Adelaide Oval Review

[CrowsB4hoes]

Never your fault. Never your fault. Always the victim, it's never your fault.

A stupid pre-match ditty and Darren Burgess isn't all that Port and Liverpool (a.k.a. Victims FC) share in common.

 

[1970crow]

How can you even suggest they were getting reamed they were using TARPS to cover seats so the stadium didnt look empty FFS, use a bit of common sense

Geez you get emotional. They don't tarp the mcg for 25k between melbourne and gws, it's got nothing to do with the question. If port got 25k to footy park are they financially better off than the dogs at etihad with the same crowd? Forget about tarps and bottom lines, the question is a simple one. If you don't know the answer, don't have a hissy fit, just say you don't know or don't respond at all. But, but, the tarps, the tarps.

 

[QPower]

Over $16 Million of the debt being requiring to be serviced is there because of Port can you see that, no lets worry about Westies $150000 scoreboard!

This argument always makes me chuckle - I recollect the Port generated $52 million through stadium revenue at AAMI between 1997 and 2013. $16 million of that was paid back in the form of grants. Interesting the argument never seems to be that the SANFL ended up $36 million in front but rather the money the SANFL was forced to give back by the AFL. The real handout was to the charity case SANFL.

 

[subaru]

I'm not sure where the conversation has gone since the post I'm quoting but the way I've always looked at it is if Port had made a decent profit when they had the crowds to do it they wouldn't have had to cut back on the off field side of things to the same level they did, and as a result crowds wouldn't have dropped off as much as they did. Had that been the case the bailout may not have been needed, so yeah I do agree with your post.

As a follow up, if the Crows cannot make a profit with the crowds you pulled last year the in 10 years time you too will need a bailout.

It's even simpler than that.

If your crowds kept coming and weren't frontrunners .... IF

As for AFC not making money - they're $16 mill plus in front of Port do you need not concern yourselves with our finances - its yours that are deplorable

 

[subaru]

Who's idea was the Northern Grandstand, the Crows or the SANFL'S?? John Ulcer just said that's where the rest of the debt lies. Interestingly he for once didn't solely blame Port for the other part of the debt but indicated it helped both AFL clubs. Fagan must be getting to him.

That was built in 2001 for $12.5 mill
Could have built another one with the money Port leeched out of the SANFL

We filled that stand week in week out while you were buying tarps

 

[Papa G]

That was built in 2001 for $12.5 mill
Could have built another one with the money Port leeched out of the SANFL

We filled that stand week in week out while you were buying tarps

By the 2013 you were getting sub 30,000 crowds quite regularly. John Ulcer has now suggested that most of the non port attributed debt to the Northern stand. Whilst I don't believe a thing that comes out of that pricks mouth, he now seems to, for the first time, want to thrust some blame on the AFC. As I said earlier, Fagan must be starting to get to him.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

By the 2013 you were getting sub 30,000 crowds quite regularly. John Ulcer has now suggested that most of the non port attributed debt to the Northern stand. Whilst I don't believe a thing that comes out of that pricks mouth, he now seems to, for the first time, want to thrust some blame on the AFC. As I said earlier, Fagan must be starting to get to him.

If Afc have not been contributing millions to the sanfl... Then there has been some seriously poor financial management going on!

Crows are no Motorola deal...

 

[Deaneus!]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messe...sing-development/story-fni9llx9-1227138640067

THE SANFL has sold land at the AAMI Stadium precinct to a housing developer for $71 million.

The SA Football Commission struck a deal with developer Commercial and General for the sale of the precinct today at 3pm.

Commercial and General paid $10 million upfront to the SANFL and will continuing paying an extra $61 million in instalments over 11 years from 2016.

Under the deal, the Adelaide Crows will remain at West Lakes and continue to use the stadium as its base away from Adelaide Oval.

The rest of the 23.5ha site, between West Lakes Blvd and Turner and Brebner drives, will be open for redevelopment.

The redeveloped site will boast about 1600 homes along with cafes, restaurants and a “boutique shopping strip”.

