NAFC injunction on the SANFL re the Power

[Sojourner]

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.

I was surprised also last week to hear Graham Cornes using the media to make similar noises. Ultimatley its up to us to take them on and we need to be sure that the management of the SANFL are going into bat continually for the competition. The more people that get in touch with their own SANFL club managements to find out their position on what North are doing the better.

[Chambo100]

I would really love to know what position on this issue and the salary cap, that each club delegate brings to the league director's table.

Is it a united position or otherwise?

It would seem appropriate at this time to model and analyse what impact a 40% reduction in the cap would have on the sanfl.

It is early days, but if the afl can bring sufficient pressure on our sanfl officials in this way to reform how the competition is run, there are certainly dark days ahead.

Seeing as the issue seems to be gathering at least media and verbal momentum (as 11 pages here attests), I would like each club to declare where it stands.

Shoring up a defence (or at least planning for one) presuming that the collective position is consistent with the poll on the other thread, would at the very least seem prudent.

[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.

I was surprised also last week to hear Graham Cornes using the media to make similar noises. Ultimatley its up to us to take them on and we need to be sure that the management of the SANFL are going into bat continually for the competition. The more people that get in touch with their own SANFL club managements to find out their position on what North are doing the better.

I gather Cornes has hung out the local comp to dry. Full credit to Stephen Rowe for not doing that.
People have long memories and Cornes, Felstead and McDermott have all used media space to state they are prepared to see the SANFL cease to exist in its current form if it means the AFL is propped up. They are entitled to their opinion, but their vision of a micky mouse SANFL is music to AFL house but no one in South Australia surely??

[Macca19]

Just playing devils advocate here, considering 7 clubs made losses last year, would lowering the salary cap be such a bad thing? What happens if 7 clubs make losses this year as well? Where do you cut spending?

[Chambo100]

I will stand corrected.

But I thought there were a lot of different reasons for those losses.
Some may be short (1 year issues) and not necessarily ongoing.

Some like Sturt's issues will take time to address and some variations to the business model.

I think it would be necessary for someone independent to analyse/audit the business of each club to see if losses are to be increasingly commonplace or otherwise.

You wouldn't do something very important like lower the cap without looking at all of the drivers to the losses, surely?

[Hondo]

I think it would be necessary for someone independent to analyse/audit the business of each club to see if losses are to be increasingly commonplace or otherwise.

You wouldn't do something very important like lower the cap without looking at all of the drivers to the losses, surely?

I think you're right. The SANFL spent or are spending big $$$ on getting Ernst & Young to do a review all everything to do with AFL and SANFL football in this state to try to come up with the best plan for the future.

Haven't heard anything about this review since it was first announced. I assume it will deal with all of those questions.

[spell_check]

Last years' loss was the first in about 5 years I think for the Eagles.

[Wedgie]

North could have showed more than half a mill profit if they wanted to, last year's figures taken alone are completely irrelevent.

[Chambo100]

Yes agreed, you need to look at many things over a 5 year or so period for it to be meaningful.

[UK Fan]

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.

100% correct.

Still you cant argue with these AFL fans/Advertisers logic. They have produced a very well balanced argument. NOT!!!!!

SANFL clubs have an independent audit which proves "Port has been living well over its means for many years". To refute this claim we get 2008 total expenditure figures for every AFL club. Which shows Port 4th lowest.

And that proves they have not overspent for the last 5 seasons. How it does I have no idea.
Interesting we have not seen Ports revenue figures incomparison to its expenditure figures in over a week. Some interesting accounting going on.

And so now due to this negligence the SANFL has to cut its profit margin at AAMI stadium which the SANFL completely financed the building of plus numerous extension to increase capacity.

The SANFL paid 4 million dollars for a licence which it sold to Port in 1997 with repayments agreed upon and suppose to be settled 2 seasons ago . Port Adelaide now dont think they need to pay it back cos the AFL didnt charge Gold Coast 13 seasons later. Relevance ???

Port Adelaide give the SANFL 4 mill a year. SANFL has given to Port ??? not one cent I guess we are suppose to believe.

SANFL salary cap for the leagues 9 club approx $3 mill.

Port Adelaide salary cap alone $8 mill +. And we should cut our salary cap. Interesting.

NOw Ill go back to my the point everyone keeps avoiding. Lets say Port gets a bigger slice of the pie. What is to say they wont do this again and in 5 years demand an even bigger slice of the pie.It would be completely financially irresponsible of the SANFL to enter any negotiations with the PAFC about increasing revenue without putting any controls on their expenditure.

PAFC debt $5 mill. Total Assets $17 mill.

And they are forecasting another $12 mill to write off(total debts $17 mill). But they are in a sound position ??? Im sure anyone who works in finance would have to disgree with that claim.

I also dont think it is safe to assume the TV deal will be more. Due financial crisis and there will be 2 extra teams starting and the pie will need to be divided up including some extra provision for them.

Its a very balanced argument you Cornesys make. NOT.

[UK Fan]

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]


Macca the 3 clubs below you on expendiutre are not forecasting $12 mill losses over the next 3 years.


So please justify why your expenditure should be higher than theirs currently ????

[doggies4eva]

You raise some interesting points UK Fan and I am generally in agreement.

While it is interesting to note that Port appears to be at the lower end of the expenditure scale I would like to see a little more analysis of what this means.

For example, what costs are impacted by the revenue side - by this I mean that maybe higher attendance at matches leads to more revenue and more expenditure.

Also what costs do the other clubs have that Port doesn't? They play at football park for free (given that the SANFL keeps the proceeds). Do other clubs have to pay grand fees and other costs that increase their costs?

A detailed line by line analysis would be needed to compare apples with apples!

[Hondo]

d4eva if you really want to further research these issues, there's an article on AdelaideNow on 19 July. Admittedly, it's from Port's POV. But I just offer it to you to read. Like anything on this subject, take everything you read with some healthy sceptisicm and open mind because there's probably truth in the arguments from both sides and the answer is somewhere in the middle.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25801651-12428,00.html

If you want to get up to speed on the stadium deal issue, I have posted this link several times because it helps understand why Port and most teams in Melbourne are financially challenged by their stadium deals compared to teams like West Coast and Freo. It's long!

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=554729&highlight=Stadium+deal

Again, it's written by a Port Adelaide person so you need to take that into account when reading it.

It's interesting stuff when you get into it! I'd love to get my hands on a copy of the SANFL Inc's financial statements but cannot find them anywhere. That would make for interesting reading in light of all the debate recently.

[Macca19]

Also what costs do the other clubs have that Port doesn't? They play at football park for free (given that the SANFL keeps the proceeds). Do other clubs have to pay grand fees and other costs that increase their costs?

How do you come to the conclusion that Port play at Football Park for free, given that this entire debate and issue is based around how much money the SANFL take from Port home games?

[Wedgie]

lol@Hondo, this forum isn't the best place to ask a question and bigfooty and adelaidenow are the best places to get info.
You're deluded mate. Give it up.



Didn't you promise to shut up about 5 posts ago?

[Macca19]

Maybe read the Bigfooty thread before commenting wedgie, there were months of research that the poster put into that. It would be clearly the most informative piece on the ins and outs of stadium deals for all clubs anywhere on the internet.

[Hondo]

lol@Hondo, this forum isn't the best place to ask a question and bigfooty and adelaidenow are the best places to get info.
You're deluded mate. Give it up.



Didn't you promise to shut up about 5 posts ago?

I didn't say they were the best places to get info. I was offering those 2 articles up for d4eva to read and make up his own mind. I said he had to be aware that both were from Port's POV so be careful with it. Just as he needs to not take at face value what's posted on this Board (note - not all of SAFooty, just the SANFL board). This board being very SANFL-centric. I said there's probably some truth in all of them.

Why don't you actually read what I post? Why are you jumping me so much recently?

[Wedgie]

lol@Hondo, this forum isn't the best place to ask a question and bigfooty and adelaidenow are the best places to get info.
You're deluded mate. Give it up.



Didn't you promise to shut up about 5 posts ago?

I didn't say they were the best places to get info. I was offering those 2 articles up for d4eva to read and make up his own mind. I said he had to be aware that both were from Port's POV so be careful with it. Just as he needs to not take at face value what's posted on this Board. This board being very SANFL-centric. I said there's probably some truth in all of them.

Why don't you actually read what I post? Why are you jumping me so much recently?

Why am I jumping on you so much recently? Because you're the one going on and on and on and on about the same tedious thing

Why don't I actually read what you post? To tell you the truth, you could be making any number of good points these days but it would be lost on me as all your posts now just blur into boredom. Perhaps if you made those good points in one succinct post and moved on I would take notice of them!

Make your point, move on. Geezus.

[Hondo]

But this morning's post didn't have a point really

FWIW, it's not a terrible site at all. The SANFL Board can be biased, that's all. Any offence about that comment = my apologies

Moderate UK Fan for his repitition too and I will be happy

Delete this after you've read it and I'll call it quits

[Wedgie]

But this morning's post didn't have a point really

FWIW, it's not a terrible site at all. The SANFL Board can be biased, that's all. Any offence about that comment = my apologies

Moderate UK Fan for his repitition too and I will be happy

Delete this after you've read it and I'll call it quits

Mate, as conveyed to you in my PM to you any of our posters can report a post they deem inappropriate, I just checked the report list and not one has been marked in this topic so I can only assume you deem them appropriate.
Moderators can't read every post in every thread, the onus is on people that are upset by posts to report them which brings them to our attention and we will investigate accordingly.
Thank you.

PS If I delete it before I read it will you still call it quits?