Proposed model for the Magpies - Power Joint Venture?

[The Apostle]

I'm all for the merger...but only if...

a) The management from both the Power and Magpies come out and admit that their financial position right now is all their fault.
b) No more welfare handouts from the SANFL.
c) The Magpies surrender their Salisbury recruiting area to Central District...it means we don't have to put false addresses on our player registration forms anymore...ala Stewy Dew.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Wow. I'm all for that proposal. 'cause let's face it, it's all about Centrals

[Dutchy]

Thing I cant work out, and maybe some Port fans can help me, Edwards/Haysman both say that if this doesnt go ahead then the maggies will need to sell the pub, clear debts and have around $1m in cash and without a revenue source they cannot survive.

Surely with a good business plan and $1m in the bank they could survive, its not as if they are starting with nothing, others clubs have been this low without the $1m in the bank and have made it out.

Sounds like they are trying to bluff the clubs here and they have called it.

Do some hard work and they can trade out of this, esp with the biggest membership base in the SANFL.

The $1m you speak of will be used to fund the 2010 season ( see how many times the sell the pub / survive 2010 has been made by many of us ).

The cost of the 2010 season is far more than $1m, so by the time the end of 2010 comes along we will be back in debt with no revenue source.

Interesting cause I doubt they will have their hands on the sale proceeds until the end of the year anyway, will take a couple of months to sell, another couple of months to settle minimum

[beenreal]

Beenreal, I'm just putting forward the opinion of a past PAFC player who loves his magpies and his perception of the situation, my point is that there are obviously more. Alot of this goes back to the powers first year and he was told that he had to become a power member to go to the port club, so he did, never has renewed the membership tho.
As for the "it's the other clubs' fault", I go back to my point of your membership and attendance, stop using Gerard as a pivot for your argument, Sturt doesn't have a "Gerard" behind us yet we are still viable, probably just.
It even costs us twice as much as any other club to put on a home game and yet we are STILL viable. So there seems to be strange practices down at Alberton.
One more question, with your dire problems have your supporters come forward in numbers showing support? Have they rallied like North did? Are you membership numbers swelling this year unusually due to the the pride, tradition and Port Adelaide "creed"?
Where are you all! Someone please give us an update of the current membership numbers for PAMFC

I will continue to use Gerard as part of my argument against the Ostriches (NAFC) and the backing of a strong asset base for Norwood. I have no idea how Sturt dug themselves out although I did put $$ into them.

Port supporters have been rallying to the cause for years now, $2 campaigns, fundraisers etc. Not mention turning up to games. In today's climate it does you no good unless you have a viable gaming/ social/ function facility from which you keep ALL your revenue.

As for Memberships:

Port Adelaide 1327
Norwood 1210
Woodville West Torrens 1011
West Adelaide 1007
North Adelaide 916
Glenelg 737
Central District
Sturt
South Adelaide

[dedja]

Glenelg 1025 ... but you have made your point.

[Country Cousin]

Perhaps somebody could enlighten me. I understand there are 40 gaming machines operated by the Power at the Alberton Oval clubrooms, is that the case?
Also how many machines are at the Prince of Wales hotel?

33

The reason I asked this question was to clarify the situation, should the Power take over the Magpies and thus gain control of the POW operation. (This now seems unlikely, in the light of the latest news on the fate of the "merger") One or two posters suggested that the Power might transfer their gaming operation from Alberton to the POW, for its main road location. This could not be done without selling 33 licenses, since they already have the maximum allowed for one venue (viz. 40) at Alberton. The only way they could retain all 73 would be to operate both venues. While this is being done by other clubs, the circumstances in this case make it look a very doubtful proposition. Consequently the real salvation for the Magpies can only lie in the desire of enough true supporters to get behind the club, financially and practically (volunteers etc.) Cut expenses to the bone, make hard decisions about debt reduction, by disposing of unprofitable operations and getting back to square one. It's hard, it's painful, but other clubs have done it and survived.

