Adelaide Oval Review

[marty36]

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.

Im not going there on the debt it just upsets the PAPS too much, add $16 million to the current debt and check on the ability to service the debt, I am sure if they had $16 million less there is no chance Westpac would have called it in. Do you?

 

[Malibu#27]

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 with a status quo scenario, wouldn't you?

That all depends on your definition of status quo doesn't it. If sanfl is happily operating on 12 million why to they need 15. So 12 million at AAMI and 12 million at ao is status quo.

Now that you are answering - is moving to AO for no uplift better than staying at AAMI for a reduction ?

 

[The_Wookie]

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..

Actually this isnt true. The tv deal requires 18 teams in the competition. It doesnt matter if they are in SA. And the AFL will never let a state league or state league based team in the competition again.

 

[marty36]

That all depends on your definition of status quo doesn't it.

Now that you are answering - is moving to AO for no uplift better than staying at AAMI for a reduction ?

I am hearing what you are saying may have happened.

But the Big D and Foley jumped the gun and were hell bent on getting the SANFL to AO, so are you saying they asked them to move with the please word. You have said how greedy the SANFL are so what do you think the SANFL wanted to move or more importantly what carrot the Big D and Foley used, with them knowing the SANFL's weakness for the return!

 

[Cleric]

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.

Your kidding yourself. The SANFL have a financial interest in Port. They own their licence through a contract, which guarentees them rights.
You really need to understand contract law. Just because the AFL has more money doesnt mean they can ignore contract law. Thats what courts are for. The SANFL could and would pay for any legal cost to defend their rights. If it was a simple as you said the AFL would have just taken back the licences but they couldnt and they had to be bought back. Sorry to burst your bubble. And as the SANFL owned Ports arse they would have made them cut costs and reduce spending to bring the loss down to where it wasnt a hit to the SANFL. Infact they should have done so many years ago. The fact that the SANFL allowed PAP to be poorly ran is their own fault.
Dont kid yourself.

 

[Malibu#27]

I am hearing what you are saying may have happened.

But the Big D and Foley jumped the gun and were hell bent on getting the SANFL to AO, so are you saying they asked them to move with the please word. You have said how greedy the SANFL are so what do you think the SANFL wanted to move or more importantly what carrot the Big D and Foley used, with them knowing the SANFL's weakness for the return!

You will need to reword that as it makes no sense.

I don't think Foley uses please much.

I remember a line from his grinning buddy Rann about the codes agreeing to the move by a date or all money was off table.

 

[Cleric]

Actually this isnt true. The tv deal requires 18 teams in the competition. It doesnt matter if they are in SA. And the AFL will never let a state league or state league based team in the competition again.

The AFL wants 2 teams in SA and sold it as such to the TV stations.
Please give a quote that the AFL will never allow an expansion team to come from a state league? I guarentee you if there is a third team in WA the WAFL will have a role in it.

 

[*PAF]

The AFL wants 2 teams in SA and sold it as such to the TV stations.
Please give a quote that the AFL will never allow an expansion team to come from a state league? I guarentee you if there is a third team in WA the WAFL will have a role in it.

Not unless they play ball. The AFL is now big enough and has gathered enough momentum that they don't need the help from local leagues like they used to.
Whether that's a good thing or not is open to debate, but it is the reality.

 

[Pdub]

Well Port are in the bottom third of footy department spend

in 2013 they were top of the bottom 6 for spending, in 2014 they increased their total spending by $3.5mil so I don't believe that stat is true anymore.

 

[Killer Power]

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!

This is the same deal that included a mid year review clause that triggered the current goings on? Not an out clause as such but a significant nod towards an understanding that negotiations were not finalised.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL wants 2 teams in SA and sold it as such to the TV stations.
Please give a quote that the AFL will never allow an expansion team to come from a state league? I guarentee you if there is a third team in WA the WAFL will have a role in it.

No they didnt. The rights are sold on a number of games per week/per year, not a specific number of teams per state. The AFL would prefer 2 teams in SA sure, but not if one is completely unviable.

I guarantee they will never have a state league involved in the running of an AFL club again. The AFL has been actively trying to get its teams out of state hands for some time. You think they were only talking to SA about the local AFL club licenses? They were talking to the WAFC at the same time. The difference is the urgency - none of the WAFC sides have been run into the ground. It will be a cold day in hell before the SANFL in particular are allowed near another AFL license.

West Coast and Fremantle want to have direct licence arrangements with the AFL, removing the WAFC from their structures.

Demetriou reiterated the league's preference for such an arrangement but said it would not interfere.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/14682090/demetriou-tells-wafc-to-avoid-clashes/

"It is important that at a point in time that our clubs are independent," Demetriou said.

"The clubs would prefer to be independent. They will continue to develop football because they're committed to developing football.

"I don't think there should be any fears about having this discussion.

"What we need to do collectively is work towards how we can do it better if we can. If we can't, then it will stay the same."

