Adelaide Oval Review

[marty36]

Probably the first thread where crap Crow-Port banter has actually improved the discussion

Why have you finally worked out the AFL has promised the SANFL and Crows/ Power different financial benefits that don't marry up. Now they have walked away and said you sought it out.

 

[Jello_B]

Yeah. Lets see

No AFL clubs in the SANFL = almost certainly no commercial TV deal for the SANFL with the ABC bailing. Highest regular season SANFL rating games for the year - SANFL showdowns. Take out the AFL clubs and the average broadcast rated no better than it was on the ABC, sponsors didnt climb on to the broadcast because of the generic local clubs.

Further the SANFL was insisting on long term deals for the Crows and Port - we're talking 15 years here - before the Adelaide Oval deal was close to being signed. (August last year)

I refer you to: http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/ad...he-sanfl-in-2014/story-fndv862c-1226698037844



And finally to

Underrated post, could not agree with this more.

 

[Jello_B]

Why have you finally worked out the AFL has promised the SANFL and Crows/ Power different financial benefits that don't marry up. Now they have walked away and said you sought it out.

Is this what has happened or are you speculating? Serious question.

 

[TheFVK]

Why have you finally worked out the AFL has promised the SANFL and Crows/ Power different financial benefits that don't marry up. Now they have walked away and said you sought it out.

Yes you're spot on that's exactly why

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Probably the first thread where crap Crow-Port banter has actually improved the discussion

No the 119 tippett-gate crap is hardly making this thread better!

 

[marty36]

Is this what has happened or are you speculating? Serious question.

Obviously speculating

But the SANFL where enticed to come back to AO by both the State Government and AFL, and do you think they would have done that because they had a change of heart and liked and trusted the SACA or the financial benefits offered were too great to forego by the SA government and AFL.

The Crows and Power as I am told were forced to sign the deal with the only organisation having that power over them being the AFL. Yes the SANFL own the licences and had a power over their board which now that power has been transferred to the AFL who now control their boards.

So you tell me who should give in, the SANFL will show some goodwill that we know as it has been clearly leaked, but not what the Power and Crows want.

The fact that it has gone on for almost 6 months shows some organisations(AFL) are ducking for cover because of how the deal was brokered by themselves.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Obviously speculating

But the SANFL where enticed to come back to AO by both the State Government and AFL, and do you think they would have done that because they had a change of heart and liked and trusted the SACA or the financial benefits offered were too great to forego by the SA government and AFL.

The Crows and Power as I am told were forced to sign the deal with the only organisation having that power over them being the AFL. Yes the SANFL own the licences and had a power over their board which now that power has been transferred to the AFL who now control their boards.

So you tell me who should give in, the SANFL will show some goodwill that we know as it has been clearly leaked, but not what the Power and Crows want.

The fact that it has gone on for almost 6 months shows some organisations(AFL) are ducking for cover because of how the deal was brokered by themselves.

I'll keep this simple...

Sma = sanfl controlled in footy season.

Sanfl owned the afl licenses.

= sanfl had control of the agreement.

<> Afl had control of the agreement.

 

[Killer Power]

I think you will find its a huge likelihood that their wont be a Port in the SANFL in years to come, don't get caught up in your own self importance the majority of SANFL supporters couldn't give a toss if you were in it or not! But that is another matter and should not be in this thread! But the fact that the SANFL has allowed the AFL clubs in its comp probably does play a part in the AO deal also which clouds the deal even further!

SANFL "allowed" the PAFC into the competition?? You must have not been around when we were forced to keep a team in as part of our AFL licence conditions and then exiled to Ethelton to weaken our position.

 

[marty36]

SANFL "allowed" the PAFC into the competition?? You must have not been around when we were forced to keep a team in as part of our AFL licence conditions and then exiled to Ethelton to weaken our position.

What don't you understand about the current set up of the SANFL, which allows all parties to give one years notice to either the AFL reserves give notice to leave the comp or the one year notice the SANFL can dismiss the two teams or one team if they want?

 

[marty36]

I'll keep this simple...

Sma = sanfl controlled in footy season.

Sanfl owned the afl licenses.

= sanfl had control of the agreement.

<> Afl had control of the agreement.

How and why did they get control of the agreement, they didn't even want to be in the same room as the SACA as stated by Foley before the Big D and Himself put something on the table!

 

[Killer Power]

What don't you understand about the current set up of the SANFL, which allows all parties to give one years notice to either the AFL reserves give notice to leave the comp or the one year notice the SANFL can dismiss the two teams or one team if they want?

I'm perfectly clear on it. Just don't waffle on like the SNAFL are doing us a favour by "letting" us play. We are a foundation club and when we tried to leave the comp were forced to stay. Don't kid yourself, if they thought their competition would prosper through booting Port out then it would have happened long ago.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

How and why did they get control of the agreement, they didn't even want to be in the same room as the SACA as stated by Foley before the Big D and Himself put something on the table!

Nfi what you are saying.

We are talking the distribution agreement which has nothing to do with Foley & saca.

 

[marty36]

Nfi what you are saying.

We are talking the distribution agreement which has nothing to do with Foley & saca.

I will make it simple for you, when Foley and the AFL approached the SANFL, who as Foley said would not even entertain talk about moving to the AO because of the SACA, what did they promise the SANFL to make them even consider moving? An uplift in what they were earning AAMI maybe

 

[Malibu#27]

Nfi what you are saying.

We are talking the distribution agreement which has nothing to do with Foley & saca.

Don't stress mate.

He's conveniently ignoring the fact that the government and sanfl may have taken stuff off the table. We know the gov had pulled 300m of funding and Rann had indicated it was a one time only offer.

We also know foley is a vindictive hard man - the SANFL would have seen the writing on the wall - no funding for upgrades - no new train terminal, flailing crowds and one club on its knees. If port falls over at aami that is a massive blow to the SANFL

Sometimes you don't have to get something to move but a guarantee you won't lose something may be enough. Plus 50-100 million for aami precint would help.
Same revenue rather than big losses plus multi millions of asset to be sold off.
(Foley is also quoted as saying the afl was threatening to move port regardless - who knows if he's talking shit)

 

[*PAF]

No the 119 tippett-gate crap is hardly making this thread better!

At least they actually happened unlike the stuff about the SANFL being better off without the AFL teams.

 

[marty36]

Don't stress mate.

He's conveniently ignoring the fact that the government and sanfl may have taken stuff off the table. We know the gov had pulled 300m of funding and Rann had indicated it was a one time only offer.

We also know foley is a vindictive hard man - the SANFL would have seen the writing on the wall - no funding for upgrades - no new train terminal, flailing crowds and one club on its knees. If port falls over at aami that is a massive blow to the SANFL

Sometimes you don't have to get something to move but a guarantee you won't lose something may be enough. Plus 50-100 million for aami precint would help.
Same revenue rather than big losses plus multi millions of asset to be sold off.
(Foley is also quoted as saying the afl was threatening to move port regardless - who knows if he's talking shit)

So you would say the SANFL agreed to move without any benefits what so ever?

 

[RonSon]

So you would say the SANFL agreed to move without any benefits what so ever?

There were benefits - with AFL games being moved to AO they were able to sell off football park which was unprofitable and without selling off this land their debt was becoming unserviceable which is why the NAB jumped ship.

 

[Malibu#27]

So you would say the SANFL agreed to move without any benefits what so ever?

I would say the post you quoted is pretty clear.

It is possible the SANFL moved to avoid going backwards due to port faltering and crows revenue dropping - and government pulling funding for upgrades.

As I asked yesterday - would you make a change if your projections showed that doing nothing meant a step backwards.

... And of course we had the SANFL saying they needed to maintain a break even not get an uplift - ie:

"The move to Adelaide Oval ... the product has got to be something that maintains, simply, the break-even (for the SANFL) because we've already given to the footy clubs a substantial uplift," Olsen said.

 

[*PAF]

So you would say the SANFL agreed to move without any benefits what so ever?

Whatcha talkin bout marty. They are making the same amount of money without having to pay for stadium maintenance, plus have a number of other incomes and grants going their way. That is probably why they've struggled to explain why they need to keep the extras and have concentrated about the $16.5mil instead.

Unfortunately some people swallow everything they say and do not bother checking out some simple facts that are readily available.

 

[marty36]

Whatcha talkin bout marty. They are making the same amount of money without having to pay for stadium maintenance, plus have a number of other incomes and grants going their way. That is probably why they've struggled to explain why they need to keep the extras and have concentrated about the $16.5mil instead.

Unfortunately some people swallow everything they say and do not bother checking out some simple facts that are readily available.

Well I will ask you aswell, what did Foley and the AFL say or promise to the SANFL to bring them to the table.

I know the debt situation, I know the fact they wont have as many expenses. We know all this.

What do you think the SANFL asked or were being told primarily about agreeing to such a move? Because they didnt even want to speak with the SACA who owned the lease on AO.

 

[redandblack]

Whatcha talkin bout marty. They are making the same amount of money without having to pay for stadium maintenance, plus have a number of other incomes and grants going their way. That is probably why they've struggled to explain why they need to keep the extras and have concentrated about the $16.5mil instead.

Unfortunately some people swallow everything they say and do not bother checking out some simple facts that are readily available.

Thanks for the laugh the last paragraph gave me.

Better off putting it on the Port Board, surely?

So many hypotheticals and shark jumping to send Occams Razor mad.

 

[redandblack]

Well I will ask you aswell, what did Foley and the AFL say or promise to the SANFL to bring them to the table.

I know the debt situation, I know the fact they wont have as many expenses. We know all this.

What do you think the SANFL asked or were being told primarily about agreeing to such a move? Because they didnt even want to speak with the SACA who owned the lease on AO.

Marty, you make the mistake of expecting a logical answer to this.

You won't get one.

It doesn't fit the agenda.

 

[marty36]

I love the Paps board, Im endeavouring to have a whole thread about me, its just amazing how they are more fascinated by the crows thread and love talking about me and R and B and a few others, rather than their own little mixed up world. Hey nivek48 do you think you could start a thread about me, it will mean I have accomplished something in life?

 

[*PAF]

Nah.

The good laugh is that if the SANFL had already made $20 million from AO, all sorts of extra grants, double what they have from the sale of AAMI and you two would still be harping on about "contract", $16.5 million, grassroots footy and may give some of the extras to the clubs only out of goodwill from our saviour the SANFL.

 

[Cleric]

Man there is some stupid stuff posted here. The SANFL owned both AFL licences here, had an iron clad contract that ALL AFL games would be played at AAMI. This talk about the AFL allowing Poort to play at AO against the SANFL wishes is just bullshit. People who believe this crap are the type of people that that think King Bongo Bongo from Nigeria will give them 20 million dollars for allowing them to transfer a bit of money into their bank accounts to avoid taxes.
The reality is that the SANFL and the clubs will come to a deal.
All this dreaming about the AFL coming in like a knight in shining armour to defend the damsel in distress (PAP) by putting the SANFL to the sword is just a sign of a weak mind. The AFL helped write the damm contract and gave it their tick of approval. As if they are suddenly gonna change their mind. Sure they could, but im pretty sure the AFL dont want to pay out the hundreds and hundreds of millions it would cost them if they break their deal with the SANFL. Same goes for the government. The SANFL hold all the cards and everyone knows it. Thats why you dont sign contracts you arnt happy with. If your stupid enough to, then dont bitch afterwards.