Adelaide Oval Review

[LC40]

Their banking debacle is just a lesson in stupidity.

What for backing Port.

 

[marty36]

The SANFL don't want the facts to come out. They never have. That is why no body knows what's going on. They do not publish their full financials like the AFL and the WAFC do. Ask highly respected Port poster RussellEbertHandball who is well grounded in such matters, he has no idea idea what revenue the SANFL makes or how they make it, because they don't report it. If the SANFL are doing such a wonderful and benevolent job, why won't they throw it open for everybody to see? Why are there confidentiality clauses?

WOW I get back from a couple of days away and note the Power board love to try stick it into me, however doesnt really concern me, when the likes of Russellbeberthandball some Soft Arse Keyboard warrior starts giving me s**t, along with the rest of the Soft C**k Power keyboard warriors, at least I can proclaim to be a bit different to that, cant I Elite Crow you know who I am!

 

[subaru]

If the SANFL presented all the facts then we'd all know. Why aren't they doing this? Why are there confidentiality clauses? Reeks of an organisation with something to hide.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...7137374801?sv=2fa1b4bb09fd79b4f0e07220f91b2de
"The chief reason for Westpac’s concern was whether the SANFL could meet its cash flow requirements. Unlike SACA, which had its debt wiped clean when it agreed to the Adelaide Oval upgrade, the SANFL remains lumbered with debt due in large part to its previous multi-million dollar bailouts of the formerly shambolic Port Adelaide Football Club.

The SANFL-owned land at Footy Park which has been rezoned may not be sold at a rate high enough or a speed quick enough to cover the cost of servicing that debt.

There is one passage in the report to the directors which helps explain why relations between the SANFL and Port in particular are so frosty. It reads:
It should be noted that SANFL in May 2014 paid the PAFC a further $1.5m to enable it to repay its AFL creditors and start as an independent club with no more than $500,000 creditors, in other words with a clean slate. This took total PAFC funding from SANFL to $16.25m and increased SANFL debt to approximately $37m.”

So almost half the SANFL’s debt comes from helping Port.

This is the same Port bitching and moaning coz the SANFL got some money out of the Adelaide's Oval deal.........

May - port have a "clean slate"
September they are $2 mill in the red.

Yes ...I think there needs to be shitloads more transparency - what exactly is your club doing to lose money year after year after year?

And don't blame Adelaide's Oval. You made your bed .....

 

[Elite Crow]

WOW I get back from a couple of days away and note the Power board love to try stick it into me, however doesnt really concern me, when the likes of Russellbeberthandball some Soft Arse Keyboard warrior starts giving me s**t, along with the rest of the Soft C**k Power keyboard warriors, at least I can proclaim to be a bit different to that, cant I Elite Crow you know who I am!

I can vouch that you are not a SANFL employee but a very naughty boy who spends too much time in the gym.

 

[marty36]

Hilarious no one in the media and or SANFL recognises that Port under the terms of the one club proposal relinquished its share of the sale of Footy Park.

Hilarious that no one recognises that pre AFL days Port were the club that did the most to fill the SANFL's coffers.

Hilarious that there are very "accurate" numbers are given to what Port "cost" the SANFL but no word on where the other $20 million of SANFL debt came from.

So the SANFL has assets worth $72 Million with a current debt of $39 Million of which $16 million was given to the power.

Effectively Port can have their split of assets of the SANFL fairly and $5.5 Million and pay back to them and then the Power can pay back the $16 million to the SANFL, all good bring it on!

The power have been kissed on the D, and are over $10 million up and have caused untold problems to the SANFL having questions put over them on how they can service their debt with 40% a direct result of the Power!

 

[Deaneus!]

So... Port caused all the SANFL's problems but we're being slugged?

 

[Papa G]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...7137374801?sv=2fa1b4bb09fd79b4f0e07220f91b2de
"The chief reason for Westpac’s concern was whether the SANFL could meet its cash flow requirements. Unlike SACA, which had its debt wiped clean when it agreed to the Adelaide Oval upgrade, the SANFL remains lumbered with debt due in large part to its previous multi-million dollar bailouts of the formerly shambolic Port Adelaide Football Club.

The SANFL-owned land at Footy Park which has been rezoned may not be sold at a rate high enough or a speed quick enough to cover the cost of servicing that debt.

There is one passage in the report to the directors which helps explain why relations between the SANFL and Port in particular are so frosty. It reads:
It should be noted that SANFL in May 2014 paid the PAFC a further $1.5m to enable it to repay its AFL creditors and start as an independent club with no more than $500,000 creditors, in other words with a clean slate. This took total PAFC funding from SANFL to $16.25m and increased SANFL debt to approximately $37m.”

So almost half the SANFL’s debt comes from helping Port.

