by csbowes » Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:47 pm
by topsywaldron » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:10 pm
hereselmo1 wrote:I am sure all the other SANFL clubs will be happy with Centrals having a cap on spending too.
by Big Phil » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:17 pm
topsywaldron wrote:hereselmo1 wrote:I am sure all the other SANFL clubs will be happy with Centrals having a cap on spending too.
What's a few DVD players amongst friends?
by Barto » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:27 am
csbowes wrote:I hope I'm wrong, but I can't help but feel there is devil in the detail and that the SANFL commission is knowingly sacrificing the other 8 SANFL clubs in order to fix the Power...
You just have to listen to Leigh on the radio, Cornes, Rowey, it's all about the AFL, I don't think any of them really give a damn about the local comp, if it ends up being A1 amateurs, they won't mind as long as Port and the Crows are strong.
Is this just another nail in the coffin of the once great state league?
by X Runna » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:10 am
Hondo wrote:This is from the Port web:site
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6038/newsid/104588/default.aspx
What has changed since February?
A number of important things have changed since a merger was initially proposed by the two Port Adelaide clubs last February:
- The SANFL, Port Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Magpies have worked together closely on this proposal and there is now a much more robust business case that underpins the model.
- There has been a significant increase in external corporate commitment and support for the united entity.
- There is also a much clearer understanding among the stakeholders of the business case and the benefits it would deliver for Port Adelaide and for South Australian football in general.
When those factors are combined, they present a compelling case for the change
I haven't understood what has made this new proposal so compelling compared to the last one that was thrown out and gives some explanation.
The SANFL have worked with them on the proposal so I guess they can't now knock it back as it's partly their proposal too. Anyone know about the "significant increase in external corporate commitment"? Who has stepped in here?
X Runna wrote:nickname wrote:Pseudo wrote:If and when the merged entity achieves positive cash flow and regular operating profits, i.e. when the club(s) are out of trouble, will the merger be reversed? Or will Port Magpies be allowed continued existence with its admin being propped up by the AFL dollar, thereby enjoying a clear advantage over the remaining teams? It's one thing to suggest a merger to save a club; it's another thing entirely to allow that club an advantage when it is no longer needed. Allowing this merger may well be opening Pandora's box, which club will be next?
Agreed Pseudo, though I would go further and say I don't think they should get the advantage of being propped up by the AFL dollar from day one.
Why would the situation be reversed, or need to be? It would only be putting the Magpies back in the same spot they are now. If the other 8 clubs are allowed to make a profit and improve their facilities, why shouldn't the Magpies be able to also? As other posters have alluded to, North don't know how to spend all their money & we all know the Dogs are going along beautifully. Location, location, location....those two clubs (North's income facility at least) have some form of 'remoteness', ie a big distance to the closest SANFL club, let alone West Lakes AND both have great LOCAL sponsors.
By the way a number of posts in this thread read, it seems a lot of people have the opinion this merger will greatly benefit the Magpies on field......I ask, how can it? The SANFL has become very rigid on the salary cap, so we are not going to be recruiting star 1st grade AFL players as the dollar demand would be massive. I am 99.999% sure there is no way the SANFL will allow all Power listed players to play for the Magpies either.
Port are looking here at saving money for both entities - I am pretty sure both clubs have been realistic in their attendance budgets. Neither would be expecting a massive rise in gate revenue & neither would be expecting a major increase in local sponsorship income for reasons explained in my earlier post. As it seems both clubs' gaming and dining revenue is not outstanding, and can only be tapped so far, it has now become a case of being stringent and smart with finances to make BOTH clubs viable. The Power can hardly prop up the Magpies "nickname", they are not the most financial of clubs as has been well documented.
The only other real benefit by the merger would be the 'value added' packages the new administration/marketing department could present to potential sponsors. Visual exposure by both clubs will certainly make potential local sponsors a bit keener I think. Again, a good thing..........the Power would potentially have a bigger dividend to the SANFL which therefore aids the SANFL clubs, and the Magpies would not be in a similar situation to where they are now, again, less demand on the SANFL.
