Remove this Banner Ad

AO Stadium Deal Signed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tibbs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

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

Given KT's response to the catering question, I would strongly suggest we have absolutely nothing to do with catering positively or negatively.

However we certainly do need to get more of a groundswell in regards to boycotting the AO catering. Though they seem to be doing a fantastic job at that already given their pompous refusal to reduce prices like the MCG, and to then have the gall to make a big announcement saying "We can't reduce prices because we just can't, okay?"
 
Given KT's response to the catering question, I would strongly suggest we have absolutely nothing to do with catering positively or negatively.
However we certainly do need to get more of a groundswell in regards to boycotting the AO catering. Though they seem to be doing a fantastic job at that already given their pompous refusal to reduce prices like the MCG, and to then have the gall to make a big announcement saying "We can't reduce prices because we just can't, okay?"
Well I wont be buying any food at the oval. Geez I like my little hip flask with scotch in it. That's all I need haha
 
Well I wont be buying any food at the oval. Geez I like my little hip flask with scotch in it. That's all I need haha
Esky filled with beer in the back of the car works good before the game too!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

And all this for an organisation that's essentially supposed to be not for profit. I reckon if you peeled back the SANFL layers you'd find a corporate structure not too much unlike that of Apple or Westpac.
Most big sporting organisations in this country are not for profit and have many layers like the SANFL - Cricket Oz, the state associations, AFL, AOC, ARU, ARL/NRL, FFA, Tenis Oz etc.

10-12 years ago the NSW Soccer Federation which became Football NSW was multiple times bigger than the new FFA and I reckon still are 2 -3 times bigger in terms of net assets.
 
I don't think Portia would be happy with the deal as it appears.
Well none of us are doing cartwheels over the deal, but we mostly think given the lack of leverage Port (and the Crows) had to exert it's a good starting point, with more to get next review.
 
Well none of us are doing cartwheels over the deal, but we mostly think given the lack of leverage Port (and the Crows) had to exert it's a good starting point, with more to get next review.

Mark Haysman was the one who got this whole subject our there as a topic of conversation. He made it THE major issue. But there's a tendency for people to think that if Haysie was still in the chair our stadium deal would have been considerably better.
As much as we have Mark Haysman to thank for a lot of this there's no way he'd have been able to negotiate a better deal than the one we have. It's one thing to want something, it's entirely another thing to actually get it. With that in mind I'm reasonably happy (for now) with what we have.
It still irks me no end though that the chief beneficiary of our ability to sell out a stadium and spend copious amounts of money at those games on food and beverages will continue to be the Sturt's and the South and West Adelaide's of the world. Especially given the tacit green light they have to trash our name at every opportunity.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Mark Haysman was the one who got this whole subject our there as a topic of conversation. He made it THE major issue. But there's a tendency for people to think that if Haysie was still in the chair our stadium deal would have been considerably better.
As much as we have Mark Haysman to thank for a lot of this there's no way he'd have been able to negotiate a better deal than the one we have. It's one thing to want something, it's entirely another thing to actually get it. With that in mind I'm reasonably happy (for now) with what we have.
It still irks me no end though that the chief beneficiary of our ability to sell out a stadium and spend copious amounts of money at those games on food and beverages will continue to be the Sturt's and the South and West Adelaide's of the world. Especially given the tacit green light they have to trash our name at every opportunity.

Sturt social media colouring the Magpies logo teal was a particular highlight.

Even when the Etheltonised Port Magpies were effectively neutered they'd still cause a spike in away attendances and overall interest. And you can't tell me last year's Grand Final win wasn't Norwood's most valuable in 30 years.

But they want to have their cake and eat it too, profiting from Port Adelaide while denigrating us/denying we're Port Adelaide. Such a small-time mentality.
 
