SA Footy

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/p ... 5972455330

Port has now lost over a mill in each of the last three seasons. The article (linked above) says there is Blue sky ahead but how much longer can the Power sustain such losses. I'd suggest that SA, a ready made football market will be a low priority for the AFL as it seeks to 'grow the brand' (if you will excuse my use of the AFL Patented catchphrase) in the Rugby states.

I'm convinced this league expansion, especially into Western Sydney is an ill conceived move by the AFL and that Port might need a hand before too long if these blue skies don't appear on the horizon.

regards,

REB

Its not Ports fault though....

Dutchy wrote:Its not Ports fault though....

why not ?




or is that sarcasm ? in which case

I know it's a contentious point over on the SANFL board but the SANFL "group" (including SANFL Inc, PAFC, AFC) made around $7m profit before one off accounting write offs (re consultants costs on the now abandoned AAMI Stadium upgrade) in 2008 and 2009. While PAFC are not pulling their weight at least in those 2 years the license holders (SANFL Inc) managed to stay profitable. I'll be interested to see the SANFL 2010 financial report.

PAFC's problems are ultimately the SANFL's as license holder rightly or wrongly. The AFL will never let SA drop to one AFL team. The only question in my mind is whether they would ever decide to step in ahead of the SANFL in the running of the PAFC. Hopefully One Port and the AO move can solve these problems.

I am not defending the PAFC losses BTW. Had they done what they should have those SANFL group profits could have been $10m+ in those two years and 2010 will probably be < $7m.

I just don't feel either the AFL nor the SANFL are transparent enough about the overall profits they make. I tried to do a comparison of 2010 financial performance of the AFL clubs and it's very difficult if you only go off media reports. There's govt grants, AFL/SANFL grants and AFL equalisation payments in a lot of them and it's hard to tell what the true underlying story is. It's further complicated by the old chestnut of stadium deals and I am sympathetic to teams like NM that also have tough deals that share profits with stadium owners. Freo and WC are laughing with their deal at Subiaco!

bayman wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Its not Ports fault though....

why not ?




or is that sarcasm ? in which case

I dub thee Sheldon.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/p ... 5972455330

PORT Adelaide Football Club has vowed the worst is behind it after yesterday announcing its third consecutive seven-figure operating deficit.

Dog_ger would love to have a bussiness that could get away with that..

Is something wrong here...?

Dog_ger wrote:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/power-sees-red-again-but-blue-sky-ahead/story-e6frf9jf-1225972455330

PORT Adelaide Football Club has vowed the worst is behind it after yesterday announcing its third consecutive seven-figure operating deficit.

Dog_ger would love to have a bussiness that could get away with that..

Is something wrong here...?

Clearly, there is something wrong here...and not just your spelling of the word "business"...
But clearly Port are trying to fix it. Hopefully for the sake of SA football and also for Port they will turn this around. All they need is good on field results, strong attendances that will follow on from better performances and greater membership support. The re-unification is a positive step in the right direction. Only time will tell how successful Port will be in both SANFL & AFL competitions. Meanwhile Dogger, turn the clock back a little and you'll see plenty on other examples of what appear to be "basket cases" become powerful dominant clubs if we all give them that chance.

How many of those basket cases turned into dominant sides at a time when the AFL was expanding the competition?

Fitzroy?
Sydney?
Footscray?
St Kilda?

Nope!

regards,

REB

Sydney, St.Kilda and Geelong have had recent financial troubles and they have all played in recent Grand Finals....whats your point Riko?

Booney wrote:Sydney, St.Kilda and Geelong have had recent financial troubles and they have all played in recent Grand Finals....whats your point Riko?

Add the Hawks to that list.

Good post Chuck.

Most of those with recent financial problems have been able to sort themselves out, except Port Adelaide

Dutchy wrote:Most of those with recent financial problems have been able to sort themselves out, except Port Adelaide

Most of them, expect Port Adelaide, didnt have a governing body standing over them between the Club and the AFL.

Booney wrote:Sydney, St.Kilda and Geelong have had recent financial troubles and they have all played in recent Grand Finals....whats your point Riko?

My point was when there was an expansion going on. You won't get any help from the AFL because they only care about the Giants and the Suns at the mo. Can't help, as it didn't for those teams I mentioned circa 1987.

regards,

REB

The AFL weren't making $200m+ profit per year back then though REB

I think that figure is right

Wedgie wrote:

bayman wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Its not Ports fault though....

why not ?




or is that sarcasm ? in which case

I dub thee Sheldon.

Hahaha, nice one

Booney wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Most of those with recent financial problems have been able to sort themselves out, except Port Adelaide

Most of them, expect Port Adelaide, didnt have a governing body standing over them between the Club and the AFL.

My mistake I must of missed all the SANFL officials standing outside imploring all Port fans (and Crows fans for that matter at their home games) not to turn up last year at my one freebie AFL game.

Face it Port's and the Crows financial results are both due to a lack of bums on seats i.e. fickle supporters not showing up to support their teams. Don't worry I spent my $$$$, beers, hot chips and softies (for the kids) knowing that it was going to a good casue the SANFL and subsequently back to my SANFL club.

am Bays wrote:

Booney wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Most of those with recent financial problems have been able to sort themselves out, except Port Adelaide

Most of them, expect Port Adelaide, didnt have a governing body standing over them between the Club and the AFL.

My mistake I must of missed all the SANFL officials standing outside imploring all Port fans (and Crows fans for that matter at their home games) not to turn up last year at my one freebie AFL game.

Face it Port's and the Crows financial results are both due to a lack of bums on seats i.e. fickle supporters not showing up to support their teams. Don't worry I spent my $$$$, beers, hot chips and softies (for the kids) knowing that it was going to a good casue the SANFL and subsequently back to my SANFL club.

What really shits me is this applies to all ******* football clubs, not just mine so its a given, why highlight it? FFS.....this endless finger pointing exercise really is just ******* futile.

am Bays wrote: My mistake I must of missed all the SANFL officials standing outside imploring all Port fans (and Crows fans for that matter at their home games) not to turn up last year at my one freebie AFL game.

Face it Port's and the Crows financial results are both due to a lack of bums on seats i.e. fickle supporters not showing up to support their teams. Don't worry I spent my $$$$, beers, hot chips and softies (for the kids) knowing that it was going to a good casue the SANFL and subsequently back to my SANFL club.

If the product is good enough people will turn up and buy it. If it is not, for long enough, they'll eventually feel let down enough to put their caring, time, and money, elsewhere.
You may have a favourite sporting team you have a soft spot for forever, but if they take your loyalty for granted and deliver rubbish there comes a time when you walk away - even if it hurts a bit to do so.

I think Brisbane losses are around $6m over the last 3 years too