Adelaide Giants Discussion Thread

[ad victoriam]

Who's on first?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Damm, I knew we should have pushed harder to get Watts.

 

[brucetiki]

The assertion that global corporations won’t put their brand on a global competition, just because our domestic competition is unpopular, is wrong. Don’t be surprised when Bite run out with Toyota corporate branding.

The A – League is consistently thrashed by Big Bash as a spectator sport and as a TV drawcard. Emirates still brand Melbourne City as that’s the parent (Manchester City) sponsor.

As for the logic of the AFC obtaining the Bite. It would appear a clever way for them to build brand ‘Adelaide’, build revenue through cross sponsorship and cross memberships and avoid the forced socialism of the AFL. The AFL forces us to cough up money we earn to prop up other crappy teams, which IMO is grossly unfair. What if sponsorship deals were signed that included our cross code teams? The AFL doesn’t get a cent of that money, only the revenue related to the Crows. We get to spread that money across extra resources and the associated costs across those teams as well, for things like player development, medical and training facilities. The AFL can’t tell Adelaide how much it spends in another league, so we wiggle out from the soft cap.

Yes, I understand the thought that we are spreading ourselves thin, but we only do so at this point as we have had toxic debts (thanks Trigg), because the AFL artificially limits how much we can spend AND it penalises us for how much we earn.

The Camry Bite, proudly brought to you by SA Power Networks

 

[ad victoriam]

1. Then how can we afford it?
2. How do we manage this? Can the AFL then penalise us for salary shifting?
3. Is this then a vehicle for money laundering?

I keep hearing about the soft cap on footy spending . we can afford a baseball team but not the best fitness people

Actually, it has not cost us anything, we got granted the Licence no charge. Running the Bite is where the costs occur and so far its cost effective.

Where one advantage lies is in sharing resources ie training facilities, medical recovery rooms, Recovery equipment. Can almost guarantee The Bite will be using the Crows training facility, for recovery
Adding the Bite to the team's list will allow the Crows to acquire extra equipment that will not fall under the AFL soft Cap.
Remember one of the reasons for the soft cap was to make it even for all teams to have the same resources and high tech equipment.
For those unsure of the Soft Cap this is a good read.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-02/making-the-new-cap-fit
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-08/soft-cap-limit-to-remain-as-coaches-feel-the-pinch

And yes I believe it could be with dual sponsorship deals across all the teams.
And the Clubs Digital Media production will improve with the Bite on the Books as they will gain more exposure,

 

[NTRabbit]

1. Then how can we afford it?
2. How do we manage this? Can the AFL then penalise us for salary shifting?
3. Is this then a vehicle for money laundering?

I keep hearing about the soft cap on footy spending . we can afford a baseball team but not the best fitness people

It's potentially a legal money dodge that lets us use non-football money to hire people and pay for equipment and facilities outside the soft spending cap, and shift losses around to avoid luxury tax.

 

[GreyCrow]

Actually, it has not cost us anything, we got granted the Licence no charge. Running the Bite is where the costs occur and so far its cost effective.

Where one advantage lies is in sharing resources ie training facilities, medical recovery rooms, Recovery equipment. Can almost guarantee The Bite will be using the Crows training facility, for recovery

Vale Bite players

If we are sharing resources then how can it be cost effective? what better resources do the Bite have over us? If they dont then isnt that doubling of resources? Dont the Bite train and play at West Beach ? Medical management should still be done at The Bites home ground. Apart from Monday morning medicals there is no change.

Adding the Bite to the team's list will allow the Crows to acquire extra equipment that will not fall under the AFL soft Cap.
Remember one of the reasons for the soft cap was to make it even for all teams to have the same resources and high tech equipment.
For those unsure of the Soft Cap this is a good read.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-02/making-the-new-cap-fit
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-08/soft-cap-limit-to-remain-as-coaches-feel-the-pinch

Cant you see the AFL then penalising us for having better?

And yes I believe it could be with dual sponsorship deals across all the teams.
And the Clubs Digital Media production will improve with the Bite on the Books as they will gain more exposure,

Dual sponsorship doesnt necessarily mean more money though.

 

[NTRabbit]

Cant you see the AFL then penalising us for having better?

Depends how many other clubs follow the land rush - Collingwood already owns a Netball team (the Giants don't though, they just have a commercial partnership with the actual owners in Netball NSW), and both Essendon and Hawthorn have been strongly linked with purchasing NBL licenses.

