Stadium Management Authority

[1970crow]

with the recent valuations of the 2 licenses, specifically the $5m placed on Ports license, it has me wondering how the valuers dealt with the stadium deals. my understanding is that the full nature of the sma hasn't been completely finalised. I would have thought that the stadium deal for each entity would be a critical factor in determining the value of the license. if there is no direct benefit in the stadium deal between playing at Adelaide compared to footy park then who would pay $5m for a loss making license. is it possible that an expected uplift in crowd numbers, purely due to the change in venue, has been factored into the value of the licenses. I find it hard to believe that the sanfl won't continue to take the same pound of flesh it always has, which it appears it can do as a member of the sma. maybe it could be even more because they have lost their naming sponsor aami, although I admit I don't know how much that was worth.

so, my question to those in the know, hence the thread title, is where are we at with the SMA. has the structure & costs been bedded down yet, do we know what our break-even crowd figure is (even more important for port). I recall some early mention that it was going to be a lean beast, but then that changed with talk about it employing all the staff and running it's own functions etc. I haven't heard much on this for a while, so maybe it's all sorted and looks good for the 2 teams.

 

[rocket18]

This whole thing about valuing the licences differently is absurd. Both licences have the potential to earn exactly the same - they give each club the chance to play in the AFL.

Just because one markets itself poorly (creed, oneclub etc) and relies on handouts shouldn't mean they pay less for their licence.

Same thing as taxi plates cost the same regardless if you are lazy and only go out a few hours a day for fares, you pay the same amount for your taxi plate as the person who is willing to work hard and run his taxi 24 hours a day. They both have exactly the same potential to make money. Why should the hard working guy be penalised by paying more for his taxi plate.

 

[rocket18]

Further to this I am pessimistic about Trigg and co negotiating our licence and SMA deal, they have shown that they will not play hardball with the SANFL or AFL.

We should get the same stadium deal as Port, not pay more because we get more people there. If you hire a venue that holds 1000 and you only get 500 there you won't pay half price.

The same toilets, seating area etc will need to be cleaned, the same food outlets need to be staffed.

I wonder if we will ever know the exact details of these agreements compared to what deal Port get.

 

[Huntercrow]

I'm definitely not in the know but perhaps the bulk of the sma has been finalised enough that any minor adjustments wouldn't affect the Valuations.

Are naming rights out of the question for AO?? On Crows match days could we have the "Toyota Oh what a feeling mega cricket and football stadium".
On Power match days it could be "Not the Alberton Oval" or something similar (but without the flippancy)
But I doubt the SA teams would be granted naming rights putting them behind the 8 ball compared with interstate deals. The sma in this case would need to have other concessions to balance this.
But I have no idea how this could pan out but it could be a reality check for the SANFL with their return to the good old days of dealing with the SACA.

Good Luck with that!

 

[macca23]

I'm definitely not in the know but perhaps the bulk of the sma has been finalised enough that any minor adjustments wouldn't affect the Valuations.

Are naming rights out of the question for AO?? On Crows match days could we have the "Toyota Oh what a feeling mega cricket and football stadium".
On Power match days it could be "Not the Alberton Oval" or something similar (but without the flippancy)
But I doubt the SA teams would be granted naming rights putting them behind the 8 ball compared with interstate deals. The sma in this case would need to have other concessions to balance this.
But I have no idea how this could pan out but it could be a reality check for the SANFL with their return to the good old days of dealing with the SACA.

Good Luck with that!

Adelaide Oval will always be known as Adelaide Oval, if my memory is correct.

As I recall the situation, one of the conditions of the SA Government fronting up with the big money for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment was that naming rights cannot be sold to the Oval, and that it will always be known as the Adelaide Oval.

Very satisfying when your Football Club's name is Adelaide.

 

[screech]

The SANFL has sold its soul to the SACA

The whole thing is to benefit Port Adelaide

We will get shafted, especially with the weak people we have in charge.

 

[AFC3000]

This whole thing about valuing the licences differently is absurd. Both licences have the potential to earn exactly the same - they give each club the chance to play in the AFL.

Just because one markets itself poorly (creed, oneclub etc) and relies on handouts shouldn't mean they pay less for their licence.

Same thing as taxi plates cost the same regardless if you are lazy and only go out a few hours a day for fares, you pay the same amount for your taxi plate as the person who is willing to work hard and run his taxi 24 hours a day. They both have exactly the same potential to make money. Why should the hard working guy be penalised by paying more for his taxi plate.

Agree with this so much, all licenses have the same potential. if one club wastes or doesn't get as much out of theirs then bad luck. They should be offered at the same value, Port can have first rights at theirs but if they don't want to pay the cost and somebody else with a better plan does then so be it.

 

[budget]

well i suppose that the new name obviously has to be '' adelaides oval"

 

[Sanders]

Agree with this so much, all licenses have the same potential.

Yeah nah. What matters more is the catchment size & competition

 

[Geoffa32]

Yeah nah. What matters more is the catchment size & competition

In this regard Ours and Port's licence is near identical. Both clubs have similar exposure to National TV and Prime Time games. Both are based in the same local market and play at the same stadium in similar time slots.

There is no reason for the fabled 70/30 market share between us and them. Bear in mind this same survey suggests that Sydney have the biggest market share of an AFL club in the county. And membership numbers would suggest it is more 55/45 anyway.

 

[Sanders]

Our headstart means its not equal

The division pre existed port

 

[Cleric]

I have a ceeling in 5 years time we will be talking about how we got,screwed withthe new oval and the SMA. Kinda like how we privatised ETSA and were told that electricity prices would drop as the private sector is far more efficent. Then when it doesnt come to pass the governement passes the buck. Watch it happen again.
Why the hell our club agreed to move to AO without already knowing the deal we were going to get is just crazy.

 

[AFC3000]

If our license is worth more because we had a head start does that then mean Melbourne's is worth more than Hawthorns. There is more than enough people for them out of the hundreds of thousands of non-Crows supporters to sell 40,000 seats to a game and whatever else goes with it. They made a ton of mistakes and did things poorly for a long time. 2 people borrow $500,000 to buy a house, one buys an average house in an up and coming area and maintains it, the other buys some McMansion in the crappiest suburb and lets it fall apart, they both owe the bank the same amount of money.

If they can't get the most out of it then maybe Port just isn't the right buyer for that license (I think they are) and if they didn't want to pay what it should cost and its sold to some Adelaide Sharks group or something who thought they could do more with it then that seems fair to me.

You only have to spend 5 minutes on the Port board to see that they think they are 5 minutes away from becoming the AFLs next power house on and off the field. Let them finally pay their own way.

 

[Janus]

If our license is worth more because we had a head start does that then mean Melbourne's is worth more than Hawthorns. There is more than enough people for them out of the hundreds of thousands of non-Crows supporters to sell 40,000 seats to a game and whatever else goes with it. They made a ton of mistakes and did things poorly for a long time. 2 people borrow $500,000 to buy a house, one buys an average house in an up and coming area and maintains it, the other buys some McMansion in the crappiest suburb and lets it fall apart, they both owe the bank the same amount of money.

If they can't get the most out of it then maybe Port just isn't the right buyer for that license (I think they are) and if they didn't want to pay what it should cost and its sold to some Adelaide Sharks group or something who thought they could do more with it then that seems fair to me.

You only have to spend 5 minutes on the Port board to see that they think they are 5 minutes away from becoming the AFLs next power house on and off the field. Let them finally pay their own way.

That'd be nice if the situation is what you claimed it to be. But it's more like 2 people borrow $500,000 to buy a house, one buys a block of land in a brand new sub-division and maintains it, the other buys a renovation deal in what was once an excellent neighborhood. Then the house market booms, with the person who built on the sub-division first to cash in because they don't have to worry about the stigma attached to the run-down house. They parlay their profit into buying two more houses and so on, raking in the cash and success. He's the only game in town, and if you want a house, he's who you have to see.

Meanwhile, the second guy is fighting against the council and protestors who think that he shouldn't be able to buy the house in the first place, making him wait six years until finally he is given approval. The housing market has peaked now, but he thinks "At least I'll still be able to make some money." Then the council says that he doesn't have approval to extend, so half his family has to move to another suburb - and they are pissed off about it. But that's not all the council does. They actively campaign against the development, with big advertisements all around the city talking about how great the first person's houses are. They even try to make him tear down the old house, sell the land and build somewhere else...even though the owner wants to restore the house to it's former glory as he loves the heritage and tradition that it has. Meanwhile, the housing market tanks, and while the first guy can just cut the fat off his profits and still come out rosy, the second guy is still trying to recover from the crash and is forced to borrow more money.

Your license is worth more because you were the first AFL club in the state, marketed as a state team even today. You had a six year monopoly, culminating in two premierships right when we entered the competition. Put the shoe on the other foot and think how the Crows would be faring today, still being a state team etc, if Port had won two flags in a row when you first came into the competition. If you can't see the benefits of your good fortune and think that it's only fair we pay the same price for a license you've inflated the worth of yourself...then I can't help you.

 

[1970crow]

So I guess McDonald's franchises all sell for the exact same amount when they ate traded. Incredibly simplistic premise and is nothing more than port bashing for the sake of it. Licenses have different values because they are attached to different football clubs with different support bases and terms of trade. It's football, not the bloody housing market.

 

[AFC3000]

Ok I am probably looking at it wrong then, I have looked at it as a clear separation between club and licence to play in the AFL, the thing the AFL sold both to SANFL for the same amount of money I thought? I am then looking at it as ok so there are two licences, if they were for sale and totally new groups came in and bought them, they should go for the same amount. I remembered a quote from a couple years ago and I guess I took it the wrong way.

"Both licences will be handed back - they are both equal," Whicker said.
"It won't be one deal for one and a different deal for the other."

I looked at it like Port don't need 50% of state support to be as big as us. They didn't have enough luck during the Brisbane era and did a ton wrong after that. Not something our club should pay more for. They don't need 50% of state support to be as big as us, they only need to sell all the available product. They admit they had a bad team in place to do that in previous years, and believe they can with the current team they have got. If people are claiming that by running their club poorly they have devalued or failed to increase the value of their license I don't see that as being our problem.

But if your saying the clubs and branding are for sale fair enough and then yes ours is worth more. I was looking at it as 2 clubs already exist, they are buying back the license to play in the AFL.

 

[Sanders]

If our license is worth more because we had a head start does that then mean Melbourne's is worth more than Hawthorns. There is more than enough people for them out of the hundreds of thousands of non-Crows supporters to sell 40,000 seats to a game and whatever else goes with it. They made a ton of mistakes and did things poorly for a long time. 2 people borrow $500,000 to buy a house, one buys an average house in an up and coming area and maintains it, the other buys some McMansion in the crappiest suburb and lets it fall apart, they both owe the bank the same amount of money.

If they can't get the most out of it then maybe Port just isn't the right buyer for that license (I think they are) and if they didn't want to pay what it should cost and its sold to some Adelaide Sharks group or something who thought they could do more with it then that seems fair to me.

You only have to spend 5 minutes on the Port board to see that they think they are 5 minutes away from becoming the AFLs next power house on and off the field. Let them finally pay their own way.

Melbourne's license is worth less than Hawthorn's because they have less members & support. They squandered their advantage

We had a headstart in modern times we used to acquire a far bigger share

Its done. Already happened

 

[mattymac]

That'd be nice if the situation is what you claimed it to be. But it's more like 2 people borrow $500,000 to buy a house, one buys a block of land in a brand new sub-division and maintains it, the other buys a renovation deal in what was once an excellent neighborhood. Then the house market booms, with the person who built on the sub-division first to cash in because they don't have to worry about the stigma attached to the run-down house. They parlay their profit into buying two more houses and so on, raking in the cash and success. He's the only game in town, and if you want a house, he's who you have to see.

Meanwhile, the second guy is fighting against the council and protestors who think that he shouldn't be able to buy the house in the first place, making him wait six years until finally he is given approval. The housing market has peaked now, but he thinks "At least I'll still be able to make some money." Then the council says that he doesn't have approval to extend, so half his family has to move to another suburb - and they are pissed off about it. But that's not all the council does. They actively campaign against the development, with big advertisements all around the city talking about how great the first person's houses are. They even try to make him tear down the old house, sell the land and build somewhere else...even though the owner wants to restore the house to it's former glory as he loves the heritage and tradition that it has. Meanwhile, the housing market tanks, and while the first guy can just cut the fat off his profits and still come out rosy, the second guy is still trying to recover from the crash and is forced to borrow more money.

Your license is worth more because you were the first AFL club in the state, marketed as a state team even today. You had a six year monopoly, culminating in two premierships right when we entered the competition. Put the shoe on the other foot and think how the Crows would be faring today, still being a state team etc, if Port had won two flags in a row when you first came into the competition. If you can't see the benefits of your good fortune and think that it's only fair we pay the same price for a license you've inflated the worth of yourself...then I can't help you.

Excuse me while I fetch my violin

 

[relapse]

The SANFL has sold its soul to the SACA

The whole thing is to benefit Port Adelaide

We will get shafted, especially with the weak people we have in charge.

Ultimately the SANFL had itself to blame for being in the position in the first place, but the whole thing came to being through a game of political one-upmanship. Port wanted to play at the previous 25,000 iteration of Adelaide Oval, not the Footy Park Mk 2 that we now have.

 

[Janus]

Excuse me while I fetch my violin

Getting ready to play it while the RMS Adelaide sinks? Good lad.

 

[johnnypanther]

Port want equal treatment for some things and disequal treatment for other things.

 

[Stinger...]

Port want equal treatment for some things and disequal treatment for other things.

Stop speaking truth!

And the SMA set up will just give those 'folk' more reason to whinge for years to come. Oh I can't wait!

 

[rocket18]

I thought the licence was being sold back, not the clubs/logos/brand etc for sale.

I agree the crows brand is worth a lot more than ports but isn't this about the licence to play in the afl.

If port say no our licence isnt worth 5 million couldnt the sanfl sell the licence to someone else. The sanfl dont own port, they are not selling port.

 

[AFC3000]

I thought the licence was being sold back, not the clubs/logos/brand etc for sale.

I agree the crows brand is worth a lot more than ports but isn't this about the licence to play in the afl.

If port say no our licence isnt worth 5 million couldnt the sanfl sell the licence to someone else. The sanfl dont own port, they are not selling port.

This is what I thought, I see the license as being separate from the clubs. It's not the brands its the license to play in the AFL thats for sale. Ports AFL license cost the same as ours, 4 million, after our club was established so whats changed?. If the SANFL were to say the Crows and Port no longer exist, the licenses are for sale to new buyers they would be sold for the same price.

If the clubs and license are one thing why would the SANFL not want to get the most they can for both licenses. Especially if Port are so sure they are a few years from turning everything around, wouldn't the SANFL then be better off waiting for that to happen?

So whats for sale? two licenses which each enable a club to play in the AFL, or the Crows and Power brands? because without that the licenses are worth exactly the same.

 

[bomberclifford]

I tend to agree with you. The licenses should be valued as independent assets.

However if there are restrictions on who can hold each of the SA licenses, as decreed by the AFL, then the value is not open to market determination. The value of the license is entwined with the preferred licensee's market share and potential earnings.

I also don't think it's Port who are getting the "good "deal, it's more a case of Adelaide getting a raw deal. In other words, we're paying about what's right and you are paying overs.

Regardless, whatever each of our clubs end up paying, it will be a significant and positive step forwards for both clubs.