2019 Non-Crows AFL Chat #3 - the off-season

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was better upon initial move. Than others improved their deals too....
It was good because both clubs averaged high crowds. 50k crowds were regular.

But now both of us have seen a decrease in attendances.

As I said, this deal is geared towards maintaining high crowd numbers.

FP had more of a safety net for low crowds. But little real reward for capacity crowds.


To put it bluntly, any crowd below around 35k loses far more cash than that same crowd number at FP. But any crowds over 40k, the clubs get far more than they did at FP.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
But now both of us have seen a decrease in attendances.
I agree with what you said, but if we didn't move both of our crowds would be pitiful by now.

Even now with Port at a low pt our crowds are still around 10k higher at Adelaide Oval.

The deal just needs seriously looking at (again).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I agree with what you said, but if we didn't move both of our crowds would be pitiful by now.

Even now with Port at a low pt our crowds are still around 10k higher at Adelaide Oval.

The deal just needs seriously looking at (again).
And as I said, our club had the foresight to know the deal/financial set up sucked. We were forced to moved.

You guys jumped at it.

You guys are now realizing how bad the deal actually is.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
The deal at AO is better than AAMI (doesn't mean it's good compared to the rest of the league). Crowds are up.... Everything is better...

Except the SMA ruin it.

The fact we need to get around 40k or thereabouts to break even while Geelong can get half that and make a killing says all you need to know about how badly we are both being shafted.

You've hit the nail on the head, both clubs have too many mouths to feed.

It is ridiculous that Port can have a membership base like they do, get decent crowds and yet still lose money.

Unfortunately I have no idea what the answer is because the Sandfull are so financially entrenched into Adelaide Oval that there's no way around both clubs having to give a lion's share of the stadium profits to the SMA (SANFL)
 
Last edited:
You've hit the nail on the head, both clubs have too many mouths to feed.

It is ridiculous that Port can have a membership base like they do and get decent crowds and yet still lose money.

Unfortunately I have no idea what the answer is because the Sandfull are so financially entrenched into Adelaide Oval that there's no way around both clubs having to give a lion's share of the stadium profits to the SMA (SANFL)
As long as we wanna lay claim to the best league outside of the AFL....

******* pissant view. The sooner the SANFL relics move on the better.

Adelaide should be as big as WCE financially.

We'll never succeed when we are both propping up them.
 
Moving footy to the city was a good move, the way it happened was deplorable and symptomatic of the Demitriou era and Port’s desperation at the time, the back door dealing behind the backs of the two main stakeholders is typical of both entities.
Guess what, the same morons are complaining about the same problems they’ve brought on themselves and once again it’s everyone else’s fault.
God forbid it has anything to do with poor management and some of the flakiest front running supporters in the country.
F*** them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The problem in SA is that both us and Port are seen as cash cows to prop up the SA footy industry. The SANFL and the filter down.

The major earner for this now being the revenue from Adelaide Oval via the SMA .

Other states have accepted the AFL as the major funder of the sport in their states.

The SA Football Commission wont do this as they pride themselves on being "independent" of the AFL. And beat their chest about having the second best league. Despite AFL games being their main earners.

Our two clubs are the only two who bare the brunt of financially supporting an entire state's football industry.

Even WA accept AFL funding for their State programs.


Until this ethos changes we will never get a fair deal at AO.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Who runs Geelong's stadium?

Is there a group like the SMA who are ultimately responsible for getting it ready for cricket, football, hiring it out for concerts etc?

Then GFC effectively hires the ground from them?

The Kardinia Park Stadium Trust run the stadium. It is essentially a government department.
 
Gee, I wonder why Steve Marshall was at the announcement of the Gupta sponsorship at Port......


And yet was not seen at our Optus one. Despite Optus being the SA State Government Telecommunications vendor........

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Another ****ing Port supporting premier. Oh joy.
 
The problem in SA is that both us and Port are seen as cash cows to prop up the SA footy industry. The SANFL and the filter down.

The major earner for this now being the revenue from Adelaide Oval via the SMA .

Other states have accepted the AFL as the major funder of the sport in their states.

The SA Football Commission wont do this as they pride themselves on being "independent" of the AFL. And beat their chest about having the second best league. Despite AFL games being their main earners.

Our two clubs are the only two who bare the brunt of financially supporting an entire state's football industry.

Even WA accept AFL funding for their State programs.


Until this ethos changes we will never get a fair deal at AO.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
SANFL does accept AFL development money. I doubt the funding varies very much between the SANFL and WAFL.
Happy to be proven wrong if you’ve got solid figures.
 
Haven’t made a decent profit in years, no profit from China, so where’s the money coming from?
There’s heaps of afl clubs in millions of debt, why are you so certain you’re not one of them?
Where’s your facts to back up your statement?

Here are their 2018 Financials

An asset revaluation and a new borrowing of $4.5m - given what has happened this year regarding crowds, membership and sponsorship I would suggest the debt is larger now.

 
The rumours about Port's debt have been around for a while now.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/st-kil...lda-over-10-million-of-bad-debt-ng-b88767666z

The Saints, Brisbane and Port Adelaide are the three clubs carrying the heaviest debt.

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said St Kilda’s bad debt runs at more than $10 million.


This was in March last year, from memory I think Caro once said that Port were apparently second behind St Kilda with Brisbane not far behind.

It's not a stretch at all that Port are more than likely close to 10 million in debt.

What amazes me is why does anyone think that the AFL PAFC would be any different to the SANFL PAFC.

For all the success the PAFC had in the SANFL (god knows how many flags since 1870) it didn't translate financially - the AFL entity is no different.

And why?

It is the demographic that follows the club. End of story.
 
SANFL does accept AFL development money. I doubt the funding varies very much between the SANFL and WAFL.
Happy to be proven wrong if you’ve got solid figures.
I was basing the funding from AFL on hearsay so not a hard fact.

However the prevailing attitude of the AFL clubs being used as cash cows for the SANFL does limit us.

We would be as big as WCE (probably bigger) if we were not treated that way.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top