Adelaide Oval Review

[marty36]

You are leaving out the $18m SANFL club debt.

Yeah I suppose I did but then I would have to go through the balance sheets of all those clubs to see what their nett worth is also, even without there assets it leaves a net position taking into consideration the $18 million which you have so kindly pointed out, worth in excess of $40 million.

So based on this would you say the SANFL and its clubs sit on the bread line, like the Tasmanian league which went bankrupt in the early 2000's?

 

[Papa G]

SANFL received $105,000,000 in revenue in the 2013 year Marty. My simple question to you Marty, is where does it all come from, and where does it all go?

 

[marty36]

SANFL received $105,000,000 in revenue in the 2013 year Marty. My simple question to you Marty, is where does it all come from, and where does it all go?

Considering that they are classified by the Australian Federal Government as a non for profit organisation it all goes into running football in this state!

 

[aneale]

The SANFL arent in a terrible position financially based on say the 2013 financials because that is the facts we have

1 They have a 39 Million debt (16.25 Million or 42% of it resulting in the power bail out)
2 They are guaranteed to receive $18 million on the licences that they bought and paid for
3 have an Asset worth $71 Million which they have sold
4 Will retain and assett of the stadium and some land that would have to be worth $20 Million at worst but will conceded Im guessing

So efefctively they are worth in excess of $60 million dollars, so are the SANFL poor at managing their finances?

Yes. Imagine what they could be worth.

If not for the sale of their 'asset' they would be in no great position. An asset they made poor choices about. The Northern stand, their reluctance to allow the 2 AFL teams to make any real money etc

 

[*PAF]

So you are saying that the SANFL gave PAP 16 million dollars to keep them afloat so they could get a few hundred thousand a year from catering? Can we start been serious here? A few people on here are starting to sound like ignorant Poort supporters.

You are mistaking making money with not making as much money as you want or need.
They made money from Port games, not enough perhaps but they weren't losing money. I do nit recall the SANFL saying hat they were losing money from Port games.

Sometimes you need to reinvest to make more money and that is exactly how it turned out as they made more money from Port games in 2013, heaps this year and more in years to come.

 

[Mattrox]

Considering that they are classified by the Australian Federal Government as a non for profit organisation it all goes into running football in this state!

Or paying SANFL bigwigs fat salaries?

 

[Papa G]

Considering that they are classified by the Australian Federal Government as a non for profit organisation it all goes into running football in this state!

They seem pretty transparent about what Port have "cost" them over the years, but not very transparent on anything else. Do you think that a body, in your view just so incredibly important to "Grass Roots Footy" should be so secretive and bereft of any checks and balances. There have been many, many outrageous cases in the past of "non for profit" organisations who handle vast sums of money, who on the surface seem to be doing a fine job, but turn out not to be quite what they seem. Transparency is what most of us want Marty, but it appears this confidentiality agreement ordered by the SANFL does not give us that Marty. Why? What are they afraid of?

 

[marty36]

They seem pretty transparent about what Port have "cost" them over the years, but not very transparent on anything else. Do you think that a body, in your view just so incredibly important to "Grass Roots Footy" should be so secretive and bereft of any checks and balances. There have been many, many outrageous cases in the past of "non for profit" organisations who handle vast sums of money, who on the surface seem to be doing a fine job, but turn out not to be quite what they seem. Transparency is what most of us want Marty, but it appears this confidentiality agreement ordered by the SANFL does not give us that Marty. Why? What are they afraid of?

Show me where it was ordered by the SANFL, or is that just what you think?

 

[marty36]

Or paying SANFL bigwigs fat salaries?

If they are Im sure there will be an enquirey into it. Or is that just another one of your conspiracy theories?

 

[marty36]

Yes. Imagine what they could be worth.

If not for the sale of their 'asset' they would be in no great position. An asset they made poor choices about. The Northern stand, their reluctance to allow the 2 AFL teams to make any real money etc

Reluctant to let the two AFL clubs make money?

I dont see the Geelong board blaming this years loss on the stadium deal nor the Carlton Board, Carlton had a downturn in their pokie reveune they actually still made income from it but not as much as last year.

 

[Mattrox]

Reluctant to let the two AFL clubs make money?

I dont see the Geelong board blaming this years loss on the stadium deal nor the Carlton Board, Carlton had a downturn in their pokie reveune they actually still made income from it but not as much as last year.

Did you actually read their thread? Please explain what factors impact on Geelong's revenue steams.

