AFL Reserves Discussion...

[Gozu]

Losing more respect for Ricciuto by the day:

Unfortunately from what I hear, there seems to be too many individuals focused on looking after their own backyards which is threatening to blow the massive opportunity SA footy has been given.

Kids grow up now dreaming of playing for the Crows or Power, not Norwood or West or Glenelg. The SANFL needs to embrace change rather than oppose it.

We’ve got some clubs on the brink of going broke, crowds are disappointing, running costs are going through the roof and if business in this state is a reflection of SANFL clubs, they are in for as tough a year as they’ve ever had.

Instead of trying to fight each other, dwelling on the past or looking after individuals’ needs and wants, let’s come up with the best model for football in this state to lead the country for generations to come.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6691718041

Yes, we need to look past individuals needs & wants, Mark.

We see it politically and now we're seeing it in this debate, this is the problem when one news organisation controls 70% of the media.

[sjt]

Did I hear Olsen right last night? I thought he said the sanfl had lent port Adelaide 12.5million. One of the south supporters who attended last nights south info session said he believed the crows were offering $50,0000 (disgrace) to each team to ruin the comp.
The point is if the sanfl had the 12.5million they could pay 8 clubs $50k for 31 years.
As I've said before, sell the licenses, get the debt money back, the performance of the afl teams will be the concern of the afl, manage the west lakes land and Adelaide oval, charge them a lease to train at football park and if they want to play in the sanfl reserves charge them a license fee! The sanfl (the clubs) could be in a very stable financial position and grow the competition they're are responsible for.

[JK]

Yep, he said the Sanfl had given them 12.5mil in recent years, the AFL had given money too.

Was an interesting choice of words, does he mean it wasn't all in loans?

Also, wonder what the other 22.5mil of Sanfl debt was in relation to?

[mighty_tiger_79]

I didn't hear that last night, but the last 2 posts surely asks more questions than it answers

[beenreal]

Yes of course as we really enjoy playing and beating your one club just like last Friday night...

Many battles (and games) are won and lost. It's winning the war that matters.

[TimmiesChin]

Yep, he said the Sanfl had given them 12.5mil in recent years, the AFL had given money too.

Was an interesting choice of words, does he mean it wasn't all in loans?

Also, wonder what the other 22.5mil of Sanfl debt was in relation to?

Of course you need to work out how accurate Olsens comments are. He followed up the above statement by saying the SA clubs stadium deal was the same as the WA clubs, when we know that isn't the truth.

The following document (from 2011) provides some insight into stadium yield:
http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

In short, the WA clubs get approx 77% of stadium generated revenue, while the SA clubs get approximately 51%. WA clubs effectively pay an annual rent on the venue and pay match day costs and get all revenue generated (including corporate packages). Pattersons stadium doesn't have a venue membership so all memberships saw revenue go directly to clubs, until this year, clubs only got $138 per AAMI member.

I believe part of the Adelaide Oval manouvering now is improving the Stadium yield, if they can get to a situation even close to the WAFL model both clubs are going to be significantly better off. Additionally, IF the models were the same (with Pattersons being the best deal outside of Geelong) why why would a change be needed. Taking that further, if the models were the same there's a fair chance that the money the SANFL has given back to Port would be either negligable or non-existant..... there's a bit of 'take with one hand, give with the other'.

My guess would be the other 22.5mil of debt would be in part related to the Northern Grandstand .... given the GFC, live against the gate etc was probably the wrong decision.

[Booney]

You are a xxxxing idiot Beenreal. Posting irrelevant BS for too xxxxing long.
What are you on and what home are you locked up in ?
Your mob betrayed the SANFL many years ago and are now living in the past and have no future.

Tut tut tut, nasty name caller you.

Didn't you blokes try and fail at an AFL bid?

[Booney]

Some further analysis of crowd figures that I think is of interest to this debate:

Below are the total minor round attendances for both the SANFL (first column) and the AFL games at Footy Park (plus the one Port game at Adelaide Oval in 2011), (second column) with the last column indicating the percentage of total supporters that attended the SANFL. I didn't include finals as these fluctuate more depending on the teams involved.

