Adelaide Oval Review

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Given the SANFL themselves said they only wanted status quo - either the answer is no or the SANFL has been lying.

But I'd think knowing you can't upgrade your stadium, are carrying debt and dropping crowds status quo is a good thing - especially when you get to keep the land and sell as needed


So to entice the impassable the Government and AFL said you will receive the same as your getting regardless of the projected increase in attendances. And your telling me they said that's exactly what they wanted. Maybe Status QUO on the existing numbers for the corresponding income if numbers where higher at AAMI they would have received greater income, that sounds more like status quo and sounds like what they got.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
So to entice the impassable the Government and AFL said you will receive the same as your getting regardless of the projected increase in attendances. And your telling me they said that's exactly what they wanted. Maybe Status QUO on the existing numbers for the corresponding income if numbers where higher at AAMI they would have received greater income, that sounds more like status quo and sounds like what they got.
Status quo is better than going backwards and having 100 million plus of upgrades required with no funding source to remain relevant.
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
We know the SANFL jumped at the chance of reducing their huge debt by freeing up the land at West Lakes for sale by moving AFL games to the city, debt which they would not have been able to reduce otherwise.


We are led to believe that what happens with the rest of the deal is still being worked out at the moment until the announcement is made.


Wow you have had such an opinion on how the SANFL are ripping everyone of for their so called greed, I would have thought the very first question they would have asked the AFL and SA government would be, considering how greedy they are, and what will our return be and if they were receiving an increase on higher numbers.

Guess you only have an opinion on what you want to and avoid what you don't!
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Status quo is better than going backwards and having 100 million plus of upgrades required with no funding source to remain relevant.

Your talk rubbish like I said if they were as greedy as you mentioned the AFL and SA government would have to make sure that greed on the return they would receive was fed! But No just miss that little problem no one wants to address!
 

RonSon

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Posts
9,708
Likes
9,095
Location
Ahoy me arteries
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chelsea, Bluejays, 36'ers, Pistons
Wow you have had such an opinion on how the SANFL are ripping everyone of for their so called greed, I would have thought the very first question they would have asked the AFL and SA government would be, considering how greedy they are, and what will our return be and if they were receiving an increase on higher numbers.

Guess you only have an opinion on what you want to and avoid what you don't!

What on earth are you talking about? Nothing in your post addresses my post what so ever. I don't mention the SANFLs greed at all.

Why even bother quoting me when all you do is build irrelevant strawmen?
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
1,022
Likes
766
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide
Status quo is better than going backwards and having 100 million plus of upgrades required with no funding source to remain relevant.
Your idea of relevance is AFL football and nothing else.

The SANFL is extremely relevant to the rest of the football community outside the corporate world of AFL.

There's room for both to be relevant.
 

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
Your talk rubbish like I said if they were as greedy as you mentioned the AFL and SA government would have to make sure that greed on the return they would receive was fed! But No just miss that little problem no one wants to address!
I assume the little problem you refer to is your lack of ability to find anything to support your constants hair brained theories ?
 

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
Your idea of relevance is AFL football and nothing else.

The SANFL is extremely relevant to the rest of the football community outside the corporate word of AFL.

There's room for both to be relevant.
How relevant is sanfl really ?
You needed an afl club to negotiate to get you a tv deal. ***edit afl club was involved in getting a sponsor involved - not the deal itself ***

Ultimately afl is much more relevant than sanfl to more people - and I still watch sanfl. SANFL is finding its place and its challenge is to survive and grow.

My idea of relevance referred to the oval not the Como.
 
Last edited:

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I assume the little problem you refer to is your lack of ability to find anything to support your constants hair brained theories ?

Your kidding, the greediest organisation on earth according to you and when asked to move, they didn't ask what was in it for them? Have you conveniently forgotten to answer how the AFL and Gov got the SANFL to agree to the move?
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
How relevant is sanfl really ?
You needed an afl club to negotiate to get you a tv deal.

