NAFC injunction on the SANFL re the Power

[Adelaide Hawk]

The SANFL gives PAFC some financial relief to help relieve debt but PAFC contributes significantly to the SANFL coffers (for being the AFL licence holder) on an annual basis ... seems reasonable to me.

When did this start to happen?

Every time Port plays at Footy Park ... just because they don't make any money doesn't mean the SANFL doesn't

This is a club initiave, not an SANFL one. Has your club ever received a dividend fron the Power?

[dedja]

Maybe if Port actually paid its dividends. We wouldnt have to go thru all this.

Interesting the SANFL has done so much for Port. For so little gratitude.

Like AH I think you've missed the point ... the SANFL makes plenty of money by way of Port's 11 homes games at Footy Park each year. From memory (happy for someone to verify), the SANFL generates approx $30M odd revenue per year of which the bulk is generated from the AFC and PAFC.

The dividend is just the SANFL skimming off the top ... they make heaps from all 22 home games at Footy Park even without Port contributing as strongly as Adelaide.

So I don't see what its not in everyone's interest for Port to be solvent to provide this income.

Of course we don't want any SANFL club to fold, but thats not the fault of the AFL teams that are licenced to the SANFL ... it's up to the SANFL to distibute the proceeds fairly so that all can equally survive.

Yes, I loved the world before the Crows entered tha AFL in '91 ... hell it decimated the Bays for years of which they are only starting to recover, but that's been and gone and we have to live in the new world. (Not to mention the WWT merger and a host of other SANFL clubs finding it exceedingly difficult to survive).


Anyway, it this just a rumour about NAFC or has it been confirmed? ... and what are the actual facts behind it if true?

[Squawk]

Aren't the clubs all represented on the SANFL Commission? If so, why aren't they able to 'instruct' their reps to vote not to give money to the Power, rather than have to spend time and money in a legal battle through the Courts?

(I may be off course here, but can someone assist with an answer?)

[Adelaide Hawk]

Maybe if Port actually paid its dividends. We wouldnt have to go thru all this.

Interesting the SANFL has done so much for Port. For so little gratitude.

Like AH I think you've missed the point ...

I haven't missed the "point" at all. North Adelaide are wondering why Port Adelaide should be bailed out all the time when the clubs are getting nothing from them. So am I. I can't give a stuff what the SANFL get out of it, I care about my club.

When my club was really struggling financially, who was there to help us?

[Pseudo]

but the SANFL have to look after what makes them the most money.

What, the Crows?

[am Bays]

Nah I think you'll find the SA Football Commission is made up of 8 persons (Payze, Carey, Coppins, Shipway, McCafferie, P Gallagher, Cunningham and Whicker) and sits above the old SANFL delegates committee (including the Metro and Country leagues rep)

For examples it was the SANFL delegates meeting that voted to recommend the changes the underage structure - the final decision/ratification was made by the SANFL commission.

[Peterxtc]

I couldn't give a stuff how much money my club makes, as long as they have enough to survive and remain competitive on the field.

Personally I and I would think most on here are the opposite. I/We couldn't give a stuff if they have enough to survive and remain competitive on the field, all I and most are worred about are how much they make. The power are a business to help us make money. Sturt, the Magpies, etc are football clubs which the previously mentioned business should help finance. If other avenues can help the Magpies and Sturt better than they should be pursued, ideally they should have been pursued in 1996 when it was obvious to most that the Power business was on a road to nowhere.
I have as much care for the Power as I do the south eastern hot chippery at Footy Park, they're there to make money for SANFL clubs, if they dont make enough or are basket cases that require handouts close them down and start something that will.

Spot on.
IMO this is the context in which such matters should be considered.

[Squawk]

Nah I think you'll find the SA Football Commission is made up of 8 persons (Payze, Carey, Coppins, Shipway, McCafferie, P Gallagher, Cunningham and Whicker) and sits above the old SANFL delegates committee (including the Metro and Country leagues rep)

For examples it was the SANFL delegates meeting that voted to recommend the changes the underage structure - the final decision/ratification was made by the SANFL commission.

So who do the Commission members "represent" the interests of? I presume from this that they are charged with making decisions in the best interests of football in this state, ie AFL clubs, SANFL clubs, Amateur clubs, country clubs, etc.

