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

[chiwigi]

So it is on Fox?

Not that I can see.

 

[scotty13]

Losing our delegate as a consequence of the One Club merger was hilarious.

The oldest club, a foundation club, that has provided more fame and revenue for the SANFL than any other organisation, is now unrepresented and disenfranchised on the Commission.

Makes sense.

Its all a ploy by the club. In 10yrs time both PAFC and AFC will have tens of hundreds of billions in the bank, and the SNAFL will be so much in debt. The clubs will join together, buy the SNAFL and run it the way it should be run... to help the SA clubs succeed in the AFL.

 

[BornPort]

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2015-03-10/parties-reach-agreement-on-new-oval-deal

The model agreed to at the Oval on Tuesday will see Port Adelaide gain an extra $1.5 million uplift in revenue from Power game days, increasing to $2 million in 2016 and 2017.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

deal done. Sanfl to keep all $ in 2014, but club to split $3.1m in 2015 and $4.1m in 2016 and 2017 which obviously would be on achieving 2014 or better crowds. I guess more specifics tomorrow as well as what the club has reported on its website.

The big extra is sharing in home finals revenue. That puts us in line with the WA clubs, Brisbane and Geelong. I believe the 2 new clubs have stadium deals which would let them share finals revenue but havent had that confirmed. Sydney had a good deal at ANZ but not SCG However that might have changed with the new Scg deal and the swans no longer playing at ANZ after the end of 2016 finals series.

 

[tribey]

deal done. Sanfl to keep all $ in 2014,

lol. thieves.

 

[*PAF]

All depends on how much those so called one off expenses were and how much room we have to increase sponsorship generated income plus increases in 11 game membership numbers and membership fees in general.

To break even with the same crowd numbers as last year just doesn't sound right.

 

[Papa G]

Can someone who is not banned from the Adelaide Oval review thread point out to Benedict Arnold aka Geoffa that Fagan was going through the "clauses" with a fine tooth comb because "clauses" in contracts have bitten the corporation hard in the arse quite recently.

 

[Concussion]

Can someone who is not banned from the Adelaide Oval review thread point out to Benedict Arnold aka Geoffa that Fagan was going through the "clauses" with a fine tooth comb because "clauses" in contracts have bitten the corporation hard in the arse quite recently.

Or maybe explain that a contract is an agreement between two parties?

 

[tribey]

Can someone who is not banned from the Adelaide Oval review thread point out to Benedict Arnold aka Geoffa that Fagan was going through the "clauses" with a fine tooth comb because "clauses" in contracts have bitten the corporation hard in the arse quite recently.

If he truly believes it and isn't just on autopilot to rustle jimmies, his logic is on a par with Superfluouschromosome98.

 

[tribey]

"I'm tagged and microchipped, son."

 

[StuMan]

View attachment 114977

"I'm tagged and microchipped, son."

I will never tire of this photo.
It can be used in so many ways.

 

[Trewth]

View attachment 114977

"I'm tagged and microchipped, son."

We'd still be stuck with a shitty deal if it wasn't for junkyard.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Its all about chipping away at the sanfl's power and relevance. Its a 20 step process over 20 years. This week is 6 years since Haysman's what I call his Peal Harbour Day of Infamy moment when he was the first one to call out the Sanfl publicly on their rubbish Sanfl deal. We had been chipping away behind the scenes but the new outsider said this isnt sustainable and the public final decided to listen to what we knew was wrong years earlier.

 

[Stryke]

It's scary to think that it's probably going to take 50 years to get out from under the SANFL.

Thieving parasites.

 

[Killer Power]

It's scary to think that it's probably going to take 50 years to get out from under the SANFL.

Thieving parasites.

But when we do......

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It's scary to think that it's probably going to take 50 years to get out from under the SANFL.

Thieving parasites.

They will have say over us for the best part of the 80 year AO lease. The good thing is there will be a review of this deal in 2019 and every 20 years the SANFL has to renegotiate a licence with the government re football component of using AO. These are the times we have to chip away at their power. As I wrote on the Adelaide board review thread the SANFL have the following guaranteed income into the future. I discussed the 3 x 20 year licence option at this post on page 172 in this thread LINK

1. The Sanfl is guaranteed net of GST $10.5mil if all 1,455 Stadium Club memberships @ $4,250 are sold. Sanfl gets 69.7% the rest to the Saca ie $3.918m to Sanfl + selling all 32 x 18 people Super boxes @ $125,500 and the Sanfl gets 77.0% rest to Saca ie $2.811m to Sanfl + 8,200 AOSMA footy membership fees 100% for the Sanfl and given 2014 prices and my guess split of 6,000 adults, 1,400 concessions (pensioners + students over 15) and 800 kids the Sanfl gets $3.781m.

I stuck up the spreadsheet on the Port board thread and maybe even this one before Christmas. The 3 memberships have gone up by $100, $50 and $30 for 2015 and the clubs split these increase. If we use the same category split then the clubs will both get around $326k each in 2015 from these footy memberships - so that is $652k of the $3.1m the 2 clubs will share in 2015.

2. Finals is an additional revenue stream. Its the carrot.My guestimate at Footy Park was that a crowd of low 40k to 50k netted $1mil for the Sanfl. The AFL kept all the ticket revenue paid the Sanfl rent - the Sanfl kept all other revenue except for the small corporate inventory both clubs had at Footy Park.
.....
The balance of the $4.4mil the Sanfl got out ot AO in 2014 was basically the Catering Commission they get from the SMA.

The spreadsheet I put up in this post on page 119 of this thread in November along with info from the Auditor General's report into the SMA for the period ending 31st October 2013 was the completed one I was thinking of so here are the completed 2 spreadsheets showing how I reckon the club is guaranteed $10.5mil each year from A) + my calculation of how the 2 SA clubs will get a distribution of $326k each in 2015 from AOSMA footy members fees.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/ne...stions-and-answers-about-the-new-stadium-deal
Is this new financial model a good deal for Port Adelaide?
KT: Yes. Under the original Adelaide Oval financial model, Port Adelaide had a $4.3 million uplift in 2014 compared to the previous model at AAMI Stadium.

If we maintain our 2014 attendances and corporate uptake at Adelaide Oval, we will benefit from a further $1.5 million uplift in 2015 and $2 million in 2016 and 2017.

How will attendances affect Port Adelaide's new financial model?
KT: Under this deal we are now financially incentivised to maximise our attendances at Adelaide Oval. Quite simply, the more people who attend our games the better it is for our club.

Is the deal the same for both Port Adelaide and the Crows?
KT: Yes. The deal is identical for both clubs.

When is the next review of the deal?
KT: The deal will be reviewed at the end of 2017 at which point we would have had four years of operations at Adelaide Oval and gained an even greater understanding of the stadium’s economics. We anticipate that our financial deal will improve even more after the 2017 review.

Is Port Adelaide still dependent on the SANFL?
KT: Our licence is no longer held by the SANFL and we no longer receive any financial assistance from the SANFL.

What are the key components that will impact Port Adelaide's financial return under the new model?
Quite simply there are three key components that will affect our financial return – attendances, corporate uptake at Adelaide Oval and on-field success.

We have significantly more corporate inventory to sell, greater access to world-class signage opportunities and reserved seating along with extra incentives to drive attendances and to host finals at Adelaide Oval.

What role will food and beverage takings at Adelaide Oval have on Port Adelaide's financial return?
The vast majority of the food and beverage takings will remain with the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority who will continue to dictate the prices of all food and beverage sold at the stadium.

- See more at: http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/ne...out-the-new-stadium-deal#sthash.RbKDEizp.dpuf

and initial announcement.
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2015-03-10/parties-reach-agreement-on-new-oval-deal

Edit on 24 May 2018 I wrote the following when wharfie question the $2 per attendee fee as i heard in late 2016 we were receiving $2 per attendee as part of the stadium deal review.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-thread-part-7.1191080/page-211#post-55874126

In that, I said Port and Crows would each get about $326k net of GST. Lets say the $2m includes GST then that's approx $360k. Our crowd in 2014 was 472,000. So as KT talks about maintaining our 2014 crowds to get $2mil extra, so if we do get $2 per attendee, then that is $944k.

So there is $1.3m of the $2m. An open box for 10 people sells for about $35,000. I doubt we got access to much more than 10-12 boxes. No way would the SMA give us anyone of those 32 x 18 people $125+k super boxes to sell as they are 12 month boxes and the SANFL wouldnt give us access to them and the SACA wouldnt give up any of the share of revenue from these boxes. Same with 1,455 Stadium Club 12 month venue memberships that sell for about $4.5k

So we are looking at $350k to $400k extra income from this corporate inventory.

How much extra could we make from all that flashy LED screens. Its hard to think we would make more than an extra $20-$30k per game. I could be wrong but I dont see it being $100k extra per game. So $20-$30k per game is around extra $300k

So $360k + $940k + $400k + $300k = $2 million.

If you reckon the $2 per attendee is incorrect, what is that $940k made up of then??

Edit Adelaide got 528,000 attendees in 2014 so x $2 = $1,056,000. So they would get $2.1m, given they get the same split from AOSMA footy members, the same extra corporate inventory and it would be up to them to work the advertising component as hard as they can. That's why sometimes the uplift for the 2 clubs was reported as $4.1m in 2016 and 2017. Eg

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...t/news-story/b9bd53271416bd78485204bbd2601fc9
So what does the fan get while the Crows and Power pocket an extra $3.1 million this season and $4.1 million in 2016 and 2017?

and
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/cr...l/news-story/e26838d0b644769a0723039d76433712
The two SA-based AFL clubs yesterday afternoon formally signed to the new terms at the Oval after a 237-day review. It will deliver an extra $3.1 million combined to Crows and Power this AFL season — and an extra $4.1 million in each of the 2016 and 2017 seasons.

Edit there was another review at end of 2017 season and looks like $2/attendee went up to $2.40.

