Port Adelaide would go broke in 3 years under current Adelaide Oval contract

[bombersfan4000]

Except for Essendon.

well don't president's/ clubs ceo's bother reading contracts before signing them.
Essendon didnt get screwed over with the etihad deal because they had a great operater at the time in Graham Macmaharn

 

[MarkT2]

What in the actual...how the **** does the SANFL have that much sway?.

The SANFL are the two clubs - they are the licence holders.

 

[bomberclifford]

The SANFL are the two clubs - they are the licence holders.

Not any more.

 

[Wizard]

Hope so.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

American football model. all teams privately owned, stadiums either privately owned or owned by council and operated by the club directly. you should see their profit numbers. probably not enough money in circulation in AFL or Australia probably to do that now but that's what we really need to be aiming for.

What are ticket prices like?

 

[Inspector Malceski]

I don't quite understand.

Is it not the stadium (Adelaide oval) who are not giving more share of gate receipts to Port & Crow?

Since SANFL don't own the clubs anymore how do they profit/ get money from the gate receipts? Since I presume SANFL don't own Adelaide oval?

 

[The_Reaper]

I don't quite understand.

Is it not the stadium (Adelaide oval) who are not giving more share of gate receipts to Port & Crow?

Since SANFL don't own the clubs anymore how do they profit/ get money from the gate receipts? Since I presume SANFL don't own Adelaide oval?

Adelaide Oval is jointly run by the SANFL and SACA as part of the package to convince the SACA to let football be played at the oval and to convince the SANFL to give up ownership of Adelaide/Port Adelaide and move matches away from AAMI Stadium (which the SANFL owned).

 

[The_Reaper]

American football model. all teams privately owned, stadiums either privately owned or owned by council and operated by the club directly. you should see their profit numbers. probably not enough money in circulation in AFL or Australia probably to do that now but that's what we really need to be aiming for.

Will never happen when we're dependent on government money to build stadiums.

 

[specq]

American football model. all teams privately owned, stadiums either privately owned or owned by council and operated by the club directly. you should see their profit numbers. probably not enough money in circulation in AFL or Australia probably to do that now but that's what we really need to be aiming for.

Not quite all teams privately owned.

But please, please trust me when I tell you that you do not want what you think you want.

 

[clogged]

Hidden thing in all this is how cricket continues to be a leech on Australian football and gets away with it.

SANFL should be abolished.

 

[Riccardo11]

American football model. all teams privately owned, stadiums either privately owned or owned by council and operated by the club directly. you should see their profit numbers. probably not enough money in circulation in AFL or Australia probably to do that now but that's what we really need to be aiming for.

This works in America because you only have one team per city, with at most two teams per state (and many states have no team at all).

There are 9 teams in Melbourne, I'd love to see where all the money and space comes for each of them to have their own modern 35,000 - 50,000 seat stadium in a central location.
Unless you are suggesting what amounts to the football equivalent of genocide in Victoria?

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

What are ticket prices like?

enough that every single game is sold out and teams have decade long waiting lists for season tickets.

 

[Puddy]

Leeches and parasites

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

This works in America because you only have one team per city, with at most two teams per state (and many states have no team at all).

There are 9 teams in Melbourne, I'd love to see where all the money and space comes for each of them to have their own modern 35,000 - 50,000 seat stadium in a central location.
Unless you are suggesting what amounts to the football equivalent of genocide in Victoria?

they manage in London for EPL teams. but we agree there isn't enough money right now to even consider it.

 

[VolgaBoatman]

As stated the NFL model is one team per city. LA doesn't even have a team with over 10 million people. Also there is only 8 games a season, so it is an event.

I think the SANFL still think it's 1989 and are still fighting against the VFL.

 

[Puddy]

I think the SANFL still think it's 1989 and are still fighting against the VFL.

Your not wrong here

 

[MarkT2]

Not any more.

Apologies, I must have missed that being completed.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

As former head honcho of Docklands, he'd know exactly how negotiations can screw over clubs in stadium deals.

Worked closely with the AFL to bring Carlton to its knees during the salary cap scandal, kill off Princes Park, and shoehorn us into one of the worst stadium deals in the league.

So yes, he would definitely know.

 

[Schulzenfest]

What strikes me in that article too is the pressure on KT, were the SANFL trying to get Port to sack him when he didn't turn out to be a pushover? Far out what a bunch of greedy *****

Putting aside the 'greedy ****s' thing, what an absolutely ridiculous situation that was. The SANFL owned Port Adelaides license while they were negotiating directly against Port Adelaide (and the Crows, but Triggy the stooge wasn't gonna cause them any problems) on a stadium deal that was going to affect the future of football in this state probably more significantly than anything since the 90's where two SA teams entered the AFL in the first place. Keith Thomas' reward for having the gall to at least ask the SANFL to stop charging us for the lube that it was using while it screwed us over (you know, his exact ****ing job description) was pressure on him to not get sacked, because due to the utterly ridiculous tail-wagging-the-dog nature of SA football at the time he was effectively negotiating against his boss. Only in SA.

 

[dazbroncos]

American football model. all teams privately owned, stadiums either privately owned or owned by council and operated by the club directly. you should see their profit numbers. probably not enough money in circulation in AFL or Australia probably to do that now but that's what we really need to be aiming for.

dear god no…

Owners use teams as an ATM - take $$ out a their whim and * the club and the supporters…

Clubs move overnight - as in the Colts from Indy to Baltimore….

Private club ownership is the last thing the AFL wants….

Go Catters

 

[Tas]

well don't president's/ clubs ceo's bother reading contracts before signing them.
Essendon didnt get screwed over with the etihad deal because they had a great operater at the time in Graham Macmaharn

No, the costs have blown out at Dockland since the original deal, Essendon blackmails Docklands that if they don't get subsidised then they will leave and take their games to the MCG, so Essendon knowingly passes the cost of that onto Dogs, Saints and North.

Docklands 'should' say no and the AFL should tell Essendon they wont move any more games back to the MCG, like they don't allow us to leave there, then they would pay their own way.

 

[dazbroncos]

What are ticket prices like?

Worse than AFL now….

There are some good points to the private owner thing but overall I feel its a loss for the supporter….

GO Catters

 

[bombersfan4000]

No, the costs have blown out at Dockland since the original deal, Essendon blackmails Docklands that if they don't get subsidised then they will leave and take their games to the MCG, so Essendon knowingly passes the cost of that onto Dogs, Saints and North.

Docklands 'should' say no and the AFL should tell Essendon they wont move any more games back to the MCG, like they don't allow us to leave there, then they would pay their own way.

rubbish.
dogs, saints & north have stupid operates who signed the contract at etihad, they where not held at gunpoint
Essendon went there when other clubs choose to stay at the MCG, all the clubs playing there share the cost of paying the venue off.
the biggest difference between the club is Essendon had a better board running the club at the time & a much bigger fan base who show up to games.
Stkilda, north & dogs do not

 

[rocket18]

It was our stupid SA Labor Government that provided $600 million to build the stadium and then gave all control to the greedy SMA that is made up of the SANFL & SACA, their sole mission is to screw the AFL clubs out of as much money as possible.

The SANFL still own all the land down at West Lakes that is worth about $200 million - greedy, greedy little men.

 

[MarkT2]

No, the costs have blown out at Dockland since the original deal, Essendon blackmails Docklands that if they don't get subsidised then they will leave and take their games to the MCG, so Essendon knowingly passes the cost of that onto Dogs, Saints and North.

Docklands 'should' say no and the AFL should tell Essendon they wont move any more games back to the MCG, like they don't allow us to leave there, then they would pay their own way.

Blackmail? Docklands should say no?
What planet do you live on?
Essendon should do the best deal they can. The fact they can pull a crowd is why they have bargaining power and why they can negotiate a decent deal at any venue. No costs are passed on to anyone. In fact take Essendon out of the picture and the cost for everyone else would increase because there isn't as much money made on as many full house games.