Port Cash Crisis = ? for SANFL Clubs and Comp?

[Dogwatcher]

I'm hearing four Port board members to fall on their sword today.

[Pseudo]

The 9 SANFL clubs are going to be the ones who really suffer out of this, I fear.

Make that 8. AFL hybrids don't count as a SANFL club.

[Squawk]

The 9 SANFL clubs are going to be the ones who really suffer out of this, I fear.

Make that 8. AFL hybrids don't count as a SANFL club.

Yeah but I'd like to think the PAMS would survive, even if the Pahrr dont.

[Booney]

The 9 SANFL clubs are going to be the ones who really suffer out of this, I fear.

Make that 8. AFL hybrids don't count as a SANFL club.

AFL hybrid? Cant see the forrest for the trees sometimes, can you?

Laughable.

[Barto]

It probably doesn't help that the AFLPA's CBA requires every club to pay a minimum 95% of the salary cap.

The 9 SANFL clubs are going to be the ones who really suffer out of this, I fear. As mentioned above, I really hope that they are meeting amongst themselves and developing their own strategy here.

You're correct there, it's one of the reasons why the clubs finally agreed to the One Port proposal hoping it was save their collective skins. A broke Port isn't good for football in general and I don't know why they Port fans think the SANFL want to screw them out of existence. The licence cant just be "handed over" to them either, they're really not thinking it through if they believe that's a solution.

It was never going to work from day one. Port were too big for the SANFL but not big enough for a national comp. Had the supporter split been a bit more even like the WAFL, two teams would have been sustainable, a second generic team would've been an option if you hated the Crows like Freo is in Perth. Port isn't an option if you werent a Port supporter to begin with. As said earlier in the thread, kids support other AFL teams that aren't based in SA.

Talking about the AFL players salary: calling the SANFL greedy doesn't wash when we're expected to run an entire footy club and it's junior development program on the same amount of money that Port would pay to ONE of it's players.

[Barto]

The SANFL and the AFL have been gravely concerned about the club, as has the AFL.

The first sign of a souring of relations with the AFL came last year with coach Mark Williams's million-dollar payout - a deal struck without consulting the AFL which had only weeks earlier forwarded the club a seven-figure cash injection. League chairman Mike Fitzpatrick wrote to Duncanson at the time to express the AFL's disappointment.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... 1fcry.html


Decisions like this isn't the SANFL's fault. This is probably why the SANFL needs to take more control of the club. Although it's funny how people are whining that because the SANFL is broke then they have no right to be taking over the Power. Sounds familiar.

[tipper]

what i fail to understand is how "giving" the power the licence to do with as they see fit will solve their financial issues. will i magically grant them a better stadium deal? unlikely i think. they will just be an organisation rneting Footy Park once a fortnight, i dont see how that will get them a better deal. It will remove any responsibility from the SANFL to support them though. No more $4 million dollar bailouts....

maybe that is a solution, put a price on the licence, let them buy it, and wipe our hands of the whole thing. sanfl still get revenue from renting the stadium to them every second week, and if they choose to relocate games elsewhere for money, let them. at least it would stop them blaming the SANFL for all their woes.

[nickname]

If Port owned their licence they would have been bankrupted a couple of years ago. If the AFL owned it, they would have to have injected the $10million or so that the SANFL have into the Power, and apart from the AFL's reluctance to do that, the other AFL clubs would scream blue murder over it. I think both those parties are very lucky the SANFL holds the licence.

[Dutchy]

It probably doesn't help that the AFLPA's CBA requires every club to pay a minimum 95% of the salary cap.

The 9 SANFL clubs are going to be the ones who really suffer out of this, I fear. As mentioned above, I really hope that they are meeting amongst themselves and developing their own strategy here.

Thought it was 92.5% ?

[Squawk]

It probably doesn't help that the AFLPA's CBA requires every club to pay a minimum 95% of the salary cap.

The 9 SANFL clubs are going to be the ones who really suffer out of this, I fear. As mentioned above, I really hope that they are meeting amongst themselves and developing their own strategy here.