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/r...re-headache-20120827-24wir.html#ixzz24kmypEbh

 

[Vic_Vinegar]

The AFL wants 2 teams in SA and sold it as such to the TV stations.
Please give a quote that the AFL will never allow an expansion team to come from a state league? I guarentee you if there is a third team in WA the WAFL will have a role in it.

Show me a quote showing the AFL will allow an expansion team to come from a state league.

See how easy it is.

Also a composite side from the western suburbs. What an absolute load of crap. This will never happen. No, I can't show you quotes, just like you can't seem to show much common sense. This would Be doomed to fail and you must be able to see this. Port are in the AFL to stay and have always been and will continue to the only logical choice.

 

[marty36]

This is the same deal that included a mid year review clause that triggered the current goings on? Not an out clause as such but a significant nod towards an understanding that negotiations were not finalised.

I was asked to stick to the facts by your mate Jello_B, so can you stick to the facts the review didn't mean an out clause we know this!

 

[Pdub]

This is the same deal that included a mid year review clause that triggered the current goings on? Not an out clause as such but a significant nod towards an understanding that negotiations were not finalised.

The SANFL was the most reluctant party to move to Adelaide Oval, it's been established that there is no legal reason that the SANFL has to change anything in this review, doesn't logic tell you that the review was put in place at the request of the SANFL so they can renegotiate if they weren't happy with the deal, a sweetener put into the deal to put some of their worries at ease. If the goal of the review was for all parties to renegotiate then they would have given all parties equal power in the renegotiation, meaning that all parties would have to agree on the status quo not all parties having to agree to change.

 

[marty36]

in 2013 they were top of the bottom 6 for spending, in 2014 they increased their total spending by $3.5mil so I don't believe that stat is true anymore.

I shouldn't enter into this argument because its irrelevant to the deal at AO.

But regardless if your the highest spender or the lowest you can seriously only spend what you earn, regardless where you sit on the spending ladder.

 

[*PAF]

The next big shitfight will be when the SAFC will be restructured to decrease the influence of the SANFL clubs and include the AFL clubs.

I suggest you bookmark this post as you may need to wait a few years, but it will happen.

 

[charcolechaddy]

I shouldn't enter into this argument because its irrelevant to the deal at AO.

But regardless if your the highest spender or the lowest you can seriously only spend what you earn, regardless where you sit on the spending ladder.

This is simply not true, did you ever here that you may need to spend money to make money?

 

[Killer Power]

The SANFL was the most reluctant party to move to Adelaide Oval, it's been established that there is no legal reason that the SANFL has to change anything in this review, doesn't logic tell you that the review was put in place at the request of the SANFL so they can renegotiate if they weren't happy with the deal, a sweetener put into the deal to put some of their worries at ease. If the goal of the review was for all parties to renegotiate then they would have given all parties equal power in the renegotiation, meaning that all parties would have to agree on the status quo not all parties having to agree to change.

So your point is that this just a negotiation not a renegotiation??? And no, my logic supported by a number of comments from the CEO suggests that the clubs signed on at the 11th hour as they were reassured that a review would be undertaken once the financials of the stadium became clearer.

 

[Pdub]

I shouldn't enter into this argument because its irrelevant to the deal at AO.

But regardless if your the highest spender or the lowest you can seriously only spend what you earn, regardless where you sit on the spending ladder.

you can spend $2mil more than you earn and post a $2mil loss.

 

[Jello_B]

Love this thread, your opinions are appreciated. Good luck with it all.

 

[Pdub]

So your point is that this just a negotiation not a renegotiation??? And no, my logic supported by a number of comments from the CEO suggests that the clubs signed on at the 11th hour as they were reassured that a review would be undertaken once the financials of the stadium became clearer.

Well your logic says that the clubs are incredibly stupid to agree to a renegotiation where they had no power to change anything if they thought they might need to.

 

[footy4ever]

As I said, all old news, old stuff and quite boring. I can think of a couple of more recent ones though..the humiliating Tippetgate, embarrassing jumper gate, and the oh poor crows boys can't cope with the heat or a 6 day break. That says a lot about the Crows CULTURE in my book and it's most unflattering.

What's this shit? And what's it doing on this board?

 

[Killer Power]

Well your logic says that the clubs are incredibly stupid to agree to a renegotiation where they had no power to change anything if they thought they might need to.

Don't they? Then why will there be changes? Out of the goodness of the SNAFL's heart?

 

[marty36]

This is simply not true, did you ever here that you may need to spend money to make money?

Not if it sends you into liquidation , if your not making enough to survive. I am hoping any businesses you commence survive if you have a theory that you need to spend money regardless if you wont be able to service your debts or not!

 

[Pdub]

Don't they? Then why will there be changes? Out of the goodness of the SNAFL's heart?

The SANFL will only give up something out of the goodness of their hearts or like in most business negotiations if they get something else in return.