Port Adelaide Future

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby am Bays » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:25 pm

Gravel wrote:To help clarify-
Extracts from November, 2002 ‘Fact sheet' from club president Greg Boulton and chief executive Brian Cunningham.
3. Tender for second AFL licence
- The proposal of the tenderer had to include how the SANFL competition would be reduced to 8 teams.

The Port Adelaide Football Club lodged its tender document on 14 September 1994 and addressed the below issues that impacted on the SANFL competition and the Magpies.
- The tender document strongly supported the continuation of the Magpies in the SANFL competition..
- The PAFC tender document did not support nor agree to the pre-condition of a merger to create 8 SANFL teams was fundamental to the granting of the licence.



So now its two Port supporters saying it was the PAFC that wanted the Magpies to stay in the competition, not the SANFL

And the notion that the SANFl clubs were desperate to have the magpies stay in appears to have been quashed too.

I think someone has been jerking too hard....

beenreal wrote:Well blame the SANFL Commission for that one too. They're ones that demanded the PAFC field an SANFL side but then shafted them off to Ethelton.


AS others have said, irrespective of Gravels post, I'd be backing Macca's version too.
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
User avatar
am Bays
Coach
 
 
Posts: 19639
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: The back bar at Lennies
Has liked: 182 times
Been liked: 2095 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby holden78 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:23 am

Is it just as simple as if Port don't find any substantial corporate backing very quickly, their hole of debt will never be able to be serviced without full houses at games for the next 10 years!
Pumped up crowd numbers including SMA numbers won't mean squat to the bottom line for the actual club itself.
The AFL are ofcoarse now the only ones able to bankroll this club and it's future with big TV money. :shock:
holden78
League - Best 21
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:43 am
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 55 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby beenreal » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:28 am

am Bays wrote:
Gravel wrote:To help clarify-
Extracts from November, 2002 ‘Fact sheet' from club president Greg Boulton and chief executive Brian Cunningham.
3. Tender for second AFL licence
- The proposal of the tenderer had to include how the SANFL competition would be reduced to 8 teams.

The Port Adelaide Football Club lodged its tender document on 14 September 1994 and addressed the below issues that impacted on the SANFL competition and the Magpies.
- The tender document strongly supported the continuation of the Magpies in the SANFL competition..
- The PAFC tender document did not support nor agree to the pre-condition of a merger to create 8 SANFL teams was fundamental to the granting of the licence.



So now its two Port supporters saying it was the PAFC that wanted the Magpies to stay in the competition, not the SANFL

And the notion that the SANFl clubs were desperate to have the magpies stay in appears to have been quashed too.

I think someone has been jerking too hard....

beenreal wrote:Well blame the SANFL Commission for that one too. They're ones that demanded the PAFC field an SANFL side but then shafted them off to Ethelton.


AS others have said, irrespective of Gravels post, I'd be backing Macca's version too.


No someone's simply reading what they want to read. The SANFL Conditions of submission decreed a team in the local competition. The PAFC Tender simply complied with that condition. Once the Commission determined the winning bid, the other SANFL clubs got their collective knickers in a twist.

I read 2 other Port Posters that seem to be writing a similar scenario, just in a different way.
PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB
Serving the community since 1870
Developing footballers for 143 years
Proud of the Past, Confident of the Future
User avatar
beenreal
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1308
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:57 am
Location: Port Adelaide
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 11 times
Grassroots Team: Seaton Ramblers

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby Wedgie » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:52 am

Same same but different. :lol:
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 51721
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2153 times
Been liked: 4093 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby LPH » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:03 pm

I have read this string with interest...
FWIW, my view is this:

IMHO, It is time for the SANFL to sell BOTH AFL Club Licenses back to the 2 Clubs - won't this then remove the need for the SANFL to continue throwing good money @ bad? It will then become 100% the AFL's problem, as ultimately they will control any liabilities each club has.

Would this not also remove any chance of AFL Reserves Teams in the SANFL because they (the SANFL) would be no longer left with a 'noose' around it's neck & can decide to refuse entry?

History is just that, History.
However, the two teams 'came to be' should be irrelevant in any discussion about the future - they are here now, so we deal with it.
I have said many times that moving to Adelaide Oval (I suspect) won't fix the financial woes of PAPs (or for that matter The Cows).
What it will do is allow the two clubs to negotiate a better 'stadium deal' with the SMA.
This could be to the SANFL's advantage because it could then reconsider it's own deal with Adelaide Oval - IMHO they should invest in an upgrade of a Suburban Ground & make it their Headquarters - like a boutique 10,000 seat & 10,000 standing room ground (a small Kardinia Pk or Visi Pk).
The SANFL could also use the facility for other events (like Memorial Drive used to be used for smaller concerts, etc.) as an extra revenue stream.

Cut them free... let them live or die by their OWN means.
Let the AFL deal with any continuing financial short fall - as they have done with Melbourne, Footscray, Sydney, GWS, Gold Coast, North Melbourne, etc.
The SANFL (if it is serious about keeping it's autonomy) needs to act in the SANFL's best interests. I am not sure being financially responsible for 2 AFL Clubs is actually in their best interests.
Stephen Trigg & Rob Chapman are SA Football Patriots
User avatar
LPH
League - Best 21
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:45 am
Location: Craven Cottage
Has liked: 541 times
Been liked: 326 times
Grassroots Team: Kenilworth

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby The Sleeping Giant » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:26 pm

Sanfl won't sell the licences until a couple of years after the move to Adelaide Oval. Both clubs MAY start raking it in.
Cannabis is safer than alcohol
User avatar
The Sleeping Giant
Coach
 
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Not dying alone
Has liked: 69 times
Been liked: 193 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby Barto » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:43 pm

beenreal wrote:The SANFL Conditions of submission decreed a team in the local competition.


No, it did not.

The PAFC Tender simply complied with that condition.


No, it did not.
It's all the SANFL's fault.
User avatar
Barto
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Fremantle
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby RustyCage » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:46 pm

Power fact sheet from President & CEO
PortAdelaideFC.com.au
9:15:51 AM Tue 12 November, 2002

Power members received a ‘fact sheet’ on Monday from club president Greg Boulton and chief executive Brian Cunningham. The fact sheet is as follows.


FACT SHEET – From one club to the Power and the Magpies


1. Purpose of fact sheet

This fact sheet has been prepared to counter often mischievous commentary through the media and other sources that the Power left the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club in a perilous financial position upon entering the AFL. This sheet has been provided initially to members of the Port Adelaide Football Club and will be sent to various media commentators if there is any misrepresentation of the facts regarding the granting of the second AFL licence.

A very small, vocal minority (due to self interest or anti-Port Adelaide feelings) during the last 6 years have incorrectly reported the Magpies financial and organisational position upon the Power entering the AFL and the Magpies continuing in the SANFL competition.

2. Overview

The facts outlined below confirm that:-

- The SANFL imposed stringent conditions on all tenders for the second AFL licence and the separation of both the AFL club and the SANFL club was essential even though our club’s submission argued for continued links.

- Ninety nine percent of PAFC Inc members voted at a special members meeting in favour of entering the AFL competition with provision of $2.5 million capital to the new AFL club.

- During the period of Greg Boulton’s Presidency from 1993 – 1996 the Board and CEO increased the wealth of the Club from $256,000 in 1992 to more than $3.3 million at the end of 1996. This enabled $2.5 million capital for the new AFL Club with $792,000 remaining for the Magpies.

- The Magpies were left in a strong financial position in 1996 with $792,000 net assets and more than $303,000 in clearance fees for Magpie players transferred to the AFL team in following years.

- Since the AFL licence was granted, the Power negotiated with the SANFL for the Magpies to return to Alberton for training and for an increased share of licensed club profits from 15% to 25%.