The current Magpie board has been extremely transparent in their approach to the SANFL in this matter, as has the Power. The proposal under current consideration is obviously being looked at on it's merits by all other clubs bar the Roosters, therefore the context of it must be relatively sound and logical or it would not have gone this far.
Given the way the Magpies had to start from scratch with a new administration and the Power took volumes of our 1996 players to the AFL AND the fact we had no home or assets, I think the Magpies have done pretty well to go as long as they have. It now gets down to whether the other 8 clubs feel the need to have Port's presence or not. I think the credibility of the SANFL depends on it.......
by TimmiesChin » Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:03 am
csbowes wrote:I don't think any of them really give a damn about the local comp, if it ends up being A1 amateurs.
by sjt » Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:44 am
TimmiesChin wrote:csbowes wrote:I don't think any of them really give a damn about the local comp, if it ends up being A1 amateurs.
As it currently stands the 'local comp' is probably not sustainable.
By that I mean the clubs are spending more per season than the 'local comp' (sponsorship,gate receipts etc) is bringing in. They are being subsidised by the AFL sides.
by Apachebulldog » Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:51 am
by on the rails » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:05 am
TimmiesChin wrote:csbowes wrote:I don't think any of them really give a damn about the local comp, if it ends up being A1 amateurs.
As it currently stands the 'local comp' is probably not sustainable.
By that I mean the clubs are spending more per season than the 'local comp' (sponsorship,gate receipts etc) is bringing in. They are being subsidised by the AFL sides.
by sjt » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:20 am
on the rails wrote:TimmiesChin wrote:csbowes wrote:I don't think any of them really give a damn about the local comp, if it ends up being A1 amateurs.
As it currently stands the 'local comp' is probably not sustainable.
By that I mean the clubs are spending more per season than the 'local comp' (sponsorship,gate receipts etc) is bringing in. They are being subsidised by the AFL sides.
No clue have you? Seen the balance sheets of a few SANFL clubs - the AFL dividend whilst large would not put them out of business if it stopped.
by hereselmo1 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:49 pm
sjt wrote:on the rails wrote:TimmiesChin wrote:csbowes wrote:I don't think any of them really give a damn about the local comp, if it ends up being A1 amateurs.
As it currently stands the 'local comp' is probably not sustainable.
By that I mean the clubs are spending more per season than the 'local comp' (sponsorship,gate receipts etc) is bringing in. They are being subsidised by the AFL sides.
No clue have you? Seen the balance sheets of a few SANFL clubs - the AFL dividend whilst large would not put them out of business if it stopped.
I thought somewhat interestingly, even Port's income last year (which was marginally better than Norwood's -the lowest), was still about $220,000 better than the highest club income of 2001.
Further, SANFL distributions as a percentage of clubs total revenue has dropped to its lowest level this decade. The distribution used to account or contribute, to about 43% of average clubs revenue in 2001. Last year it was down to 27%. I think this is quite contradictary to your post, Timmieschin.
by sjt » Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:54 pm
by once_were_warriors » Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:55 pm
by Royal City » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:32 pm
by Barto » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:38 pm
Royal City wrote:
port provide $350k dividends a year to the sanfl . Which is 39k a year per club. I can seriously suggest a majority of sanfl clubs would survive without this token amount
by beenreal » Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:24 am
by Ian » Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:31 am
once_were_warriors wrote:Please bear in mind that this is effectively the rent the Crows and Power pay to play at Football Park.
Mind you the Power could go and fund their own stadium if they wish ( if they were allowed to).
by tipper » Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:53 am
Ian wrote:once_were_warriors wrote:Please bear in mind that this is effectively the rent the Crows and Power pay to play at Football Park.
Mind you the Power could go and fund their own stadium if they wish ( if they were allowed to).
Also the rent on their licence to play in the AFL
by hereselmo1 » Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:37 am
Barto wrote:The SANFL clubs could cut back on junior development. When Power supporters say they want the SANFL to up and die, I'm sure they've got a plan B for getting new players into the AFL system. Haven't they?
by Hondo » Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:05 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |