Adelaide Oval Review

[marty36]

Clubs will each get more than 650k based on similar attendances imo.

How much more each? Based on last years numbers!

 

[marty36]

I don't know the inner works of the dealings so it is difficult to comment but I'll try. Any profit over and above what the SANFL needs to run their organisation should go to the AFL teams so they can be leading the AFL in spend. The SANFL can have what they need. If their is a significant profit left over that (AFL teams leading comp in spend and SANFL running an organisation) that can be divvied up. I have no interest in an argument that just because the SANFL made so much at AAMI, they should make more at AO, it is flawed because they are not contributing to the profit generated at AO.
If you want to counter that with a 'business' conversation (contracts or similar) then please read my earlier posts - let the natural order of a combined State/AFL/PAFC/Crows dictate the terms to the SANFL.
Again, I'll reiterate, I like option 1 above, where the SANFL get what they need and the PAFC/Crows get what they need.

Is it flawed that the SANFL were enticed with offerings from the SA government and AFL to get them to move and too think it wasn't for an increase in stadium revenue is totally ignorant!

The SANFL have been showing losses so cant see too much being left over can you?

 

[redandblack]

Did I say they negotiated the tv deal ? (Yep ... Oops) .... Having a director as Ceo doesn't hurt though ? Ports involvement was to a sponsor tied in with tv real

The word negotiated was incorrect in context regardless as I admitted above

Ps - irrespective of how its a great thing for the SANFL to have commercial coverage- it surely helps with exposure and helps with future flow on benefits

No worries, I agree with that.

 

[Malibu#27]

Is it flawed that the SANFL were enticed with offerings from the SA government and AFL to get them to move and too think it wasn't for an increase in stadium revenue is totally ignorant!

John Olsen is naive then ? Or just deceptive ?
You seem to think the SANFL has an uplift.

SANFL president John Olsen has been clear in what the SANFL expects from a new deal, which is likely to be announced in the next two or three weeks.

"The move to Adelaide Oval ... the product has got to be something that maintains, simply, the break-even (for the SANFL) because we've already given to the footy clubs a substantial uplift" Olsen said
"And we won't be dictated to by anybody in relation to this.

"But it will be a fair deal that looks after and protects the interests of every component of football in South Australia.

Here's what the clubs think:

"(Both clubs) aren't happy with (the financial returns). We certainly got an uplift, but given the attendances were way above those that were modelled, the uplift should have been far more significant. We've got to fix it.

"It's taken some time because it's such a significant negotiation (and) it's a challenging one … (and) it's going to affect generations to come. So the priority is to get it right. We don't want to rush to meet deadlines or the like.

"The negotiation is being held in good spirit but it's not concluded yet."

 

[Redline]

Your idea of relevance is AFL football and nothing else.

The SANFL is extremely relevant to the rest of the football community outside the corporate world of AFL.

There's room for both to be relevant.

Its a good post in that if you read the Port board nothing else matters. You are not allowed to follow anything but the AFL. I follow an AFL club, an SANFL club, a Hills club and support a SAAFL club to varying degrees. I don't see that as a problem but over there anything outside of the AFL is apparently 'irrelevant '.

 

[Jello_B]

Is it flawed that the SANFL were enticed with offerings from the SA government and AFL to get them to move and too think it wasn't for an increase in stadium revenue is totally ignorant!

The SANFL have been showing losses so cant see too much being left over can you?

I think we are disagreeing on the fundamental objective of the SANFL, in my opinion they don't need an increase, they don't need a decrease, they only need enough to run the local competition. Open up their books, be transparent about what they are spending their money on and that's it. Pretty simple. The SANFL is a community function now, they don't need profits. They need a sustainable business model.
I like business concepts to be simple (that's all I can understand).
If the SANFL are running at a loss without revenue generated from the AFL teams, they need to reconsider their operations.

 

[redandblack]

We were all getting on well at last, Jello, then you take us back a long way.

The answers to your statements are in the prior 144 pages.

You like simple concepts. Well, read the SANFL Annual Reports for what they do, which is vastly more than the local competition.

Then read Redline's recent post pointing out Port supporter's thoughts that nothing else matters except the AFL, which you have just confirmed.

I don't think you do understand simple concepts if you think a sustainable business model of any sort doesn't need profits.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You keep regurgitating this 'greedy SANFL' with no evidence whatsoever.

I said long before you that the split will be changed.

Due to pressure. nothing to do with your silly 'greed' call.

Make no mistake it is greed.

The sanfl have been the major benefactor of the good work of the Afl clubs to increase crowds.

Now this is rightly being addressed.

It should never have got to this...

 

[redandblack]

"make no mistake, it is greed".

That is called opinion.

Your opinion.

Others have different opinions and they're all worth the same.

 

[QPower]

"make no mistake, it is greed".

That is called opinion.

Your opinion.

Others have different opinions and they're all worth the same.

Others are wrong.

 

[redandblack]

Others are wrong.

More opinion, no facts.

Thanks for proving it.

 

[Jello_B]

We were all getting on well at last, Jello, then you take us back a long way.

