Adelaide Oval Review

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,399
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Who else is to blame for the SANFL and its clubs living beyond their means?

Well its obvious the Power are living beyond their means with $16 Million injected by the SANFL alone plus I believe the AFL have injected funds and they lost $2 million this year and have no assets to show for it, so answer me who is living beyond their means, The Power or SANFL?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,399
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I never said they should not make a profit. The impression you and others are trying to give is that the PAP were sending the SANFL broke because they had to assist the PAP. What I'm saying is that the profit generated for the SANFL by the PAP was more than what the SANFL gave back to port.
The question that should be asked is "Why was The SANFL so eager to acquire the licence for the PAP"? Was that a bad mistake by the SANFL? They did not have to buy the licence, you know?
Lets be honest about it. The SANFL used the AFL clubs to prop up the SANFL clubs. Not the other way around.

The power paid for use of an asset that was owned by the SANFL worth $71 Million, if it wasn't the Power and Norwood were granted the licence they would have had to pay for thef using such an asset as it required a return. Why would you proclaim that the income that they received was the Powers anyway, if it was a third party that owned AAMI would you suggest the Power should get the $$ back?
 

Macca19

Moderator
Joined
Jan 14, 2001
Posts
59,713
Likes
60,246
Location
Albertr0n
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
MUFC, Orlando Magic
Moderator #1,631
I think it's time Port supporters and others had a bit of a think about their illogical hatred of the SANFL.

Lets put $16 million in assistance to one side and look at the grassroots.

Please read this with an open mind and with your love of football uppermost.

If we look at just one player's path from juniors to the AFL from a SANFL club's point of view.

A young 12 year old plays for his school. The West Adelaide people come out to conduct Auskick. The lad progresses to West's Under 13, 14 and 15 Development squads, where he's coached by West coaches, kicks footies paid for by West and the SANFL, wears guernseys paid for by West & the SANFL, with umpires paid by the SANFL and trains and plays on ovals paid for by the SANFL and their clubs.

He then plays for West's Under 17's, ditto expenditure, West's Under 19's, more expenditure, and after years of being looked after by West Adelaide, he plays a few League games, with West paying all the expenses involved. Those expenses are multiplied by the hundreds of kids treated similarly, but it's worth it as West will get a good player for their senior team..

Then there's a day in November when the Port Adelaide Football Club makes its first appearance in this lad's life.

"Player Number 1234567, Hamish Hartlett, West Adelaide.

Here's $25K, West (given to us by the SANFL to prop us up), now piss off, he's our player now.

Fair enough, they're the rules, but West have spent years on him and barely get a game out of him.

That's fine, but if you want to continue to get players that the SANFL have groomed for you, then it's going to cost you a lot of money. About what the SANFL spend, actually.

See how that system works for you when you're putting tarps over seats.

As for Adelaide players, there's stories about so many of our greats and their time at West Adelaide. I've seen them all at close quarters.

Don't denigrate, embrace the SANFL, it's your lifeblood.
$25k would be a profit from what the expenditure per player would be.

Its all good information. Maybe the SANFL and its clubs should agree to drop the salary cap that it cant afford to run and pump that extra money into the junior system all SANFL supporters suddenly care so much about instead of spending half the salary cap attracting 2-3 big name ex-AFL imports to their clubs.

But im sure Porplyzia and Helbig are playing for the love of the jumper and a Mcdonalds voucher arent they?
 

Macca19

Moderator
Joined
Jan 14, 2001
Posts
59,713
Likes
60,246
Location
Albertr0n
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
MUFC, Orlando Magic
Moderator #1,632
So you ignore the whole substance of the post and bring up an irrelevant side issue?

Yes, I'd guess that the top cats at the SANFL were paid far too much in the past, but I'd also be ceratin that it's chickenfeed compared to the excessive amounts paid for all sorts of things by the AFL clubs.

How about addressing the substance, not whinging about minor issues, or is it that what I've said is undeniable?
Why is it a side issue? The SANFL and its clubs run a salary cap that it cant sustain. North, Norwood, West, WWT, South, Port, Sturt & Glenelg have all been close to death over the last 10 years. 3 clubs are still knocking on heavens door. This is a serious issue yet it gets completely overlooked because 'bloody Port leeches'. Instead we have muppets like Chad O'Sullivan saying the SANFL needs to look at doubling the salary cap to attract more players? How are clubs going to afford that? Thats the worst possible outcome for "grass roots footy" and development for football in this state.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
1,022
Likes
766
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide
$25k would be a profit from what the expenditure per player would be.

Its all good information. Maybe the SANFL and its clubs should agree to drop the salary cap that it cant afford to run and pump that extra money into the junior system all SANFL supporters suddenly care so much about instead of spending half the salary cap attracting 2-3 big name ex-AFL imports to their clubs.

But im sure Porplyzia and Helbig are playing for the love of the jumper and a Mcdonalds voucher arent they?
I think you miss the point, Macca.

$25K would be a profit on Hamish Hartlett, but the expenditure is multiplied by hundreds for the 90% of kids who drop out of the system.

I agree with you about dropping the salary cap to some extent in the SANFL, that's a good discussion.

No SANFL club spends half their salary cap on ex-AFL players.

You state Helbig and Porplyzia as examples of big spending. They're both West Adelaide juniors originally. Players similar to Helbig would be paid around 10% or less of the salary cap. Jason Porplyzia wanted to finish with Westies and will work for us as a junior development officer, a genuine job. He's happy to be back with us, after the disappointment of finishing in the AFL. Perhaps you could name a club who pays 3 players half their salary cap?

Interesting that you name 8 clubs as being close to death over recent years. You left out central, who are struggling, but included clubs who are very comfortable, so, with respect, your knowledge of the clubs isn't correct.

I also agree with you about it being silly to double the SANFL salary cap. It would send almost all SANFL clubs broke.

Finally, I've never said "port leeches', I've only defended the SANFL and asked people to wait for the outcome of the negotiations.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Posts
32,675
Likes
18,248
Location
Meekatharra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
I think you miss the point, Macca.

$25K would be a profit on Hamish Hartlett, but the expenditure is multiplied by hundreds for the 90% of kids who drop out of the system.

I agree with you about dropping the salary cap to some extent in the SANFL, that's a good discussion.

No SANFL club spends half their salary cap on ex-AFL players.

You state Helbig and Porplyzia as examples of big spending. They're both West Adelaide juniors originally. Players such as Helbig would be paid less than 10% of the salary cap. Jason Porplyzia wanted to finish with Westies and will work for us as a junior development officer, a genuine job. He's happy to be back with us, after the disappointment of finishing in the AFL.

Interesting that you name 8 clubs as being close to death over recent years. You left out central, who are struggling, but included clubs who are very comfortable, so, with respect, your knowledge of the clubs isn't correct.

I also agree with you about it being silly to double the SANFL salary cap. It would send almost all SANFL clubs broke.

Finally, I've never said "port leeches', I've only defended the SANFL and asked people to wait for the outcome of the negotiations.
That's a very good point because development is not a 100% strike rate. Heck, it wouldn't even be a 5% strike rate compared to how many 11 to 16 year olds play.

I thinnk we had 6 or 7 SA players drafted Thursday night. 9 SANFL club x 22 16's and 22 18's ~ 400 players is like 2.5% of players drafted each year.

As soon as money is removed to eliminated from jounior development, you will see a decrease in the standard of football played in this state.
 

Amacca 23

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Posts
321
Likes
181
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
dallas cowboys,chicago bulls
and st
I think you miss the point, Macca.

$25K would be a profit on Hamish Hartlett, but the expenditure is multiplied by hundreds for the 90% of kids who drop out of the system.

I agree with you about dropping the salary cap to some extent in the SANFL, that's a good discussion.

No SANFL club spends half their salary cap on ex-AFL players.

You state Helbig and Porplyzia as examples of big spending. They're both West Adelaide juniors originally. Players such as Helbig would be paid around 10% of the salary cap. Jason Porplyzia wanted to finish with Westies and will work for us as a junior development officer, a genuine job. He's happy to be back with us, after the disappointment of finishing in the AFL.

Interesting that you name 8 clubs as being close to death over recent years. You left out central, who are struggling, but included clubs who are very comfortable, so, with respect, your knowledge of the clubs isn't correct.

I also agree with you about it being silly to double the SANFL salary cap. It would send almost all SANFL clubs broke.

Finally, I've never said "port leeches', I've only defended the SANFL and asked people to wait for the outcome of the negotiations.
still we dont hold the sanfl clubs accountable for over spending when the sanfl itself was getting large dividened from adelaide from inception as i said 80 % of the clubs profits from year one
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,399
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
That's a very good point because development is not a 100% strike rate. Heck, it wouldn't even be a 5% strike rate compared to how many 11 to 16 year olds play.

I thinnk we had 6 or 7 SA players drafted Thursday night. 9 SANFL club x 22 16's and 22 18's ~ 400 players is like 2.5% of players drafted each year.

As soon as money is removed to eliminated from jounior development, you will see a decrease in the standard of football played in this state.

Its not whether they play AFL, SANFL, Southern League, Hills league or where ever, Junior Development is to just compete at the game whether its an 11 year old playing back pocket for Port Elliot or a 18 year playing on the bench for Christies Beach. The SANFL govern the entire set up, not whether or not little johnny plays AFL or not. Same applies to senior football throughout the state. Just because you may not want to Watch Nurioopta V Tanunda, the sport is there for all. Seems this discussion is purely based on making the Crows and Power the strongest they possibly can be. If that is the objective stuff the rest of footy in the state, but I highly doubt that was the objective of the state government when they allocated over half a billion $ to Adelaide oval.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Posts
32,675
Likes
18,248
Location
Meekatharra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
Its not whether they play AFL, SANFL, Southern League, Hills league or where ever, Junior Development is to just compete at the game whether its an 11 year old playing back pocket for Port Elliot or a 18 year playing on the bench for Christies Beach. The SANFL govern the entire set up, not whether or not little johnny plays AFL or not. Same applies to senior football throughout the state. Just because you may not want to Watch Nurioopta V Tanunda, the sport is there for all. Seems this discussion is purely based on making the Crows and Power the strongest they possibly can be. If that is the objective stuff the rest of footy in the state, but I highly doubt that was the objective of the state government when they allocated over half a billion $ to Adelaide oval.
Correct, that is why the $25,000 figure is an inaccurate number is throw around.
 

LC40

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Posts
1,869
Likes
2,081
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think it's time Port supporters and others had a bit of a think about their illogical hatred of the SANFL.

Lets put $16 million in assistance to one side and look at the grassroots.

Please read this with an open mind and with your love of football uppermost.

If we look at just one player's path from juniors to the AFL from a SANFL club's point of view.

A young 12 year old plays for his school. The West Adelaide people come out to conduct Auskick. The lad progresses to West's Under 13, 14 and 15 Development squads, where he's coached by West coaches, kicks footies paid for by West and the SANFL, wears guernseys paid for by West & the SANFL, with umpires paid by the SANFL and trains and plays on ovals paid for by the SANFL and their clubs.

He then plays for West's Under 17's, ditto expenditure, West's Under 19's, more expenditure, and after years of being looked after by West Adelaide, he plays a few League games, with West paying all the expenses involved. Those expenses are multiplied by the hundreds of kids treated similarly, but it's worth it as West will get a good player for their senior team..

Then there's a day in November when the Port Adelaide Football Club makes its first appearance in this lad's life.

"Player Number 1234567, Hamish Hartlett, West Adelaide.

Here's $25K, West (given to us by the SANFL to prop us up), now piss off, he's our player now.

Fair enough, they're the rules, but West have spent years on him and barely get a game out of him.

That's fine, but if you want to continue to get players that the SANFL have groomed for you, then it's going to cost you a lot of money. About what the SANFL spend, actually.

See how that system works for you when you're putting tarps over seats.

As for Adelaide players, there's stories about so many of our greats and their time at West Adelaide. I've seen them all at close quarters.

Don't denigrate, embrace the SANFL, it's your lifeblood.
Great post, all this hard work,the expenses to the clubs, the hours of dedicated volunteers, the umpire coaching,the ground up keep, the different age level competitions that give players a pathway and a myriad of other tasks is conveniently forgotten.The alternative solution to the SANFL running football is" the AFL will step in."
Does anyone really believe that thrash is actually true, sure it rolls off the tongue well "the AFL will step in."
Step into what, if the system is gone then it's gone. It takes years and years to get enough people involved in clubs to get them functioning.

One poster argued that the SANFL is not football in this state, he even volunteered at an auskick clinic which had nothing to do with his local SANFL club; who organizes Auskick in this state, who provides the program not for one club but hundreds around the state.
Under his scenario the SANFL is only 8 clubs and if they die nothing will change.
My answer is everything would change . How I might ask if that whole network of clubs administrators, volunteers, coaches, trainers step away how are the AFL miraculously going to replace them in a state they have little presence in apart from their SA based AFL teams.
The SANFL oversees all aspects of football here either through it's own competition or it's affiliations with the other leagues.
Local clubs like Marion, Payenham etc won't step in to fill the breech. All clubs are struggling for finances, volunteers and players, not just the SANFL clubs. They just don't have the capacity and never will to coordinate or finance the various programs we need to keep young kids taking up football at a young age.
The grass roots structure of football is worlds apart from the two AFL teams at the elite level. They matter of course but so do the clubs that feed the draft that give games to tens of thousands of players each week.

A deal will get done but the reality is the SANFL are going to be in the equation. They need finances just as much as the AFL clubs do to survive.
 
Last edited:

crowsup

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
1,748
Likes
1,166
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
The power paid for use of an asset that was owned by the SANFL worth $71 Million, if it wasn't the Power and Norwood were granted the licence they would have had to pay for thef using such an asset as it required a return. Why would you proclaim that the income that they received was the Powers anyway, if it was a third party that owned AAMI would you suggest the Power should get the $$ back?
You still don't get it. Do you?
I did not say they did not have to pay for it.
Let me put it you a different way;
1) The power or Norwood or who ever, gets the licence.
2) The SANFL says you have to pay me X amount for the use of AAMI.
3) The club with the licence says 'F..k you, we are playing at AO.
What do you think that would have meant for the SANFL?
Don't you think that is the reason why the SANFL wanted, indeed needed, the AFL Licence to force both AFL clubs to use AAMI for their games.
As the SANFL owned the AFL licences, they could charge what ever fees they wanted. Just give back enough to keep both clubs going. That is all the SANFL ever intended.
Now, even though they no longer own the clubs, they intent to get the same deal they had at AAMI without the need to pay anything back.
 

marty36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
20,948
Likes
7,399
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
You still don't get it. Do you?
I did not say they did not have to pay for it.
Let me put it you a different way;
1) The power or Norwood or who ever, gets the licence.
2) The SANFL says you have to pay me X amount for the use of AAMI.
3) The club with the licence says 'F..k you, we are playing at AO.
What do you think that would have meant for the SANFL?
Don't you think that is the reason why the SANFL wanted, indeed needed, the AFL Licence to force both AFL clubs to use AAMI for their games.
As the SANFL owned the AFL licences, they could charge what ever fees they wanted. Just give back enough to keep both clubs going. That is all the SANFL ever intended.
Now, even though they no longer own the clubs, they intent to get the same deal they had at AAMI without the need to pay anything back.

One major floor in your suggestion is the AFL had an agreement to play 22 games per year at AAMI, the AFL set the fixture and will tell all licence holders when and where they will be playing, so the club cant say F U, well not true they could just forfeit that match

PS they owned the licences and sub leased them to the clubs
 

Red mist

Reynholm Industries
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Posts
24,558
Likes
31,410
Location
The Winchester
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur, East Side Hawks
I love the SANFL for being the league in the 80's that saw us unite against Victoria and WA. Very strong league that was breeding major talent. I loved going to a game at the parade and then going home and listening to Peter Marker and Ian Day do the televised grabs. Unfortunately for some and fortunately for others, this era was compromised by a want of seeing a national comp derived by the VFL. Every f##kn person that is squabbling about the deterioration of the SANFL and the 2 Clubs that have been generated from this need, and the relative costs, need to remind themselves of the league we had. Who has made all the compromises? While another league generates and gets all the televised revenue. FFS the SANFL have had to scramble since 1990 in revising their projections to finances . Why shouldn't they protect what they generated or otherwise be compensated.
 

Quadzilla

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 21, 2005
Posts
17,210
Likes
12,841
Location
North Antarctica
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Power, Magpies, Swamprats, Whales
play nice!
Just a circular argument now. Who gives a shit anymore? A deal will be struck at AO and we never have to worry about carrying Ports incompetence anymore. The proof will be in the financials in 5 years time.

My prediction? A strong Adelaide football club, a strong SANFL and a whinging Port Adelaide cap in hand to the AFL. Good riddance.
Deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
25,442
Likes
32,848
AFL Club
Adelaide
I never said they should not make a profit. The impression you and others are trying to give is that the PAP were sending the SANFL broke because they had to assist the PAP. What I'm saying is that the profit generated for the SANFL by the PAP was more than what the SANFL gave back to port.
Let's say for example, oh I don't know that you have invented a fantastic new product. Heck a ground breaking bit of technology - the youphone.

