AO Stadium Deal Signed

[tribey]

I think its a decent to good deal. The onus is on us and our supporters to make the club money, as it should be.

A fair slice of catering and pourage would see us doing our part with ease.

 

[VineValerian]

Bravo to Ollie Olsen - friend of all Port people

 

[Coobk001]

I might ask the State Government if it can build a huge piece of public infrastructure and let me make money from it without contributing.

#carn
they host a grand final there, that has to count.....
*rolls eyes*

 

[Coobk001]

My thoughts are that the deal is ok, and we're going to get the sort of returns we will need in the short term.

My concern is, as with everyone else here, about what the SANFL take. I have no problem with the SANFL supporting game development in this state. I just want to see an even spread amongst feeder leagues, and that includes the SANFL which needs to become the 2nd best league from their own self sufficient means and not because of AFL funds.

My last concern remains the fact that all SA game development comes at the expense of Port and the Crows. I'm pretty much 100% sure that the TAC cup is funded by the AFL and not the Vic clubs. I'm equally convinced that the VFL does not take a large percentage of AFL gate takings to fund the development of the game in that state. The AFL instead clearly has that responsibility. So the question is then does the AFL take extraordinary amounts of money from the Vic clubs to do this?

If the answer to all those questions is no then we have a problem. That's an uneven playing field and IMO it will always limit footy and the 2 AFL clubs in this state until there is an equal and shared responsibility to fund game development across all the AFL clubs. This is my concern, because helping the SANFL be strong is one thing, but being impeded by it in a way our competitors aren't is a huge issue for us in the long term.

 

[Forzaport]

I think its a decent to good deal. The onus is on us and our supporters to make the club money, as it should be.

I think it's a step in the right direction but it's still a shit deal. It still appears that the SANFL get their guaranteed revenue (which they are absolutely not entitled to) instead of riding the peaks and troughs with the AFL clubs. We're still getting futt bucked on catering and the SANFL stench is still there. Honestly, the SANFL make Gadaffi look like a saint. They are meant to nurture and protect football in this state and all they've done is destroy the football product to their own detriment then have the gall to blame the PAFC for it all. **** them and their entitled bullshit, the sooner those decrepit ****nut dinosaurs are dead and dust the better. /rant.

 

[Trewth]

Does anyone know if the small vans around the ground like the coffee and hot dog vans are independent or are they part of the SMA conglomerate? I'm keen on giving as little money to the SMA/SANFL as possible, and my wife loves those vans, so I need to know whether the foot needs to come down.

 

[finbarr]

I think its a decent to good deal. The onus is on us and our supporters to make the club money, as it should be.

Fine. But what about putting the onus on the SANFL and its clubs to come up with a business model that doesn't rely practically entirely on AFL revenue for its very survival.

 

[chachi11]

The fact the SANFL make money off a product they have nothing to do with still shits me! They should be living off the massive funds they get from South v Centrals blockbusters not the AFL...

 

[Janus]

Does anyone know if the small vans around the ground like the coffee and hot dog vans are independent or are they part of the SMA conglomerate? I'm keen on giving as little money to the SMA/SANFL as possible, and my wife loves those vans, so I need to know whether the foot needs to come down.

They pay a small fee to be there, but they are independent. That's why the SMA tried to kick them out because they wanted the funds funnelled to the SANFL catering arm, but people kicked up a stink.

 

[finbarr]

They pay a small fee to be there, but they are independent. That's why the SMA tried to kick them out because they wanted the funds funnelled to the SANFL catering arm, but people kicked up a stink.

Sort of like how they started closing the southern gates during quarter breaks to stop people going outside and spending money at the White Marquee Bar.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'd be more able to accept the SANFL getting the money they are getting if their books were made totally transparent and they were held accountable for the financial decisions they make.

The biggest issue with football finances in this state, as usual, is that:

- We have an organisation falling ass backwards into their Scrooge McDuck style vault of cash generated from taxpayers and paying supporters of AFL clubs who have no interest in their product.
- We know they've managed to get themselves into ridiculous amounts of debt despite the bottomless pit of free money and large asset in AAMI Stadium (why the **** are AAMI still paying money to have their name attached to that?).
- The SANFL aren't accountable to anyone on how they run their shitty competition or spend the money that is given to them for free.

Then West Adelaide build a big screen.

wtf

 

[Janus]

My thoughts are that it doesn't matter how the water tastes when you've been out in the desert for three days, you accept it gratefully.

Then, once you're in a position of strength - then you can throw the fetid water in the waiter's face and demand the 57 Dom Perignon that you ordered.

 

[Tas]

My thoughts are that the deal is ok, and we're going to get the sort of returns we will need in the short term.

My concern is, as with everyone else here, about what the SANFL take. I have no problem with the AFL supporting game development in every state. I just want to see an even spread amongst feeder leagues, and that includes the SANFL which needs to become the 2nd best league from their own self sufficient means and not because of AFL funds.

My last concern remains the fact that all SA game development comes at the expense of Port and the Crows. I'm pretty much 100% sure that the TAC cup is funded by the AFL and not the Vic clubs. I'm equally convinced that the VFL does not take a large percentage of AFL gate takings to fund the development of the game in that state. The AFL instead clearly has that responsibility. So the question is then does the AFL take extraordinary amounts of money from the Vic clubs to do this?

If the answer to all those questions is no then we have a problem. That's an uneven playing field and IMO it will always limit footy and the 2 AFL clubs in this state until there is an equal and shared responsibility to fund game development across all the AFL clubs. This is my concern, because helping the SANFL be strong is one thing, but being impeded by it in a way our competitors aren't is a huge issue for us in the long term.

The agreement that the AFL has with SANFL to include Crows, and later Port, into the AFL was that the AFL would stay out of football in SA and that the SANFL would handle junior development. This is similar to the arrangement with the WAFC and was the condition on entering clubs into the VFL/AFL on behalf of the SANFL/WAFL. AFL funds junior development in every other state/territory, even supports the amateur grade competitions.

SANFL and WAFL are the two leagues preventing the AFL from providing the same service to SA and WA.

I think the WAFL model works much better than the SANFL model, because the league is invested in making the clubs stronger and don't siphon money to the point they cripple their cash cows, successful well-funded teams generate more money than poorly-funded unsuccessful teams.

 

[Macca19]

Fine. But what about putting the onus on the SANFL and its clubs to come up with a business model that doesn't rely practically entirely on AFL revenue for its very survival.

You wont get any argument from me there, but thats a different issue for another day. In the end we are getting $6m uplift from what we were getting at AAMI. The uplift that we wanted - demanded - is there and we still have more memberships, higher attendance, more corporate facilities, more sponsorship dollars to improve on that from 2014. That can easily be raised to $7-8m before we even talk about increasing the cost of memberships etc for 2016, where we will get even more uplift from the deal anyway.

 

[LFC2010]

Why in the ******* **** do these campaigners still have ANY POWER!?

That's exactly what I thought as well, stuff the bunch of thieving campaigners.

 

[Willsy10]

Could've been worse had it not been for the pitbull Fages, bloody kochy and KT were merely SANFL lap dogs in negotiations.

 

[LFC2010]

So they're still playing the "Grow the pie and you will get more" line.

we averaged 44,000 odd last year. How are we supposed to grow on that year after year?

by getting more people to games such as Brisbane, St Kilda, Bulldogs, Melbourne etc..etc.. we need to get 45k crowds for these teams instead of last season getting around 35k to them.

 

[Coobk001]

The agreement that the AFL has with SANFL to include Crows, and later Port, into the AFL was that the AFL would stay out of football in SA and that the SANFL would handle junior development. This is similar to the arrangement with the WAFC and was the condition on entering clubs into the VFL/AFL on behalf of the SANFL/WAFL. AFL funds junior development in every other state/territory, even supports the amateur grade competitions.

SANFL and WAFL are the two leagues preventing the AFL from providing the same service to SA and WA.

I think the WAFL model works much better than the SANFL model, because the league is invested in making the clubs stronger and don't siphon money to the point they cripple their cash cows, successful well-funded teams generate more money than poorly-funded unsuccessful teams.

Yep. The problem for me is I guess I am fine with the SANFL managing the SA pathway. However I'm not happy with them controlling their incoming AFL funding levels. Unfortunately they are, as we are all aware, putting their own interests and profitability first to create a strong local comp. As such they are taking more than is needed in a desperate attempt to make their comp the 2nd best, which it really isn't anyway. This is what we need to change.

The SANFL needs to realise it is a feeder league and focus on self sufficiency. We need to somehow get the SANFL to start functioning off of a far tighter budget for development, and giving the rest of that money back to the AFL clubs, while the SANFL clubs need to become fully self sufficient.
The other change we need is we need the AFL in charge of the revenue distribution to the SANFL, so that we have a transparent process where the funding is on par with the rest of the country and not being the shackles holding us down.

The WAFL agreement certainly appears to work better, with far less greed, but if they were worked into a fair distribution system it would only stand to benefit those AFL clubs as well.

 

[finbarr]

Could've been worse had it not been for the pitbull Fages, bloody kochy and KT were merely SANFL lap dogs in negotiations.

Splitting his time between the stadium deal and keeping an eye on those punks who live next door in Delta House was a tough double assignment but he managed to pull it off.

 

[El Zorro]

Does anyone know if the small vans around the ground like the coffee and hot dog vans are independent or are they part of the SMA conglomerate?

I am pretty sure they are independent but pay a fee to the SMA to operate around the ground. Early last season there was a coffee van near our seats (inside of course) and I had a chat with the couple running it. The coffee was good and the prices reasonable so there was a bit of a queue in between quarters. There weren't any other coffee places near by as far as I could tell. After the SMA realised that people liked coffee they kicked the van out and set up their own carts selling terrible overpriced coffee. Needless to say that I won't have coffee again at AO unless they bring the vans back.

 

[DaTBird187]

Then, once you're in a position of strength - then you can throw the fetid water in the waiter's face and demand the 57 Dom Perignon that you ordered.

I prefer the '62.

 

[Papa G]

Yep. The problem for me is I guess I am fine with the SANFL managing the SA pathway. However I'm not happy with them controlling their incoming AFL funding levels. Unfortunately they are, as we are all aware, putting their own interests and profitability first to create a strong local comp. As such they are taking more than is needed in a desperate attempt to make their comp the 2nd best, which it really isn't anyway. This is what we need to change.

The SANFL needs to realise it is a feeder league and focus on self sufficiency. We need to somehow get the SANFL to start functioning off of a far tighter budget for development, and giving the rest of that money back to the AFL clubs, while the SANFL clubs need to become fully self sufficient.
The other change we need is we need the AFL in charge of the revenue distribution to the SANFL, so that we have a transparent process where the funding is on par with the rest of the country and not being the shackles holding us down.

The WAFL agreement certainly appears to work better, with far less greed, but if they were worked into a fair distribution system it would only stand to benefit those AFL clubs as well.

All the language from the SANFL is about SA Footy, Grass roots, pathways, the kids, the volunteers blah, blah, blah, but it really is all about control, self interest and maintaining their ever less relevant fifedom. These campaigners still think we owe them and that is the attitude thye maintain. You only have to go out to Prospect Oval on a Saturday afternoon and listen to the 3 men and their dog complain about how much Port were costing them. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? I've said it before I used to think the SANFL's legacy was worth maintaining, but now i very much look forward to the day the AFL take them over.

 

[tribey]

Could've been worse had it not been for the pitbull Fages, bloody kochy and KT were merely SANFL lap dogs in negotiations.

 

[Forzaport]

Do the AFL clubs still get punished if the catering quotas are not met?

 

[Grave Danger]

Splitting his time between the stadium deal and keeping an eye on those punks who live next door in Delta House was a tough double assignment but he managed to pull it off.

View attachment 115116

Neidermeyer was "killed in Vietnam by his own troops."