- Moderator
- #1
SANFL to release Power/Crows licenses before Showdown
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Another nail in the coffin for the SANFL, I am sure the coffin will be closed over here in WA as well soon. The entire country run by AFL house in Victoria. How on earth could anybody of let all this happen.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
As I wrote elsewhere Wookie
"Demetriou says he expects every charter, lease and licence agreement to be signed this week. "
Is this the same sort of expectation that James Hird wont be paid in 2014 - for 2014 services?? Sorry but I will believe it when I see the press conference announcing it or KT announces it is signed sealed delivered and gives us details of the licence and deal in his CEO's message.
"Demetriou says he expects every charter, lease and licence agreement to be signed this week. "
Is this the same sort of expectation that James Hird wont be paid in 2014 - for 2014 services?? Sorry but I will believe it when I see the press conference announcing it or KT announces it is signed sealed delivered and gives us details of the licence and deal in his CEO's message.
- Banned
- #4
The SANFL's interests are not Adelaide and Port Adelaide's interests.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Not a fan of 'answer solely to the AFL'.
Any chance of these clubs being run by their members?
Not least I'm concerned that the AFL commision can only be overruled by a (large) number of clubs, and they control so many they effectively can't be overruled.
Any chance of these clubs being run by their members?
Not least I'm concerned that the AFL commision can only be overruled by a (large) number of clubs, and they control so many they effectively can't be overruled.
So why cant Adelaide and Port hold the licences and not the AFL?
- Banned
- #7
I'm not sure. In Port Adelaide's case it might be advantageous to not have the license given they're not a financial powerhouse.
But both clubs will be better off not having to give a cut to the SANFL to blow on recruiting hasbeens.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Its probably a historical reason. Here is a cut and paste of something I wrote a few years ago when Port fans started talking about pissing off the SANFL. Actually I wrote quiet a few things on the topic but this probably is the shortest and explains the historical nature.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/port-afl-deny-tasmania-option.546890/page-10#post-13816450
You have to understand who controls football, how and why it happened. In 1990 the Australian National Football Council (or it may have changed it's name to National Australian Football Council by then) was the official custodian of the game. It was the controlling body that set the rules, transfer fees, clearances etc. For the few years prior to that, the VFL had effectively taken over as it could buy the votes of the minor states and get a 2/3rds majority and its way on all major issues. See the change in the 1986 interstate transfer fees from $60,000 to $22,000 which the VFL forced thru and which was going to drive the WAFL clubs who were surviving off transfer fees received from the VFL, to the wall. That's why the WAFC voted to join the VFL in 1986.
When the SANFL won the licence in 1990, the ANFC was effectively wound up and the AFL took over the custodianship of the game and become the national controlling body. The SANFL and AFL signed an Affiliation Agreement whereby the SANFL signed over the rights it had at the ANFC to the AFL and the AFL gave the SANFL total control of football in SA. The SANFL mention this in a paragraph, right after the one I quoted in my previous post, from that old link to their website.
This is part of the reason why Port went for the licence in 1990. It knew it was the only way to stay independant of the SANFL.
Once the Affiliation Agreement was signed, any club wanting to enter the AFL from SA had to be under the control of the SANFL.
I believe their is a similar Affiliation Agreement between the AFL and WAFC.
The clubs are paying not the AFL:
To answer solely to the AFL, the two clubs will deliver as much as $19 million to the SANFL in a 15-year payback deal.
When you consider the Eagles and Dockers put in something in the vicinity of 60% of their profits to the WAFC that figure of 19 Million over 15 years is not a very good deal.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Footy Park Stadium Deal + small fixed licence fee since 2002 vs Subiaco Clean Stadium Fixed Rent Deal + large variable % of profits licence fee has to be factored in when doing any comparison of the two.
If you were allowed as a private investor to buy the WCE or Freo - like USA sports - the amount you would pay for club, would depend on what stadium deal the club has.
i.e a better deal for WA footy & both the WA AFL clubs.
What are the benefits for each of the SA clubs, now loaded with debt?
Where does SA footy benefit from this deal?
I hope when AFL house come knocking on the WA door for the licences that teh 100 million they will have to pay for them will be required to be paid in 14 days as was the original deal the AFL/VFL gave the eagles when we joined.
The WAFC has done a great job with footy in WA.
I want a model whereby the licences are handed back to the clubs.
The profits stay with the clubs, but the model used for WAFC dividends stays the same, in that the AFL hands over the same money under the same model as it currently stands.
WA footy stays in control, ALL AFL clubs get the same benefits and the two WA AFL clubs get to keep their money for their own uses.
The fact that the WA clubs give money out for no benefit shits me no end
I want a model whereby the licences are handed back to the clubs.
The profits stay with the clubs, but the model used for WAFC dividends stays the same, in that the AFL hands over the same money under the same model as it currently stands.
WA footy stays in control, ALL AFL clubs get the same benefits and the two WA AFL clubs get to keep their money for their own uses.
The fact that the WA clubs give money out for no benefit shits me no end
what benefits don't you think you get Lach72?
I completely agree. We are now going to have 5 "clubs" owned by the AFL with the League appointing all or the majority of directors. GC and GWS I can understand as they are in their infancy. Sydney are a very strong organization and yet still are an arm of the AFL with most directors appointed from AFL head office. Now we are going to have two more (in a strong football state). There are obvious conflicts of interest and how can Sydney, Port and Adelaide have any say in appointing AFL commissioners or other critical decisions when they are subsidiaries of the governing body?
Nor priority access to players etc. West Coast are chipping in 2 million a year, Fremantle 1 million to WA footy excluding rent. They get same player acess as Hawthorn etc.
I'd also like the money generated by our club to be used by our club. Better facilities, medical equipment...even some member facilities
That is all good and well mate but what happens to the WAFL? The access to players is a concern I agree but other than having zones what is the option? It's not as if the Eagles and Dockers lift a finger to work country area's and bring kids through the system. You want the WAFL clubs to do that for free? As it is now the fee WAFL clubs get for players is only half of what is should be.
So the Eagles and Dockers keep all their money and just pay ground rent only. The WAFC will then not exist, the WAFL will fold. Football the state wide will be in trouble.
Football looks so great from afar and looking at the surface, but what having this national comp set up as it is has done to football below AFL level is a disgrace. Football outside the AFL level could not possibly be in worse shape and it seems the AFL clubs want to keep making it worse for them.
No i want the AFL to replace the money that goes back to the clubs with the WAFC retaining contol
But you know they will never do that. The system works great here now except for the alignment club issue. Why fix something which aint broke?
Both the Eagles and Dockers are rolling in money so why let the devil take over things? Look what has happened to the WAFL even with the so called two AFL clubs on their side, can you imagine having the AFL run it when they certainly are not on the WAFL side.
We are not rolling in it
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
WA clubs have ended up with a better deal because they have the incentive to run the stadium as hard as possible, there is a supply - demand stadium seating component in favour of the WA clubs.
I was looking at a total state footy picture not just AFL clubs picture. The 8 SANFL clubs were benefitting with bigger distributions from the state body in the late 1990's and all of 00's. This let them have a bigger salary cap and recruit more fringe or ex AFL players.
I'm not defending the SANFL, just looking at the total state footy picture.
We share the interest in the welfare of the game under the state body.
How does loading debt on the Crows & Port help SA footy
... the AFL takes control & the SA clubs pay for it .... what am I missing.
The AFL take control & there is not one South Australian at the Commission table.
Lets hope the clubs receive a fair deal at Adelaide Oval.
How does loading debt on the Crows & Port help SA footy
... the AFL takes control & the SA clubs pay for it .... what am I missing.The AFL take control & there is not one South Australian at the Commission table.
Lets hope the clubs receive a fair deal at Adelaide Oval.
We share the interest in the welfare of the game under the state body.
How does loading debt on the Crows & Port help SA footy
The AFL take control & there is not one South Australian at the Commission table.
Lets hope the clubs receive a fair deal at Adelaide Oval.
Hang on... I thought we were buying our licence off the SANFL so we own it. Not the AFL... when has this changed?
We will answer to the AFL as the governing body of the sport which we have had to do, and no longer have to answer to the SANFL aswell?
From the Advertiser
Among the 13 agreements is the transfer of the two SA-based AFL licences - badged “Adelaide” and “Port Adelaide” - from SANFL control to have independence. To answer solely to the AFL, the two clubs will deliver as much as $19 million to the SANFL in a 15-year payback deal.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck .... dudded?
