AO Stadium Deal Signed

[RussellEbertHandball]

Pretty sure that until 95 the Eagles were playing out of the WA CA with a capacity of 18 - 20k

No the capacity was 30k+ overtime. The first game there in 1987 had 26k and the 1994 PF v Melb they 34k and two weeks earlier v Coll in the QF they had 31k. The redeveloped Subi opened in 1995 and home games at the Waca went from 5 to 4 between 1987-94 and when Freo went in - in 1995, 3 each until 2000.

 

[finbarr]

Was very close and heard none of that.

Well when he went to get a drink he heard it clearly. They were ostensibly talking among themselves but saying it in such a way that was aimed at people nearby.

 

[Grave Danger]

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.

Subi didn't get light towers until 1997. There was no Royal Commission about this though.

 

[tribey]

Subi didn't get light towers until 1997. There was no Royal Commission about this though.

Say what you like about Gropers they know how to have a chat with themselves and get back to you

 

[raman]

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.

I was standing close and saw at least one drunken lout going on and on with "Port Power est 1996" drivel. I don't know if it was a Norwood player, because... how would I?

 

[_VXV]

Meanwhile Tom Jonas was actually playing AFL football and they were flipping burgers.

Our players walk out to be best welcome in sport,
They walk out to car horns.

 

[Andre]

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.

Thing is now we've got our license and the deal is done there's no reason to pull punches everytime the SANFL and it's pissant clubs denigrate us now. KT is too casual and Kern has more important things to worry about, but I'm happy for Koch or any of our assistants to give it right back the next time they open up, still expecting us to smile back after getting a punch in the face.

 

[CharlieKelly]

I was standing close and saw at least one drunken lout going on and on with "Port Power est 1996" drivel. I don't know if it was a Norwood player, because... how would I?

yeah I saw that drunk cretin, it was after about 95% of the crowd had left, and he was singing the Norwood/Melbourne/West Perth club song, then ranting how the Magpies are dead and the Magpies are Port Power reserves

then! "it farken stinks here!", someone retorted "that's the bullshit coming out your mouth!"

 

[faquito]

he wouldnt have run the rest of the club as well as KT. KT's 3000 game experience and coming from the entertainment industry means he understands our DNA and how a football club works, better tuan Hasyman.

No wonder he's been looking tired lately

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Subi didn't get light towers until 1997. There was no Royal Commission about this though.

The trade off was they didnt put the lights in when the 1994-95 redevelopment of the stands were completed and the WACA was slowly phased out not cut off in 1997. I think the government got involved in this phase out deal.

 

[Coobk001]

No the capacity was 30k+ overtime. The first game there in 1987 had 26k and the 1994 PF v Melb they 34k and two weeks earlier v Coll in the QF they had 31k. The redeveloped Subi opened in 1995 and home games at the Waca went from 5 to 4 between 1987-94 and when Freo went in - in 1995, 3 each until 2000.

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.

Thanks guys.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Norwood are so easy to fire back at though.

"Gee it's a shame you guys buckled and helped the Crows into the AFL. Imagine the old rivalry at AFL level, MAN that would have been sweet. You were definitely a big enough club to follow us in as well, you'd have been the obvious choice."

etc etc etc.

 

[AdsGoNads]

Caro on 5AA tonight said she was disappointed that Port + Crows weren't given a spot each on the SMA board.

Still some work to do..

 

[Sneeky]

Caro on 5AA tonight said she was disappointed that Port + Crows weren't given a spot each on the SMA board.

Still some work to do..

Totally agree

 

[Schulzenfest]

Let's hit 5000 members! LOOOOLLLLLL

Their membership goal for the year is to be a twelfth as popular as Port Adelaide. And they're failing.

 

[Andre]

Caro on 5AA tonight said she was disappointed that Port + Crows weren't given a spot each on the SMA board.

Still some work to do..

A reasonable board would be 4 SACA, 2 SANFL, 1 Port, 1 Crows, 2 independent (for all the non-footy and cricket events / functions they are aiming at), with a government appointed non-voting chair (since they did fork out half a billion for it). Definitely want a seat on board next review. Now Port and the Crows are independent one or both of the major parties in this state should clue on that there's a lot more votes in getting Port and the Crows what they want then in placating the SANFL still.

 

[Grave Danger]

A reasonable board would be 4 SACA, 2 SANFL, 1 Port, 1 Crows, 2 independent (for all the non-footy and cricket events / functions they are aiming at), with a government appointed non-voting chair (since they did fork out half a billion for it). Definitely want a seat on board next review. Now Port and the Crows are independent one or both of the major parties in this state should clue on that there's a lot more votes in getting Port and the Crows what they want then in placating the SANFL still.

Peter Hurley is the supposed independent member, but he was on the Crows board until Ricciuto was ensconced. So the Crows have their man on the inside - where's ours?!

 

[tribey]

A reasonable board would be 4 SACA, 2 SANFL, 1 Port, 1 Crows, 2 independent (for all the non-footy and cricket events / functions they are aiming at), with a government appointed non-voting chair (since they did fork out half a billion for it). Definitely want a seat on board next review. Now Port and the Crows are independent one or both of the major parties in this state should clue on that there's a lot more votes in getting Port and the Crows what they want then in placating the SANFL still.

Absolutely.

This ingrained notion that the SANFL has a birthright to 50% influence on the SMA - essentially 100% of football season control - is ludicrous.

As the independent entities responsible for 99% of football revenues, Port and the Crows should have equal representation as the SANFL at a bare minimum.

 

[Seanybruz]

Their membership goal for the year is to be a twelfth as popular as Port Adelaide. And they're failing.

And yet come grand final time the nobodies dust off their ancient Nord gear to cheer on the once great side they claim to be a diehard supporter of, for a piece of silverware that is nowhere near as relevant as it used to be.

It's funny their mob has a nerve to call us bandwagoners at every opportunity, hypocrisy at it's finest when you look at those membership numbers.

 

[GranFormaggi]

And yet come grand final time the nobodies dust off their ancient Nord gear to cheer on the once great side they claim to be a diehard supporter of, for a piece of silverware that is nowhere near as relevant as it used to be.

It's funny their mob has a nerve to call us bandwagoners at every opportunity, hypocrisy at it's finest when you look at those membership numbers.

The reality is their supporter's (dis)interest in the SANFL demonstrates just how highly they rate this "2nd most bestest Aussie football league-y thing in the Universe". And that is what I confront supporters of that club with regularly.

 

[bomberclifford]

Wasn't sure where to put this as it's not technically about the stadium deal, but can anyone shed any light on what the $2 seat levy is that they reference? Apparently we don't pay it, according to Rucci.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...he-middle-ground/story-fnia3xzy-1227468468937

As an example of the Crows’ money chart being different to its AFL rivals, Adelaide (unlike Port Adelaide) is still paying a “seat levy” at Adelaide Oval. The Crows this year were projected to send a $750,000 cheque to AFL House for filling the Oval — virtually a $2 levy on every adult ticket.

Seems an odd thing that Crows pay a levy to the AFL of $2 per seat, yet we don't.

RussellEbertHandball ?

 

[Coobk001]

Wasn't sure where to put this as it's not technically about the stadium deal, but can anyone shed any light on what the $2 seat levy is that they reference? Apparently we don't pay it, according to Rucci.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...he-middle-ground/story-fnia3xzy-1227468468937



Seems an odd thing that Crows pay a levy to the AFL of $2 per seat, yet we don't.

I thought that was that wealthy club tax. I must say given we weren't ever going to be on that side of the fence I know bugger all details, but I thought the big attendance drawing and wealthier clubs had an extra tax lumped on them to pump some of that money back into a pro-rata pool for the struggling clubs.

 

[FPPF]

A reasonable board would be 4 SACA, 2 SANFL, 1 Port, 1 Crows, 2 independent (for all the non-footy and cricket events / functions they are aiming at), with a government appointed non-voting chair (since they did fork out half a billion for it). Definitely want a seat on board next review. Now Port and the Crows are independent one or both of the major parties in this state should clue on that there's a lot more votes in getting Port and the Crows what they want then in placating the SANFL still.

A reasonable board would be having nobody with any conflicting interests involved.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Wasn't sure where to put this as it's not technically about the stadium deal, but can anyone shed any light on what the $2 seat levy is that they reference? Apparently we don't pay it, according to Rucci.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...he-middle-ground/story-fnia3xzy-1227468468937



Seems an odd thing that Crows pay a levy to the AFL of $2 per seat, yet we don't.

RussellEbertHandball ?

Its behind a paywall for me but looks like the equalisation levy or the KFC levy as one club official called it - ie has a special secret way its calculated. Not sure how Rucci calculated it . My understanding was Collingwood and Hawks were capped at $500k.

But that might be the non player component of the footy department. I heard someone on radio say the other day the AFL are working on a revenue tax. Not sure if Rucci in his simplistic way is adding up footy department tax + revenue tax - $750k therefore effectively $2 per attendee.

 

[Steve Dore]

Its behind a paywall for me but looks like the equalisation levy ......

The article states that it is the equalisation levy/tax

... CROWS chief executive Andrew Fagan on Wednesday will enter the growing fight against the AFL equalisation tax that threatens to lock the Adelaide Football Club in football’s middle ground. ....

..... The equalisation tax that applies to 10 clubs will generate $3.11 million this season and $3.61m next year. This money being shared between Port Adelaide, North Melbourne, St Kilda, the Western Bulldogs, Brisbane and Melbourne. Recent expansion franchises Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney are funded by the AFL under other programs. ..