[Barto]

Sturt doesn't have a "Gerard" behind us yet we are still viable, probably just.

The way I see the North/Sturt comparison was that North had a Gerard to bail them out in the short term so that they were flush with cash long enough to get their long term income streams online, where as we just scraped in by the skin of our teeth and now our business plan is reaping dividends.

[dedja]

Consequently the real salvation for the Magpies can only lie in the desire of enough true supporters to get behind the club, financially and practically (volunteers etc.) Cut expenses to the bone, make hard decisions about debt reduction, by disposing of unprofitable operations and getting back to square one. It's hard, it's painful, but other clubs have done it and survived.

All very true but why does it seem like it is automatically assumed that PAMFC and their supporters aren't doing everything possible to save their club. Is it the absence of a rally, chook raflles, etc?

Or is it just some perverse thoughts of revenge from a time long ago?

Was it automatically assumed that North, Sturt, Glenelg, etc suffered from financial mismanagement when they had their backs to the wall?

I'm not suggesting that PAMFC be given wads of unaccountable cash to flush down the s-bend, but just give the bastards a fair hearing and an opportunity to survive because, regardless of what some of us seem to think, I as a Port Adelaide despising bastard of the football world would hate to see them become extinct for the wrong reasons.

If they are truely rooted with no way out then so be it ... but don't close the door on them just because of what may or may not have happened 20 years ago.

[Barto]

Perhaps somebody could enlighten me. I understand there are 40 gaming machines operated by the Power at the Alberton Oval clubrooms, is that the case?
Also how many machines are at the Prince of Wales hotel?

33

The reason I asked this question was to clarify the situation, should the Power take over the Magpies and thus gain control of the POW operation. (This now seems unlikely, in the light of the latest news on the fate of the "merger") One or two posters suggested that the Power might transfer their gaming operation from Alberton to the POW, for its main road location. This could not be done without selling 33 licenses, since they already have the maximum allowed for one venue (viz. 40) at Alberton. The only way they could retain all 73 would be to operate both venues. While this is being done by other clubs, the circumstances in this case make it look a very doubtful proposition. Consequently the real salvation for the Magpies can only lie in the desire of enough true supporters to get behind the club, financially and practically (volunteers etc.) Cut expenses to the bone, make hard decisions about debt reduction, by disposing of unprofitable operations and getting back to square one. It's hard, it's painful, but other clubs have done it and survived.

I think they wont be "transferring to the POW" but have two venues like Sturt and North.

Interesting that an AFL club sees some salvation by following the lead of two SANFL clubs. I'm concerned that an AFL club in a two team town needs a couple of pokie venues to generate income. If hypothetically pokies were banned overnight, the Crows wouldnt even notice a blip in their income stream.

[Barto]

If they are truely rooted with no way out then so be it ... but don't close the door on them just because of what may or may not have happened 20 years ago.

I dont think any club's board is even thinking of 1990 when they make their decision, its only supporters saying stuff like that.

I'd be utterly disappointed if the board of directors of the SFC even mentioned it in their decision making process and I know for a fact that they are not.

[Ian]

North Adelaide 916

not sure where you get your numbers from, unless North have lost 147 members in the last 11 days

1063 as at Wednesday 27th January 2010

............and I know at least 3 more signed up on the weekend

[dedja]

If they are truely rooted with no way out then so be it ... but don't close the door on them just because of what may or may not have happened 20 years ago.

I dont think any club's board is even thinking of 1990 when they make their decision, its only supporters saying stuff like that.

I'd be utterly disappointed if the board of directors of the SFC even mentioned it in their decision making process and I know for a fact that they are not.

I am quite sure you are correct regarding Sturt ... although there could be another club that would be cock-a-hoop to sink the boots in.

By the way, your comments regarding Sturt's survival are the most appropriate when it comes to PAMFC ... they could do no worse than to try to emulate Sturt's business model to get out of their current predicament.

[Barto]

although there could be another club that would be cock-a-hoop to sink the boots in. .

