Adelaide Oval Review

[redandblack]

That seems to sum it up pretty well, Cleric.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[*PAF]

Good to see that the exaggerators of what others have posted are in unison.

 

[marty36]

Man there is some stupid stuff posted here. The SANFL owned both AFL licences here, had an iron clad contract that ALL AFL games would be played at AAMI. This talk about the AFL allowing Poort to play at AO against the SANFL wishes is just bullshit. People who believe this crap are the type of people that that think King Bongo Bongo from Nigeria will give them 20 million dollars for allowing them to transfer a bit of money into their bank accounts to avoid taxes.
The reality is that the SANFL and the clubs will come to a deal.
All this dreaming about the AFL coming in like a knight in shining armour to defend the damsel in distress (PAP) by putting the SANFL to the sword is just a sign of a weak mind. The AFL helped write the damm contract and gave it their tick of approval. As if they are suddenly gonna change their mind. Sure they could, but im pretty sure the AFL dont want to pay out the hundreds and hundreds of millions it would cost them if they break their deal with the SANFL. Same goes for the government. The SANFL hold all the cards and everyone knows it. Thats why you dont sign contracts you arnt happy with. If your stupid enough to, then dont bitch afterwards.

But they had this big gun and made them. (joke)

Im actually sure the AFL promised both parties something that was conflicting, which is why neither party wants to back down. The issue is the SANFL have a prominent Adelaide Solicitor on their board who would have ensured their legal position, where the clubs trusted the AFL. Silly mistake!

 

[TheFVK]

No the 119 tippett-gate crap is hardly making this thread better!

I never thought I'd see the day where that kind of dribble is a refreshing break from the discussion You'd think on such a unifying topic that kind of talk could be left out of this thread (both sides at fault as always). Ah well.

Needless to say this topic's pretty stale, the argument's been going around in circles for weeks; not to mention redundant if the revised deal is in fact finalised as some sources suggest.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Man there is some stupid stuff posted here. The SANFL owned both AFL licences here, had an iron clad contract that ALL AFL games would be played at AAMI. This talk about the AFL allowing Poort to play at AO against the SANFL wishes is just bullshit. People who believe this crap are the type of people that that think King Bongo Bongo from Nigeria will give them 20 million dollars for allowing them to transfer a bit of money into their bank accounts to avoid taxes.
The reality is that the SANFL and the clubs will come to a deal.
All this dreaming about the AFL coming in like a knight in shining armour to defend the damsel in distress (PAP) by putting the SANFL to the sword is just a sign of a weak mind. The AFL helped write the damm contract and gave it their tick of approval. As if they are suddenly gonna change their mind. Sure they could, but im pretty sure the AFL dont want to pay out the hundreds and hundreds of millions it would cost them if they break their deal with the SANFL. Same goes for the government. The SANFL hold all the cards and everyone knows it. Thats why you dont sign contracts you arnt happy with. If your stupid enough to, then dont bitch afterwards.

I wonder where the All powerful SANFL think they would be if, aided by the SANFL mean-spiritedness and greed, the Power eventually fails. There would be no money coming to them from Port games at Adelaide Oval then. Lose lose.

 

[redandblack]

Good to see that the exaggerators of what others have posted are in unison.

I have to say I have some sympathy with the Port fans posting here.

The only thing they can point to is that they draw a good crowd, which produces income. They receive a return of a goodly proportion of that income.

Those crowds have only materialised in the past couple of years or so in recent times.

On the opposite side is 137 years, contracts, ownership of licences, building a stadium,etc,etc.

This doesn't deter the Port fans.

Their losses are all due to the greed of the SANFL. As for unison, they're all in furious agreement that they're totally wronged and anyone who disagrees with them is somehow intellectually challenged, etc.

They're not deterred. They know the SANFL are crooks, cheats and anti-football haters.

There's no room for an alternative view. If you don't agree that Port are right in all things, you become someone to ridicule.

Perhaps the real story is that all parties are just trying to get the best deal possible for their respective entities, or is that not enough of a conspiracy theory?

 

[1970crow]

I will make it simple for you, when Foley and the AFL approached the SANFL, who as Foley said would not even entertain talk about moving to the AO because of the SACA, what did they promise the SANFL to make them even consider moving? An uplift in what they were earning AAMI maybe

Maybe the exact same but combined with the guaranteed re-zoning and subsequent new-found ability to sell footy park. The uplift from not needing to service their massive debt would reap them $millions. Then take into account no R&M and no need for self-funded development. They get to re-deploy their own asset to retire debt, no ongoing maintenance and keep the same nett income from footy games. That's a frukking sweet deal marty and they were right to wave ta ta to footy park.

 

[Jello_B]

Obviously speculating

But the SANFL where enticed to come back to AO by both the State Government and AFL, and do you think they would have done that because they had a change of heart and liked and trusted the SACA or the financial benefits offered were too great to forego by the SA government and AFL.

The Crows and Power as I am told were forced to sign the deal with the only organisation having that power over them being the AFL. Yes the SANFL own the licences and had a power over their board which now that power has been transferred to the AFL who now control their boards.

