Adelaide Oval Review

[1970crow]

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

I don't know if it is or isn't. But it's not a free market scenario because the clubs would have been tied to footy park as a license condition. Sando payout aside, our break-even result given our crowds is a pretty poor result. High memberships, reported excellent corporate support, bumper crowds and our heads are just holding above water. We've probably overspent in admin in the past, but that's likely matched with the opposite in the footy dept.

The SANFL have every right to extract their full contractual rights. However, I offer up a poor, verse industry standard, stadium deal as one of the possible factors for our mediocre and ports poor financial performances. Obviously it's the clubs jobs to build their business model around the deal, but compared to their competitors, it might be a bit of a handicap that the rest don't have to endure. I think the discussion about Ports debt levels and SANFL bail-outs need to be take into account any extra costs incurred in having to play at footy park and now AO.

 

[Sanders]

I don't know if it is or isn't. But it's not a free market scenario because the clubs would have been tied to footy park as a license condition. Sando payout aside, our break-even result given our crowds is a pretty poor result. High memberships, reported excellent corporate support, bumper crowds and our heads are just holding above water. We've probably overspent in admin in the past, but that's likely matched with the opposite in the footy dept.

The SANFL have every right to extract their full contractual rights. However, I offer up a poor, verse industry standard, stadium deal as one of the possible factors for our mediocre and ports poor financial performances. Obviously it's the clubs jobs to build their business model around the deal, but compared to their competitors, it might be a bit of a handicap that the rest don't have to endure. I think the discussion about Ports debt levels and SANFL bail-outs need to be take into account any extra costs incurred in having to play at footy park and now AO.

Look at this way, if the best mortgage rate in the market is 5%, but the only rate anyone will offer you based on your circumstances is 7% then the market rate for YOU is 7%. Otherwise you'd take a better offer from someone else.

That you are tied in, is part of your deal.

Plenty of vic clubs were/are tied to crappy deals at ethihad, because someone has to play there and they don't have any leverage

Ask North melbourne how they feel about the ethihad deal forced on them

 

[Deaneus!]

I was at a conference on Friday afternoon; the final session was a keynote speech by none other than ex Treasurer and noted 'guy who got the Oval thing happening', Kevin Foley. In the Q&A afterwards someone asked what he thought of the current situation - and there I was to record it.

 

[1970crow]

Look at this way, if the best mortgage rate in the market is 5%, but the only rate anyone will offer you based on your circumstances is 7% then the market rate for YOU is 7%. Otherwise you'd take a better offer from someone else.

That you are tied in, is part of your deal.

Plenty of vic clubs were/are tied to crappy deals at ethihad, because someone has to play there and they don't have any leverage

Ask North melbourne how they feel about the ethihad deal forced on them

I agree. And I'd be saying the same about North if they were being kicked around for accumulating debts. They can be working their rings out and be running as lean as possible, but the reality is that there's a lot of non-discretionary spending for AFL clubs if they want to be competitive. They've probably got a shit stadium deal, are in a saturated market and struggle for prime time slots to assist in generating more corporate support.

 

[Jars458]

The SANFL are not for profit.Their constitution requires them to look after football in this state. A successful crows and power are the key to that. The afl clubs have to be kept within the SANFL tent to some degree otherwise all the money goes there and football elsewhere dies. It's all about balance, how much do you bleed from your major asset until it stops being an asset. The SANFL have probably erred here and the money tree has allowed them to be negligent in other areas. Now the licenses have gone, they have to make the best of it for themselves. Let's hope the new deal is fairer for all parties and we can move on. In the interests of all of us, we need a strong
Power a strong crows and a strong SANFL.

 

[aneale]

Ask North melbourne how they feel about the ethihad deal forced on them

$1.2M profit in 2012
$1.4M profit in 2013

Expect a similar profit for 2014

Would love an Etihad deal at AO.

 

[Geoffa32]

I was at a conference on Friday afternoon; the final session was a keynote speech by none other than ex Treasurer and noted 'guy who got the Oval thing happening', Kevin Foley. In the Q&A afterwards someone asked what he thought of the current situation - and there I was to record it.

Worked with someone who was at Treasury when Foley wanted the funds for AO. He was told our state can't afford it, but he pushed for it to happen regardless of what the modelling said.

Time will tell how history remembers that move and Foley's legacy in regards to getting the move to AO done and the impact on our state financially in the long run.

As Foley just said, it was he, Ian McLaughlin and Vlad who got it done. Noone else was involved in getting it done.

 

[Geoffa32]

$1.2M profit in 2012
$1.4M profit in 2013

Expect a similar profit for 2014

Would love an Etihad deal at AO.

St Kilda may have been a better example.

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2014-11-25/2014-financial-result

St Kilda Football Club has reported an operating loss (EBITDA) of $2,334,583. After accounting for depreciation, amortisation and interest the club made a statutory loss of $3,912,922 for the year ending October 31, 2014.