You put up empty arguments about how each club earns its money, do a little handwaving and somehow "everybody is doing a good job at the SANFL".

 

[marty36]

Did you actually read their thread? Please explain what factors impact on Geelong's revenue steams.

You put up empty arguments about how each club earns its money, do a little handwaving and somehow "everybody is doing a good job at the SANFL".

Like I said if people dont want the SANFL to earn anything from AO thats fine let the VFL run SA footy, no one has offered an alternative

 

[Papa G]

Like I said if people dont want the SANFL to earn anything from AO thats fine let the VFL run SA footy, no one has offered an alternative

The AFL actually do care about "Grass Roots Footy", what they don't give a **** about is the self proclaimed second best competition in the country.

 

[marty36]

The AFL actually do care about "Grass Roots Footy", what they don't give a **** about is the self proclaimed second best competition in the country.

Ok so you're happy with the VFL controlling SA footy. WOW how things have changed

 

[Mattrox]

Like I said if people dont want the SANFL to earn anything from AO thats fine let the VFL run SA footy, no one has offered an alternative

No one has ever said "The SANFL should earn nothing from AO" except some very jaded Power fans, perhaps.

It is just that you paint the SANFL in such a glowing light that some perspective is required. Port is not the reason the SANFL was in a dire financial situation. Trying to paint it so is disingenuous. The real reason, is that the SANFL was spending all of its AFL revenue and had not saved any for a raining day. When Port got into trouble they needed to borrow to give them a leg up. The past two years justify the money spent. But it does not absolve the SANFL from poor financial decisions in the past.


If you want us to follow your argument maybe you can borrow the SANFL finanacials from the Port thread and do some explaining to clarify.

 

[marty36]

No one has ever said "The SANFL should earn nothing from AO" except some very jaded Power fans, perhaps.

It is just that you paint the SANFL in such a glowing light that some perspective is required. Port is not the reason the SANFL was in a dire financial situation. Trying to paint it so is disingenuous. The real reason, is that the SANFL was spending all of its AFL revenue and had not saved any for a raining day. When Port got into trouble they needed to borrow to give them a leg up. The past two years justify the money spent. But it does not absolve the SANFL from poor financial decisions in the past.


If you want us to follow your argument maybe you can borrow the SANFL finanacials from the Port thread and do some explaining to clarify.

Of course people want the SANFL removed altogether, from obviously Papa G on his comment above, the whole Port board, a number on this board and The_Wookie is adament the SANFL have no right to be at AO. Without that $15 million or $12 million or what ever amount is, the SANFL cannot govern SA footy, I dont think anyone with half a brain would argue that.

 

[redandblack]

You need to start reading RussellEbertsHandball's thread. Read all the way through his opening posts ftom 2009.

He also has SANFL financials in some of hus recent posts. I know there is some bile and venom in the thread. But quite a lot of what he's posted backs up much of what has been stated here.

You are using the Essendon defence. "No one really knows, but its all good anyway!"

I was told on here that REH said the SANFL's financials weren't publicly available. I then put up a link to them, so I'm not giving much credit there and I'm certainly not going to read 5 years of posts.

The reason I say that none of us know the detail of the negotiations is perhaps because that's a factual statement. If it's wrong, let me know specifically the figures they're still haggling over.

The facts are that the AFL and the clubs want more, the SANFL wants to pay less than that. The negotiations have been ongoing for months.

My guess from that is that the clubs don't want to budge from what they see as a minimum requirement and the SANFL is the same.

How anyone can state with certainty that one side is totally correct and the SANFL is totally greedy is beyond logic, unless you just argue from a 'my club is right, everyone else is wrong' point of view. Which seems to be contagious on here.

None of us know, and if that's an 'Essendon defence', fine.

Essendon look like they might win, actually.

 

[redandblack]

No one has ever said "The SANFL should earn nothing from AO" except some very jaded Power fans, perhaps.

It is just that you paint the SANFL in such a glowing light that some perspective is required. Port is not the reason the SANFL was in a dire financial situation. Trying to paint it so is disingenuous. The real reason, is that the SANFL was spending all of its AFL revenue and had not saved any for a raining day. When Port got into trouble they needed to borrow to give them a leg up. The past two years justify the money spent. But it does not absolve the SANFL from poor financial decisions in the past.


If you want us to follow your argument maybe you can borrow the SANFL finanacials from the Port thread and do some explaining to clarify.

You seem totally confused about the SANFL's financial position.

