Adelaide Oval Review

[baldandbroke]

... what does Apple have to do with this discussion. In case you didn't realise this is the ADELAIDE OVAL REVIEW thread, perhaps you should stick to the topic at hand. Again, you shouldn't talk about stuff you have no clue about.

If the Crows are looking at cost efficiencies, then the Oval deal is not the only thing they should be looking at.

This from the guy that brought up the cost of envelopes?

I know you are struggling in this thread mate - but don't try and tell me that I don't know anything about running corporations or managing big budgets - you are way off.

The Adelaide Oval Review is not looking into general operational costs of the AFC, that has NOTHING to do with the oval agreement. That is why I mocked your position about the expensive envelopes, and it stands.

You want to get back on topic? Go right ahead and get back to the real questions in this thread instead of trying to be clever (something you seem to struggle with) and centre your arguments around the stationery cupboard.

 

[Mattrox]

WTF, Is that like signing an agreement you didnt mean to sign?

It's called getting on with it now and fixing it up later.

It's been explained pretty clearly in a series of news articles with comments from various sources. If you aren't following along now I'm afraid you've got your head in the sand or your comprehension skills need work...... or you know exactly what happened and are putting up a smoke screen.

 

[marty36]

It's called getting on with it now and fixing it up later.

It's been explained pretty clearly in a series of news articles with comments from various sources. If you aren't following along now I'm afraid you've got your head in the sand or your comprehension skills need work...... or you know exactly what happened and are putting up a smoke screen.

Oh Yes Sorry,

I love the old fix it up later,

You do know how many years this was on the cards for and how important it was, in fact probably the msot important decision both clubs have ever made in their history as it was going to secure their financial future.

And you said just get on with it and fix it up later

Please where is the smoke screen or I dont comprehend the magnitude of the move?

 

[TooFar]

It's called getting on with it now and fixing it up later.

It's been explained pretty clearly in a series of news articles with comments from various sources. If you aren't following along now I'm afraid you've got your head in the sand or your comprehension skills need work...... or you know exactly what happened and are putting up a smoke screen.

In all fairness, that is a pretty crap way to run a multi-million dollar organisation.

 

[Mattrox]

Oh Yes Sorry,

I love the old fix it up later,

You do know how many years this was on the cards for and how important it was, in fact probably the msot important decision both clubs have ever made in their history as it was going to secure their financial future.

And you said just get on with it and fix it up later

Please where is the smoke screen or I dont comprehend the magnitude of the move?

You missed the part where the clubs were not happy and WERE NOT signing and Vlad intervened, right?

 

[Mattrox]

In all fairness, that is a pretty crap way to run a multi-million dollar organisation.

What realistic choices did the clubs have?

And you know the AFC's past history with doing what Vlad said. Remember who was negotiating the deal for us?

If we couldn't get a proper revenue split at that time, doesn't it behoove us, under a new CEO in a renegotiation that the AFL put in place to address the situation that was unacceptable in March, to get the very best deal for the club going into the future? Or we just sit and say, Trigg blinked so we should eat the shit sandwich for the next 20 years?

 

[marty36]

You missed the part where the clubs were not happy and WERE NOT signing and Vlad intervened, right?

I dont care about what pressure is being applied, and yes I believe the AFL (Forget VLAD he is just a figure head) did apply the pressure, but remember that isnt proven as you say. If your company is looking at the next XX many years of financial returns for multi millions of dollars you dont say we will fix it later! That is just finabcially irresponsible, regardless of the situation!

 

[Allefgib]

Let's keep the personal stuff out of this - people have different viewpoints on what they want to discuss. If someone wants to discuss a different viewpoint - engage with someone who wants to discuss your viewpoint instead. Report stuff too far off topic. Anymore name calling and intelligence questioning will be thread banned. Except for me saying this - if you're calling out someone's intelligence on a point you clearly are not competent enough to engage with other people to have them understand your viewpoint.

 

[TooFar]

What realistic choices did the clubs have?

And you know the AFC's past history with doing what Vlad said. Remember who was negotiating the deal for us?

If we couldn't get a proper revenue split at that time, doesn't it behoove us, under a new CEO in a renegotiation that the AFL put in place to address the situation that was unacceptable in March, to get the very best deal for the club going into the future? Or we just sit and say, Trigg blinked so we should eat the shit sandwich for the next 20 years?

Yes, being Captain Hindsight is easy, but we could have engaged an independent cost consultant to analyse the expected cost associated with the relocation to AO, including various crowd scanarios and compared that with what the SMA was saying. That should have been the minimum due diligence. It wasn't like the move was a surprise.