So you tell me who should give in, the SANFL will show some goodwill that we know as it has been clearly leaked, but not what the Power and Crows want.

The fact that it has gone on for almost 6 months shows some organisations(AFL) are ducking for cover because of how the deal was brokered by themselves.

Marty, you keep banging on about one point and one point alone which I give you credit for. But change is change, expand your scope.

 

[marty36]

Maybe the exact same but combined with the guaranteed re-zoning and subsequent new-found ability to sell footy park. The uplift from not needing to service their massive debt would reap them $millions. Then take into account no R&M and no need for self-funded development. They get to re-deploy their own asset to retire debt, no ongoing maintenance and keep the same nett income from footy games. That's a frukking sweet deal marty and they were right to wave ta ta to footy park.

No doubt but with three accountants sitting on the SANFL board the SA government and AFL wouldn't have had to point them out. What was the primary sweetener that got them into negotiation mode as they wouldn't even sit in the same room as the SACA

 

[marty36]

Marty, you keep banging on about one point and one point alone which I give you credit for. But change is change, expand your scope.

How can I, its the entire reason the SANFL were convinced to move, if they were promised something why not expect it. And to have someone try and take what was promised away is completely wrong!

 

[Jello_B]

Marty, you make the mistake of expecting a logical answer to this.

You won't get one.

It doesn't fit the agenda.

The fact is we don't know the answer, Marty admitted he is speculating. Do you know? If you do than tell me. What's the point of asking the same question over and over if no one knows the answer.

 

[Cleric]

I wonder where the All powerful SANFL think they would be if, aided by the SANFL mean-spiritedness and greed, the Power eventually fails. There would be no money coming to them from Port games at Adelaide Oval then. Lose lose.

The AFL and its TV deal requires two teams in SA. If PAP is unable to pay its bills and goes bust then another side from SA will created, most likely a combined Western Suburbs team.
You guys got 10 million from your stadium deal. The AFL has Vic clubs who got 1.5 million from theirs. Do you really think they are gonna go to war for your club against the SANFL when you are in the top 5 for stadium revenue? Especially considering you made more than some of the powerhouse Vic clubs like Carlton and Richmond. I think not.
Just dont spend more than you earn and you should be cool. The two biggest AFL clubs income wise didnt make the 8 last season, while you guys did. Money isnt everything. Bottoming out and getting 5 years of top draft picks is far more important.

 

[Jello_B]

Man there is some stupid stuff posted here. The SANFL owned both AFL licences here, had an iron clad contract that ALL AFL games would be played at AAMI. This talk about the AFL allowing Poort to play at AO against the SANFL wishes is just bullshit. People who believe this crap are the type of people that that think King Bongo Bongo from Nigeria will give them 20 million dollars for allowing them to transfer a bit of money into their bank accounts to avoid taxes.
The reality is that the SANFL and the clubs will come to a deal.
All this dreaming about the AFL coming in like a knight in shining armour to defend the damsel in distress (PAP) by putting the SANFL to the sword is just a sign of a weak mind. The AFL helped write the damm contract and gave it their tick of approval. As if they are suddenly gonna change their mind. Sure they could, but im pretty sure the AFL dont want to pay out the hundreds and hundreds of millions it would cost them if they break their deal with the SANFL. Same goes for the government. The SANFL hold all the cards and everyone knows it. Thats why you dont sign contracts you arnt happy with. If your stupid enough to, then dont bitch afterwards.

Lol, the SANFL can be crushed, contract or no contract.

 

[Jello_B]

But they had this big gun and made them. (joke)

Im actually sure the AFL promised both parties something that was conflicting, which is why neither party wants to back down. The issue is the SANFL have a prominent Adelaide Solicitor on their board who would have ensured their legal position, where the clubs trusted the AFL. Silly mistake!

Lol again, do you live in the real world.

 

[marty36]

The fact is we don't know the answer, Marty admitted he is speculating. Do you know? If you do than tell me. What's the point of asking the same question over and over if no one knows the answer.

Sorry should we stick to the facts and facts only

There was a deal signed and agreed upon by all parties that had no out clause!! That's all we don't even know the real returns!

 

[marty36]

Lol, the SANFL can be crushed, contract or no contract.

If it was that easy it would have been done 6 months ago!!!!!

 

[Jello_B]

How can I, its the entire reason the SANFL were convinced to move, if they were promised something why not expect it. And to have someone try and take what was promised away is completely wrong!

Welcome to reality Marty, not everything is right for everyone.

 

[1970crow]

Man there is some stupid stuff posted here. The SANFL owned both AFL licences here, had an iron clad contract that ALL AFL games would be played at AAMI. This talk about the AFL allowing Poort to play at AO against the SANFL wishes is just bullshit. People who believe this crap are the type of people that that think King Bongo Bongo from Nigeria will give them 20 million dollars for allowing them to transfer a bit of money into their bank accounts to avoid taxes.
The reality is that the SANFL and the clubs will come to a deal.
All this dreaming about the AFL coming in like a knight in shining armour to defend the damsel in distress (PAP) by putting the SANFL to the sword is just a sign of a weak mind. The AFL helped write the damm contract and gave it their tick of approval. As if they are suddenly gonna change their mind. Sure they could, but im pretty sure the AFL dont want to pay out the hundreds and hundreds of millions it would cost them if they break their deal with the SANFL. Same goes for the government. The SANFL hold all the cards and everyone knows it. Thats why you dont sign contracts you arnt happy with. If your stupid enough to, then dont bitch afterwards.

