Port Adelaide Future

[TimmiesChin]

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?

He's obviously comparing Port to other AFL clubs and making the observations of the changes in footy and non footy departments.

Lets face it, its more a statement that Port has done a lot than a definitive autopsy of all clubs, but its a fair assumption given basically a complete board + CEO replacement plus several senior off field roles in marketing and communications areas, plus replacing virtually the entire coaching and fitness departments and ripping out much of the senior dead wood from the playing list. Changes at other clubs in these areas are all matters of public record and easy to look at.

[UK Fan]

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?

He's obviously comparing Port to other AFL clubs and making the observations of the changes in footy and non footy departments.

Lets face it, its more a statement that Port has done a lot than a definitive autopsy of all clubs, but its a fair assumption given basically a complete board + CEO replacement plus several senior off field roles in marketing and communications areas, plus replacing virtually the entire coaching and fitness departments and ripping out much of the senior dead wood from the playing list. Changes at other clubs in these areas are all matters of public record and easy to look at.

Port refuses to cut its spending on its football department and is increasing its spending inlight of on-going financial difficulties.

How that refusal to reduce spending can be considered doing more than other football clubs in AFL is a completely ridiculous claim.

[TimmiesChin]

Port refuses to cut its spending on its football department and is increasing its spending inlight of on-going financial difficulties.

How that refusal to reduce spending can be considered doing more than other football clubs in AFL is a completely ridiculous claim.

I guess port could just throw some more poker machines in hey ....


Not spending on footy department = reduced results = reduced attendances = reduces revenue.

The AFL endorsed - and virtually requested the increased football department spend. In fact the additional $1.6 million that Port received was actually required to be spent in part on football department:
From Keith's Statement:

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.

[UK Fan]

Port refuses to cut its spending on its football department and is increasing its spending inlight of on-going financial difficulties.

How that refusal to reduce spending can be considered doing more than other football clubs in AFL is a completely ridiculous claim.

I guess port could just throw some more poker machines in hey ....


Not spending on footy department = reduced results = reduced attendances = reduces revenue.

The AFL endorsed - and virtually requested the increased football department spend. In fact the additional $1.6 million that Port received was actually required to be spent in part on football department:
From Keith's Statement:

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.

No-one ever disputed it wasnt AFl endorsed.

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

So not one club has reduced its spending in this time KT whilst receving $3.5 mill in AFL handouts ????

I think he is lying.

[Booney]

Port refuses to cut its spending on its football department and is increasing its spending inlight of on-going financial difficulties.
How that refusal to reduce spending can be considered doing more than other football clubs in AFL is a completely ridiculous claim.

I guess port could just throw some more poker machines in hey ....
Not spending on footy department = reduced results = reduced attendances = reduces revenue.
The AFL endorsed - and virtually requested the increased football department spend. In fact the additional $1.6 million that Port received was actually required to be spent in part on football department:
From Keith's Statement:

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.

So Tim, from that, I gather that some of the money the AFL gave us was, under their directive, to be spent boosting our football department? Right, I understand that, it seems very, very clear.

[on the rails]

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.

Leaks are deleiberate and designed to create publicity or to highlight problems. Whicker might be upset (which is just a media front in any case!) but how is going to keep all the Commission Members, League Directors and the direct staff at West Lakes and at the clubs quiet with the amount of info they are privy too?

You would not be surprised at what comes from West Lakes which they allow to leak out rather than them directly releasing it. Makes them look like the good guys!

[TimmiesChin]

So Tim, from that, I gather that some of the money the AFL gave us was, under their directive, to be spent boosting our football department? Right, I understand that, it seems very, very, very clear.

edited for accuracy.

[o five]

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

They should sue the Advertiser for defamation then. That should help the finances.

[Pseudo]

...
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.

No kidding. 4.1 + 1.2 = 5.3, not 6.3. Elementary maths skills aren't a requirement to work for the 'tiser.

[RustyCage]

Port refuses to cut its spending on its football department and is increasing its spending inlight of on-going financial difficulties.

How that refusal to reduce spending can be considered doing more than other football clubs in AFL is a completely ridiculous claim.

I guess port could just throw some more poker machines in hey ....


Not spending on footy department = reduced results = reduced attendances = reduces revenue.

The AFL endorsed - and virtually requested the increased football department spend. In fact the additional $1.6 million that Port received was actually required to be spent in part on football department:
From Keith's Statement:

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.

No-one ever disputed it wasnt AFl endorsed.

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

So not one club has reduced its spending in this time KT whilst receving $3.5 mill in AFL handouts ????

I think he is lying.

You do know that the clubs that aren't in a great financial position do work together to come up with strategies and things to help turn financial outcomes around? You do know that KT has worked with Richmond, WB, Melbourne and North Melbourne individually since he became Ports CEO? So along with working with the AFL, yes he would have a fair idea what other clubs have done. Yes, Port have reduced spending in areas that don't effect on field results, while spending more on the football department, at the AFLs request. So it's not a case of KT lying as you so ignorantly claim, it's a case of you shooing your mouth off with your BS opinion which you claim as FACT.

[Dutchy]

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

Bullshit, how about Melbourne wiping off all its debt with plain hard work? How about the Roos making $1m profit this year and moving up the ladder?

Meanwhile Port just keep talking and racking up losses that it cant fund on its own, how about some action FFS?

[RustyCage]

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

Bullshit, how about Melbourne wiping off all its debt with plain hard work? How about the Roos making $1m profit this year and moving up the ladder?

Meanwhile Port just keep talking and racking up losses that it cant fund on its own, how about some action FFS?

so you are saying Port are doing nothing? if so, you are you also then saying North Melbourne were doing nothing the last 10 years when making losses and getting handouts?

[Spargo]

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

Bullshit, how about Melbourne wiping off all its debt with plain hard work? How about the Roos making $1m profit this year and moving up the ladder?

Meanwhile Port just keep talking and racking up losses that it cant fund on its own, how about some action FFS?

so you are saying Port are doing nothing? if so, you are you also then saying North Melbourne were doing nothing the last 10 years when making losses and getting handouts?

He never said that at all - nice attempt at deflection though.

[RustyCage]

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

Bullshit, how about Melbourne wiping off all its debt with plain hard work? How about the Roos making $1m profit this year and moving up the ladder?

Meanwhile Port just keep talking and racking up losses that it cant fund on its own, how about some action FFS?

so you are saying Port are doing nothing? if so, you are you also then saying North Melbourne were doing nothing the last 10 years when making losses and getting handouts?

He never said that at all - nice attempt at deflection though.

no, he is saying that because we haven't turned our situation around then we are doing nothing, just "talking", which is complete crap

[Dutchy]

Justify his comment then.

[SDK]

Port ARE doing something. Flogging a dead horse !

[JK]

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.

Leaks are deleiberate and designed to create publicity or to highlight problems. Whicker might be upset (which is just a media front in any case!) but how is going to keep all the Commission Members, League Directors and the direct staff at West Lakes and at the clubs quiet with the amount of info they are privy too?

You would not be surprised at what comes from West Lakes which they allow to leak out rather than them directly releasing it. Makes them look like the good guys!

You're right mate, I wouldn't be surprised .. To a degree I can understand that, but there would have to be a lot of stuff that get's out, that shouldn't.

[CENTURION]

Look, no-one wants to see The Maggies go. I know Port supporters love their club to death....and why wouldn't you? BUT, with all the emotion taken out of the argument & all the shit-stirring removed....what are Port's options? If the power & Port are one entity & the power are losing money like crazy, how can they reduce their debt? I don't think a long-term recovery will save Port Magpies, the power will never die, the AFL won't let it happen but they will be told very soon to stop the leaks & does that mean The Maggies are just about gone? A simple answer will suffice.

[UK Fan]

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

Bullshit, how about Melbourne wiping off all its debt with plain hard work? How about the Roos making $1m profit this year and moving up the ladder?

Meanwhile Port just keep talking and racking up losses that it cant fund on its own, how about some action FFS?

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/news ... fault.aspx

[UK Fan]

Port refuses to cut its spending on its football department and is increasing its spending inlight of on-going financial difficulties.

How that refusal to reduce spending can be considered doing more than other football clubs in AFL is a completely ridiculous claim.

I guess port could just throw some more poker machines in hey ....


Not spending on footy department = reduced results = reduced attendances = reduces revenue.

The AFL endorsed - and virtually requested the increased football department spend. In fact the additional $1.6 million that Port received was actually required to be spent in part on football department:
From Keith's Statement:

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.

No-one ever disputed it wasnt AFl endorsed.

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

So not one club has reduced its spending in this time KT whilst receving $3.5 mill in AFL handouts ????

I think he is lying.

You do know that the clubs that aren't in a great financial position do work together to come up with strategies and things to help turn financial outcomes around? You do know that KT has worked with Richmond, WB, Melbourne and North Melbourne individually since he became Ports CEO? So along with working with the AFL, yes he would have a fair idea what other clubs have done. Yes, Port have reduced spending in areas that don't effect on field results, while spending more on the football department, at the AFLs request. So it's not a case of KT lying as you so ignorantly claim, it's a case of you shooing your mouth off with your BS opinion which you claim as FACT.

http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/w ... 6532483264

Even kochy concedes you've made blunders!!! Maybe if ports board could try and get its story/financials straight .

Yet again one of kts statements reads well but lacks any substance.