3. Tender for second AFL licence

The SANFL set out certain conditions in a tender document issued to interested parties on 1 August 1994. These conditions included:-

--- The terms and conditions of the sub-licence would be negotiated between the SANFL and the AFL without club involvement.
--- The entity that was granted a sub-licence would be an autonomous body that would be subject to the ultimate control of the SANFL Commission.
--- Details of the offeror’s proposal would need to state what effect a successful bid would have on its team to be fielded in the SANFL competition and how this effect can be minimised.
--- The offeror’s view on the financial effect that a successful bid would have on its team to be fielded in the SANFL competition if a re-definition of boundaries to cater for an AFL team is applied.
--- The proposal of the tenderer had to include how the SANFL competition would be reduced to 8 teams.

Both the SANFL Commission and the Port Adelaide Football Club wanted to ensure that the tender process was both independent and without any conflict of interest.

The Port Adelaide Football Club lodged its tender document on 14 September 1994 and addressed the below issues that impacted on the SANFL competition and the Magpies.

--- The PAFC promoted strongly the idea of promotional zones with 4 SANFL clubs attached to each of the Crows and Port Adelaide.
--- The tender document strongly supported the continuation of the Magpies in the SANFL competition.
--- As part of the tender the Outback Odyssey would be run by the AFL club.
--- There was acknowledgement that to maximise the success of the Magpies it should operate as a separate organisation to the AFL club.
--- The document encouraged and promoted cross membership packages between the Magpies and the AFL club.
--- The PAFC tender document did not support nor agree to the pre-condition of a merger to create 8 SANFL teams was fundamental to the granting of the licence.

4. Announcement of second licence

- On 8 December 1994 the SANFL Commission provided a letter with terms and conditions for the granting of the second AFL licence. In this document there was no mention of the conditions required with regard to the Magpies.

- On 13 December 1994 the second AFL licence sub-committee and independent members of the SANFL Commission unanimously recommended the PAFC be granted the next AFL licence when available.

- On 13 December 1994 a league directors meeting approved the Commission recommendation and at a press conference Greg Boulton, President of Port Adelaide highlighted:-
--- That the success of the South Australian state league was fundamental to the success of the AFL clubs in Adelaide.
--- Promotional and other links to all SANFL clubs should be grouped with the AFL clubs and this concept needs to be fully explored in the future.

5. Negotiations with SANFL Directors and Commission re Magpies in the SANFL

- SANFL clubs lodged letters of concerns relating to the Magpies continued involvement in the SANFL following the entry of the PAFC into the AFL. These letters to the SANFL Commission strongly pushed the below points:-
--- The Magpies should not remain in the SANFL competition thereby enabling a reduction to 8 teams.
--- No joint administration facilities should occur.
--- The Magpies should not train at Alberton.
--- There should be no joint sponsorship and membership arrangements between the Magpies and the Power.
--- There be no common employees or Directors in both clubs.
--- Licence Club profit share tendered by the PAFC to the Magpies at 15% was too high.
--- The Magpies would have an advantage in recruiting players if linked with the Power.
--- The AFL facilities should not be accessible to the Magpies.
--- There should be no financial links, loans or any funding between the Magpies and the AFL club.

- The Port Adelaide Board in 1995 obtained legal opinions on the power of SANFL league Directors to expel the Magpies from the competition and were ready to defend this issue. The SANFL Commission was supportive of the PAFC remaining in the SANFL competition.

- During 2 months of negotiations and various SANFL Directors meetings, certain conditions were imposed in the sub-licence agreement that was signed on 26 November 1996. These included:-
--- No promotion or joint membership packages with the Magpies SANFL club.
--- No joint fundraising activities.
--- Any proposed joint activities between the SANFL club and the AFL club must be approved by the SANFL Commission.

- Separate resolutions of the SANFL Directors further imposed:-
--- The Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club must not train at Alberton.
--- The Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club must not operate administration from Alberton Oval.

6. Strengthening position of PAMFC upon entering the AFL
- The Board of PAFC Inc spent significant time and energy to ensure that once the new club entered the AFL competition, the Magpies both financially and organisationally were strong.

