Adelaide Oval Review

[marty36]

Marty approach. But why would they agree? What is in the current contract that would make them reconsider?

As for your approach!

There is only one fact which all opinions are coming from the agreement that was signed and sealed stands with a review that effectively means nothing without goodwill!

My opinion is how did that agreement come about, it had to be agreed to by the State Government and AFL, forget the clubs they come under the AFL banner!

 

[footy4ever]

How about if you read that thread rather than just have a guess?

What's there to guess?

 

[The_Wookie]

As for your approach!

There is only one fact which all opinions are coming from the agreement that was signed and sealed stands with a review that effectively means nothing without goodwill!

My opinion is how did that agreement come about, it had to be agreed to by the State Government and AFL, forget the clubs they come under the AFL banner!

they didnt when the deal was signed. owned lock stock and barrel by the landlord. No conflicts of interest there. no sir.

 

[*PAF]

What's there to guess?

Did you only look at the first post as well?

 

[Jello_B]

Please show me one word of my post that isn't fact.

 

[Jello_B]

As for your approach!

There is only one fact which all opinions are coming from the agreement that was signed and sealed stands with a review that effectively means nothing without goodwill!

My opinion is how did that agreement come about, it had to be agreed to by the State Government and AFL, forget the clubs they come under the AFL banner!

Please show me that agreement which is 'fact' and refer old mate footy4eva post above. Where is your fact?

 

[footy4ever]

Did you only look at the first post as well?

No I looked further, but Pdub answered 'no' to your question. It was the correct answer so what's your angle?

 

[footy4ever]

**blank**

So all of my post was factual. Thank you.

 

[marty36]

they didnt when the deal was signed. owned lock stock and barrel by the landlord. No conflicts of interest there. no sir.

No they weren't but answer me how the AFL managed to entertain getting the SANFL even to the table to discuss the move, Foley clearly states they wouldn't even sit in the same room, the SACA and SANFL that is. With the SACA owning the existing lease.

What was on offer to get them interested?

 

[The_Wookie]

No they weren't but answer me how the AFL managed to entertain getting the SANFL even to the table to discuss the move, Foley clearly states they wouldn't even sit in the same room, the SACA and SANFL that is. With the SACA owning the existing lease.

What was on offer to get them interested?

Yes they absolutely were. Check their constitutions of the clubs or MUST I DO THIS FOR YOU AGAIN. The SANFL appointed the majority of the boards and appointed key executives to both clubs, this was amended at handover so that the AFL takes that role. Until the deeds were signed both clubs were directly influenced and controlled by the SANFL.

And as for the rest, frankly I dont know. And neither do you. The SANFLs right to games at football park expired in 2014, there was no guaranteed right to matches beyond it. The league were already looking at taking Port from football park to Adelaide Oval regardless of the development status. The license handovers, development funding and stadium returns are almost certainly linked in some way - but no one knows how.

 

[OneGreatClub]

No they weren't but answer me how the AFL managed to entertain getting the SANFL even to the table to discuss the move, Foley clearly states they wouldn't even sit in the same room, the SACA and SANFL that is. With the SACA owning the existing lease.

What was on offer to get them interested?

Never trust a politician, or an ex politician

 

[marty36]

Yes they absolutely were. Check their constitutions of the clubs or MUST I DO THIS FOR YOU AGAIN. The SANFL appointed the majority of the boards and appointed key executives to both clubs, this was amended at handover so that the AFL takes that role. Until the deeds were signed both clubs were directly influenced and controlled by the SANFL.

And as for the rest, frankly I dont know. And neither do you. The SANFLs right to games at football park expired in 2014, there was no guaranteed right to matches beyond it. The league were already looking at taking Port from football park to Adelaide Oval regardless of the development status. The license handovers, development funding and stadium returns are almost certainly linked in some way - but no one knows how.

Yet Foley said the SANFL wouldn't move!!!! That they refused to enter into an agreement with the SACA!

Gee I wonder what changed their minds?

 

[marty36]

Never trust a politician, or an ex politician

Should tell the Power, that sorry they shouldn't trust the AFL

 

[The_Wookie]

Yet Foley said the SANFL wouldn't move!!!! That they refused to enter into an agreement with the SACA!

Gee I wonder what changed their minds?

And yet this has also been answered. Olsen said that the SANFL required a breakeven - a guarantee that the SANFL would be no worse off funding wise. You are repeating yourself ad nauseum. Its more than just the money, when you consider the league were going to remove Port from what the league referred to as the games worst stadium deal and taking the debt ridden Port Adelaide off the SANFLs hands. The removal of half the AFL content from football park would have killed SANFL catering and ticketing revenues, as well as stadium memberships. Theres no way this was a one way street - the AFL very much put the foot down here.

The SANFL could have remained in their ivory tower and watched it crumble around them with Crows matches every second week - while Port moved on. (In many respects I think Port would have been much better off without the redevelopment, the SMA and the rest)

 

[Jello_B]

So all of my post was factual. Thank you.

No worries.

 

[Jello_B]

And yet this has also been answered. Olsen said that the SANFL required a breakeven - a guarantee that the SANFL would be no worse off funding wise. You are repeating yourself ad nauseum. Its more than just the money, when you consider the league were going to remove Port from what the league referred to as the games worst stadium deal and taking the debt ridden Port Adelaide off the SANFLs hands. The removal of half the AFL content from football park would have killed SANFL catering and ticketing revenues, as well as stadium memberships. Theres no way this was a one way street - the AFL very much put the foot down here.

The SANFL could have remained in their ivory tower and watched it crumble around them with Crows matches every second week - while Port moved on. (In many respects I think Port would have been much better off without the redevelopment, the SMA and the rest)

They won't answer mate. Welcome to a state where most influential people leave. Wait until we come back.

 

[Pdub]

The removal of half the AFL content from football park would have killed SANFL catering and ticketing revenues, as well as stadium memberships.

They managed from '91 to '96.

 

[The_Wookie]

They managed from '91 to '96.

That they did. Tell me how big the payouts were to SANFL clubs in that period? How dependent were the SANFL clubs on those payouts? How much debt did the SANFL carry?

 

[footy4ever]

Has there not been a rumour that a deal has been done and we are now merely waiting for the opportune time for it to be announced, and that both Port and the Crows have come out winners and will show a profit? Wasn't this on the Port board a few days ago?

 

[Pdub]

That they did. Tell me how big the payouts were to SANFL clubs in that period? How dependent were the SANFL clubs on those payouts? How much debt did the SANFL carry?

it was a time before the mass adoption of the WWW, you'd need to go search the microfiche at your nearest library to find that info.

 

[redandblack]

For all the thousands of words, all Port have done is draw a crowd for a year or two, after failing to draw a decent crowd for years, be bailed out for millions and then put the hand out for more.

Nothing else.

The rest is Port Board self-justification to over-ride the guilt trip.

 

[The_Wookie]

For all the thousands of words, all Port have done is draw a crowd for a year or two, after failing to draw a decent crowd for years, be bailed out for millions and then put the hand out for more.

Nothing else.

The rest is Port Board self-justification to over-ride the guilt trip.

As opposed to the delusion that somehow Port and only Port is responsible for its position. This despite an active SANFL club based anti Port campaign that I have watched since I lived in Victoria in 1990. These same SANFL clubs appoint a totally biased and not at all independent Commission that has run Port into the ground - directly controlling its board and appointing its key executives until AFL intervention.

Adelaide have also been bailed out to the tune of a million a year, and are 13th in the league for revenue. Putting out the hand for more? So Adelaide pays rent for its Aami facilites right? further the Crows crowds havent exactly been setting the world on fire in the last 5 years before Adelaide Oval.

But hey its all Port right.

 

[redandblack]

As opposed to the delusion that somehow Port and only Port is responsible for its position. This despite an active SANFL club based anti Port campaign that I have watched since I lived in Victoria in 1990. These same SANFL clubs appoint a totally biased and not at all independent Commission that has run Port into the ground - directly controlling its board and appointing its key executives until AFL intervention.

Adelaide have also been bailed out to the tune of a million a year, and are 13th in the league for revenue. Putting out the hand for more? So Adelaide pays rent for its Aami facilites right? further the Crows crowds havent exactly been setting the world on fire in the last 5 years before Adelaide Oval.

But hey its all Port right.

So I was right then.

 

[The_Wookie]

So I was right then.

No you're wrong. And you have been all along.

 

[QPower]

No they weren't but answer me how the AFL managed to entertain getting the SANFL even to the table to discuss the move, Foley clearly states they wouldn't even sit in the same room, the SACA and SANFL that is. With the SACA owning the existing lease.

What was on offer to get them interested?

Why would they need an incentive if they weren't making stacks of cash from the people the AFL clubs were attracting to watch games at AAMI?

Your point merely highlights that the SANFL were filling their pockets from games played at AAMI at the expense of the AFL clubs otherwise they would not needed "an offer to get them interested".