I know it is easy to blame Trigg, but what the hell was he doing that was so important that he had to stay on? What was his mandate? If he was just Project Managing the relocation, then I would argue someone with experience in relocation's would have been a better fit. If his responsibility was to make sure Adelaide enjoyed the best possible financial outcome, then he failed miserably.

Yes I agree that a review is in order, but from all report there is nothing binding about the review. So the club agreed to the review knowing full well it would still be powerless to force the SMA to renegotiate.

Everyone bleats on about the club having no choice, but that's bullshit. There is always a choice and if the club thought the move was going to impact the club financially, then it was their responsibility to call that out and make noise about before any contract was signed.

Alternatively, this could all be a smoke screen and the Club will soon announce a record profit.

 

[Mattrox]

Yes, being Captain Hindsight is easy, but we could have engaged an independent cost consultant to analyse the expected cost associated with the relocation to AO, including various crowd scanarios and compared that with what the SMA was saying. That should have been the minimum due diligence. It wasn't like the move was a surprise.

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...at-adelaide-oval/story-e6frfkp9-1225903680004

These were the numbers that sealed the deal to move to AO.





http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...for-sa-afl-clubs/story-fndo4dzn-1226592735106

Then problems.






“And I want to make sure the uplift that comes from Adelaide Oval does indeed go to where it was originally intended — the two AFL clubs.” -Chapman

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...at-adelaide-oval/story-fnii5yv4-1226912513543




This article makes for interesting reading.
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...nds-to-be-repaid/story-fndo4dzn-1226592730178


I highly doubt this is a smoke screen. As late as May 6th Olsen was still claiming $6m uplift for the clubs. This never eventuated.

Now there is an article which talks about the SANFL lifting the salary cap etc etc..... I can't link it on my phone due to pay wall, but google "SANFL should benefit" it's the 1st result.
This gives some insight into why the SANFL want to keep the money.

Got it.
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...rites-kym-morgan/story-e6frfkp9-1226907702043

 

[aneale]

So why did both clubs knock back the SANFLs offer to give them the additional uplift they recieved above budget this year?

Except that is something that Cornes just made up.

 

[Mattrox]

I hope The Wookie doesn't mind me quoting this here. It's a good resource.

Ive added them all to the media section on Adelaide Oval i keep here. (all pdf versions of the articles going back to 2008, probably missing some lol)

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Yes, being Captain Hindsight is easy, but we could have engaged an independent cost consultant to analyse the expected cost associated with the relocation to AO, including various crowd scanarios and compared that with what the SMA was saying. That should have been the minimum due diligence. It wasn't like the move was a surprise.

I know it is easy to blame Trigg, but what the hell was he doing that was so important that he had to stay on? What was his mandate? If he was just Project Managing the relocation, then I would argue someone with experience in relocation's would have been a better fit. If his responsibility was to make sure Adelaide enjoyed the best possible financial outcome, then he failed miserably.

Yes I agree that a review is in order, but from all report there is nothing binding about the review. So the club agreed to the review knowing full well it would still be powerless to force the SMA to renegotiate.

Everyone bleats on about the club having no choice, but that's bullshit. There is always a choice and if the club thought the move was going to impact the club financially, then it was their responsibility to call that out and make noise about before any contract was signed.

Alternatively, this could all be a smoke screen and the Club will soon announce a record profit.

Oh don't sprout rubbish.
The facts are that the SANFL negotiated the AO deal whilst it still owned the 2 AFL licences. There was talk way prior to this that the 2 clubs didn't want to be tied to the SANFL and therefore wanted to buy the licences back.
Ironically the SANFL didn't sell the licences until it had well and truly stitched up the clubs in the agreement...and it did this as the "owners" of the AFL licence.

Not sure what planet you live on but the way the pieces fell there was no way the 2 clubs could negotiate the AO agreement in their best interests when the owner of the licences was the SANFL. The SANFL had the power, without it agreeing to move to AO we would still be at AAMI. There was pressure from the political side and from Vlad for the SANFL to move. The 2 clubs were not in a position to dictate given the set up then.

There is a reason there was a review of the AO agreement scheduled after the initial one was signed and there is a reason the licences were sold after the agreement was signed also.

Claiming the Crows and Port had a choice is a big wankfest that the SANFL apologist's continue to use.

Marty36 has replied to all of my posts, ironically he/she hasn't responded to the question I asked which was "why didn't the SANFL sell the licences to the 2 AFL clubs prior to finalising the AO agreement??.....doesn't really matter as we all, other than the SANFL apologists, know the answer to that!!

