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

[RussellEbertHandball]

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?

Because that's the deal. It's a 50/50 venture so any short fall - to get the working capital of the SMA back up to $200k at the end of the year - is split, any excess profits are also split. The SANFL get 7 months to run it as hard as they can, the SACA gets 5 months.

The deal doesn't have to be 50/50 on everything.

 

[Janus]

Because that's the deal. It's a 50/50 venture so any short fall - to get the working capital of the SMA back up to $200k at the end of the year - is split, any excess profits are also split. The SANFL get 7 months to run it as hard as they can, the SACA gets 5 months.

The deal doesn't have to be 50/50 on everything.

You must have seen the Promoter's Agreement then, because that's where the deal is laid out:

18 Seat corporate suites, Audi Stadium Club, Gil Langley Room; Committee Room; Chairman’s Room; Leigh Whicker Room; President’s Room; Telstra Plaza revenues are collected in trust and distributed to SACA/SANFL in accordance with the Promoter’s Agreement.

Is it this thread somewhere? I've never seen it...I thought it was confidential.

 

[El_Scorcho]

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.

I guess, but should the SANFL have had control over both AFL licences in the first place?

I don't expect the SANFL to give an inch of anything, as you say, it isn't their job. What I do expect is that the AFL clubs start to use their enormous people power advantage over the SANFL to claw that control back.

As i've said, Port and the Crows could conduct a hostile takeover of the SANFL with money they find down the back of the couch, and it's way overdue. We fund the SANFL without any control over what their clubs get up to, so we get a ridiculous inflated salary cap to pay off washed up interstate players, a juniors setup that has woefully underperformed in producing AFL level talent over the years and big screen proposals at suburban football grounds.

 

[Portology]

I guess, but should the SANFL have had control over both AFL licences in the first place?

I don't expect the SANFL to give an inch of anything, as you say, it isn't their job. What I do expect is that the AFL clubs start to use their enormous people power advantage over the SANFL to claw that control back.

As i've said, Port and the Crows could conduct a hostile takeover of the SANFL with money they find down the back of the couch, and it's way overdue. We fund the SANFL without any control over what their clubs get up to, so we get a ridiculous inflated salary cap to pay off washed up interstate players, a juniors setup that has woefully underperformed in producing AFL level talent over the years and big screen proposals at suburban football grounds.

The AFL is just not interested enough to bleed them slowly dry by pulling out various monies and setting up a parallel, competing AFL SA to run development and junior comps. Even then you’d have to drag their cold dead bankrupt hands off “their” share of the SMA teats.

So you’d have to buy out enough member-operated SANFL clubs to spill the SAFC and stack it with folks interested in the good of football overall who would dismantle the Basheer dynasty’s Great Wall of legal fortifications from within. Would cost quite a few millions and take a lot of campaignering.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harro59]

The SANFL will never move an inch from the SMA. I asked the question over at Safooty.net in the land of 2 heads as to why the SANFL needs to be on the SMA and control the finances and well you could say that's when the fight started lol.

As said previously they used there position with the licences to make sure there access the trough would be secure. Otherwise they will be li kme the WAFL and on the outer of any stadium management.

 

[LFC2010]

Jesus ******* christ

View attachment 623698

Now playing the grassroots card! lol wrinkles!!!

When will these dinosaurs get it, the SANFL deserve only what revenue they raise when the Oval hosts finals at the venue, nothing more, nothing less.
the fact they keep pilfering money from the AFL to keep their shitty comp alive is an absolute disgrace. SANFL level these days isn't that much better than Div 1 Amateur league level.

 

[Harro59]

Now playing the grassroots card! lol wrinkles!!!

When will these dinosaurs get it, the SANFL deserve only what revenue they raise when the Oval hosts finals at the venue, nothing more, nothing less.
the fact they keep pilfering money from the AFL to keep their shitty comp alive is an absolute disgrace. SANFL level these days isn't that much better than Div 1 Amateur league level.

That's the opinion of the old SANFL supporters as well. They believe that the SANFL must have a slice of the pie because of this point. The SANFL are the football authority in SA and hence forth must remain in control of the SMA as the Crows and port are tennats only at AO......

What I find odd is that whilst Port and the Crows are both tennants only, so the SACA and then what the he'll is the SANFL??? I mean why are they even there?
It makes no sense.

But if you ask the blokes with 2 heads they'll tell you.

 

[Grave Danger]

That's the opinion of the old SANFL supporters as well. They believe that the SANFL must have a slice of the pie because of this point. The SANFL are the football authority in SA and hence forth must remain in control of the SMA as the Crows and port are tennats only at AO......

What I find odd is that whilst Port and the Crows are both tennants only, so the SACA and then what the he'll is the SANFL??? I mean why are they even there?
It makes no sense.

But if you ask the blokes with 2 heads they'll tell you.

"The South Australian Football Commission is a nine-person board elected to govern football on behalf of SANFL Community Football and our eight SANFL member Clubs – Central District, Glenelg, North Adelaide, Norwood, South Adelaide, Sturt, West Adelaide and Woodville-West Torrens."

The two "tenants only" who raise all the revenue have no skin in the game.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You must have seen the Promoter's Agreement then, because that's where the deal is laid out:

18 Seat corporate suites, Audi Stadium Club, Gil Langley Room; Committee Room; Chairman’s Room; Leigh Whicker Room; President’s Room; Telstra Plaza revenues are collected in trust and distributed to SACA/SANFL in accordance with the Promoter’s Agreement.

Is it this thread somewhere? I've never seen it...I thought it was confidential.

Nope I haven't read that, but I have read the constitution of the AO SMA Limited and their accounts for several years.

 

[Papa G]

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.

The net football revenue quoted was what I was interested in. $53.5 Mill for the Crows and $30.8 for us. Where are they pulling these figures from?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The net football revenue quoted was what I was interested in. $53.5 Mill for the Crows and $30.8 for us. Where are they pulling these figures from?

What page on the report is this?

 

[Papa G]

What page on the report is this?

It was just in that article I posted from the advertiser. Post 7241.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The net football revenue quoted was what I was interested in. $53.5 Mill for the Crows and $30.8 for us. Where are they pulling these figures from?

It was just in that article I posted from the advertiser. Post 7241.

Ok that's from pages 20 and 21. That looks like a huge discrepancy because of the bullshit way we present our financials since Koch pissed his pants at his first AGM when I asked about 6 or 7 questions and since then they have gone from a concise report to 3 pages. Another innumerate journo report, unless the prick was deliberately lying.

An apples for apples comparison is crows $53.5m + $1.5m = $55m vs our $20.3m + $30.8m = $51.1m in 2017 when the crows made a GF.

It comes from this following section of the report.

VIII. Total Revenue Growth by Key Users Over the Last 9 Years
To assist in analysing “to whom the benefits are accruing” the tables below quantify revenue growth
for the key Adelaide Oval users since 2009 as set out in their respective published audited annual reports.

Note:
This information is extracted directly from the audited reports and different breakdowns of revenue
sources have occurred over the years.

 

[El_Scorcho]

So you’d have to buy out enough member-operated SANFL clubs to spill the SAFC and stack it with folks interested in the good of football overall who would dismantle the Basheer dynasty’s Great Wall of legal fortifications from within. Would cost quite a few millions and take a lot of campaignering.

How much would it actually cost though?

The bottom 5 SANFL clubs in terms of membership probably run around the 2000-2500 member mark, at a guess?

So if we assume we need 3000 memberships at 5 clubs to gain a majority, at say $100 a pop for a membership with voting rights, we're looking at $150,000 in memberships to gain control of the SANFL.

I know there would be some resistance and campaigning against that which would push the price up, but ultimately, if mobilised correctly, the combined supporter base of the AFL clubs would absolutely dwarf the SANFL.

As i've said, I don't even think we need to do it, we just need to throw our weight around a bit and demand what is rightfully ours or burn their entire league to the ground IMO.

 

[Portology]

How much would it actually cost though?

The bottom 5 SANFL clubs in terms of membership probably run around the 2000-2500 member mark, at a guess?

So if we assume we need 3000 memberships at 5 clubs to gain a majority, at say $100 a pop for a membership with voting rights, we're looking at $150,000 in memberships to gain control of the SANFL.

I know there would be some resistance and campaigning against that which would push the price up, but ultimately, if mobilised correctly, the combined supporter base of the AFL clubs would absolutely dwarf the SANFL.

As i've said, I don't even think we need to do it, we just need to throw our weight around a bit and demand what is rightfully ours or burn their entire league to the ground IMO.

Finally, branch stacking for a good cause


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TeeKray]

How much would it actually cost though?

The bottom 5 SANFL clubs in terms of membership probably run around the 2000-2500 member mark, at a guess?

So if we assume we need 3000 memberships at 5 clubs to gain a majority, at say $100 a pop for a membership with voting rights, we're looking at $150,000 in memberships to gain control of the SANFL.

I know there would be some resistance and campaigning against that which would push the price up, but ultimately, if mobilised correctly, the combined supporter base of the AFL clubs would absolutely dwarf the SANFL.

As i've said, I don't even think we need to do it, we just need to throw our weight around a bit and demand what is rightfully ours or burn their entire league to the ground IMO.

The clubs would have the right to refuse membership. I suspect once they figured out what was going on, they'd shut up shop fairly quickly. Or they could just change their constitutions to give voting rights only to members of a certain tenure, etc.

 

[Duck Farmer]

The clubs would have the right to refuse membership. I suspect once they figured out what was going on, they'd shut up shop fairly quickly. Or they could just change their constitutions to give voting rights only to members of a certain tenure, etc.

Didn't stop 30,000 Adolf Hitlers and one Godhate Sfages being signed up as Crows members.

 

[scotty13]

The clubs would have the right to refuse membership. I suspect once they figured out what was going on, they'd shut up shop fairly quickly. Or they could just change their constitutions to give voting rights only to members of a certain tenure, etc.

But to change a constitution don't you have to have members vote on that? and if there were over half of members being new members that vote would not get up?

How much would it actually cost though?

The bottom 5 SANFL clubs in terms of membership probably run around the 2000-2500 member mark, at a guess?
.

I would think 2500 members would be one of the bigger clubs? Surely a few clubs had under 1000 members last season?

 

[El_Scorcho]

But to change a constitution don't you have to have members vote on that? and if there were over half of members being new members that vote would not get up?



I would think 2500 members would be one of the bigger clubs? Surely a few clubs had under 1000 members last season?

Teekray is right that the clubs would put a stop to it if it was done overtly by refusing to accept memberships.

But ultimately it's like the #BringBackTheBars campaign. It's about swinging public opinion against the SANFL and calling them out for their incompetence, mismanagement and cronyism.

If the average everyday Port or Crows member understood the financial burden the SANFL is to the AFL clubs and what actually happens with that money, whipping up a public frenzy wouldn't be all that difficult.

Where else in the world do a small group of tinpot local sports clubs exert so much control over large professional sports clubs?

Personally, it'd be incredibly satisfying after some of the s**t we've been through over the past decade or so to have the spotlight turned back on the SANFL and the amount amount they take from Port and Crows supporters with very little oversight and for very little value for football in this state.

 

[Papa G]

Teekray is right that the clubs would put a stop to it if it was done overtly by refusing to accept memberships.

But ultimately it's like the #BringBackTheBars campaign. It's about swinging public opinion against the SANFL and calling them out for their incompetence, mismanagement and cronyism.

If the average everyday Port or Crows member understood the financial burden the SANFL is to the AFL clubs and what actually happens with that money, whipping up a public frenzy wouldn't be all that difficult.

Where else in the world do a small group of tinpot local sports clubs exert so much control over large professional sports clubs?

Personally, it'd be incredibly satisfying after some of the s**t we've been through over the past decade or so to have the spotlight turned back on the SANFL and the amount amount they take from Port and Crows supporters with very little oversight and for very little value for football in this state.

Wrinkles wrote it in his article. The SANFL was siphoning off 80% of the Crows profit for most of their existence. If I supported those idiots, I'd be incensed.

 

[scotty13]

Teekray is right that the clubs would put a stop to it if it was done overtly by refusing to accept memberships.

But ultimately it's like the #BringBackTheBars campaign. It's about swinging public opinion against the SANFL and calling them out for their incompetence, mismanagement and cronyism.

If the average everyday Port or Crows member understood the financial burden the SANFL is to the AFL clubs and what actually happens with that money, whipping up a public frenzy wouldn't be all that difficult.

Where else in the world do a small group of tinpot local sports clubs exert so much control over large professional sports clubs?

Personally, it'd be incredibly satisfying after some of the s**t we've been through over the past decade or so to have the spotlight turned back on the SANFL and the amount amount they take from Port and Crows supporters with very little oversight and for very little value for football in this state.

Yes the clubs would try and stop it... and Im not refuting that... but Teekray mentioned the changing of club constitution which I think would need a member vote to change, and for the smaller clubs such as Westies, who got $107,000 from memberships in 2018 = about 1,070 members on a $100 average, and maybe some of those members would not have voting rights, if PAFC and AFC got there membership up to 1,500 before the call for change to constitution it would not pass...

For the last few years I worked at a SANFL club (in the hospitality part not the football part, however knew everything happening), at all the AGM's that I was at the club they never made quorum without making all the footy players attend the meeting... so if 500 people rocked up that were new members, the voice they would have could almost force a takeover of the board.

 

[NTRabbit]

I'm probably wrong, but isn't that illegal, and how the SAJC ended up hauled before the courts?

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'm probably wrong, but isn't that illegal, and how the SAJC ended up hauled before the courts?

I'm pretty sure the SAJC stuff ended up avoiding court didn't it, because it couldn't be proved that they key players sought any personal gain?

As I understand it from my memory of the SAJC controversy, it would have to be shown that officers of organisations must work in the best interests of the organisation to which they'd been elected.

Here's the kicker:

It is absolutely in the best interests of football in this state and therefore for the SANFL clubs for Adelaide and Port to be as powerful as possible, and it's in the long term interest of every SANFL club to live more within their means and to not rely so heavily on the AFL clubs.

If an SANFL club were to argue in favour of lowering the salary cap, introducing a cap on football dept spending, more money poured into junior development, everyone would probably think that was perfectly reasonable.

If another club were to argue that it'd be great to have the expertise of Port and Adelaide in the SMA because they are large professional football clubs with higher quality people and the resources to get the most out of the stadium for everyone, I think most people would think that's perfectly reasonable as well in the long term interests of football in this state.

The SANFL will only become less and less relevant over time as people who have any sort of passion for the league die out. Continuing to see the AFL clubs as no more than cash cows to be milked will push SA football further and further behind the other states. Something needs to be done about it.

What's the general Crows supporter feeling about the SANFL? Is there any sort of resentment about the differences between how West Coast are treated and how Adelaide are treated?

 

[NTRabbit]

What's the general Crows supporter feeling about the SANFL? Is there any sort of resentment about the differences between how West Coast are treated and how Adelaide are treated?

There's certainly jealousy of how much money the Eagles have to blow on anything they want considering our relative positions, and resentment towards the SMA over the price gouging within the stadium, but I don't know how much of that is directed back at the SANFL. I mean, most fans under the age of 35 don't care about the SANFL and would probably struggle to even name a side if not for the reserves games.

 

[El_Scorcho]

There's certainly jealousy of how much money the Eagles have to blow on anything they want considering our relative positions, and resentment towards the SMA over the price gouging within the stadium, but I don't know how much of that is directed back at the SANFL. I mean, most fans under the age of 35 don't care about the SANFL and would probably struggle to even name a side if not for the reserves games.

Port have had more overt clashes with the SANFL over the years over the amount gouged from us, but Adelaide have undoubtedly lost more money down into the bottomless pit. I know the figure at one point was 80% of the Crows profits since 1991, unsure if that has changed since the move to Adelaide Oval and the licences changing hands but jesus christ that's eye watering.

It hasn't helped any of the SANFL clubs become more sustainable either, one still almost goes under every other year.