Port faces 2Mil loss. What the?

[marty36]

What options? IMO there is only three:

1) port Adelaide

2) crows lite, but will always be under supported and a lose maker because who chooses SA Lite over the Crows?

3) afl revoke the licence and hand it to a tassie start up

Of those, one (1) will ever benefit the sanfl if they could get over themselves and realise the sa afl teams do not solely exist to be cash cows for Sturt and co

Its a pretty much mute point as I have suggested the SANFL came to the party and saved their sorry arses. Norwood would be the logical choice if it happened purely based on their demographic and probably corporate support they would receive. Don't mention the Tasmanian league they can barely support their own league with that folding once.

 

[marty36]

You offer a lot of maybes marty36. Maybes aren't established facts.

Everyone in Australia can see the SANFL is screwing both Adelaide and Port Adelaide. Why may I ask, is this a difficult notion for you to accept?

That's because the AFL teams are looking at how the AFL teams are generating income. No one is worried or could give a toss about how or why SA football should be looked after by the Governing body of Football in South Australia.

When the Western Bulldogs were struggling financially did the VFL bail them out and will they do it with St Kilda after this years $3.5 million loss?

 

[RonSon]

Receiving an income from an asset you own is normal. Do you think Centro see it as a gift for the rent they receive from their tenants although it makes them money its part and parcel of using their asset. Why do you think that because you use an asset owned by the SANFL that they should give back to you any income they receive from it. I am actually confused on your logic on why this is so!

Have you seen how much shopping centre rents have fallen lately to keep tenants rather than show empty shop fronts?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Its a pretty much mute point as I have suggested the SANFL came to the party and saved their sorry arses. Norwood would be the logical choice if it happened purely based on their demographic and probably corporate support they would receive. Don't mention the Tasmanian league they can barely support their own league with that folding once.

You are forgetting one little point, the afl has to agree to the transfer, or they revoke the licence

If the largest club in SA footy history can't be a stand alone afl club, IMO there is no chance they would agree to rolling the dice on s smaller club, who's fans are rusted on crows fans

A tassie side would be viable if given then subsidies the Hawks and n0rf get

 

[ausbacker]

That's because the AFL teams are looking at how the AFL teams are generating income. No one is worried or could give a toss about how or why SA football should be looked after by the Governing body of Football in South Australia.

When the Western Bulldogs were struggling financially did the VFL bail them out and will they do it with St Kilda after this years $3.5 million loss?

The WA Football Commission realises that profitable West Coast and Fremantle sides ensures the health of the WA Football system. What they don't do is hold the clubs to ransom to progress their own agenda.

Do you think the SANFL could improve their position with the Power and Crows to find a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved or are you ok with the current arrangement?

 

[marty36]

The WA Football Commission realises that profitable West Coast and Fremantle sides ensures the health of the WA Football system. What they don't do is hold the clubs to ransom to progress their own agenda.

Do you think the SANFL could improve their position with the Power and Crows to find a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved or are you ok with the current arrangement?

The WAFL received $15 Million from the stadium deal in WA in 2013 the SANFL received $12 million in 2013 . They are expected which seems pretty true to receive $15 Million in 2014 at AO, explain to me how they are holding the two clubs to ransom please, it will be interesting to hear your thoughts?

 

[ausbacker]

The WAFL received $15 Million from the stadium deal in WA in 2013 the SANFL received $12 million in 2013 . They are expected which seems pretty true to receive $15 Million in 2014 at AO, explain to me how they are holding the two clubs to ransom please, it will be interesting to hear your thoughts?

Given the mining boom, West Australians have more disposable income than South Australians. It's fairly simple economics.

Now, answer the question and stop deflecting.

 

[marty36]

Given the mining boom, West Australians have more disposable income than South Australians. It's fairly simple economics.

Now, answer the question and stop deflecting.

Are you kidding stop deflecting the question? You want the SANFL to receive less income than the WAFL receive in their stadium deal.

As for the question, there will be a mutual agreement reached I would say it will make all parties on edge, The SANFL will probably lose say $1 million of their $15 million and divided between the two clubs. But wait for the backlash on free rent to the AFC for their use of AAMI and maybe the PAFC will have to pay the $400K per annum to play in the SANFL which the crows pay and they don't.

 

[Papa G]

Given the mining boom, West Australians have more disposable income than South Australians. It's fairly simple economics.

Now, answer the question and stop deflecting.

WA also has a third higher population. If $15 million supports "grass roots footy" in WA, surely SA only needs $10 Million?

 

[ausbacker]

Are you kidding stop deflecting the question? You want the SANFL to receive less income than the WAFL receive in their stadium deal.