This is the same Port bitching and moaning coz the SANFL got some money out of the Adelaide's Oval deal.........

May - port have a "clean slate"
September they are $2 mill in the red.

Yes ...I think there needs to be shitloads more transparency - what exactly is your club doing to lose money year after year after year?

And don't blame Adelaide's Oval. You made your bed .....

 

[subaru]

"Westpac called in McGrath Nichol, a consulting firm specialising in insolvency issues, to run the ruler over the SANFL. They didn’t like what they saw. Westpac told the SANFL it would have to do its banking elsewhere. The cost of the McGrath Nichol review was $420,000 and the bill for that was passed on to the SANFL, too.
.....
There is one passage in the report to the directors which helps explain why relations between the SANFL and Port in particular are so frosty. It reads:"

It is not Penberthy's quote. It is a quote from McGrath Nichol .......

It's a damning report on how much the SANFL has had to prop your club up over the years - you can argue who delivers the message and shoot the messenger all you like, however the undisputed fact is that your club is responsible for half the SANFL's debt and even after being "forgiven" that debt, you continue to run up more.

So stop complaining about the Big Bad SANFL - if it wasn't for them you would have folded years ago.

 

[subaru]

So... Port caused all the SANFL's problems but we're being slugged?

Appears so.

Let's have the transparency the Roach was begging for. It will show exactly how much everyone else has missed out on because Port can't manage finances.

And to Port supporters complaining about non-disclosure - be careful what you wish for.

 

[Papa G]

A Port poster has reminded us of the 3,000,000 given to the Crows via way of AFL loan to to the SANFL which always seems to be conveniently forgotten from these exercises, so that brings the SANFL's debt back to $17,000,0000 that isn't accounted for.

 

[marty36]

A Port poster has reminded us of the 3,000,000 given to the Crows via way of AFL loan to to the SANFL which always seems to be conveniently forgotten from these exercises, so that brings the SANFL's debt back to $17,000,0000 that isn't accounted for.

So you do acknowledge that the SANFL is swimming in debt due to Port Power and their famous tarps, bloody expensive bits of vinyl

But no sell the stadium to clear it, is your response!

 

[Papa G]

So you do acknowledge that the SANFL is swimming in debt due to Port Power and their famous tarps, bloody expensive bits of vinyl

But no sell the stadium to clear it, is your response!

Their business model was clearly floundering at Footy Park, even the Crows required AFL assistance, and the SANFL were losing money outside of Port's losses. The Adelaide Oval being gifted to them was the best thing that could have happened to them.

 

[subaru]

A Port poster has reminded us of the 3,000,000 given to the Crows via way of AFL loan to to the SANFL which always seems to be conveniently forgotten from these exercises, so that brings the SANFL's debt back to $17,000,0000 that isn't accounted for.

A loan -
Your massive debt was forgiven less than 7 months ago and you are in debt AGAIN !

 

[marty36]

Their business model was clearly floundering at Footy Park, even the Crows required AFL assistance, and the SANFL were losing money outside of Port's losses. The Adelaide Oval being gifted to them was the best thing that could have happened to them.

Oh I see they were floundering and needed the State Government to spend $600 million dollars of public funds to ensure your new busienss model would work?

Gee I wonder how many business say a truck company could rely on the Governemnt giveing them a grant for new equipemnt because their trucks keep breaking down and costing them coin.

Its up to yourself to make it work as it would be the truck company you cant rely on hand outs. Now you want to deny the SANFL an ability to service their debt because of your mismanagemnt!

 

[1970crow]

I can vouch that you are not a SANFL employee but a very naughty boy who spends too much time in the gym.

So marty36 is Sando?

 

[1970crow]

I think that the footy park stadium deal needs to be taken into account when discussing sanfl's bail-outs of port. Port were effectively writing cheques to the sanfl that then needed to be lent back. If port had the same deal as say footscray do at etihad, would they have still been haemorrhaging cash with their crowd numbers? We've long been discussing that with a decent stadium deal and competent management we should have been able to sit near the top of the income table. Maybe Port could have been breaking even with a decent stadium deal, rather than losing $quillions. And, yes, I do understand that the clubs signed the stadium deal agreements. But they were hardly fully divested from the control of the sanfl when the agreements were made.

 

[marty36]

I think that the footy park stadium deal needs to be taken into account when discussing sanfl's bail-outs of port. Port were effectively writing cheques to the sanfl that then needed to be lent back. If port had the same deal as say footscray do at etihad, would they have still been haemorrhaging cash with their crowd numbers? We've long been discussing that with a decent stadium deal and competent management we should have been able to sit near the top of the income table. Maybe Port could have been breaking even with a decent stadium deal, rather than losing $quillions. And, yes, I do understand that the clubs signed the stadium deal agreements. But they were hardly fully divested from the control of the sanfl when the agreements were made.

