Remove this Banner Ad

Adelaide Oval Review

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1970crow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Pdub said:
The SANFL will only give up something out of the goodness of their hearts or like in most business negotiations if they get something else in return.
Click to expand...

You are kidding yourself that they hold all of the power here. Their net position post review will not be as strong as it is now, bookmark it. And that is the way it should be.
 
Killer Power said:
You are kidding yourself that they hold all of the power here. Their net position post review will not be as strong as it is now, bookmark it. And that is the way it should be.
Click to expand...

It must be true, because you said "bookmark it". We know the SANFL doesn't have to change a thing if they don't want to, so who do you think holds the power?
 
Pdub said:
in 2013 they were top of the bottom 6 for spending, in 2014 they increased their total spending by $3.5mil so I don't believe that stat is true anymore.
Click to expand...
No they said they are still top of bottom third, so it is true. This is on footy department spend.
 
marty36 said:
Im not going there on the debt it just upsets the PAPS too much, add $16 million to the current debt and check on the ability to service the debt, I am sure if they had $16 million less there is no chance Westpac would have called it in. Do you?
Click to expand...

The $16m is irrelevant marty. They lent port the cash to maintain ownership of the license and keep them at footy park. If they didn't lend that money back to port and port folded, they would have to start from scratch with a new sub-licensee or hand the license back to the afl. Overall they made money from port playing at footy park, having chosen port as the 2nd sub-licensee. As ports crowds and revenue dipped from their games at footy park, did the sanfl tighten their own belts, given they are ultimately responsible for that license or did they just push on and borrow against their major asset, till they could borrow no more.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Pdub said:
It must be true, because you said "bookmark it". We know the SANFL doesn't have to change a thing if they don't want to, so who do you think holds the power?
Click to expand...

No, I said bookmark it so that if it turns out to be wrong you can push it back in my face :)

There is more to power than what is written in a contract.
 
Pdub said:
The SANFL will only give up something out of the goodness of their hearts or like in most business negotiations if they get something else in return.
Click to expand...
Their return is that they survive, out of the goodness of the State building a new stadium, the PAFC and the Crows giving them money and the AFL giving them money. Otherwise 'magic show' they disappear. Welcome to a capitalist world my friend.
 
Pdub said:
I heard Kochie say a few times this year that port has the 3rd youngest list, doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
It was true, but that will change next season
 
Pdub said:
I heard Kochie say a few times this year that port has the 3rd youngest list, doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
I tend to believe Kochie more than say, Trigg
 
Cleric said:
Your kidding yourself. The SANFL have a financial interest in Port. They own their licence through a contract, which guarentees them rights.
You really need to understand contract law. Just because the AFL has more money doesnt mean they can ignore contract law. Thats what courts are for. The SANFL could and would pay for any legal cost to defend their rights. If it was a simple as you said the AFL would have just taken back the licences but they couldnt and they had to be bought back. Sorry to burst your bubble. And as the SANFL owned Ports arse they would have made them cut costs and reduce spending to bring the loss down to where it wasnt a hit to the SANFL. Infact they should have done so many years ago. The fact that the SANFL allowed PAP to be poorly ran is their own fault.
Dont kid yourself.
Click to expand...

Missed the point completely cleric. Take off the blinkers mate. The sanfl were needing to financially support port more and more. They had maxed out their credit at their bank. They couldn't extract any extra from us, because we have a contract regarding our stadium deal and if you understand contract law, you will know that.

So, the sanfl has lent a loss-making entity $16m over the last few years. The afl has chipped in some millions as well. If port continue to play at footy park, they will continue to need sanfl assistance ($3-$4m/yr?) to stay afloat. The sanfl is fast closing in on its credit limit. How many more years can they continue to keep port afloat? They have a license agreement with the afl that requires a second SA team play each week. What do they do cleric? Where is the money to keep their competition and investment in grass-roots football plus port Adelaide's cash lifeline going to come from?

