Adelaide Oval Review

[Sanders]

The Mars Bar has a no Gas bill policy. They did say if Sanders was willing to drop the G, they'd reconsider.

What have you got against the mars bar?

There's plenty of gas on fisting Fridays

 

[feenix67]

Utter bull

Wow - our $140 is all inclusive.

But the point your making is spot on, the SANFL do zip for kids between about 5-12. Even then, once they hit 12 only 1 or 2 kids from a local club are asked into development squads.

My kid could start at 5 and be good enough to play and enjoy for years without any SANFL support.

Utter bullshit. The SANFL club who is in the zone your kid is in runs the school footy comp. They supply the umps. They supply some equipment. They run a lightning carnival annually. They fund coaches (parent volunteers) doing level 1 coaching courses. They run squads from U12s up. They get involved in SAPSASA. I could go on.

Just because you don't " see a rep" doesn't mean they're not involved. I coached juniors in the Sturt Zone for 8 years, they had one woman at Sturt who worked tirelessly to run the school comps, coordinate venues, coordinate umpires, hold monthly coaches meetings, I could go on and on, for auskick right up to and including year 7. The education department has no (zero, zilch, nada) involvement in school football. It's all run by the SANFL club for that zone.

At least if you're going to have a whinge, get your facts right.

 

[LC40]

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.

I don't agree with this at all.
In Ross Oakley's book the Pheonix Rises "The Sanfl board had advised the commission(VFL) in May 1990 that it would "consider" entering a team in the AFL competition in 1993."
The SANFL knew that a national competition was imminent but wanted to go in on it's own terms and to have a competitive team.
The SANFL was a vibrant and well supported competition back then and the AFL was anything but national.
To keep the best players at home for the quality of the comp and because they needed to keep some talent here for when they eventually fielded a team in the national league, a retention scheme was devised.
It had nothing to do with feeling inferior or any grandiose vision of being the equal with the VFL, it was a ploy to stock talent when a team finally went in.
Unfortunately we all know the rest of that story.

 

[marty36]

We also as parents have to pay the $20 each week per team to pay the field umps so I'm yet to see what the sanfl provides for my sons footy.

Go heck out the junior soccer club fees $600-$700 Pa, for a sport no one likes

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

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 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.



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.

Really good analogy and sums up what the situation "is"

What I keep coming back to though is whether it is viable for any AFL club to have a secondary group that sits above them and is linked to them financially.

There doesn't seem to be any move towards financial independence. No weaning or phasing out. Just setting up new perpetual income streams.

I get the impression that the SANFL knows that the tap will be turned off eventually, so they are squeezing every drop they can now.

Now, no doubt they have been able to negotiate this shrewdly from a position of strength while (for instance) we had visionaries like Trigg building white elephants and negotiating for more magic beans.

For us though I can't see a future and I don't know how we get out of it.

 

[*PAF]

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

I drink at a local and pay $9 per beer.
I usually only have one or two a day and a couple more on weekends.
They now want me to pay for cleaning the place up so that they can start trading early in a Saturday. I said ok, just send the bill to my PO BOX.

 

[marty36]

Really good analogy and sums up what the situation "is"

What I keep coming back to though is whether it is viable for any AFL club to have a secondary group that sits above them and is linked to them financially.

There doesn't seem to be any move towards financial independence. No weaning or phasing out. Just setting up new perpetual income streams.

I get the impression that the SANFL knows that the tap will be turned off eventually, so they are squeezing every drop they can now.

Now, no doubt they have been able to negotiate this shrewdly from a position of strength while (for instance) we had visionaries like Trigg building white elephants and negotiating for more magic beans.

For us though I can't see a future and I don't know how we get out of it.

No its probably not viable to have this secondary group.

But the option is for the VFL sorry AFL to run grass roots footy in SA. Where 60% of the clubs who vote on the commission are Victorian, how do you think the funding position will end up here in SA. Take a stab?

 

[Sanders]

What I keep coming back to though is whether it is viable for any AFL club to have a secondary group that sits above them and is linked to them financially.

Is that actually what the afl commission is though? A central federated overhead?

For us though I can't see a future and I don't know how we get out of it.

Dunno. Have you read much about the discipline of debt as a theory? Businesses without a piper to pay get lazy & wasteful

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

No its probably not viable to have this secondary group.

But the option is for the VFL sorry AFL to run grass roots footy in SA. Where 60% of the clubs who vote on the commission are Victorian, how do you think the funding position will end up here in SA. Take a stab?

I've already posted my thoughts on this. I agree that I'd much prefer the SANFL administering the game in SA.

If it's not viable, then....?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Is that actually what the afl commission is though? A central federated overhead?