Ultimately afl is much more relevant than sanfl to more people - and I still watch sanfl. SANFL is finding its place and its challenge is to survive and grow.

My idea of relevance referred to the oval not the Como.

The SANFL is the most important part of SA grass Roots footy, if your not interested in that, then no they are irrelevant, considering they are the governing body!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think you're missing my point...
It does not matter so much what was offered. The SANFL should and will concede.

Oh it doesn't matter that the AFL and SA government duped them, sold them the world but once delivered took it back even with an agreement that was signed and sealed by all parties.

The SANFL will concede but only to a certain degree, how would you feel about an additional $650K pa
 

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
Your kidding, the greediest organisation on earth according to you and when asked to move, they didn't ask what was in it for them? Have you conveniently forgotten to answer how the AFL and Gov got the SANFL to agree to the move?
Yes - they came to the conclusion not moving would result in going backwards as port was falling over and the crows going backwards at the venue. The government weren't going to help and the afl were pressing them. What was in it for them was the status quo.
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,401
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Yes - they came to the conclusion not moving would result in going backwards as port was falling over and the crows going backwards at the venue. The government weren't going to help and the afl were pressing them. What was in it for them was the status quo.

So status Quo shows they received $12 million with the low numbers at AAMI you could almost guarantee the numbers that the AO is producing the SANFL would have been receiving a similar amount at AAMI to that of what they received at AO. So yes Status Quo seems the case in terms of returns on numbers through the gate!
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
1,022
Likes
766
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide
How relevant is sanfl really ?
You needed an afl club to negotiate to get you a tv deal.

Ultimately afl is much more relevant than sanfl to more people - and I still watch sanfl. SANFL is finding its place and its challenge is to survive and grow.

My idea of relevance referred to the oval not the Como.
The TV deal wasn't negotiated by the AFL. Another of your sweeping statements with no factual basis.

I agree the AFL is more relevant to people than the SANFL, but that's not relevant to the AO debate.

I also agree the SANFL faces many challenges in a new world for them.

One is to be wary of AFL clubs mouthing platitudes about helping the SANFL to get their Reserves into the competition, then hammering them publicly on the stadium deal.
 

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
So status Quo shows they received $12 million with the low numbers at AAMI you could almost guarantee the numbers that the AO is producing the SANFL would have been receiving a similar amount at AAMI to that of what they received at AO. So yes Status Quo seems the case in terms of returns on numbers through the gate!
And yet YOU say they are getting an uplift. Which is it ?

Simple question - if projections showed staying at aami (a naming sponsor they got because of afl exposure) would have seen revenue go backwards is it good business sense to take a status quo elsewhere ?
 

beagle2

Team Captain
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
351
Likes
44
Location
West Lakes
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
ADELAIDE
So status Quo shows they received $12 million with the low numbers at AAMI you could almost guarantee the numbers that the AO is producing the SANFL would have been receiving a similar amount at AAMI to that of what they received at AO. So yes Status Quo seems the case in terms of returns on numbers through the gate![/QUOTE

Three million went to Port so they only received about nine net
 

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
The TV deal wasn't negotiated by the AFL. Another of your sweeping statements with no factual basis.

I agree the AFL is more relevant to people than the SANFL, but that's not relevant to the AO debate.

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...weekly-telecasts/story-e6frfkp9-1226755214903
The production package offered by Eddie McGuire's Melbourne-based media company also will boost the SANFL's image on the Internet and social media.

Negotiations for sponsors to bankroll the SANFL's return to commercial television - for the first time since 1991 - are down to one final backer that has been brought to the talks by the Port Adelaide Football Club. The deal could be closed by next Friday.

With the finances secrured, the SA Football Commission at the end of the month is expected to endorse the McGuire deal that will have SANFL games shown on Channel Seven's sports-dedicated 7-Mate digital signal.
I'd also ask you to identify the CEO of McGuire media and his relationship to footy in sa.