Year SANFL AFL in Adelaide SANFL %
2012 259,242 624139 29.35%
2011 291,209 623684 31.83%
2010 276,583 646887 29.95%
2009 263,125 694645 27.47%
2008 275,842 709713 27.99%
2007 258,308 768482 25.16%
2006 255,446 766831 24.99%
2005 259,331 827768 23.86%
2004 253,597 767311 24.84%
2003 260,137 840061 23.64%
The percentage of footy fans that have chosen to attend the SANFL over the AFL has risen significantly over the last 10 years, from approx 23% to 30%! I know that this is partly due to the issues with Footy Park, but regardless, why are our opinions discounted so quickly by the media and AFL fans when we are a very significant and growing component of the football landscape in SA?

I just plotted the figures, looks like there is a minor correlation between the two lines. Would be interested to see the home crowds of each SANFL club by year, overlaid with ladder position, and repeating for AFL clubs, to see how much the crowd figures are dependent on the success of the relative clubs. (Ie - in the SANFL I'm guessing years that Norwood has done well will be more likely to be higher SANFL crowd years).

Add into that the addition of night football into the SANFL and as noted the likes of Norwood and Central being succesful, double header finals matches (where neutrals would attend) and the free entry age for kids being raised.

and a vast horde of fair-weather fans jumping off the underperforming Power in recent years.

Timmie mentions that in the bolded portion of the above, but thanks for the reminder.

[LPH]

I understand the rivalry goes way back lads but...

The problem here is the AFL Clubs - they will want 'us' to be divided so they can conquer & have their way.
Personally, I thought Olsen spoke well & to be fair, spoke far better than Koch in his interview last week.
It is a little 'rich' for Koch to blame the SANFL for Port's crowd numbers but that is beside the point.

What has concerned me throughout this 'debate' (& I use inverted commas because I believe it has been VERY one sided) is the fact that the Adelaide Media has predominantly supported the move without even so much as entertaining the alternatives given.

"Piss-ant Town" - I think this is what was meant by Vidmar, the Media is very much 'narrow' in it's reporting

NO AFL in the SANFL

[mighty_tiger_79]

Rowey I think was going to use Vidmars phrase if the reserves vote didn't go through

[TimmiesChin]

It is a little 'rich' for Koch to blame the SANFL for Port's crowd numbers but that is beside the point.

When/where has he ever said that. Don't believe he said that in the 5AA interview.

[CUTTERMAN]

Yep, he said the Sanfl had given them 12.5mil in recent years, the AFL had given money too.

Was an interesting choice of words, does he mean it wasn't all in loans?

Also, wonder what the other 22.5mil of Sanfl debt was in relation to?

Of course you need to work out how accurate Olsens comments are. He followed up the above statement by saying the SA clubs stadium deal was the same as the WA clubs, when we know that isn't the truth.

The following document (from 2011) provides some insight into stadium yield:
http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

In short, the WA clubs get approx 77% of stadium generated revenue, while the SA clubs get approximately 51%. WA clubs effectively pay an annual rent on the venue and pay match day costs and get all revenue generated (including corporate packages). Pattersons stadium doesn't have a venue membership so all memberships saw revenue go directly to clubs, until this year, clubs only got $138 per AAMI member.

I believe part of the Adelaide Oval manouvering now is improving the Stadium yield, if they can get to a situation even close to the WAFL model both clubs are going to be significantly better off. Additionally, IF the models were the same (with Pattersons being the best deal outside of Geelong) why why would a change be needed. Taking that further, if the models were the same there's a fair chance that the money the SANFL has given back to Port would be either negligable or non-existant..... there's a bit of 'take with one hand, give with the other'.

My guess would be the other 22.5mil of debt would be in part related to the Northern Grandstand .... given the GFC, live against the gate etc was probably the wrong decision.

Also important to point out that Ports crowds have been far worse than that of a WC or Freo crowd. And that the stadium deal is 15% better than Etihad with their average crowd and 10% better than the MCG with an average crowd of 53k.
Yes Footy Parks deal could be better but it's not as bad as certain supporters make it. And yes the deal at Footy Park has improved recently but so it has at Etihad. In the end it comes down to shit crowds, and those shit crowds complaining that Footy Park has too much of a Crows vibe to it.....despite every seat in the stadium being teal and that Adelaide's colours are the same as the States'.
And they still whinge.

