Analysis Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happening

Yep gotta be something in the constitution - as assets of an incorporated association belongs to its members and on winding up, the proceeds go to the members unless a specific clause says otherwise. Did the SANFL lend them monies and they take out security against the loan, and any funds would be less than or equal to the loan?? These are the only two ways the SANFL would get any funds. It just doesnt sound right.

Yeah I suspect/hope you're right and wires are crossed . The constitution i know has nothing as I reviewed it for them several years ago. No money lent all earnt through fundraising.
 

Concussion

Helmet
Mar 18, 2013
2,750
2,532
Hobart, Tasmania
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenorchy Magpies
Yep gotta be something in the constitution - as assets of an incorporated association belongs to its members and on winding up, the proceeds go to the members unless a specific clause says otherwise. Did the SANFL lend them monies and they take out security against the loan, and any funds would be less than or equal to the loan?? These are the only two ways the SANFL would get any funds. It just doesnt sound right.
I think in our constitution it says something about if the club is wound up members will have to contribute upto 10cents to cover liabilities
 

Concussion

Helmet
Mar 18, 2013
2,750
2,532
Hobart, Tasmania
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenorchy Magpies
I think in our constitution it says something about if the club is wound up members will have to contribute upto 10cents to cover liabilities


Sorry to quote myself but just re-read the constitution.

  1. MEMBERS LIABILITY

    Every Member of the Company undertakes to contribute to the assets of the Company in the event of it being wound up whilst that person is a Member or within one year after that person ceases to be a Member for payment of the debts and liabilities of the Company contracted before the time at which that person ceases to be a Member, and of the costs, charges and expenses of winding up and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves such amount as shall be required not exceeding 10 cents.
 
Sorry to quote myself but just re-read the constitution.

  1. MEMBERS LIABILITY

    Every Member of the Company undertakes to contribute to the assets of the Company in the event of it being wound up whilst that person is a Member or within one year after that person ceases to be a Member for payment of the debts and liabilities of the Company contracted before the time at which that person ceases to be a Member, and of the costs, charges and expenses of winding up and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves such amount as shall be required not exceeding 10 cents.


I think "member" in this context is different to what you and I see a member as.

If you've got the constitution handy, there'll be a definitions section at the beginning that outlines exactly what what a 'member' is. I believe they are referring to the board of directors in this instance.
 

Concussion

Helmet
Mar 18, 2013
2,750
2,532
Hobart, Tasmania
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenorchy Magpies
I think "member" in this context is different to what you and I see a member as.

If you've got the constitution handy, there'll be a definitions section at the beginning that outlines exactly what what a 'member' is. I believe they are referring to the board of directors in this instance.
Yep, I should have read that first. We are Club Members, I would be willing to give my 10cents worth if it ever came to that though.
 
Apr 13, 2006
32,868
77,030
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide

This is such a stupid and disingenuous article. Everybody loses? No Graham, by definition everything that the SANFL loses, the clubs gain. Really get the feeling that he knows that the SANFL are getting their comeuppance and is trying to play the sympathy/Nobody wins card when it really isn't that at all.

Secondly, the SANFL are not getting a raw deal in any case. What seems to get lost in this argument is that all parties are already getting what they were banking on, you'd imagine that the SANFL was banking on an uplift as well, which you'd imagine they have well and truly achieved. The argument is soley about what happens with the extra revenue created. Imbeciles like Marty have hijacked the debate and turned it into something that it actually isn't. Every body has got what they budgeted on from the AO, the question simply is about the excess funds generated by the 2 South Australian AFL clubs.

If lets say the extra money generated this year is $5 million, the clubs get $2 million each and the SANFL gets $1 million for example, how has anybody lost? If you look at the glass half empty like Wrinkle Face does, then the SANFL has lost $4 million that it had no hand in generating, but if you look at it in the glass half full point of view, the SANFL has received an extra $1 million that they had no hand in generating. Thus everybody wins.
 

AdsGoNads

Club Legend
Mar 21, 2014
1,972
1,861
SA Great
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Brøndby IF, Adelaide City FC
Day 193 - Will this be the week?

Will we hear an announcement before Day 200?

o_O ... :oops: ... o_O
 
This is such a stupid and disingenuous article .....
I didn't have a problem with it. There's about 5 different areas discussed, all interesting. The bit you raised, which is effectively the power shift away from the SANFL, is huge but real.
 
I just hate the notion that because the SANFL have always held the power that they deserve to keep it ....
Fear of the unknown, which is fair enough. Not a reason for things not to change but still scary.
 

Joelg

All Australian
Sep 16, 2012
708
675
Woodville
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Classic case of BankSA being the main game in the 1980's and today as a stand alone operation would have had no relevance today but yet with no public shareholders the SANFl still try and run a BankSA that is 20 years outdated- think about that. BankSA is now the state branch Of Westpac.........but they still put on the facade of being a big business with a different logo, when they are just a piss ant branch business of Westpac

Even funnier that Crows president put on the facade of being the CEO of BankSA when it was a small state branch of the big Westpac. So he was really a small state bank manager but why let the facts get in the way of the real story. He went to Sydney and lasted maybe 12 months as NSW state manager for Westpac brand St George, wanted to come home (or got told to go home) and is now Back thinking he is still a BSD.

Does that ring any bells
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,234
2,518
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I just hate the notion that because the SANFL have always held the power that they deserve to keep it.

**** off
With regard to it's SANFL football competitions, it's an organisation that has failed to adapt that business unit to the current market conditions. Instead, it has subsidised that business unit via the stadium operations whose revenues were protected because of the AFL licenses. In negotiating a handover the SANFL has shifted ground ops revenue at company run (AAMI) to an outsourced model via a commission (AO).

The end result is the AFL attendee and the AFL clubs are paying for something they don't necessarily want: that is they are covering the capital required to fund the SANFL, it's clubs and their expenditure and decision making.

I'm all for adequately funding SA football development. That either comes through an "AFL SA" type organisation (which would have it's own cost), or through the SANFL. Whilst being able to feed off the AFL clubs in SA, the SANFL has been able to avoid answering the tough questions about the true place it has in Australian football, what it should be about, and how much they genuinely need under a rationalised model. Emotion, politics and club history impact on their ability to demonstrate the sound management decisions they should be making.

This has almost brought one organisation doing the "heavy lifting" to it's knees and prevented the other from being a true financial powerhouse - but this is lost in the bloodsport that is PAFC bashing for most of SA. Easier just to blame the swampies.
 
.... I'm all for adequately funding SA football development. That either comes through an "AFL SA" type organisation (which would have it's (sic) own cost), or through the SANFL ....
The SANFL is already the conduit for AFL money used for various types of football development in SA. Auskick for example. It has been for many years.
.... Whilst being able to feed off the AFL clubs in SA, the SANFL has been able to avoid answering the tough questions about the true place it has in Australian football, what it should be about, and how much they genuinely need under a rationalised model. Emotion, politics and club history impact on their ability to demonstrate the sound management decisions they should be making ....
I'm not sure the SANFL can really answer those questions yet. Their labour pains from delivering an independent Crows have just stopped, and they're sitting exhausted in the delivery room. We're the unwanted step-child for those wondering where we fit in this metaphor.
Once Footy Park is carved up and the SANFL's debts paid off there's not a whole lot left if the SANFL's current structure is carried forward. 8 mostly insolvent stand-alone clubs and two AFL reserves teams playing in front of crowds of about 1,500 for the most part. The SAAFL alone looks like a monster in comparison.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,234
2,518
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The SANFL is already the conduit for AFL money used for various types of football development in SA. Auskick for example. It has been for many years.