[am Bays]

Nah I think you'll find the SA Football Commission is made up of 8 persons (Payze, Carey, Coppins, Shipway, McCafferie, P Gallagher, Cunningham and Whicker) and sits above the old SANFL delegates committee (including the Metro and Country leagues rep)

For examples it was the SANFL delegates meeting that voted to recommend the changes the underage structure - the final decision/ratification was made by the SANFL commission.

So who do the Commission members "represent" the interests of? I presume from this that they are charged with making decisions in the best interests of football in this state, ie AFL clubs, SANFL clubs, Amateur clubs, country clubs, etc.

Exactly the Commission was created to make a committee that could make decisions on "strategic football issues" without league clubs potential self interests at stake. I think the commission was created in the mid nineties given the changing football interests and structures - the SANFL was no longer the principle revenue generating arm of the SANFL.

[Squawk]

Who 'owns' the licences of the AFL clubs in Victoria - is it their members? They don't seem to have much trouble squeezing money out of the AFL, but it seems that the AFL thinks the SANFL has to prop up the Power before their members do. Quite a contrast, (assuming I'm right?).

[harley d]

Can someone guarantee that North were told they would get no assistance from the SANFL a few years back.

I can guarantee no financial assistance was given, I think some other assistance, be it legal or guarantor or other advice might have been given though. I know we couldn't borrow against our share of footy park though.
Certainly not 1.5 mill to North, the Magpies or Sturt ever and I'd argue they've given more to the SANFL in their collective 300+ years in the comp than the Power have given to the SANFL in their 13 years.

They may not have been given any but were they told they would not get any? There is a difference.

[Sojourner]

I am not trying to flame anyone who barracks for Port Power, yet if we are going to talk about revenue in business terms, I have another way of looking at it purely from that angle.

Along with every other SANFL follower, the administration of the NAFC are no doubt aware of the talk that is going around under the surface of the possibility of the Port Power AFL License being signed over to the Port Power club away from the SANFL who legally own the rights to it. Clearly that license has some value attached to it, I think the Crows paid 6 mil for theirs. Can it then be a commercial decision to consider the benefit of selling the Port Adelaide Licence to the Tasmanian Government and investing the proceeds into an investment fund for the SANFL, would the return on such a fund return more on a yearly basis than what the SANFL currently receive or expect to receive from Port.

Maybe that is where the NAFC are heading?

[dedja]

Maybe if Port actually paid its dividends. We wouldnt have to go thru all this.

Interesting the SANFL has done so much for Port. For so little gratitude.

Like AH I think you've missed the point ...

I haven't missed the "point" at all. North Adelaide are wondering why Port Adelaide should be bailed out all the time when the clubs are getting nothing from them. So am I. I can't give a stuff what the SANFL get out of it, I care about my club.

When my club was really struggling financially, who was there to help us?

Sigh ... as I understand the original argument (yet to be confirmed by the way), NAFC are seeking (through legal means) to stop the SANFL from providing debt relief funding to PAFC which they believe would be detrimental to (at least) some of the SANFL clubs. I provided a view that PAFC provide a significant financial contribution to the SANFL through their home games at Footy Park and ultimately, this contribution finds its way to the SANFL clubs by the annual distribution of funds from the SANFL.

I am reading into your comments (please advise me if I'm incorrect) that you believe that the only way PAFC can ultimately contribute financially to the SANFL clubs is via a dividend payment to the SANFL, and because (again my interpretation only) you believe that PAFC haven't contributed strongly with dividend payments since their inception, that they don't provide a financial contribution to the SANFL clubs. My argument is that regardless of the lack of a divident payment, PAFC indirectly provide a significant revenue stream which benefits the SANFL clubs (revenue stream of say, $10M per annum - happy for someone else to verify).

I'm proposing that to let PAFC become insolvent will deprive the SANFL of say $10M per year, of which a portion would be lost to the SANFL clubs ... hence no PAFC would cause financial hardship for all SANFL clubs.

Hopefully this answers your first point above.

In regards to the second point about assistance to your club, that's a matter you should be asking the SANFL. My position on this is that the SANFL can provide the approriate financial (or other) assistance. If they elect not to, then that's their decision, not because there isn't enough funds (because there is) nor is it the fault of the AFL licencees (AFC & PAFC) because they have provided a revenue stream for the SANFL to draw from.

My comments are from an unemotional point of view ... I hate Port (both teams) as much as anyone, but I'm a realist and try to work within the current constraints.

If my views are inconsistent and don't make sense, then happy to hear an alternative view about where I have erred.

[Wedgie]

Can someone guarantee that North were told they would get no assistance from the SANFL a few years back.

I can guarantee no financial assistance was given, I think some other assistance, be it legal or guarantor or other advice might have been given though. I know we couldn't borrow against our share of footy park though.
Certainly not 1.5 mill to North, the Magpies or Sturt ever and I'd argue they've given more to the SANFL in their collective 300+ years in the comp than the Power have given to the SANFL in their 13 years.

They may not have been given any but were they told they would not get any? There is a difference.

As far as Im aware and have been told yes they did ask and were given nothing so there wasn't a difference in this case.
Could be wrong though, I have many times before.

[dedja]

Wedgie, just to clarify, I thought I read earlier in this topic that you will try to find out the basis of this rumour from 'digging' at the club (NAFC) ... ie. hopefully finding the facts.

If so, I assume you will report back via a post here (whatever is non-confidential of course).

Ta.

[harley d]

Can someone guarantee that North were told they would get no assistance from the SANFL a few years back.

I can guarantee no financial assistance was given, I think some other assistance, be it legal or guarantor or other advice might have been given though. I know we couldn't borrow against our share of footy park though.
Certainly not 1.5 mill to North, the Magpies or Sturt ever and I'd argue they've given more to the SANFL in their collective 300+ years in the comp than the Power have given to the SANFL in their 13 years.

They may not have been given any but were they told they would not get any? There is a difference.

As far as Im aware and have been told yes they did ask and were given nothing so there wasn't a difference in this case.
Could be wrong though, I have many times before.

Yeah you may be wrong but that is what I was wanting to know. If asked and got nothing is what I wanted to know.Thanks .

[harley d]

I am not trying to flame anyone who barracks for Port Power, yet if we are going to talk about revenue in business terms, I have another way of looking at it purely from that angle.

Along with every other SANFL follower, the administration of the NAFC are no doubt aware of the talk that is going around under the surface of the possibility of the Port Power AFL License being signed over to the Port Power club away from the SANFL who legally own the rights to it. Clearly that license has some value attached to it, I think the Crows paid 6 mil for theirs. Can it then be a commercial decision to consider the benefit of selling the Port Adelaide Licence to the Tasmanian Government and investing the proceeds into an investment fund for the SANFL, would the return on such a fund return more on a yearly basis than what the SANFL currently receive or expect to receive from Port.

Maybe that is where the NAFC are heading?

Well its the first I have heard about the licence being " signed over ". Quite a belwidering arguement if the SANFL LEGALLY own it ???? You cant buy something if it aint for sale !! Another post of yours that allegedly lacks substance I hear.

[Sojourner]

Well its the first I have heard about the licence being " signed over ".

Was discussed on the last occasion that Andrew Demetriou was interviewed by Graham Cornes and Stephen Rowe on the 5AA sports show, not even remotely unsubstantiated.

[harley d]

But as I said you cant buy something that is not for sale .Did they say anything about that.?

[Hondo]

dedja is rare to see some balanced posting when it comes to this issue .... well played (under fire!)

Most of the SANFL's revenues come from the AAMI Stadium home games as you correctly say

It's not a direct dividend from the AFL teams to the SANFL clubs, even though they do pay one to the SANFL each year (Port have only missed 2 dividends in 12 years IIRC), but it's the money spun for the SANFL from the AFL games at AAMI which indirectly benefits the SANFL clubs.

It's whether the annual dividend from the SANFL to the SANFL clubs is at risk because of this loan the SANFL need to take out. Don't have the answer to that one. Leigh Whicker has said it's not but I guess only the future will tell.

Remember too that all AFL clubs are in line for an even bigger distribution from the AFL when the next TV rights deal is sorted. I think what we have is a short term funding need for the Power and in 5 years this will all have blown over.