One CLUB Approved

[birdmanptr]

Dear god.


That is the average of the SANFL clubs. This is not some magic figure, it's the average of what is already being spent on in the SANFL.

How can you gain a significant on field advantage when the expenses are capped at the SANFL average?

Well it's clear that it don't matter how well I explain it you dont want to get it.Port power pulled the wool over 8 SANFL clubs eyes and good luck to them,Like i said this benifets no one except Port,For some reason we are led to believe we need Port in the SANFL,enjoy your GF battles with Centrals.The only interest in the SANFL has been who will play Centrals in the GF but that's gone now.

 

[P.A.F.C]

Well it's clear that it don't matter how well I explain it you dont want to get it.Port power pulled the wool over 8 SANFL clubs eyes and good luck to them,Like i said this benifets no one except Port,For some reason we are led to believe we need Port in the SANFL,enjoy your GF battles with Centrals.The only interest in the SANFL has been who will play Centrals in the GF but that's gone now.

How can you gain a significant on field advantage when the expenses are capped at the SANFL average?

 

[birdmanptr]

How can you gain a significant on field advantage when the expenses are capped at the SANFL average?

And how many SANFL clubs are spending their full cap ??

 

[P.A.F.C]

And how many SANFL clubs are spending their full cap ??

No, the Port Magpies expenses are being capped at the average of what is currently being spent. This will change if expenses in the SANFL, such as the salary cap, change.

 

[sbenno]

Incidentally, how do they work out the average spend, if the total spend is capped?

Wouldn't that mean that either half the clubs rort the system and spend more than the cap to maintain the average, or that the cap get's lowered every year by some clubs spending less (unless every club spends 100% of the cap, which is possible i suppose).

Or perhaps i don't understand the system properly...

 

[Enviable Tradition]

And how many SANFL clubs are spending their full cap ??

Hilarious thread.

NO other SANFL club has a spending cap.

All SANFL clubs have a salary cap.

Port's has a spending cap that means we can only spend what the average AFL club spends. Given that our total spending it capped to the league average it makes sense that our ability to pay the full salary cap would also be the same as the league average.

We have an ability to pay off field staff that is equal to the league average.

We have an ability to pay our full salary cap that is equal to the leagues average.

Both of these facts will remain constant no matter how much money the PAFC makes.

 

[The Jaguar]

Incidentally, how do they work out the average spend, if the total spend is capped?

Wouldn't that mean that either half the clubs rort the system and spend more than the cap to maintain the average, or that the cap get's lowered every year by some clubs spending less (unless every club spends 100% of the cap, which is possible i suppose).

Or perhaps i don't understand the system properly...

The cap relates to total football spend, not the player salary cap. Clubs can spend whatever they like (with the exception of their playing roster which of course is capped) but there are obviously bound by the financial resources they have to play with. Anyway the cap that Port must adhere to is the average total football spend of the other 8 clubs. This will of course be changed from year to year. Apparently the average for this season was $1.36 Million, so that becomes the limit for Port to spend on the Magpies in the 2011 season.

So basically, if Port spends 100% of their cap on the Magpies they will have the 5th highest spend of all the clubs (based on the previous year, so this might vary slightly), with 4 clubs above them and 4 clubs below them. Therefore should never be in the top 4 unless the top 4 spending clubs from last year decide to spend a lot less than they did in the season before. But they could be lower than 5th if Port chooses to spend less than 100% of the cap.

Overall however the Magpies should be around 5th every year in terms of money spent on football operations.

 

[subaru]

Overall however the Magpies should be around 5th every year in terms of money spent on football operations.

Any chance this time around you could be spending your own money?????

 

[The Jaguar]

Any chance this time around you could be spending your own money?????

No we actually have a cunning plan to steal all the money that the other SANFL clubs make from their gameday sausage sizzles. Our intelligence suggests that revenue from the golden snags exceeds $10 million per annum, which we will swindle from the clubs by using a crack team of Mongolia ninjas and promises of free candy as a diversion. We will then spend half of the enormous bounty on running both the Magpies and the Power, whilst the other half will be used to genetically engineer the ultimate Super-Snag in order to provide us with an impregnable monopoly in the lucrative sausage sizzle market. As a result of their diminishing slice of the beef banger pie all the local clubs will instantly go bankrupt and the SANFL will simultaneously implode and explode, which triggers the apocalypse that was predicted by the Mayan calendar. All life on earth will be destroyed as a result and Port Adelaide will become the undisputed champion of the Underworld Football League, winning 100 consecutive premierships on the back of our untouchable sausage empire. I know it sounds extreme but Port makes no money whatsoever and we just can't resist the BBQ bonanza being cooked up every weekend across Adelaide. The end is nigh!

 

[sbenno]

Trust Port to sponsor a sausage fest

 

[MagPower83]

Yes it is boring but dont you find it amazing that port were able to bluff 8 SANFL clubs.

This is of no benifit to any one except port.They hung the Magpies out to dry in 97 and now want them back for their own gain.Yes i know they gave the Magpies around 1 mill but that would have been out of guilt.What does 8 clubs get out of this.The magpies will flourish out of this lets see where they finish on the membership table now.For $50 a power member can join the Magpies they aint going to be broke for a while now.Thats ok this is just another nail in the SANFL coffin sooner they go the better.

Well I and 4 others in this house wont be forking out $2000 for SANFL memberships we will just go back to Season tickets and if none available we will just buy match day tickets.

You say the thread is boring but you seem to keep on posting in it...

Anyway just to clear up a couple of things in your post above,

The SANFL directed the PAFC to give the PAMFC the money to set it up - dont know where guilt fits in there...

The other 8 clubs get to stop whining about either PAFC or PAMFC getting 'handouts' as its been put plenty of times in forums...

For the $50 you are talking about, it only gets a paid up member of PAFC AFL entry into PAMFC SANFL home games NOT A MEMBERSHIP - a person still needs to buy a membership from PAMFC to get voting rights etc - I found that out the hard way so the membership count will be effectively the same, hopefully the people who have paid the $50 will attend and put more money into the SANFL to be dispersed to the other 8 clubs.

It may be lip service from PAFC about this being beneficial to SA footy but the end product is, if a club can generate more money - whether it be CDFC, NFC, SAFC or whoever - it IS better for SA footy full stop.

 

[Crow-mo]

Maybe not but the facts are the SANFL hold the aces while they own the only AFL ground in SA.
But the AFL are pushing hard for AO so this will no longer be the case.
After AAMI is dead the AFL won't need the SANFL.

I'm surprised that the SANFL don't seem to understand this.

there is so much fail in here its not funny.

the original license agreement with the sanfl means the Afl cannot take the licenses back, and they cannot enter a new team without offering the license to the SANFL

your conspiracy theory is under-researched

 

[Crow-mo]

there is NO way that development of junior footy should be the responsibility of the national body, that makes no sense. insane

that is the level furtherest away from the grassroots. top down is crazy, it has to be bottom up.

the sanfl model is right, its the other piece that is wrong. 2 wrongs etc.

the national top level professional body should have little to do with grass roots development - they do it to hide all the spoils generated by the pro game. there is no accountability for all the money the afl hoards and holds back from the clubs.

its just a power grab from the corporate centre of the game

 

[subaru]

No we actually have a cunning plan to steal all the money that the other SANFL clubs make from their gameday sausage sizzles. Our intelligence suggests that revenue from the golden snags exceeds $10 million per annum, which we will swindle from the clubs by using a crack team of Mongolia ninjas and promises of free candy as a diversion. We will then spend half of the enormous bounty on running both the Magpies and the Power, whilst the other half will be used to genetically engineer the ultimate Super-Snag in order to provide us with an impregnable monopoly in the lucrative sausage sizzle market. As a result of their diminishing slice of the beef banger pie all the local clubs will instantly go bankrupt and the SANFL will simultaneously implode and explode, which triggers the apocalypse that was predicted by the Mayan calendar. All life on earth will be destroyed as a result and Port Adelaide will become the undisputed champion of the Underworld Football League, winning 100 consecutive premierships on the back of our untouchable sausage empire. I know it sounds extreme but Port makes no money whatsoever and we just can't resist the BBQ bonanza being cooked up every weekend across Adelaide. The end is nigh!

Thats actually a better idea than anyone on your Board has been able to come up with !