Yes it has. In my mind maintaining the current senior competition of 8 teams isn't necessarily about "football development" though. Notwithstanding the mature age recruit who makes it to the AFL via the SANFL either because they were a late bloomer with respect to their first AFL listing, or they've been recycled via the SANFL back into the AFL. There's a cost to this model - it may be right or wrong to do it this way - but in the public debate in SA at least this gets lost in the noise about Port's finances.

I'm not sure the SANFL can really answer those questions yet. Their labour pains from delivering an independent Crows have just stopped, and they're sitting exhausted in the delivery room. We're the unwanted step-child for those wondering where we fit in this metaphor.
Once Footy Park is carved up and the SANFL's debts paid off there's not a whole lot left if the SANFL's current structure is carried forward. 8 mostly insolvent stand-alone clubs and two AFL reserves teams playing in front of crowds of about 1,500 for the most part. The SAAFL alone looks like a monster in comparison.

They've had 24 years to date to contemplate what would occur should AFL funds not continue to support them. Granted, the disruption to assumptions caused by the AO move and the license buy back have perhaps only just started to provide type of light required to shine on these matters. They've been basking in the glow of state league victories as some proxy measure of state league health (2nd best comp etc). In my mind it's pretty easy to foresee further financial troubles in SA football land - so at the risk of being branded a heretic, I can empathise with their claim to money from AFL activity in this state. But, if we're all feeding from the same trough, I'd prefer if the SANFL fed last, rather than first.
 

Smithy7

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Mar 1, 2014
13,603
20,109
South of Scotland
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/sa...ooks-more-likely/story-fnelctok-1227199824387
SANFL shows it is still the giant of SA football as stadium deal at Adelaide Oval looks more likely
The picture is becoming clearer and a resolution appears imminent but there are still some in the camps of the Crows, the Power, the State Government and the AFL who fear a late slip-up may delay an agreement. This is after a stadium review that has now run for more than half a year.
It comes back to the original premise, that the SANFL would not shift from its base if there was no benefit and that the clubs were of an original mind.
Everybody has had an uplift. The issue is this — it is a football pie that has grown in size but the argument is how it is fairly split up.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/sa...ooks-more-likely/story-fnelctok-1227199824387
Here we go again lol
 
Felchsted is Marty.

This is Marty :

Marty gets the call, he's off to China with 'the Gov.'.jpg


MARTY: Hey, did I tell you I'm off to China with the Gov. ??
 
May 7, 2012
24,321
53,719
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
49érs, SF Giants, GS Warriors
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/sa...ooks-more-likely/story-fnelctok-1227199824387
SANFL shows it is still the giant of SA football as stadium deal at Adelaide Oval looks more likely
The picture is becoming clearer and a resolution appears imminent but there are still some in the camps of the Crows, the Power, the State Government and the AFL who fear a late slip-up may delay an agreement. This is after a stadium review that has now run for more than half a year.
It comes back to the original premise, that the SANFL would not shift from its base if there was no benefit and that the clubs were of an original mind.
Everybody has had an uplift. The issue is this — it is a football pie that has grown in size but the argument is how it is fairly split up.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/sa...ooks-more-likely/story-fnelctok-1227199824387
Here we go again lol
Grow the pie.
 
Oct 21, 2012
2,016
5,370
Paddy’s Pub
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Fulham FC
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/sa...ooks-more-likely/story-fnelctok-1227199824387
SANFL shows it is still the giant of SA football as stadium deal at Adelaide Oval looks more likely
The picture is becoming clearer and a resolution appears imminent but there are still some in the camps of the Crows, the Power, the State Government and the AFL who fear a late slip-up may delay an agreement. This is after a stadium review that has now run for more than half a year.
It comes back to the original premise, that the SANFL would not shift from its base if there was no benefit and that the clubs were of an original mind.
Everybody has had an uplift. The issue is this — it is a football pie that has grown in size but the argument is how it is fairly split up.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/sa...ooks-more-likely/story-fnelctok-1227199824387
Here we go again lol
A nothing article except for some obvious sanfl propaganda.
 
Back