Crows' $1.6m profit

[CrowMagnum]

Eventually the numbers will increase so you lot should make the most of your "monopoly" whilst it exists rather than just boasting about it as many seem to be doing.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive, the club can do both. You could in fact argue that highlighting it is part of making the most of it.

As for the (near) monopoly ending, as you've said it won't be in our lifetime and there's an even chance it may never happen. Hostilities run deep and are often passed down through generations. Would you expect your offspring to follow the Crows?

 

[*PAF]

I should have qualified that those comments apply as from the end of 2004 when Port was saved from incurring a major loss by a $1 million premiership windfall. Would have lost about $800k if that hadn't been the case - their comments, not mine.

As a result, Port cut back dramatically in it's off-field expenditure, including the employment of what I referred to as cheap assistant coaches.

In addition the number of assistant coaches was reduced in 2005 by 1assistant coach from the previous year.

Just a case of having to make the books balance.

I guessed you were referring to the end of 2004.

My question to you is are you happy with the profit per turnover that the Crows make or should it be better?

 

[macca23]

I guessed you were referring to the end of 2004.

My question to you is are you happy with the profit per turnover that the Crows make or should it be better?

Totally happy, because they are making a substantial profit after placing zero financial restriction on their endeavours to be the best that they can with what they've got in terms of players - and that's how it should be.

On the other hand if I were in your shoes I would be disappointed with Port's current off-field position which is undoubtedly restricted by finances.

Taking it one step further, teams such as the Kangaroos are so restricted by finanaces off field that IMO they suffer so much of a disadvantage that I cannot see them winning a premiership again unless that turns around.

It is such a tight competition and so hard to be the best that every little bit is so important to the total.

 

[*PAF]

Totally happy, because they are making a substantial profit after placing zero financial restriction on their endeavours to be the best that they can with what they've got in terms of players - and that's how it should be.

On the other hand if I were in your shoes I would be disappointed with Port's current off-field position which is undoubtedly restricted by finances.

Taking it one step further, teams such as the Kangaroos are so restricted by finanaces off field that IMO they suffer so much of a disadvantage that I cannot see them winning a premiership again unless that turns around.

It is such a tight competition and so hard to be the best that every little bit is so important to the total.

Our off field is outstanding. We have built up and are paying for facilities that are second to none. All done on a limited budget and without running at a loss and at the same time we have now completely paid off our entrence fee.
Our on field endevours have also been second to none ... well bar the Brissy Lions I s'pose, so Yeah I am totally happy with our value for money, however if we turned over more money I'd definitely expect a bigger profit and would ask questions if that wasn't the case.

 

[kirky]

Off field we have facilities that we are paying off. Not sure if we are even allowed to do it, but if all of the land was subdivided for housing it would be worth a bucketload more than it is on paper so overall we are not going too badly. I do stand to be corrected but I believe it is on council land.
I seriously believe we are a well run club and we do work within our means rather than unrealistic expectations, whilst at the same time putting in the groundwork that will ensure greater supporter numbers in the future. Future being the keyword.I would have thought that given you strong performances over the period 2001-2004 that you figures would be showing a gradual increase which didn't eventuate in 2006 - actual memberships figures decreased and it will be interesting to see how 2007 pans out given the poor year in 2006.

Proof of that is that our average spectator numbers fluctuate more depending on what days we are drawn to play than how well we are doing on the field. 2006 saw the second lowest average for Port since its inception in 1997. Too many fair weather supporters methinks.

Eventually the numbers will increase so you lot should make the most of your "monopoly" whilst it exists rather than just boasting about it as many seem to be doing. Their is no guarantee of this. Your onfield performances are more crucial to the support of your club than the Crows given the Port name in the club - old wounds heal deep.

Some interesting points but more spin than actual substance.

 

[macca23]

Our off field is outstanding. We have built up and are paying for facilities that are second to none. All done on a limited budget and without running at a loss and at the same time we have now completely paid off our entrence fee.
Our on field endevours have also been second to none ... well bar the Brissy Lions I s'pose, so Yeah I am totally happy with our value for money, however if we turned over more money I'd definitely expect a bigger profit and would ask questions if that wasn't the case.

Since 2004??

No, it isn't IMO. I'm talking about the quality and quantity of the people assisting Mark Williams to make it all happen since 2004 .

You can't be serious and call McGuinneth and Mickan outstanding for a start

On top of that there's been rotating doors as close to a dozen assistants and officials have gone since the day of winning the flag in 2004.

Nothing outstanding about that.

 

[*PAF]

Since 2004??

No, it isn't IMO. I'm talking about the quality and quantity of the people assisting Mark Williams to make it all happen since 2004 .

You can't be serious and call McGuinneth and Mickan outstanding for a start

On top of that there's been rotating doors as close to a dozen assistants and officials have gone since the day of winning the flag in 2004.

Nothing outstanding about that.

We try out lots of different people and this coming year will be no different, some work out some do not. Plenty of our assistants and whatnots get poached, that means that we are doing something right.
As far as post 2004 goes we will see this year, as hopefully it should be the start of our next climb up the ladder and it should all be due to fresh blood rather than rejuvenated old legs or a sneaky gameplan.

If it doesn't happen over the next two years then I will agree with your statement but not until then.

 

[relapse]

I should have qualified that those comments apply as from the end of 2004 when Port was saved from incurring a major loss by a $1 million premiership windfall. Would have lost about $800k if that hadn't been the case - their comments, not mine.

As a result, Port cut back dramatically in it's off-field expenditure, including the employment of what I referred to as cheap assistant coaches.

In addition the number of assistant coaches was reduced in 2005 by 1assistant coach from the previous year.

Just a case of having to make the books balance.

I agree

all I hear is choco whining about Port having not having the money to spend like Adelaide do and yes they did have to cut down their coaching department budget after 2004. I have read numerous times where rucci used it as a defense for Port having McGuiness that it was a cheaper local option and that Port had to cut down it off field support staff and that they had to look at cheaper options for assistants.

Even our sports psychologist came from Port and Rucci said he left Port once the money ran out.

 

[maccas_no1]

Perhaps the AFC could give some money to ferethead paralowiepower so he can get a life, or at the very least his facts right