 

[CrowEater888]

1. Then how can we afford it?
2. How do we manage this? Can the AFL then penalise us for salary shifting?
3. Is this then a vehicle for money laundering?

I keep hearing about the soft cap on footy spending . we can afford a baseball team but not the best fitness people

1) Since we moved to the AO revenues have increased significantly, mostly through memberships and sponsorship.
We need new revenue streams outside the control of the AFL and remember the AFC don’t do pokies.

2) The AFC has opened a new company that manages all of our brands, including the AFC, under one corporate banner. All of these brands (Bite, Sixers, E Sports) are subject to corporation’s law, but the AFC is also subject to the rules of AFL corporate governance (socialism, cough).

I don't know how much you know about company taxation, but all companies have things called intercompany transactions. How can the AFL penalise the AFC’s parent company for say: creating a massive training facility that is used and paid for by all 3 sporting codes? Legally, it can’t. Those other brands are not under its control. It can only impose its socialism on what the AFC earns, or spends, within the context of the VF...I mean AFL.

3) If you think that is money laundering, then I don’t think you know what money laundering really is.

Agreed, we need to do much, much better in this regard.

 

[ManInTheArena]

...In Clarkes presser for his role as the coach of the AFLW he mentioned along the lines of ' its a part time role as is the Ruck Coach role, I also spend time in the commercial dept to give me something to do ' (paraphrase)

I understand Reilly also splits his roles between the Legacy position and his Development position.

Ok thats a fair use of an employees time and if it can be done then great, but is 100% being given to either role?

The issue for me are the higher roles. When I arrived at the company I run now, we had three different divisions. Two were contributing 20% of our revenue and one was contributing 80%. After expenses, the two were contributing 5% of our profit. First thing I did was chop them and focus on our core business. Before that happened at least 25% of my time and head space was taken up by the other two divisions, and it would have been more if I didn't know I was going to chop them, and the same for the six executives in my team. From there down, it didn't really make too much difference because employees were split into the divisions, but out of the top seven people in the organisation, not including the board, how many opportunities did we miss in our core business because we were spread across other divisions which were not our core business? its unquantifiable because we don't have alternate universes to find out but it would have been a lot.

There is a lot of research on visions and missions, and companies that know why they exist and don't divert from it. Focus on a core mission is absolutely the best way to run a business.

 

[Geoffa32]

I personally think the main crossover will be in the marketing and PR.

Right now the Bite have no Profesional PR/marketing staff. We provide that to gain corporate support for the Bite.

The carrot is the supposed riches in Asia associated with Baseball. Long term these may flow on to the rest of the club.


Or like Aussie Rules in China the revamped ABL could end up a failure.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[brucetiki]

I personally think the main crossover will be in the marketing and PR.

Right now the Bite have no Profesional PR/marketing staff. We provide that to gain corporate support for the Bite.

The carrot is the supposed riches in Asia associated with Baseball. Long term these may flow on to the rest of the club.


Or like Aussie Rules in China the revamped ABL could end up a failure.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

FWIW, there's a New Zealand team entering the ABL too, so we'll get more exposure across the Tasman too. That will be icing on the cake though in comparison to Asia though - and without the need to irritate another club to play a match in an empty Shanghai stadium.

 

[PrideOf]

If we don't rename them the Adelaide Blight, then we're not really serious.

 

[MRB37]

The issue for me are the higher roles. When I arrived at the company I run now, we had three different divisions. Two were contributing 20% of our revenue and one was contributing 80%. After expenses, the two were contributing 5% of our profit. First thing I did was chop them and focus on our core business. Before that happened at least 25% of my time and head space was taken up by the other two divisions, and it would have been more if I didn't know I was going to chop them, and the same for the six executives in my team. From there down, it didn't really make too much difference because employees were split into the divisions, but out of the top seven people in the organisation, not including the board, how many opportunities did we miss in our core business because we were spread across other divisions which were not our core business? its unquantifiable because we don't have alternate universes to find out but it would have been a lot.

There is a lot of research on visions and missions, and companies that know why they exist and don't divert from it. Focus on a core mission is absolutely the best way to run a business.

I think part of the problem is they don't see much more or any more further growth in the core business. What do you do then? It's not like the football club itself is delivering tens of millions of dollars in profit into the club. They've chosen not to get involved in the hospitality industry like most other clubs have, so what other way is there to grow the pie?

