Adelaide Oval Review

[TooFar]

Given we know that most of the revenue of the WAFC and SANFL comes from AFL footy, using the absolute simplest mathematics that even the most ardent blind SANFL supporter should recognise……..

Do we know this? Please provide the evidence for this statement.

 

[feenix67]

Ok so I thought about writing a big long post in return to this sort of naïve crap, but I’m going to skip it. This SANFL greed has been happening for a long time and the facts of Ports situation and where the SANFL’s grants have originated from in the first place aren’t going to be a popular in this forum anyway. Additionally looking past a Port v Crows bias is going to be hard for many anyway.


So…


Let me throw some simple, plain and easy numbers out there for you. Lets not worry about profits and losses, or where the money goes because as you’ve already acknowledged there isn’t enough info on that stuff, so lets just look at some raw figures from last year to see what is going on in this state.

2013:

SANFL revenue – $34 Million

WAFC revenue – $30 Million


Also forgetting the higher costs of attending footy in WA we’ll just consider these raw numbers for average crowds:

PAFC ~ 27 k

AFC ~ 34 k

FFC ~ 34k

WCFC ~ 36k.


Given we know that most of the revenue of the WAFC and SANFL comes from AFL footy, using the absolute simplest mathematics that even the most ardent blind SANFL supporter should recognise……..


HOW DOES THE SANFL MAKE 4 Million extra a year than the WAFC, given lower attendances, lower catering revenue, lower parking revenue, lower ticket prices, possibly lower sponsorship (who knows), etc.


We’re not just talking about a minor difference here we’re talking about the SANFL taking around $4 million dollars in EXTRA revenue over what the WAFC takes from AFL footy in WA. That’s without even considering the revenue that an extra 9-10k people, every 2nd week, would generate.

The SANFL revenue should be below the WAFC revenue given these facts. So what we're talking about is not just 4 million but possibly another few more. That's probably mainly 3-4 million of money the AFC generated that the AFC were robbed of because even BLIND FREDDY can see the SANFL are taking too much and if the SANFL are not running at a profit then they are clearly wasting too much as well.


We ultimately have no idea what the SANFL are spending it all on as they wont open their books for detailed analysis, other than the very generic annual report, but if they are unable to run their competition and development programs in a state with a lot lower population than what WA has then something is wrong and it is the SANFL who are to blame.

The pie was large enough last year, let alone this year. The problem is the SANFL want to eat the whole pie. The SANFL do not need all the money they take for game development, they WANT it. There's a difference.

This is a good discussion point.

The SANFL set things up differently to the WAFL. The SANFL really set the Crows and the Power up as subsidiaries, in that model allowed for revenue to flow back to the SANFL net of costs associated with running the AFL club. Any profit/loss generated by the club was a reflection of actual performance over budgeted performance. This is why terms like "stadium deal" are misnomers in the SANFL case. Our clubs were not stand alone clubs, they were extensions of the SANFL with separate books. To gauge the success of a "license" you had to loko at the revenue as a whole, because that's how the SANFL set it up. This was done to protect the integrity of the local comp.

WA basically set up as separate entities. Hence they were responsible for their own balance sheets and their profits/losses, whilst underwritten by the WAFL, were their own responsibilities. Hence they had things like "stadium deals" etc.

This is a very simplistic explanation, but I hope you get what I mean, It's why the whole "stadium deal" discussion as it relates to us was a bit misleading. There's a massive discussion about this issue in the old Adelaide Oval Not Gonna Happen thread.

How much did the WAFL pump back into the two WA clubs (I genuinely don't know)?

 

[Papa G]

Do we know this? Please provide the evidence for this statement.

Where else does it come from? Entry fees to park on the outer wing at at Noarlunga Oval? The Checkside Tavern? The bar at the Magarey Medal After Party?

 

[feenix67]

Argument with no substance has no substance.

Its not an argument, its a fact.

 

[TooFar]

Where else does it come from? Entry fees to park on the outer wing at at Noarlunga Oval? The Checkside Tavern? The bar at the Magarey Medal After Party?

You tell us, you PAP's are always making the statements about what the SANFL does and does not do. Yet when asked for the evidence or some cold hard facts, there are only the sound of crickets. You continue to sound just like whiny children.