The answers to your statements are in the prior 144 pages.

You like simple concepts. Well, read the SANFL Annual Reports for what they do, which is vastly more than the local competition.

Then read Redline's recent post pointing out Port supporter's thoughts that nothing else matters except the AFL, which you have just confirmed.

I don't think you do understand simple concepts if you think a sustainable business model of any sort doesn't need profits.

Sorry mate, when I say 'local competition' this is implies all ancillaries of the SANFL function. I have read the report.
Where did I say that nothing else matters besides the AFL, read my posts, my position is that the SANFL need enough money to run a successful local competition (and ancillaries), how does this in any way ascertain I think they are not important.
My comment regarding profit refers excess profit, ie excess to what is needed to run a successful competition (and ancillaries, last time I say that I think you get the picture).
I think for the SANFL to be sustainable they need to be profitable without the AFL teams contributing.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

"make no mistake, it is greed".

That is called opinion.

Your opinion.

Others have different opinions and they're all worth the same.

Most of the extra $'s has flowed to the sanfl - that is greed.

Don't worry the agreement will be fixed.

 

[Jello_B]

"make no mistake, it is greed".

That is called opinion.

Your opinion.

Others have different opinions and they're all worth the same.

Personal opinions are not all worth the same, some are worth more than others. For example, the opinion of the AFL is worth more than the opinion of the SANFL. This is not a jab at you, but this is a fact.

 

[Cleric]

Most of the extra $'s has flowed to the sanfl - that is greed.

Don't worry the agreement will be fixed.

But dont be surprised when the "extra $s" they are fighting for isnt as big as you think, and it wont go from Poort having a loss to suddenly having a profit. Make no mistake, they are still going to have a huge loss. Where that leaves your "4th best home attendance and still made a loss" line of argument I dont know.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But dont be surprised when the "extra $s" they are fighting for isnt as big as you think, and it wont go from Poort having a loss to suddenly having a profit. Make no mistake, they are still going to have a huge loss. Where that leaves your "4th best home attendance and still made a loss" line of argument I dont know.

As I have mentioned numerous times, this shouldn't be so much about the actual $'s distributed rather a transparent arrangement which gives the Afl clubs incentives to generate more $'s by being the major benefactors of growth.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Ps. Doesn't Adelaide United pay a fixed amount to play at hindmarsh or Adelaide oval?

Surely a similar deal for the Afl clubs - minimum fixed rental + marginal cost on crowds.

 

[*PAF]

Ps. Doesn't Adelaide United pay a fixed amount to play at hindmarsh or Adelaide oval?

Surely a similar deal for the Afl clubs - minimum fixed rental + marginal cost on crowds.

REH explained why they can make money with smaller crowds at AO.
Basically they sell more tickets at the gate.

 

[marty36]

Most of the extra $'s has flowed to the sanfl - that is greed.

Don't worry the agreement will be fixed.

I wont argue with you on some of the SANFL's shortcomings

But if you look at the two AFL clubs shortcomings they are minor in comparison

I agree there will be some goodwill shown by the SANFL as leaks have already suggested, this but to think each club will receive an additional uplift of $5 Million each is just downright ridiculous and needs to remain on the PAP's board, the pie is only so big. If you have ever had a look at their board, there are plenty of conspiracy theories or just downright Bullshit written suggesting fraud and all sorts. If you are going to have a debate about this you may aswell discuss it here, as there are two sides to everything in life.

If you want to discuss the two major unanswered questions like

1.The Two clubs wanted a review because they weren't comfortable in signing the agreement offered at the 13th hour

2.What did the SA Government and AFL promise or offer to the SANFL to come on board what was the financial benefits guaranteed

In both of these questions I think you will find they point back to the AFL in getting the clubs to sign and the SANFL to agree, yet again no one questions their role in anything.

 

[marty36]

Personal opinions are not all worth the same, some are worth more than others. For example, the opinion of the AFL is worth more than the opinion of the SANFL. This is not a jab at you, but this is a fact.

Agree, the AFL is the driver of this whole debate, how did they get the SANFL to AO or how did they get the Clubs to sign the agreements?

 

[footy4ever]

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

Instead you have to play at Adelaide's Oval.

 

[redandblack]

Most of the extra $'s has flowed to the sanfl - that is greed.

Don't worry the agreement will be fixed.

So if more will flow to the clubs, in your world, that will be their greed.

You keep saying the agreement will be fixed. I'll remind you again that I've said from day one it will be changed to favour the clubs more than the SANFL, so you needn't keep claiming that as exclusively yours.

 

[redandblack]

Instead you have to play at Adelaide's Oval.

Quite.

At Adelaide Oval, where all the record crowds are for SANFL games, as they also were at Football Park.

Times change and they will change again.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Quite.

At Adelaide Oval, where all the record crowds are for SANFL games, as they also were at Football Park.

Times change and they will change again.

Yes times change and AO is now the Portress

 

[OneGreatClub]

Quite.

At Adelaide Oval, where all the record crowds are for SANFL games, as they also were at Football Park.

Times change and they will change again.

And those record SANFL crowds were due to the Maggies weren't they?