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

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Posts
21,000
Likes
34,833
Location
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Completely nothing article by Rucci, as bloody usual. Has a shot at Frank Pangello (maybe a beef from back in the old country...... Campbelltown or Fulham Gardens), has a shot at the 2 AFL clubs, points out that they were able to get a 40 cent fixed uplift per patron for the next 5 years, paints the SMA as benevolent and hard done by and the clubs as greedy. Like Grandpa Cornes and Rowe, Rucci is clearly on the SANFL's payroll.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
7,166
Likes
13,378
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
"It is all laid out on pages 126-127 of the evidence in the Hansard notes kept for Pangallo and his honourable colleagues from the parliamentary chambers on North Terrace."

You wont find this in the official parliament Hansard available on line. It might rock up in the final report the Select Committee produces at the end of this.


Edit my mistake - the Select Committee has its own Hansard of the people before it and is separate to the official parliament Hansard for proceedings inside the House of Assembly or Legislative Council.

At the following link
https://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=3&CId=362

You can download the 3rd link down Transcript of Evidence from CBA - SANFL 26.03.19

Hon. D.G.E. Hood MLC = Liberal Party Member of the Legislative Council

View attachment 660399


Love Parkinson's response to Hodd's next question

View attachment 660403
So in essence it's not like Rucci is making out where the two clubs are responsible (even partly) for the food and beverage costs - the AOSMA just choose to pay some of our dues from their catering budget.

I'd love to be able to compare that $2.40 payment to the actual catering income - both in terms of $ sales per attendee and also average $ value per sale. Just from my own estimation I'd guess there'd be 20% of people at the stadium who wouldn't ever spend a dollar there, but also some who routinely buy food plus 5 or 6 drinks. In that regard I'm sure there'd be differences in those figures between Port and the Crows, so if that's not figured in to the "kick back" as Rucci calls it, it really has nothing to do with catering and is just another way to buffer the payments owed to the two clubs.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
53,654
Likes
68,534
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #7,653
Rucci just repeating Olsen's words that its out of catering revenue. That isn't accurate its out of total revenue the SANFL get from AO. I did this spreadsheet back on page 228 in March 2015 when the new deal was finalized showing how the revenue would be split back then between SANFL and SACA from Super boxes and Stadium Club members and the AO Football members after they increase it by $100.

The whole use of $2.40 rebate out of catering revenue is used to try and link this all up with the need to get a new revenue stream and the GDV debate.

Super boxes now cost $142,450 incl. GST and Stadium Club memberships now cost $4,650 incl. GST
and Football memberships are $690/$545/$335

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...shift-happening.554729/page-228#post-37385795


1555992431435.png


1555992461793.png
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
So let's get this straight.

The SMA has to pay both AFL clubs a fixed fee of $2.40 per patron, which is kind of like a 'delivery fee' of getting the fans to the stadium so that the SMA can make money from catering.

But instead of making the experience one where they encourage patrons to avail themselves of that catering by charging an extra $1.20 on the price of a $6.60 beer (which would make a beer $7.80), thereby encouraging someone to buy two or more beers...they instead set the price at $9 and try to recoup the entire fee in one transaction so they can make pure profit on the second. Which discourages patrons who might have bought a beer if the price was reasonable from drinking at all....which in turn, makes them resistant to buying the greasy slop that they call food.

Who the **** runs this place, seriously?
 

TheFVK

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Posts
6,068
Likes
19,675
Location
Amsterdam
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Stoke City
So let's get this straight.

The SMA has to pay both AFL clubs a fixed fee of $2.40 per patron, which is kind of like a 'delivery fee' of getting the fans to the stadium so that the SMA can make money from catering.

But instead of making the experience one where they encourage patrons to avail themselves of that catering by charging an extra $1.20 on the price of a $6.60 beer (which would make a beer $7.80), thereby encouraging someone to buy two or more beers...they instead set the price at $9 and try to recoup the entire fee in one transaction so they can make pure profit on the second. Which discourages patrons who might have bought a beer if the price was reasonable from drinking at all....which in turn, makes them resistant to buying the greasy slop that they call food.

Who the **** runs this place, seriously?
It's ******* ******ed. Adelaide, honestly.
 

TheFVK

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Posts
6,068
Likes
19,675
Location
Amsterdam
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Stoke City
How hard would it have been to create a contract which doesn't result in the AFL clubs and SMA having opposing KPIs? And worse still, giving the SMA direct control over the reporting of that KPI?

i.e. give the SMA financial incentive to report higher (i.e. actual!) crowd figures, perhaps by scrapping the $2.40/head and giving them an increasing percentage of food and drink sales on a sliding scale / head. Port still gain by being able to report nicer numbers for sponsors and some uplift from higher sales volumes.

