News Adelaide falling behind in Revenue

[rocket18]

We're still stuck with the old arrangement, with no ability to change it until we move to AO. The difference is around $3-5M per year, which is the difference between us being one of the more successful clubs and an also ran.
.

You have said this a number of times, I have also posted a number of times that there has been a change, the SANFL "gave" us the oportunity to sell corporate space at AAMI each season, teh approximate value was $1 mill a year.

You have not addressed this, the SANFL & AFC HAVE changed the arrangement!!

Why did it take so long and why not more?

Sure Bob and Bill negotiated the original agreement and we were quite profitable back in the day.

Since that time: foxtel/live against the gate, more business/people work on Saturdays/Sundays, people have 60 inch plasmas instead of 52 cm TV for a better viewing experience. More people have gone to interstate venues and realised how crappy Footy Park was.

Times have changed the stadium deal should have reflected this.

 

[Vader]

We've had it far too good for too long; the club has never actually had to make a real effort to attract sponsorship and revenue in general.

Possibly (probably) true.

The elitist attitude when the new shed was opened summed this up - we were excluding the general populace who might otherwise rock up and spend some cash.

This is one of the biggest screw ups of Trigg's reign. If you want to have a go at him for something, then my suggestion would be to have this very close to the top of your list. It was a dumb decision from the very beginning and it had his fingerprints all over it.

In some ways it was worse than the Tiprat scandal, at least as far as Trigg's involvement. Trigg was not involved in creating the Tiprat contract - that was done between Reid & Team Tiprat; it is my belief that the offending clause was added at the insistence of Tiprat snr, but I have no way of proving that. Trigg only found out about the clause later. His failing was twofold - failing to have the clause rescinded and leaving a paper trail behind, proving the clause's existence. It was not his decision, his failings were in handling the aftermath. When it comes to the Shed debacle, it was a decision made directly by Trigg.

As I've previously mentioned, we need to engage with second generation supporters as well as casual fan, as our long term supporter base is an ageing one. Whether that means pokies, pubs, a bigger range of merch or dealing in illegal drugs (joking lol), we clearly need to broaden our income stream.

No argument there.

What I'm not sure about is to what degree our hands are tied by the SANFL. Are the AFC allowed to own a hotel, with or without pokies?

 

[craig crowing]

Well Vader very well written response to my post with intelligent and interesting responses to my points in both agreement and dis-agreement .
But finishing with " blah , blah, blah " as a response really is pathetic response especially from you.
The only point I can gather from that is you think under Trigg - Smart management we will be creative and pro- active moving club forward .

 

[Allefgib]

I don't disagree with most of your post, but for this bit, the idea was obviously that the Crows wanted to make their gold packages (or whatever they were called) more attractive.

I don't know how well it worked in terms of selling more of those packages, but that was the aim. Make more money by making their top-level membership package more desirable.

Of course, in the process they lose the "joe public" spenders, and potentially spoil some goodwill with the average fan. Hopefully they've done some kind of analysis to see whether the money they gained from selling extra packages makes up for the money lost.

How certain are you on these details mate?

I have vague memories, and suspect I'm wrong but would like to be clear, that the original scheme was an extra gold or platinum version. i.e. GOld membership didn't give you access to the new shed - it was something else on top of that again. Is that right? Ring anyone elses bell?

 

[Vader]

You have said this a number of times, I have also posted a number of times that there has been a change, the SANFL "gave" us the oportunity to sell corporate space at AAMI each season, teh approximate value was $1 mill a year.

You have not addressed this, the SANFL & AFC HAVE changed the arrangement!!

Why did it take so long and why not more?

Sure Bob and Bill negotiated the original agreement and we were quite profitable back in the day.

Since that time: foxtel/live against the gate, more business/people work on Saturdays/Sundays, people have 60 inch plasmas instead of 52 cm TV for a better viewing experience. More people have gone to interstate venues and realised how crappy Footy Park was.

Times have changed the stadium deal should have reflected this.

It takes two to tango. The SANFL have always been dependent upon AFC monies to keep their competition afloat. They were never going to agree to anything that saw them lose out. The move to AO is the first time that the equation has changed as far as the SANFL is concerned. Now they have the money raised from selling the land around Football Park - and the money from selling the AFL licenses back to the AFL - to keep them afloat. They no longer need the AFC as a cash cow. Thus, this is the first chance the AFC has ever had to act independently and to negotiate without having both hands tied behind their backs.

 

[cmndstab]

How certain are you on these details mate?

I have vague memories, and suspect I'm wrong but would like to be clear, that the original scheme was an extra gold or platinum version. i.e. GOld membership didn't give you access to the new shed - it was something else on top of that again. Is that right? Ring anyone elses bell?

Not certain at all on the name/level of the package - but the point is that there was a "special" category of membership they wanted to make more attractive. If you can convince people to put money down early, it can be a win financially for the club.