I'm not sure why people think this is North's reasoning. I was actually banned from Big Footy for suggesting this on the Port Adelaide forum but despite North Adelaide's unprofessional and facetious press release, I believe their reasoning is the fact they were left to their own devices when they were on the ropes in 2003(or was it 2004?) and don't think Port deserve a leg up that they didn't have access to. Their stance is fair enough IMO, each club is going to look at it differently.

The merger proposal is a double edged sword for the rest of the SANFL clubs. One one hand they want Port Power to be successful but on the other they dont want to give a rival SANFL club an advantage that they cant have. It's not like if Sturt start struggling again, they can turn to the Crows and ask that we move our admin to West Lakes and get them to pay for it.

[smithy]

Sturt doesn't have a "Gerard" behind us yet we are still viable, probably just.

The way I see the North/Sturt comparison was that North had a Gerard to bail them out in the short term so that they were flush with cash long enough to get their long term income streams online, where as we just scraped in by the skin of our teeth and now our business plan is reaping dividends.

Let's not forget the significant contributions made by the late Guy Lloyd in the early 90's.
North aren't the only club to benefit from wealthy supporters.

If sturt can survive for over a decade on 15¢ in the $$$$$$ on pokies with no assets, why can't the magpies survive on 25¢ in the dollar with assets ?

[Barto]

Sturt doesn't have a "Gerard" behind us yet we are still viable, probably just.

The way I see the North/Sturt comparison was that North had a Gerard to bail them out in the short term so that they were flush with cash long enough to get their long term income streams online, where as we just scraped in by the skin of our teeth and now our business plan is reaping dividends.

Let's not forget the significant contributions made by the late Guy Lloyd in the early 90's.
North aren't the only club to benefit from wealthy supporters.

If sturt can survive for over a decade on 15¢ in the $$$$$$ on pokies with no assets, why can't the magpies survive on 25¢ in the dollar with assets ?

Guy Lloyd put in a lot for the club but after his sad passing we were on the ropes again. Not sure if the idea of "let's have a couple of pokie venues" was in the plan at the time.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it would've been great if the club bought the Cremorne back in the day.

[Hondo]

not sure where you get your numbers from, unless North have lost 147 members in the last 11 days

1063 as at Wednesday 27th January 2010

............and I know at least 3 more signed up on the weekend

Plus me on Friday!

[smithy]

I have no idea how Sturt dug themselves out although I did put $$ into them.

I believe the figure for the sale of it's clubrooms when sold to the Unley & Community Sports Club was $1mill.
The same figure bandied around that the magpies will get if they sell the POW.

Sturt for many years received only 15¢ in the $ in pokie revenue at their clubrooms on matchdays etc.

So if sturt can sell off their major asset and revenue stream and receive 15¢ in the $ from pokies, why can't the magpies survive by selling off an asset for the same amount yet receive 25¢ in the $ from their pokies ?

Maybe they just don't want to do it hard for the 1st time in their life.
Harden up.

[The Sleeping Giant]

although there could be another club that would be cock-a-hoop to sink the boots in. .

I'm not sure why people think this is North's reasoning. I was actually banned from Big Footy for suggesting this on the Port Adelaide forum but despite North Adelaide's unprofessional and facetious press release, I believe their reasoning is the fact they were left to their own devices when they were on the ropes in 2003(or was it 2004?) and don't think Port deserve a leg up that they didn't have access to. Their stance is fair enough IMO, each club is going to look at it differently.

Bring on Tuesday, when the other 7 clubs can start taking some heat off North.

[Barto]

although there could be another club that would be cock-a-hoop to sink the boots in. .

I'm not sure why people think this is North's reasoning. I was actually banned from Big Footy for suggesting this on the Port Adelaide forum but despite North Adelaide's unprofessional and facetious press release, I believe their reasoning is the fact they were left to their own devices when they were on the ropes in 2003(or was it 2004?) and don't think Port deserve a leg up that they didn't have access to. Their stance is fair enough IMO, each club is going to look at it differently.

