SA Footy

Well the SANFL and Port Power are tring to nut out an "Alberton Agreement" that delivers more money to Port.

I must admit I find it a bit surprising that Port's Stadium deal is different to the Crows, to their disadvantage. However, Port are $3.5m in debt.

If you are in debt there are a few ways to get out of it - bring in more money (eg an improved Stadium deal, more members and sponsorship etc) or reduce expenditure and allocate funds to debt reduction BUT ideally a combination of the two.

Port are trying to increase their revenue.

However, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that they are being prudent with their expenditure. This year, all players have been issued with Blackberry phones to watch their own video analysis and get messages from the coach. I presume some of this may have been supplied by Vodafone - but there must be operating costs associated with all this. Yesterday, Matt Thomas and Peter Rhode flew to Melbourne to attend the tribunal rather than attend via Video conference. These may only seem like little things but it makes me wonder if they are really tightening their belts in any way?

It just looks like they want to fly "first class" in the AFL when maybe they need to go economy for a while. I know they statistically have the lowest spend for their football department per win, but could it be lower when you have a big debt like that?

Could Choco take a pay cut?

Interested to hear people's views...

If i recall correctly i think Port already had the least expenditure for their football department in the AFL. And were top in games won per money spent in the AFL. I think they will need to increase income rather than reduce football expenditure.

It's only money.

Give them what they need to be a top team.

Squawk wrote:
Could Choco take a pay cut?

I have heard rumours that he is a very well paid Coach in context with his other AFL colleagues.


They have certainly bitten off more than they can chew. Pay high figures for a coach, Increase financial commitments to improve their facilities when they are less than 10 years old or there abouts then spend cash on silly items such as blackberries for each player surely they all have dvd players at home to watch their footage

heater31 wrote:

Squawk wrote:
Could Choco take a pay cut?

I have heard rumours that he is a very well paid Coach in context with his other AFL colleagues.

And absorbs an unhealthy % of the coaching payroll at Port which is why a number of Assistant Coaches have jumped ship since 2004.

heater31 wrote:

Squawk wrote:
Could Choco take a pay cut?

I have heard rumours that he is a very well paid Coach in context with his other AFL colleagues.

And WILL need to take a massive pay cut if the AFL give them $$$ ala other teams that have received assistance the AFL will want some commitments to reduce costs including capping what the coach can be paid and reducing their payments to the min 92.5% of the Salary Cap

automaticwicky wrote:If i recall correctly i think Port already had the least expenditure for their football department in the AFL. And were top in games won per money spent in the AFL. I think they will need to increase income rather than reduce football expenditure.

They're the lowest because everyone has left, aren't they?

The salaries of some of the football department are a big part of the problem though, paying well over odds for some positions.

Dutchy wrote:

heater31 wrote:

Squawk wrote:
Could Choco take a pay cut?

I have heard rumours that he is a very well paid Coach in context with his other AFL colleagues.

And WILL need to take a massive pay cut if the AFL give them $$$ ala other teams that have received assistance the AFL will want some commitments to reduce costs including capping what the coach can be paid and reducing their payments to the min 92.5% of the Salary Cap

Now how do you know so much about it Dutchy? (*runs*)

The statistic that says they have the lowest spending football dept per win is also misleading, even if it does sound interesting.

A football dept is but one part of the club.
If you win 2 games a year and finish bottom, obviously you will be likely to be the highest spending football dept per win. On the other hand, if you win the Grand Final and pull in an extra $2m in prizemoney, memorabillia, membership sales the next yr etc, what relevance does this stat hold then?

Squawk wrote:The statistic that says they have the lowest spending football dept per win is also misleading, even if it does sound interesting.

A football dept is but one part of the club.
If you win 2 games a year and finish bottom, obviously you will be likely to be the highest spending football dept per win. On the other hand, if you win the Grand Final and pull in an extra $2m in prizemoney, memorabillia, membership sales the next yr etc, what relevance does this stat hold then?

They only won 7 or so games last year

I assume the formula would allow for the 2 win scenario

No idea how - but I doubt that you've hit upon a fatal flaw that no-one thought of before

You should go to BigFooty and look up a super article by a poster called RussellEbertHandball about Stadium deals here in Adelaide and across the country. It's a great read and knowing that facts take a lot of the anti-PAFC heat out of the issue.

I say this because you're opening comments about Port's Stadium deal are wrong, from what I understand.

EDIT: Here's the link: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=554729&highlight=Stadium+deal It's worth the read if you have the time or if you want to make comments about Port's deal or any club's deal for that matter.

Abolish the SANFL salary cap and sell both AFL Licences.
The Player Retention Scheme - bring it back!