Strategy DEBT DEMOLITION CAMPAIGN

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Rubber Man said:
Do you have a solution as to where we can get the extra cash?
Click to expand...

Not piss away half a decade for no apparent reason?

The post-2014 stadium deal renegotiation that would’ve seen us profit handsomely from home finals on top of all the associated financial benefits that come with performing in September should’ve been enough to keep us afloat while we continued to claw back our footing as an independent club.

But nah.
 
The Rubber Man said:
So if we throw away china. being the 2nd team in Adelaide we dont get any decent sponsors. We have learnt this over the past 20 years.
Do you have a solution as to where we can get the extra cash? The current model of hoping we get over 40k per week to home games to just break even at the end of the year isnt going well.

I admire the current administration for doing something left of field to try and generate something. If we go ahead with it for the next few years at least we will continue to receive 500k p.a profit for it. Definitely a helpful sum but would have to look at other options for long term sustainability.

The rolling on player payment i believe is because next year we will be below the acceptable amount of Total Player Payments. Pay them on November 1st instead of October 31st means that cash goes into next year.

We will lose some senior players it looks like this year and we may only replace them with draft picks. If we then cant bring in a mature A grader to take some of that cash, we will be below TTP.

Ryder is on 700k. He will either leave or be put on 400k. Amon is also on 300k (maybe?) and he seems to be gone. We will have 1mil sitting there and probably only bring in draft kids. If ollie leaves like the rumours say. Then thats another 900k free'd up.

The rolling on thing seems to be a safety net in case we dont bring anyone in.
Click to expand...



Port Adelaide's Brad Ebert admits he has been asked to defer payments

Port Adelaide defender Brad Ebert has admitted that he had been asked to defer payments by the club.
Ebert confirmed that he had been asked to defer payments, but he never saw it as a financial pressure situation.
"I thought it was almost the other end of the salary cap where we were getting too tight and we were just having to adjust things as the year goes I never saw it as a financial pressure situation."

Ebert would go on to say that it was not unheard of for clubs to ask players to roll over money into the following year.
When asked on his thoughts of reports that the club still had money left in the salary cap, Ebert defended the Power.
"I'd be very interested to know where they get those sort of facts from," he said.


www.sportingnews.com

Port Adelaide's Brad Ebert admits he has been asked to defer payments

Port Adelaide defender Brad Ebert has admitted that he had been asked to defer payments by the club.
www.sportingnews.com
 
c105ab3a2522c3145b40d1fbbf68a4b4.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Rubber Man said:
So if we throw away china. being the 2nd team in Adelaide we dont get any decent sponsors. We have learnt this over the past 20 years.
Do you have a solution as to where we can get the extra cash? The current model of hoping we get over 40k per week to home games to just break even at the end of the year isnt going well.

I admire the current administration for doing something left of field to try and generate something. If we go ahead with it for the next few years at least we will continue to receive 500k p.a profit for it. Definitely a helpful sum but would have to look at other options for long term sustainability.

The rolling on player payment i believe is because next year we will be below the acceptable amount of Total Player Payments. Pay them on November 1st instead of October 31st means that cash goes into next year.

We will lose some senior players it looks like this year and we may only replace them with draft picks. If we then cant bring in a mature A grader to take some of that cash, we will be below TTP.

Ryder is on 700k. He will either leave or be put on 400k. Amon is also on 300k (maybe?) and he seems to be gone. We will have 1mil sitting there and probably only bring in draft kids. If ollie leaves like the rumours say. Then thats another 900k free'd up.

The rolling on thing seems to be a safety net in case we dont bring anyone in.
Click to expand...
All good points and I have been 100% behind the China stuff up until now but am losing faith in its chance of saving us to be honest. Kochie promised the world but it was just spin.
Second club in a small State... maybe with our poor population growth we really can’t sustain 2 AFLclubs.
I hope things improve but it sounds a bit dire.
The only joy I might experience if we did fold would’ve seeing the sheer panic on the faces of the SMA and the Crows administration as to how alternate weekly games there would bring in enough to sustain the oval without requiring much more $$$ from theCrows.
 
TeeKray said:
When KT and Koch first arrived at Port, they preached about investing in the football programme and how football is our core business. The previous administrations had taken the opposite approach and been cutting funding from the football programme ever since we won the flag in 2004. The new approach paid immediate on field dividends - and to be fair, probably still do in a relative sense. But we're only barely keeping our head above water doing this, certainly not well enough to be paying down debt.

