Port Magpies Crisis

[Hondo]

Seriously, I read that as "merge with another SANFL club or fold if you can't go it alone"

[Booney]

The NAFC are aware that this proposed merger is to ensure the Magpies survive as long as possible?

It's not just a cash grab that is making the rich richer.

[dedja]

Seriously, I read that as "merge with another SANFL club or fold if you can't go it alone"

pretty much ...

[Booney]

Seriously, I read that as "merge with another SANFL club or fold if you can't go it alone"

pretty much ...

Me too.

[Barto]

They're just giving what they got. Fair enough.

[dedja]

Seriously, I read that as "merge with another SANFL club or fold if you can't go it alone"

pretty much ...

Me too.

As someone stated earlier, things can change quickly and financially secure today doesn't guarantee that it will be that way forever. Even though Wedgie put forward a balanced reason for North's stance it still seems like a bloody minded and selfish position.

[X Runna]

If and when the merged entity achieves positive cash flow and regular operating profits, i.e. when the club(s) are out of trouble, will the merger be reversed? Or will Port Magpies be allowed continued existence with its admin being propped up by the AFL dollar, thereby enjoying a clear advantage over the remaining teams? It's one thing to suggest a merger to save a club; it's another thing entirely to allow that club an advantage when it is no longer needed. Allowing this merger may well be opening Pandora's box, which club will be next?

Agreed Pseudo, though I would go further and say I don't think they should get the advantage of being propped up by the AFL dollar from day one.

Why would the situation be reversed, or need to be? It would only be putting the Magpies back in the same spot they are now. If the other 8 clubs are allowed to make a profit and improve their facilities, why shouldn't the Magpies be able to also? As other posters have alluded to, North don't know how to spend all their money & we all know the Dogs are going along beautifully. Location, location, location....those two clubs (North's income facility at least) have some form of 'remoteness', ie a big distance to the closest SANFL club, let alone West Lakes AND both have great LOCAL sponsors.

By the way a number of posts in this thread read, it seems a lot of people have the opinion this merger will greatly benefit the Magpies on field......I ask, how can it? The SANFL has become very rigid on the salary cap, so we are not going to be recruiting star 1st grade AFL players as the dollar demand would be massive. I am 99.999% sure there is no way the SANFL will allow all Power listed players to play for the Magpies either.

Port are looking here at saving money for both entities - I am pretty sure both clubs have been realistic in their attendance budgets. Neither would be expecting a massive rise in gate revenue & neither would be expecting a major increase in local sponsorship income for reasons explained in my earlier post. As it seems both clubs' gaming and dining revenue is not outstanding, and can only be tapped so far, it has now become a case of being stringent and smart with finances to make BOTH clubs viable. The Power can hardly prop up the Magpies "nickname", they are not the most financial of clubs as has been well documented.

The only other real benefit by the merger would be the 'value added' packages the new administration/marketing department could present to potential sponsors. Visual exposure by both clubs will certainly make potential local sponsors a bit keener I think. Again, a good thing..........the Power would potentially have a bigger dividend to the SANFL which therefore aids the SANFL clubs, and the Magpies would not be in a similar situation to where they are now, again, less demand on the SANFL.

The current Magpie board has been extremely transparent in their approach to the SANFL in this matter, as has the Power. The proposal under current consideration is obviously being looked at on it's merits by all other clubs bar the Roosters, therefore the context of it must be relatively sound and logical or it would not have gone this far.

This is not being a smart-arse, nor cocky BUT..........more to prove a point
a) which premiership would the majority of Sturt supporters remember with the most satisfaction?
b) ditto Norwood?
c) ditto North (2 in a row)
d) what grand final would WWT supporters have the most heartache over?
e) ditto South
g) ditto Westies
h) how many of their flags would Doggies supporters swap for just one of them to have been over the Magpies? I reckon five.

The common denominator here is the Magpies. Love them or hate them, Port have a presence in the SANFL which drives the other clubs to achieve both on the field and off. Central based their model on the Magpies of the 1990's, and look at the success they have had in doing so.........

Given the way the Magpies had to start from scratch with a new administration and the Power took volumes of our 1996 players to the AFL AND the fact we had no home or assets, I think the Magpies have done pretty well to go as long as they have. It now gets down to whether the other 8 clubs feel the need to have Port's presence or not. I think the credibility of the SANFL depends on it.......

[Wedgie]

North Adelaide Power eh. Works well with Clipsal

If they were our sponsor which they haven't for years!

[Wedgie]

"If that was sanctioned the NAFC would explore its options with the AFC"

Tossers.

Agreed, surely you'd explore your options with Geelong first!

[UK Fan]

h) how many of their flags would Doggies supporters swap for just one of them to have been over the Magpies? I reckon five.

You reckon wrong

[Wedgie]

I enjoyed the win over Glenelg in 87 much more satisfying than those wins over Port in 71 and 72.

[Barto]

North Adelaide Power eh. Works well with Clipsal

If they were our sponsor which they haven't for years!

Always thought Mistral were one of their subsidiaries.

[JK]

If the other 8 clubs are allowed to make a profit and improve their facilities, why shouldn't the Magpies be able to also?

All 9 clubs are ALLOWED to make a profit and whilst some find that harder to manage than others, they all have (or had) that control within their own destiny ... Whilst I hope the Maggies situation can be resolved, they have had their opportunities to address their financial footing.

[Ronnie]

If the other 8 clubs are allowed to make a profit and improve their facilities, why shouldn't the Magpies be able to also?

All 9 clubs are ALLOWED to make a profit and whilst some find that harder to manage than others, they all have (or had) that control within their own destiny ... Whilst I hope the Maggies situation can be resolved, they have had their opportunities to address their financial footing.

Port are allowed to make a profit, and it wasn't so long ago that they told everyone the purchase of the Prince of Wales leave secured their medium term future.
Now that hasn't proven to be a goldmine (respectable income but nothing outstanding) they are looking for the merger plan. Port Magpies don't have the ability to borrow the money to fund a renovation well other clubs particularly one in Unley are in the same position or similar i would think.

[tipper]

North Adelaide Power eh. Works well with Clipsal

If they were our sponsor which they haven't for years!

Always thought Mistral were one of their subsidiaries.

not since rob gerard sold clipsal years ago. he sold the main company and kept mistral for himself

[

If centrals did so well in basing their model on the maggies of the nineties, why cant the maggies of the noughties base their model on themselves of the previous decade and get themselves out of the hole they are in?

[nickname]

X Runna my concern would be, given the merger is designed to save money by reducing duplication of operations, that the promised separation of football departments can't be guaranteed. The logic behind the merger would suggest they should pursue sharing costs and facilities in the football department and I can't see any practical way of ensuring that the separation is occurring on a daily basis. I don't trust them not to share AFL coaching personnel and strategies and if they're proposing to share rehab and training facilities I think that's unfair too. The Power showed their hand in their original proposal (SANFL team to wear Power jumper, be called Power and contain all Power's interstate AFL draftees) so I don't trust that they have the interests of the SANFL at heart.

[Wedgie]

North Adelaide Power eh. Works well with Clipsal

If they were our sponsor which they haven't for years!

Always thought Mistral were one of their subsidiaries.

not since rob gerard sold clipsal years ago. he sold the main company and kept mistral for himself

Correct!

[tipper]

i was bound to get something right eventually!

[Big Phil]

Here's an article from the Messenger site in regards to North looking at a possible partnership with the Crows...


http://hills-and-valley-messenger.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/roosters-may-explore-crows-partnership/

Roosters may ‘explore’ Crows partnership



North Adelaide chief executive Glenn Elliott.

NORTH Adelaide will ``explore’’ a partnership with the Adelaide Crows if the proposed Port Adelaide Magpies/Power merger goes ahead.

In a statement on its website today, the Roosters’ board of management said it ``does not support a direct association of an SANFL club with an AFL club’’.

``If that was sanctioned, North Adelaide Football Club would explore its options with the Adelaide Football Club,’’ the statement read.

North Adelaide chief executive Glenn Elliott said the club had not yet met with the Magpies to discuss the proposal because it had ``not been invited’’.

``If this merger, amalgamation - whatever it is because we’re not privy to it - happens, that leaves one AFL club in Adelaide that anyone can form a partnership with,’’ Elliott said.

``Our great concern is the dangerous precedents it sets.’’

Adelaide Crows chief executive Steven Trigg remained tight lipped about the Roosters’ comments.

``We’ll not make any comment until we are understanding of the Port proposition, which is being presented to us at a time that is yet to be determined,’’ Trigg said.

Elliott said the statement was emailed to the club’s members to set the record straight in the wake of what he says were unconfirmed media reports about its stance on the issue.

The statement also said NAFC:

``Does support the Port Adelaide Magpies as a club within the SANFL and trusts they can manage their way through their current position - a position which has been faced by other SANFL clubs at various times.

``Does support the merger of any SANFL club with another SANFL club’’.

[am Bays]

Can I be there when Punky is told his club is going to be sub-serviant to the Crows and play Crows players in key positions even though long serving North players are better in those positons but the North Adelaide Football Club now exists to develop future Crows players....

Sorry Allaway is playing 2s and White will play on the bench this young kid is a bit raw and will take half a season but we want him to learn CHF even though he is going to get beat by McLeay/Ferguson. Damon when you come on don't lead for the ball just try and drag your man away from the play. We don't want to win we just want these kids to get better....

Will North ditch the white and add Blue and gold hoops to their guernsey....

Can't wait for this....