 

[Mattrox]

With regard to revenue vs expenditure, the Crows are now spending money on a reserves side that we have not had to do before. Few extra expenses here and there to keep them going I'd imagine.

 

[marty36]

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...at-adelaide-oval/story-e6frfkp9-1225903680004

These were the numbers that sealed the deal to move to AO.





http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...for-sa-afl-clubs/story-fndo4dzn-1226592735106

Then problems.






“And I want to make sure the uplift that comes from Adelaide Oval does indeed go to where it was originally intended — the two AFL clubs.” -Chapman

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...at-adelaide-oval/story-fnii5yv4-1226912513543




This article makes for interesting reading.
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...nds-to-be-repaid/story-fndo4dzn-1226592730178


I highly doubt this is a smoke screen. As late as May 6th Olsen was still claiming $6m uplift for the clubs. This never eventuated.

Now there is an article which talks about the SANFL lifting the salary cap etc etc..... I can't link it on my phone due to pay wall, but google "SANFL should benefit" it's the 1st result.
This gives some insight into why the SANFL want to keep the money.

Got it.
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/sanfl-should-benefit-from-crows-and-power-adelaide-oval-cash-boost-writes-kym-morgan/story-e6frfkp9-1226907702043

Read them all, it appears the uplift projected is less than what actually was acheived, the articles fail to give us a breakdown though, if we can believe Rucci's fianncial breakdown, however saying that the majority of these articles are by Rucci, such a reliable source!

As I am the same as beleiving what Cornes has to say that he learnt from a leak, accusations can be made but until a statement is out, thats all that matters.

I like Jays statement saying the SMA will not be challenged in the upper house to change legislation, i will ask you this WHY?

My assumption is everyone going to AO expected an uplift including the SACA and SANFL. We dont know the nett uplift but find it amusing to read in one article you provided the AO deal was to provide $1.9 Million for the up keep of AAMI! Wonder if this has happened, who would know the figures are confidential as agreed by all the parties involved, you will probably blame the SANFL for this confidentiality that all parties wanted and agreed to, one of your many accusationsyou have, it was the SANFL only because your good at blaming them for everything.

 

[marty36]

Oh don't sprout rubbish.
The facts are that the SANFL negotiated the AO deal whilst it still owned the 2 AFL licences. There was talk way prior to this that the 2 clubs didn't want to be tied to the SANFL and therefore wanted to buy the licences back.
Ironically the SANFL didn't sell the licences until it had well and truly stitched up the clubs in the agreement...and it did this as the "owners" of the AFL licence.

Not sure what planet you live on but the way the pieces fell there was no way the 2 clubs could negotiate the AO agreement in their best interests when the owner of the licences was the SANFL. The SANFL had the power, without it agreeing to move to AO we would still be at AAMI. There was pressure from the political side and from Vlad for the SANFL to move. The 2 clubs were not in a position to dictate given the set up then.

There is a reason there was a review of the AO agreement scheduled after the initial one was signed and there is a reason the licences were sold after the agreement was signed also.

Claiming the Crows and Port had a choice is a big wankfest that the SANFL apologist's continue to use.

Marty36 has replied to all of my posts, ironically he/she hasn't responded to the question I asked which was "why didn't the SANFL sell the licences to the 2 AFL clubs prior to finalising the AO agreement??.....doesn't really matter as we all, other than the SANFL apologists, know the answer to that!!

I will answer your question if you reply to mine!

The Licences were part of the deal in moving, did the cubs want the licences in their possesion or did the SANFL want to off load. I would suspect the first and yes the SANFL agreed sell them with provisions attached, you know the old selling your soul!

Now my question which I think is very important considering over half a billion of public funds were spent.

Why did the SA governemnt give the SANFL the rights as it to say, to AO. This could still be changed yet the governemnt are refusing to change legislation meaning they want the SANFL to remain?

 

[Mattrox]

I like Jays statement saying the SMA will not be challenged in the upper house to change legislation, i will ask you this WHY?

There was a "yet" at the end of the sentence. Anyway I answered that before no need to rehash.


So you would have noticed the cost blow outs. The irregular payments to SACA and the SANFL. The procurement of more seats for the SMA memberships. The huge costs of running matchday at AO. Funnily enough, rather than sharing the risks across all parties, the costs are borne by the clubs and the SANFL uplift is higher than projected while the clubs' return reamains the same despite surpassing the projections.

We'll see what happens with the auditor general's report.

 

[marty36]

There was a "yet" at the end of the sentence. Anyway I answered that before no need to rehash.


So you would have noticed the cost blow outs. The irregular payments to SACA and the SANFL. The procurement of more seats for the SMA memberships. The huge costs of running matchday at AO. Funnily enough, rather than sharing the risks across all parties, the costs are borne by the clubs and the SANFL uplift is higher than projected while the clubs' return reamains the same despite surpassing the projections.

We'll see what happens with the auditor general's report.

We will want we, personally I expect the clubs to get a bit more but the SANFL's uplift will still be an uplift, what are your thoughts on the outcome!

 

[Mattrox]

Oh and can you get on the phone and ask Olsen where the $6m each went?

Last week’s estimate by SA Football Commission chairman John Olsen that the Crows and Port Adelaide are each about to receive a $6  million a year economic upshot thanks to Adelaide Oval changes everything.

 

[marty36]

Oh and can you get on the phone and ask Olsen where the $6m each went?

Last week’s estimate by SA Football Commission chairman John Olsen that the Crows and Port Adelaide are each about to receive a $6  million a year economic upshot thanks to Adelaide Oval changes everything.

So not willing to speculate on the outcome, like I said the Clubs will receive more, there will be savings from initial start up costs next year and the SANFL will still get an uplift, but guess what we will never know the outcome due to confidentiality, unless you believe what Rucci writes. Lol

 

[Mattrox]

I'm not against the SANFL getting an uplift. If all parties received an uplift which mirrored each other there would not be a problem.

I'm deliberately not trying to rely too heavily on what Rucci writes without corroboration or direct quotes.

Notwithstanding, there is a stench about the deal and the review.

 

[bomberclifford]

It's also worth noting at this point that one of the key people involved in this negotiation is John Olsen.

John.

Olsen.


Let that sink in.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

I will answer your question if you reply to mine!

The Licences were part of the deal in moving, did the cubs want the licences in their possesion or did the SANFL want to off load. I would suspect the first and yes the SANFL agreed sell them with provisions attached, you know the old selling your soul!

Now my question which I think is very important considering over half a billion of public funds were spent.

Why did the SA governemnt give the SANFL the rights as it to say, to AO. This could still be changed yet the governemnt are refusing to change legislation meaning they want the SANFL to remain?

So they negotiated the best deal for themselves before off loading the licences right? Because they knew it they sold before that they couldn't milk the well right?

Your question doesn't may sence, id say there was a typo, but if I read it correctly then my answer would be the SANFL had all the power as I suggested in my previous post. Holding the licences and owning AAMI they were the ones in the drivers seat....without the SANFL moving AO doesn't exist.

 

[LiquidCrow]

It's also worth noting at this point that one of the key people involved in this negotiation is John Olsen.

John.

Olsen.

Let that sink in.

Would have sold his own mother. Worst premier ever.

 

[TooFar]

Oh don't sprout rubbish.
The facts are that the SANFL negotiated the AO deal whilst it still owned the 2 AFL licences. There was talk way prior to this that the 2 clubs didn't want to be tied to the SANFL and therefore wanted to buy the licences back.
Ironically the SANFL didn't sell the licences until it had well and truly stitched up the clubs in the agreement...and it did this as the "owners" of the AFL licence.

Not sure what planet you live on but the way the pieces fell there was no way the 2 clubs could negotiate the AO agreement in their best interests when the owner of the licences was the SANFL. The SANFL had the power, without it agreeing to move to AO we would still be at AAMI. There was pressure from the political side and from Vlad for the SANFL to move. The 2 clubs were not in a position to dictate given the set up then.

There is a reason there was a review of the AO agreement scheduled after the initial one was signed and there is a reason the licences were sold after the agreement was signed also.

Claiming the Crows and Port had a choice is a big wankfest that the SANFL apologist's continue to use.

Marty36 has replied to all of my posts, ironically he/she hasn't responded to the question I asked which was "why didn't the SANFL sell the licences to the 2 AFL clubs prior to finalising the AO agreement??.....doesn't really matter as we all, other than the SANFL apologists, know the answer to that!!

So you are effectively saying Trigg and Chapman played no significant role in the relocation and the Club could not do its own due diligence and plan accordingly? They were just puppets and led by their nose by the SANFL? Why was it so important that Trigg stayed on to complete the move? What was his responsibility? If Trigg was a CEO worth his salt, he would have independently reviewed the relocation cost and supposed uplift himself, he also should have thoroughly reviewed the contract and confirmed exactly what power the review had. Was he not the CEO of a multi-million dollar organisation?