They are but the AFL commission sits over all AFL clubs. It's not an advantage/disadvantage for anyone. Ours and Port's relationship with the SANFL is unique.

Dunno. Have you read much about the discipline of debt as a theory? Businesses without a piper to pay get lazy & wasteful

I'm less concerned with debt or financial restraints, more concerned with how our situation compares with our competitors.

 

[Sanders]

I drink at a local and pay $9 per beer.
I usually only have one or two a day and a couple more on weekends.
They now want me to pay for cleaning the place up so that they can start trading early in a Saturday. I said ok, just send the bill to my PO BOX.

Pretty sure your example works better if they put the beer upto $10

 

[Sanders]

They are but the AFL commission sits over all AFL clubs. It's not an advantage/disadvantage for anyone. Ours and Port's relationship with the SANFL is unique.

I don't think its unique, but that's a different debate. What it shows though is that clubs just aren't left alone. The commission was invented because of badly clubs did without big brother. Couldnt be trusted

I'm less concerned with debt or financial restraints, more concerned with how our situation compares with our competitors.

That's the point. Lazy & fat businesses are not competitive. You get competitive by getting fit, by getting good.

 

[Sanders]

I'm less concerned with debt or financial restraints, more concerned with how our situation compares with our competitors.

Consider it in other terms. Take the once bankrupt hawks:
Without a sugar daddy to call on/blame

They went balls to the wall marketing membership. Grannies, pets, gold fishes; 11 games, 3 games, no games. Sold games, Tasmania, sold rights at Waverley. Sucked up to corporates. Pokies. Hotels. Investments etc

They hussled like guys who needed to hussle. We spunked all our money on a white elephant, alienated our sponsors, got caught cheating, insulted our fans, give the fans no voting rights; won't have pokies on moral grounds; are being out marketed today by the poor cousins.

It's not the Sanfl its us. It's always been us. Corpulent & complacent.

Do you believe newbold & Kennett would have done better, worse, the same compared to our administration over the same period? Whatever you think the answer is, that's also your answer about the culpability of the sanfl

 

[*PAF]

Pretty sure your example works better if they put the beer upto $10

And start charging membership fees.

 

[Sanders]

And start charging membership fees.

Many licensed clubs have to

 

[*PAF]

Consider it in other terms. Take the once bankrupt hawks:
Without a sugar daddy to call on/blame

They went balls to the wall marketing membership. Grannies, pets, gold fishes; 11 games, 3 games, no games. Sold games, Tasmania, sold rights at Waverley. Sucked up to corporates. Pokies. Hotels. Investments etc

They hussled like guys who needed to hussle. We spunked all our money on a white elephant, alienated our sponsors, got caught cheating, insulted our fans, give the fans no voting rights; won't have pokies on moral grounds; are being out marketed today by the poor cousins.

It's not the Sanfl its us. It's always been us. Corpulent & complacent.

Do you believe newbold & Kennett would have done better, worse, the same compared to our administration over the same period? Whatever you think the answer is, that's also your answer about the culpability of the sanfl

One minor flaw.
The Hawks were not only allowed but assisted in structuring a contract with the Tasmanian government to play some home games there.
That in turn not only meant they wouldn't be losing money on unprofitable games but it also got them a sponsor when they badly needed one, and a good sponsorship at that.

Port were in a similar situation with the NT government 2009 but even the AFL eventually came out and said they had to play all of their home games at AAMI.

Kennett would have done no better than any of our presidents or CEOs (Crows or Port), plus he also tried to do some pretty wacky stuff and people like Dunstall were able to keep him under control thanks to his footy knowledge, much like Roo is trying to do for you lot now and KT has done for us from the day he got the job.

 

[*PAF]

Had it been left to Kennett, Clarkson wouldn't be coaching the Hawks.

 

[Papa G]

Consider it in other terms. Take the once bankrupt hawks:
Without a sugar daddy to call on/blame

They went balls to the wall marketing membership. Grannies, pets, gold fishes; 11 games, 3 games, no games. Sold games, Tasmania, sold rights at Waverley. Sucked up to corporates. Pokies. Hotels. Investments etc

They hussled like guys who needed to hussle. We spunked all our money on a white elephant, alienated our sponsors, got caught cheating, insulted our fans, give the fans no voting rights; won't have pokies on moral grounds; are being out marketed today by the poor cousins.

It's not the Sanfl its us. It's always been us. Corpulent & complacent.