Here's a tip, when you want to convince others of your position, provide some irrefutable proof of your assertions. It will make your job a lot easier.

 

[Amacca 23]

find it funny that the sanfl clubs where getting at least 800k a year when the 80% of profits a years was going back to the sanfl yet you say they are now all struggling hmmm who,s fault is that maybe its bad management by these clubs or greed to spend what they didnt have ?

 

[Mattrox]

Its not an argument, its a fact.

Fact: The clubs were not happy with the AO deal, that's why there is a review process.

Why were they not happy?

 

[Papa G]

You tell us, you PAP's are always making the statements about what the SANFL does and does not do. Yet when asked for the evidence or some cold hard facts, there are only the sound of crickets. You continue to sound just like whiny children.

Here's a tip, when you want to convince others of your position, provide some irrefutable proof of your assertions. It will make your job a lot easier.

If the SANFL presented all the facts then we'd all know. Why aren't they doing this? Why are there confidentiality clauses? Reeks of an organisation with something to hide.

 

[TooFar]

If the SANFL presented all the facts then we'd all know. Why aren't they doing this? Why are there confidentiality clauses? Reeks of an organisation with something to hide.

I agree with your first statement. Until then everything is speculation and conjecture.
As for the why, we don't know that either, but it is obvious that your opinion is bias, given Ports history of undermining and mercenary tactics.

 

[Mattrox]

This is what the SANFL "promised"...

These financials - delivered by the SANFL to its AFL clubs and key stakeholders in a six-hour workshop at AAMI Stadium yesterday - prove football cannot pass up its part in the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.

"Our two AFL clubs are very buoyed by the numbers they have seen today. And the SANFL clubs see their future underpinned by the asset we have at AAMI Stadium.

"We would be better off moving to Adelaide Oval."

I was mistaken $8m gross ea down to $6m net. Notwithstanding. ... its not the deal delivered.

Then this:

Originally, the SMA was to work to a $2 million budget. It is now growing to $9 million. That is $7 million not going to football nor cricket.

That $9 million is also more than the Crows and Power will generate as "new revenue" in any one season at Adelaide Oval when compared to the AFL clubs' current annual return at AAM Stadium.


So the clubs have to pay for SMA inefficiencies and cost blowouts.


And then dodgy irregular payments.


Auditor-General Simon O'Neill has found government funds designated for the construction of the $535 million Oval were used for the management operations of the SMA - and not construction of the oval as they were intended.
........
However, he found there were payments of $960,000 to the SANFL and $1 million to SACA which had to be retrospectively approved by the Treasurer.

These payments were not related to the redevelopment or construction, but legal, public relations and salary costs for the SMA.
........

The SMA's need for more money is measured by its grab of the premium tickets at the Oval - the exclusive "Stadium Club" memberships.

The SMA originally was to take 600 of the 1455 "Stadium Club" memberships that sell at $4500 and offer the best seats, best dining options and car parking at Adelaide Oval.

The SMA has now has claimed 1000 of these elite memberships.

The difference of 400 seats adds $1.8m to the SMA's coffers - money the Crows and Power want to boost their returns from the Oval.
..........

Crows chairman Rob Chapman added: "The original intent was for a lean SMA that managed the Oval and its precinct - and maximised the return to football and cricket. That was always the intention.

"There must be fairness and equity in how money is distributed at Adelaide Oval."




Yep, but nothing changed along the way in the "real world" of your fantasy land where the SANFL is pure and golden.

 

[Coobk001]

Do we know this? Please provide the evidence for this statement.

Not sure if serious.....

Really?

No, really?

Well they hosted a couple SANFL finals there, I'm sure they should've turned a major profit for them. Including a 30k GF which should've earned them a massive heap playing in their own stadium.

So maybe $600k from other sources than AFL footy so far.

Then we have the stadium sponsorship, oops, no that comes because of AFL footy.

Ooh we have the massive state league IGA sponsorship, I'm sure the IGA has forked out massively for that, maybe even in the 6 figures.

So now we're talking about around 800k they may have got from other sources, lets keep going.

Oh, so how big were the TV rights..... Oops, no they were free on ABC.

