Analysis Stadium deals - what, how, when - why we need a new one and the SA footy paradigm shift happening

[tribey]

Okay, so who ultimately gets the SMA's cut of this windfall? The SACA? The SANFL? The State Govt? A mixture of all three?

Because it makes the repeated attacks on the GDV seem churlish doesn't it?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Okay, so who ultimately gets the SMA's cut of this windfall? The SACA? The SANFL? The State Govt? A mixture of all three?

Because it makes the repeated attacks on the GDV seem churlish doesn't it?

Unless the state government was involved in helping underwrite to get her to AO, then the revenue from the ground hiring fee and the food and beverage all belongs to the SMA. The SMA is supposed to make profits of about $200k to $500k range a year from normal activities - after paying the SANFL and SACA their sales commission on food and beverage sales when footy and cricket games are played at the oval, AND after paying contributions into the sinking fund to pay for capital repairs and capital upgrades.

The first payment of $2.7mil into the sinking fund was supposed to happen in September 2016, but according to the Auditor General's 6 monthly report ended 31/12/16, which I quoted on the previous page it wasn't paid if I have corrected interpreted the following;
At the time of this Report DTF advised us that the Treasurer had not made a determination or approval for the sinking fund under the Act. DPTI advised that it was:

 * preparing a minute to the Treasurer seeking approval for the amount proposed by AOSMA to be paid into the sinking fund

But I suspect its been provided for in the SMA accounts and reflected in their profit and loss statement.

The whole idea of chasing these big non footy and cricket events is to make profits to run the SMA and make these sinking fund contributions which may become annual amounts - but Rucci likes to say its an annual payment of $2.8mil ad then changed it to $2.6mil and started in 2014.

Its the government forcing the SMA to get off its arse and chase events so there is monies there to keep up the quality of facilities at AO and not coming running back for more $$$$ every 5 or 10 years. The SMA lost money for the years ended 31st October 2015 and 2014 of $2.5m and $3,7m respectively from normal trading activities before government grants for various items changed that to a loss of $719k in 2015 and profit of $3.2m in 2014.

 

[Zakk Wylde]

Zakk did you get Park 10 mixed up with Park 2?? Rucci wrote the following on Saturday.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...a/news-story/c200c777526722ff941e50db5fb630e2
ANE Lomax-Smith and Anne Moran may find more and more invites from the Adelaide Football Club in their letter boxes. There is growing speculation that the Crows will soon change their home address from West Lakes to Barton Tce West at Moran’s territory in North Adelaide.

This is the site of the Adelaide Aquatic Centre at North Adelaide and Park No. 2 (where the football ground runs inconveniently east-west rather than north-south to mirror the Adelaide Oval).

Despite a long-term lease (at very favourable terms with the SANFL) at Football Park, the Crows are expected to vacate West Lakes to move to the city with a new home on the corner of Barton Tce and Jeffcott St. Of course, closed training sessions will be difficult to arrange in parklands that must remain open — a point that will make guaranteed access to Adelaide Oval for at least one weekly training session an imperative for the Crows in talks with the Oval’s SMA on a new stadium deal. Also interesting will be the prospect of the AFL being asked to contribute $5 million to the Crows’ plans for a new training and administrative block in North Adelaide.
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...a/news-story/c200c777526722ff941e50db5fb630e2

and this morning the ABC reported

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-13/adelaide-aquatic-centre-drowning-council-in-debt/8348342
The Adelaide Aquatic Centre may need to close as soon as next month because it operates at a loss and is a poor use of rates, according to one Adelaide City councillor. Councillor Anne Moran told ABC Radio Adelaide the facility lost as much as $700,000 each year and the council could not afford the urgent upgrades the centre requires. She said the State Government abandoned the North Adelaide facility when it built the state aquatic centre at Marion. "We've been left holding the enormous debt-making business when only just under 7 per cent of our ratepayers have used it at least once in a year," she said.
......
The council previously tried to gift the centre to the State Government but Cr Moran said that offer was "laughed off".............. Cr Moran said there had also been a suggestion that the Adelaide Football Club could partner with the council to use the facility but that idea had not gone anywhere. She said only the State Government or private investment could save it. "As I said, the person paying for it is not the person using it and seeing as it is such an important facility to the state, the State Government should take it over," she said........
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-13/adelaide-aquatic-centre-drowning-council-in-debt/8348342

Nah, it was definitely Park #10. The one inside the Uni Loop with the smaller grandstand.

 

[chiwigi]

Nah, it was definitely Park #10. The one inside the Uni Loop with the smaller grandstand.

You just KNOW they are going to get a huge payoff to leave West Lakes as well, the boys club looking after its own.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You just KNOW they are going to get a huge payoff to leave West Lakes as well, the boys club looking after its own.

The payoff could be to give them the land they have their building on as they don't own that and miss out on any land appreciation. I have no idea when the SANFL sold West Lakes for $71m to Commercial and General in November 2014, if that piece of land was included in the land parcel or was cut out of that deal and the SANFL still owns that piece of land. They used $10m of the $71m to pay back the AFL for that bail out package in June 2011 for the 2 afl clubs, and have said $16m of the remaining $61m will be set aside for SANFL clubs to pay off their debts ie $2mil each of the 8 SANFL clubs. The SANFL will use $26m to payoff their debts. So I guess a facilities distribution could be made to buy that land or to buy new facilities out of the remaining $19mil, ie the proposed future fund. from March 2015.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/sale-o...t/news-story/118e3cf7a115c7369cf0e4136d24dabc
SANFL clubs can dip into a $16 million treasury from next year — but the cash from the sale of the Football Park comes with strings attached from the SA Football Commission. Each of the eight SANFL clubs with no AFL alliance will get $2 million — starting with a $125,000 allowance in October 2016 rising to $425,000 in October 2022. In between, there are payments of $250,000 in 2017; $275,000 in each of 2018 and 2019; $300,000 in 2020 and $350,000 in 2012 (sic). However, each payout must be directed to ending club debt that is currently at around $16 million. This will coincide with the commission wiping out the league’s $26 million debt by 2022 and setting up a “future fund” from the carve up of the $71 million return from selling Football Park.
.....
“Over the next seven year we will retire the league’s remaining debt and, with the money from Football Park’s redevelopment, assist the SANFL clubs to significantly improve their viability,” Olsen said. “And from 2022 we will direct money to a future fund for SA football. This part of our strategy to make SA football as strong as possible for future generations.”
http://www.news.com.au/sport/sale-o...t/news-story/118e3cf7a115c7369cf0e4136d24dabc

 

[kikass]

SANFL financials out

http://sanfl.com.au/2016-sanfl-financial-year-results/

“We were not only able to fund game development grants to SANFL clubs of $4.86 million, but we were also able to bring forward debt relief payments which will provide each club with $2 million over seven years."

 

[Portology]

Nah, it was definitely Park #10. The one inside the Uni Loop with the smaller grandstand.

They can **** right off, that's spoiling the view of my old 2.2Km running track. I might want to use it again some time in the next 20 years

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Rucci wrote a couple of articles during the week which hinted at stadium deal stuff and the review at the end of the season.

Wednesday - SANFL on debt-free track
SANFL debt has fallen to $18 million, putting the league well on track to meet its goal of being debt-free by 2021. The SANFL on Tuesday reported a cash operating profit of $379,000. The league also revealed:

DEBT had fallen from $22.53 million to $18m — saving the league $630,000 in interest payments.
DEBT relief payments to the eight “traditional” SANFL clubs opened at $1.59m. There will be $16m paid — $2m to each club — across seven years as part of the major windfall from the sale of the league’s Football Park precinct at West Lakes.
AFL clubs — Adelaide and Port Adelaide — were handed a $1 million bonus for drawing crowds to Adelaide Oval. This does not include a $300,000 payment to the Crows for delivering a home final to the Oval last season.
PAYMENT of $1.34 million went to the Adelaide Oval “sinking fund” demanded by the State Government to underwrite future development of the venue.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...s/news-story/1829972f785a698b4e035e6f9c395ea7

and Thursday - It's not clear yet if everyone is better off at the Oval

MEMORABLE through that saga to bring football back to Adelaide Oval — one then AFL boss Andrew Demetriou was told was “worse than the Middle East peace crisis” — is one key goal: Everyone had to be better off. After three seasons, here is the checklist:

CROWS — record membership (that was once considered an important measure) and the best home attendances in all Australian sport (a status symbol that will be tested when West Coast moves to the new 60,000-seat Perth stadium next year). Financially, the Crows are making “operating profits” — that are a sign of good business — but “statutory losses” that are seen as an indicator to a bigger game, particularly on finding a new base away from West Lakes. There is that matter of “The Shed” — a new social base for the Crows members — that has not been delivered at Adelaide Oval.

