Jake Niall on Port's position

[Ford Fairlane]

Article from Jake Niall in The Age on Port's position. Looks a balanced piece of work.

In dire times, Vic clubs aren't the only battlers
Jake Niall | March 18, 2009

FOR a long time, the major structural question of the national competition was whether Victoria could support 10 teams. Or to use the current environmental jargon, were the nine Melbourne clubs, plus Geelong, sustainable?

While this poser remains, there are now more pressing issues about the shape of the AFL competition: Is the Gold Coast viable? Will the proposed western Sydney club be a bottomless pit that drains the coffers and, if so, why not Tassie?

The AFL's battles on the northern front, exacerbated by the GFC (Global Financial Crisis) — an acronym that absurdly prompted the Geelong Football Club to be branded "the Geelong Cats" in official fixtures — have pushed the Victorian question slightly aside, though it won't ever go away.

If we lose another club to relocation, merger or the ultimate horror of extinction, there won't be much of a grace period before the question becomes "will Victoria sustain nine clubs?"

In the meantime, Port Adelaide's decision to seek millions in emergency funding from the AFL throws up another long-range question about the competition's structure, namely whether South Australia can support two teams indefinitely.

Now, before Croweaters begin burning copies of this section and fulminating about Victorian media conspiracies, let's be very clear about what we're saying.

South Australia can support two teams, should have two clubs and it would be astonishing if it did not continue to sustain Port Adelaide (the Crows face no existential threat), but, just as Victoria doesn't — and won't — keep 10 teams alive without major props, special assistance and selling games interstate — South Australian football and the SA Government might have to accept that Port is in a similar leaky boat to the weaker Victorian clubs.

A glance at Port's crowds, membership, income and overall following (eg, low Auskick numbers) suggests that, but for the support of the SANFL and the AFL and the fact that two teams are needed in SA, the Power would face a similar survival threat as North or the Demons.

It can be argued that even now Victoria doesn't sustain 10 clubs, given that no less than nine "home" games — four in Tasmania, three on the Gold Coast and two in Canberra — have been sold off and are underwritten by other states and the AFL. Yes, the Tassie deal has helped make the Hawks into a financial monster, but the point still stands: nine games, two shy of a club's worth of home games, are "outsourced".

Then, there's the annual special distribution, much of which presently goes to North, the Doggies and the Demons. Not so long ago, Carlton had its hand out for money, the Saints and Richmond have been on skid-row in the recent past, and even Collingwood had a stint in the poorhouse. In Victoria, we play musical chairs with embattled club status.

Not so in the "city of churches". The Crows are safer than Volvos, but Port, despite winning a flag and finishing minor premiers three times, despite its magnificent competitive culture and often shrewd management, really struggles at the box office, attracting an average of fewer than 25,000 to its home games last year (a clear 16th).

South Australia, for all its civilised charm, isn't a booming growth state in the manner of Western Australia (Perth's population is about 400,000 more than Adelaide's). Consider the contrast between Port and its WA dockside cousin, Fremantle. Port is a financially weak club with a powerful winning culture, the Dockers are the reverse.

Port was deservedly allowed into the AFL on the basis of its extraordinary history, rather than economics (the same argument hasn't helped Tasmania) or the prospect for growth. But the club's history also meant that supporters of other SANFL teams weren't keen to jump on board, and 12 years on, it is still the minnow compared with the Crows.

The transport company of the club's late benefactor, Allan Scott, no longer provides the prop. The AFL has been forced to step in.

In the long run, Port faces an enormous challenge to ensure that it doesn't stay mired in poverty.

Happily, the SA premier Mike Rann is a Port fanatic, and the club enjoys strong support from the political class, especially in the ALP. Port won't be allowed to go under, in the same way that the city of Geelong would repel any foreclosing on the Cats.

Port Adelaide is a remarkable club that has always prided itself on its resilience and self-sufficiency, but its storied past means little in the current AFL landscape, in which Port won't be able to stand up without help.

 

[PAFC04]

All too true...someone who has done there homework.

 

[King_Tredrea]

to all the "supporters" out there the club needs you more than ever! 30,000 + to every home game this year please!

 

[Portia]

All too true...someone who has done there homework.

You reckon?

He didn't even come across the fact that the AFL give Port & Cows the very heavy function of financially supporting the SANFL, unlike the Dees, Dogs, Roos who are only beholden to themselves.

 

[Forzaport]

The position of port adelaide relative to the struggling vic clubs isn't the same, but it's true that clubs go through good times and bad times.

 

[Steve Dore]

...... He didn't even come across the fact that the AFL give Port & Cows the very heavy function of financially supporting the SANFL, unlike the Dees, Dogs, Roos who are only beholden to themselves.

Exactly.

The SANFL are screwing us so that they can maintain their competition and be seen as having great importance in their own minds.

The SANFL is the only state league in Australia that has refused to come in line with the AFL's national program. By doing so they have rejected significant funding from the AFL. This attitude that the SANFL must be the kings is the reason that the AFL approached the PAFC back in 1990 to join the AFL. They had become completely frustrated with negotiating with the SANFL, and in particular Max Basheer, who only wanted to join a national competition if they could do it 100% on their terms.

As long as the SANFL can bleed the PAFC dry they don't need any extra funding from the AFL.

On a side note, Rucci wrote a piece in this am's 'Tiser that effectively argues that the SANFL is still paying back the PAFC for 1990.

 

[Andre]

On a side note, Rucci wrote a piece in this am's 'Tiser that effectively argues that the SANFL is still paying back the PAFC for 1990.

And this is a surprise to anyone? The SANFL's ideal situation is Port is just getting by without losing money, but weak on-field. And that won't change until Leigh and co. all are 12 feet under.

 

[Natman]

And this is a surprise to anyone? The SANFL's ideal situation is Port is just getting by without losing money, but weak on-field. And that won't change until Leigh and co. all are 12 feet under.

Settle Andre - I would have thought that 6 feet was deep enough

 

[Steve Dore]

Settle Andre - I would have thought that 6 feet was deep enough

LOL, no, 12 feet and a wooden stake thru' the heart. You just can't be too sure with certain forms of scum.

You need to keep in mind that Leigh Whicker played for Sturt from '63 to '66. He may have got some relief in '66 but the mental scars from a dominant PAFC during that time (4 GF's, 2 flags) must run deep.

 

[jarmanagic]

And this is a surprise to anyone? The SANFL's ideal situation is Port is just getting by without losing money, but weak on-field. And that won't change until Leigh and co. all are 12 feet under.

very harsh and a bit unfair really. You've had the same SANFL deal all along since you started in the AFL and made a profit 8 out of 10 years, often sizeable. why is the SANFL suddenly the problem?

The Jake Niall article is very thoughful. Pity our own journalists can't compete

The reality is (I think) that the 1990 bid weakened your clubs bargaining power going into the AFL. It meant that the Crows got first crack (always going to get that) and a seven year headstart (don't think would have got that long a head start with a more orderly process run by SANFL, maybe 1-2 years) which is impossible to get back. Full credit to Port football department, through hiding a few away and good recruiting they made the team an on field success, but off field looks like it will be really hard, maybe forever

I'd acknowledge it might be true that w/o the Port bid in 1990 the SANFL would have waited forever to go into the AFL and Port's bid hurried that along and hurrying along was needed

Either way the 1990 bid I believe hurt Port badly It was an ill advised battle not because it wasn't a good time to go into the AFL (it was)but because it was a battle Port could have never won. I think it hurt your club more than is credited

 

[tribey]

Which in turn will mean the SANFL has less money to play with (within their competition only two clubs made profits).

How much of that is the SANFL clubs' responsibility? A lot of them have pokie setups, pubs, social clubs, their own individual stadium deals (naming rights, etc) and all the rest of it.

Why should it be the Crows and Power's sole responsibility to prop 7 of the 9 SANFL clubs up?

The other night Leigh Whicker said it is never on the SANFL agenda for clubs to merge - and the only reason WWT did is because Bill Sanders and his Woodville counterpart came to the league requesting it.

Graham Cornes said tonight that he wouldn't mind seeing Port get greater revenue as long as it didn't come at the expense of Glenelg, South Adelaide, etc. - well, at least Port is asking for a greater slice of its own generated revenue rather than seemingly believing the SANFL is some great institutional Centrelink who owes them a living 'just because'.

All this crap I'm beginning to hear about how Adelaide isn't supposedly big enough for "two teams", well it certainly isn't big enough for nine (eleven).

 

[tribey]

I'm picking up what you're putting down KC. I just think that when Port is being pilloried in the media and by the bulk of the SA football public for the financial situation the club finds itself in - while 7 of the 9 SANFL clubs are reliant on redistribution and posted losses at a time when the local league is supposedly stronger than ever and crowds are up for the umpteenth consecutive year (god knows we keep hearing about that Glenelg vs Sturt figure from last season) - the vitriol is hypocritical nonsense.

Why is it that Port are seen as less deserving of [their own] money than those 7 SANFL clubs in the red?

How Glenelg in particular could post a loss in 2008 is beyond me.

 

[Macca19]

Why is it that Port are seen as less deserving of [their own] money than those 7 SANFL clubs in the red?

Go onto the other sa website about footy and have a look at hte responses on there. Port are an investment by the SANFL to help make money for the SANFL clubs. If the SANFL change their stadium deal then it means less money to the SANFL clubs which means rabid supporters. Port are also seen as the big bad traitor that killed football in South Australia and therefore should never be given anything and should be kicked to death, set on fire and then have their ashes stomped and then pissed on.

Hell, it seems most people in this state seem to think that Port have only given a dividend back to the SANFL only two or three times. They also dont seem to realise that including home games and dividends, the SANFL take near $5 million from Port Adelaide.

Its the way it is.

 

[aflgal]

I don't post much, but I don't mind Port. I blame the Crow-biased SANFL, people like Whicker and the "old school" mates who run footy in this state for their bias and all they seem to do is slap each other on the back on Cornsey's 5AA.

Rucci's article in the Advertiser was pretty spot on. Time the SANFL got with the program and supported Port instead of letting it rot.

 

[Portia]

I know this will surprise some people, but I am not thinking that the SANFL is all evil bastard on this either.

Right now, money funneled into the SANFL by Crows and Power allow it to maintain some independence from the A/VFL. which I think its important and really should be guaranteed. When I see the SANFL turn down AFL funding so that they can ensure SA football is properly administrated, by parties that give a s**t about it having a decent standard (and maybe keeping the name the league has instead of becoming `AFL SA' or some equally generic s**t), to me that is great to see.

Yes, Port and the AFL may well be working a number on the SANFL through the media, but the AFL is not acting to help Port - its to break the SANFL.

What I would want to see is this
* SANFL quit relying on Port/Crows for their income
* AFL give SANFL the same state league grants that they give other states without the ideological strings attached. If it was proportionate with funds pumped into Victorian state leagues, I bet it would comfortably make up for income derived from AFL licenses and then some.
* Port have more money and can get on with football.

Why this won't happen
* A fixed Port/Crows stadium deal sees Adelaide become a genuinely powerful club (ie. Collingwood powerful), which is not in line with Victorian football strategy.
* AFL will never give funds to leagues without gaining more control over culture and administration.
* SANFL will never give up funds that would compromise its independence.
* It is easier for both AFL & SANFL to blame Port, but if they can get a few hits in at each other on the way, that is great.
* The AFL is pretty happy using Port as a pawn in their efforts to dominate nationally.

Round 3 this will come to a crux. The AFL have scheduled us a home game, at 12:40pm, on Easter Sunday, against Melbourne - don't tell me that that is a pure accident. This will probably draw about as well as an SANFL game.

If the AFL are willing to step in for Victorian clubs to get them better stadium deals, new stadiums, buy out their old stadium deals and so on, then they have that very same responsibility to Port Adelaide. You can `Oh, but SANFL sub-license, not their problem' to your heart's content, but that is bullshit. The AFL should be coming to the table with the SANFL and negotiating; Port negotiating alone with either party will be fruitless.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I know this will surprise some people, but I am not thinking that the SANFL is all evil bastard on this either.

I agree with you. I don't understand why the SANFL is blamed for all our ills. Yes there's 1990 stuff and the whole PAFC/PAMFC saga but, when it comes to the stadium deal they have been pretty fair to us given that they have done an identical deal with the crows but have agreed to give us $250k subsidy which has been matched by the AFL since 2006.

You can't just change these deals overnight because not only have the SANFL clubs been dependant on the revenue generated by Footy Park, but so has all footy development programs across all levels in SA benefited.

It's now a changed environment and its time to tweak the deal. But it doesn't happen overnight because there are massive implications down the food chain which can't be dismissed off hand.

As I posted somewhere else the SANFL does nicely out of us even with a 30,000 crowd. But at least it is a football body, unlike the Docklands where the private owners do nicely out of 30,000 crowd or at the MCG where the MCC bankers do very nicely out of a 30,000 crowd. And in Queensland its a bit different as the taxpayers let the Lions do nicely out of them , by subsidising their use of their stadium. And if the WAFC wasn't effectively a government controlled body they wouldn't have let their clubs do so well out of Subi, seeing as the government restructured WA footy and redeveloped Subi oval.

Right now, money funneled into the SANFL by Crows and Power allow it to maintain some independence from the A/VFL. which I think its important and really should be guaranteed. When I see the SANFL turn down AFL funding so that they can ensure SA football is properly administrated, by parties that give a s**t about it having a decent standard (and maybe keeping the name the league has instead of becoming `AFL SA' or some equally generic s**t), to me that is great to see.

That independence is a healthy thing to have over the control freaks that are the AFL executive team and the AFL commission. I agree with you that so far its good to see the WAFC and SANFL have told the AFL to get stuffed on name changes to AFL WA and AFL SA.

Yes, Port and the AFL may well be working a number on the SANFL through the media, but the AFL is not acting to help Port - its to break the SANFL.

I agree with you on that. We have seen Port and the AFL jabbing at the SANFL in public. Sounds like poor old Leigh is flustered. I don't have much time for Caroline Wilson's footy knowledge and her moral crusades, but she understands footy politics well and she has correctly called this a 3 way political process.

What I would want to see is this
* SANFL quit relying on Port/Crows for their income
* AFL give SANFL the same state league grants that they give other states without the ideological strings attached. If it was proportionate with funds pumped into Victorian state leagues, I bet it would comfortably make up for income derived from AFL licenses and then some.
* Port have more money and can get on with football.

The first point is a long time from happening. If this new state of the art city stadium was ever built and it was a clean stadium and government trust owned and controlled it like the proposed WA stadium, then that's probably when it will materially happen. But you are right about the other 2.

Why this won't happen
* A fixed Port/Crows stadium deal sees Adelaide become a genuinely powerful club (ie. Collingwood powerful), which is not in line with Victorian football strategy.
* AFL will never give funds to leagues without gaining more control over culture and administration.
* SANFL will never give up funds that would compromise its independence.
* It is easier for both AFL & SANFL to blame Port, but if they can get a few hits in at each other on the way, that is great.
* The AFL is pretty happy using Port as a pawn in their efforts to dominate nationally.

I've said the crows will turn into a money making Goliath like the West Coast, but I think you're right that politically they could become like Collingwood. You are 100% correct about your 2nd and 3rd point and probably correct on the 4th and 5th point.

Round 3 this will come to a crux. The AFL have scheduled us a home game, at 12:40pm, on Easter Sunday, against Melbourne - don't tell me that that is a pure accident. This will probably draw about as well as an SANFL game.

Lets hope for a warm sunny day at least. Maybe get the SA Brewery on board and offer free beer for the first half might help with the crowd numbers.

If the AFL are willing to step in for Victorian clubs to get them better stadium deals, new stadiums, buy out their old stadium deals and so on, then they have that very same responsibility to Port Adelaide. You can `Oh, but SANFL sub-license, not their problem' to your heart's content, but that is bullshit. The AFL should be coming to the table with the SANFL and negotiating; Port negotiating alone with either party will be fruitless.

The AFL has a ****ed record when it comes to stadium deals going back to 1990/91 and the MCG negotiations for the Great Southern Stand, a 23,000 AFL members reserve and shiny new offices at the G. They could not sign up fast enough in 1991 to lock in 40 years of at least one final in each of the first 3 weeks and all GFs at the G. They just didn't care about non Vic teams getting the moral right to host finals. Introducing a second PF let them get away with their stupidity for another 8 or 9 years. They finally woke up a couple of years ago and realised the Melbourne teams, whilst its nice that they play in shiny new stadiums, have crappy deals and poor stadium returns, and it's these stadium returns that are the key to all clubs doing better than just surviving.

I can't see them fixing up any stadium deals in Victoria, they could well lose a s**t load on the GC and western Sydney teams, both by subsiding the teams and the stadiums, so they aren't going to do much for Port if that's the case.

If they do manage to actually do something right with renegotiating the stadium deals then I think you are right Porthos, they have the moral obligation to lean on the SANFL, but they wont.

 

[FOOOOTY]

I know this will surprise some people, but I am not thinking that the SANFL is all evil bastard on this either.

Right now, money funneled into the SANFL by Crows and Power allow it to maintain some independence from the A/VFL. which I think its important and really should be guaranteed. When I see the SANFL turn down AFL funding so that they can ensure SA football is properly administrated, by parties that give a s**t about it having a decent standard (and maybe keeping the name the league has instead of becoming `AFL SA' or some equally generic s**t), to me that is great to see.

I know the SA vs Vic crowd will love this, but basically what you see as properly administrated, decent standard SANFL, the AFL see as a massive overspend on a 2nd tier comp in the 3rd strongest football state.

Also the AFL providing extra money to the SANFL provides them with no gaurantees that they wont just spend the money on the state comp as opposed to helping your club..

 

[FOOOOTY]

If they do manage to actually do something right with renegotiating the stadium deals then I think you are right Porthos, they have the moral obligation to lean on the SANFL, but they wont.

Apart from a pissing match through the media, how does the AFL go about leaning on the SANFL?

 

[chadleverington]

Ontop of that they have the new stadium upgrades to pay for aswell.

I was pretty sure the state government was putting in a fair chunk of cash. must have read it wrong.

 

[Portia]

I know the SA vs Vic crowd will love this, but basically what you see as properly administrated, decent standard SANFL, the AFL see as a massive overspend on a 2nd tier comp in the 3rd strongest football state.

Well thats easy for them to say when the VFL is artificially kept stronger by 10 Victorian teams reserves going in, and the entire league (and u18 league) being funded by AFL money.

Also the AFL providing extra money to the SANFL provides them with no gaurantees that they wont just spend the money on the state comp as opposed to helping your club..

Yeah, you don't get it. The agreement would need to be the SANFL agreeing to renegotiate stadium deal & AFL to increase the amount going to support SA football (which is currently trivial). Not just `AFL give SANFL nameless funds'.

 

[krisholio14]

It might be a simplistic view, but it would help a great deal if there were more bums on seats at Port games.

 

[Portia]

That is a very simplistic view because that means that the SANFL will never have cause to stop using the Crows and Power as their own private piggybank.

If Port had a genuine right to self-determination, where money earned by the club stays at the club, and we didn't have a couple million dollars additional commitments when compared to clubs outside SA, then absolutely knuckling down would be the way to go.

Right now, we need to ride out the crap because if everything is somehow rosey (eg. first ten years), then money we should be able to use to secure our future will continue to secure the SANFL's instead. Quite frankly our current deficit is because we have been a piggybank for other bodies for too long.

 

[MrMeaner]

Round 3 this will come to a crux. The AFL have scheduled us a home game, at 12:40pm, on Easter Sunday, against Melbourne - don't tell me that that is a pure accident. This will probably draw about as well as an SANFL game.

Well, I will be there (not helping the club much I guess as I am a Cat 1 member) with my fiancee (at least she will be paying to get in). So that's one more who would not normally be at a home game.

That said, I am expecting to be able to erect a marquee on the members wing without disturbing too many others.

 

[Ingall]

I'm picking up what you're putting down KC. I just think that when Port is being pilloried in the media and by the bulk of the SA football public for the financial situation the club finds itself in - while 7 of the 9 SANFL clubs are reliant on redistribution and posted losses at a time when the local league is supposedly stronger than ever and crowds are up for the umpteenth consecutive year (god knows we keep hearing about that Glenelg vs Sturt figure from last season) - the vitriol is hypocritical nonsense.

Why is it that Port are seen as less deserving of [their own] money than those 7 SANFL clubs in the red?

How Glenelg in particular could post a loss in 2008 is beyond me.

I'll check the the year book when I get home, but I think Glenelg's losses last year were due in part to a large capital works programme.

 

[Steve Dore]

Its all a SANFL conspiracy! ...

No, it is not a conspiracy but the SANFL Commission is made up of a number of people with an axe to grind with the PAFC. This and the egos of some involved clouds their judgement.

The SANFL need to realise that they only exist to facilitate football in this state. They are NOT football in this state. It is the clubs that are football in this state.

...... Newsflash, it isn't. The SANFL will rebroker you a new stadium deal. Which in turn will mean the SANFL has less money to play with (within their competition only two clubs made profits).

Ontop of that they have the new stadium upgrades to pay for aswell.

Its not as if they are rolling in money either. ...

Chicken and egg.

Are you implying that if there was only one SA based AFL team, the Crows, that the SANFL would have more money to play with?

The PAFC wear the losses of the PAFC and considering the amount of indirect revenue (ie not the SANFL distribution the club pays) that the PAFC bring to the SANFL even these losses are fairly insignificant.

..... at least Port is asking for a greater slice of its own generated revenue rather than seemingly believing the SANFL is some great institutional Centrelink who owes them a living 'just because'. .....

Exactly. The PAFC is not taking money from the SANFL per se it is simply asking that the SANFL not take so much money from it.

...... And its not as if up until last year you were ever crying conspiracy in terms of the SANFL & your stadium deal

It is the drop of in crowds coupled with tougher economic times that as help highlight how bad our stadium deal is.