Port faces 2Mil loss. What the?

[bomberclifford]

marty36 ALL AFL clubs benefit from the development of grass roots football in ALL states. It increases the depth of the talent pool.

To suggest that Victorian clubs wouldn't want to see the best football talent from SA nurtured and available for selection in the draft is just juvenile, parochial bullshit.

 

[Papa G]

Calling all football outside AFL level "grass roots footy" is almost as irritating as calling Australian rules football AFL.

 

[marty36]

Having played grass foots footy in both victoria (kananook, frankston east) and south australia (plympton, hackham, lonsdale), I give a damn about it because I can.

The SANFL receive funding from the AFL for grassroots footy - its also part of the license handover deal. What the SANFL does with it is their business.

Would you consider the fact that the State Government paid half a billion for Adelaide oval and the fact the SANFL is the governing body of football in this state the SA government granted the lease to them? If not what would be the reason to grant the lease to the SANFL?

 

[The_Wookie]

Would you consider the fact that the State Government paid half a billion for Adelaide oval and the fact the SANFL is the governing body of football in this state the SA government granted the lease to them? If not what would be the reason to grant the lease to the SANFL?

Political expediency and a disgrace.

Its an absolute disgrace that this was handed to the SANFL and SACA to profit from with neither input nor representation from either the Government OR the Primary tenants, instead of putting it to an MCG Trust like arrangement for the profit and benefit of the state.

 

[Kwality]

Political expediency and a disgrace.

Its an absolute disgrace that this was handed to the SANFL and SACA to profit from with neither input nor representation from either the Government OR the Primary tenants, instead of putting it to an MCG Trust like arrangement for the profit and benefit of the state.

Naive interpretation Wookie, a genuine lack of due diligence by all parties - no one party can deny their incompetence displayed resulting in this fiasco.

There is only one way the Adelaide Oval redevelopment can pay its way, growth by the AFL clubs. There is no other growth market given the SACA wont be pulling out the pitches to make way for the A-League. Yes I'm a cricket lover.

PS how does the MCG Trust provide Vic taxpayers with profit or benefit, only the MCC benefit, if you arent a member you are just a contributor , yeh, different argument for a separate time but you cant make such an outrageous point of view without challenge. Another time, another place.

 

[marty36]

Political expediency and a disgrace.

Its an absolute disgrace that this was handed to the SANFL and SACA to profit from with neither input nor representation from either the Government OR the Primary tenants, instead of putting it to an MCG Trust like arrangement for the profit and benefit of the state.

Fair enough you don't believe the Government saw that the two controlling bodies of both cricket and football in this state needed an income stream to support their sports in this state from junior through to senior competitors (its not about how many elite afl players we produce, contrary to some peoples views). With the fact they spent half a billion of the people of South Australia's money this was to be the return to the people of SA. Not the Crows and Power football clubs by providing them large amounts of cash to enable them to win a premiership!

So being the controlling body of both sports in the state doesnt count as a benefit to the sport in this state?

 

[The_Wookie]

Fair enough you don't believe the Government saw that the two controlling bodies of both cricket and football in this state needed an income stream to support their sports in this state from junior through to senior competitors (its not about how many elite afl players we produce, contrary to some peoples views). With the fact they spent half a billion of the people of South Australia's money this was to be the return to the people of SA. Not the Crows and Power football clubs by providing them large amounts of cash to enable them to win a premiership!

So being the controlling body of both sports in the state doesnt count as a benefit to the sport in this state?

The SACA were carrying 83 million of debt they could not repay, and it was wiped by the taxpayer. no they were NOT entitled to that. The SANFL are not entitled to any money from Adelaide oval as long as they are taking millions from the AFL and the two clubs to pay for development costs. The SANFL should not have been involved in the management of Adelaide Oval at all since they have almost no input or effect on its revenues.

And one of the stated aims of the development was to enable the AFL sides to be profitable, while maintaining SANFl incomes at its present levels (in 2013). This isnt whats happening.

 

[marty36]

The SACA were carrying 83 million of debt they could not repay, and it was wiped by the taxpayer. no they were NOT entitled to that. The SANFL are not entitled to any money from Adelaide oval as long as they are taking millions from the AFL and the two clubs to pay for development costs. The SANFL should not have been involved in the management of Adelaide Oval at all since they have almost no input or effect on its revenues.

And one of the stated aims of the development was to enable the AFL sides to be profitable, while maintaining SANFl incomes at its present levels (in 2013). This isnt whats happening.