It's been a big hit. And you assign exclusive right to sell and distribute this product in a new territory.

You know this license should generate $20m a year in sales, and you'll also make a profit on the supply of the units. Over 10 years the market is worth 200m in sales and 40m in profit.

Lots of interest and you assign it to the successful bidder

The partner company turns out not to be very good & can't meet its promises. Over the year's they barely make money, sales are half what they should be, and they can't afford to pay for the units. You end up making a series of loans to keep them afloat, because it's better than the fallout of seeing a major partner go under. You're frustrated because you gave them a super valuable territory, and they squandered it

After many years of them underperforming, running down your brand, failing to meet targets or expand the Territory - all they tell you is that you should be grateful as they have generated $100m over 10 yrs and you're greedy. Ignoring that you gave them a $200m asset!!!!!

Then they tell you to forget the $30m in loans along the way, because they have given you more than you've given them along the way. Completely ignoring their obligations, he nature of the relationship or that you didn't expect to have to give them anything.
So you should stop complaining they say




The question that should be asked is "Why was The SANFL so eager to acquire the licence for the PAP"? Was that a bad mistake by the SANFL? They did not have to buy the licence, you know?
The R&D behind the youphone was your life's work. You just didn't expect your licensee to fall so far behind their commitments and promises. They pissed away a very valuable property you worked hard to create.

Lets be honest about it. The SANFL used the AFL clubs to prop up the SANFL clubs. Not the other way around.
The youphone is totally your property, you own it. The new customers are very passionate but you invented it, it's your investment. You own the company not the customers.
 
Last edited:

Dalphonso

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Posts
3,716
Likes
1,855
Location
Alice Springs NT
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Territory Thunder,Waratahs FC
and st

still we dont hold the sanfl clubs accountable for over spending when the sanfl itself was getting large dividened from adelaide from inception as i said 80 % of the clubs profits from year one
The Adelaide Crows should really be worth $100 million but the SANFL have milked the guts out of them.Why has it taken so long for Crows supporters to finally wake up? Maybe too worried how badly little Brother was doing to see the big picture as to what was happening to themselves..
 

Sanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
25,442
Likes
32,848
AFL Club
Adelaide
You still don't get it. Do you?
I did not say they did not have to pay for it.
Let me put it you a different way;
1) The power or Norwood or who ever, gets the licence.
2) The SANFL says you have to pay me X amount for the use of AAMI.
3) The club with the licence says 'F..k you, we are playing at AO.
4) you want our license? You'll accept the terms of the license. That's what a license is.
You don't buy chicken from Coles to sell in KFC, you use nominated suppliers.

And if you really don't want to use the nominated suppliers and the nominated price list, then the upfront cost of the license is a whole lot more.

You buy a phone on a contract versus outright - same price?
 

Sanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
25,442
Likes
32,848
AFL Club
Adelaide
The Adelaide Crows should really be worth $100 million but the SANFL have milked the guts out of them.Why has it taken so long for Crows supporters to finally wake up? Maybe too worried how badly little Brother was doing to see the big picture as to what was happening to themselves..
I drink in the local pub all the time, I don't know how much money they've made off me over the years.

They really should pay my gas bill
 

Dalphonso

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Posts
3,716
Likes
1,855
Location
Alice Springs NT
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Territory Thunder,Waratahs FC
I love the SANFL for being the league in the 80's that saw us unite against Victoria and WA. Very strong league that was breeding major talent. I loved going to a game at the parade and then going home and listening to Peter Marker and Ian Day do the televised grabs. Unfortunately for some and fortunately for others, this era was compromised by a want of seeing a national comp derived by the VFL. Every f##kn person that is squabbling about the deterioration of the SANFL and the 2 Clubs that have been generated from this need, and the relative costs, need to remind themselves of the league we had. Who has made all the compromises? While another league generates and gets all the televised revenue. FFS the SANFL have had to scramble since 1990 in revising their projections to finances . Why shouldn't they protect what they generated or otherwise be compensated.
The SANFL thought they were the equal of the VFL and their players should stay home.Hence things like the ever so successful player retention scheme where players like Michael Aish and Gary McCintosh stayed home in SA.Neither of them would be in the top 100 players of the last 25 years and most in the National league had never heard of them.But we all know (IN SA anyway) that they would have been. South Australians have always been paranoidand had an inferiority complex.It is unfortunate the SANFL had it back when and still have it Today.
 
Top Bottom