Proposed model for the Magpies - Power Joint Venture?

[Apachebulldog]

Sure we made finals etc but success is measured by how many Cups in the cupboard and our's was empty until the tear 2000.

[Apachebulldog]

Dedja every club had the resources to print money also but were a bit slow on the uptake.

[dedja]

Dedja every club had the resources to print money also but were a bit slow on the uptake.

Not quite ... check out the stats where most pokie losses are. For example, there isn't much of a problem in the Eastern suburbs.

[Apachebulldog]

Yes, but why is not a problem in the Eastern suburbs maybe somthing to do with population ,the Northern suburbs at last census had a population of approx 500,000 all working class, the Eastern suburbs i am only guessing maybe 100,000 or less thats why !!!

[dedja]

Nah less losses per head ... rightly or wrongly, pokie losses are more prevalent in less affluent areas.

I don't make or agree with the rules, they're just the stats.

[Barto]

Barto the Doggies are not good enough for the AFL firstly they will need millions of dollars secondly they have not got a large supporter base thirdly this stae is already sruggling in sustaining two AFL teams.

However i would not mind the Western Bulldogs having a supporter base at Central would be very interesting.

I never once said that Centrals should go into the AFL. I'm saying they should look at how Centrals built up from scratch for the expansion clubs.

[Wedgie]

Nah less losses per head ... rightly or wrongly, pokie losses are more prevalent in less affluent areas.

I don't make or agree with the rules, they're just the stats.

Last time I saw the stats the Norwood Payneham St Peters Council area was only behind the Adelaide City Council in pokies expenditure. (about 7 weeks ago)

[Apachebulldog]

Yeah ya got a good point there Barto !

[beenreal]

You are wrong Beenreel Central district started from scratch in 1964 and were at a disadvantage for approx 35 years you guys have short memories also the mighty Woodpeckers were at a disadvantage, did Port Adelaide or any other club step in and save them NO they did not.

When Central were building, attendances and memberships were what it was all about, different era now. As for Woodville? I don't have a lot of sympathy because they should never have been shoehorned in there in the first place. I did however tip $$ into Sturt when they were trying to bail themselves out.

[Apachebulldog]

Good point Beenreel about the Peckers maybe the SANFL should look at the amont of teams in such a small area maybe almagate some of the local teams and create some new teams up North and South.

[dedja]

Nah less losses per head ... rightly or wrongly, pokie losses are more prevalent in less affluent areas.

I don't make or agree with the rules, they're just the stats.

Last time I saw the stats the Norwood Payneham St Peters Council area was only behind the Adelaide City Council in pokies expenditure. (about 7 weeks ago)

I can't find the per head stats but have the net pokies revenue per LGA area for 2008-2009 (directly from Office of the Liquor & Gambling Commissioner website)

1st - Port Adelaide Enfield ($79M)
2nd - Salisbury ($66M)
3rd - Charles Sturt ($65M)
4th - Onkaparinga ($65M)
5th - Campbelltown, Tea Tree Gully ($46M)
6th - Adelaide ($56M)
7th - Playford ($32M)
8th - Norwood Payneham & St Peters ($32M)
9th - West Torrens ($31M)
10th- Marion ($30M)

[Wedgie]

Nah less losses per head ... rightly or wrongly, pokie losses are more prevalent in less affluent areas.

I don't make or agree with the rules, they're just the stats.

Last time I saw the stats the Norwood Payneham St Peters Council area was only behind the Adelaide City Council in pokies expenditure. (about 7 weeks ago)

I can't find the per head stats but have the net pokies revenue per LGA area for 2008-2009 (directly from Office of the Liquor & Gambling Commissioner website)

1st - Port Adelaide Enfield ($79M)
2nd - Salisbury ($66M)
3rd - Charles Sturt ($65M)
4th - Onkaparinga ($65M)
5th - Campbelltown, Tea Tree Gully ($46M)
6th - Adelaide ($56M)
7th - Playford ($32M)
8th - Norwood Payneham & St Peters ($32M)
9th - West Torrens ($31M)
10th- Marion ($30M)

It was an article I read in early December but it might be different figures, ie where the money is spent not who spends it. I'll try and dig it up.

[spell_check]

Also depends on the population of the council areas - Onkaparinga and Salisbury are the two largest by that particular.

[StrayDog]

Nah less losses per head ... rightly or wrongly, pokie losses are more prevalent in less affluent areas.

