Page 1 of 4

SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:34 pm
by Dutchy

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:10 pm
by southee
Wow!!!! We all never knew!!!

.......thank you Rucci for telling us something we did not know :roll:

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:38 pm
by The Riddler
More proof UK Fan was correct!

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:06 pm
by Barto
How much money were Port given?

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:08 pm
by Dog_ger
No SANFL in 2015.

AFLSA to continue.

Maybe... #-o :-k

6 teams.

Maybe 2 AFL reserve teams only... :shock:

You were correct Max... :partyman:

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:24 pm
by whufc
More evidence UK Fan was right after all!!!

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:49 pm
by Mark_Beswick
Or DOGGER

Sell the AFL Clubs (Crows for a considerable sum, Port for whatever we can get - use $ to retire debt.
Then we have the right to charge whatever we like for the Adelaide Oval or Football Park Stadiums - We dont own either club and would have no loyalty towards them

We have the footy park land to develop and have dividends from investments for SANFL clubs each year - AFL can then please themselves

South = bery profitable
CDFC, NAFC - profitable
WWT & GFC - profitable
WAFC - after depreciation removed made a profit but have some work to do with future business plan
Norwood - should be profitable in 2012

Port - Doesnt matter
Sturt - have a lot of work to do

The SANFL is asset rich but needs to be careful with regards to cashflow for a few years - I think we should stay positive

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:29 pm
by SDK
The Port Power are, have always been and always will be unviable.
Stop wasting money on a dead duck and let them die. Neither Adelaide Oval nor Jesus Christ himself can save Port Power so stop kidding ourself and pull the plug now. How long do they fxxxing want ?
Just makes me sad that the Port Adelaide Magpies ... the real Port Adelaide, have hitched themself to a fallen star.
Week in and week out people walk away from a shit brand of football that Port Power play. At least the Crows woke up, got rid of the robot master Craig and appointed a coach who will provide an entertaining style of play and bring back the crowds.

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:33 pm
by heater31
Barto wrote:How much money were Port given?



Too much ;)

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:51 pm
by blueandwhite
heater31 wrote:
Barto wrote:How much money were Port given?



Too much ;)


$14.75 million since 2007.
The sanfl had to go out and borrow money to keep them afloat.
TALK ABOUT THROWING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD! :evil:

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:27 pm
by Mic
Starting Port Power and building Football Park at West lakes were 2 poor decisions by the SANFL, which is now costing them big-time.

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:20 pm
by JK
Mic wrote:Starting Port Power and building Football Park at West lakes were 2 poor decisions by the SANFL, which is now costing them big-time.


Not having a go, but wondering why this was considered a poor decision?

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:54 pm
by heater31
JK wrote:
Mic wrote:Starting Port Power and building Football Park at West lakes were 2 poor decisions by the SANFL, which is now costing them big-time.


Not having a go, but wondering why this was considered a poor decision?



I think he could be referring to the location at West Lakes. From what I have heard the SANFL had other options but chose West Lakes as the best option.

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:14 pm
by dedja
Other options being?

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:24 pm
by Mic
Somewhere near a train (like 99% of the world's stadiums), somewhere central or just upgrade Adelaide Oval (like they have ended up doing).

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:51 pm
by mickey
Mic wrote:Somewhere near a train (like 99% of the world's stadiums), somewhere central or just upgrade Adelaide Oval (like they have ended up doing).


Wasn't the original plan to have the grange line veer off to service football park?

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:46 am
by JK
West Lakes will still prove a fairly handy asset to the SANFL I would think, and served its purpose pre-AFL days

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:29 am
by story of my life
dedja wrote:Other options being?


Apparently one of the preffered option was laffers triangle (the area of land between south rd, marion rd and sturt rd, acrross the road from Flinders hospital ) but in the 60's the end of the urban sprawl was believed to be ending at o'halloran hill so 95% of the population would live miles away. So even though they had to reclaim a swamp west lakes was considereed much more central.

Re: Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:05 am
by heater31
Mic wrote:Somewhere near a train (like 99% of the world's stadiums), somewhere central or just upgrade Adelaide Oval (like they have ended up doing).


Have also heard an option was at Regency Park near where Coopers Brewery is now.

Re: SANFL lose $3.88m in 2011

PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:34 am
by Booney
SDK wrote:The Port Power are, have always been and always will be unviable.
Stop wasting money on a dead duck and let them die. Neither Adelaide Oval nor Jesus Christ himself can save Port Power so stop kidding ourself and pull the plug now. How long do they fxxxing want ?
Just makes me sad that the Port Adelaide Magpies ... the real Port Adelaide, have hitched themself to a fallen star.
Week in and week out people walk away from a shit brand of football that Port Power play.
At least the Crows woke up, got rid of the robot master Craig and appointed a coach who will provide an entertaining style of play and bring back the crowds.


How far from reality do you want to be? You have simply associated on-field success with financial viability which is not a reality.