An SANFL statement Commercial and General will launch the project next year.

SANFL’s chairman John Olsen said the deal was “the final part of the transition process” to Adelaide Oval.

“By securing an up-front payment of $10 million we have been able to extinguish our debt with the AFL, money we borrowed as part of the $16.25m we gave to Port Adelaide to keep the club viable ahead of the move to Adelaide Oval,” Mr Olsen said in a statement.

“The rest of the money is critical to our future, not only in terms of further lowering our debt profile — which now stands at $45m including SANFL club debt — but also as a future fund for football in South Australia.”

Commercial and General managing director Jamie McClurg is also behind a $180 million entertainment complex at Salisbury which is awaiting ministerial rezoning approval.

The SANFL built AAMI Stadium in 1973. The first football game was played on May 4, 1974 between Central District and North Adelaide.

 

[*PAF]

55mil debt?

 

[*PAF]

http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php/20110630210208592

 

[crowsup]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messe...sing-development/story-fni9llx9-1227138640067

THE SANFL has sold land at the AAMI Stadium precinct to a housing developer for $71 million.

The SA Football Commission struck a deal with developer Commercial and General for the sale of the precinct today at 3pm.

Commercial and General paid $10 million upfront to the SANFL and will continuing paying an extra $61 million in instalments over 11 years from 2016.

Under the deal, the Adelaide Crows will remain at West Lakes and continue to use the stadium as its base away from Adelaide Oval.

The rest of the 23.5ha site, between West Lakes Blvd and Turner and Brebner drives, will be open for redevelopment.

The redeveloped site will boast about 1600 homes along with cafes, restaurants and a “boutique shopping strip”.

An SANFL statement Commercial and General will launch the project next year.

SANFL’s chairman John Olsen said the deal was “the final part of the transition process” to Adelaide Oval.

“By securing an up-front payment of $10 million we have been able to extinguish our debt with the AFL, money we borrowed as part of the $16.25m we gave to Port Adelaide to keep the club viable ahead of the move to Adelaide Oval,” Mr Olsen said in a statement.

“The rest of the money is critical to our future, not only in terms of further lowering our debt profile — which now stands at $45m including SANFL club debt — but also as a future fund for football in South Australia.”

Commercial and General managing director Jamie McClurg is also behind a $180 million entertainment complex at Salisbury which is awaiting ministerial rezoning approval.

The SANFL built AAMI Stadium in 1973. The first football game was played on May 4, 1974 between Central District and North Adelaide.

I may be wrong but I believe I heard Olsen say that the $16M was to prop up both AFL clubs. I take to mean it was $16M in the last 24 years.
What I would like to know is how much profit for the SANFL was generated by the two clubs playing at AAMI.
I would be very surprised if PAP did not generate more than $16M profit for the SANFL in the last 18 years.

 

[marty36]

This argument always makes me chuckle - I recollect the Port generated $52 million through stadium revenue at AAMI between 1997 and 2013. $16 million of that was paid back in the form of grants. Interesting the argument never seems to be that the SANFL ended up $36 million in front but rather the money the SANFL was forced to give back by the AFL. The real handout was to the charity case SANFL.

You seriously cant be that dumb that you think turnover equates to nett income, but then again you could be!

 

[marty36]

I may be wrong but I believe I heard Olsen say that the $16M was to prop up both AFL clubs. I take to mean it was $16M in the last 24 years.
What I would like to know is how much profit for the SANFL was generated by the two clubs playing at AAMI.
I would be very surprised if PAP did not generate more than $16M profit for the SANFL in the last 18 years.

Huh you think the SANFL owned an asset and didn't want any return. What was it worth $71 Million, but no that don't want a return on it?

 

[marty36]

Geez you get emotional. They don't tarp the mcg for 25k between melbourne and gws, it's got nothing to do with the question. If port got 25k to footy park are they financially better off than the dogs at etihad with the same crowd? Forget about tarps and bottom lines, the question is a simple one. If you don't know the answer, don't have a hissy fit, just say you don't know or don't respond at all. But, but, the tarps, the tarps.

We wouldn't know because neither stadium will give you anything, I suppose second best is to listen to Ferret Head on the returns!

 

[*PAF]

You seriously cant be that dumb that you think turnover equates to nett income, but then again you could be!

A turnover of $3mil per year?

 

[marty36]

A turnover of $3mil per year?

It probably cost the SANFL to open the gates for Power games with the poor attendances!

 

[*PAF]

It probably cost the SANFL to open the gates for Power games with the poor attendances!

You've said before maths is not your strong point (you have posted that not me) but do the sums using our lowest average crowd to approximate what the turnover would be.
Hint what they would get per ticket plus corporate boxes, advertising, car parking, catering etc.

 

[feenix67]

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.

 

[FR0GGY]

Just an oval argument now.

EFA

 

[Redline]

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.

Exactly, more questions should be asked by Port supporters of their financial performance rather just blaming the SANFL. I just want them to start taking some responsibility but it won't happen.

Even if there are changes to the stadium deal, next year there will be something else.

 

[marty36]

You've said before maths is not your strong point (you have posted that not me) but do the sums using our lowest average crowd to approximate what the turnover would be.
Hint what they would get per ticket plus corporate boxes, advertising, car parking, catering etc.

When have I ever said Maths wasn't my strong point?

Again, I couldn't give a toss about turnover, do you know how many companies turnover millions but make a loss? If my company is struggling would it be wiser to reduce my prices hoping for an increase in turnover(Powers Membership prices) or increase my prices, probably sell less but reduce costs due to less demand? In 99% of cases the second scenario applies , by the largest companies in the world. If you reduce your prices logic says you will have more demand meaning your costs will go up as this demand will need to be serviced!

 

[*PAF]

When have I ever said Maths wasn't my strong point?
... !

Fairly sure you did on the AO thread on the main board at some stage.

...
Again, I couldn't give a toss about turnover,
...

Hey you mentioned it not me. If you want to backtrack that's fine.
I just pointed out that what you said was miles out. Lots of miles.

 

[subaru]

You've said before maths is not your strong point (you have posted that not me) but do the sums using our lowest average crowd to approximate what the turnover would be.
Hint what they would get per ticket plus corporate boxes, advertising, car parking, catering etc.

Your lowest average crowd included how many give away tickets ???

The bottom line is all that matters here

How you managed to lose $16 mill plus us now irrelevant - undisputed fact is that amount is correct

The other presumed loss this year is of more concern - clean slate in May and $2 mill in the red in September all on top of you receiving more than you had expected

You go on about crowds but it is the corporate dollar that contributed the biggest bang for the buck

Adelaide have always had excellent corporate support

 

[subaru]

By the 2013 you were getting sub 30,000 crowds quite regularly. John Ulcer has now suggested that most of the non port attributed debt to the Northern stand. Whilst I don't believe a thing that comes out of that pricks mouth, he now seems to, for the first time, want to thrust some blame on the AFC. As I said earlier, Fagan must be starting to get to him.

Obviously not THAT regularly ....our lowest average crowd was 33612 in 2013.

Figures you could only dream about. Your best "average" crowd prior to Adelaide's Oval was your first year of 35828 - you never went above that. You never managed to grow your crowds yourself. It was yet another thing that had to be done for you.

Again, and I think it's pertinent, the AFC has - despite whatever shitty deal they have had at AAMI or now Adelaide's Oval, maintained a supporter base and a high level of corporate interest.

Port has not. And that is why AFC has contributed over and above any scraps Port may have flung the SANFL's way.

 

[subaru]

This argument always makes me chuckle - I recollect the Port generated $52 million through stadium revenue at AAMI between 1997 and 2013. $16 million of that was paid back in the form of grants. Interesting the argument never seems to be that the SANFL ended up $36 million in front but rather the money the SANFL was forced to give back by the AFL. The real handout was to the charity case SANFL.

It always makes me chuckle....

SANFL owned the stadium ...not Port!