Oh hang on they have the checkside tavern, that place GOES OFF! Must be turning a massive profit! Who knows if they are lucky they might make a couple hundred K a year from that.

What we up to now, maybe a mill.

Do I really have to go on.

Just go and read ANY SANFL annual report. Their revenue was incredibly dependant upon Port and the Crows. Changes in attendances affected their bottom line massively because the majority of the money the SANFL took in was as a result of AFL footy at AAMI.

If I really have to I'll go hunt down a break down of the figures if I can find one, though the SANFL dont like to reveal the true nature of most of their revenue so it may be tough, but the reality is that this stuff isn't even really questionable and it is seriously scary if people dont realise that most of the SANFL's revenue comes from the presence of AFL footy.

I agree with your first statement. Until then everything is speculation and conjecture.
As for the why, we don't know that either, but it is obvious that your opinion is bias, given Ports history of undermining and mercenary tactics.

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Has ZERO to do with anything. What a load of garbage.

Far out mate. The key here is it is you that can't see beyond your SANFL blinkers.

Yes there is speculation, yes there is conjecture, but when you're talking in estimated terms does it really matter?

Seriously what are you going to argue? That even in a magical world where the SANFL finds something of its own to sell, that 4 million of the SANFL's revenue came from sources other than AFL? That still leaves 30 million. Still too much!

Far out, we can play the semantics games all day. The facts are that even with ROUGH figures anyone with half a brain can see whats going on. Maybe ya just need to open your 2nd eye.

 

[Coobk001]

This is a good discussion point.


The SANFL set things up differently to the WAFL. The SANFL really set the Crows and the Power up as subsidiaries, in that model allowed for revenue to flow back to the SANFL net of costs associated with running the AFL club. Any profit/loss generated by the club was a reflection of actual performance over budgeted performance. This is why terms like "stadium deal" are misnomers in the SANFL case. Our clubs were not stand alone clubs, they were extensions of the SANFL with separate books. To gauge the success of a "license" you had to loko at the revenue as a whole, because that's how the SANFL set it up. This was done to protect the integrity of the local comp.


WA basically set up as separate entities. Hence they were responsible for their own balance sheets and their profits/losses, whilst underwritten by the WAFL, were their own responsibilities. Hence they had things like "stadium deals" etc.


This is a very simplistic explanation, but I hope you get what I mean, It's why the whole "stadium deal" discussion as it relates to us was a bit misleading. There's a massive discussion about this issue in the old Adelaide Oval Not Gonna Happen thread.


How much did the WAFL pump back into the two WA clubs (I genuinely don't know)?

It’s funny that you’ve been writing in support of the SANFL but you’ve basically encapsulated the entire argument of those against the SANFL’s greed and highlighted the problem. Nice work.


What you say is totally true and is exactly the problem. We need to get away from this structure, but it is going to be very difficult to get away from this structure unless the SANFL accept it is the problem and restructure their business so that they dont spend as much and hence dont require as much income. The AFC and PAFC are being starved of a significant portion of the revenue they generate and it needs to stop.


Totally agree that the label stadium deal isn’t really a fair an equitable comparison to others, but what we can see from the SANFL’s raw figures is that whatever the deals are, and however they are working the SANFL is taking way too much. Especially when they are taking in a massive amount more than a similar comp like the WAFL that has a far greater population to service but that also can charge more and gains greater attendances.

 

[feenix67]

It’s funny that you’ve been writing in support of the SANFL but you’ve basically encapsulated the entire argument of those against the SANFL’s greed and highlighted the problem. Nice work.


What you say is totally true and is exactly the problem. We need to get away from this structure, but it is going to be very difficult to get away from this structure unless the SANFL accept it is the problem and restructure their business so that they dont spend as much and hence dont require as much income. The AFC and PAFC are being starved of a significant portion of the revenue they generate and it needs to stop.


Totally agree that the label stadium deal isn’t really a fair an equitable comparison to others, but what we can see from the SANFL’s raw figures is that whatever the deals are, and however they are working the SANFL is taking way too much. Especially when they are taking in a massive amount more than a similar comp like the WAFL that has a far greater population to service but that also can charge more and gains greater attendances.