POWER — successive profits for the first time since 2007, average home crowds of more than 40,000 for the first time and solid, 50,000-plus membership. Critically, the move to the Oval — and related release of the club’s AFL licence from the SA Football Commission — has, to quote Port Adelaide, “reaffirmed the strength of the club’s business model implemented by the current board in 2013.” The old Power board led by Brett Duncanson — and former chief executive Mark Haysman, who paid dearly in the political game that had the AFL parachute David Koch into the presidency at Alberton at the end of 2012 — must cringe at times.

SANFL — after almost being sent to the wall three times by its then bankers, Westpac, while carrying $44 million debt in the dark last hours at Football Park, the SA Football Commission now has “just” $18 million to clear off the books. After originally setting a target in 2014 of being debt-free in 15 years, the commission expects to meet this target in half the time — by 2021. Then the SANFL will focus on building a “future fund” to bankroll the State league and Australian football in SA.

The sale of the Football Park asset at West Lakes — the once “white elephant” built in a swamp to escape the SACA’s rule at Adelaide Oval — is the key to wiping out the SANFL’s debt. It also is to deliver $16 million to the eight traditional SANFL clubs in the next seven years to either wipe out their debt or invest in infrastructure, such as the new Wolf Blass clubhouse on The Parade for Norwood.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...s/news-story/fe67812937f02007353035c867da36f4

But its this bit that makes me wonder if the SANFL will try and screw the clubs for more revenue share when the review is commenced after the season.

And that leads to the question as to whether the SANFL clubs are better off since the move to Adelaide Oval? They may be better off without carrying the risk from the Port Adelaide AFL licence. And the less the SANFL pays in interest on its debt — such as the $630,000 relief last year — makes them better off.

But there is still much pain on their own books, particularly with most of the SANFL clubs west of Adelaide Oval. The “better off” picture is not complete yet, a point that will be underlined in the SANFL-Power-Crows review of the Adelaide Oval stadium deal in the next year.

My mate, who is close to a few people at SANFL clubs, last Sunday told me he reckons the 2 SA clubs wont be playing in the SANFL in 2018 as the SANFL clubs aren't happy playing against full time footballers. I told him it has to be 2019 as the 2 clubs have to be given 12 months notice. I reckon it will be another lever used to get a bigger slice of the AO revenue stream by the SANFL.

 

[Smithy7]

Rucci wrote a couple of articles during the week which hinted at stadium deal stuff and the review at the end of the season.
My mate, who is close to a few people at SANFL clubs, last Sunday told me he reckons the 2 SA clubs wont be playing in the SANFL in 2018 as the SANFL clubs aren't happy playing against full time footballers. I told him it has to be 2019 as the 2 clubs have to be given 12 months notice. I reckon it will be another lever used to get a bigger slice of the AO revenue stream by the SANFL.

Well that will be interesting REH.
So the SANFL Clubs do not want Adelaide & Port in their Competition.
Maybe Adelaide & Port get together and stop the SANFL making money from their AFL games at Adelaide Oval.
Get a court order b geez like Glenelg did to us that will go down well

 

[xflamedancer]

As I understood it at the time, didn't the media deal the $NAFL signed with Eddies production company specifically hinge on Port and the Crows being part of the $NAFL?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

As I understood it at the time, didn't the media deal the $NAFL signed with Eddies production company specifically hinge on Port and the Crows being part of the $NAFL?

Yes it did, but the SANFL clubs probably aren't smart enough to remember that, and the ramifications of no TV coverage. They probably reckon its a piece of piss to negotiate a new deal without the 2 afl clubs.

 

[xflamedancer]

Thanks for confirming that RussellEbertHandball, I thought I was getting senile.

 

[CharlieKelly]

Adelaide Oval $9 million upgrade to sound and light equipment for sporting events and concerts

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s/news-story/e0da728a1f7cb11949af08e77d00a55b

 

[HighBudget]

Adelaide Oval $9 million upgrade to sound and light equipment for sporting events and concerts

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s/news-story/e0da728a1f7cb11949af08e77d00a55b

A lot of People really don't read past the headline when it comes to news articles hey? People in the comments whinging because they just assume that the governments paying for this

 

[NTRabbit]

A lot of People really don't read past the headline when it comes to news articles hey? People in the comments whinging because they just assume that the governments paying for this

I think you'll find that's exactly what the Murdoch rag is hoping people will do

 

[HighBudget]

I think you'll find that's exactly what the Murdoch rag is hoping people will do

No doubt mate

 

[Rexie J]

I think you'll find that's exactly what the Murdoch rag is hoping people will do

Hasn't changed since the 1950s when it was called The News - all headline and fairy floss substance. Since Murdoch changed The Advertiser from a broadsheet to it's current form he simply carried on with the crap from The News era. A disgraceful rag

 

[The_Wookie]

Hasn't changed since the 1950s when it was called The News - all headline and fairy floss substance. Since Murdoch changed The Advertiser from a broadsheet to it's current form he simply carried on with the crap from The News era. A disgraceful rag

The Advertiser and The News were never the same paper.

 

[Rexie J]

The Advertiser and The News were never the same paper.

Well stuff me!. I never said they were. The Advertiser was always a broadsheet delivered in the morning. The News was the afternoon only paper.

The News was always a big headline with little substance. When Murdoch purchased The Advertiser, he ultimately changed it to its current form but it has absolutely no similarity to the old The Advertiser and is a replica of The News.

My immediate and extended family spent more than 30 years in the newsagency business from the mid 1950s and we got to see how the various papers evolved over time.

 

[kikass]

SANFL debt has fallen to $18 million, putting the league well on track to meet its goal of being debt-free by 2021.

My mate, who is close to a few people at SANFL clubs, last Sunday told me he reckons the 2 SA clubs wont be playing in the SANFL in 2018 as the SANFL clubs aren't happy playing against full time footballers. I told him it has to be 2019 as the 2 clubs have to be given 12 months notice. I reckon it will be another lever used to get a bigger slice of the AO revenue stream by the SANFL.

I think we will just see the SANFL accelerate its debt pay-off, even if that means seeing a club go to the wall during that period.

Nothing has changed since 1990, the SANFL will continue to try and rule over football in this state, including the AFL teams. But reality is that, what can they hold over them, membership in the SANFL? Hardly, my bet this is where KG's rumour of Port leaving the SANFL comes from.

Mean while the other clubs will bitch and whinge about the AFL taking everything that should be theirs. Fact is they need the AFL teams more than the AFL team needs them.

No doubt there is going to be more blood drawn in this never ending saga. I for one wish they just all pulled their heads in and realised that the game is what is important and building both a strong AFL and SANFL together is the only way forward.

I doubt it will happen in the next twenty years, but the alternative will be a VFA style takeover.

 

[Redline]

I think we will just see the SANFL accelerate its debt pay-off even if that means seeing a club go to the wall during that period.

Nothing has changed since 1990, the SANFL will continue to try and rule over football in this state including the AFL teams. But reality is that what can they hold over them, membership in the SANFL? Hardly, my bet this is were KG's rumour of Port leaving the SANFL comes from.

Mean while the other clubs will bitch and whinge about the AFL taking everything that should be theirs. Fact is they need the AFL teams more than the AFL team needs them.

No doubt there is going to be more blood drawn in this never ending saga. I for one wish they just all pulled their heads in and realised that the game is what is important and building both a strong AFL and SANFL together is the only way forward.

I doubt it will happen in the next twenty years, but the alternative will be a VFL takeover.

Good post, what has annoyed me is whenever anyone wants a bigger slice of AFL game Day Revenue all that happens is they just grow the pie not negotiate who deserves what. It all just gets passed onto the supporter. Very easy to negotiate that deal.

 

[Steve Dore]

Not really stadium deal related but stadium related.

Watching the Crers v GWS game on Sunday I noticed that the Crers are now allowing the AO Roof Climb during their games.

Both clubs were approached by AO Roof Climb about allowing roof climbs during games and Ports said, "Yes, no worries" yet the Crers simply said "No". When asked what their reasons were and if there was anything that could be done to change their minds the Crers would not give any reasons and said that "No" was their final answer.

I wonder why they changed their minds.

 

[Garibaldi Red]

Not really stadium deal related but stadium related.

Watching the Crers v GWS game on Sunday I noticed that the Crers are now allowing the AO Roof Climb during their games.

Both clubs were approached by AO Roof Climb about allowing roof climbs during games and Ports said, "Yes, no worries" yet the Crers simply said "No". When asked what their reasons were and if there was anything that could be done to change their minds the Crers would not give any reasons and said that "No" was their final answer.

I wonder why they changed there minds.

I think they first did this at their final game v North Melbourne last year.

They really are a flock of sheep.

 

[tribey]

I wonder why they changed there minds.

their

 

[Steve Dore]

their

5/6