- The first PAFC (AFL) Limited Board meeting was held on 24 April 1995 and a separate interim board was established to be ready for entry into the AFL in 1996. On 1 February 1996 the AFL advised no licence was available until 1997 at the earliest.

- $2.5 million capital was tendered as the amount to be contributed to the new AFL club. Growth in both profits and net tangible assets was the key focus of the PAFC Inc Board following the unsuccessful bid to enter the competition in 1990. The below table shows the growth in a 9 year period:-

Code:
($ 000’s)
Ladder Position Year Annual Profit NTA

1 1992 20 256
3 1993 86 1,170
1 1994 364 1,596
1 1995 723 2,533
1 1996 13 792
2 1997 178 933
1 1998 (65) 867
1 1999 123 991
4 2000 116 1,108


Notes to financial figures

1. PAFC negotiated the purchase of the land where the licensed club was located and other land on the boundary of Alberton Oval from Port Adelaide Council in 1997. These premises were re-valued to market value prior to entry into the AFL.

2. Upon establishment of the AFL side 13 players were recruited to the Power from the Magpies in the inaugural team with resultant transfer fees to Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club for approximately $303,000 in the 1997 year and further fees thereafter.

3. The $2.5 million capital was provided through the transfer of the licensed club premises and the Quinn Stand totalling $1.754 million and a further $746,000 raised by the AFL club from Foundation supporter members.

4. At the end of October 1997 the Magpies were left with $933,000 in net assets with more than $500,000 being cash. The club was financially strong and the profit plus negotiated land purchases from 1993 to 1996 enabled both clubs to be financially stable and viable upon the Power entering the AFL competition.

5. Organisational changes were important for the survival of the Magpies:-
--- A special meeting of PAFC directors took place on 6 January 1995 to identify and plan for board members for the Magpies assuming entry to the AFL in 1996. Discussion took place on which directors would nominate for the AFL club and which would remain involved in the Magpies to ensure continuity.
--- On 21 May 1996 the AFL Commission agreed the Port Adelaide Football Club would enter the AFL competition as a 17th side if necessary and on June 4 1996 the merger of Fitzroy was announced and Port Adelaide’s entry was assured in 1997.
--- In June 1996 Stephen Williams was appointed coach of the Magpies after the announcement of John Cahill as inaugural coach of the Power.
--- On 16 July 1996 Greg Boulton resigned as President of Port Adelaide Football Club Incorporated to concentrate on the AFL and Simon Forrest was appointed Chairman of the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club.

7. Variations to sub-licence agreement after 1997

- The SANFL Commission, Port Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club through negotiation achieved modifications to the sub-licence agreement:-
--- It was agreed the dividend from the licensed club would increase from 15% to 25% of surpluses to the Magpies.
--- The league and reserves team were approved to train at Alberton Oval.
--- Training facilities under the Fos Williams Grandstand at Alberton Oval was rented from the Power by the Magpies upon completion of the Allan Scott Power Headquarters. The building of the headquarters enabled suitable and separate facilities for both clubs to train at Alberton.
--- Directors of the licensed club currently include 1 member nominated by the Magpies and a further board member of the Magpies co-opted to the board in 2000. PAFC appoint 4 directors and members of the licensed club elect a further 2 directors.
--- Both the Power and the Magpies utilise the facilities of the licensed club for events where less than 400 people attend.

8. Summary

The above facts and history reveals how SANFL directors placed restraints on the operations of the Magpies to ensure separateness in every conceivable way. With time there has been modifications to the sub-licence agreement to assist the Magpies and ensure they are not disadvantaged in relation to other SANFL clubs.

The Port Adelaide Football Club, its Directors and Management, treasure the history, success, tradition and culture of the Magpies since 1870 and recognise the part previous players and administrators played in laying a foundation for successful entry into the AFL. The Club continues to build on this fine history and tradition but equally, as a South Australian club in a national competition, continues to push for its supporter base to be beyond the traditional Port Adelaide area and provide support to all SANFL clubs.