Way better than bay covers!

 

[Mego Red]

there is NO way that development of junior footy should be the responsibility of the national body, that makes no sense. insane

that is the level furtherest away from the grassroots. top down is crazy, it has to be bottom up.

the sanfl model is right, its the other piece that is wrong. 2 wrongs etc.

the national top level professional body should have little to do with grass roots development - they do it to hide all the spoils generated by the pro game. there is no accountability for all the money the afl hoards and holds back from the clubs.

its just a power grab from the corporate centre of the game

Interesting. It's certainly not the responsibility of individual member clubs of the national game.

My feeling is it is a government and top level problem, with the top level feeding back some funds to the bodies that will actually manage development - the TAC cup clubs, etc.

This seems different to your thoughts. Explain more.

 

[jo172]

there is NO way that development of junior footy should be the responsibility of the national body, that makes no sense. insane

that is the level furtherest away from the grassroots. top down is crazy, it has to be bottom up.

the sanfl model is right, its the other piece that is wrong. 2 wrongs etc.

the national top level professional body should have little to do with grass roots development - they do it to hide all the spoils generated by the pro game. there is no accountability for all the money the afl hoards and holds back from the clubs.

its just a power grab from the corporate centre of the game

I couldn't agree more.

To me the AFL should be a professional league, but should not be responsible for/the guardian of football.

 

[adelaidecrows]

No state league should be held financial responsible for developing Junior Footy only to have the best youngsters pilaged for the national competition. The responsibility has to shift to the national competition as that is the league that make the most money. The state leagues should manage grass roots footy and make sure all the right processes are in place.

If you look at american sport for example. all their national codes look after grass roots footy. Major league baseball is even funding the Australian league at a massive loss, why? because its in their best interest.

if they want to supply footy fans with an outstanding product they must fund the leagues where the players come from.

 

[WALL-e]

The AFL will argue that developing grass roots is a means of planting the seed of the flowers that will occupy their garden in the future.

They're not wrong in trying to develop players that will ultimately become their emploees are they?

If they are, who is responcible to grass roots? Just curious, rather than arguing either side.

 

[Crow-mo]

Interesting. It's certainly not the responsibility of individual member clubs of the national game.

My feeling is it is a government and top level problem, with the top level feeding back some funds to the bodies that will actually manage development - the TAC cup clubs, etc.

This seems different to your thoughts. Explain more.

the AFL should be responsible for negotiating collectively on behalf of the clubs, TV rights, merchandising, sponsorship etc. it should then distribute ALL monies save the overhead admin costs. it should not be responsjble for very much expenditure towards the game.

The Sanfl, Wafl, VFL etc etc have constitutional mandates for the development and enhancement of junior footy. they do not exist as the corp centre of the pro game. thus they have little conflict of interest and most importantly accountability.

the AFL has accountability or responsibility for grassroots except as an excuse to hoard more cash and power for itself.

you could even setup a new body funded, but fpr the sole purpose of development that has no relationship to the pro-game.

I can't think of anywhere where the national pro body is responsible for junior participation.

ovals are provided by local government, junior teams often by schools, regional teams are supported by the community, memberships, and council/state government grants etc. what does the AFL really have to do with the Port Noarlunga u/8's? then from their you have the junior league clubs.

where is the accountability from the AFL for the money it has raised and supposedly contributed? its black box stuff with league finances.

The AFL should focus on its own backyard, the clubs, and if wants to grant money for development fine, but hand it off.

For example the All England lawn tennis ubs contributes a good chunk of change every year from wimbledon to local regional tennis clubs - but it doesnt try to pretend it cam be responsible or even be close enough if it wanted to.

Arguably the Sanfl is too high, too far removed but at least they are setup for the purpose.

The AFL doesn't care or know about NT footy, so leave it to the people who do. though no one likes devolving power

 

[Crow-mo]

No state league should be held financial responsible for developing Junior Footy only to have the best youngsters pilaged for the national competition. The responsibility has to shift to the national competition as that is the league that make the most money. The state leagues should manage grass roots footy and make sure all the right processes are in place.

If you look at american sport for example. all their national codes look after grass roots footy. Major league baseball is even funding the Australian league at a massive loss, why? because its in their best interest.

if they want to supply footy fans with an outstanding product they must fund the leagues where the players come from.

I Don't think that is true at all

 

[Crow-mo]

The AFL will argue that developing grass roots is a means of planting the seed of the flowers that will occupy their garden in the future.

They're not wrong in trying to develop players that will ultimately become their emploees are they?

If they are, who is responcible to grass roots? Just curious, rather than arguing either side.

should starbucks be responsible for education?

 

[WALL-e]

should starbucks be responsible for education?

That's a might long bow there.

A funny one, but very long.

The difference being, people being uneducated doesn't stop them from drinking litre cups of hot milk, hell, it probably helps.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

the AFL should be responsible for negotiating collectively on behalf of the clubs, TV rights, merchandising, sponsorship etc. it should then distribute ALL monies save the overhead admin costs. it should not be responsjble for very much expenditure towards the game.

The Sanfl, Wafl, VFL etc etc have constitutional mandates for the development and enhancement of junior footy. they do not exist as the corp centre of the pro game. thus they have little conflict of interest and most importantly accountability.

the AFL has accountability or responsibility for grassroots except as an excuse to hoard more cash and power for itself.

you could even setup a new body funded, but fpr the sole purpose of development that has no relationship to the pro-game.

I can't think of anywhere where the national pro body is responsible for junior participation.

ovals are provided by local government, junior teams often by schools, regional teams are supported by the community, memberships, and council/state government grants etc. what does the AFL really have to do with the Port Noarlunga u/8's? then from their you have the junior league clubs.

where is the accountability from the AFL for the money it has raised and supposedly contributed? its black box stuff with league finances.

The AFL should focus on its own backyard, the clubs, and if wants to grant money for development fine, but hand it off.

For example the All England lawn tennis ubs contributes a good chunk of change every year from wimbledon to local regional tennis clubs - but it doesnt try to pretend it cam be responsible or even be close enough if it wanted to.

Arguably the Sanfl is too high, too far removed but at least they are setup for the purpose.

The AFL doesn't care or know about NT footy, so leave it to the people who do. though no one likes devolving power

Couldn't disagree more

And I think you are under (or over?) estimating the AFL's motives when it comes to junior development.

The reason the AFL invests in grassroots football is purely financial. They have discovered the link between Junior Participation and $$$$.

They have done a massive amount of studies to investigate the annual 'spend' someone does on football. They measure the spend on merchandise, buy tickets, memberships, watch the game on tv, visit afl websites etc by the various segments of our society.

An adult who did Auskick as a 5-8 year old and then never played any football after that invests more money in the game annually than an adult who never played football at all.

The longer (and stronger) the bond between child and the game as a participant is reflected in their average spend on the game as an adult. If they played at primary school their annual spend as an adult goes up. If they played in a junior club team, their average spend as an adult goes up again. Even if these people don't continue to play the game into their adult years.

And this spend isn't just when they are a child, on footy boots, socks and the requirements to actually play the game. It is a relationship that continues into and throughout adulthood. A football loving kid is the gift that keeps on giving.

Their mandate is not to create the next generation of footballers, but the next generation of football consumers.

They get girls doing Auskick. Not because they want to see Female Leagues springing up around the country and our own WNBA get up and running... but because for these girls, a positive experience as a child = more likely to become a football fan as an adult + more likely to allow/encourage their children to participate etc. $$$$

They might use the 'development' angle and the 'good for the game' crapola to justify the dollars they spend (and it would be a mean old ogre who'd argue with the merits of money to help kiddies to play footy) and keep their real motivation secret. But rest assured, this is no magnanimous gesture about the good of the game or even just a convenient excuse to retain cash from the AFL clubs. The bean counters have told them to get kids playing football. It is a philosophy that has emanated from their finance department.

 

[Crow-mo]

Carl,

none of that is an argument related to the "who" question.

you're arguing for a healthy top to toe state of the game - great, no one disagrees.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Carl,

none of that is an argument related to the "who" question.

you're arguing for a healthy top to toe state of the game - great, no one disagrees.

Who needs to ensure that the afl tv rights deal retains/increases value?

Surely it is the AFL, not the government or state football leagues. Therefore it is up to the AFL to produce generation after generation of viewers.