Ps - I said afl club - and should have said - brought to negotiations ....or facilitated.

Pps - I believe the final backer may have been referred as part of ports foodbank engagement so you would need to identify a good related sponsor signed up in November 2013
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
1,022
Likes
766
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide
No, it's another example of you extrapolating one part of something to become 100% of the deal.

Port introduced one backer.

Eddie is the CEO of MM.

The SANFL negotiated the deal.

As you said, Port facilitated the last bit of the deal.
 

Jello_B

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Posts
3,793
Likes
2,524
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Oh it doesn't matter that the AFL and SA government duped them, sold them the world but once delivered took it back even with an agreement that was signed and sealed by all parties.

The SANFL will concede but only to a certain degree, how would you feel about an additional $650K pa
I don't know the inner works of the dealings so it is difficult to comment but I'll try. Any profit over and above what the SANFL needs to run their organisation should go to the AFL teams so they can be leading the AFL in spend. The SANFL can have what they need. If their is a significant profit left over that (AFL teams leading comp in spend and SANFL running an organisation) that can be divvied up. I have no interest in an argument that just because the SANFL made so much at AAMI, they should make more at AO, it is flawed because they are not contributing to the profit generated at AO.
If you want to counter that with a 'business' conversation (contracts or similar) then please read my earlier posts - let the natural order of a combined State/AFL/PAFC/Crows dictate the terms to the SANFL.
Again, I'll reiterate, I like option 1 above, where the SANFL get what they need and the PAFC/Crows get what they need.
 

Jello_B

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Posts
3,793
Likes
2,524
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The TV deal wasn't negotiated by the AFL. Another of your sweeping statements with no factual basis.

I agree the AFL is more relevant to people than the SANFL, but that's not relevant to the AO debate.

I also agree the SANFL faces many challenges in a new world for them.

One is to be wary of AFL clubs mouthing platitudes about helping the SANFL to get their Reserves into the competition, then hammering them publicly on the stadium deal.
How is the relevance of AFL compared to the SANFL not relevant in the AO debate? I would argue that it is of the greatest relevance.
For example, if the SANFL were so relevant and they were selling out AO with SANFL games then of course the AFL teams would say that the SANFL deserve more of the total revenue from AO.
 

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
No, it's another example of you extrapolating one part of something to become 100% of the deal.

Port introduced one backer.

Eddie is the CEO of MM.

The SANFL negotiated the deal.

As you said, Port facilitated the last bit of the deal.
1) Eddie is not the CEO - http://www.jamtvaustralia.com.au/our-team/
(Apologies accepted)
2) the backer was not McGuire media - but to exposure may have helped get it over line
3) backer may have a relationship to port via foodbank but couldnt sponsor port due to a clash (this bit is me guessing based on why port would be involved)
4) port may have introduced or assisted - but sanfl negotiated

So my point that an afl club assisted (rather than negotiated at its pure definition) is accurate
 
Last edited:

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
And my point that you were wrong in saying the AFL clubs negotiated the TV deal is also wrong, as you admit at Item 4.
Did I say they negotiated the tv deal ? (Yep ... Oops) .... Having a director as Ceo doesn't hurt though ? Ports involvement was to a sponsor tied in with tv real

The word negotiated was incorrect in context regardless as I admitted above

Ps - irrespective of how its a great thing for the SANFL to have commercial coverage- it surely helps with exposure and helps with future flow on benefits
 
Last edited:

Malibu#27

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Posts
13,565
Likes
7,942
Location
Barossa Valley
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies, Redbacks
Oh it doesn't matter that the AFL and SA government duped them, sold them the world but once delivered took it back even with an agreement that was signed and sealed by all parties.

The SANFL will concede but only to a certain degree, how would you feel about an additional $650K pa
Clubs will each get more than 650k based on similar attendances imo.
 
Top Bottom