What will happen to AAMI Stadium?

[BigLefty]

Stop ****ing trolling.
They're in the lowest of lows in their existance.
They were getting ok crowds earlier in the year when they were showing promise.
21k vs St Kilda
24k then 26k against Carlton and I THINK Hawthorn in consecutive home games.
A few wins and they can do well.
a 20k-25k stadium would probably be a little small honestly. They need a 30k-35k seat stadium.

surely i can troll the power on our board .

you're right though. i do feel for my power supporting mates. i dont feel for the team though.

so in an attempt to conduct a serious discussion about port. i actually like you proposal. surely they would hate it though?

what i dont get is how they regularly got 35k to games a few years ago. i heard a text read out on AA last week i think where someone suggested that many power fans were the anti crows sanfl fans who joined port just to follow a side in the AFL. then when it really comes down to it, in the dark times they just dont bother because their hearts arent in it. good theory, but i couldnt say for sure if thats the true state of play.

i tink what the last 3 or 4 years has really shown us though is that they are a suburban team that needs that smaller home ground to play at.

if adelaide oval works for them, it'll be great for us!

 

[Dirty Bird]

surely i can troll the power on our board .

you're right though. i do feel for my power supporting mates. i dont feel for the team though.

so in an attempt to conduct a serious discussion about port. i actually like you proposal. surely they would hate it though?

I hate trolling outside of Bay 13 - Sure, make tongue in cheek comments but don't just blatently troll.

Oh, you are right, they'd hate it. Hence why I'm not going anywhere near their board with the idea. It'll come off as an insult. There'd be better chances of me getting an infraction than a proper discussion. They get insulted when I say they should shut the Northern Stand rather than produce bay covers. Even though it'd cut game day wages to staff meaning the break even point would be lower. But no.

 

[BigLefty]

I hate trolling outside of Bay 13 - Sure, make tongue in cheek comments but don't just blatently troll.

Oh, you are right, they'd hate it. Hence why I'm not going anywhere near their board with the idea. It'll come off as an insult. There'd be better chances of me getting an infraction than a proper discussion. They get insulted when I say they should shut the Northern Stand rather than produce bay covers. Even though it'd cut game day wages to staff meaning the break even point would be lower. But no.

is it a troll if it's true though?? i agree, blatant trolls should be left to the Bay. i thought i was a bit cleverer than that.i consider this my wake up call.....

they are a sensitive bunch down port road.

i havent been to any port games except showdowns. i never even considered that they had the north stand open.
how stupid is that! except that they still get the $$$ from the bay cover ads i guess.

i cant see adelaide oval being a saviour for port. most of their suppoerters surely come from the western suburbs? if aami is a problem how will the CBD be any better?

 

[Dirty Bird]

i havent been to any port games except showdowns.

I've only been to 2.
1 I was paid to be there to be at the pre-match entertainment. I just hung around.
The other I got a free ticket.

Never paid to go.

 

[BigLefty]

I've only been to 2.
1 I was paid to be there to be at the pre-match entertainment. I just hung around.
The other I got a free ticket.

Never paid to go.

seriously??? thats like robbing from the homeless.

damn i did it again.

 

[relapse]

People can call it trolling, but drawing less than 15,000 to games is indefensible and when it happens in 4 out of 11 home games in one year there are massive problems. Even when you're in a lull you still need to be somewhat financially viable. Losing millions when you're in a lull and only just scraping a profit when you're successful is an unsustainable business model.

Port are going to need a miracle at Adelaide Oval IMO for them to not be rebranded/moved or replaced in 10 years.

 

[FR0GGY]

Stop ****ing trolling.
They're in the lowest of lows in their existance.
They were getting ok crowds earlier in the year when they were showing promise.
21k vs St Kilda
24k then 26k against Carlton and I THINK Hawthorn in consecutive home games.
A few wins and they can do well.
a 20k-25k stadium would probably be a little small honestly. They need a 30k-35k seat stadium.

We can troll them all we like, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean jack.

