Booney wrote:JK wrote: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walk away from our poor attendance record of the last 3-4 years....but couple that with a stadium deal that seems to be outdated (the old "Port need 27,000 to go or they lose money") and clearly home games have cost Port money instead of being a win for the accountants.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.
All I need do is quote Macca with my signature. Not even port fans believe that garbage boon. It's a sky is falling theory wouldn't ya say

Two things burtenshaw has taught me
1. Crows have got nothing to offer
2. He has made it so obvious the crows are bluffing re Ammos