From page 127 from the Transcript of Evidence - 05. CBA and SANFL - 26.03.19 available at link below;

Filename	Size

Terms of Reference .pdf	9.63 KB
Transcript of Evidence - 04. Port Adelaide Football Club and the SACA - 12.03.19.pdf	270.7 KB
Transcript of Evidence - 05. CBA and SANFL - 26.03.19.pdf	314.08 KB

Committees

 

[*PAF]

They will have say over us for the best part of the 80 year AO lease. The good thing is there will be a review of this deal in 2019 and every 20 years the SANFL has to renegotiate a licence with the government re football component of using AO. These are the times we have to chip away at their power. As I wrote on the Adelaide board review thread the SANFL have the following guaranteed income into the future. I discussed the 3 x 20 year licence option at this post on page 172 in this thread LINK

1. The Sanfl is guaranteed net of GST $10.5mil if all 1,455 Stadium Club memberships @ $4,250 are sold. Sanfl gets 69.7% the rest to the Saca ie $3.918m to Sanfl + selling all 32 x 18 people Super boxes @ $125,500 and the Sanfl gets 77.0% rest to Saca ie $2.811m to Sanfl + 8,200 AOSMA footy membership fees 100% for the Sanfl and given 2014 prices and my guess split of 6,000 adults, 1,400 concessions (pensioners + students over 15) and 800 kids the Sanfl gets $3.781m.

I stuck up the spreadsheet on the Port board thread and maybe even this one before Christmas. The 3 memberships have gone up by $100, $50 and $30 for 2015 and the clubs split these increase. If we use the same category split then the clubs will both get around $326k each in 2015 from these footy memberships - so that is $652k of the $3.1m the 2 clubs will share in 2015.

2. Finals is an additional revenue stream. Its the carrot.My guestimate at Footy Park was that a crowd of low 40k to 50k netted $1mil for the Sanfl. The AFL kept all the ticket revenue paid the Sanfl rent - the Sanfl kept all other revenue except for the small corporate inventory both clubs had at Footy Park.
.....
The balance of the $4.4mil the Sanfl got out ot AO in 2014 was basically the Catering Commission they get from the SMA.

The spreadsheet I put up in this post on page 119 of this thread in November along with info from the Auditor General's report into the SMA for the period ending 31st October 2013 was the completed one I was thinking of so here are the completed 2 spreadsheets showing how I reckon the club is guaranteed $10.5mil each year from A) + my calculation of how the 2 SA clubs will get a distribution of $326k each in 2015 from AOSMA footy members fees.

View attachment 115184

View attachment 115185

Does the SANFL also get a share of cricket members and corporate boxes etc?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Does the SANFL also get a share of cricket members and corporate boxes etc?

No. The saca doesnt get any of the footy membership revenue so why would footy get any cricket membership revenue? The 12 month Ultimate membership failed and was scrapped. The Stadium Club and Superboxes are the only 12 month memberships which the SMA collect on trust for the saca and sanfl and they split the 100% of these fees as per the percentages in my spreadsheet. The corporate inventory the 2 clubs get to sell in footy season, the saca get to sell in cricket season - except for Port's ONE suite, the crows premiership club and the Sanfl's 2 rooms which both are smaller than port' and the crows' suites.

 

[*PAF]

No. The saca doesnt get any of the footy membership revenue so why would footy get any cricket membership revenue? The 12 month Ultimate membership failed and was scrapped. The Stadium Club and Superboxes are the only 12 month memberships which the SMA collect on trust for the saca and sanfl and they split the 100% of these fees as per the percentages in my spreadsheet. The corporate inventory the 2 clubs get to sell in footy season, the saca get to sell in cricket season - except for Port's ONE suite, the crows premiership club and the Sanfl's 2 rooms which both are smaller than port' and the crows' suites.

Then I must have read something the wrong way in point 1 of the post I quoted.

 

[*PAF]

Then I must have read something the wrong way in point 1 of the post I quoted.

Should have it been SMA?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Should have it been SMA?

I'm not sure what you are getting at but I think you need to read the following to understand the set up between the SACA, SANFL and SMA

https://www.audit.sa.gov.au/Portals/0/Documents/Audit Reports/2013-14/B/Part B_Vol_1.pdf

Page 100

Edit and read the rest of this post to understand these funds which are collected/held in trust by the SMA for both the SACA and SANFL.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...shift-happening.554729/page-119#post-36157556

 

[Smithy7]

PTV: Keith Thomas presser - 11th March, 2015
CEO Keith Thomas speaks to the media regarding the Adelaide Oval deal at Alberton on the 11th of March, 2015.
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/video/2015-03-13/ptv-keith-thomas-presser-11th-march-2015

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

or

 

[*PAF]

I'm not sure what you are getting at but I think you need to read the following to understand the set up between the SACA, SANFL and SMA

https://www.audit.sa.gov.au/Portals/0/Documents/Audit Reports/2013-14/B/Part B_Vol_1.pdf

Page 100

Edit and read the rest of this post to understand these funds which are collected/held in trust by the SMA for both the SACA and SANFL.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...shift-happening.554729/page-119#post-36157556

Sorry REH just confused on the part where you said the SANFL gets77% and the rest to SACA.
I read it as some of the income from the Superboxes or whatever goes to SACA.
There was another one as well.