As for the question, there will be a mutual agreement reached I would say it will make all parties on edge, The SANFL will probably lose say $1 million of their $15 million and divided between the two clubs. But wait for the backlash on free rent to the AFC for their use of AAMI and maybe the PAFC will have to pay the $400K per annum to play in the SANFL which the crows pay and they don't.

No, I'm not kidding. In almost every interaction you have had with people in this thread, you are asked a question that you attempt to navigate around. Ultimately, you move to goalposts to a more suitable answer for your own biased position.

Interestingly, I noticed you made no mention of the respective financial performances of West Coast, Fremantle, Port Adelaide and Adelaide compared against the SANFL and WAFC's return. This is a fairly important consideration when discussing the current set-ups of both states.

 

[ausbacker]

WA also has a third higher population. If $15 million supports "grass roots footy" in WA, surely SA only needs $10 Million?

I was going to get there eventually Papa G! Thanks for stealing my thunder.

 

[marty36]

No, I'm not kidding. In almost every interaction you have had with people in this thread, you are asked a question that you attempt to navigate around. Ultimately, you move to goalposts to a more suitable answer for your own biased position.

Interestingly, I noticed you made no mention of the respective financial performances of West Coast, Fremantle, Port Adelaide and Adelaide compared against the SANFL and WAFC's return. This is a fairly important consideration when discussing the current set-ups of both states.

You asked me my thoughts on the outcome I have given them to you, would you agree that the break up of income would be just that and what are your thoughts on the free rent situation at Footy Park and the discrepancy of the Power not have to pay to compete in the SANFL, along with the discrepancy in the cost of the licences between the Power and Crows, where the crows are paying $11.3 Million for an AFL licence and the Power only $6.9 million for one.

As for my Debate that started out on two reasons for the AO deal

1. there was a long term agreement by the AFL to play footy at AAMI for XX years which had a guaranteed income source to the SANFL for a stadium they owned Broken.

2. SA football needs to be funded in SA by the Governing body with the fact the SA Taxpayers have just contributed half a billion dollars for this to happen it should be of a benefit to the whole state and inturn the Governing body of footy should get a substantial amount to run footy in this state

I have been dragged into comparing other teams and states by other posters but will justify my position no problems along with Ports bail out by the SANFL of $16 million.

 

[ausbacker]

The WA Football Commission realises that profitable West Coast and Fremantle sides ensures the health of the WA Football system. What they don't do is hold the clubs to ransom to progress their own agenda.

Do you think the SANFL could improve their position with the Power and Crows to find a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved or are you ok with the current arrangement?

You asked me my thoughts on the outcome I have given them to you, would you agree that the break up of income would be just that and what are your thoughts on the free rent situation at Footy Park and the discrepancy of the Power not have to pay to compete in the SANFL, along with the discrepancy in the cost of the licences between the Power and Crows, where the crows are paying $11.3 Million for an AFL licence and the Power only $6.9 million for one.

As for my Debate that started out on two reasons for the AO deal

1. there was a long term agreement by the AFL to play footy at AAMI for XX years which had a guaranteed income source to the SANFL for a stadium they owned Broken.

2. SA football needs to be funded in SA by the Governing body with the fact the SA Taxpayers have just contributed half a billion dollars for this to happen it should be of a benefit to the whole state and inturn the Governing body of footy should get a substantial amount to run footy in this state

I have been dragged into comparing other teams and states by other posters but will justify my position no problems along with Ports bail out by the SANFL of $16 million.

Despite your response, I hope you realise this post still does not answer the very simple and straightforward question I asked you. For your observation, it's in bold.

 

[marty36]

Despite your response, I hope you realise this post still does not answer the very simple and straightforward question I asked you. For your observation, it's in bold.

Why are you asking me a question no one can answer?

 

[ausbacker]

Why are you asking me a question no one can answer?

Therein lies your problem in this thread. You throw numbers around with spurious reasoning/connections and then are asked a simple question and refuse to answer. That leads me to believe that you're probably a SANFL employee or at the very least, have a strong connection to the organisation.

 

[marty36]

Therein lies your problem in this thread. You throw numbers around with spurious reasoning/connections and then are asked a simple question and refuse to answer. That leads me to believe that you're probably a SANFL employee or at the very least, have a strong connection to the organisation.

Why get involved in something you know nothing about, I will explain

Their is a confidentiality agreement in place no one knows the split up on the deal and why it is so. There could be many factors why the deal is what it is but guess what these are just questions that need to be answered

1. Vendor finance arrangements on the Licence fee are they interest free
2 No rent for the Crows to pay
3 Power don't pay the same as the crows to play in the SANFL
4 Actual cost to operate AO
5 How much is the SACA receiving from the Football generated income
6 Did the SANFL consider the $16 million given to Port when negotiating the deal
7 How are they being compensated for the broken agreement at AAMI

All of these cant be seen as there is a confidentiality agreement in place, please tell me where I can see all this information from someone other than Ferret Head or Caro (whom said Hird was sacked three months ago).

