Port faces 2Mil loss. What the?

[marty36]

It was the bigger cash cow and thus worth more money. No one will argue that.

But you did say it doesn't cost Port anything to have a reserves team when in fact they paid heaps for the privilege.

A licence to play in the AFL whether it be the one they were sub leasing or the one the Power were sub leasing, is just that a licence to compete in the league. If they purchased the licence that the Power were using for $6.9 million how would that have changed their revenue. I am actually just trying to show you the factors that may have come into play on why the whole situation doesn't make sense to anyone because no one is privy to the deal, its more than just, its the return from the Oval which we don't even know!

 

[marty36]

It was the bigger cash cow and thus worth more money. No one will argue that.

But you did say it doesn't cost Port anything to have a reserves team when in fact they paid heaps for the privilege.

The fee of $400K that the Power don't pay, I know you will say you gave up the right to be part of the SANFL and lost your share of the SANFL worth, but I think the $16 million in funding by the SANFL towards your club far outweighs say North Adelaides equity in the SANFL!

 

[ausbacker]

So smart one give me the details of what is being split amongst the parties and the source please, considering there is a confidentiality agreement in place maybe you broke into AFL house and stole the financial results

Which leads to me why the answer that cannot be answered, don't you understand no one besides the AFL, SANFL,SACA, SMA , SA government , Port and the Crows know the results and how the deal was negotiated which are confidential. You do know what that means?

The onus isn't on me to say a damn thing right now. I challenged you to back your position with a simple question and you failed to answer it repeatedly. Until you do so, I don't owe you the courtesy of a response to any question you ask.

One thing is for sure. Your understanding of the matter, both SANFL and WAFC related, is lacking.

 

[marty36]

The onus isn't on me to say a damn thing right now. I challenged you to back your position with a simple question and you failed to answer it repeatedly. Until you do so, I don't owe you the courtesy of a response to any question you ask.

One thing is for sure. Your understanding of the matter, both SANFL and WAFC related, is lacking.

Are you just taking the piss out of me know, looking for an answer to something that no one knows because of a signed confidentiality agreement. You suggest Im lacking in understanding, maybe look up the word confidentiality in a dictionary and you will understand why your question cannot be answered!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Are you just taking the piss out of me know, looking for an answer to something that no one knows because of a signed confidentiality agreement. You suggest Im lacking in understanding, maybe look up the word confidentiality in a dictionary and you will understand why your question cannot be answered!

How can you argue the rates that they charged are fair when you don't know them?

 

[marty36]

How can you argue the rates that they charged are fair when you don't know them?

Because Im not arguing about what they have received I am saying they deserve to be part of the AO deal and deserve an uplift due to the fact there was one.

Why are people saying what they are saying if they don't know what the deal is either, they are saying the SANFL doesn't deserve anything because they are more interested in their clubs finances rather than football in this state!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Because Im not arguing about what they have received I am saying they deserve to be part of the AO deal and deserve an uplift due to the fact there was one.

Why are people saying what they are saying if they don't know what the deal is either, they are saying the SANFL doesn't deserve anything because they are more interested in their clubs finances rather than football in this state!

No one is saying the sanfl deserve nothing

They are saying the sanfl need to consider the two clubs as something more than an atm machine

I've asked several times, but do you know what the distribution they receive from the two clubs is?

 

[*PAF]

...

Why are people saying what they are saying if they don't know what the deal is either, they are saying the SANFL doesn't deserve anything because they are more interested in their clubs finances rather than football in this state!

That is bullshit.
Figures quoted by the SANFL and the clubs seem to show an uplift of around 5mil on the ones projected with lower crowds.
Originally the SANFL wanted to keep all of it and now they've down to closer to 1/2.

The clubs are saying that 4 out of that 5 mils should be split amongst the clubs and the SANFL to keep 1 to bring the total returns to similar percentages from other venues.

No one is saying the SANFL doesn't deserve to keep anything. That part is bullshit.

 

[*PAF]

The other part of the debate is to see the costings, as at the moment they appear to be high, and find ways to reduce them.

 

[marty36]

That is bullshit.
Figures quoted by the SANFL and the clubs seem to show an uplift of around 5mil on the ones projected with lower crowds.
Originally the SANFL wanted to keep all of it and now they've down to closer to 1/2.

The clubs are saying that 4 out of that 5 mils should be split amongst the clubs and the SANFL to keep 1 to bring the total returns to similar percentages from other venues.

No one is saying the SANFL doesn't deserve to keep anything. That part is bullshit.

So there the numbers are they, sorry ausbacker this Poster and the main partys are aware of the final returns!

And the SANFL wanted to keep it all says you also, although their is a confidentially agreement I don't think I have said any bullshit but you certainly have!

 

[*PAF]

The third part of the debate is people such as Fagan being quoted as saying there are too many fingers in the pie, and one can only assume that Cricket is somehow making money out of the clubs as well but that is an assumption as no one has come out and said who those extra fingers belong to.

 

[*PAF]

So there the numbers are they, sorry ausbacker this Poster and the main partys are aware of the final returns!

And the SANFL wanted to keep it all says you also, although their is a confidentially agreement I don't think I have said any bullshit but you certainly have!

Go back through the threads and you'll find links where those numbers come from.

 

[marty36]

No one is saying the sanfl deserve nothing

They are saying the sanfl need to consider the two clubs as something more than an atm machine

I've asked several times, but do you know what the distribution they receive from the two clubs is?

No one knows it!

It is reported but can you believe it? That all three parties have received an uplift!

