Analysis Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happening

[RussellEbertHandball]

The document Powerbaz linked shows gross receipt and expenses whereas the accounts don't show amounts the SMA collect on trust for the SACA and SANFL via memberships and corporate facilities.

I think I have worked out why the politicans bag the SANFL and leave the SACA alone. The SANFL figures include about $4m of footy memberships but the SMA don't collect the $10.5~$11.0m of SACA membership fees. Include that and the SACA and SANFL are making similar amounts off AO. The pollies are too dumb to pick that up. The SANFL also has more event days so they get more than 50% of the 32 superboxes and 12 month Stadium Club memberships.

The SANFL make money on a minimum of 22 AFL games + 1 SANFL GF + 3 weekend of other finals and ANZAC day which is roughly equal to 24 days of crowds over 30k. The SACA have about 12 days of crowds over 30k yet end up with a similar result to SANFL after including membership fees.

Will do some further analysis tonight.

 

[chachi11]

Still makes me sick that the Bush league SANFL has anything to do with AO..

 

[Alberton Proud]

Stephen Mulligan on ABC news said the Oval was being used as a cash cow by the SANFL..... no mention of the SACA.

Even Roo alluded to this today when discussing #godhatesfages letter to the SMA

 

[Papa G]

The SACA has a far better model. They have their own large membership. They have the extra bonus of Strikers memberships. They get a big dividend from Cricket Australia. They get all the corporate/hospitality revenue during the cricket season.

The SANFL is just an unwanted and unneeded middle man, desperately clinging on to the financial detriment of the AFL clubs.

 

[PowerBaz]

Interesting document.

I do find it funny that they always frame the Port situation as something detached from the SANFL, something out of their control.

The reality was that the SANFL had an asset that they wilfully neglected due to petty politics and an attempt to play a long game to settle an old score. They deliberately made it impossible for the second AFL license to run profitably.

They even milked the first AFL license to such an extent that when the time came for the Crows to leave the SNAFL nest, they had nowhere to go and a huge debt borne of a CEO that was more SANFL than he was AFC when it came to decision making.

The development plan for football park was laughable and says everything about where the SANFL was at that point. They were desperate.


Then we have the SACA, who had unsustainable levels of debt leading up to the development. A finance boffin I know told a group of SACA members who were on the anti lobby that the member vote was literally “Do you want the SACA to survive. Yes or No”.


So the redevelopment of the public asset that was then handed to the SACA/SANFL hybrid to manage, FOR FREE, while simultaneously wiping out their debts and freeing up assets for sale (FP + 2 x AFL licenses), is now too expensive for them to run?

And their ‘strategy’ is to tack on a mini hotel to the best stadium in Australia?

campaigners.

Ian M could of paid for the Western Grandstand in 2010 out of his own pocket!

 

[PowerBaz]

Whicker and Olsen - two of the dodgiest people you could meet, and I've met both.

When will someone realize the SANFL is redundant.

Can someone tell me, from that doc which I can't see at the minute, is there an indication based on a % what the gameday split equates too, as in in what do we bring home and what else is divided up.

 

[Duck Farmer]

And their ‘strategy’ is to tack on a mini hotel to the best stadium in Australia?

A mini hotel with marginal financial viability at best.

 

[Papa G]

Whicker and Olsen - two of the dodgiest people you could meet, and I've met both.

When will someone realize the SANFL is redundant.

Can someone tell me, from that doc which I can't see at the minute, is there an indication based on a % what the gameday split equates too, as in in what do we bring home and what else is divided up.

The funny thing about this is they despise each other. We actually have Olsen to thank (with the help of a couple of others from the SACA) that Whicker didn't get Daniels' job and was pissed off to retirement. It could have been worse.

 

[Duck Farmer]

The SACA has a far better model. They have their own large membership. They have the extra bonus of Strikers memberships. They get a big dividend from Cricket Australia. They get all the corporate/hospitality revenue during the cricket season.

The SANFL is just an unwanted and unneeded middle man, desperately clinging on to the financial detriment of the AFL clubs.