The way that port would have moved to AO isn't a difficult process to understand. If the AFL sat on their hands for a couple of years and hadn't previously provided funding or continued to for port, then the sanfl would have to have carried the entire can. We know their bankers dumped them, so liquidity was clearly an issue. How much longer could the sanfl subsidise port? The end result is the license goes back to the afl and port go wherever the afl wants them.

Problem for the sanfl is that they make more from port playing at footy park than what they lend back. But it's not enough to sustain their current operational activities. How such a big entity, with a massive asset got itself into a position where their loans were called in is beyond me. But Vlads desire to be the facilitator in the mending of the SACA's and sanfl decades long freeze, so he could proclaim AO as his achievement, got in the way of the clubs getting the best deal possible.

I know you're Port hatred blinds you from common sense in this discussion, but if you seriously cannot see a way that the afl could gain control of the second SA license, then you haven't been taking much notice of the financial plight of the sanfl in recent years.

 

[Jello_B]

If it was that easy it would have been done 6 months ago!!!!!

Maybe we and the Crows, AFL, State don't want that. For ****s sake, I like the SANFL, I want them to be successful. Read my posts. Just because you can crush something doesn't mean you want to or will.

 

[Malibu#27]

How can I, its the entire reason the SANFL were convinced to move, if they were promised something why not expect it. And to have someone try and take what was promised away is completely wrong!

You continually avoid answering the question - could they have moved to avoid losing money - hence the quotes that they would only move if they didn't lose money.
You keep banging on that they moved for an uplift but they just as easily have moved to avoid a downturn with no money to fix it. The SANFL have quotes saying they would only move if they didn't lose out and I recall one that said they were after a status quo deal. Both contradict you - are they lying.

 

[Jello_B]

Sorry should we stick to the facts and facts only

There was a deal signed and agreed upon by all parties that had no out clause!! That's all we don't even know the real returns!

No Marty, off again, feel free to speculate all you like, I applauded you for your commitment, but I also suggested that you may want to consider an element outside of 1 agenda item concerning uplift for 1 party in a multi party deal.

 

[OneGreatClub]

The AFL and its TV deal requires two teams in SA. If PAP is unable to pay its bills and goes bust then another side from SA will created, most likely a combined Western Suburbs team.
You guys got 10 million from your stadium deal. The AFL has Vic clubs who got 1.5 million from theirs. Do you really think they are gonna go to war for your club against the AFL when you are in the top 5 for stadium revenue? Especially considering you made more than some of the powerhouse Vic clubs like Carlton and Richmond. I think not.
Just dont spend more than you earn and you should be cool. The two biggest AFL clubs income wise didnt make the 8 last season, while you guys did. Money isnt everything. Bottoming out and getting 5 years of top draft picks is far more important.

Well Port are in the bottom third of footy department spend, so aren't squandering, thank goodness, but the deal at AO has to be something that will not disadvantage either AFL club in the future. Remember though that when Port bottomed out the new franchise teams came in, draining the draft of talent. PAFC has done amazingly well considering it bottomed out at an unfortunate time. Clubs with better opportunities squandered them. Port are to be admired for their exceptional drafting.

 

[1970crow]

No doubt but with three accountants sitting on the SANFL board the SA government and AFL wouldn't have had to point them out. What was the primary sweetener that got them into negotiation mode as they wouldn't even sit in the same room as the SACA

Are these the same accountants that would have been looking after the sanfl's accounting system and negotiating with their bankers about not calling in the debt? I've explained the uplift that would have got them in the room, are you stating that it wasn't enough for them? They needed more than that? And in the next breath you'll be telling me that they're not greedy, I suppose.

 

[marty36]

You continually avoid answering the question - could they have moved to avoid losing money - hence the quotes that they would only move if they didn't lose money.
You keep banging on that they moved for an uplift but they just as easily have moved to avoid a downturn with no money to fix it. The SANFL have quotes saying they would only move if they didn't lose out and I recall one that said they were after a status quo deal. Both contradict you - are they lying.

Ive said it to you before but status quo means the same doesn't it

So 2013 saw AAMI with an average crowd of 34.5K and returned net $12 million after expenses
So 2014 saw a average of 46.5K and increase of about 33% so you would expect a return of $3,960,000 additional with a status quo scenario, wouldn't you?

 

[Malibu#27]

Are these the same accountants that would have been looking after the sanfl's accounting system and negotiating with their bankers about not calling in the debt? I've explained the uplift that would have got them in the room, are you stating that it wasn't enough for them? They needed more than that? And in the next breath you'll be telling me that they're not greedy, I suppose.

Maybe the accountants were smart enough to realise that to do nothing would see them go backwards