The AFL do fund SANFL but not for millions try about $1 Million where as the NEAFL get $5 Million with much less of football to actually run, the AFL expect the SANFL to generate their own income and guess what, as Kevin Foley stated it was him and the AFL that brokered this deal, so both the SA government and AFL were happy to have both the SACA and SANFL in on the deal.

AS Stated it wasn't the AFL or its clubs that spent the half a billion it was the people of SA.I see your reasons on why the SANFL should not be involved except football in this state needs to be funded and if the AFL and its clubs had said no SANFL involvement then maybe the Government could have just funded the SANFL annually and SACA and not spent $600 Million. Foley stated not only the SANFL was a reluctant party but the SACA didn't embrace this either. So the call that the AFL were going to AO anyway, would have relied on the lease holder the SACA agreeing to it, and its bleeding obvious of how the SACA would have been to deal with to enable them to service their $89 Million debt. Also without the development AO would have struggled with AFL football without $ being spent on it which the SACA clearly didn't have.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL do fund SANFL but not for millions try about $1 Million where as the NEAFL get $5 Million with much less of football to actually run, the AFL expect the SANFL to generate their own income and guess what, as Kevin Foley stated it was him and the AFL that brokered this deal, so both the SA government and AFL were happy to have both the SACA and SANFL in on the deal.

AS Stated it wasn't the AFL or its clubs that spent the half a billion it was the people of SA.I see your reasons on why the SANFL should not be involved except football in this state needs to be funded and if the AFL and its clubs had said no SANFL involvement then maybe the Government could have just funded the SANFL annually and SACA and not spent $600 Million. Foley stated not only the SANFL was a reluctant party but the SACA didn't embrace this either. So the call that the AFL were going to AO anyway, would have relied on the lease holder the SACA agreeing to it, and its bleeding obvious of how the SACA would have been to deal with to enable them to service their $89 Million debt. Also without the development AO would have struggled with AFL football without $ being spent on it which the SACA clearly didn't have.

Its been a million until the deal to sell the licenses were handed over. That deal has now changed. Please tell me where you get the figures from the NEAFL from? Theres literally no financial figures released for it, and the AFL only releases a combined development figure which includes ALL national development funding.

As stated, regardless of who paid for it, and who will be paying for it, and who will be using it, one thing is certain - the SANFL arent contributing a cent, but are yanking millions of dollars that they havent earnt and shouldnt automatically be entitled to it.

The AFL were reported to be already preparing to send Port to Adelaide Oval BEFORE the redevelopment, because 1) the exclusivity period was over and 2) the SACA were offering a decent deal to get AFL football to the city (and had been trying for since the exclusivity arrangement was signed), something Port pioneered a few years back.

Bearing in mind that with the exclusivity deal gone, the AFL had full and total say over where any and all games in Adelaide were played and could well have done the deal to go to Adelaide Oval without the SANFL, in much the same way that games at ANZ Stadium in Sydney were done without the Swans approval.

 

[marty36]

Its been a million until the deal to sell the licenses were handed over. That deal has now changed. Please tell me where you get the figures from the NEAFL from? Theres literally no financial figures released for it, and the AFL only releases a combined development figure which includes ALL national development funding.

As stated, regardless of who paid for it, and who will be paying for it, and who will be using it, one thing is certain - the SANFL arent contributing a cent, but are yanking millions of dollars that they havent earnt and shouldnt automatically be entitled to it.

The AFL were reported to be already preparing to send Port to Adelaide Oval BEFORE the redevelopment, because 1) the exclusivity period was over and 2) the SACA were offering a decent deal to get AFL football to the city (and had been trying for since the exclusivity arrangement was signed), something Port pioneered a few years back.

Bearing in mind that with the exclusivity deal gone, the AFL had full and total say over where any and all games in Adelaide were played and could well have done the deal to go to Adelaide Oval without the SANFL, in much the same way that games at ANZ Stadium in Sydney were done without the Swans approval.

Yes the SANFL are yanking millions out of the AO, but what for, what are they doing with the millions?

If the AFL had no obligation to play at AAMI why was the SANFL brought into AO? Because the people that paid to have the thing built wanted them there. If you pay for something it probably does give you some sort of power, wouldn't you think?

 

[The_Wookie]

Yes the SANFL are yanking millions out of the AO, but what for, what are they doing with the millions?