The deal that was signed in March 2014 - except for the review clause was basically the model and numbers negotiated between December 2009 - Rann's announcenent and August 2010 when the 2 clubs and Sanfl agreed based on the numbers produced by the model and a heads of agreement was signed between the Sanfl and Saca. Since then the rescue package we got in June 2011 and Adelaide also got $$$ and the sub licences have been sold back - and the sanfl reserves teams - have all allowed the Sanfl to hold onto a bigger chunk of the pie for as long as possible. Haysman wouldnt have done any better, but more importantly
he wouldnt have run the rest of the club as well as KT. KT's 300 game experience and coming from the entertainment industry means he understands our DNA and how a football club works, better tuan Hasyman.
 
Last edited:
Sturt social media colouring the Magpies logo teal was a particular highlight.

Even when the Etheltonised Port Magpies were effectively neutered they'd still cause a spike in away attendances and overall interest. And you can't tell me last year's Grand Final win wasn't Norwood's most valuable in 30 years.

But they want to have their cake and eat it too, profiting from Port Adelaide while denigrating us/denying we're Port Adelaide. Such a small-time mentality.

Apparently Norwood players were working the barbecue near the Cooper's Bar on Sunday and, according to a friend of ours, were loudly goading Port supporters from behind the BBQ over our club's authenticity, trash talking "Port Power player Tom Jonas" etc.
 
A fantastic achievement given where they started from.

Averaging just 18,693 home attendees in year 3/1989, back when nothing was open on a weekend too.
Pretty sure that until 95 the Eagles were playing out of the WA CA with a capacity of 18 - 20k
 
Apparently Norwood players were working the barbecue near the Cooper's Bar on Sunday and, according to a friend of ours, were loudly goading Port supporters from behind the BBQ over our club's authenticity, trash talking "Port Power player Tom Jonas" etc.

Meanwhile Tom Jonas was actually playing AFL football and they were flipping burgers.
 
Mark Haysman was the one who got this whole subject our there as a topic of conversation. He made it THE major issue. But there's a tendency for people to think that if Haysie was still in the chair our stadium deal would have been considerably better.
As much as we have Mark Haysman to thank for a lot of this there's no way he'd have been able to negotiate a better deal than the one we have. It's one thing to want something, it's entirely another thing to actually get it. With that in mind I'm reasonably happy (for now) with what we have.
It still irks me no end though that the chief beneficiary of our ability to sell out a stadium and spend copious amounts of money at those games on food and beverages will continue to be the Sturt's and the South and West Adelaide's of the world. Especially given the tacit green light they have to trash our name at every opportunity.

I think it just shows that from Brebner to Basheer, the SANFL at their heart were a Lawyer driven organisation, that made cold and calculating decisions in their own best interests. You can't really knock them for that, as the basis for good governance are based on those principles. They have protected the farm very well, especially with onset of the AFL. This agreement, which has taken a very long time to complete, where it seems that everything has been on the SANFL's timeline, with zero transparency (at the behest of the SANFL) is still very much in the vein of "Grow the Pie". The haven't actually given up much at all. I am really looking forward to seeing what the revenues from catering as well as the function arm of the SMA from the Auditor General's report (and REH's dumbing down of those numbers for the rest of us).
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Apparently Norwood players were working the barbecue near the Cooper's Bar on Sunday and, according to a friend of ours, were loudly goading Port supporters from behind the BBQ over our club's authenticity, trash talking "Port Power player Tom Jonas" etc.

lol Nord....
I think its cute they still think they're relevant!



SC20150312-102646-1.jpg
 
Pretty sure that until 95 the Eagles were playing out of the WA CA with a capacity of 18 - 20k
The Waca was only used by both WCE and Freo for night matches - usually 3 or 4. a year per team with 2000 being the last year games were played at the Waca.
 
Apparently Norwood players were working the barbecue near the Cooper's Bar on Sunday and, according to a friend of ours, were loudly goading Port supporters from behind the BBQ over our club's authenticity, trash talking "Port Power player Tom Jonas" etc.

Was very close and heard none of that.
 
Pretty sure that until 95 the Eagles were playing out of the WA CA with a capacity of 18 - 20k

As REH said, only minimal times a year.

In 1989 the split was 6 Subi/5 WACA with a higher average attendance at the latter, surprisingly.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom