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

[Papa G]

Jesus ******* christ

View attachment 623698

There was nothing surer than this article from Grandpa coming. Absolutely nothing surer.

 

[raptalia]

West Coast and Freo dont have seats on the board of Optus Stadium, but they do have seats on the WAFC. And the WAFC has no control over Optus, but a guaranteed revenue of $10.3m per annum for the first 10 years, and up to 10.3m in the second 10 years, with the shortfall to be made up by the WA Gov/AFL.

I dont understand how SA football is run with such incompetence and I dont get how they got any control over Adelaide Oval.

It is complicated because unlike Optus Stadium, which as I understand it was a new build, Adelaide Oval was an upgrade and already had a tenant, the SACA. That tenant had an existing lease with the Adelaide City Council but wanted AFL football at the redeveloped ground. In 2012 when the redevelopment started neither of the two SA Clubs had control of their AFL licence, that did not happen until mid 2014 after the redeveloped Adelaide Oval was commissioned. In 2013 both AFL licences were owned by the SANFL. This meant the SACA who held the existing lease, the SANFL who owned the AFL licences, the AFL who had the product everyone wanted and the SA Government were the major players in setting up the operation of the redeveloped Oval. The AFL simply didn't give a stuff about the deal offered to the two AFL clubs as all it wanted was AFL footy at the oval. As a result we have a Stadium Management Authority (SMA) on which neither of the two Adelaide based AFL clubs has a seat. To make matters worse we have a Premier who thinks the SANFL represents the AFL clubs on the SMA Board.

We have a 'tail wagging the dog' situation in which a minor league dictates to the big league. Put simply the AFL doesn't give a rat's about clubs outside of Melbourne, the SACA and the SANFL use the AFL as a cash cow and the State Government hasn't got a clue how it all works.

That is a precis of how it went or at least how I remember it.

 

[PatientMental]

Jesus ******* christ

View attachment 623698

SANFL uses grassroots football propaganda.

It's was ineffective and incredibly shortsighted and outdated.

 

[Forzaport]

Jesus ******* christ

View attachment 623698

How happy must the SANFL be to have the likes of Gra Gra bending over for free. He’s the bride to the SANFL’s ISIS. At some point he’ll come crawling, hopefully to the Crows.

 

[Jakksynn]

Jesus ******* christ

View attachment 623698

that first sentence is hilariously false. Like he genuinely believes the AFL clubs have never done anything for grassroots football

 

[Papa G]

Can't read the article because the Detiser thingy doesn't work anymore, but please tell me that Gra Gra brings up the SANFL giving up the Football Park Revenue and also saving Port from Bankruptcy. Please tell me he mentions that??

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

How happy must the SANFL be to have the likes of Gra Gra bending over for free. He’s the bride to the SANFL’s ISIS. At some point he’ll come crawling, hopefully to the Crows.

Surely we're going to get to a point where these SANFL patsys have all died and there will be no resistance left. I don't know anyone under the age of 35 that cares about the SANFL. Maybe apart from that harlequin looking guy you see in town that sells the The Big Issue, but then again he could easily be 70 years old.

 

[PowerBaz]

the sanfl utilise if 4 days a year and only one of those days draws a crowd larger than about 10k

We didn’t move to the Oval, the SANFL gave up what they had, they will always argue this.

 

[Grave Danger]

Can't read the article because the Detiser thingy doesn't work anymore, but please tell me that Gra Gra brings up the SANFL giving up the Football Park Revenue and also saving Port from Bankruptcy. Please tell me he mentions that??

https://outline.com/AWBH4E

 

[Papa G]

https://outline.com/AWBH4E

Thanks Grave. That article is almost word for word what I expected. In fact I could have left my hand in water for an hour and then wrote it myself.

 

[Grave Danger]

Thanks Grave. That article is almost word for word what I expected. In fact I could have left my hand in water for an hour and then wrote it myself.

Unfortunately(?) Outline doesn't show the comments on articles, but I'd imagine they would all be of the usual "no afl in the sanfl" variety going choc-a-bloc with everything Wrinkles says .

 

[Papa G]

Unfortunately(?) Outline doesn't show the comments on articles, but I'd imagine they would all be of the usual "no afl in the sanfl" variety going choc-a-bloc with everything Wrinkles says .

Can I ask, how do you do that Outline thing?

 

[Alberton Proud]

Someone please force feed Gra Gra a stiff drink

 

[Alberton Proud]

Can I ask, how do you do that Outline thing?

Type outline.com into your browser

Copy the Advertiser article URL into the box that pops up

Press go !

 

[Grave Danger]

Can I ask, how do you do that Outline thing?

Type outline.com into your browser

Copy the Advertiser article URL into the box that pops up

Press go !

Yeah, right click on the headline on adelaidenow and copy link location/address, then paste into the box on outline.com

 

[Papa G]

Type outline.com into your browser

Copy the Advertiser article URL into the box that pops up

Press go !

Cheers.

I wanted to read this article>

https://outline.com/ErEqX7

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Graham constantly referencing Kevin Scarce as "Rear Admiral" sounds like something Hyacinth Bucket would say.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Jesus ******* christ

View attachment 623698

Get rid of the SANFL and replace it with AFL SA. Problem solvered.

 

[RossFC]

Get rid of the SANFL and replace it with AFL SA. Problem solvered.

When the AFL reserves comp comes in, I'd think the SANFL would be dead in the water and would merge with the SAAFL.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Yeah, right click on the headline on adelaidenow and copy link location/address, then paste into the box on outline.com

Why is the date on the articles November

 

[Grave Danger]

Why is the date on the articles November

Don't know - I noticed it on some other articles (eg Sally Zou story and the dual captains 'leak') and wondered if something fishy was going on, but this one showing a November date for something that is only very recent means that the Outline date must be just arbitrary. I'm sure they're not just warehousing stories for when they are convenient/most embarrassing

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Cheers.

I wanted to read this article>

https://outline.com/ErEqX7

Haha confirms my thoughts that journos are too dumb to realize that the SACA pull out $10-$11m a year between 2014 and 2018 ie 5 years from AO for membership fees which doesn't go thru the SMA's books. So add $50-$55m to SACA's $16.4m to get a true apples v apples comparison.

SANFL have 24 events days that draw 30k and SACA about 12. That's why they get more than 50% of the 32x18 people superboxes $140k+ fees for 12 months and more than 50% of the Stadium Club 12 month $4.5k+ fees.

 

[Borscht Mat]

In the end you would not expect the SANFL to act any differently. The SANFL took the risk of leaving AO and building Football Park. They then became largely self sustaining as they got all stadium revenues. By holding both the AFL licenses they could continue to maximize outcomes for the SANFL, as they should it is their job. They had the deal with the AFL where all games are played at FP unless they agree otherwise. They held all the cards.

Then the move to AO comes along. Understandably, the SANFL refuse to go unless they continue to control their existing revenues, and as at the time as they still held the licenses this included stadium revenues from the AFL clubs. The optimal outcome for the SANFL was to continue to gain financially from AFL games but losing the financial responsibility for the AFL teams. This is what they have. Good on 'em.

Having achieved all of that it would be odd for them to lose control over those revenues.... it goes back decades where the SANFL gained financial independence and they will not give that up easily.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

In the end you would not expect the SANFL to act any differently. The SANFL took the risk of leaving AO and building Football Park. They then became largely self sustaining as they got all stadium revenues. By holding both the AFL licenses they could continue to maximize outcomes for the SANFL, as they should it is their job. They had the deal with the AFL where all games are played at FP unless they agree otherwise. They held all the cards.

Then the move to AO comes along. Understandably, the SANFL refuse to go unless they continue to control their existing revenues, and as at the time as they still held the licenses this included stadium revenues from the AFL clubs. The optimal outcome for the SANFL was to continue to gain financially from AFL games but losing the financial responsibility for the AFL teams. This is what they have. Good on 'em.

Having achieved all of that it would be odd for them to lose control over those revenues.... it goes back decades where the SANFL gained financial independence and they will not give that up easily.

Unfortunately so - for us.

 

[Janus]

Haha confirms my thoughts that journos are too dumb to realize that the SACA pull out $10-$11m a year between 2014 and 2018 ie 5 years from AO for membership fees which doesn't go thru the SMA's books. So add $50-$55m to SACA's $16.4m to get a true apples v apples comparison.

SANFL have 24 events days that draw 30k and SACA about 12. That's why they get more than 50% of the 32x18 people superboxes $140k+ fees for 12 months and more than 50% of the Stadium Club 12 month $4.5k+ fees.

If you think it's about event days - why do both the SANFL and SACA get charged the same amount by the SMA as a 'service fee' of $4.1m? Wouldn't the SANFL be charged more since they have more event days? Why would the SACA have to pay for half of something they only get a quarter of the benefit of?