

I thought if that was true, the SANFL were fools for agreeing to give up a major asset and then only have its replacement for 20 years.

I think it's 80 years, so I'd say the SANFL is secure for more than 80 years.

Agree, 1970crow and supporters?

Just looking at the city council website, it is clear that they have leased the oval to the sa govt for 80 years. So there is an 80 year lease. However, and I haven't begun to research, that doesn't automatically mean that the govt has sub-leased it to the SMA for the same term.

 

[redandblack]

I'll give you full marks for clutching at straws, mate.

I'd guess they have.

 

[1970crow]

I'll give you full marks for clutching at straws, mate.

I'd guess they have.

Where are you getting the 80 years from r&b. Clearly it's the head lease and the ao act allows for a sub-lease to be provided up to the same date. Have you seen the SMA agreement with the state govt, I can't find anything on it at all. You're not just assuming are you, because I've heard 20 years bandied around and it must come from somewhere. And it's easy to see where 80 years could be incorrectly assumed from.

 

[AdsGoNads]

Only one poster who is a Crows supporter has suggested a new stadium. It is as silly as suggesting a relagation system. It won't happen. SANFL power is being eroded though. The old diehards are decreasing. I read Cornes articles and it doesn't even anger me any more. I just smirk. Public opinion actually holds currency in this business. The SANFL are losing it. They know it. Their God Given right to SA Great Kick a Vic Dogma doesn't get the same traction it once did. I actually want the SANFL to not give an inch. I hope they stick to their guns. It's a contract after all folks.

I would love to see a relegation system.. in the SANFL at least.
There must be at least 2 Div A SAAFL teams that would have beaten Glenelg + Westies last season!

 

[*PAF]

IIRC they are two different things. The current contract between the clubs and the SMA or whoever is for 20 odd years or thereabouts. After that one would assume a new contract would have to be drawn up.

 

[1970crow]

Only one poster who is a Crows supporter has suggested a new stadium. It is as silly as suggesting a relagation system. It won't happen. SANFL power is being eroded though. The old diehards are decreasing. I read Cornes articles and it doesn't even anger me any more. I just smirk. Public opinion actually holds currency in this business. The SANFL are losing it. They know it. Their God Given right to SA Great Kick a Vic Dogma doesn't get the same traction it once did. I actually want the SANFL to not give an inch. I hope they stick to their guns. It's a contract after all folks.

I'm not suggesting a new stadium per se. I'm recognising the shift in negotiating position when the original agreement with the clubs run out. The sanfl held all the cards due to their ownership of the licenses and agreement that all the games be played at footy park. Playing the "we won't play at ao under those terms" card may be a bluff, but it will still be up to the sanfl to call it and extract the same conditions. 19 years is a long time down the track, but surely there's no doubt that the negotiating positions will have changed to some extent. And let's not forget that etihad for us is only a 1hr flight and your home games here in alice springs will be a mere 2hrs away..

 

[1970crow]

IIRC they are two different things. The current contract between the clubs and the SMA or whoever is for 20 odd years or thereabouts. After that one would assume a new contract would have to be drawn up.

Yeh, that's all I could find. I'm going to have to accept that old redandblack has seen or heard something official regarding the sma's 80 year sub-lease. I can't find anything at all.

 

[The_Wookie]

Just looking at the city council website, it is clear that they have leased the oval to the sa govt for 80 years. So there is an 80 year lease. However, and I haven't begun to research, that doesn't automatically mean that the govt has sub-leased it to the SMA for the same term.

just to back this up

5—Lease to SMA

(1) The Minister is authorised to grant a lease over any part of the Adelaide Oval Core Area to SMA.

(2) A lease granted to SMA under this section may be for any term up to 80 years (including any right to an extension or renewal).

(3) A lease under this section must be subject to the rights of SACA and the SANFL set out in licences granted by the Minister that provide certain rights to unrestricted and exclusive use of Adelaide Oval—

(a) in the case of SACA—for purposes associated with the playing of cricket at Adelaide Oval during designated periods of the year; and

(b) in the case of the SANFL—for purposes associated with the playing of football during designated periods of the year.

(4) Subject to subsection (3), a lease under this section may make such provision as the Minister thinks fit with respect to the use or management of the Adelaide Oval Core Area and may allow for any sublease or licence over any part of the area (subject to the consent of the Minister and subject to the other provisions of this Act).

(5) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after a lease is granted to SMA under this section, cause copies of the lease to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(6) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after a licence is granted for the purposes of subsection (3), cause copies of the licence to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(7) For the purposes of this section, the designated periods are as follows:

(a) in relation to SACA—a period commencing on 8 October in each year and expiring on 14 March in the next year (both dates inclusive);

(b) in relation to the SANFL—a period commencing on 15 March in each year and expiring on 7 October in the same year (both dates inclusive),

or such other periods as may be agreed between SACA and the SANFL.

ref: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/bill/aoramb2011350/#id0766ae27_e569_41a5_8e50_287d6a0332

Worth noting that under part 5, the Minister must release a copy of the SMA lease to parliament within six days of it being signed. I dont think this has been done as of now.

 

[Sanders]

Only one poster who is a Crows supporter has suggested a new stadium. It is as silly as suggesting a relagation system. It won't happen. SANFL power is being eroded though. The old diehards are decreasing. I read Cornes articles and it doesn't even anger me any more. I just smirk. Public opinion actually holds currency in this business. The SANFL are losing it. They know it. Their God Given right to SA Great Kick a Vic Dogma doesn't get the same traction it once did. I actually want the SANFL to not give an inch. I hope they stick to their guns. It's a contract after all folks.

Is there a basis, other than wishful thinking, that gives "public opinion" currency?

 

[Sanders]

I thought this interesting:

3) A lease under this section must be subject to the rights of SACA and the SANFL set out in licences granted by the Minister that provide certain rights to unrestricted and exclusive use of Adelaide Oval

Look I'm sure some concession will be made, but as the existent position is opaque, it will be hard to judge what ever the truth setting aside the spin that will surround. The only thing you can say with confidence is that there is likely to a limit that the party holding all the cards gives to parties who don't hold the cards

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You can keep saying it all you want, what's clear is that the SANFL is taking a very long view of its own interests.

The reason this thread keeps going is that a number of people can't accept that.

... Including the state premier!

 

[Sanders]

... Including the state premier!

Wrong

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

There hasn't actually been any discussion for a very long time.

Just look at how many people fail to recognise this is a review without any binding obligations on the people conducting it. A goodwill position of arguable merit will be found, and Whatever happens the same people will be complaining. About the same things.

the crows and port revenue streams are to the Sanfl like Diet Coke and fanta to Coca Cola inc - owned and guaranteed by law.

Once you accept that it all makes sense, and denying it is like denying climate change - irrelevant and pointless

Both the crows and port power are creations of the sanfl. Not independent things.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think the review will result in a different & fairer carve up off the pie... & the Afl clubs had really no choice but to sign a rushed contract to play at Adelaide oval... & now it is being worked out properly!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Wrong

You keep ignoring the truth colonel...

 

[Sanders]

You are kidding yourself if you don't think the review will result in a different & fairer carve up off the pie... & the Afl clubs had really no choice but to sign a rushed contract to play at Adelaide oval... & now it is being worked out properly!

If you say so...