Bring on Tuesday, when the other 7 clubs can start taking some heat off North.

Or is it a case of the clubs taking the heat off the Power? If the clubs are sure of their instincts of what will happen in the future, they will vote yes.

[X Runna]

If they are truely rooted with no way out then so be it ... but don't close the door on them just because of what may or may not have happened 20 years ago.

I dont think any club's board is even thinking of 1990 when they make their decision, its only supporters saying stuff like that.

I'd be utterly disappointed if the board of directors of the SFC even mentioned it in their decision making process and I know for a fact that they are not.

I am quite sure you are correct regarding Sturt ... although there could be another club that would be cock-a-hoop to sink the boots in.

By the way, your comments regarding Sturt's survival are the most appropriate when it comes to PAMFC ... they could do no worse than to try to emulate Sturt's business model to get out of their current predicament.

Whilst Sturt, along with North & Norwood must be congratulated for getting though the tough times, one must take into account the support they received from members & local industry. The two Port Adelaide Clubs will always be fighting each other for sponsorship dollars & membership, and it's only logical the Power would prevail.

The POW does not have a huge patronage from Port supporters as 90% would prefer to go the club, there is just something about supporting one's club at the home ground itself, not at a pub down the road. The Magpies are way behind the majority of clubs as far as assets and opportunity to earn a reasonable income, due to the Power's dominance in those areas.

Whilst Sturt & North have come out of their plights very well, one would assume the fact they have multiple gaming venues has helped a great deal in their recovery. I do wonder though, if the Crows were all of a sudden moved lock, stock & barrel to Unley Oval (and took all of Sturt FC's gaming clients, and Sturt's local sponsors), Sturt move to Kingswood Oval & they purchased a dingy pub 2 minutes from Unley Oval - how would their business plan hold up then? No disrespect intended there at all, please just visualise that scenario & you might understand the Magpies' situation with a little more empathy. It may never happen again, BUT it could have happened to any of the other 8 SANFL clubs when the Crows were formed.

The upsides to the merger are in my opinion
a) sponsorship dollars much easier to achieve, double exposure for their money
b) membership packages for both clubs, either singly or combined
c) vast reduction in management costs & some reduction in wages etc
d) the Magpies as an individual division of PAFC would need no physical assets as such, The POW can be disposed of from their point of view
e) providing the Power stay afloat (and with this merger, it will be easier for them to do), the Magpies are secure & would not be a financial drain on the SANFL and it's member clubs
f) the Magpies will bounce back on the field too. A stable club with it's pride back will in time lead to a happier team........

The downsides.....
a) the hatred from some opposition supporters toward the Magpies is bad enough now, I think it may get worse
b) for a lot of opposition supporters - the fact the Magpies will be better on field than in recent years.
c) the perception from a lot of other clubs and their supporters is the Magpies are getting something they're not, but I bet if you asked the Magpie heirarchy - they would swap situations with any other club.

A couple of very important points.....
a) the Magpies are not doing this for any unfair gain on the field (ie players, the SANFL will make sure of that) or off-field - they are doing this just to survive
b) whatever the opinion people have of the Magpies officialdom in 1990, the current Magpies are not responsible for those actions. In fact, a very prominent person played for an opposition SANFL club......
c) the Magpies did not ask to be sent packing from Alberton, did not ask to lose local sponsors and thousand of members. I am not whingeing making this point, if you take the emotion out of it and think of your club being 'raped' in the same manner - you will see with an even mind it would make things damn hard.

Rest assured, before the merger was even considered, the Magpie's management would have done everything in their power (excuse the pun) to try and promote the club and to stay as an individual entity, running at a profit. However, their backs were up against the wall from day one, more than likely without knowing or expecting it. They have put their hand up and admitted they are in strife and sought help from the entity which took it's soul. They have NOT gone to the SANFL and asked for anything other than it's endorsement to survive.