The answer is staring you in the face, but there are non so blind as those that won't see. Especially those blinded by pure hatred of all things port adelaide est 1870.
 
Jello_B said:
Their return is that they survive, out of the goodness of the State building a new stadium, the PAFC and the Crows giving them money and the AFL giving them money. Otherwise 'magic show' they disappear. Welcome to a capitalist world my friend.
Click to expand...

This "capitalist" world is also a litigious world that makes people and businesses do what the contract they signed says they will do.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Jello_B said:
Their return is that they survive, out of the goodness of the State building a new stadium, the PAFC and the Crows giving them money and the AFL giving them money. Otherwise 'magic show' they disappear. Welcome to a capitalist world my friend.
Click to expand...

Welcome to your arrogance, you mean.
 
Jello_B said:
Their return is that they survive, out of the goodness of the State building a new stadium, the PAFC and the Crows giving them money and the AFL giving them money. Otherwise 'magic show' they disappear. Welcome to a capitalist world my friend.
Click to expand...


Far from the capitalist world when dealing with the government who actually has an interest in the governing body of one of the largest sports in the state, to be funded to ensure they can do it effectively
 
Pdub said:
Maybe you should learn to research and find the answers for yourself rather than believe what Kochie and KT tell you to believe.
Click to expand...
Oh and you have all the inside info do you, or maybe just that which suits your own agenda? Pray enlighten us, with links, documents of course.
 
Pdub said:
This "capitalist" world is also a litigious world that makes people and businesses do what the contract they signed says they will do.
Click to expand...
Agreed. What else does it say? A group of big entities can usually crush a minnow. Not nice I agree, but if contract talks start becoming a focus then this is an option.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Pdub said:
that link doesn't work. but here is 2014

http://www.theage.com.au/content/da...LeadNarrow.300x0.108cis.png/1409054657730.jpg

and 2013

http://www.lions.com.au/news/2013-02-19/lions-third-youngest
Click to expand...
Haven't looked at the Lions one yet, but do you know what the first one is? How about posting the bits from the article that said something like "Collingwood's wretched injury run in recent weeks has translated ..."

EDIT: Just read the second link if yours that said the Lions were equal third youngest with Port Adelaide. Are you debating yourself now? :D
 
Pdub said:
that link doesn't work. but here is 2014

http://www.theage.com.au/content/da...LeadNarrow.300x0.108cis.png/1409054657730.jpg
Click to expand...

That table is the average age of the sides that took the field in round 22 last week - not the list as a whole.

From the same article
"The Power side that pummelled Carlton by 103 points at Adelaide Oval on Friday night had an average age of 24.7 years, making it the fifth youngest team in the AFL at the weekend."

Was that a mistake or were you deliberately trying to bend the truth ?

Here's another source: http://www.footyjunkie.com.au/features/how-experienced-is-your-club-in-2014/
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

jamesclean
    • Like
Review R8: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly vs. Port Adelaide
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
753
Views
15K
moogerfooger
moogerfooger
pjcrows
    • Like
  • Poll Poll
Preview Round 1 - Adelaide v St Kilda @ Adelaide Oval
38 39 40 41 42
Replies
1K
Views
39K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin
B
    • Wow
    • Like
Adelaide Oval You should be so lucky
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
5K
Dirty Bird
Dirty Bird
jamesclean
  • Poll Poll
Preview R8: Changes vs. Port Adelaide
35 36 37 38 39
Replies
951
Views
24K
Fud#3
F
R
    • Like
Adelaide Crows - Stats, Data, Trends & Observations
2
Replies
30
Views
903
Rogue77
R
jamesclean
    • Like
Review R5: The GB&U vs Carlton: ARC de Triomphe
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
337
Views
10K
BRL121
B
jamesclean
Review R7: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly vs. Brisbane Lions
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
420
Views
11K
Tex Danger
T

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom