Adelaide Oval Review

OneGreatClub

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Posts
31,717
Likes
32,123
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
This is just Port propaganda, accepted by you without question

The SANFL kept Port out of the AFL for one reason. At the time. there was ONLY the SANFL and its clubs. They all agreed on a united front on the question of AFL entry.

Port broke their word and went behind the backs of the other clubs.

That's why they aren't trusted.

That is fact.

As for the $70 million. which I don't accept, even at AAMI there was a stadium return, so a fair bit of it went straight back to Port.

Then there's the usual Port lack of understanding about revenue and profit.

Apart from that, the rest of your post is the usual Port post, blaming the SANFL for all your shortcomings.
"Usual port lack of understanding about revenue and profit?", maybe replace the word 'Port' with SANFL and then you are closer to the truth.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Posts
21,579
Likes
9,403
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
What

The SANFL was receiving $12 Million at AAMI, as Kane McGoodwin agreed, to get the SANFL to even sit at the same table as the SACA the SA government and AFL had to guarantee a few non negotiables, and not to think an increase on their existing return was a non negotiable is ignorant. So it has been reported they received $14.9 Million an uplift of $2.9 Million on their current position.

I have said all along if they budgeted for say an increase of $1.5 Million give back the $1.4 Million.

Share the $1.4 Million between the parties and all will be happy say $750 to the crows and $650K to the power based on percentages, how would you feel about that?

After all the SA government and AFL obviously offered then some sort of increase or benefit in return for them to move.
Where the clubs differ wrt wanting more than 1/3 split is that it sounds as if the contract was slightly skewed in favour of the clubs at the lower end of the scale, in favour of the SANFL from the lower end up to whatever the estimates were, and to go back to that 70% figure they always talk about the bit on top needs to be skewed in favour of the clubs again.

Why they (all parties involved) made it so stupidly complicated is anyone's guess.

If it really is $5 mil that they are debating about for 2014 I think we will not end up with a 4-1 in favour of the clubs break up, but probably closer to 3-2 and a very different set up from next year onwards, but that is only a guess based on all that has been reported and "leaked" over the last few months.
 

crowsup

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
1,749
Likes
1,167
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
What

The SANFL was receiving $12 Million at AAMI, as Kane McGoodwin agreed, to get the SANFL to even sit at the same table as the SACA the SA government and AFL had to guarantee a few non negotiables, and not to think an increase on their existing return was a non negotiable is ignorant. So it has been reported they received $14.9 Million an uplift of $2.9 Million on their current position.

I have said all along if they budgeted for say an increase of $1.5 Million give back the $1.4 Million.

Share the $1.4 Million between the parties and all will be happy say $750 to the crows and $650K to the power based on percentages, how would you feel about that?

After all the SA government and AFL obviously offered then some sort of increase or benefit in return for them to move.
Was the $12M they were making at AAMI before of after they gave Port $2M and the AFC $1M in assistance?
 

Sanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
25,451
Likes
32,869
AFL Club
Adelaide
Here you go sprouting poop again
Not making as much as the SANFL expected or wanted is one thing but not even the SANFL has said that they were losing money in games at AAMI. Port was not able to sell home games interstate because ...?
So you're saying mismanaging and squandering an incredibly valuable right is ok, just as long as you contribute something?

What nonsense :)
 

Sanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
25,451
Likes
32,869
AFL Club
Adelaide
Who gives a flying **** what you accept.

Take about 15 million out of the 70 as direct payments - license fees etc - hard to dispute those. That leaves 55 million spread over 18 seasons which is a little over three million a season. The SANFL themselves acknowledge over 180 million of generated profit from the afl clubs over about 25 years. Take out the direct license payments etc and 3 million a year from port is a more than reasonable estimate.
When you put it like that it's really an appalling return. Not sure why you're so proud of such terrible performance
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Where the clubs differ wrt wanting more than 1/3 split is that it sounds as if the contract was slightly skewed in favour of the clubs at the lower end of the scale, in favour of the SANFL from the lower end up to whatever the estimates were, and to go back to that 70% figure they always talk about the bit on top needs to be skewed in favour of the clubs again.

Why they (all parties involved) made it so stupidly complicated is anyone's guess.

If it really is $5 mil that they are debating about for 2014 I think we will not end up with a 4-1 in favour of the clubs break up, but probably closer to 3-2 and a very different set up from next year onwards, but that is only a guess based on all that has been reported and "leaked" over the last few months.

You could be correct that the deal was too complexed , however that begs a number of important questions if that was the case

1. Who wanted the assurance of a good return for the AFL clubs even with a low crowd.

A The AFL would like that as they would be the ones now funding losses.
B The clubs insures against any major losses
c The SANFL they would obviously take greater risk on low crowds but greater gain on large crowds

As for skewering in favour at certain levels of crowds, by setting up such an agreement the basic principal has the party taking more risk on a lower crowd deserves a greater gain on higher crowds. Simple theory of a higher rate of return for risk.

