NAFC injunction on the SANFL re the Power

[doggies4eva]

Hey Wedgie, stop picking on my mate Hondo and get your own debate

[dedja]

Hey Wedgie, stop picking on my mate Hondo and get your own debate

[Wedgie]

Hey Wedgie, stop picking on my mate Hondo and get your own debate

Pfft just do what I do and become a Mass Debator!

[doggies4eva]

Hey Wedgie, stop picking on my mate Hondo and get your own debate

Pfft just do what I do and become a Mass Debator!

At over 21,000 posts I nominate you as Mass Debator of the century

[Wedgie]

Hey Wedgie, stop picking on my mate Hondo and get your own debate

Pfft just do what I do and become a Mass Debator!

At over 21,000 posts I nominate you as Mass Debator of the century

Hooray!

[dedja]

[holden78]

Nothing is more beautiful then a man who loves his work , heh Captain Callus !

Hey Wedgie, stop picking on my mate Hondo and get your own debate

Pfft just do what I do and become a Mass Debator!

At over 21,000 posts I nominate you as Mass Debator of the century

Hooray!

[UK Fan]

Yeah im not sure if Port have been going on a billionaires spending spree which as got them into trouble. Theyve been one of the lowest spenders in terms of salary cap as far as im aware and this year have $700k spare in the cap. Going back to 03-04 they had one of the highest football department costs, last year it had the 3rd lowest overall (not per win, overall).

Ports been in and around $3m debt from the very beginning but it hasnt been an issue as its been able to service it.

If its true that Port have been transparent from the start about the financial situation, then I cant understand why the SANFL would simply hide this fact from the SANFL clubs. In doing this its put in jeopardy the existence of both Port and the SANFL clubs.

So just to clarify an independent audit into the PAFC financials show the PAFC have clearly overspent. "Lived above their means for many years" .

And Macca still denies Port have been wasting money. What a surprise.

Sorry, what has this got to do with the salary cap or football dept? Plenty of other areas which the club could have over spent on.

If Port has the third lowest on field expenses at any club can I ask.

1) Shouldn't it be the lowest as they have officially the lowest attendance of any AFL club in the league.

What the f*** does this question even mean? What do crowds have to do with the football department?

2) Are the AFL clubs with less on field expenses than the PAFC currently. Do they stand to make more than a combined loss of $12 mill in the next three years ????

Id have to find where the stats are and have a look again at which clubs were lower.

Well if you have the lowest attendance in the league that would mean less revenue. less revenue means you need to cut your expenditure. Take notes see if you can explain this to the PAFC board.

So the 3 clubs with less expenditure Macca do they stand to make more than a forecasted $12 million loss over the next three years.???

IF not how can you justify spending more than them ????

[UK Fan]

VEry valid points you make Doggies4eva. Unfortunately they are completely wasted on a supporter like Hondo. Youd have more luck getting Graham Cornes to concede.

Hondo believes these AFL clubs are absolute cash cows and nobody can convince him otherwise(even though Port $5 mill in debt standing to lose another $12mill).

I have tried for years to convince him they arent as profitable as we are led to believe. And that the current SANFL set up is completely wrong and will never work.

Youll hear Hondo make claims how the AFL clubs profits are good for the wider football community. Where SANFL clubs just work for themselves. But you have to believe when the very same AFL clubs make a loss it is to no detriment to anyone but that club. Profits good for everyone . Losses only bad to the individual club. So dont waste your breathe trying to get him to take a holistic view on things.

So why don't the SANFL clubs want to stop this money going to the Power or want the Power to fold if that's the best solution?

Where do you think the SANFL has found the $4m or so spare to distribute to the SANFL clubs each year since 1991?

Ill sign an astronomical TV deal next time around and some of that will find it's way into our SANFL comp eventually. Remember too that Port are not the only AFL club relying on hand-outs from someone right now..

Your proof is the SANFL has received $4 mill every year since 1991. And this is come from the profits made by the SANFL from AFL home games. Good to see you have your finger on the pulse Hondo NFI.

So Port will receive a huge amount of cash from the tv deal. SO Port forgot about that when they forecasted a $12 mill loss over the next 3 years did they.

If Cornes ever loses his gig at 5AA dont forget to apply Hondo you awesome SANFL you.

To quote Wedgie "you are clutching at straws" big time.

[Hondo]

Your proof is the SANFL has received $4 mill every year since 1991. And this is come from the profits made by the SANFL from AFL home games.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? If you are disagreeing, where has it come from in your opinion?

So Port will receive a huge amount of cash from the tv deal. SO Port forgot about that when they forecasted a $12 mill loss over the next 3 years did they.

As facts are coming out it seems that you are right again. This $12m is based on the current stadium deal (the one that's going to be changed), excludes normal large fund raising activities that happen every year (don't know why? assume they wanted to do the worst case scenario) and I'm sure it is based on revenues from the current AFL TV deal. As the new, bigger one hasn't been signed it's tough to include it in the budget.

Remember too that Port are still in negotiations over their stadium deal so it's in their interests to paint a bleak picture. Not that I think it's a rosy picture BTW.

[UK Fan]

Your proof is the SANFL has received $4 mill every year since 1991. And this is come from the profits made by the SANFL from AFL home games.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? If you are disagreeing, where has it come from in your opinion?

