SA Footy

Hi all.
Messenger will bring you the result of the SA Footy Commission deliberations at AAMI stadium this morning.

An announcement is due at 11am.

Click here for our coverage from last night's meeting at AAMI. Words and photos. You can leave your comments at the bottom of the article. Thanks.

http://messenger-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/port-magpies-future/
Messenger team.

messenger.news wrote:Hi all.
Messenger will bring you the result of the SA Footy Commission deliberations at AAMI stadium this morning.

An announcement is due at 11am.

Click here for our coverage from last night's meeting at AAMI. Words and photos. You can leave your comments at the bottom of the article. Thanks.

http://messenger-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/port-magpies-future/
Messenger team.

You have done a really good job mate.

We have some new details - but alas, still no decision.

http://messenger-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/magpies-merger-deliberations-underway-at-aami/

Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

darley16 wrote:Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

Merger rejected!

Port Adelaide in trouble.

Which club are you talking about?

darley16 wrote:Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

I heard that it may be Sturt and House Brothers, allegedly they advised that if Sturt voted against the proposal they'd pull their money.
Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

darley16 wrote:Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

Yes but not the end of the world. JJeessshhh.

Would that sponsor have a massive conflict of interest?

Wedgie wrote:

darley16 wrote:Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

I heard that it may be Sturt and House Brothers, allegedly they advised that if Sturt voted against the proposal they'd pull their money.
Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

House Brothers, interesting.
Strange decision for a sponser of Sturt to take, I mean really strange!

Wedgie wrote:

darley16 wrote:Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

I heard that it may be Sturt and House Brothers, allegedly they advised that if Sturt voted against the proposal they'd pull their money.
Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

Well the owner of House Brothers is on the Port Power board. Hmmmmm.......

rod_rooster wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

darley16 wrote:Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

I heard that it may be Sturt and House Brothers, allegedly they advised that if Sturt voted against the proposal they'd pull their money.
Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

Well the owner of House Brothers is on the Port Power board. Hmmmmm.......

Oh right o well I can see where they were coming from then.
But why sponsor Sturt, go and sponser the Magpies!

SANFL without the Magpies won't happen. It will be sorted out. This is set up perfectly for a knight in shining armour to come in and save the day.

darley16 wrote:Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

Was this mentioned in the presser ?

It is a sad day for comp, unfortunately though if the comp refuses to live within its means, (by that I mean within the revenue streams that the comp directly generates), then its always going to be a risk. If its true that the majority of clubs reported losses this year, then theres an indication of a much bigger issue bubbling away.

I hope my club finds a way to survive, but if my club bites the dust this year the comp will mean nothing too me.

TimmiesChin wrote:Was this mentioned in the presser ?

It is a sad day for comp, unfortunately though if the comp refuses to live within its means, (by that I mean within the revenue streams that the comp directly generates), then its always going to be a risk. If its true that the majority of clubs reported losses this year, then theres an indication of a much bigger issue bubbling away.

I hope my club finds a way to survive, but if my club bites the dust this year the comp will mean nothing too me.

Agreed. Very sad day for SA Footy.

If 2010 is the end for the PAMFC, the SANFL from 2011 is a meaningless shambles.

devilsadvocate wrote:

TimmiesChin wrote:Was this mentioned in the presser ?

It is a sad day for comp, unfortunately though if the comp refuses to live within its means, (by that I mean within the revenue streams that the comp directly generates), then its always going to be a risk. If its true that the majority of clubs reported losses this year, then theres an indication of a much bigger issue bubbling away.

I hope my club finds a way to survive, but if my club bites the dust this year the comp will mean nothing too me.

Agreed. Very sad day for SA Footy.

If 2010 is the end for the PAMFC, the SANFL from 2011 is a meaningless shambles.

For you and other PAMFC supporters perhaps but not for the other 8 clubs.

TimmiesChin wrote: If its true that the majority of clubs reported losses this year, then theres an indication of a much bigger issue bubbling away.

You should do some more research and get your facts right before commenting and being a dooms day prophet or even read some threads on this site re the annual statements of the other clubs.

In 2008 7 of the clubs reported losses - most because of having to renovate premises re the smoking legislation changes (North had 2 prems to worry about as did Sturt) plus the Bays funded a massive upgrade also, many consolidated their positions given the broader economic times and wrote off a lot of debt and amorotized assets whilst they could.

As far as has been reported all the clubs except PAMFC had huge turn arounds in their operting incomes and profit / loss situation come the end of season 2009 - even West who had a horrible big loss in 2008 had made a very big turn around and consolidation in 2009 and look well on track to do well in the future.

Wedgie wrote:Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

Good on them indeed.

And at the end of the day, good luck to them finding a new major sponsor.

on the rails wrote:In 2008 7 of the clubs reported losses - most because of having to renovate premises re the smoking legislation changes (North had 2 prems to worry about as did Sturt) plus the Bays funded a massive upgrade also, many consolidated their positions given the broader economic times and wrote off a lot of debt and amorotized assets whilst they could.

As far as has been reported all the clubs except PAMFC had huge turn arounds in their operting incomes and profit / loss situation come the end of season 2009 - even West who had a horrible big loss in 2008 had made a very big turn around and consolidation in 2009 and look well on track to do well in the future.

Thats all well and good, but it still points to the clubs having to derive most of their revenue from non-football related areas. Ie - most of the clubs finances these day are in the main not directly related SANFL-match income.

Hodges 153! wrote:And at the end of the day, good luck to them finding a new major sponsor.

It's nice to have quotes like this to remember why so many people hated the Magpies so much.

TimmiesChin wrote:

on the rails wrote:In 2008 7 of the clubs reported losses - most because of having to renovate premises re the smoking legislation changes (North had 2 prems to worry about as did Sturt) plus the Bays funded a massive upgrade also, many consolidated their positions given the broader economic times and wrote off a lot of debt and amorotized assets whilst they could.

As far as has been reported all the clubs except PAMFC had huge turn arounds in their operting incomes and profit / loss situation come the end of season 2009 - even West who had a horrible big loss in 2008 had made a very big turn around and consolidation in 2009 and look well on track to do well in the future.

Thats all well and good, but it still points to the clubs having to derive most of their revenue from non-football related areas. Ie - most of the clubs finances these day are in the main not directly related SANFL-match income.

And.......whats the point, if 75 people turn up to a SANFL match but the clubs can still survive through other means, then whats the problem?

Hodges 153! wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

Good on them indeed.

And at the end of the day, good luck to them finding a new major sponsor.

If it's true then it's pretty childish and immature from House Brothers, much like your post.