I don't make or agree with the rules, they're just the stats.

http://www.olgc.sa.gov.au/gaming/statistics/NetGamblingRevenuegroupedbyLocalGovernmentArea%28Council%29200809.pdf

Sorry dedja, but your post above seems to be a lazy misinterpretation of a single page of numbers given that....

Also depends on the population of the council areas - Onkaparinga and Salisbury are the two largest by that particular.

..... at about 160,000 and 130,000 respectively. Port/Enfield, about 110,000. Charles Sturt - 106,000. Playford ('doggy land) - around 75,000.

By contrast Norwood, Payneham & St Peters - about 35,000. Prospect and Walkerville combined - about 28,000.

I think these figures might help those prepared to put in a bit of effort (not me at the moment as it's too late and I'm too bl##dy tired) get a true "per head" figure.
However, at a cursory glance at least,

Last time I saw the stats the Norwood Payneham St Peters Council area was only behind the Adelaide City Council in pokies expenditure. (about 7 weeks ago)

appears pretty close to the mark (happy to be corrected.)

Always important, of course, to take into account the nature of the area. A translated figure of about $2,000 loss per head in the Adelaide Council zone is of course misleading given the business from outside the area. Not sure exactly just how the (for want of a better term) "exported losses" might translate in other council zones.

[dedja]

Happy to be corrected if the facts show it. The per head claim was what I thought I had seen a few times but I couldn't find the references at the time.

A more apprpriate comparative model would be to match pokie revenue against SANFL club zones ... That could only be achieved by matching pokie revenue on a venue by venue basis.

So it's not a lazy interpretation, more like a seemingly false premise.

I agree with Nick Xenophon stand on pokies by the way, they're bad news and an appalling way to generate revenue from a (admittedly) small minority of chronic gamblers. I'm baised because a very close familiy member nearly lost his house because of pokies and caused a lot of anguish at the time.

Anyway, back on topic ... I stand by my other comments regards the Dogs first 35 years in that there has been no real hinderance to them as a club until 2000 when they started this amazing run that continues until today. Whilst they have put in an enormous amount of work to get to where they are today the events of 1990 certainly didn't hinder them.

In fact, in some ways, the Doggies should be thankful for what Port Adelaide did.

[Apachebulldog]

Dedja what Port did was smash us in the 95 and 96 Grand Finals and after that the board formulated/copied the Port Adelaide model to become a successful club also with a strong financial base we were able to recruit some half decent players and also work pretty hard at junior development in its area especially from the Barossa league.

[dedja]

Dedja what Port did was smash us in the 95 and 96 Grand Finals and after that the board formulated/copied the Port Adelaide model to become a successful club also with a strong financial base we were able to recruit some half decent players and also work pretty hard at junior development in its area especially from the Barossa league.

Yes, very true ... absoluetly acknowledge that.

It's the 1990 actions that I'm refering to.

[Hondo]

If CDFC won the 3rd AFL license in SA to start in 2011 what sort of model would Centrals fans prefer? (not meaning to pick on Centrals but it's just a hypothetical ....)

A - forced split, relocate CDFC-SA to Salisbury, restrict their revenue from the existing licensed venue, lose Kris Grant and the Board to CDFC-AFL, start again etc; or

B- run CDFC-AFL out of the existing structure together with CDFC-SANFL subject to reasonable conditions controlling the latter.

C - leave SANFL altogether

Would CDFC-SANFL be as successful today as it is if option A happened 13 years ago?

[whatever]

The problem with this discussion is that we do not know what the actual discussions are, major points that prick my interest.

1 - PAFC would not be doint this unless it improved their financial position

2 - the SANFL clubs will not approve in if it gives the PAMFC a competitive advantage.

outside of this it is really all half information which makes it impossible for us to make judgements.

I find it amazing that North Adelaide are not going to look at the proposal, even if they have a closed mind surely the more you can find out about a competitor the better you are.

As for North suggesting they would go down the path of a merger with the crows I find it hard that people with big enough egos to run a SANFL club will willingly hand over power to an AFL club without being in a position where they have to.

[Wedgie]

I find it amazing that North Adelaide are not going to look at the proposal, even if they have a closed mind surely the more you can find out about a competitor the better you are.

Don't find it amazing, you're not hearing the full story on that one, you would be amazed at some things if you heard about them but it wouldn't be North's stance.

As for North suggesting they would go down the path of a merger with the crows I find it hard that people with big enough egos to run a SANFL club will willingly hand over power to an AFL club without being in a position where they have to.

That statement by North was obviously sarcastic and very unprofessional IMHO.