Would people rather we be like a club like North Melbourne and spend way less than everyone else on our football programme but have low debt? It's true I guess that they achieve comparable results to us. But their culture is superior to ours, we'd be doing worse I suspect.

China was supposed to be the game changer but it doesn't appear to be paying major dividends. Yet.
Click to expand...

And with that debt, that added near half a million per year in interest it's costing us isn't helping either.
 
Grave Danger said:
Port Adelaide's Brad Ebert admits he has been asked to defer payments

Port Adelaide defender Brad Ebert has admitted that he had been asked to defer payments by the club.
Ebert confirmed that he had been asked to defer payments, but he never saw it as a financial pressure situation.
"I thought it was almost the other end of the salary cap where we were getting too tight and we were just having to adjust things as the year goes I never saw it as a financial pressure situation."

Ebert would go on to say that it was not unheard of for clubs to ask players to roll over money into the following year.
When asked on his thoughts of reports that the club still had money left in the salary cap, Ebert defended the Power.
"I'd be very interested to know where they get those sort of facts from," he said.


www.sportingnews.com

Port Adelaide's Brad Ebert admits he has been asked to defer payments

Port Adelaide defender Brad Ebert has admitted that he had been asked to defer payments by the club.
www.sportingnews.com
Click to expand...

The deferred payments thing suggests to me that we're going to struggle to make our minimum cap in 2020. Offloading some players, missing out on a big recruit or a combination of both.

Our shitty financial situation is a separate issue.
 
This just does not make sense unless this is a ploy to get the SMA to renegotiate our AO deal by force.

This year alone our average attendance has dropped by 10% based on the previous year. This is pretty much attributed to self inflicted wounds by the PAFC board and coaching department. However it is still very respectable numbers versus other clubs in the AFL.

Our attendance averages since 2016 has been good and that is post the AO honeymoon period.

731383

I think everyone who was involved with the stadium deals were unrealistic to believe the PAFC could average 44000 attendance per game. We are and always have been a 30000 to 35000 attendance per game club.

If you looked at the attendace ladder based on the clubs history, we are ranked 5th in the league for average game attendance. We are even ahead 3 out of 4 of the big Victorian clubs.

731392

Surely SMA wouldn't think they would be better off if they lose 11+ AFL games a year by removing PAFC from the AFL?

The Crows will not gain any additional memebers or attendances as they are limited to the 50K capacity. All they could do is to increase their membership prices to subvert the demand.

Introducing a new composite side to replace the PAFC would fail miserably as no one would care.

​
 
ibd77 said:
This just does not make sense unless this is a ploy to get the SMA to renegotiate our AO deal by force.

This year alone our average attendance has dropped by 10% based on the previous year. This is pretty much attributed to self inflicted wounds by the PAFC board and coaching department. However it is still very respectable numbers versus other clubs in the AFL.

Our attendance averages since 2016 has been good and that is post the AO honeymoon period.

View attachment 731383

I think everyone who was involved with the stadium deals were unrealistic to believe the PAFC could average 44000 attendance per game. We are and always have been a 30000 to 35000 attendance per game club.

If you looked at the attendace ladder based on the clubs history, we are ranked 5th in the league for average game attendance. We are even ahead 3 out of 4 of the big Victorian clubs.

View attachment 731392

Surely SMA wouldn't think they would be better off if they lose 11+ AFL games a year by removing PAFC from the AFL?

The Crows will not gain any additional memebers or attendances as they are limited to the 50K capacity. All they could do is to increase their membership prices to subvert the demand.

Introducing a new composite side to replace the PAFC would fail miserably as no one would care.

​
Click to expand...
Which idiot signed a deal with so much downside risk? Why would any board approve that?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PA88 said:
I don't follow our financials. I've heard that the money we spent on community programmes is all paid by grants but is it? All of it by grant money? Should we be rolling back a portion of our community commitments to manage our debt? Or does it not work that way?
Click to expand...

We have a business model where we get grants for our community work and then leverage that image to get sponsors onboard who want to be associated with that.

Clearly it doesn't work. We neither have the clout or attachments to the right causes. Indigenous programs, though important, are just not "sexy" for corporate business.

We desperately need a rethink.
 
Last edited:
PA88 said:
I don't follow our financials. I've heard that the money we spent on community programmes is all paid by grants but is it? All of it by grant money? Should we be rolling back a portion of our community commitments to manage our debt? Or does it not work that way?
Click to expand...
Good question. I have said, and others have echoed, that KT should transfer to CEO or equal of PCL and run that show as an alternative source of profit / revenue. But knowing him he would, however, view that as too akin to capitalism.
 
Doctor Feel said:
We have a business model where we get grants for our community work and then leverage that imagine to get sponsors onboard who want to be associated with that.

Clearly it doesn't work. We neither have the clout or attachments to the right causes. Indigenous programs, though important, are just not "sexy" for corporate business.

We desperately need a rethink.
Click to expand...
Indigenous programmes are very sexy, however, for PRC state owned enterprises willing to pay for properly orchestrated PR via a PAFC or PCL Communications operation. I have been preaching this for years.
 
PA88 said:
I don't follow our financials. I've heard that the money we spent on community programmes is all paid by grants but is it? All of it by grant money? Should we be rolling back a portion of our community commitments to manage our debt? Or does it not work that way?
Click to expand...
Governments give tied grants, so if we don't spend them on programs they will cut us off. Same with corporates, they give monies for specific community activities not for general footy club revenue.

The Power Community Ltd is a separate legal entity with its own board, own budgets etc. It would be run to make a break even result.

There would be a small cross subsidizisation by the club things like electricity, office supplies, basic office equipment, some IT, meals at the Port Club, but you are probably looking at $50k maybe $100k a year.

Koch's bullshit that we are a community club and he would rather make no profit and put the monies back into the community programs is absolute crap and PR spin and has come back to bite him in the arse . It gives the impression we are using funds made from footy activity to run the community programs.

We are not WCE that make $7m profit after spending $3m or $4m on community programs, some funded by government grants, some by corporates and the majority out of general footy revenue generated out of the very profitable footy club.

If we dropped them would it make a difference?? Gupta probably wouldn't have signed up without our community programs.
 
Thanks for the information fellows.

So fair enough we have community programmes and the Indigenous programmes and indigenous academy but is this building with 50 rooms a necessity for a football club trying to reduce debt?
 
PA88 said:
Thanks for the information fellows.

So fair enough we have community programmes and the Indigenous programmes and indigenous academy but is this building with 50 rooms a necessity for a football club trying to reduce debt?
Click to expand...
Not now. Our board and CEO should be concentrating on footy.

But that doesn't mean Ross Wait, Pauly V and directors of the PCL, who aren't directors on the footy club board cant spend time trying to find these funds. They don't take away from the footy department effort.

But it made sense when trying to tie it in with our China strategy and a PRC state owned enterprise was interested in combining the footy part of the precinct upgrade with the community part of the precinct development.

That was the hook, do the corporate social responsible stuff around the ACE, and also throw in some more money to build some footy infrastructure as well. Beijing and Canberra s**t fight thanks to Malcolm Turnbull going all anti-Chinese 14 or 15 months after he helped launch in April 2016 the JV with Mr Gui and push for game in China, put that on ice.
 
Last edited:
PA88 said:
Thanks for the information fellows.

So fair enough we have community programmes and the Indigenous programmes and indigenous academy but is this building with 50 rooms a necessity for a football club trying to reduce debt?
Click to expand...
The ‘50 rooms’ plus the entire Alberton Oval redevelopment was meant to be majority funded from corporate sources including a very large PRC SOE which had committed to funding as at March last year and was the motivation for Koch going public with the redevelopment plan and promises to keep us all updated the week before the state election with its NTTAWWT disappeared into thin air promises made by the losing parties.

Losing parties. Yep, that’s us all over.

The whole story is in UP THE CHINA RABBIT-HOLE if you happen to be the sole South Australian with time, energy and interest enough to go for a browse.
 
RussellEbertHandball Do you have enough detail in the revenue breakdowns to extract revenue from the stadium deal?

I'd be interested in assessing a $ per attendee figure and comparing that against the rest of the clubs in the AFL.

That would be a good measure of the strength or weakness of each club's stadium deal.
 
Sleezy said:
RussellEbertHandball Do you have enough detail in the revenue breakdowns to extract revenue from the stadium deal?

I'd be interested in assessing a $ per attendee figure and comparing that against the rest of the clubs in the AFL.

That would be a good measure of the strength or weakness of each club's stadium deal.
Click to expand...
No
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top