Do you believe newbold & Kennett would have done better, worse, the same compared to our administration over the same period? Whatever you think the answer is, that's also your answer about the culpability of the sanfl

Ian Dicker?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Consider it in other terms. Take the once bankrupt hawks:
Without a sugar daddy to call on/blame

They went balls to the wall marketing membership. Grannies, pets, gold fishes; 11 games, 3 games, no games. Sold games, Tasmania, sold rights at Waverley. Sucked up to corporates. Pokies. Hotels. Investments etc

They hussled like guys who needed to hussle. We spunked all our money on a white elephant, alienated our sponsors, got caught cheating, insulted our fans, give the fans no voting rights; won't have pokies on moral grounds; are being out marketed today by the poor cousins.

It's not the Sanfl its us. It's always been us. Corpulent & complacent.

Fair points about our role. No doubt we've been accepting of too little for too long and been content to be bigger than Port rather than trying to lead the competition or keep up with the leaders.

This year booming membership and crowds, maxed out our corporate packages at AO and still can't turn a decent profit. It's a dire situation we've created/accepted.

Do you believe newbold & Kennett would have done better, worse, the same compared to our administration over the same period? Whatever you think the answer is, that's also your answer about the culpability of the sanfl

I think the first thing they would have done is extracated themselves from the SANFL deal and I'm wondering how we do the same

 

[1970crow]

Really good analogy and sums up what the situation "is"

What I keep coming back to though is whether it is viable for any AFL club to have a secondary group that sits above them and is linked to them financially.

There doesn't seem to be any move towards financial independence. No weaning or phasing out. Just setting up new perpetual income streams.

I get the impression that the SANFL knows that the tap will be turned off eventually, so they are squeezing every drop they can now.

Now, no doubt they have been able to negotiate this shrewdly from a position of strength while (for instance) we had visionaries like Trigg building white elephants and negotiating for more magic beans.

For us though I can't see a future and I don't know how we get out of it.

I think there are a couple factors that aren't referred to in Sanders analogy.

1. As part of the license arrangement you are required to rent the licensors building to operate from. This might be at a rate that is more than $1m/yr extra than the identical building next door that your direct competitor sells the WePhone under license from.
2. There is no mention of the licensors involvement in the management of the licensees business by having some rights regarding the selection of the management board. I'm not sure of the exact nature of these rights, but I think I'm right in saying that the clubs have never been fully autonomous from the sanfl in the past.

Port backed themselves in and signed the deal, so they're largely responsible their financial performance. This situation isn't greatly different to the AFL designing the fixture to maximise centralised TV rights revenue ahead of direct revenue to the clubs by way of higher attendance figures. The pie may be greater overall, but it has the added advantage to the AFL of providing greater financial control. They then discretionarily use the funds to prop up the struggling Melbourne clubs and their expansion plans or whatever else they want.

The SANFL clearly need greater revenue than they've been generating recently. Of their reported $55m debt, $16m appears related to Port, leaving $39m of their own. I'd like to know how much of this relates to asset development and how much was drawn down to cover operating expenses, if any. If there's much of the latter, then it becomes clear as to why they are grabbing every cent they can whilst they are contractually within their right. I really don't see how they'll be back at the table at the end of the agreement. Well, certainly not in the position of influence they presently enjoy.

 

[Sanders]

I think there are a couple factors that aren't referred to in Sanders analogy.

1. As part of the license arrangement you are required to rent the licensors building to operate from. This might be at a rate that is more than $1m/yr extra than the identical building next door that your direct competitor sells the WePhone under license from.

That's normal

2. There is no mention of the licensors involvement in the management of the licensees business by having some rights regarding the selection of the management board. I'm not sure of the exact nature of these rights, but I think I'm right in saying that the clubs have never been fully autonomous from the sanfl in the past.

That's pretty normal too

 

[1970crow]

That's normal



That's pretty normal too

I don't agree that it's normal to pay $1m per year for rent ahead of the market rate that your direct competitors aren't afflicted with. This is they key factor when discussing what our club gets for putting 40,000 bums on seats.

I take your point that the large franchises do enjoy a lot of control. Their way or the highway, so to speak. A local businessman was required to divest himself of all his other business interests when looking to buy the macca's franchise. Not sure what happened because the jetty rd dudes ended up buying it. But would they have the right to dissolve the entire board of the licensee company? I don't know if the SANFL had that power, but they did seem to wield a decent sized stick down Port way.

 

[Sanders]

I don't agree that it's normal to pay $1m per year for rent ahead of the market rate that your direct competitors aren't afflicted with. This is they key factor when discussing what our club gets for putting 40,000 bums on seats.

Who says its ahead of market rate? The market rate is the best rate you can access.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Who says its ahead of market rate? The market rate is the best rate you can access.

Not always

 

[Sanders]

Not always

What examples would you cite?