[TimmiesChin]

Yep, he said the Sanfl had given them 12.5mil in recent years, the AFL had given money too.

Was an interesting choice of words, does he mean it wasn't all in loans?

Also, wonder what the other 22.5mil of Sanfl debt was in relation to?

Of course you need to work out how accurate Olsens comments are. He followed up the above statement by saying the SA clubs stadium deal was the same as the WA clubs, when we know that isn't the truth.

The following document (from 2011) provides some insight into stadium yield:
http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

In short, the WA clubs get approx 77% of stadium generated revenue, while the SA clubs get approximately 51%. WA clubs effectively pay an annual rent on the venue and pay match day costs and get all revenue generated (including corporate packages). Pattersons stadium doesn't have a venue membership so all memberships saw revenue go directly to clubs, until this year, clubs only got $138 per AAMI member.

I believe part of the Adelaide Oval manouvering now is improving the Stadium yield, if they can get to a situation even close to the WAFL model both clubs are going to be significantly better off. Additionally, IF the models were the same (with Pattersons being the best deal outside of Geelong) why why would a change be needed. Taking that further, if the models were the same there's a fair chance that the money the SANFL has given back to Port would be either negligable or non-existant..... there's a bit of 'take with one hand, give with the other'.

My guess would be the other 22.5mil of debt would be in part related to the Northern Grandstand .... given the GFC, live against the gate etc was probably the wrong decision.

Also important to point out that Ports crowds have been far worse than that of a WC or Freo crowd. And that the stadium deal is 15% better than Etihad with their average crowd and 10% better than the MCG with an average crowd of 53k.
Yes Footy Parks deal could be better but it's not as bad as certain supporters make it. And yes the deal at Footy Park has improved recently but so it has at Etihad. In the end it comes down to shit crowds, and those shit crowds complaining that Footy Park has too much of a Crows vibe to it.....despite every seat in the stadium being teal and that Adelaide's colours are the same as the States'.
And they still whinge.

... and yet when you look at the graphs on page 7, a crowd of 25K at Ethihad seems to return about 30K profit and a crowd of 25K at the MCG a 100K profit - while a 25K corwd at AAMI result in a significant loss doesn't it, so there are a few cloaks and daggers in this stuff. I wonder what the crowd figure is based on for Adelaide yield.

Obviously getting bigger crowds is a big part of the solution, and it can't be ignored.... but the grow the pie argument isn't the only element (as the Adelaide Oval deal proves).

[beenreal]

I understand the rivalry goes way back lads but...

The problem here is the AFL Clubs - they will want 'us' to be divided so they can conquer & have their way.
Personally, I thought Olsen spoke well & to be fair, spoke far better than Koch in his interview last week.
It is a little 'rich' for Koch to blame the SANFL for Port's crowd numbers but that is beside the point.

What has concerned me throughout this 'debate' (& I use inverted commas because I believe it has been VERY one sided) is the fact that the Adelaide Media has predominantly supported the move without even so much as entertaining the alternatives given.

"Piss-ant Town" - I think this is what was meant by Vidmar, the Media is very much 'narrow' in it's reporting

NO AFL in the SANFL

I would imaging how one speaks depends on what one wants to hear.

I must admit to missing a fair bit of the interview after Olson's. statement about the SA stadium deal being comparable to the WA deal. I was laughing too hard!

[LPH]

It is a little 'rich' for Koch to blame the SANFL for Port's crowd numbers but that is beside the point.

When/where has he ever said that. Don't believe he said that in the 5AA interview.

This was the gist of what he said in the 'grab' played last night for Olsen to hear.
When talking about the move to Adelaide Oval

[TimmiesChin]

It is a little 'rich' for Koch to blame the SANFL for Port's crowd numbers but that is beside the point.

When/where has he ever said that. Don't believe he said that in the 5AA interview.

This was the gist of what he said in the 'grab' played last night for Olsen to hear.
When talking about the move to Adelaide Oval

Interesting, I heard the grab and took out of it more the (over the top) line about being bled dry. That wasn't in terms of crowd numbers being the SANFLs fault but that the return from the stadium was not enough.