 

[kaysee]

surely i can troll the power on our board .
...

*** Long read and reply to topics raised by BigLefty and DirtyBird... apologies if it is TLR and/or has moved OT with what will be done with AAMI.

Hey BL... only thing with trolling here is there are very few fish to catch.

Hey DB... turning Alberton into a boutique stadium has been mentioned many times on our board over the years. Many romantically still love the idea, but realistically it is too impractical... lack of car parking, 25-30k would be the maximum (which sounds funny ATM but is no where big enough), bowling club on S/SW side and existing stands would require rebuilding. It would probably require ~$100m to upgrade it. Skoda required ~65m for 2 new stands, facilities and ground... and the location was more accessible... and those costs were shared by the AFL, NSW Gov and RAS, and is a multi-purpose venue.

From what I read, hear and discuss with people in the industry and with general Port fans the 2 primary factors that influence our crowds are: 1) performance and 2) AAMI Stadium. The 1st requires no explanation. The 2nd has been building for some time now (since around 2005) and this primary factor is driven by 2 lower level sub-factors: A)AAMI Stadium itself and B) SANFL. A) More and more SA football fans in general are growing tired of AS. Many have now traveled to Melbourne and experienced inner city football and the positives it provides. On returning to SA and they now realise how inconvenient the AS location and model is. B) It is well known there is no love loss between the SANFL and Port Supporters (and PAFC to a degree). This became worse as things like AFL stadium deals were reported on and supporters could see how the SANFL were taking further advantage of the 2 SA clubs. Port supporters see little value in going to AAMI to pour more $ into the SANFL (via SANFL car-parking and SANFL catering... FTR stadiums normally outsource catering to other 3rd parties such as DNC, CenterPlate, EPICURE etc). Port supporters are happy to take out memberships and give $$ straight to PAFC, but are reluctant to directly pump funds back to the SANFL (even though it ends up hurting the club indirectly... hey, we're Port supporters and most aren't that smart ).

Anyway... long winded for the Adelaide board... to summize: don't like SANFL, don't like AAMI, so we don't want to go there. Adelaide Oval (and removal of licences), with SANFL reverting to a part stakeholder of the Stadium Management Authority and an improved stadium deal, will resolve those issues raised further above under point #2) AAMI Stadium. Point #1) will always vary like any other team and therefor so will the crowds. However, once AO rolls around, many industry insiders believe (based on research) and many supporters believe (based on blind faith ) that our crowds will increase back up around the 30k mark. Drawing between low 20s to mid 30s (depending on form and opposition) and averages will be between the high 20s to 30k mark.

We currently have ~34k AFL members (and ~3k SANFL members), but outside that there are a further 50k people who have previously been members. Luring just 10% of those back would increase our membership to the 40k milestone. And this is why I think Alberton at 25-30k would be too small.

DB again like the idea of sectioning off parts of the stadium (like TNS) instead of bay covers (the covers do provide marketing space), but the bigger PR issue is forcing people out from under cover into the open. AS is just a poorly designed venue for some modern needs (actually so will AO, but that's a different debate). Venues overseas in other sports close down complete stadium tiers when expecting low crowds, to bring the crowds in closer to the action and save on running costs. Harder to facilitate at AS and AO (if it came to that).

 

[BigLefty]

Hey BL... only thing with trolling here is there are very few fish to catch.


We currently have ~34k AFL members (and ~3k SANFL members), but outside that there are a further 50k people who have previously been members. Luring just 10% of those back would increase our membership to the 40k milestone. And this is why I think Alberton at 25-30k would be too small.

so prety much my standard fishing experience then

regarding the ex members. i'd be interested to know what the figures are for other clubs. i remember this discussion came up somewhere before. i find it is surprising there's so many people that drop off memberships. especially for clubs with relatively short existance.

 

[relapse]

We currently have ~34k AFL members (and ~3k SANFL members), but outside that there are a further 50k people who have previously been members. Luring just 10% of those back would increase our membership to the 40k milestone. And this is why I think Alberton at 25-30k would be too small.