Carlton are set to lose 1.6 million this year with St Kilda and Brissie to lose $3.5 million does that mean they are getting s**t stadium deals?. The Power were getting s**t crowds there was no s**t stadium deal when at AAMI. Would you say Carlton dont attract people, they had a higher average than both the crows and power over the season?

All these clubs losing $$$ yet its the stadium deals that are doing it whilst the AFL is set to sign a TV deal worth over $1 billion. The stadium deals are far from the problem, if all these clubs want to generate more $$$$ maybe follow the money train and ask them!

 

[1970crow]

Carlton are set to lose 1.6 million this year with St Kilda and Brissie to lose $3.5 million does that mean they are getting s**t stadium deals?. The Power were getting s**t crowds there was no s**t stadium deal when at AAMI. Would you say Carlton dont attract people, they had a higher average than both the crows and power over the season?

All these clubs losing $$$ yet its the stadium deals that are doing it whilst the AFL is set to sign a TV deal worth over $1 billion. The stadium deals are far from the problem, if all these clubs want to generate more $$$$ maybe follow the money train and ask them!

The point, which you intentionally sidestep, is that revenue from stadium deal is a key source of revenue. If Carlton had the same deal as Port do, maybe they would be announcing a $5m loss. Maybe Carlton wrote down a key asset which contributed to the loss or Perhaps they have a loss-making pokie pub. My question is whether IF port had the same deal as the dogs do at etihad and put the same bums on seats, would the stadium deal have generated more REVENUE than their footy park deal does. How they spend it Marty or whether they overspend is irrelevant to the revenue question that was posed.

 

[Papa G]

Oh I see they were floundering and needed the State Government to spend $600 million dollars of public funds to ensure your new busienss model would work?

Gee I wonder how many business say a truck company could rely on the Governemnt giveing them a grant for new equipemnt because their trucks keep breaking down and costing them coin.

Its up to yourself to make it work as it would be the truck company you cant rely on hand outs. Now you want to deny the SANFL an ability to service their debt because of your mismanagemnt!

Most of the Australian manufacturing industry survived on handouts and/ or tariffs over the last 50 years. Haven't they told you that at your factory?

 

[1970crow]

Just to provide a bit of insight marty36 . The blues loss follows a $750k increase in footy dept spend and a drop of $1.3m in gaming revenue. They have re-negotiated their deals with the mcg and etihad. Pretty silly according to you, they should just cut the footy spend back and generate more pokie revenue.

Bringing in other revenue/expense lines is a particularly stupid way to discuss the topic of stadium deals though. Some dolt in here even brought up the cost of envelopes or something similarly insanely irrelevant.

 

[marty36]

The point, which you intentionally sidestep, is that revenue from stadium deal is a key source of revenue. If Carlton had the same deal as Port do, maybe they would be announcing a $5m loss. Maybe Carlton wrote down a key asset which contributed to the loss or Perhaps they have a loss-making pokie pub. My question is whether IF port had the same deal as the dogs do at etihad and put the same bums on seats, would the stadium deal have generated more REVENUE than their footy park deal does. How they spend it Marty or whether they overspend is irrelevant to the revenue question that was posed.

Mate, The power were using Tarps to fill the stadium, enough said, where they expecting to earn anything? Because if they were that would have meant someone losing!

 

[marty36]

Most of the Australian manufacturing industry survived on handouts and/ or tariffs over the last 50 years. Haven't they told you that at your factory?

Are they the indutsries thatt have had to shut up shop because of the loses and they cant compete, or the example I gave of a transport operation which are probably the opposite and get taxed more?

 

[marty36]

So marty36 is Sando?

Nah sando is a bit wimpy, buddy!

 

[Mattrox]

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2774/

So there is $45m worth of debt on the SANFL'S books...... Still.

That makes Ports portion look miniscule.

So if there was $37m of SANFL debt and they paid $10. That means the SANFL clubs owe $18m

Way to run a league SANFL!

 

[marty36]

Just to provide a bit of insight marty36 . The blues loss follows a $750k increase in footy dept spend and a drop of $1.3m in gaming revenue. They have re-negotiated their deals with the mcg and etihad. Pretty silly according to you, they should just cut the footy spend back and generate more pokie revenue.

Bringing in other revenue/expense lines is a particularly stupid way to discuss the topic of stadium deals though. Some dolt in here even brought up the cost of envelopes or something similarly insanely irrelevant.

The only reason I brought up other clubs and loses was you brought up the Western Bulldogs and the Stadium deal saying why cant Port have one like theirs have a read

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...e-on-price-for-early-sale-20130318-2gad9.html