This. At least the SACA stage the test match, ODIs, and BBL at the venue. Now that the SANFL have divested themselves of the AFL licenses they contribute two-fifths of sweet FA and will contribute even less in the future as they become even less relevant when the second tier AFL competition arrives. Their share of the SMA was a one-off bribe to facilitate the move of AFL football to Adelaide Oval and their incentives going forward are to milk AO for as much as possible to prop up a dying, irrelevant, feeder competition.

 

[Grave Danger]

This. At least the SACA stage the test match, ODIs, and BBL at the venue. Now that the SANFL have divested themselves of the AFL licenses they contribute two-fifths of sweet FA and will contribute even less in the future as they become even less relevant when the second tier AFL competition arrives. Their share of the SMA was a one-off bribe to facilitate the move of AFL football to Adelaide Oval and their incentives going forward are to milk AO for as much as possible to prop up a dying, irrelevant, feeder competition.

"Yeah, but who's looking after the kids?"

 

[Janus]

Here's the SANFL submission.

They are saying that they only get $12m a year from Adelaide Oval, because they have to contribute $4m to the SMA. They are saying it's $16m minus $4m = $12m.

However, that's not true. The SMA already accounts for the $4m as a 'service fee' that is charged on the catering of both the SANFL and the SACA. So it's actually $20m minus $4m = $16m. They are lying through their teeth.

They also say that the AFL clubs receive 70% of the net stadium return on matchdays, and that a drop in crowds of 10% (which would mean a total of 82,800 and an average crowd of 37k) would affect their bottom line by $500k.

But if you look at the crowd figures reported for Adelaide Oval in the past four years - the totals have dropped by 1k a year every year, from 44k to 41k...and the SANFL made $1m MORE from the SMA than they did in 2014, when the average crowd was 46k. Which means there has already been a drop of close to 7% and they haven't taken a hit. They should be making $350k less...but they aren't. They are making $500k more.

If people don't ask questions about this s**t, something is seriously wrong.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Ok now we just need the SACA's submission to the select committee to get closer to the full picture.

 

[powermacs]

Still makes me sick that the Bush league SANFL has anything to do with AO..

I loathe them more everyday. Now that they have taken over control of jr footy in SA they have canned the under 6’s this year and under 7’s next year. Meaning the only option for kids 5-7 in the coming years is Auskick where the SANFL pocket the majority of the $ from each kid. Absolute joke.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

SACA's submission. Doesn't really tell us much but their annual reports reveal a lot more than the SANFL's.

 

[Alberton Proud]

REH's gunna be a busy man tonight !!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The_Wookie sent me this in a PM.

re: sinking fund
"No other stadium operator in Australia is required to maintain such a fund. "

Gold Coast have to do this at Metricon.

 

[chiwigi]

The_Wookie sent me this in a PM.

re: sinking fund
"No other stadium operator in Australia is required to maintain such a fund. "

Gold Coast have to do this at Metricon.

The sinking fund is the only thing I agree with, always having maintenance and improvement funds when ready (especially as the stadium is a big part of our heritage and the location will never change for a 'super stadium') is a fantastic plan.....unless it's wasted on stupid s**t like hotels.

 

[PatientMental]

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The sinking fund is the only thing I agree with, always having maintenance and improvement funds when ready (especially as the stadium is a big part of our heritage and the location will never change for a 'super stadium') is a fantastic plan.....unless it's wasted on stupid s**t like hotels.

The sinking fund was Rann and Foley's way, along with Pat Conlan and probably also Rod Hook of making sure that the SACA and SANFL don't get a bloody free kick and not let the place run down. Having to contribute $337m over 50 years is a big reason why they have to get off their arse and find plenty new events outside footy and cricket. It's also a big part of why they want to build a hotel. Also getting an independent quantity surveyors to set the contributions up front rather than SMA setting them was another control over the SACA and SANFL.

The Rob Lucas community sports tax - driven thru by the upper house as his amendment - also keeps them on thir toes. From the SMA sumission page 7
"The 2018 Auditor General’s report advises that the rent payable by AOSMA to the SA Government over the 80‐year term of the lease is expected to be $74.3 million before indexation."

So far they have paid $2.7m in 2016, $2.8m in 2017, $2.9m in 2018,

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

All submissions can be found at this page, including the nut cases from the Parklands Preservation societies

https://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=3&CId=362 then click on Submissions folder

But attached is Port's and then the Crows submissions

 

[DaTBird187]

The SACA has a far better model. They have their own large membership. They have the extra bonus of Strikers memberships. They get a big dividend from Cricket Australia. They get all the corporate/hospitality revenue during the cricket season.

The SANFL is just an unwanted and unneeded middle man, desperately clinging on to the financial detriment of the AFL clubs.

It's like the antiquated 1855 business model in Bordeaux wines.

The Chateau's sell to merchants or Negociants in Bordeaux who the retailer then buys from to sell to their customers.

The merchant in 2019 is the most pointless middle man of all time, who provides little service that the Chateau couldn't provide on their own and has no actual benefit to anyone but themselves.

The SANFL is literally this

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

KT concludes his 4 page letter with

We therefore ask two things of this Select Committee;

• That it recommend that PAFC (and AFC) is allocated a seat on the AOSMA Board in place of two SANFL appointees, thereby ensuring the interests of the SANFL and the two local AFL football clubs are properly represented

• That a mechanism is developed to ensure that financially, PAFC will be no worse off (through a rising cost base) in the event the hotel does not perform to expectations

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Fagan concludes with

Accordingly, we believe that the current governance structure requires review and that consideration be given to nominees from the two AFL Clubs, replacing two of the SANFL appointees on the AOSMA Board.

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond.....

Both club's say that the SANFL's interests no longer align with the 2 AFL clubs' interests like previously when the SANFL held their licences.

KT
The now independent SANFL has an obligation to make decisions in the best interest of its Commission and Members. These will often be in conflict to the interests and needs of PAFC or AFC. In relation to the decisions of the AOSMA Board, the SANFL is bound by confidentially which does not permit them to be fully transparent with the organisations they were supposed to represent, namely PAFC and AFC.

Fagan
Fundamentally, our relationship with the SANFL changed when they no longer held the AFL licenses. Whereas they previously acted in the best interests of football (including that of the two AFL Clubs), they now represent their own interests and somewhat appropriately deliver against their own strategic objectives without fear or favour. The decisions they make as AOSMA representatives are confidential and rationale or key data and information is withheld from the AFL Clubs that they were meant to represent when the AOSMA structure was established. Of course, the priorities of SANFL and those of the two AFL Clubs are quite different, aside from a common interest in wanting to see the game of football prosper. We are not consulted on key decisions, we have limited ability to influence strategic direction or ensure the needs of our supporters are appropriately represented.

 

[Forzaport]

As if the SANFL ever acted in the interests of AFL clubs when they held the licences. They killed the golden goose ffs.

 

[Papa G]

Fagan concludes with

Accordingly, we believe that the current governance structure requires review and that consideration be given to nominees from the two AFL Clubs, replacing two of the SANFL appointees on the AOSMA Board.

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond.....

Both club's say that the SANFL's interests no loner align with the 2 AFL clubs' interests like previously when the SANFL held their licences.

KT
The now independent SANFL has an obligation to make decisions in the best interest of its Commission and Members. These will often be in conflict to the interests and needs of PAFC or AFC. In relation to the decisions of the AOSMA Board, the SANFL is bound by confidentially which does not permit them to be fully transparent with the organisations they were supposed to represent, namely PAFC and AFC.

Fagan
Fundamentally, our relationship with the SANFL changed when they no longer held the AFL licenses. Whereas they previously acted in the best interests of football (including that of the two AFL Clubs), they now represent their own interests and somewhat appropriately deliver against their own strategic objectives without fear or favour. The decisions they make as AOSMA representatives are confidential and rationale or key data and information is withheld from the AFL Clubs that they were meant to represent when the AOSMA structure was established. Of course, the priorities of SANFL and those of the two AFL Clubs are quite different, aside from a common interest in wanting to see the game of football prosper. We are not consulted on key decisions, we have limited ability to influence strategic direction or ensure the needs of our supporters are appropriately represented.

This is brilliant. A rare time that the 2 AFL clubs have colluded to get a better outcome. These greedy idiots at the SMA (SANFL) thought this was just going to go through with no problems. Instead it has given the AFL clubs a soapbox to air their ongoing grievances with the structure and set up of the SMA.