 

[VSTone]

Damm, I knew we should have pushed harder to get Watts.

i'm sure I Dont Know

 

[Crowked]

I’d rather we just footballed properly.

 

[headache1]

I think part of the problem is they don't see much more or any more further growth in the core business. What do you do then? It's not like the football club itself is delivering tens of millions of dollars in profit into the club. They've chosen not to get involved in the hospitality industry like most other clubs have, so what other way is there to grow the pie?

Well when you're a professional football club, ideally you win premierships.

 

[MRB37]

Well when you're a professional football club, ideally you win premierships.

We're maxed out in terms of members and sponsorships already. If we're talking about the club making money we don't have a lot of growth regardless of team success coming or not.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's potentially a legal money dodge that lets us use non-football money to hire people and pay for equipment and facilities outside the soft spending cap, and shift losses around to avoid luxury tax.

The baseball team has hired a new ruck coach?

 

[NTRabbit]

The baseball team has hired a new ruck coach?

The catcher is looking forward to working with his new tackling coach

 

[Sanders]

You talk about conglomeration being a 80/90s idea.

Then tell us your great idea is to buy pokies.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of words let alone the principles they convey

 

[Sanders]

No, feedback provided by team leaders. Asking you if that starts with players in leadership group or with the line coaches. I was asking for an opinion.

That’s an irrelevancy

 

[Sanders]

The issue for me are the higher roles. When I arrived at the company I run now, we had three different divisions. Two were contributing 20% of our revenue and one was contributing 80%. After expenses, the two were contributing 5% of our profit. First thing I did was chop them and focus on our core business. Before that happened at least 25% of my time and head space was taken up by the other two divisions, and it would have been more if I didn't know I was going to chop them, and the same for the six executives in my team. From there down, it didn't really make too much difference because employees were split into the divisions, but out of the top seven people in the organisation, not including the board, how many opportunities did we miss in our core business because we were spread across other divisions which were not our core business? its unquantifiable because we don't have alternate universes to find out but it would have been a lot.

There is a lot of research on visions and missions, and companies that know why they exist and don't divert from it. Focus on a core mission is absolutely the best way to run a business.

Bravo

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Leading teams was based around that Ray McLean guys army experiences wasn't it? Taking methods that had stood the test of time in that highly structured environment and bringing them to football's increasingly structured environment.

A ton of clubs were doing it initially. Swans and Saints (when they were good) from memory. Seems to have gone out of vogue.

I've always found that peer review stuff in a formal setting a waste of time. People hold grudges. Truths are withheld. These are people you have to work with on a daily basis. So everyone tiptoes around the truth and only offers up the tactful bits of feedback that will be palatable. And when actual hard truths are put forward this gets held against you later.

I remember Warwick Todd offering up "drop Taylor" as his suggestion during Mark Taylor's form slump.

 

[Sanders]

I don't know how much you know about company taxation, but all companies have things called intercompany transactions. How can the AFL penalise the AFC’s parent company for say: creating a massive training facility that is used and paid for by all 3 sporting codes? Legally, it can’t.

Inter company transactions and transfer pricing agreements are eminently challengable by various authorities and regularly are

In fact it’s very common for them to be set aside if they are not fully documented, at arms lengths, at market rates, cash settled regularly on time etc etc

They are not a magic solution and are highly complex instruments to get right

Witness Starbucks, Google, Amazon etc

 

[SaltPeter]

That’s an irrelevancy

Thanks. Will re-read later the articles later. From memory there was nothing particularly unknown or new shared regarding the shortfalls of LT or 360 style programs from the Forbes article. The 2 Harvard articles came from the same source. Will read again when when I have a little more time.

Anyway, thanks for the links, have a pleasant evening.

 

[Sanders]

Thanks. Will re-read later the articles later. From memory there was nothing particularly unknown or new shared regarding the shortfalls of LT or 360 style programs from the Forbes article. The 2 Harvard articles came from the same source. Will read again when when I have a little more time.

Anyway, thanks for the links, have a pleasant evening.

there’s not much below the surface of these trite sound bites and cliches is there?

Pretty clear it was all unknown to you until material was given as you seemed unaware of these positions at all

And as for discrediting Forbes and the Harvard Business Review... well...

Good luck with that. I’m out