So Port will receive a huge amount of cash from the tv deal. SO Port forgot about that when they forecasted a $12 mill loss over the next 3 years did they.

As facts are coming out it seems that you are right again. This $12m is based on the current stadium deal (the one that's going to be changed), excludes normal large fund raising activities that happen every year (don't know why? assume they wanted to do the worst case scenario) and I'm sure it is based on revenues from the current AFL TV deal. As the new, bigger one hasn't been signed it's tough to include it in the budget.

Remember too that Port are still in negotiations over their stadium deal so it's in their interests to paint a bleak picture. Not that I think it's a rosy picture BTW.

You honestly believe thats why we get dividends.

We get paid $350K a year dividends from the PAFC whether they make profit or not.

If you believe PAFC has been giving us dividends since 1991 you are ****.


Thankyou for finally exposing how little concept you have on the holisitic view on football in SA.

Go an clutch straws elsewhere nimrod. And dont forget to apply for a job at 5AA.

* edit by mods - insults removed, please no more insults UK *

[Hondo]

You honestly believe thats why we get dividends.

We get paid $350K a year dividends from the PAFC whether they make profit or not.

If you believe PAFC has been giving us dividends since 1991 you are ****.

That's not what I said. Every time I ask you a question you re-write it in your own words. Then you answer what's become your question is sensationalistic fashion and then abuse me for giving an answer that's actually yours.

I'll do us all a favour and call it quits. It's a pointless debate we are having.

Classic how you keep resorting to abuse .... I wonder what you said! Don't know why you get so upset about it all.

"nimrod"

[harley d]

Anybody for circle work ?

[Macca19]

Well if you have the lowest attendance in the league that would mean less revenue. less revenue means you need to cut your expenditure.

And given we have the 4th lowest football department spend in the league and are well below every other 'interstate' club, then id say our expenditure is pretty well cut.

So the 3 clubs with less expenditure Macca do they stand to make more than a forecasted $12 million loss over the next three years.???

Two of them have been on the AFLs special distribution fund for years and years so you tell me. The other had a new untried coach, new coaching staff and a young squad so wouldnt be expected to be on much.

IF not how can you justify spending more than them ????[/quote]

[Macca19]

Your proof is the SANFL has received $4 mill every year since 1991. And this is come from the profits made by the SANFL from AFL home games. Good to see you have your finger on the pulse Hondo NFI.

This would be correct. The SANFL takes $4 mill from Port games annually. They take approx $400k from each Port game. I assume they take a similar amount from Crows games, making it just under $9 mill they take from AFL games annually. You disagree or have an issue with this?

[Ronnie]

Football in this state has certainly changed. The SANFL used to be prized by all and sundry as an example of what a rich football competition looks like.
Now i read in yesterday's Sunday Mail where Jesper Felstead, under the guise of putting Port Power's case for financial redemption, questions why the SANFL should remain the second best comp in the land. According to Jesper, who really cares if the players find their way to the AFL? This is staggering thinking, and while i don't rate him as a quality journalist i still find it troubling that this thinking has crept into parts of the mainstream media. It really underscores a lack of appreciation of what makes football tick in this state and the battle that the SANFL are facing to keep the comp at a quality standard.

[doggies4eva]

Your proof is the SANFL has received $4 mill every year since 1991. And this is come from the profits made by the SANFL from AFL home games. Good to see you have your finger on the pulse Hondo NFI.

This would be correct. The SANFL takes $4 mill from Port games annually. They take approx $400k from each Port game. I assume they take a similar amount from Crows games, making it just under $9 mill they take from AFL games annually. You disagree or have an issue with this?

Thanks for this Macca - it answers the question that I posed earlier. Can I ask where you got this data from? Are you sure that it is accurate?

Anyway Assuming that it is accurante that means that SANFL +$4M, Port -$4M which inlcudes the licence fee of $334,000. Combining all of this is seems that Port is a marginal revenue earner for SA Football.

[Macca19]

Thanks for this Macca - it answers the question that I posed earlier. Can I ask where you got this data from? Are you sure that it is accurate?

I usually dont like taking things from the Advertiser but its been stated in there about a dozen times over the past 2 years from about 3-4 different reporters, as well as by the club over the past 6 months.

[doggies4eva]

Thanks for this Macca - it answers the question that I posed earlier. Can I ask where you got this data from? Are you sure that it is accurate?

I usually dont like taking things from the Advertiser but its been stated in there about a dozen times over the past 2 years from about 3-4 different reporters, as well as by the club over the past 6 months.

OK. I wonder if this includes sponsorship and signage at Footy Park,

[Psyber]

Classic how you keep resorting to abuse .... I wonder what you said! Don't know why you get so upset about it all.
"nimrod"

I wonder which version he meant and which source he picked up the word from...

nim·rod (nĭm'rŏd')
n.
also Nimrod, A hunter.
Informal A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid.
[After Nimrod. In the Bible, a mighty hunter and king of Shinar who was a grandson of Ham and a great-grandson of Noah
Sense 2, probably from the phrase "poor little Nimrod," used by the cartoon character Bugs Bunny to mock the hapless hunter Elmer Fudd.]