“We are also working closely with the AFL executive team to optimise outcomes from home games at Etihad Stadium, our bayside engagement strategy and the 2015 ANZAC Day match in New Zealand

 

[aneale]

St Kilda may have been a better example.

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2014-11-25/2014-financial-result

The Bulldogs made money this year. You can make money out of Etihad. Neither club made money at AO with a captive 50k attendance.

Tells you how much worse the AO deal is comparable to Etihad.

 

[Sanders]

$1.2M profit in 2012
$1.4M profit in 2013

Expect a similar profit for 2014

Would love an Etihad deal at AO.

are you a north supporter?

 

[marty36]

The Bulldogs made money this year. You can make money out of Etihad. Neither club made money at AO with a captive 50k attendance.

Tells you how much worse the AO deal is comparable to Etihad.

Its too hard comparing other clubs, Carlton made a loss, Geelong made a loss were their stadium deals crap. And before anyone pikes up and says Carlton lost money on the pokie ventures, this is not the case they didnt make as much as the previous year. A classic example of a club using other sources to ensure profitability. Maybe both the Crows and Power need to look at the leaders in the comp in profitability, West Coasts strategy is simple charge greater membership prices, this is where Ports is flawed they are the cheapest in the league, you dont have to be to financially minded to work out how that will affect your bottom line do you? Would be interested to see what Collingwoods corporate dollar is with say their major sponsor of Emirates and Eddies connections, Im sure that contributes heavily on their bottom line.

 

[Papa G]

Its too hard comparing other clubs, Carlton made a loss, Geelong made a loss were their stadium deals crap. And before anyone pikes up and says Carlton lost money on the pokie ventures, this is not the case they didnt make as much as the previous year. A classic example of a club using other sources to ensure profitability. Maybe both the Crows and Power need to look at the leaders in the comp in profitability, West Coasts strategy is simple charge greater membership prices, this is where Ports is flawed they are the cheapest in the league, you dont have to be to financially minded to work out how that will affect your bottom line do you? Would be interested to see what Collingwoods corporate dollar is with say their major sponsor of Emirates and Eddies connections, Im sure that contributes heavily on their bottom line.

Um Marty, Port's membership revenue from this year Is apparently $9.75 million. If we compare this figure against the revenue figures from club membership figures for 2013, this would put Port in 5th position less than half a million behind Fremantle, less than 3 Quarters of a million behind Collingwood and well in front of league heavyweights Essendon, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn and Geelong. Try again.

 

[*PAF]

The Etihad deal was renegotiated.
Melbourne based teams are allowed (and assisted/encouraged) to sell non profitable games interstate for money per game plus sponsorship.
The "lower earning" Melbourne based teams have been receiving grants from the AFL for years and years to compensate for shit stadium deals as well as blockbuster centric fixtures.

We are not comparing apples and apples.

 

[Papa G]

The SANFL are not for profit.Their constitution requires them to look after football in this state. A successful crows and power are the key to that. The afl clubs have to be kept within the SANFL tent to some degree otherwise all the money goes there and football elsewhere dies. It's all about balance, how much do you bleed from your major asset until it stops being an asset. The SANFL have probably erred here and the money tree has allowed them to be negligent in other areas. Now the licenses have gone, they have to make the best of it for themselves. Let's hope the new deal is fairer for all parties and we can move on. In the interests of all of us, we need a strong
Power a strong crows and a strong SANFL.

I'm sure a few of you are aware of this guy's blog. It's old, looks like 2011 or 12 perhaps (Primus was coaching), but it does appear to have some reasonably well researched info about why the SANFL was dipping further and further into debt. He also doesn't appear to have any agenda, at least not to the the AFL clubs or the SANFL, although I have read some of his other stuff that was against the AO development.

http://www.kryztoff.com/RAW/?p=3951

 

[Mattrox]

Its too hard comparing other clubs, Carlton made a loss, Geelong made a loss were their stadium deals crap. And before anyone pikes up and says Carlton lost money on the pokie ventures, this is not the case they didnt make as much as the previous year. A classic example of a club using other sources to ensure profitability. Maybe both the Crows and Power need to look at the leaders in the comp in profitability, West Coasts strategy is simple charge greater membership prices, this is where Ports is flawed they are the cheapest in the league, you dont have to be to financially minded to work out how that will affect your bottom line do you? Would be interested to see what Collingwoods corporate dollar is with say their major sponsor of Emirates and Eddies connections, Im sure that contributes heavily on their bottom line.

Maybe the SANFL clubs need to look at ventures that will make them money.

Westies should put on moonlight cinema on their big screen and sell steak sandwiches sausages and beer. Might draw a bigger crowd than their footy and actually make more money.

 

[PrideOf]

Worked with someone who was at Treasury when Foley wanted the funds for AO. He was told our state can't afford it, but he pushed for it to happen regardless of what the modelling said.

Time will tell how history remembers that move and Foley's legacy in regards to getting the move to AO done and the impact on our state financially in the long run.

As Foley just said, it was he, Ian McLaughlin and Vlad who got it done. Noone else was involved in getting it done.

Including Port. And that's coming from Kevin Foley who bleeds black and white. An interesting counter-perspective to those PAPs who constantly bleat that it was them who moved heaven and earth to get to Adelaide Oval. You would have thought if Port was a key driver here, Foley would be proclaiming that from the rooftops.

 

[marty36]

Um Marty, Port's membership revenue from this year Is apparently $9.75 million. If we compare this figure against the revenue figures from club membership figures for 2013, this would put Port in 5th position less than half a million behind Fremantle, less than 3 Quarters of a million behind Collingwood and well in front of league heavyweights Essendon, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn and Geelong. Try again.

Yet how much will Collingwood make over the Power, the financials cant be compared due to their revenue streams being totally different ie Corporate sponsorships, or in Carltons case Pokie revenue, and if you want to compare the market leaders West Coast, membership $ whom have less members than the Power but pull in excess probably this year of $7 or $8 Million more. No clubs has the same set up but aim for the best West Coast

 

[Papa G]

Yet how much will Collingwood make over the Power, the financials cant be compared due to their revenue streams being totally different ie Corporate sponsorships, or in Carltons case Pokie revenue, and if you want to compare the market leaders West Coast, membership $ whom have less members than the Power but pull in excess probably this year of $7 or $8 Million more. No clubs has the same set up but aim for the best West Coast

So we cant compare club revenue streams, but Port have to beat the richest club in the league to make a profit ie become the richest club in the league, to make a profit. Got it. Adelaide are actually the only club that are getting close to West Coast, but will only just be in the black. Meanwhile clubs like North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs are declaring profits? Even you can see that something doesn't add up.

 

[Mattrox]

Yet how much will Collingwood make over the Power, the financials cant be compared due to their revenue streams being totally different ie Corporate sponsorships, or in Carltons case Pokie revenue, and if you want to compare the market leaders West Coast, membership $ whom have less members than the Power but pull in excess probably this year of $7 or $8 Million more. No clubs has the same set up but aim for the best West Coast

Hang on..... You were potting Port Power for their membership revenue specifically.

You are shifting the goal posts now.

 

[marty36]

Hang on..... You were potting Port Power for their membership revenue specifically.

You are shifting the goal posts now.

They are the cheapest in the league, tell me what affect that will have on your reveune? MMM sell for less but make more, only if you have ridculous amounts of volumes and it still isnt guaranteed as two generate more $$ you may have more expenses!

 

[marty36]

So we cant compare club revenue streams, but Port have to beat the richest club in the league to make a profit ie become the richest club in the league, to make a profit. Got it. Adelaide are actually the only club that are getting close to West Coast, but will only just be in the black. Meanwhile clubs like North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs are declaring profits? Even you can see that something doesn't add up.

I cited three clubs, you chose my West Coast example, but whilst we are on it, why would I want to be like any other club than the best, to follow North melbourne or Western Bulldogs model is dumb they have been handed out $$ by teh AFL for years. Adelaide are charging what West Coast do, if they want more revenue follow the leader! Its their decision they dont have to, and have chosen not to for reasons they feel

 

[Papa G]

They are the cheapest in the league, tell me what affect that will have on your reveune? MMM sell for less but make more, only if you have ridculous amounts of volumes and it still isnt guaranteed as two generate more $$ you may have more expenses!

It still generated $9.75 million though, which on last years numbers would be 5th in the league.

The SANFL wants more people through the gates. They make huge money off the catering. The more people through the gate, the more over priced hot dogs and beer sold. All goes to the SANFL.

 

[Papa G]

I cited three clubs, you chose my West Coast example, but whilst we are on it, why would I want to be like any other club than the best, to follow North melbourne or Western Bulldogs model is dumb they have been handed out $$ by teh AFL for years. Adelaide are charging what West Coast do, if they want more revenue follow the leader! Its their decision they dont have to, and have chosen not to for reasons they feel

But Port are within a bees dick of Freo in terms of Revenue, Crows are a couple of a million past them, Freo are flying financially under their model.

 

[marty36]

It still generated $9.75 million though, which on last years numbers would be 5th in the league.

The SANFL wants more people through the gates. They make huge money off the catering. The more people through the gate, the more over priced hot dogs and beer sold. All goes to the SANFL.

So what do the clubs care about the SANFL they are making that painfully clear at the moment

Like I said if it is reduced numbers but greater profit which is what the WEST COAST have, run with it, but if the demand is there and its only a matter of so many thousand memberships, but sell at a premium.

If you dont want to follow the market leader and look to the Bulldogs or North Melbournes model, so be it!

 

[marty36]

But Port are within a bees dick of Freo in terms of Revenue, Crows are a couple of a million past them, Freo are flying financially under their model.

Ive tried to compare the 2014 figures whilst Adelaide and power are at AO to freo but cant locate any numbers, flick us the link so I can compare would you?