What Im saying is the SANFL deserve to be part of the AO breakup for the reasons I suggested what they are receiving no one bloody knows.

 

[ausbacker]

Why get involved in something you know nothing about, I will explain

Their is a confidentiality agreement in place no one knows the split up on the deal and why it is so. There could be many factors why the deal is what it is but guess what these are just questions that need to be answered

1. Vendor finance arrangements on the Licence fee are they interest free
2 No rent for the Crows to pay
3 Power don't pay the same as the crows to play in the SANFL
4 Actual cost to operate AO
5 How much is the SACA receiving from the Football generated income
6 Did the SANFL consider the $16 million given to Port when negotiating the deal
7 How are they being compensated for the broken agreement at AAMI

All of these cant be seen as there is a confidentiality agreement in place, please tell me where I can see all this information from someone other than Ferret Head or Caro (whom said Hird was sacked three months ago).

What Im saying is the SANFL deserve to be part of the AO breakup for the reasons I suggested what they are receiving no one bloody knows.

Your biggest problem is the assumption that I don't know anything about the situation. That's your first and biggest problem. Secondly, you still haven't answered the question. You're waffling when a simple yes or no answer with accompanying rationale is all that was needed to be said.

 

[Rob]

The WAFL received $15 Million from the stadium deal in WA in 2013 the SANFL received $12 million in 2013 . They are expected which seems pretty true to receive $15 Million in 2014 at AO, explain to me how they are holding the two clubs to ransom please, it will be interesting to hear your thoughts?

Your first part simply isn't true. The WAFC receive about $6.5 million in gross rent from the 2 AFL clubs, and a small amount from catering. That's money from the stadium deal.

They also get royalties from the 2 AFL clubs based around how profitable they are. Pretty much like dividends. This money is clearly dependent on how financial both clubs are and absolutely nothing to do with the stadium deal. This is reflective of the fact that West Coast generally pay more in royalties than Fremantle do - because they're more profitable. If both clubs were making losses, there wouldn't be much, if any, royalties paid.

 

[PowerForGood]

Why get involved in something you know nothing about, I will explain

Their is a confidentiality agreement in place no one knows the split up on the deal and why it is so. There could be many factors why the deal is what it is but guess what these are just questions that need to be answered

1. Vendor finance arrangements on the Licence fee are they interest free
2 No rent for the Crows to pay
3 Power don't pay the same as the crows to play in the SANFL
4 Actual cost to operate AO
5 How much is the SACA receiving from the Football generated income
6 Did the SANFL consider the $16 million given to Port when negotiating the deal
7 How are they being compensated for the broken agreement at AAMI

All of these cant be seen as there is a confidentiality agreement in place, please tell me where I can see all this information from someone other than Ferret Head or Caro (whom said Hird was sacked three months ago).

What Im saying is the SANFL deserve to be part of the AO breakup for the reasons I suggested what they are receiving no one bloody knows.

You left out
8 How much money has the SANFL given the Crows over the years like they have to Port Adelaide? (I know it's not zero.)

 

[Rob]

Mate there was literally no choice. I'm not sure how people don't get that. The only option we had was refuse to actually play and I don't think that would have won us any friends.

That's probably not a defensible position if that's what the board has done. In fact it probably makes it worse if they knew it was a dud deal and said nothing (in fact they probably said the opposite). At the very least they should have got in the media and made a noise about being held to ransom.

You would hope that whatever deal they signed isn't long term.

 

[Doctor Feel]

At least Marty is doing a great job highlighting what is wrong with SA footy.

 

[*PAF]

He also forgot to add that in order for Port to have a "reserves team" the SANFL and anything belonging to it will now be divided by 8 and not 9.

 

[marty36]

Your biggest problem is the assumption that I don't know anything about the situation. That's your first and biggest problem. Secondly, you still haven't answered the question. You're waffling when a simple yes or no answer with accompanying rationale is all that was needed to be said.

So smart one give me the details of what is being split amongst the parties and the source please, considering there is a confidentiality agreement in place maybe you broke into AFL house and stole the financial results

Which leads to me why the answer that cannot be answered, don't you understand no one besides the AFL, SANFL,SACA, SMA , SA government , Port and the Crows know the results and how the deal was negotiated which are confidential. You do know what that means?

 

[marty36]

He also forgot to add that in order for Port to have a "reserves team" the SANFL and anything belonging to it will now be divided by 8 and not 9.

Left out quite a few like why the crows are paying $5 million more for an AFL licence also!

 

[*PAF]

Left out quite a few like why the crows are paying $5 million more for an AFL licence also!

It was the bigger cash cow and thus worth more money. No one will argue that.

But you did say it doesn't cost Port anything to have a reserves team when in fact they paid heaps for the privilege.