Adelaide Oval Review

[redandblack]

Yep, however we don't know how much of an increase the $45mil is on what they got in the past.

Where does this figure of $45 million come from.

If, as I think, it's a figure over 15 years, I think the majority of it (perhaps $30 million) is a one-off payment for the licences and only $1 million a year for junior development?

Not saying I'm right, but I haven't seen anything to explain this figure.

 

[*PAF]

If you were honest with yourself, don't you think the SANFL's first and most important question was, what return will we be getting from the AO for us to even consider the move, apart from the other offshoots?

No that would be double dipping, as the AFL could have said you get this much from the stadium and we will compensate the clubs by $2mil per year.

 

[Jello_B]

It shouldn't be about powerful bodies 'killing' a smaller body.

Secondly, the reality is that the SANFL have an 80 year contract. If it went to the courts, my opinion would be that the AFL and the clubs wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

If you say this happens all the time in business, perhaps you could let me know how the AFL and clubs would drain the SANFL financially through the courts (forgetting the total lack of morality shown)?

Morality aside (I don't disagree that this would be a harsh move), if we are focussing on contracts etc... do you not agree that if the State/AFL/PAFC/Crows combined to drain the SANFL they could.
How long could the SANFL stand up in court financially? Not all stories end like the Castle.
In this regard the SANFL are in a weak position due to their size.

 

[*PAF]

Where does this figure of $45 million come from.

If, as I think, it's a figure over 15 years, I think the majority of it (perhaps $30 million) is a one-off payment for the licences and only $1 million a year for junior development?

Not saying I'm right, but I haven't seen anything to explain this figure.

I've only read it once or twice but IIRC it is roughly $3mil per year over X years to go towards development. That probably doesn't mean an increase of $3mil per year as they would have already been receiving something.

There was more to the move than just the stadium contract.

 

[*PAF]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/22243068/eagles-dockers-licences-staying-put/

 

[marty36]

Where does this figure of $45 million come from.

If, as I think, it's a figure over 15 years, I think the majority of it (perhaps $30 million) is a one-off payment for the licences and only $1 million a year for junior development?

Not saying I'm right, but I haven't seen anything to explain this figure.

Ferret Head quoted it!!!! Believe it or not your call!

 

[*PAF]

Ferret Head quoted it!!!! Believe it or not your call!

You're too quick. Read the post above yours.

 

[Concussion]

Secondly, the reality is that the SANFL have an 80 year contract. If it went to the courts, my opinion would be that the AFL and the clubs wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Think you will find under the SMA agreement that SACA has a 80year lease and SANFL has a 20year lease, which can then be renogiated.

 

[marty36]

Morality aside (I don't disagree that this would be a harsh move), if we are focussing on contracts etc... do you not agree that if the State/AFL/PAFC/Crows combined to drain the SANFL they could.
How long could the SANFL stand up in court financially? Not all stories end like the Castle.
In this regard the SANFL are in a weak position due to their size.

You think, I am sure the SA government when suggested should change legislation to change the SMA set up, it was questioned on what compensation or litigation the SANFL could take if this occurred and would win! As I said they were definetly enticed to move, it has been stated, who offered what to get them to move, maybe its taken 6 months as there is no legal leg to stand on to force a review to take place and its a delicate situation that needs a lot of goodwill from the SANFL!

 

[marty36]

You're too quick. Read the post above yours.

Ive always said on quoted figures, meaning take your pick if you want to believe, not they are receiving like the $45 million was posted!

 

[marty36]

You're too quick. Read the post above yours.

PS that quote was from the Roach, well and truly a non reliable source!

 

[*PAF]

PS that quote was from the Roach, well and truly a non reliable source!

C'mon marty. There is only so much one can negate.

 

[redandblack]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/22243068/eagles-dockers-licences-staying-put/

Thanks PAF, that clears it up, much appreciated.

So that's another agreement the SANFL have until 2028.

 

[redandblack]

Morality aside (I don't disagree that this would be a harsh move), if we are focussing on contracts etc... do you not agree that if the State/AFL/PAFC/Crows combined to drain the SANFL they could.
How long could the SANFL stand up in court financially? Not all stories end like the Castle.
In this regard the SANFL are in a weak position due to their size.

Sorry Jello, I don't agree with that.

I agree the AFL, etc could take the SANFL to court, but the SANFL have sufficient reserves to fund that.

If and when the AFL lose the court case (on the grounds they have no reason to sue and there are watertight contracts in place), they would no doubt be ordered top pay the SANFL's costs.

It wouldn't happen anyway, for political purposes. The reason I don't want to see the AFL control football in SA, is that they couldn't care less about SA football and we would all suffer. Besides that, they'll want to keep up the pretence it's all one big, happy, football family.

 

[redandblack]

Think you will find under the SMA agreement that SACA has a 80year lease and SANFL has a 20year lease, which can then be renogiated.

Do you have a link for that?

I'd be surprised if both bodies didn't have the same term.

 

[Rusty Crow]

Do you have a link for that?

I'd be surprised if both bodies didn't have the same term.

REH has posted the info in the power oval deal thread.

 

[Concussion]

Do you have a link for that?

I'd be surprised if both bodies didn't have the same term.

Check out page 172 on port board stadium thread

 

[redandblack]

Thanks for that, RC and Cam, appreciate REH posting that and your reference.

You'll agree Cam, on the terms you've referred to, that the further 3 terms aren't 'renegotiated', but are granted to the SANFL at their request, if they've kept to the agreement.

That is, the SANFL have an 80 year lease if they behave themselves.

 

[Concussion]

Thanks for that, RC and Cam, appreciate REH posting that and your reference.

You'll agree Cam, on the terms you've referred to, that the further 3 terms aren't 'renegotiated', but are granted to the SANFL at their request, if they've kept to the agreement.

That is, the SANFL have an 80 year lease if they behave themselves.

Or if you were cynical, it could be a way of removing the SANFL from AO after the AFL licences have been paid off by Port and the Crows and or the current AAMI stadium lease has expired??

 

[*PAF]

PS that quote was from the Roach, well and truly a non reliable source!

Just for you marty.

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2415/

 

[RonSon]

Google Adelaide oval & you will soon find out the influence of both Foley & ex-fat controller to make it happen.

If left to the sanfl to negotiate with the saca, we would still be playing afl at footy park!

Ps. Happy for you to run a poll as to whom of us is ignorant

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...nt-adelaide-oval/story-fni6uo1m-1226868051811

In a bombshell, Foley says the AFL would have shifted the Power to the city regardless of SANFL support to ensure the financially stricken club’s survival.
“Andrew Demetriou took the primary role in getting the SANFL to see sense,” recalled Foley.
“I remember meeting with Mike Fitzpatrick and Andrew a couple of times in Melbourne who revealed to me if the SANFL didn’t come on board they would move Port Adelaide to a semi-developed Adelaide Oval regardless.”

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...nt-adelaide-oval/story-fni6uo1m-1226868051811

 

[OneGreatClub]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...nt-adelaide-oval/story-fni6uo1m-1226868051811



http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...nt-adelaide-oval/story-fni6uo1m-1226868051811

Wish they had. We could have had the Portress to ourselves and Crows could stay at that AAMi monstrosity. Win, win.

 

[Jello_B]

Sorry Jello, I don't agree with that.

I agree the AFL, etc could take the SANFL to court, but the SANFL have sufficient reserves to fund that.

If and when the AFL lose the court case (on the grounds they have no reason to sue and there are watertight contracts in place), they would no doubt be ordered top pay the SANFL's costs.

It wouldn't happen anyway, for political purposes. The reason I don't want to see the AFL control football in SA, is that they couldn't care less about SA football and we would all suffer. Besides that, they'll want to keep up the pretence it's all one big, happy, football family.

Does not necessarily need to be a win in the courts:

Set up media campaigns that discredit the SANFL
Tie up SANFL resources for years in court cases
Discontinue any State/AFL/PAFC/Crows support outside of the Contract
Delay and prevent as much as possible any money going to the SANFL

You can see where I am going, even if the SANFL contract is tight there are other ways to **** them

The overwhelming power is not with the SANFL, the contract may be in their favour but that's not everything. It's time for the SANFL to concede I think. There is nothing wrong with being a servant, and being a secondary local league this is the natural order.

I appreciate your gusto in sticking up for something you believe in, hats off. But the SANFL is a cockroach in the scheme of things.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

^
That can't seriously be your solution

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

^
That can't seriously be your solution

It won't get to the courts or any threats too. This is silly talk.

As government will get involved as last resort but I don't expect they will be needed,