See thats where our perspectives differ. You call it greed, I call it commercial competence. I wonder who is now the stronger organisation, the WAFL or the SANFL. Therein lies your true answer

 

[Papa G]

See thats where our perspectives differ. You call it greed, I call it commercial competence. I wonder who is now the stronger organisation, the WAFL or the SANFL. Therein lies your true answer

Meanwhile Sturt can't afford a fence.

 

[feenix67]

Meanwhile Sturt can't afford a fence.

We'll see how Sturt are going in a year or two, now that the shackles of your debt have been removed

 

[Coobk001]

See thats where our perspectives differ. You call it greed, I call it commercial competence. I wonder who is now the stronger organisation, the WAFL or the SANFL. Therein lies your true answer

At least you're willing to accept and acknowledge that view. When you've got people like TooFar trying to argue semantics and not work with the rough things that we do know.


At the end of the day I believe my club shouldn't be a cash cow, we are not there to prop up the SANFL. I dont mind us doing our bit and helping the SANFL fund game development, but I want the levels of that funding to be on an equal footing with the levels that other states pump into their comps like the WAFL. I'm not interested in the SANFL thriving and being the 2nd best comp at the expense of my club.



And FWIW the SANFL have done an INCREDIBLE job of setting themselves up the way they have. Their structure of the 2 licences as cash cows was genius for the SANFL and their move to AO and into the SMA was a massive windfall for them. There can be no doubting that the SANFL have done an amazing job commercially, and I dont think many could truly disagree with how well they've done. They're sitting on a ~$100 million asset with $16 million in licences about to come in and a guaranteed income of upward of $30 million a year at Adelaide Oval.


They've been absolutely brilliant for themselves, but thats the problem.

Their commercial success is coming at the expense of the 2 most important football entities in this state, robbing them of money that should’ve rightfully been theirs to pump up a competition that is nothing more than a feeder league. This setup has totally hog tied the 2 AFL clubs in SA and will continue to bring us down long term as other clubs do not suffer the same conditions. And I know I for one will not stop peppering this argument until something is done to shrink the size of the massive money sucking leech (the SANFL) from the skin of AFL footy in SA.

 

[redandblack]

Ok so I thought about writing a big long post in return to this sort of naïve crap, but I’m going to skip it. This SANFL greed has been happening for a long time and the facts of Ports situation and where the SANFL’s grants have originated from in the first place aren’t going to be a popular in this forum anyway. Additionally looking past a Port v Crows bias is going to be hard for many anyway.


So…


Let me throw some simple, plain and easy numbers out there for you. Lets not worry about profits and losses, or where the money goes because as you’ve already acknowledged there isn’t enough info on that stuff, so lets just look at some raw figures from last year to see what is going on in this state.

2013:

SANFL revenue – $34 Million

WAFC revenue – $30 Million


Also forgetting the higher costs of attending footy in WA we’ll just consider these raw numbers for average crowds:

PAFC ~ 27 k

AFC ~ 34 k

FFC ~ 34k

WCFC ~ 36k.


Given we know that most of the revenue of the WAFC and SANFL comes from AFL footy, using the absolute simplest mathematics that even the most ardent blind SANFL supporter should recognise……..


HOW DOES THE SANFL MAKE 4 Million extra a year than the WAFC, given lower attendances, lower catering revenue, lower parking revenue, lower ticket prices, possibly lower sponsorship (who knows), etc.


We’re not just talking about a minor difference here we’re talking about the SANFL taking around $4 million dollars in EXTRA revenue over what the WAFC takes from AFL footy in WA. That’s without even considering the revenue that an extra 9-10k people, every 2nd week, would generate.

The SANFL revenue should be below the WAFC revenue given these facts. So what we're talking about is not just 4 million but possibly another few more. That's probably mainly 3-4 million of money the AFC generated that the AFC were robbed of because even BLIND FREDDY can see the SANFL are taking too much and if the SANFL are not running at a profit then they are clearly wasting too much as well.


We ultimately have no idea what the SANFL are spending it all on as they wont open their books for detailed analysis, other than the very generic annual report, but if they are unable to run their competition and development programs in a state with a lot lower population than what WA has then something is wrong and it is the SANFL who are to blame.