Greg Boulton (President) & Brian Cunningham (Chief Executive)
Port Adelaide Football Club

NOTE: There was an error in the fact sheet distributed to club members. It is acknowledged that Bob Clayton replaced Brian Cunningham as General Manager of the Magpies for an interim period of one year in 1995 / 1996 and that David Hutton was subsequently appointed as General Manager of the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club by the Magpies board in 1996.
I'm gonna break my rusty cage and run
User avatar
RustyCage
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 15301
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has liked: 1267 times
Been liked: 937 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby beenreal » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:08 pm

Gee, I wish I'd written something like that? :roll:
PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB
Serving the community since 1870
Developing footballers for 143 years
Proud of the Past, Confident of the Future
User avatar
beenreal
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1308
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:57 am
Location: Port Adelaide
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 11 times
Grassroots Team: Seaton Ramblers

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby Ruben Carter » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:24 pm

LEH wrote:I have read this string with interest...
FWIW, my view is this:

IMHO, It is time for the SANFL to sell BOTH AFL Club Licenses back to the 2 Clubs - won't this then remove the need for the SANFL to continue throwing good money @ bad? It will then become 100% the AFL's problem, as ultimately they will control any liabilities each club has.

Would this not also remove any chance of AFL Reserves Teams in the SANFL because they (the SANFL) would be no longer left with a 'noose' around it's neck & can decide to refuse entry?

History is just that, History.
However, the two teams 'came to be' should be irrelevant in any discussion about the future - they are here now, so we deal with it.
I have said many times that moving to Adelaide Oval (I suspect) won't fix the financial woes of PAPs (or for that matter The Cows).
What it will do is allow the two clubs to negotiate a better 'stadium deal' with the SMA.
Great post.
This could be to the SANFL's advantage because it could then reconsider it's own deal with Adelaide Oval - IMHO they should invest in an upgrade of a Suburban Ground & make it their Headquarters - like a boutique 10,000 seat & 10,000 standing room ground (a small Kardinia Pk or Visi Pk).
The SANFL could also use the facility for other events (like Memorial Drive used to be used for smaller concerts, etc.) as an extra revenue stream.

Cut them free... let them live or die by their OWN means.
Let the AFL deal with any continuing financial short fall - as they have done with Melbourne, Footscray, Sydney, GWS, Gold Coast, North Melbourne, etc.
The SANFL (if it is serious about keeping it's autonomy) needs to act in the SANFL's best interests. I am not sure being financially responsible for 2 AFL Clubs is actually in their best interests.
Great post
If you don’t like my words, don’t listen. If you don’t like my appearance, don’t look. If you don’t like my actions, turn your head; It’s as simple as that.
User avatar
Ruben Carter
Reserves
 
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:40 pm
Has liked: 121 times
Been liked: 75 times
Grassroots Team: Westminster OS

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby Booney » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:07 am

LEH wrote:I have read this string with interest...
FWIW, my view is this:

IMHO, It is time for the SANFL to sell BOTH AFL Club Licenses back to the 2 Clubs - won't this then remove the need for the SANFL to continue throwing good money @ bad? It will then become 100% the AFL's problem, as ultimately they will control any liabilities each club has.

Would this not also remove any chance of AFL Reserves Teams in the SANFL because they (the SANFL) would be no longer left with a 'noose' around it's neck & can decide to refuse entry?

History is just that, History.
However, the two teams 'came to be' should be irrelevant in any discussion about the future - they are here now, so we deal with it.I have said many times that moving to Adelaide Oval (I suspect) won't fix the financial woes of PAPs (or for that matter The Cows).
What it will do is allow the two clubs to negotiate a better 'stadium deal' with the SMA.
This could be to the SANFL's advantage because it could then reconsider it's own deal with Adelaide Oval - IMHO they should invest in an upgrade of a Suburban Ground & make it their Headquarters - like a boutique 10,000 seat & 10,000 standing room ground (a small Kardinia Pk or Visi Pk).
The SANFL could also use the facility for other events (like Memorial Drive used to be used for smaller concerts, etc.) as an extra revenue stream.

