Proposed model for the Magpies - Power Joint Venture?

[Wedgie]

sit makes an excellent suggestion about a commercial agreement, could the Magpies negotiate a better deal from the Port club in exchange for the POW or part thereof?

[Ronnie]

If it's all about the Prince of Wales why don't the two parties come to some commercial arrangement? A profit share joint venture type scenario. This is done all the time with mining companies (as an example) with "farm in" agreements.
If they share admin. facilities or staff to cut costs, then this obviously gives the Magpies an unfair advantage over the other SANFL clubs, that would have greater fixed costs. If this were the case the other clubs should get reimbursed the difference in admin. expenses.
Unfortunately with the past runs on the board (Gilligan, Lockwood, Surjan to name a few) I don't trust their football departments, not gaining an advantage. Along the lines of, play for the Magpies and you have more chance of being picked up by the Power. This also happened when the Power were about to join the AFL, many Magpies players were told they'd get contracts with the Power if they stayed at the Magpies. Or drafting, rookie listing Magpie players thus increasing player income from the AFL and allowing more to be spent on non-listed players.
I hope they stay despite my dislike for the club. But come up with a plan B!
Call me paranoid but rather paranoid, than being a fool for not learning from history.

Which is what James Meiklejohn was told when he came over, allegedly...

[LBT]

I am disturbed that Foley has decided to get involved, purely because it is "his" club that is in strife. If any other club was in a similar situation, he would not have even commented on the issue. Hopefully the clubs stay strong if he tries "bully boy" tactics. If heaven forbod governent money is used to prop up the maggies then I give up!

[on the rails]

If it's all about the Prince of Wales why don't the two parties come to some commercial arrangement? A profit share joint venture type scenario.

My mail from a PAMFC person tells me that this was the intention originally when the PAMFC secured the backing (whic included some Prominent PAFC AFL Supporters) to take the finance out to buy the lease however with the PAFC struggling and running up big losses overall and therefore their longer term plan to relocate the Alberton Pokies elsewhere was put on the back burner, they basically walked away from this supposed "share" deal and left the Magpies holding all the POW finance problems. Also part the reason also given was the real turnover / income figures when looked at more closelyby the PAFC coupled with the on going lease and loan repayments didn't warrant the investment to renovate to make it more Commercially attractive. I guess if the PAFC can get it via the Merger without having to pay the real / true value then it may be possible to make it more viable?

[nickname]

The line that it's either, become a subsidiary of an AFL franchise or give up and shut the doors, is both counter productive and a bit of emotional blackmail. Mr Foley's intervention looks very much like using his position as a bully. Something he's known for and which may well backfire. If I were a delegate from one of the other SANFL clubs, I'd be strongly offended at his thinly veiled suggestion that my opposition to this AFL takeover was based on some kind of cheap vengeance. That's patently ridiculous and an insult to those people making the decisions.

Agree entirely. Cornes's article made the same insulting insinuation.

[CUTTERMAN]

I agree too, beautifully put CC. The more I think about this the more they have to pull themselves out of this.
I aslo am astounded that the Port faithful seem to be so appathetic regarding their great club. You all should be marching down port rd, or through the city but nothing.
Waiting for Goddo?

[on the rails]

I agree too, beautifully put CC. The more I think about this the more they have to pull themselves out of this.
I aslo am astounded that the Port faithful seem to be so appathetic regarding their great club. You all should be marching down port rd, or through the city but nothing.
Waiting for Goddo?

Well it seems they are rallying at FP this arvo.

[Cambridge Clarrie]

I'd honestly hate to see them go, but if they can't stand on their own two feet then it has to be goodbye.

I don't think that the competition would be any poorer without them than it would if any other club was to go under.

I feel for the Maggies supporters because I know that I would be absolutely devastated if Sturt shut up shop. At the same time, Sturt dug their way out of a deep hole without the benefit of joining forces with an AFL club. If Maggies supporters want their club to remain they should all join as members.

I know membership numbers are in the low thousands, but you can't tell me that Port barrackers, if they really wanted their club to remain couldn't sign up 10,000 members. I think it comes down to choice. Their supporters have chosen to follow the AFL...

[Barto]

I agree too, beautifully put CC. The more I think about this the more they have to pull themselves out of this.
I aslo am astounded that the Port faithful seem to be so appathetic regarding their great club. You all should be marching down port rd, or through the city but nothing.
Waiting for Goddo?

Well it seems they are rallying at FP this arvo.

I believe the players have been informed that they're expected to attend.

[Booney]

I'd honestly hate to see them go, but if they can't stand on their own two feet then it has to be goodbye.

I don't think that the competition would be any poorer without them than it would if any other club was to go under.

I feel for the Maggies supporters because I know that I would be absolutely devastated if Sturt shut up shop. At the same time, Sturt dug their way out of a deep hole without the benefit of joining forces with an AFL club. If Maggies supporters want their club to remain they should all join as members.

I know membership numbers are in the low thousands, but you can't tell me that Port barrackers, if they really wanted their club to remain couldn't sign up 10,000 members. I think it comes down to choice. Their supporters have chosen to follow the AFL...

Quote 1 - Totally agree, but losing any club would be of no benefit to footy in SA. None what so ever IMO and every club should be given the chance to thrive/survive.

Quote 2 - There is one term follow, and another, support. I follow and support both teams. Fortunately I am in a position in life where funds are accessable and I can afford to do both. Not everyone can and much to the dismay of many on here the AFL is the best football in the land ( member / crowd numbers dont lie ) and many Port Adelaide fans have chosen to put their hard earned into the Power. Perhaps complacent in thinking the Magpies will take care of themselves.

It isnt all down to people and members though. Good managment, good on field performances go a long way to achieving financial stability.

[dedja]

I am disturbed that Foley has decided to get involved, purely because it is "his" club that is in strife. If any other club was in a similar situation, he would not have even commented on the issue. Hopefully the clubs stay strong if he tries "bully boy" tactics. If heaven forbod governent money is used to prop up the maggies then I give up!

Didn't North receive govt support with the pokies legislation which at the time indicated that the location of their then proposed pokie premises was illegal. IIRC, without this reprieve, the club would have essentially folded. Am I mistaken on this point?

[GWW]

Am I mistaken on this point?

Apparently not

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 5828186257

[Mr Irate]

I agree too, beautifully put CC. The more I think about this the more they have to pull themselves out of this.
I aslo am astounded that the Port faithful seem to be so appathetic regarding their great club. You all should be marching down port rd, or through the city but nothing.
Waiting for Goddo?

Well it seems they are rallying at FP this arvo.

I believe the players have been informed that they're expected to attend.

gratis one assumes

[tipper]

I am disturbed that Foley has decided to get involved, purely because it is "his" club that is in strife. If any other club was in a similar situation, he would not have even commented on the issue. Hopefully the clubs stay strong if he tries "bully boy" tactics. If heaven forbod governent money is used to prop up the maggies then I give up!

Didn't North receive govt support with the pokies legislation which at the time indicated that the location of their then proposed pokie premises was illegal. IIRC, without this reprieve, the club would have essentially folded. Am I mistaken on this point?

yes and no. the roosters first received permission from the government to move their pokies to the old sizzler building on main north road. they then invested a lot of money fitting out and moving their machines. due to a later court process it was ruled that they were in breach of the legislation. that is not norths fault, the liquor and gambling gov dept had not considered that when they granted permission in the first place.

the government injunction only allowed north more time to move their machines to a venue that complied with all the legislation. it would not have been necessary if the government hadnt made the mistake to begin with. north would have never bought the premises and would have continued to look elsewhere. without the repreive they would have had to close the premises, and therefore lose the revenue while they tried to come up with an alternative.

if the original mistake hadnt been made the injunction would have been unnecesssary.

[sjt]

Also, if Port Power have a genuine concern for the survival of Port Magpies (not just looking to strip out an asset) why don't they negotiate a better home game revenue deal. If as some Port supporters have pointed out that Port Magpies get ripped off with their home game revenue, by the Power, why isn't this re-negotiated? Who negotiated and agreed to it in the first place ?
It seems not disimiliar to the stadium deal that Port Power are seeking to re negotiate.

[dedja]

Thanks for clarifying ...

[on the rails]

I am disturbed that Foley has decided to get involved, purely because it is "his" club that is in strife. If any other club was in a similar situation, he would not have even commented on the issue. Hopefully the clubs stay strong if he tries "bully boy" tactics. If heaven forbod governent money is used to prop up the maggies then I give up!

Didn't North receive govt support with the pokies legislation which at the time indicated that the location of their then proposed pokie premises was illegal. IIRC, without this reprieve, the club would have essentially folded. Am I mistaken on this point?

Correct - only got a reprieve in terms of time to find an alternative location to move from Sefton Park which was ruled as being in a location outside the legislation governing gaming machines in shopping centres - which was not in place when gaming venues such as the Northern Tavern and the Castle Tavern (Sturt) were set up originally.

As it turned out - the ruling against North actually helped North grow its business interests as whilst it was looking to relocate the 40 machines elsewhere, they ended at Grand North and to ensure income during the transition / set up they obtained the operating lease of he Northern Tavern as well and we ended up with 2 x venues with 40 machines in each.

[Dogwatcher]

I am disturbed that Foley has decided to get involved, purely because it is "his" club that is in strife. If any other club was in a similar situation, he would not have even commented on the issue. Hopefully the clubs stay strong if he tries "bully boy" tactics. If heaven forbod governent money is used to prop up the maggies then I give up!

Didn't North receive govt support with the pokies legislation which at the time indicated that the location of their then proposed pokie premises was illegal. IIRC, without this reprieve, the club would have essentially folded. Am I mistaken on this point?

True, seemingly.
But, it is not the Liberal Government of South Australia Football Club that is under threat here but the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club.
If Port Adelaide had had something to do with that situation evolving, then that line of debate would be fair.

[Barto]

yes and no. the roosters first received permission from the government to move their pokies to the old sizzler building on main north road. they then invested a lot of money fitting out and moving their machines. due to a later court process it was ruled that they were in breach of the legislation. that is not norths fault, the liquor and gambling gov dept had not considered that when they granted permission in the first place.

the government injunction only allowed north more time to move their machines to a venue that complied with all the legislation. it would not have been necessary if the government hadnt made the mistake to begin with. north would have never bought the premises and would have continued to look elsewhere. without the repreive they would have had to close the premises, and therefore lose the revenue while they tried to come up with an alternative.

if the original mistake hadnt been made the injunction would have been unnecesssary.

Sounds completely fair then. Shame that fact was left out when they were having a go at North, it's a little bit different than Port's situation.

[tipper]

exactly. funny how they pick the facts to suit their argument??