I'm not sure about that, actually I'm interested as to where you have pulled this figure from. According to the Magpies website there are 5,000 SANFL members (4937) and when these are subtracted from the membership figures the Power's membership for 2012 is 32,555.

It's no difference to the 37,000 reported members last year where there was also 5,000 magpie members and an AFL reported membership figure for the Power of 32,581 and I am pretty sure that the total Port memberships have been calculated the same as they were last year.

DB again like the idea of sectioning off parts of the stadium (like TNS) instead of bay covers (the covers do provide marketing space), but the bigger PR issue is forcing people out from under cover into the open. AS is just a poorly designed venue for some modern needs (actually so will AO, but that's a different debate). Venues overseas in other sports close down complete stadium tiers when expecting low crowds, to bring the crowds in closer to the action and save on running costs. Harder to facilitate at AS and AO (if it came to that).

As for sectioning off parts of Adelaide Oval, when you are offering pre-sold assigned seats it makes the job of sectioning off the stadium near impossible. D_One tried to claim this illogical argument once on Bay 13, but you cant pre-sell 35,000+ designated seats with membership and matchday tickets, but then only provide 20,000 actual seats on gameday.

 

[kaysee]

I'm not sure about that, actually I'm interested as to where you have pulled this figure from. According to the Magpies website there are 5,000 SANFL members (4937) and when these are subtracted from the membership figures the Power's membership for 2012 is 32,555... .

Dual memberships? In any event I won't waste more space in this forum on the topic... Simply not the place to do so. If you wish to discuss the topic further respectfully raise it (or search) the Port board.

As for AO, I did suggest it is a poor model for flexible venue management.

 

[relapse]

Dual memberships? In any event I won't waste more space in this forum on the topic... Simply not the place to do so. If you wish to discuss the topic further respectfully raise it (or search) the Port board.

I can see how someone would argue that, but the numbers given by the AFL for the 2011 membership numbers seem to suggest that dual members were counted as two memberships (or at least they were in 2011).

So while it is possible that Port may have changed the way they were calculated this year, without official numbers which the AFL has decided not to release this year it's hard to say.

 

[Dirty Bird]

As for sectioning off parts of Adelaide Oval, when you are offering pre-sold assigned seats it makes the job of sectioning off the stadium near impossible. D_One tried to claim this illogical argument once on Bay 13, but you cant pre-sell 35,000+ designated seats with membership and matchday tickets, but then only provide 20,000 actual seats on gameday.

That's actually a fair point.
I bring up the topic on the Port board and I'm shot down saying people want to be up there when it rains. That was IIRC the only arguement brought up.

That point you've made relapse shoots the idea in the bum. Take out the Northern Stand and 51k becomes 43-44k. Then take out the Members and it falls well into the 20-30k range. That's not enough for all their members. Sure, members may not turn up so it isn't really much of a factor but if we get some games like the PA vs Bris like that in rd 22 in 02ish? (could have been 03). They wouldn't be able to accomodate all of them. They need the northern stand for the games that are hyped well and either the bandwagon turns up, the opposition lets people in.

 

[Heafy83]

I hate trolling outside of Bay 13 - Sure, make tongue in cheek comments but don't just blatently troll.

Oh, you are right, they'd hate it. Hence why I'm not going anywhere near their board with the idea. It'll come off as an insult. There'd be better chances of me getting an infraction than a proper discussion. They get insulted when I say they should shut the Northern Stand rather than produce bay covers. Even though it'd cut game day wages to staff meaning the break even point would be lower. But no.

I'm sorry I think this is the reason our society is becoming so airy fairy. Troll away I say. It helps build the rivalry. Something ours teams are lacking big time in the last few years.
They take every opportunity to do it on their board in regards to us, including mods, so I say its fair game. Do you think they would be so apathetic if the roles were reversed?

However this does not just stop at Port. Every team is fair game. People can still have their serious footy discussion threads as the majority. This is why we have mods.

They can't just shut down the Northern Stand because paid members, pay to sit up there. They could try at the start of the season and just say for 2013 all members must chose seats on lower levels but then it only takes a few to say no I'm happy where I am and it would cause a shitfight. They can't afford to lose any more paid members.

 

[Marty64]

As for sectioning off parts of Adelaide Oval, when you are offering pre-sold assigned seats it makes the job of sectioning off the stadium near impossible. D_One tried to claim this illogical argument once on Bay 13, but you cant pre-sell 35,000+ designated seats with membership and matchday tickets, but then only provide 20,000 actual seats on gameday.

SANFL in the members has gone the not open food outlets to save costs on Port Power games.

Being an Ultimate member the rabble also get me to inflate their membership numbers.

 

[Dirty Bird]

I'm sorry I think this is the reason our society is becoming so airy fairy. Troll away I say. It helps build the rivalry. Something ours teams are lacking big time in the last few years.
They take every opportunity to do it on their board in regards to us, including mods, so I say its fair game. Do you think they would be so apathetic if the roles were reversed?

However this does not just stop at Port. Every team is fair game. People can still have their serious footy discussion threads as the majority. This is why we have mods.

They can't just shut down the Northern Stand because paid members, pay to sit up there. They could try at the start of the season and just say for 2013 all members must chose seats on lower levels but then it only takes a few to say no I'm happy where I am and it would cause a shitfight. They can't afford to lose any more paid members.

But the main board is to discuss things regarding Adelaide, if you want to troll take it to the backyard or bay 13.

 

[brucetiki]

I somewhat wish either Crows or Port would play at AAMI as a home ground permanently... See Brisbane and Gold Coast... They have seperate home grounds in Gabba and Metricon!

You do realise the Gold Coast is about 70kms south of Brisbane, hence why they have separate stadia

 

[Heafy83]

But the main board is to discuss things regarding Adelaide, if you want to troll take it to the backyard or bay 13.

I'm not saying to make a million troll threads but passing comments like the one you picked up are fine and should be applauded. It was a funny comment. I'm suprised boshrichburger hasn't liked it yet

In all seriousness this isn't just a cycle for Port. We are finding out who are the core Port supporters and how big their fan base really is. Their crowd numbers have been on a slide since inception and the fact that anyone who is not Port hates them and that they even pissed off and shat on a heap of their traditional supporters puts them in a very bad situation.
They will be in the exact same position at AO unless they get their crowd numbers up closer to 30,000 on avg.

 

[relapse]

That's actually a fair point.
I bring up the topic on the Port board and I'm shot down saying people want to be up there when it rains. That was IIRC the only arguement brought up.

That point you've made relapse shoots the idea in the bum. Take out the Northern Stand and 51k becomes 43-44k. Then take out the Members and it falls well into the 20-30k range. That's not enough for all their members. Sure, members may not turn up so it isn't really much of a factor but if we get some games like the PA vs Bris like that in rd 22 in 02ish? (could have been 03). They wouldn't be able to accomodate all of them. They need the northern stand for the games that are hyped well and either the bandwagon turns up, the opposition lets people in.

They can reduce down the size of the stadium but it can only be in accordance with the amount of tickets that are sold.

People are purchasing a seat at a specified number of games a season and from what I am aware the club has a legal obligation to provide seating to accommodate those who have purchased tickets.

 

[Dirty Bird]

People are purchasing a seat at a specified number of games a season and from what I am aware the club has a legal obligation to provide seating to accommodate those who have purchased tickets.

Is it really a legal obligation though?
Arn't there more MCG members who have access to the MCG then there are seats?

 

[Marty64]

Is it really a legal obligation though?
Arn't there more MCG members who have access to the MCG then there are seats?

MCG has a first come first served policy right from the start.

Clubs here are selling season reserved seating creating an obligation. A fix could be following the SANFL model of a limited number of reserved seats and the rest open choice, on the downside there would be a loss of revenue because your selling a lower valued product.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

They can reduce down the size of the stadium but it can only be in accordance with the amount of tickets that are sold.

This is a really good point and something Port Adelaide should be looking at doing at AAMI Stadium as early as next year and then at Adelaide Oval until they can justify a bigger stadium. They need to manipulate the size of their stadium by how many tickets they make available and then sell.

People are purchasing a seat at a specified number of games a season and from what I am aware the club has a legal obligation to provide seating to accommodate those who have purchased tickets.

Yes, absolutely they are legally obligated to make sure they have a seat available for the ticket sold but as of right now, they shouldn't be doing that. They should be working on developing a budget based on a much smaller stadium.

The Port Adelaide FC and the SANFL should be producing a budget right now (for season 2013) based on a 25,000 season AAMI stadium.

And they should only sell 25,000 (17,000 in the outer and 8,000 SANFL members tickets) seats.

Who cares what it looks like, as long as they can start making a profit and controlling their own financial destiny, that has to be their primary objective.

This way, they can control their own financial destiny by knowing how many catering (food & alcohol) people to hire, how many hot dog stools to open, how many food outlets to open, how many car parking, ticket sales booths and stadium red coats are needed. Basically cutting in half the amount needed now.

If they create a budget based on 25,000 tickets sold - they may not make as much money as selling 32,000 memberships but they will save much, much more on match day attendances when people don't turn up. A 13,000 crown within a stadium of 25,000 would cover cost, 13,000 in 52,500 would be a financial nightmare.

I like the idea of seat covers. It happens in the NBA, EPL, and NFL. I've been tom a few NBA games and in lower attended stadiums, tickets are always readjusted to block bays of seats off.

 

[Geoffa32]

Chatted to a couple of the players straight after it was built.

Whilst I agree that its not there for "post match drinks and nibbles", make no mistake, the primary purpose of the reno's was for increased revenue, which the club could then filter through into its football budget.

The players received very little out of it that they didn't already have. Unfortunately at the time we did the reno's, flip-flop Rann had recently committed $300 million to a much needed upgrade of AAMI Stadium, our club believed that AAMI Stadium was the future of footy in SA. If we'd known what we know now, we probably wouldn't have committed so much money to it, or at least it would have been designed differently.

Actual improvements to the training facilities were minimal. I've been on tours of the training facility pre-reno and post-reno, the differences were underwhelming to say the least, especially considering we were billing it as this "State of the art", best in the world type facility. Reality being though, we actually already had a pretty decent training facility, there wasn't that much more that needed doing.

They got a new Ice-bath, they got some new gym equipment and the whiz-bang new indoor training area proved to not all it was initially cracked up to be. The surface, which was billed as "olympic standard", turned out to be "olympic standard" for table tennis IIRC, not football. I think you'll find the side does very minimal training there for fear of stress related injuries from a surface that is too hard. Its mainly used for warm ups pregame.

If you look at corporately what this facility now offers the club, which it previously didn't have, then you'll see the true purpose of the Westpac Centre. The "indoor training area" now offers a function area large enough to hold shed parties and all the functions the club puts on throughout the year that were previously outsourced to places like the Hyatt or the Hilton IIRC. They also have a smaller area on the 3rd floor for smaller functions, as well as many different conference rooms which are hired out, as well as a hell of a lot more office space. Did I also mention Brett Burton's new fitness studio/gym, a Sports Med clinic and a Cafe.

Luckily the only major downfall with our move to Adelaide Oval will be our inability to use this facility for Shed parties after match and we might not be able to attract as much money for naming rights of the facility. Otherwise I think the club will still do reasonably well out of it.

The Westpac Centre is also heavily booked for private functions. Have a family member who wanted to use it as a wedding venue, big wedding, in November. It is booked out throughout Oct/Nov/Dec and they were in inquiring in March.

It is one of the biggest rooms in SA, so a lot of functions are held there, plus all the other little rooms. It is a nice lil earner for the club. Has its own dedciated staff organising events.

http://www.westpaccentre.com.au/


And will probably remain so even if we move to a training base in the city.