And on that, surely reducing food and drinks costs would be compensated for by higher sales and an overall more satisfied customer experience. Maybe even bring in the sharemarket pricing system to give some choice for those who don't want to take out a second mortgage every time they visit the bar.
 
Last edited:

Portwon

All Australian
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Posts
893
Likes
2,294
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I like the line about the two clubs being well in advance of where they were at pleurisy park

Faaaaaaaaark how dodgy were they before there was some oversight.

Grow the pie those farrkers ate the plate and started on our fingers.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
53,654
Likes
68,534
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #7,664
That was because Marvel was booked so there was a potential swap there IIRC.

Won't matter anyway, the final will be in Perth or Sydney.
Yes that's right it was the Essendon game at Docklands might be moved from Saturday night to Sunday because the Victory/City might have hosted the final and therefore Port's game swapped from Sunday 12.40pm to Saturday.
 
Last edited:

Capital

Senior List
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Posts
234
Likes
468
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It seams Port get the $2.40 just for you turning up. As it does not appear to depend on you buying any of that overpriced crap, the more people that don’t use catering the better. Port still get the money and the SMA get less. Good result
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
16,846
Likes
5,414
Location
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
And how do you audit the count? Why would you do it every game?
Quite right, only IF you thought something was not right, maybe the clubs are happy, only need to ask the question.

How, you'd need to know the system to work it out. I need not assure you of the tight controls on events when cash was the order of the day, no names no pack drill as the saying goes.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
53,654
Likes
68,534
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Thread starter #7,671
If that AFLW GF had over 20,000 more attendees than our last game I will eat my hat.
That game's crowd total is a farce because it wasn't ticketed and they only expected 20k~25k to rock up and their weren't pass outs so go out for a smoke at 1/4 time, 1/2 time and 3/4 time and you are counted 4 times going thru the turnstile.

The issue for AFL games is skimming, not blatant issues like AFLW.
 

Enviable Tradition

Professional Procrastinator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Posts
15,622
Likes
13,715
Location
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Rucci just repeating Olsen's words that its out of catering revenue. That isn't accurate its out of total revenue the SANFL get from AO. I did this spreadsheet back on page 228 in March 2015 when the new deal was finalized showing how the revenue would be split back then between SANFL and SACA from Super boxes and Stadium Club members and the AO Football members after they increase it by $100.

The whole use of $2.40 rebate out of catering revenue is used to try and link this all up with the need to get a new revenue stream and the GDV debate.

Super boxes now cost $142,450 incl. GST and Stadium Club memberships now cost $4,650 incl. GST
and Football memberships are $690/$545/$335

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...shift-happening.554729/page-228#post-37385795


View attachment 660413

View attachment 660414
They cant make it an actual cut of catering revenue because Port supporters spend more and that might advantage Port which can never be done.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Pt Augusta Power

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
7,065
Likes
7,300
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
They cant make it an actual cut of catering revenue because Port supporters spend more and that might advantage Port which can never be done.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
This.

Cut on catering would potentially disadvantage the crows as port supporters generally spend more at games. Actually it probably wouldn’t disadvantage the crows but it would be more advantageous to Port.

Any arrangement that would advantage port over the crows would never be entertained by the SMA or the state in general.

See the model of the sanfl reserves for port and crows- gradually our preferred model of having a community/club structure was eroded until it is a mirror image of the basic crows structure.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
To me, it's like the SMA views Adelaide as the golden goose and sets their pricing structure according to how much alcohol their crowds consume, which is why they will try to recoup all of their cost in the first transaction. They know that lowering the price by $1.20 isn't going to encourage Adelaide fans to buy another beer, because an Adelaide fan will most likely only buy one beer no matter what the price is. You can see this mentality with how they treat the Crows regarding their match day banners etc.

Think of it like this:

An Adelaide crowd buys 45,000 units of catering @ $9 - $2.40 per patron = $297k

A Port Adelaide crowd buys 40,000 units of catering @ $9 - $2.40 per patron = $264k

Adelaide is the golden child, right? The SMA makes $6.171m. But lets change the pricing structure and lower the price by $1.20.

An Adelaide crowd buys 45,000 units of catering @ $7.80 - $2.40 per patron = $243k. They don't feel the need to buy any more because they aren't the sort of crowd that gets on the cans, so the SMA has lost $54k by lowering their prices.

A Port Adelaide crowd buys 40,000 units of catering @ $7.80 - $2.40 per patron = $216k. However, because the prices are reasonable, the patrons go back for another round, buying another 40,000 units of catering @ $7.80....this time without the patron surcharge. An extra $312k.

Adelaide = $243k

Port Adelaide = $528k

Port Adelaide is now the golden child, and the SMA makes $8.481m. An extra $2.31m a year.

However...hell will freeze over before the SMA sees Port as a better tenant than Adelaide, so they will build this shitty hotel instead.
 
Top Bottom