In percentages on the reports if you can believe them

The Crows received an uplift of 23%
The SANFL received an uplift of 24%
The Power received an uplift of 53%

So all parties have received an uplift but there are reports SACA have received income aswell from the football income but due to the confidentiality no one truly knows

 

[marty36]

Go back through the threads and you'll find links where those numbers come from.

There are no confirmed numbers of the total deal as quoted by Olsen there is a confidentiality agreement in place and numbers will not be disclosed, as you said how much has cricket taken?

 

[marty36]

That is bullshit.
Figures quoted by the SANFL and the clubs seem to show an uplift of around 5mil on the ones projected with lower crowds.
Originally the SANFL wanted to keep all of it and now they've down to closer to 1/2.

The clubs are saying that 4 out of that 5 mils should be split amongst the clubs and the SANFL to keep 1 to bring the total returns to similar percentages from other venues.

No one is saying the SANFL doesn't deserve to keep anything. That part is bullshit.

Go read the Power board and tell me no one is saying they don't deserve anything, please!

 

[El_Scorcho]

Marty, would you agree with the assertion that the best way to secure the long term future of the SANFL is to ensure that it's two greatest sources of revenue, the Crows and Port, remain strong and competitive at AFL level?

 

[The_Wookie]

No one knows it!

It is reported but can you believe it? That all three parties have received an uplift!

In percentages on the reports if you can believe them

The Crows received an uplift of 23%
The SANFL received an uplift of 24%
The Power received an uplift of 53%

So all parties have received an uplift but there are reports SACA have received income aswell from the football income but due to the confidentiality no one truly knows

Please link to these reports of SACA income on football events. And my understanding is that the deal isnt supposed to be confidential, but has to be published in Parliament. As of this moment, that hasnt happened.

Go read the Power board and tell me no one is saying they don't deserve anything, please!

The issue at hand isnt that they received an uplift in funding, or that the SANFL received funding. The issue at hand is that the budgets were based on average crowds well below the end result, and the only party to benefit from that appears to have been SANFL - who contributed not one cent, nor were an active participant or enabler of that increase.

Theres not being worse off, and then theres absolutely fleecing the clubs.

 

[*PAF]

There are no confirmed numbers of the total deal as quoted by Olsen there is a confidentiality agreement in place and numbers will not be disclosed, as you said how much has cricket taken?

There are numbers quoted by Olsen and others. The links are in this thread.
No one knows the full extent of the agreement or expenses but quite a bit has come out from the main players, including Olsen. Again the links are in this thread but some people chose to conveniently ignore them when they were posted.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No one knows it!

It is reported but can you believe it? That all three parties have received an uplift!

In percentages on the reports if you can believe them

The Crows received an uplift of 23%
The SANFL received an uplift of 24%
The Power received an uplift of 53%

So all parties have received an uplift but there are reports SACA have received income aswell from the football income but due to the confidentiality no one truly knows

That's not what I asked

SANFL get a distribution from both cups historically. How much did they receive?

This is relevant because you keep claiming the stadium charges at aami were fair, and have implied the $16m contribution to port was a gift based upon a generous sanfl giving port money it didn't deserve

 

[marty36]

That's not what I asked

SANFL get a distribution from both cups historically. How much did they receive?

This is relevant because you keep claiming the stadium charges at aami were fair, and have implied the $16m contribution to port was a gift based upon a generous sanfl giving port money it didn't deserve

SANFL didnt get a distribution from both clubs they owned AAMI they distributed to the clubs like AO they were given the keys to the castle by no other than the State Government who made them landlords after the tax payers spent half a billion $. So the SMA which is the SACA and SANFL distribute the income to the clubs.

Ps of note e premier of SA recently stated that legislation would not be presented to change the set up of the SMA being the SANFL and SACA

 

[Ned_Flanders]

SANFL didnt get a distribution from both clubs they owned AAMI they distributed to the clubs like AO they were given the keys to the castle by no other than the State Government who made them landlords after the tax payers spent half a billion $. So the SMA which is the SACA and SANFL distribute the income to the clubs.

Ps of note e premier of SA recently stated that legislation would not be presented to change the set up of the SMA being the SANFL and SACA

are you saying the SANFL received NO dividend from either the crows or the power during their existence? Just the fees from games at AAMI?

 

[bomberclifford]

Marty36: "there are no confirmed numbers. Confidentiality clause. Etc"

Nekminnet...

Marty36: "here are some numbers that I've pulled from my arse to support my argument."

 

[PowerForGood]

are you saying the SANFL received NO dividend from either the crows or the power during their existence? Just the fees from games at AAMI?

They received a fixed fee from games, which meant their return was essentially underwritten by the AFL clubs.

And you wonder why they wanted the control of their own licenses huh. ..

 

[marty36]

[

They received a fixed fee from games, which meant their return was essentially underwritten by the AFL clubs.

And you wonder why they wanted the control of their own licenses huh. ..

They received income at AAMI because they owned they stadium. Yes the AFL clubs paid to play there, essentially were they expecting to use an asset worth $71 million for free. Dumb question it appears everyone thinks they should have!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

[



They received income at AAMI because they owned they stadium. Yes the AFL clubs paid to play there, essentially were they expecting to use an asset worth $71 million for free. Dumb question it appears everyone thinks they should have!

It's a pity Port Adelaide didn't get full control of the licence back in 1997, they would have folded by 2000 if the SANFL wasn't there to bankroll them. I think after all the millions of dollars the SANFL have poured into the Power, it's a bit much hearing them complain about the Adelaide Oval deal giving too much to the SANFL.