The pie was large enough last year, let alone this year. The problem is the SANFL want to eat the whole pie. The SANFL do not need all the money they take for game development, they WANT it. There's a difference.

Apart from the insults, good work.

Unfortunately, comparing the SANFL to the WAFL proves nothing. The WAFL are happy to play in front of crowds far lower. The SANFL want a strong, vibrant competition and owned their own stadium, with all the revenue and costs attached to that. The SANFL have also put millions into the AFL clubs.

On the other hand, as wrong as it is to say the AFC are being ROBBED by the SANFL because of that comparison between different markets, lets look at a more correct comparison, using your logic.

My comparison is between two clubs, same competition, same city.

Adelaide and Port.

Adelaide's results have been millions of dollars better than Port's results.

Using your logic, that means they've been ROBBING someone blind.

And as for wanting the whole pie..... really?

Even the AFL clubs agree they're getting nearly 70% of the pie and they want more.

My argument is not that either side is robbing anyone. All I'm saying is save the emotive language until the facts come out.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[TooFar]

Not sure if serious.....

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Has ZERO to do with anything. What a load of garbage.

Far out mate. The key here is it is you that can't see beyond your SANFL blinkers.

Yes there is speculation, yes there is conjecture, but when you're talking in estimated terms does it really matter?

Seriously what are you going to argue? That even in a magical world where the SANFL finds something of its own to sell, that 4 million of the SANFL's revenue came from sources other than AFL? That still leaves 30 million. Still too much!

Far out, we can play the semantics games all day. The facts are that even with ROUGH figures anyone with half a brain can see whats going on. Maybe ya just need to open your 2nd eye.

I have no blinkers, I just want to see some facts and figures, not more conjecture and assumptions. Who is to say the 30 Million for the SANFL is too much? Where does the money go? Please show the breakdown of all their expenses, then we may be better informed to say what is too much. If the majority goes to executive salaries, then you would have a point, but if the majority goes to supporting footy in SA, then not so much. However I gather from PAP's perspective that 1 dollar is too much, so it would appear that it is you with the blinkers and bias.

 

[Papa G]

I have no blinkers, I just want to see some facts and figures, not more conjecture and assumptions. Who is to say the 30 Million for the SANFL is too much? Where does the money go? Please show the breakdown of all their expenses, then we may be better informed to say what is too much. If the majority goes to executive salaries, then you would have a point, but if the majority goes to supporting footy in SA, then not so much. However I gather from PAP's perspective that 1 dollar is too much, so it would appear that it is you with the blinkers and bias.

Whicker was pushing $700k and that was a few years back, and that was before his slice from Encore and leaving his wife.

 

[redandblack]

find it funny that the sanfl clubs where getting at least 800k a year when the 80% of profits a years was going back to the sanfl yet you say they are now all struggling hmmm who,s fault is that maybe its bad management by these clubs or greed to spend what they didnt have ?

This has been a good discussion, but the anti-SANFL brigade keep chucking up figures that bear no relationship to the truth.

Where does this $800K a year figure come from?

It's way under that and no club would be in trouble if it was $800K.

Can you give me a link to that figure, please, or is it just a made-up figure to prove your point?

 

[Coobk001]

Unfortunately, comparing the SANFL to the WAFL proves nothing.

It shows that in a very similar environment the SANFL takes far more money out of AFL footy than the WAFC do. It proves a MASSIVE amount. There is no flawed logic there. We have 2 feeder comps, with 2 afl sides. The costs of AAMI as an SANFL owned asset would most likely be offset by rental costs on the WAFL for using Subi, both organisations still pay for all ground maintenance.

The WAFL are happy to play in front of crowds far lower. The SANFL want a strong, vibrant competition

And here is the problem. How are they funding this strong, vibrant competition? They are funding it by taking MORE AFL funds from footy in SA than the other states do.


The SANFL is a feeder comp, like the rest of them. It is for exactly this reason the SANFL spends more than it should and takes more.


It is also for this exact reason that the 2 SANFL clubs are severely hamstrung. Leaving the Crows without the money they deserve to invest in facilities, staff, better equipment, etc, and leaving Port to flounder and barely keep its head above water.