Cut them free... let them live or die by their OWN means.
Let the AFL deal with any continuing financial short fall - as they have done with Melbourne, Footscray, Sydney, GWS, Gold Coast, North Melbourne, etc.
The SANFL (if it is serious about keeping it's autonomy) needs to act in the SANFL's best interests. I am not sure being financially responsible for 2 AFL Clubs is actually in their best interests.


Only if mate, only if.
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 61119
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 8080 times
Been liked: 11778 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby UK Fan » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:15 am

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6531585920


Yet again port lied.

They've actually lost $6.3 mill this year so the title of the thread will need to be changed.

Had to urgently borrow $1.2 mill from afl to "pay bills".
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!



MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.


Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.


THE SKY HAS FALLEN!!!!
UK Fan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5922
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:41 am
Has liked: 1243 times
Been liked: 545 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby TimmiesChin » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:05 am

UK Fan wrote:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/port-adelaides-trading-loss-is-63m/story-e6freck3-1226531585920


Yet again port lied.

They've actually lost $6.3 mill this year so the title of the thread will need to be changed.

Had to urgently borrow $1.2 mill from afl to "pay bills".



Depends who you listen to. Keith Thomas was on radio this morning and is spewing at the inaccuracy of the article and (in his view) misrepresentation of fact, and a leak from apparently an SANFL club official or SANFL official to the Advertiser of the incorrect information. He also mentioned Leigh Whicker being very unhappy with the article.

Went on to indicate that all club receive an uneven dividend from the AFL and 8 (I think) clubs receive a dividend greater than or equal to Port.... this being part of the AFLs structure where blockbuster games etc are not shared evenly and bigger drawing clubs get the majority of exposure.

Is very unhappy that 'some' seem to want to misrepresent the truth to sink the boot in etc.... I believe his interview is available on 5AA website for anyone wanting both sides of the story.
TimmiesChin
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:22 pm
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby UK Fan » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:53 am

TimmiesChin wrote:
UK Fan wrote:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/port-adelaides-trading-loss-is-63m/story-e6freck3-1226531585920


Yet again port lied.

They've actually lost $6.3 mill this year so the title of the thread will need to be changed.

Had to urgently borrow $1.2 mill from afl to "pay bills".



Depends who you listen to. Keith Thomas was on radio this morning and is spewing at the inaccuracy of the article and (in his view) misrepresentation of fact, and a leak from apparently an SANFL club official or SANFL official to the Advertiser of the incorrect information. He also mentioned Leigh Whicker being very unhappy with the article.

Went on to indicate that all club receive an uneven dividend from the AFL and 8 (I think) clubs receive a dividend greater than or equal to Port.... this being part of the AFLs structure where blockbuster games etc are not shared evenly and bigger drawing clubs get the majority of exposure.

Is very unhappy that 'some' seem to want to misrepresent the truth to sink the boot in etc.... I believe his interview is available on 5AA website for anyone wanting both sides of the story.


So Port did receive extra money as confirmed by KT. He is just denying it should be included in final figures cos other clubs receive the grant.

Yet again port adelaide arguing semantics as opposed to solving the problem.

I'm assuming now the RBA has dropped rates port will be back in at nab this week to have their debt re-written AGAIN!!!

That is one sponsorship I'm assuming NAB would seriously regret.
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!



MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.


Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.


THE SKY HAS FALLEN!!!!
UK Fan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5922
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:41 am
Has liked: 1243 times
Been liked: 545 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby mickey » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:00 pm

Dear members and supporters,

With so much positive action happening at your club, it’s a pity that today we are being forced to confront another damaging, destructive article in The Advertiser, relating to our financial position.

Let me give you the facts: Last week we reported a loss of $2.1m. Included in that loss was an SANFL grant of $2m, making the consolidated loss $4.1m. This figure is endorsed by our auditors and the AFL.

The Advertiser “revealed” today that the loss is actually $6.3m, as a result of a “$1.2m emergency payment” that was made by the AFL to help us meet short term financial requirements. This statement is wrong.

There was also no $1.2m emergency bail-out. Money flows between the AFL, SANFL and its clubs virtually every day. There was nothing extraordinary this year.