Of course, you need to weigh that against the people you turn away from coming, and also the longer-term effects of disenfranchising a (potentially significant) portion of your supporter base. No idea how the two stack up against one another.

 

[Vader]

Well Vader very well written response to my post with intelligent and interesting responses to my points in both agreement and dis-agreement .
But finishing with " blah , blah, blah " as a response really is pathetic response especially from you.
The only point I can gather from that is you think under Trigg - Smart management we will be creative and pro- active moving club forward .

Sorry.. I just read that as another boring go at Trigg & co, the same drivel which has been repeated ad infinitum since the start of the Tiprat scandal.

Where you made points worth discussing I responded accordingly.

 

[Allefgib]

Not certain at all on the name/level of the package - but the point is that there was a "special" category of membership they wanted to make more attractive. If you can convince people to put money down early, it can be a win financially for the club.

Of course, you need to weigh that against the people you turn away from coming, and also the longer-term effects of disenfranchising a (potentially significant) portion of your supporter base. No idea how the two stack up against one another.

What did happen is that it was changed. i.e. eventually acknowledged as a bad call based on outcomes.
Reflects being out of touch with what people wanted. SOmething that needed to, and probably still needs to, change.

 

[cmndstab]

What did happen is that it was changed. i.e. eventually acknowledged as a bad call based on outcomes.
Reflects being out of touch with what people wanted. SOmething that needed to, and probably still needs to, change.

Sounds like the analysis was done, then, and the benefit was deemed worse than the positive.

My opinion is that as long as we're sufficiently profitable, I'm almost always happy to sacrifice a short-term spike in profits for a long-term gain in good-will/popularity with the fans. We need to ensure we retain the lion's share of support in the state and elite-level packages don't aid that at all.

I understand why the decision was made, but I'm glad they chose to move on from it.

 

[pext]

We don't seem to be too short of cash. Greg Denham is reporting that we have put together an enormous FA deal for James Frawley to take over from Truck Rutten in 2015.

 

[Deaneus!]

We don't seem to be too short of cash. Greg Denham is reporting that we have put together an enormous FA deal for James Frawley to take over from Truck Rutten in 2015.

That's interesting - Mr Frawley has apparently put off contract talks with Melbourne to see the direction of the club this year first. Having had 7 coaches in 8 years, I don't blame him.

 

[jackster83]

We don't seem to be too short of cash. Greg Denham is reporting that we have put together an enormous FA deal for James Frawley to take over from Truck Rutten in 2015.

Please no.

Blowing a shitload of money on a full back would be like putting Brembo's on a Toyota Corolla.

We need rucks, outside mids and another KPF (particularly if Tex has further injury troubles).

 

[1970crow]

It takes two to tango. The SANFL have always been dependent upon AFC monies to keep their competition afloat. They were never going to agree to anything that saw them lose out. The move to AO is the first time that the equation has changed as far as the SANFL is concerned. Now they have the money raised from selling the land around Football Park - and the money from selling the AFL licenses back to the AFL - to keep them afloat. They no longer need the AFC as a cash cow. Thus, this is the first chance the AFC has ever had to act independently and to negotiate without having both hands tied behind their backs.

except that the sanfl is one of the parties that makes up the sma. having said that, their need for a cash cow would surely have significantly diminished, if not entirely, based on the factors you refer to above. would you expect that to be experienced this year, or could the sanfl need a bit of lead time relating to the footy park precinct bonanza. is there a possibility that we get stuck with a reasonably ordinary stadium deal for the next couple of years until some cash starts to flow from the asset sale or whatever they plan to do with the site.

 

[knobby]

Greg Denham is from ..??

 

[rocket18]

We don't seem to be too short of cash. .

We might be able to spend some on a new style of weight sled so we don't injure another player.

Someone posted a picture of a modern looking one that looked like it had sand bags in it (and no sharp edges) rather than the ones we are using that look like they are left over from a 70's boxing gym.

 

[Allefgib]

Sounds like the analysis was done, then, and the benefit was deemed worse than the positive.

My opinion is that as long as we're sufficiently profitable, I'm almost always happy to sacrifice a short-term spike in profits for a long-term gain in good-will/popularity with the fans. We need to ensure we retain the lion's share of support in the state and elite-level packages don't aid that at all.

I understand why the decision was made, but I'm glad they chose to move on from it.

Yup - I would however like the guiding principle of of building long term good-will with the fanbase given a higher priority. Even trialing such offers is showing they don't.

 

[cmndstab]

Please no.

Blowing a shitload of money on a full back would be like putting Brembo's on a Toyota Corolla.

We need rucks, outside mids and another KPF (particularly if Tex has further injury troubles).

Have you forgotten what life was like before we had Ben Rutten? Having a quality full back is absolutely invaluable.

That said, I'd like to see if we can pencil Hartigan in the role before we go spending big on a position that only player can fill.

 

[Vader]

except that the sanfl is one of the parties that makes up the sma. having said that, their need for a cash cow would surely have significantly diminished, if not entirely, based on the factors you refer to above. would you expect that to be experienced this year, or could the sanfl need a bit of lead time relating to the footy park precinct bonanza. is there a possibility that we get stuck with a reasonably ordinary stadium deal for the next couple of years until some cash starts to flow from the asset sale or whatever they plan to do with the site.

Not sure how the SANFL are going to cover the gap between the end of the AFC cash flow and the sale of the West Lakes land, but that's their problem. I dare say that it was covered under the SMA agreement when they signed up with the SACA. That's their problem...

The deal that the AFC get at the AO will not change a couple of years in, due to the SANFL finances. Neither they, nor the AFL, would have ever agreed to something like that.

 

[Vader]

Just a thought for those suggesting that improved merchandising should be a part of any solution to the AFC's revenue problems. As far as I know, All money raised from merchandise sales goes to the AFL - not to the clubs themselves. The only money the AFC gets directly from merchandise sales are from the purchases at the Crowmania store. If you buy your jumpers/scarves/etc. at K-mart, Rowe & Jarman, Rebel Sport, or anywhere else, then the AFC gets little or no benefit from your purchase.

** That's not to say that they shouldn't be doing something to improve their range of merchandise. I think there is significant room for improvement in this area.

 

[Allefgib]

Just a thought for those suggesting that improved merchandising should be a part of any solution to the AFC's revenue problems. As far as I know, All money raised from merchandise sales goes to the AFL - not to the clubs themselves. The only money the AFC gets directly from merchandise sales are from the purchases at the Crowmania store. If you buy your jumpers/scarves/etc. at K-mart, Rowe & Jarman, Rebel Sport, or anywhere else, then the AFC gets little or no benefit from your purchase.

** That's not to say that they shouldn't be doing something to improve their range of merchandise. I think there is significant room for improvement in this area.

Can anyone else confirm this? (not that I disbelieve you Vader - I'm just hoping its not true)

 

[pext]

Greg Denham is from ..??

Denham us a print journo from the age I think, maybe the oz. Anyway, he was on SEN with KB when he mentioned it.

 

[Vader]

Can anyone else confirm this? (not that I disbelieve you Vader - I'm just hoping its not true)

I'm not 100% certain on it - and I'd be more than happy if someone could contradict it with something solid. Unfortunately, I'm fairly sure it's the case.

 

[AFC3000]

I'm not 100% certain on it - and I'd be more than happy if someone could contradict it with something solid. Unfortunately, I'm fairly sure it's the case.

I have heard this to. I have always believed the clubs make money in there own retail outlets like any store would re-selling the products. But in sports stores and Kmart and wherever else the products are all licensed from the AFL and only a small amount of money is split between all the clubs.

Collingwood may almost be the exception because I remember they did some sort of deal with a smaller company where they effectively became their own manufacturer or something.

Here last half of this article.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/pies-deal-on-jumpers-a-great-fit-20120904-25cev.html

Also mentions how retail outlets outside of the club make a lot more money.

 

[Marty64]

I'm not 100% certain on it - and I'd be more than happy if someone could contradict it with something solid. Unfortunately, I'm fairly sure it's the case.

Fairly sure Crowmania has advertised that only their sales have the profit go directly to the club.

They could use an improved range though.

 

[TooFar]

Our supporter base needs to look beyond state borders and the club must drop that parochial "Team for all South Australians" slogan! This relic from the past hints of exclusivity and implies that non South Australian supporters are not welcome.

We need to be more involved in the non traditional states where there would be many people new to AFL looking for a team to support but not necessarily interested in the Swans or GWS. Take Newcastle for instance, not many Novacastrians would feel an affinity for any team based in Sydney. Same would go for Queensland areas who are not directly represented by either Brisbane or Gold Coast.

There could be huge potential for revenue streams out of these areas for any team that was willing to invest time and money directly into promoting the Afl brand under their own banner. Several AFL clubs do this now in the black diamond league by way of sponsoring the local teams (but the crows are not one of them). The AFC have sponsored teams in The Sydney league in the distant past but I believe this no longer occurs due to our rare appearances and low profile in NSW.

Our parochial attitudes would be holding us back in terms of the AFL pie so we need to move more into interstate markets and promote the AFC brand as the alternative to their homegrown variety.

I don't believe the club could expect revenue to increase out of SA alone. The local market would be pretty saturated as it is. But the non traditional states would have much greater potential for growth. But they must act soon or be left behind.

I agree with this point, it smacks of small town parochialism. I cringe every time I see our non-SA bred players sing the club song after a win.