Given both clubs are currently negotiating better deals, and Adelaide Oval will produce a 3/4 million uplift per club (apparently), its probably fair to say that currently the AFL clubs aren't getting a big enough, and the SANFL acknowledge this. With less cost overheads (AAMI) moving forward there should be win/wins for everyone.

Anyway, apologies this is probably on a tangent to the reserves sides debate.

[JK]

Yep, he said the Sanfl had given them 12.5mil in recent years, the AFL had given money too.

Was an interesting choice of words, does he mean it wasn't all in loans?

Also, wonder what the other 22.5mil of Sanfl debt was in relation to?

Of course you need to work out how accurate Olsens comments are. He followed up the above statement by saying the SA clubs stadium deal was the same as the WA clubs, when we know that isn't the truth.

The following document (from 2011) provides some insight into stadium yield:
http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

In short, the WA clubs get approx 77% of stadium generated revenue, while the SA clubs get approximately 51%. WA clubs effectively pay an annual rent on the venue and pay match day costs and get all revenue generated (including corporate packages). Pattersons stadium doesn't have a venue membership so all memberships saw revenue go directly to clubs, until this year, clubs only got $138 per AAMI member.

I believe part of the Adelaide Oval manouvering now is improving the Stadium yield, if they can get to a situation even close to the WAFL model both clubs are going to be significantly better off. Additionally, IF the models were the same (with Pattersons being the best deal outside of Geelong) why why would a change be needed. Taking that further, if the models were the same there's a fair chance that the money the SANFL has given back to Port would be either negligable or non-existant..... there's a bit of 'take with one hand, give with the other'.

My guess would be the other 22.5mil of debt would be in part related to the Northern Grandstand .... given the GFC, live against the gate etc was probably the wrong decision.[/quote]

All good points TC. Given the WA clubs additional revenue would also in part be off-set be a much higher cost base, we'd probably need to see the net effect.

That aside I was just relaying Olsen's comments, not judging them (or Port). I also took the same as you from Koch's grab, that his disdain was toward the stadium deal they have been under, not excusing attendance rates.

[TimmiesChin]

All good points TC. Given the WA clubs additional revenue would also in part be off-set be a much higher cost base, we'd probably need to see the net effect.

Absolutely. The hardest thing is to judge apples and oranges.

[Booney]

All good points TC. Given the WA clubs additional revenue would also in part be off-set be a much higher cost base, we'd probably need to see the net effect.
That aside I was just relaying Olsen's comments, not judging them (or Port). I also took the same as you from Koch's grab, that his disdain was toward the stadium deal they have been under, not excusing attendance rates.

Correct. We cant walk away from our poor attendance record of the last 3-4 years....but couple that with a stadium deal that seems to be outdated (the old "Port need 27,000 to go or they lose money") and clearly home games have cost Port money instead of being a win for the accountants.

UK will no doubt chime in here, but surely all parties (people on here included) can see that the SANFL own Ports licence, surely the SANFL as owners of Football Park needed to review the stadium deal? Once again, we cant hide from our poor attendance record of late.

[LPH]

All good points TC. Given the WA clubs additional revenue would also in part be off-set be a much higher cost base, we'd probably need to see the net effect.
That aside I was just relaying Olsen's comments, not judging them (or Port). I also took the same as you from Koch's grab, that his disdain was toward the stadium deal they have been under, not excusing attendance rates.

Correct. We cant walk away from our poor attendance record of the last 3-4 years....but couple that with a stadium deal that seems to be outdated (the old "Port need 27,000 to go or they lose money") and clearly home games have cost Port money instead of being a win for the accountants.

UK will no doubt chime in here, but surely all parties (people on here included) can see that the SANFL own Ports licence, surely the SANFL as owners of Football Park needed to review the stadium deal? Once again, we cant hide from our poor attendance record of late.

Sorry, I know off track of my OWN thread, but sort of related due to Olsen Interview...

Doesn't the attendance effect the 'bottom line' in terms of revenue?
I may be mistaken but I would assume the following:
Fremantle getting 40K attendance compared to Port getting 22K would result in 18000 less buying beer, food, merchandise etc. - not to mention Club turnover before & after matches.
Would this not mean that Fremantle's 'Stadium Deal' is better than Port's?
As a result, will moving to Adelaide Oval change anything - in terms of the above?