So let’s talk about the gap between our actual result ($4.1m loss excluding SANFL grants) and the $6.3m number being reported by The Advertiser.

The AFL provides a Future Fund for ALL of its clubs, with a strategic view to creating 18 competitive teams and building the most even and strongest competition possible.

It does this in acknowledgment of a number of inequities, including that the competition is structured to maximise attendances and TV audiences. That’s why Collingwood rarely plays outside the MCG and the Friday Night blockbusters on TV almost invariably involve the top clubs. It’s also why the ANZAC Day clash is reserved for Collingwood and Essendon.

We accept these policies because it’s good for the competition commercially.

To compensate for these inequities, the AFL provides additional investment monies to the clubs who are less likely to be directly involved in these promotions.

In 2012, ALL clubs received $500k from the AFL Future Fund.

13 clubs received further AFL Future Funds on top of the $500k, Port Adelaide included.

8 clubs receive the same amount or more than Port Adelaide.

In our case, we received an additional $1.6m, which we must spend in areas agreed by the AFL. In our case this was our football program and Membership, Corporate and Media Departments in 2012.

Far from being hidden, or sinister in any way, this is a legitimate line of revenue from the AFL to their clubs.

It is reported by every other club exactly the same way we have reported it.

Our loss is $2.1m and we receive an agreed $2m grant from the SANFL. End of story.

We’re not happy with it, but we are getting things done to fix it.

The continual desire for faceless/nameless members of the SANFL community to attack Port Adelaide’s credibility is destructive, short-sighted and ill informed. It must stop.

The decision by The Advertiser, despite a comprehensive personal briefing from us, and full disclosure of all relevant documents, to run an unsourced article like today’s is also disappointing.

Rest assured, no club in Australia has done more to turn around its fortunes than Port Adelaide over the past few years.

We continue fight against forces that wish to operate in the shadows, but clearly do not have the health of football in this state at heart. But we are winning!

I know you can see it and feel it. So can I.

Stay strong true believers.

KT
User avatar
mickey
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5694
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Playing Poker
Has liked: 145 times
Been liked: 323 times
Grassroots Team: Seaton Ramblers

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby UK Fan » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:24 pm

Kt has just confirmed port received $2.6 mill in AFL handouts that was not reported .


Thanks Kt!!!!
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!



MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.


Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.


THE SKY HAS FALLEN!!!!
UK Fan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5922
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:41 am
Has liked: 1243 times
Been liked: 545 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby TimmiesChin » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:44 pm

UK Fan wrote:Kt has just confirmed port received $2.6 mill in AFL handouts that was not reported .


Thanks Kt!!!!


Pull your head out your arse and read what he said.

There WAS NO emergency payment.
The handouts were reported in exactly the same way they have been for the last X years by every club in the league.
TimmiesChin
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:22 pm
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby Spargo » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:55 pm

mickey wrote:Rest assured, no club in Australia has done more to turn around its fortunes than Port Adelaide over the past few years.

Really? How the hell would KT know what other clubs have done?
Spargo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 17115
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:42 pm
Location: Getting out of Dodge
Has liked: 6065 times
Been liked: 5483 times
Grassroots Team: Sacred Heart OC

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby JK » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:00 pm

Leaks from the SANFL? Who woulda thought? They are leaky than the Titanic and have been for years.

One of Chris Davies first jobs' needs to be to put the clamps on all involved at West Lakes with regard to which information is released.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37457
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4480 times
Been liked: 3022 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Port Adelaide Future

Postby UK Fan » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:02 pm

Spargo wrote:
mickey wrote:Rest assured, no club in Australia has done more to turn around its fortunes than Port Adelaide over the past few years.

Really? How the hell would KT know what other clubs have done?


Good question.

FACT is He wouldnt have a clue.
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!



MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.


Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.


THE SKY HAS FALLEN!!!!
UK Fan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5922
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:41 am
Has liked: 1243 times
Been liked: 545 times

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dogs64, MannyK, UK Fan and 28 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |