NAFC injunction on the SANFL re the Power

[Adelaide Hawk]

Well if this is true then I see more than 2 alternatives - ie Send Port back to the drawing board and come up with a new business plan that seriously addresses the issues. This will include cutting player wages. And before you all jump down my throat I would like to point out that my own club the mighty doggies was forced to do this in dark times and it was probably the start of the building of a dynasty!!

Can't do it even if they wanted to. They have to pay a certain % of the salary cap, I think it's 93%.

[doggies4eva]

Well if this is true then I see more than 2 alternatives - ie Send Port back to the drawing board and come up with a new business plan that seriously addresses the issues. This will include cutting player wages. And before you all jump down my throat I would like to point out that my own club the mighty doggies was forced to do this in dark times and it was probably the start of the building of a dynasty!!

Can't do it even if they wanted to. They have to pay a certain % of the salary cap, I think it's 93%.

Is that right? so a club is forced to go broke rather than make savings?? Anyway 7% must still be a saving of about $0.5M - thats a start.

[nickname]

As per the paper today the Power's projected losses are 2.34 million this year, 4.27 million next year and 4.5 million in 2011.
Those figures are from the Power themselves so are probably a best case scenario.
From the same paragraph it also says that as much as 3.5 million has been pumped into the Power in the past year from the SANFL.

Thanks for that Wedgie.

It would seem that $4.27M and $4.5M losses will exceed the profits to the SANFL of operating the stadium for those seasons. Can anyone confirm this?

Not when you take into account revenue from Crows matches as well.

[mick]

As per the paper today the Power's projected losses are 2.34 million this year, 4.27 million next year and 4.5 million in 2011.
Those figures are from the Power themselves so are probably a best case scenario.
From the same paragraph it also says that as much as 3.5 million has been pumped into the Power in the past year from the SANFL.

If this is true, then there really are only two alternatives, liquidate the Power or sell/relocate the licence to Tasmania (for instance). Remove the financial cancer. Time for hard decisions.

Fair to say, some internet warlords might not be the best people to make these "hard decisions"....

I couldn't agree more but someone has to make them, seriously a semi-relocation might be the answer, maybe not to Tasmania but say to Darwin/Alice Springs, the Power has a strong following among the indigenous population and it would be a step towards a truly national competition rather than this expanded VFL crap we have now. Maybe only seeing the Power every 3-4 weeks in SA might make their local supporters hungrier for some live action? The Crows could become like an SA "Collingwood" and play a disproportionate number of home matches so that the stadium would be fully utilised. Allowing matches to be televised live against the gate should be seriously looked at as well, particularly when clubs are struggling. I am realistic enough to admit Port was the only viable option for the second licence, another composite team or SANFL team would have run into trouble even sooner.

[doggies4eva]

As per the paper today the Power's projected losses are 2.34 million this year, 4.27 million next year and 4.5 million in 2011.
Those figures are from the Power themselves so are probably a best case scenario.
From the same paragraph it also says that as much as 3.5 million has been pumped into the Power in the past year from the SANFL.

Thanks for that Wedgie.

It would seem that $4.27M and $4.5M losses will exceed the profits to the SANFL of operating the stadium for those seasons. Can anyone confirm this?

Not when you take into account revenue from Crows matches as well.

But you can't count the Crow match revenue because if Port wasn't there they would still get the Crow revenue - although they may lose some sponsorship $s as they would only get exposure every second week.

[dedja]

I must admit that I am not entirely accross this issue. As an SANFL supporter I see the Crows and Power as cash cows to support the SANFL comp. Given that Footy Park is a 50,000 seat stadium, they need to find a way to substantially fill this stadium on a regular basis. I would imagine that the 3-4,000 patrons to an SANFL game (not paying anywhere near the cost of an AFL entrance ticket) would not be enough to make the stadium financially viable.

What I would like to know - a link to a reliable site would be good are answers to the following:

What does the SANFL make out of Pt Power's games at AAMI?

What are the forecasted losses for Port over the coming years? Can the claim of $4M plus losses really be substantiated? Thats astounding.

I'd like to carefully understand the business because I think it may well be crucial for the long-term interests of the game.

Can anyone help with the above?

I can't find (at this stage) any financial info on the SANFL website.

Of interest though is PAFC 2008 Yearbook, which has it's financial position as at Dec 2008 http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/2008%2 ... fault.aspx

2 things caught my eye when I had a look at this:

1. PAFC made a $309K loss on match revenue (ie includes Footy park receipts) in 2008
2. PAFC have net assets of $8.8M ($17M assets less $8.2M liabilites)

I tried to get the Crows 2008 Yearbook online but you have to buy it from the CrowsMania store for $7.95

Financial figures quoted by Rucci:
PAFC generates $4M revenue per yer to the SANFL ($40M since 1997) http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 28,00.html


You're on the right track D4eva ... just need the relevant financial info out there to make an informed comment about the situation.

[am Bays]

Maybe the first thing the SANFL should look at doing is change the Management Structure of the PAFC. Change the board structure to 7 nominated reps from the SANFL and one member voted position so it can keep greater control over how the club is run?

[zipzap]

Some interesting reading here:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 46,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 46,00.html

[Pseudo]

Of interest though is PAFC 2008 Yearbook, which has it's financial position as at Dec 2008 http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/2008%2 ... fault.aspx
[...]
I tried to get the Crows 2008 Yearbook online but you have to buy it from the CrowsMania store for $7.95

There's the problem. If Port would only start charging for their yearbook they'd be well on the way to eradicating this pesky debt!

[Booney]

Of interest though is PAFC 2008 Yearbook, which has it's financial position as at Dec 2008 http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/2008%2 ... fault.aspx
[...]
I tried to get the Crows 2008 Yearbook online but you have to buy it from the CrowsMania store for $7.95

There's the problem. If Port would only start charging for their yearbook they'd be well on the way to eradicating this pesky debt!

Perhaps a sausage sizzle at Footy Park?

[dedja]

Of interest though is PAFC 2008 Yearbook, which has it's financial position as at Dec 2008 http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/2008%2 ... fault.aspx
[...]
I tried to get the Crows 2008 Yearbook online but you have to buy it from the CrowsMania store for $7.95

There's the problem. If Port would only start charging for their yearbook they'd be well on the way to eradicating this pesky debt!

Probably financed through the seat anchor levy that so many paid in the early days ...

[doggies4eva]

Thanks dedja - that is a useful link.

Port's Financial info is highly summarised and one must make assumptions in interpreting but at least they have made it publicly available. I have looked for an SANFL Financial report to no avail. disappointing to say the least.

What I have noted is that Pt Adelaide reported a $3.6M profit last year after a $5M grant. so without this"grant" it would have lost $1.4M. Not a disaster when considering a turnover of $32M. I would think that a board with a bit of business accumen could turn this around.

It is interesting to note that Licensed club shows a revenue of $3.9M and expenses of $3.9M so it breaks even. Pretty poor compared to the operations of some SANFL clubs - Central, North, Eagles. They need to have a look at this.

I really enjoy the passionate discussions that this site has about footy but this is business and a rational approach to managing it is required.

[dedja]

I really enjoy the passionate discussions that this site has about footy but this is business and a rational approach to managing it is required.

Exactly ... and as long there is financial transparency by all involved the less emotive and more rational the issue becomes.

[Booney]

I really enjoy the passionate discussions that this site has about footy but this is business and a rational approach to managing it is required.

Exactly ... and as long there is financial transparency by all involved the less emotive and more rational the issue becomes.

All for just $7.50....

....and a set of Steak knives!

[Dutchy]

Well if this is true then I see more than 2 alternatives - ie Send Port back to the drawing board and come up with a new business plan that seriously addresses the issues. This will include cutting player wages. And before you all jump down my throat I would like to point out that my own club the mighty doggies was forced to do this in dark times and it was probably the start of the building of a dynasty!!

Can't do it even if they wanted to. They have to pay a certain % of the salary cap, I think it's 93%.

Close 92.5%

Like other clubs the AFL have helped this would be a condition of the handout along with a restriction on how much they can pay their coach....

[Sojourner]

Now that Rucci has had his say, does anyone know if Bohdan Jaworskyj or any other appointed representative of the NAFC are looking at going onto the 5AA footy show to respond?

[Wedgie]

Now that Rucci has had his say, does anyone know if Bohdan Jaworskyj or any other appointed representative of the NAFC are looking at going onto the 5AA footy show to respond?

Huh?
Rucci conveyd North's side of the story quite well in the paper today.
Would they be responding to themselves?

[nickname]

It would seem that $4.27M and $4.5M losses will exceed the profits to the SANFL of operating the stadium for those seasons. Can anyone confirm this?

Not when you take into account revenue from Crows matches as well.[/quote]

But you can't count the Crow match revenue because if Port wasn't there they would still get the Crow revenue - although they may lose some sponsorship $s as they would only get exposure every second week.[/quote]

You asked about the profits to the SANFL of operating the stadium - they obviously include revenue from Port and Crows matches. I'm not sure what you're getting at by comparing the projected losses of Port with the projected profits of the SANFL. The losses made by Port don't translate to losses made by the SANFL from stadium management, except that if more people watched them play the SANFL would make more money.

[Sojourner]

Huh?
Rucci conveyd North's side of the story quite well in the paper today.
Would they be responding to themselves?

Not a fan of Rucci for several reasons and despite the story today I still dont even remotley take anything he says as gospel and would much prefer to hear it officially from the club, a story in the paper isnt remotley equivalent to what the club actually states themselves through their officials!

[Wedgie]

The article actually quotes from North's letter and is supportive of their stance.
Why would they respond to an article which clearly states its position and is supportive?
I would have thought a response frm the Commission would be more in order since North have made their position extremely clear?
No questions are being asked of North and the clubs that support them but plenty are being asked of the commission.

How can you say "a story in the paper isnt remotley equivalent to what the club actually states themselves through their officials!" when the story accurately quotes a letter from North Adelaide and when the journalist involved had a crack at North on Saturday but upon finding out the facts is supportive of North?

I can tell you the story is extremely accurate and I have no idea what made up planet you are from or which club official you've spoken to at North to think otherwise.