If the AFL had no obligation to play at AAMI why was the SANFL brought into AO? Because the people that paid to have the thing built wanted them there. If you pay for something it probably does give you some sort of power, wouldn't you think?

Well no, its because people didnt think far enough ahead, because politics isnt done like that, especially not in SA. The Government of the day needed all parties to come to the table as fast as possible, and it shows in the way this was arranged. It was done in the fastest and most expedient way possible, rather than the best way possible.

It doesnt matter what the SANFL would use the money for. The SANFL didnt pay for it, and they certainly didnt take a funding hit from it. They didnt put a cent in, they are a tenant in name only, they barely play games there, and those games are pathetically attended, and would almost certainly cost more to hold at the stadium than they make from the matches. Somehow though, despite not being either of the stadiums three major tenants and staging games that lose money at the stadium, they still made more money than Port and the Crows combined.

 

[marty36]

The SACA were carrying 83 million of debt they could not repay, and it was wiped by the taxpayer. no they were NOT entitled to that. The SANFL are not entitled to any money from Adelaide oval as long as they are taking millions from the AFL and the two clubs to pay for development costs. The SANFL should not have been involved in the management of Adelaide Oval at all since they have almost no input or effect on its revenues.

And one of the stated aims of the development was to enable the AFL sides to be profitable, while maintaining SANFl incomes at its present levels (in 2013). This isnt whats happening.

Your view is no SANFL involvement at worst that would take way $12 Million from the SANFL leaving them unable to Govern Football in this state. That's fine if that's what you think. The AFL then can take control of governing football in this state, and not saying their would be a backlash, but if the thousands of volunteer realised that a Multi Million $ corporate was in charge maybe the cost of doing business would go up, which would be a fair assumption.

Apart from that I would say the majority of South Australians don't want the AFL to run grass roots footy in this state. You have a corporation run by a commission, that is voted upon by the clubs, in which 60% are Victorian, including yours of course! Wonder how that would end up for grass roots footy, probably why the State government did what it did!

 

[The_Wookie]

Your view is no SANFL involvement at worst that would take way $12 Million from the SANFL leaving them unable to Govern Football in this state. That's fine if that's what you think. The AFL then can take control of governing football in this state, and not saying their would be a backlash, but if the thousands of volunteer realised that a Multi Million $ corporate was in charge maybe the cost of doing business would go up, which would be a fair assumption.

Apart from that I would say the majority of South Australians don't want the AFL to run grass roots footy in this state. You have a corporation run by a commission, that is voted upon by the clubs, in which 60% are Victorian, including yours of course! Wonder how that would end up for grass roots footy, probably why the State government did what it did!

Actually my view is that the SANFL could fund themselves for some time off the proceeds of the AFL development funding from the license handover arrangements with a few tweaks and the sale of land around the football park precinct. The SANFL could further fund itslef better by not guaranteeing that the grants to SANFL clubs will remain at unsustainable levels. Port keeps losing money and no one will benefit from the loss of the team.

The AFL controls football completely in every state and territory of Australia bar WA and SA, and yet thousands of volunteers turn up without fail. And the rest is the blatant fear mongering of SANFL sheep. You folks do realise that participation s far greater in NSW and Queensland than SA these days right?

 

[marty36]

Actually my view is that the SANFL could fund themselves for some time off the proceeds of the AFL development funding from the license handover arrangements with a few tweaks and the sale of land around the football park precinct. The SANFL could further fund itslef better by not guaranteeing that the grants to SANFL clubs will remain at unsustainable levels. Port keeps losing money and no one will benefit from the loss of the team.

The AFL controls football completely in every state and territory of Australia bar WA and SA, and yet thousands of volunteers turn up without fail. And the rest is the blatant fear mongering of SANFL sheep. You folks do realise that participation s far greater in NSW and Queensland than SA these days right?

MMM read an article on the NEAFL yesterday how a number of clubs are dropping out, if there is any sugegstion that the QLD and NSW compares to WA and SA that simply is rubbish. The WAFL and SANFL have established clubs with fantastic Volunteers along with the countless volunteers that support even lower level comps in this state. Do you think when I umpired this Real Grass Roots footy it was for the money, I did it for the love of the game, saying this you will always get volunteers but if there was AFL control no doubt in my mind would have some impact.

When I have suggested the SANFL should keep what they have and concentrate on their own league and let the AFL control grass roots South Australian football it was met with, we dont what that even from Power supportesr, for the simple reason that most South Australians see the AFL as a VFL extension. Which with the fact the Victorian clubs are 60% of the comp and can vote in there prefered commission that controls the league!

Its not fear mongering when only a few agree with you and the majority of South Australians dont want the AFL to control footy in this state! But thats only my opinion but Im damn sure if an opinion poll was run in South Australia I would back my opinion being that of the SA people.

As for your opinion on the SANFL finances, I suppose all clubs including your own could be questioned on how they overspend against what they make along with the SANFL. But it is trusted upon them to do the right thing, it appears the SANFL are great at negotiating deals that benefit SA footy so I cant call them irresponsible in that.

 

[Papa G]

Its been a million until the deal to sell the licenses were handed over. That deal has now changed. Please tell me where you get the figures from the NEAFL from? Theres literally no financial figures released for it, and the AFL only releases a combined development figure which includes ALL national development funding.

As stated, regardless of who paid for it, and who will be paying for it, and who will be using it, one thing is certain - the SANFL arent contributing a cent, but are yanking millions of dollars that they havent earnt and shouldnt automatically be entitled to it.

The AFL were reported to be already preparing to send Port to Adelaide Oval BEFORE the redevelopment, because 1) the exclusivity period was over and 2) the SACA were offering a decent deal to get AFL football to the city (and had been trying for since the exclusivity arrangement was signed), something Port pioneered a few years back.

Bearing in mind that with the exclusivity deal gone, the AFL had full and total say over where any and all games in Adelaide were played and could well have done the deal to go to Adelaide Oval without the SANFL, in much the same way that games at ANZ Stadium in Sydney were done without the Swans approval.

Lets look at the alternative universe, the sliding doors moment if you will.

Lets say the Adelaide Oval deal never got up. Either the SACA members never voted it up or the SANFL/SACA/Govt could never reach any sort of agreement. This was a very very real possibility, in fact probably the expected outcome at the time.

The way Port were going in 2011, as you say Wookie, very realistically the AFL could have taken then over by force, but lets just say that the AFL were feeling generous and offered the SANFL $20 million for the license. What this would mean is the AFL then would not have lent the SANFL $10 million to help fund Port and the Crows (everyone seems to forget that $3 million that went to the Crows) and the SANFL would not have thrown in any extra to Port. Let's just say for arguments sake that the $16.25 million that Olsen keeps bleating about Port costing the SANFL therefore did not exist.

So what we would be left with would be Port now owned by the AFL, playing games out of non redeveloped Adelaide Oval at what one would expect a much, much better stadium deal. None of this income would be going to the SANFL to fund "grass roots footy" or to Encore catering or to any of the SANFL clubs. It would be assisting the SACA to pay down their debt on the grandstand though.

The SANFL for their part would have a smaller debt, probably closer to $20-25 million, but they would now have a big problem. All of a sudden they only have 11 games at Football Park instead of 22. Even though Port's crowds weren't great, they were still making money from it. That is now gone. They still have the thirsty SANFL clubs to feed, an aging ground that increasingly is on the nose with even Adelaide supporters and an asset (Footy Park) that they can not liquidate because they are still using it.

Mean while Port, unburdened by the ridiculous Stadium deal that was basically killing it, by 2013 start playing much better football at a centrally located ground that the majority of people love. Crowds flock back and whilst the ground does not cater for the crowds it does as a redeveloped stadium, Port start making healthy profits. The Crows left with the burden of totally funding the SANFL by themselves start making bigger and bigger losses. The SANFL, already living beyond their means sinks further and further into debt. Grass Roots Footy suffers. Marty decides he cant take it any more and drives his Datsun 180B off the Christies Beach Jetty.

........ Ah what could have been.

 

[marty36]

Lets look at the alternative universe, the sliding doors moment if you will.

Lets say the Adelaide Oval deal never got up. Either the SACA members never voted it up or the SANFL/SACA/Govt could never reach any sort of agreement. This was a very very real possibility, in fact probably the expected outcome at the time.

The way Port were going in 2011, as you say Wookie, very realistically the AFL could have taken then over by force, but lets just say that the AFL were feeling generous and offered the SANFL $20 million for the license. What this would mean is the AFL then would not have lent the SANFL $10 million to help fund Port and the Crows (everyone seems to forget that $3 million that went to the Crows) and the SANFL would not have thrown in any extra to Port. Let's just say for arguments sake that the $16.25 million that Olsen keeps bleating about Port costing the SANFL therefore did not exist.

So what we would be left with would be Port now owned by the AFL, playing games out of non redeveloped Adelaide Oval at what one would expect a much, much better stadium deal. None of this income would be going to the SANFL to fund "grass roots footy" or to Encore catering or to any of the SANFL clubs. It would be assisting the SACA to pay down their debt on the grandstand though.

The SANFL for their part would have a smaller debt, probably closer to $20-25 million, but they would now have a big problem. All of a sudden they only have 11 games at Football Park instead of 22. Even though Port's crowds weren't great, they were still making money from it. That is now gone. They still have the thirsty SANFL clubs to feed, an aging ground that increasingly is on the nose with even Adelaide supporters and an asset (Footy Park) that they can not liquidate because they are still using it.

Mean while Port, unburdened by the ridiculous Stadium deal that was basically killing it, by 2013 start playing much better football at a centrally located ground that the majority of people love. Crowds flock back and whilst the ground does not cater for the crowds it does as a redeveloped stadium, Port start making healthy profits. The Crows left with the burden of totally funding the SANFL by themselves start making bigger and bigger losses. The SANFL, already living beyond their means sinks further and further into debt. Grass Roots Footy suffers. Marty decides he cant take it any more and drives his Datsun 180B off the Christies Beach Jetty.

........ Ah what could have been.

Good story I like it, especially the Jetty one, although there is no Jetty at Christies, maybe Porties, but the facts are both teams are at AO with the SANFL taking the majority of the income, due to the fact the SA governemt handed the lease to them and the SACA for the reasons I have stated. I am not fused at the moment as all appears good for SA footy and will remain especially after Jay said he would not be changing or challenging legislation, again for obvious reasons!

 

[The_Wookie]

MMM read an article on the NEAFL yesterday how a number of clubs are dropping out, if there is any sugegstion that the QLD and NSW compares to WA and SA that simply is rubbish. The WAFL and SANFL have established clubs with fantastic Volunteers along with the countless volunteers that support even lower level comps in this state. Do you think when I umpired this Real Grass Roots footy it was for the money, I did it for the love of the game, saying this you will always get volunteers but if there was AFL control no doubt in my mind would have some impact.

The NEAFL is not a reflection of the game in Queensland and New South Wales, the fact they have 175 and 157 thousand participants in the game, including the largest number of school based participants (queensland) and the largest auskick contingent (NSW). I played in both Victoria (Frankston, Kananook) and South Australia (Plympton, Hackham) at local level. No doubt in your mind there would be some impact? Its not borne out in real world experience, and frankly is insulting to the intelligence of thousands of volunteers who turn out across the NT, Victoria, Queensland, NSW, the ACT and Tasmania each and every weekend of the season.

Its not fear mongering when only a few agree with you and the majority of South Australians dont want the AFL to control footy in this state! But thats only my opinion but Im damn sure if an opinion poll was run in South Australia I would back my opinion being that of the SA people.

It is absolutely fear mongering. The mean AFL will destroy football if it takes it over and volunteers will leave by droves? Never mind that the AFL has never indicated it wants control of football in SA.

As for your opinion on the SANFL finances, I suppose all clubs including your own could be questioned on how they overspend against what they make along with the SANFL. But it is trusted upon them to do the right thing, it appears the SANFL are great at negotiating deals that benefit SA footy so I cant call them irresponsible in that.

The SANFL owned the AFL clubs and the state competition and negotiated for their own benefit without regard for the future of the clubs involved, which is why both clubs are kicking up a fuss over the deal in place now. Yes all clubs can be questioned about how they overspend, but thats not what caused this current financial in justice, its not what cause the SANFL to make millions above its 2013 financial levels, despite no financial input to the venue, no effort on its part to drive attendance and stadium increases.

Frankly, your inability to see that this is a completely unfair situation astounds me, given your clubs current position on the matter.

 

[marty36]

The NEAFL is not a reflection of the game in Queensland and New South Wales, the fact they have 175 and 157 thousand participants in the game, including the largest number of school based participants (queensland) and the largest auskick contingent (NSW). I played in both Victoria (Frankston, Kananook) and South Australia (Plympton, Hackham) at local level. No doubt in your mind there would be some impact? Its not borne out in real world experience, and frankly is insulting to the intelligence of thousands of volunteers who turn out across the NT, Victoria, Queensland, NSW, the ACT and Tasmania each and every weekend of the season.