Thought it was 92.5% ?

You're probably right Dutchy but it's still a significant impost. For example, if they could pay less in player salaries they might be able to have an extra full time coach - but even that is an area of the budget of AFL clubs that is over-cooked IMHO.

[Booney]

If Port owned their licence they would have been bankrupted a couple of years ago. If the AFL owned it, they would have to have injected the $10million or so that the SANFL have into the Power, and apart from the AFL's reluctance to do that, the other AFL clubs would scream blue murder over it. I think both those parties are very lucky the SANFL holds the licence.

Like they did with the Kangaroos, Bulldogs....?

[Squawk]

Press conference scheduled for 2pm, I think?

[sjt]

If Port owned their licence they would have been bankrupted a couple of years ago. If the AFL owned it, they would have to have injected the $10million or so that the SANFL have into the Power, and apart from the AFL's reluctance to do that, the other AFL clubs would scream blue murder over it. I think both those parties are very lucky the SANFL holds the licence.

Like they did with the Kangaroos, Bulldogs....?

I'd like to know how much the AFL has distributed to each team over the last few years. Anyone know?

[on the rails]

Well Port can save $1.3 million a year by closing the Magpies for starters - flippant as a comment that might be, I bet it has been discussed by the Power people!

[sjt]

Well Port can save $1.3 million a year by closing the Magpies for starters - flippant as a comment that might be, I bet it has been discussed by the Power people!

Been discussed, no doubt it was their strategy.

[nickname]

If Port owned their licence they would have been bankrupted a couple of years ago. If the AFL owned it, they would have to have injected the $10million or so that the SANFL have into the Power, and apart from the AFL's reluctance to do that, the other AFL clubs would scream blue murder over it. I think both those parties are very lucky the SANFL holds the licence.

Like they did with the Kangaroos, Bulldogs....?

I don't think it's been that big a hand-out to those clubs, but yes. My point is that while there's all this talk about the licence going somewhere else, or it should have been somewhere else, I think Port and the AFL would both be grateful it hasn't been held by them.

[Macca19]

The SANFL and the AFL have been gravely concerned about the club, as has the AFL.

The first sign of a souring of relations with the AFL came last year with coach Mark Williams's million-dollar payout - a deal struck without consulting the AFL which had only weeks earlier forwarded the club a seven-figure cash injection. League chairman Mike Fitzpatrick wrote to Duncanson at the time to express the AFL's disappointment.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... 1fcry.html


Decisions like this isn't the SANFL's fault. This is probably why the SANFL needs to take more control of the club. Although it's funny how people are whining that because the SANFL is broke then they have no right to be taking over the Power. Sounds familiar.

I cant see how the SANFL taking over the financial side of the club will make a spot of difference considering a) it supposedly doesnt have the money to throw into its licence and b) an SANFL appointed director quit despite saying that the clubs finances are in fine order and on the improve?

Why would the SANFL director hand picked by the SANFL to overlook the clubs finances feel the need to quit? WHy has he come out and said there is no point him being on the board?

There is something not quite right about this at all.

[sjt]

According to Rucci, he quit because the SANFL said they wouldn't be helping them out financially anymore, so he had no role.

[gossipgirl]

where is all the money going ????

port broke, sanfl broke, state broke ... everyone seems to be broke ?

[Dutchy]

It probably doesn't help that the AFLPA's CBA requires every club to pay a minimum 95% of the salary cap.

The 9 SANFL clubs are going to be the ones who really suffer out of this, I fear. As mentioned above, I really hope that they are meeting amongst themselves and developing their own strategy here.

Thought it was 92.5% ?

You're probably right Dutchy but it's still a significant impost. For example, if they could pay less in player salaries they might be able to have an extra full time coach - but even that is an area of the budget of AFL clubs that is over-cooked IMHO.

They can only blame themselves for the coaching side of things, remember they had a coach contracted for this year but decided to pay him out and get rid of him. Extra $$$ they could have saved but they chose to spend more $$$ to boot him.