It all comes back to when the footy was at AAMI and the crowds weren't fantastic the SANFL received $12 million, the AFL and SA Government promised them a number of things in an attempt to get them to shift and no doubt one would have been a greater return if the crowds came. If this is taken away from the SANFL should they go back to these parties and take litigation action against them. Because even Foley said it took some serious offerings to even get the SANFL and SACA to talk. So if the deal is changed to see the SANFL receive less than AAMI who has been defrauded, considering Im sure the SANFL had this in a written an agreement. And yes there was a review included but totally reliant on the goodwill of the SANFL.
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Posts
21,579
Likes
9,403
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
So are you saying the clubs should do all the work to promote the games, plus associated expenses, but not get one cent more than a fixed sum regardless of how many turn up?

That is a very silly thing to say.
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
So are you saying the clubs should do all the work to promote the games, plus associated expenses, but not get one cent more than a fixed sum regardless of how many turn up?

That is a very silly thing to say.

No, what I am saying is which has clearly been quoted by Foley, the SANFL and SACA wouldn't even talk to each other, never mind trying and do a deal. The AFL and State Government offered both organisations something to even consider the move. The first and most obvious that would have been offered would have been the return that they would be receiving and comparing it to their existing returns. Do you think the SANFL would have even entertained anything without the promise or even guarantee from the AFL and State Government that they would benefit financially. Well that is evident considering a deal was created and signed by all parties. The review was just that a review without any need to change but would be out of goodwill of the SANFL.

So to answer you question the SANFL would have been promised a return greater than that of the $12 million they were receiving at AAMI. What do you think they should do if in fact this is revised and was not the case? So regardless of the work the clubs do the SANFL will and should hold the State Government and AFL to their offerings in getting them to agree to the deal. Or should we call he AFL and State Government, Indian givers!
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Posts
21,579
Likes
9,403
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Sorry marty but you can be confusing as all we get to see is negating "debates".

What do you actually think the review us about and what a likely outcome could or should be?
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Sorry marty but you can be confusing as all we get to see is negating "debates".

What do you actually think the review us about and what a likely outcome could or should be?

Likely outcome should be the SANFL retain an uplift as would have been promised by the AFL and State government

So saying this based purely on the reported figures of this year

The $12 million will remain regardless of numbers or based on the AAMI crowds and based on last years numbers say an increase of $1.5 million

This leaves the left over $1.4 Million to go to the clubs based on there percentages so say approx. $750K Crows and $650K power

What are your thoughts on that, based purely on the reported historical figures quoted?
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Posts
21,579
Likes
9,403
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Likely outcome should be the SANFL retain an uplift as would have been promised by the AFL and State government

So saying this based purely on the reported figures of this year

The $12 million will remain regardless of numbers or based on the AAMI crowds and based on last years numbers say an increase of $1.5 million

This leaves the left over $1.4 Million to go to the clubs based on there percentages so say approx. $750K Crows and $650K power

What are your thoughts on that, based purely on the reported historical figures quoted?
Nah no thoughts on anyone else's opinion apart from those who are too far left or too far right, so to speak.

My opinion has never changed. Sounds as if they were trying to work towards a formula but ****** up.
Having read quotes linked to many people, who would know more details than they would be able to make public, I do believe that it turned out too much in favour if the SANFL, but one must then assume that it could gave easily ended up the other way and that too would have been wrong.
Short of it, fix it and make it less complicated and more transparent.

Part two is that it seems the SANFL is trying too hard to pretend it hasn't ****** up and are playing politics for short term gains rather than looking at the long term.
 
Last edited:

Jello_B

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Posts
3,793
Likes
2,524
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
No, what I am saying is which has clearly been quoted by Foley, the SANFL and SACA wouldn't even talk to each other, never mind trying and do a deal. The AFL and State Government offered both organisations something to even consider the move. The first and most obvious that would have been offered would have been the return that they would be receiving and comparing it to their existing returns. Do you think the SANFL would have even entertained anything without the promise or even guarantee from the AFL and State Government that they would benefit financially. Well that is evident considering a deal was created and signed by all parties. The review was just that a review without any need to change but would be out of goodwill of the SANFL.

So to answer you question the SANFL would have been promised a return greater than that of the $12 million they were receiving at AAMI. What do you think they should do if in fact this is revised and was not the case? So regardless of the work the clubs do the SANFL will and should hold the State Government and AFL to their offerings in getting them to agree to the deal. Or should we call he AFL and State Government, Indian givers!
And this is the problem, the SANFL are a business that do not have the financial interest of the AFL teams as their priority interest. As you have stated above the SANFL would only move to AO (which surely everyone would agree has been a success) unless it was their own interest, not the interest of the AFL teams.
Hence why I would say that the AFL teams need to get as far away from the SANFL as possible. I wouldn't care if the government are called Indian givers, if the SANFL don't want to give up control, the State, AFL and PAFC/Crows should combine to drain the SANFL financially dry through the courts if they have to. As you said this is business, the State/AFL/PAFC/Crows combined should be able to kill the smaller SANFL, happens all the time in business.
 

QPower

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Posts
3,360
Likes
3,596
Location
The Chestnut Tree Cafe
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port
My understanding is the SANFL was promised they would not be worse off as a result of the move and new governance arrangements in SA footy. This includes stadium return and also includes the $45 million provided to them by the AFL for game development and the license fees they will receive from the AFL clubs.
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Nah no thoughts on anyone else's opinion apart from those who are too far left or too far right, so to speak.

My opinion has never changed. Sounds as if they were trying to work towards a formula but stuffed up.
Having read quotes linked to many people, who would know more details than they would be able to make public, I do believe that it turned out too much in favour if the SANFL, but one must then assume that it could gave easily ended up the other way and that too would have been wrong.
Short of it, fix it and make it less complicated and more transparent.

Part two is that it seems the SANFL is trying to hard to pretend it hasn't stuffed up and are playing politics for short term gains rather than looking at the long term.
Fair call on other peoples opinions, I personally am thinking those figures quoted would be accurate and see the split up should be as I said. Based primarily on what it took the AFL and State Government to get the SANFL and SACA to agree. Jay has quoted he doesn't want the Ovals reputation tarnished but would be fully aware of what was offered to the SANFL to get them to move, and would be hoping a compromise can be made.

No doubt the final announcement will have more than those uplifts but including cost savings by the SMA and Marketing initiatives, so as I said before will be full of smoke and mirrors, but one thing is for certain there is only so much to go around and to not allow one party to get an uplift would also be wrong as one getting too much is wrong!
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Posts
21,579
Likes
9,403
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
My understanding is the SANFL was promised they would not be worse off as a result of the move and new governance arrangements in SA footy. This includes stadium return and also includes the $45 million provided to them by the AFL for game development and the license fees they will receive from the AFL clubs.
Yep, however we don't know how much of an increase the $45mil is on what they got in the past.
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
And this is the problem, the SANFL are a business that do not have the financial interest of the AFL teams as their priority interest. As you have stated above the SANFL would only move to AO (which surely everyone would agree has been a success) unless it was their own interest, not the interest of the AFL teams.
Hence why I would say that the AFL teams need to get as far away from the SANFL as possible. I wouldn't care if the government are called Indian givers, if the SANFL don't want to give up control, the State, AFL and PAFC/Crows should combine to drain the SANFL financially dry through the courts if they have to. As you said this is business, the State/AFL/PAFC/Crows combined should be able to kill the smaller SANFL, happens all the time in business.

Correct but the SANFL primary interest is SA footy , as they are the governing body of football in this state

If the State Government and AFL promised something or guaranteed something should they stand by it?
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
My understanding is the SANFL was promised they would not be worse off as a result of the move and new governance arrangements in SA footy. This includes stadium return and also includes the $45 million provided to them by the AFL for game development and the license fees they will receive from the AFL clubs.

If you were honest with yourself, don't you think the SANFL's first and most important question was, what return will we be getting from the AO for us to even consider the move, apart from the other offshoots?
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Posts
21,579
Likes
9,403
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Fair call on other peoples opinions, I personally am thinking those figures quoted would be accurate and see the split up should be as I said. Based primarily on what it took the AFL and State Government to get the SANFL and SACA to agree. Jay has quoted he doesn't want the Ovals reputation tarnished but would be fully aware of what was offered to the SANFL to get them to move, and would be hoping a compromise can be made.

No doubt the final announcement will have more than those uplifts but including cost savings by the SMA and Marketing initiatives, so as I said before will be full of smoke and mirrors, but one thing is for certain there is only so much to go around and to not allow one party to get an uplift would also be wrong as one getting too much is wrong!
The only figure that has been quoted I've paid any attention to is the supposed $5mil they are debating over.
Wrt other figures it is too complicated as there are more things that come into play wrt the total package than just stadium returns, including what QPower mentioned.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
1,022
Likes
766
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide
And this is the problem, the SANFL are a business that do not have the financial interest of the AFL teams as their priority interest. As you have stated above the SANFL would only move to AO (which surely everyone would agree has been a success) unless it was their own interest, not the interest of the AFL teams.
Hence why I would say that the AFL teams need to get as far away from the SANFL as possible. I wouldn't care if the government are called Indian givers, if the SANFL don't want to give up control, the State, AFL and PAFC/Crows should combine to drain the SANFL financially dry through the courts if they have to. As you said this is business, the State/AFL/PAFC/Crows combined should be able to kill the smaller SANFL, happens all the time in business.
It shouldn't be about powerful bodies 'killing' a smaller body.

Secondly, the reality is that the SANFL have an 80 year contract. If it went to the courts, my opinion would be that the AFL and the clubs wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

If you say this happens all the time in business, perhaps you could let me know how the AFL and clubs would drain the SANFL financially through the courts (forgetting the total lack of morality shown)?
 
Top Bottom