It is absolutely fear mongering. The mean AFL will destroy football if it takes it over and volunteers will leave by droves? Never mind that the AFL has never indicated it wants control of football in SA.



The SANFL owned the AFL clubs and the state competition and negotiated for their own benefit without regard for the future of the clubs involved, which is why both clubs are kicking up a fuss over the deal in place now. Yes all clubs can be questioned about how they overspend, but thats not what caused this current financial in justice, its not what cause the SANFL to make millions above its 2013 financial levels, despite no financial input to the venue, no effort on its part to drive attendance and stadium increases.

Frankly, your inability to see that this is a completely unfair situation astounds me, given your clubs current position on the matter.

Firstly if the partcipation wasnt close to that in those states it would be a tragedy, those two states 50% of the population of Australia.

If you honestly believe the South Australian people would be happy to have its grass roots footy controlled by the AFL, that is a matter of opinion but in my opinion the VFL is not wanted in running football in this state.

As for clubs not being responsible, for the SANFL to hand out 16.25 million in funding to the Power, they over spent on their earnings for how many years in a row. If they were a business that didnt have someone to bail them out they wouldnt be in business, if thats not being irresponsible and requiring a governing body to look after them I dont know what is!

 

[Kwality]

Firstly if the partcipation wasnt close to that in those states it would be a tragedy, those two states 50% of the population of Australia.

If you honestly believe the South Australian people would be happy to have its grass roots footy controlled by the AFL, that is a matter of opinion but in my opinion the VFL is not wanted in running football in this state.

As for clubs not being responsible, for the SANFL to hand out 16.25 million in funding to the Power, they over spent on their earnings for how many years in a row. If they were a business that didnt have someone to bail them out they wouldnt be in business, if thats not being irresponsible and requiring a governing body to look after them I dont know what is!

Tell me which of the bodies concerned, the SANFL, Crows or Port that lived within their means in recent years - none of them is my take.

Pointing fingers based on what has happened over recent years is a genuine waste of space compared with addressing a solution going forward.

Both clubs were lead to believe Adelaide Oval equals profitability & still we dont know whats happened, BUT Gunna Gil will save the day, he's gunna fix it.

 

[marty36]

Tell me which of the bodies concerned, the SANFL, Crows or Port that lived within their means in recent years - none of them is my take.

Pointing fingers based on what has happened over recent years is a genuine waste of space compared with addressing a solution going forward.

Both clubs were lead to believe Adelaide Oval equals profitability & still we dont know whats happened, BUT Gunna Gil will save the day, he's gunna fix it.

No we dont know what is happening as nothing has been disclosed and it never will be, with the confidentiality agreeemnt in place!

But lets say the SANFL have a debt of $44 Million and Asset worth $71 miilion which is sold and contiune to own AAMI Stadium(Stadium only) not sure on worth and have sold two licences which are being paid off worth $18 Million. So as a debt to equity ratio they havent over spent as they are well and truly in an equity position.

As far as going forward the SANFL could leave the AO set up but then relinquish the running of football in the state to the VFL, with the majority of South Australians probably in my opinion being pretty damned dissapointed in that outcome. Purely as the $15 Million they reportedly receive will be gone and the VFL will be left holding the baby.

 

[HighBudget]

Without the SANFL their is no Crows and No Port.

Port Adelaide Fc est 1870, SANfL est 1877

 

[marty36]

Port Adelaide Fc est 1870, SANfL est 1877

Port Adelaide are no longer a member of the SANFL if you haven't heard

 

[The_Wookie]

Port Adelaide are no longer a member of the SANFL if you haven't heard

There is no good reason for that to be the case, other than spite and typical sa political rubbish. This also in no way negates the fact the club was founded in 1870 before there was a SANFL.

 

[HighBudget]

Port Adelaide are no longer a member of the SANFL if you haven't heard

We started off not being a member and we'll end not being a member. What difference does it make? To me who started supporting Port Adelaide FC when I was 4 in 1997, started going to matches when I was 12 in 2005, and became a member in 2010 when I was 17 and still am to this day, it makes no difference

 

[Mattrox]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/cr...l-stadium-review/story-fndv8s6g-1227217702986

So all the "AFL clubs don't deserve/won't get more money" arguments are FOS.

One of the key parties in the long-running talks last night told The Advertiser: “The review — after all the financial information was gathered across six weeks — resolved that there is indeed more than enough money being generated at Adelaide Oval for all parties to share fairly.”

Looks like a good result overall for football in SA.