They’re definitely making money. The smallest crowd I saw posted was just under a thousand. You’re definitely making a profit on that attendance.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Opinion New AFC HQ (Part 2): Dale dug a hole
- Thread starter MarcusP2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
They’re definitely making money. The smallest crowd I saw posted was just under a thousand. You’re definitely making a profit on that attendance.
- Apr 20, 2001
- 28,254
- 11,270
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
You are very particular
Yes indeed. Have become so as I've grown older and more decrepit.
- Moderator
- #1,129
Why wouldn't we be?
If the club wants to stay in the SANFL post 2028 and wants to use Thebarton then our deal should be identical to Port's.
There's absolutely no justification at all for us to be paying a cent more than Port for the same deal from 2029.
Any Chairman or CEO that would sign off on paying more than our competitor for the same deal should be shown the door.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Mr MysteryGuest
Brownlow Medallist
- Apr 4, 2015
- 11,118
- 11,802
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
i would say the gap has closed. By 2028, we would have been there for 15 years and the competition benefits from having 10 teams instead of 9.
it would hurt the SANFL if we jumped ship to the VFL comp.
That's totally unrealistic. Different commercial deals are agreed to all the time in the real world. The deal you have with a supplier isn’t necessarily the same as another business. The SANFL’s job is to extract as much as they can from each club.
Port’s bill is ultimately paid for by extra AFL funding, so the SANFL is effectively negotiating with them. It’s ashtray change for the AFL to pull them out of the league and dump them in another league. We’re on our own and the SANFL know what it’d cost for us to fund the costs to travel to another league. They’ll be extracting at least around that amount from us.
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 68,061
- 184,282
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #1,132
Our negotiating position is stronger than Port because if we pull out of the SANFL (to join a national reserves) it will be a larger revenue loss to the SANFL than if Port did the same
We're also in a stronger position to actually leave the SANFL compared to Port, so Port rely on the SANFL more, weakening their position
We're also in a stronger position to actually leave the SANFL compared to Port, so Port rely on the SANFL more, weakening their position
- Jun 23, 2016
- 18,341
- 17,789
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I would like us to leave because it means giving the parasites less of our money.
WaynesWorld19
Post-Human
I don't know why this is propagated .....the reality is, it is very very unlikely to occur
The AFL even floated a return to state based leagues for the northern teams, just a few weeks ago
Weakening State Leagues, I highly doubt is on the AFL's agenda .....building & solidifying the bases in each state is
Then you have the real possibility, the next AFL rights $$ package could be lower than the current rights
- Moderator
- #1,135
How on earth is it unrealistic?
We'd potentially be looking at the identical terms as Port, there's absolutely zero justiciation for us to paying anything more than they are for the same agreement.
The fact that we're currently paying 450k a season while Port are paying $0 is already unpalatable, but when the deal was signed we were still under the SANFL's control. Now we're a separate entity there's zero justification commercially for any unfair financial kickbacks to the SANFL.
Last edited:
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
ALl of the northern teams or just SOuthport?
I wonder if it's a way of working towards a national reserves comp.
I'm not sure we gain anything if Southport/Williamstown/Port Melbourne etc are in the same league.
WaynesWorld19
Post-Human
It was a general reference, scant on details ....however the inference was all northern teams
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
I think if 1 of Adelaide/Power leave, it'll just go back to the same it was pre us joining.
But if both left, that's where it becomes interesting. Play everyone three times? MAYBE 1 team 4 times?
Playing each other thrice is how everyone will get at least 10 home games (as it was before we joined). But 4 teams get 11, so maybe play a rivalry (North-Central, Norwood-Sturt, South-Glenelg, West-Woodville) to give everyone 11?
But if both left, that's where it becomes interesting. Play everyone three times? MAYBE 1 team 4 times?
Playing each other thrice is how everyone will get at least 10 home games (as it was before we joined). But 4 teams get 11, so maybe play a rivalry (North-Central, Norwood-Sturt, South-Glenelg, West-Woodville) to give everyone 11?
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
I can see it being a financial drain in some ways.
But I do wonder if they go all in on a national reserves comp WITHOUT other teams if it would be a gain for the clubs?
Ressies mirror the league, so the clubs can reduce operating costs on trainers/doctors etc. And have them travel together for both games.
If club expenses reduce, even if the league losses revenue, they can cut club distribution which wouldn't hurt as much if there's no need for extra doctors/trainers etc.
Rubbish. Port are an AFL funded club, they could be moved to the WAFL, playing all away games and it's the AFL picking up the tab. We operate commercially, costs matter. The SANFL know that, at a minimum, they can slug us an amount loosely equivalent to the travel costs that would be incurred travelling between ADL and Melbourne every weekend.
It’s absurd to believe we have a stronger negotiating position than Port.
You need to stop believing that what Port pay has any bearing. The SANFL will extract what they can get, it’s that simple. We can approach it you way, say ‘we’re paying nothing, just like Port’. What if they say, ‘no worries, come back when you’re prepared to pay $600k’. What do you suggest we do then.
You’re pretty much acting like a child, “But Port have a lolly, I want a lolly too”. And that’s not how the commercial world works. What deal Port negotiates for themselves has no bearing on our negotiations.
Kind of reminds me of the numpties who couldn’t understand why our license was valued higher than Port’s. I mean, geez.
- Oct 16, 2011
- 19,656
- 52,847
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Adam Kelly isn't going to be negotiating the deal with the SANFL is he?
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 68,061
- 184,282
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #1,143
You're living in a fantasy land where the AFL just pays for whatever Port wants. The reality is the AFL would do whatever is cheapest - which is staying in the SANFL.
This gives Port terrible leverage because the SANFL know the SANFL is the only viable option for them.
We are the only club that can actually afford to leave the SANFL
Mr MysteryGuest
Brownlow Medallist
- Apr 4, 2015
- 11,118
- 11,802
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Silvers and Olsen youd think
- Jun 21, 2014
- 11,265
- 12,759
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think he's referring to his well-known poker skills.
- May 16, 2015
- 19,172
- 27,067
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- WWTFC,Chelsea,Glasgow Celtic,Lech Poznan
Not even close, the AFL have levers to pull that ensure Port pay the minimum rate. It’s the opposite of them paying what Port want, which is why they’ll lean on the SANFL. And because we have money and spend responsibly, the SANFL know that they can charge an amount commensurate with the costs of joining another league. Why some of you are fixated with getting the same deal as Port is weird, it’s like this is some kind of separate competition. Strange.
Similar threads