They have made great decisions over the last 40 years or so. They have a strong Balance Sheet, with plenty of equity. Compared to the mismanagement and blown-out spending of the AFL clubs, they aren't even close.

That is all different to negotiating what they need to be viable in future. Totally different.

It's one thing to have millions in equity, quite another to surrender to change an agreement which might see you not be able to operate properly in future.

Two separate things, which perhaps those defending Port can ask them when they get back from hauling their entire football operations to Dubai and back.

 

[Mattrox]

You seem totally confused about the SANFL's financial position.

They have made great decisions over the last 40 years or so. They have a strong Balance Sheet, with plenty of equity. Compared to the mismanagement and blown-out spending of the AFL clubs, they aren't even close.

That is all different to negotiating what they need to be viable in future. Totally different.

It's one thing to have millions in equity, quite another to surrender to change an agreement which might see you not be able to operate properly in future.

Two separate things, which perhaps those defending Port can ask them when they get back from hauling their entire football operations to Dubai and back.

Great financial decisions like let their clubs get into $18m debt?

 

[Cleric]

Are you disputing there are big revenue streams for the SANFL being generated by Port Power via the catering?

The SANFL whinges about the $16m they borrowed to bail out Port. Which was given in the form of grants (ie no strings). But they ignore the fact that had not done so there was no way to generate this income.

Poort were a basket case. You have to remember just how bad the Poort board, players, coaches and supporters let their club go. They were Melbourne level bad. They were on track to be out of the comp in a few shirt years. They lost to GC and GWS in their first years, tarps etc. They were owned by the SANFL and were at risk of bankrupting the SANFL. They had to do something. And they did, and now PAP is doing well. Funny though that none of the PAPers on BF are thanking the SANFL for getting them back on track. They want to take the credit when they succeed and want to blame the SANFL when they don't. Typical centrelink mentality.
What do you think the SANFL does with their money? Hookers and piss ups? Blowing it on pokies? Or putting it back into SA footy, developing Jr talent (god knows the Port Magpies can't) etc?

 

[Mattrox]

Poort were a basket case. You have to remember just how bad the Poort board, players, coaches and supporters let their club go. They were Melbourne level bad. They were on track to be out of the comp in a few shirt years. They lost to GC and GWS in their first years, tarps etc. They were owned by the SANFL and were at risk of bankrupting the SANFL. They had to do something. And they did, and now PAP is doing well. Funny though that none of the PAPers on BF are thanking the SANFL for getting them back on track. They want to take the credit when they succeed and want to blame the SANFL when they don't. Typical centrelink mentality.
What do you think the SANFL does with their money? Hookers and piss ups? Blowing it on pokies? Or putting it back into SA footy, developing Jr talent (god knows the Port Magpies can't) etc?

I agree with most of what you write, but the bail out money is not what risked bankrupting the SANFL.

I just can't imagine $100m of revenue going into grass roots footy as a couple of posters would like us to believe. It is only part of the picture, but it is the sentimental argument to pull at the heart strings of SA football lovers.

 

[marty36]

Great financial decisions like let their clubs get into $18m debt?

Now your just creating arguements, did the AFL let the Saints, Brisbane and Carlton just rack up $9 million of loses this year thats half of 8 clubs total debt for 3 clubs this year alone.

 

[marty36]

I agree with most of what you write, but the bail out money is not what risked bankrupting the SANFL.

I just can't imagine $100m of revenue going into grass roots footy as a couple of posters would like us to believe. It is only part of the picture, but it is the sentimental argument to pull at the heart strings of SA football lovers.

The $100M is turnover Im hoping you realise what that means

 

[redandblack]

Great financial decisions like let their clubs get into $18m debt?

Mate, you really need to say whether or not you understand financial statements. It doesn't seem so.

The clubs make their own decisions, not the SANFL.

Secondly, let's take just one club. They might owe $2 million, but they have assets of $4 million and you're ignoring the assets.

Some SANFL clubs certainly are in strife, but it's got more to do with gaming revenue reducing markedly than spending decisions.

 

[The_Wookie]

I was told on here that REH said the SANFL's financials weren't publicly available. I then put up a link to them, so I'm not giving much credit there and I'm certainly not going to read 5 years of posts.

You were misinformed or you intentionally misread wherever that was said. RussellEbertHandball would never say the SANFLs financial reports werent publicly available. There simply is no one on this board who understands the SANFL financials better than he does and he knows as well as you and I that the SANFL posts its annual reports online on its website. No one.