If your loyalty lies to a strong and vibrant SANFL over a strong powerhouse Adelaide Crows, then good on you. The crows should be a powerhouse but instead flounder in the lower half of club revenue. But regardless my prerogative is that I’m interested in a strong PAFC first and foremost. That’s my priority, and to do that it will take an SANFL that is running within their means and on a similar level to the other comps in the country, and not robbing the PAFC of so much of the revenue we generate.

 

[redandblack]

I notice you only wanted to answer the first part of my comparison, not the Crows v Power bit.

Port can't even sell all their corporate facilities at AO and still whinge.

My loyalty isn't to a strong and vibrant SANFL at the expense of the Crows (it is if it's at the expense of Port), there's enough for all parties to get on OK. Port have (and continue to be) a drag on the SANFL and it's time their expenditures and operations were looked at in as much detail as you want the SANFL's to be looked at.

I keep saying, wait for the facts, don't make statements about being robbed the first year in ages you draw crowds.

 

[feenix67]

At least you're willing to accept and acknowledge that view. When you've got people like TooFar trying to argue semantics and not work with the rough things that we do know.


At the end of the day I believe my club shouldn't be a cash cow, we are not there to prop up the SANFL. I dont mind us doing our bit and helping the SANFL fund game development, but I want the levels of that funding to be on an equal footing with the levels that other states pump into their comps like the WAFL. I'm not interested in the SANFL thriving and being the 2nd best comp at the expense of my club.



And FWIW the SANFL have done an INCREDIBLE job of setting themselves up the way they have. Their structure of the 2 licences as cash cows was genius for the SANFL and their move to AO and into the SMA was a massive windfall for them. There can be no doubting that the SANFL have done an amazing job commercially, and I dont think many could truly disagree with how well they've done. They're sitting on a ~$100 million asset with $16 million in licences about to come in and a guaranteed income of upward of $30 million a year at Adelaide Oval.


They've been absolutely brilliant for themselves, but thats the problem.

Their commercial success is coming at the expense of the 2 most important football entities in this state, robbing them of money that should’ve rightfully been theirs to pump up a competition that is nothing more than a feeder league. This setup has totally hog tied the 2 AFL clubs in SA and will continue to bring us down long term as other clubs do not suffer the same conditions. And I know I for one will not stop peppering this argument until something is done to shrink the size of the massive money sucking leech (the SANFL) from the skin of AFL footy in SA.

Awesome post!

Im in complete agreement. The AFL clubs should now no longer be cash cows. I think its been difficult for you Port boys to accept that, at the end of the day, you werent any different to the Crows - a composite team established as a subsidiary to the SANFL. That you came from a single club entity, that simple fact would have been very difficult to understand for many down at Alberton. Now that the licenses have been sold back, the Power and the Crows have every right to fight for a fair share of the pie.

The SANFL will bend, there's no doubt in my mind. But if you're selling a car for $10k, you dont immediately accept $8k. The SANFL hold most of the cards, the clubs hold public sympathy. In the end, the SANFL wont want to be seen as the bad guy and will budge further. This is all part of normal commercial negotiation.

And as Ive said before, if the result of the SANFL cashing in its chips is anything other than reform and strengthening of footy at a local level, I'll be just as pissed off as the rest of you.

I WANT MY FENCE!!

 

[redandblack]

Agree, feenix, and I want you to get your fence, too.

 

[Papa G]

I notice you only wanted to answer the first part of my comparison, not the Crows v Power bit.

Port can't even sell all their corporate facilities at AO and still whinge.

My loyalty isn't to a strong and vibrant SANFL at the expense of the Crows (it is if it's at the expense of Port), there's enough for all parties to get on OK. Port have (and continue to be) a drag on the SANFL and it's time their expenditures and operations were looked at in as much detail as you want the SANFL's to be looked at.

I keep saying, wait for the facts, don't make statements about being robbed the first year in ages you draw crowds.

How can someone who supports a club that has what barely 2,000 members members paying 2 tenths of fcuk all who barely draw 3000 people to their games criticize a club with 55,000 member generating millions of dollars which keeps their little tin pot operation alive for not selling all their corporate inventory? How?