Magpies and Power merger to be announced in a fortnight.

[CENTURION]

I only go to Footy Park once a year and it sure as hell won't be when Port OR the paahhr are playing.

i saw you there twice this year mate.

how silly of Me, I forgot about that minor distraction...the traditional 2nd Semi victory....on our inevitable path to Glory.

[Big Phil]

From the SANFL...

ONE PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB PROPOSAL

The One PAFC proposal would have significant financial benefits for South Australian football, the SANFL League Directors have heard.

The Directors tonight met to discuss the One PAFC proposal and to view a presentation also examined by the SA Football Commission last week.


Background:

The Port Adelaide situation is unique in Australian football, as since 1997 there have been two Port Adelaide Football Clubs sharing the brand, history and heritage of PAFC but running as separate – and often competing – businesses.


The One Port Adelaide proposal aims to remove this division and recreate one strong, united and financially sustainable Port Adelaide Football Club, a secure future for the Port Adelaide Magpies and a financially stronger SANFL – all of which are critical to the ongoing prosperity of football in South Australia.



Under the proposal:

The merger of Port Adelaide and Port Adelaide Magpies would be an administrative and commercial amalgamation only, delivering no football advantages to the Power over the Adelaide Football Club or to the Magpies over the other eight SANFL Clubs.

The Magpies would become an operating division of a united Port Adelaide Football Club. The Magpies would not become a Reserves side for the Power.

The strong heritage of the Magpies would be retained through continued use of its jumper design and logo in the SANFL, and past players’ recognition.

The financial benefit of a merger to the Port Adelaide Football Club – and SA football in general – is estimated at $1.4 million to $1.9 million per year.

The sustainability of the League ensures the game of football continues to grow across the state through junior programs, within regional and indigenous communities and in clubs and schools.



How it would work:

1. There will be two legal entities – the Port Adelaide Football Club and its SANFL division, the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club – which will be overseen by one common board with ultimate responsibility for both.

2. A Management Committee would be appointed to run the SANFL operation. One current Magpies board member would be appointed to the Port Adelaide Football Club board.

3. Neither club would have the right to appoint an SANFL League Director. Instead, a Magpies-appointed representative would attend League Directors’ meetings by invitation. The current Magpies CEO would participate in CEOs’ meetings as the Magpies Operations Manager.

4. The Operations Manager would be entitled to communicate a Club position in the same manner as all other SANFL Clubs for the purposes of decision-making by the SA Football Commission.

5. The Port Adelaide Football Club would only be permitted to allocate approximately $1.36 million per year to run the Magpies. The expense cap, to be audited, is commensurate with the average expenditure of other League clubs. It would be adjusted with changes to club grants and salary cap and reviewed annually and set by the Commission.

6. The Magpies would continue to wear the Magpies jumper, promote the Magpies brand and train on the western side of Alberton Oval.


A meeting for the League Directors is planned for Tuesday, November 9, to vote on the issue.

To go ahead, the proposal requires the approval of the League Directors and the SA Football Commission as both entities would need to use their separate powers to make changes to the Port Adelaide sub-licence agreement and the SANFL Constitution.

An SANFL media conference is planned for the Wednesday after the vote (November 10) to discuss the outcome of the League Directors’ meeting.

[Barto]

Sounds like they've put a bit of effort into something that sounds workable and taken into account the rest of the SA football community rather than just "give us what we want".

Perhaps they should've done that in the first place instead of screaming abuse at everyone else.

[beenreal]

I will re phrase it they have the balls to come out and make comment woo hoo !!

....but not the balls to stand by it. I have tried to find the article on the NAFC site but it is no longer there. Did they not have the fortitude to stand by what it is they had to say?

An excellent question.

Exactly Booney!

Thank goodness it's been pasted into a number of other websites or pretty soon they'd be denying it ever existed.

I thought this extent of hysterical, paranoia being perpetrated by the Menzies Crescent Ostriches (NAFC) ended when society stopped looking for Reds under the Bed!

Grow up.

Since you're so obviously weighing into the Thrust and Parry of this whole debating schtick, please allow me an appropriate rebuttal to your well thought out argument...

GET STUFFED!!

[JK]

Im guessing the Maggies will still receive their AFL generated dividend as per other clubs? Im sure some Crows supporters will have concerns about a subsidiary of the Power recieving an AFC generated sum?

(Before the Maggies fans jump up and down, Im not poo-pooing the 1 Port idea at all, just throwing something out there that could be met with opposition)

[beenreal]

Sounds like they've put a bit of effort into something that sounds workable and taken into account the rest of the SA football community rather than just "give us what we want".

Perhaps they should've done that in the first place instead of screaming abuse at everyone else.

So you have an in-depth knowledge of the first proposal? I'm talking about the one that North Adelaide rejected without even seeing it.

As opposed to the current version... that... North Adelaide ... have rejected... without even... seeing ... it?

Yeah totally different scenario.

[Barto]

Sounds like they've put a bit of effort into something that sounds workable and taken into account the rest of the SA football community rather than just "give us what we want".

Perhaps they should've done that in the first place instead of screaming abuse at everyone else.

So you have an in-depth knowledge of the first proposal? I'm talking about the one that North Adelaide rejected without even seeing it.

As opposed to the current version... that... North Adelaide ... have rejected... without even... seeing ... it?

Yeah totally different scenario.

Enough knowledge to know it was rejected unanimously and the reasons why it was rejected.

The North bashing over this is getting tedious.

[sjt]

So does this mean, one SANFL club will now receive a guaranteed distribution from the Power? Are the Magpies being "effectively" under-written by the Power? It will be interesting to hear feedback and, if any, concerns from the attendee clubs.

[csbowes]

I don't have any real issue with the Magpies merging their administrative arm with the Power. Technically, any of the other 8 clubs could do a similar merge with some other club to get an economy of scale. That said, the Magpies will get a greater advantage having merged with a like minded, like named, football entity.

Access to the membership base for one will be of financial benefit to the Magpies. A simple example will be the combined season ticket off the club could put out, asking for a pittance more for a Magpies home season ticket to be included, that way the Magpies may end up getting another 5,000 (or whatever) home season tickets sold.

That I can live with...

Sturt FC could merge with Sturt Cricket Club and Sturt Basketball Club for example, not exactly a Magpies-Power merger, but cutting back to one secretary and one marketing person is a saving nonetheless. Maybe Norwood and Sturt could merge offices?

The main question I'll be putting to the Sturt FC President at the AGM, is that by having the Magpies as a division of the Power, are we not in a situation whereby the SANFL is guaranteeing the survival of the Magpies by guaranteeing the survival of the Power? This is the one question I would want to see an answer to...

If that is the case, then I think the SANFL needs to change its charter to say that all 9 clubs as they stand, are guaranteed survival, otherwise we don't have a level playing field. They also mention auditing to ensure the Magpies only spend $1.36m or whatever, but are they going to capture implied spend, like marketing costs through the Power?

Are the Magpies going to have to pay for that? Pay for access to the membership base? I doubt it, which means that there will be X dollars reaped in benefits that won't be part of the cap.

[csbowes]

Sounds like they've put a bit of effort into something that sounds workable and taken into account the rest of the SA football community rather than just "give us what we want".

Perhaps they should've done that in the first place instead of screaming abuse at everyone else.

So you have an in-depth knowledge of the first proposal? I'm talking about the one that North Adelaide rejected without even seeing it.

As opposed to the current version... that... North Adelaide ... have rejected... without even... seeing ... it?

Yeah totally different scenario.

The Port proposal was certainly discussed openly at the Sturt FC AGM last season.

From what the President reported to the members, the initial Port proposal was rubbish.

So as Bart said, it was unanimously rejected by all 8 SANFL clubs.

One of the Port board members was present at that AGM and based on his idiotic responses to both the President and Sturt members, I think he left little doubt that the proposal, was in fact, rubbish.

[beenreal]

Sounds like they've put a bit of effort into something that sounds workable and taken into account the rest of the SA football community rather than just "give us what we want".

Perhaps they should've done that in the first place instead of screaming abuse at everyone else.

So you have an in-depth knowledge of the first proposal? I'm talking about the one that North Adelaide rejected without even seeing it.

As opposed to the current version... that... North Adelaide ... have rejected... without even... seeing ... it?

Yeah totally different scenario.

Enough knowledge to know it was rejected unanimously and the reasons why it was rejected.

The North bashing over this is getting tedious.

Rampant paranoia I'm sure.

As for "North bashing"? Change "North" to "Port" and you're right, the Port bashing is getting tedious.

And the Port Board member at your AGM was no doubt your major sponsor from House Brothers. No doubt he is currently heavily considering where to put his (idiotic) money in 2011.

Funny, I've heard all about the vitriol directed at him but no-one has ever clarified what he said that was so wrong.

[Barto]

Rampant paranoia I'm sure.

Some of the people who made the decision are actually pretty well educated in financial matters. I don't think their decision was based on paranoia, but continue to think that like a chunk of Port fans seem to think North are getting vengeance for the 1989 grand final loss. Had the proposal not been haphazard, it would've got a more favourable response.

[Barto]

The main question I'll be putting to the Sturt FC President at the AGM, is that by having the Magpies as a division of the Power, are we not in a situation whereby the SANFL is guaranteeing the survival of the Magpies by guaranteeing the survival of the Power? This is the one question I would want to see an answer to...

Although they seemed to have attempted to address this this time by proposing to remove themselves from the SANFL commission.

One of the sticking points was: If the Magpies merge with the Power and the Power are part owned by the SANFL, then effectively the Magpies are owned in part by the SANFL and if the Power are an AFL club then effectively the AFL are taking a SANFL club under their wing. It's all a bit convoluted and none of them have been able to answer this.

The last time I asked any Port supporters what they'd think of that scenario, I only copped abuse in return and was told I'm just jealous. Strange.

So the Power are going to give the Magpies 1.36million a year if a merger goes ahead in exchange for the POW. Cant they just do this anyway?

[csbowes]

And the Port Board member at your AGM was no doubt your major sponsor from House Brothers. No doubt he is currently heavily considering where to put his (idiotic) money in 2011.

Funny, I've heard all about the vitriol directed at him but no-one has ever clarified what he said that was so wrong.

This is where you're going to lose mate...

Ask people on here, I'm generally very supportive of both the Magpies and Power...

... but in this instance you are completely wrong.

I was the person who actually argued with House that night. He spun absolute rubbish. His view was that when the Port proposal failed to persuade Sturt to support them, that it was Sturt FC who should have been proactive to try and find out more detail about what Port were actually trying to do, rather than reject the proposal.

Sorry, that's just complete rubbish.

It was Port responsibility to put forward a proposal that won favour. By not doing so, it was not the audiences responsibility to help them out and make the proposal better.

As for your jibe about $$$, he's gone, we replaced him, end of story.

Sponsoring a club doesn't mean you've bought its obedience.

Go read the old thread on the Sturt AGM, I wrote a lengthy account of what happened.

[Barto]

I bet if House advertised an employment vacancy in his business and someone submitted a rubbish CV that didn't address the job requirements, he wouldn't go chasing the applicant to find out if there was anything left out.

It was never up to Sturt to poke and prod. It was up to Port to submit something viable etc.

[beenreal]

Rampant paranoia I'm sure.

Some of the people who made the decision are actually pretty well educated in financial matters. I don't think their decision was based on paranoia, but continue to think that like a chunk of Port fans seem to think North are getting vengeance for the 1989 grand final loss. Had the proposal not been haphazard, it would've got a more favourable response.

The people who put together the proposal(s) are also pretty well educated in financial matters. Calling it "haphazard" because it changed over time is simply wrong. The proposal was altered upon receiving feedback from the various presentations to the SANFL clubs. In fact the very opposite to the "like it or lump it" scenario perpetrated by several posters.

[csbowes]

Rampant paranoia I'm sure.

Some of the people who made the decision are actually pretty well educated in financial matters. I don't think their decision was based on paranoia, but continue to think that like a chunk of Port fans seem to think North are getting vengeance for the 1989 grand final loss. Had the proposal not been haphazard, it would've got a more favourable response.

The people who put together the proposal(s) are also pretty well educated in financial matters. Calling it "haphazard" because it changed over time is simply wrong. The proposal was altered upon receiving feedback from the various presentations to the SANFL clubs. In fact the very opposite to the "like it or lump it" scenario perpetrated by several posters.

Agreed. They did react to feedback and change it. However, my information was that they changed it week to week after they went and saw each club, so the proposal club A got was different, to some degree, than what club C got, for example.

Also, I'm sure if you've worked in a white collar office, there's plenty of educated people who are idiots. I'm not suggesting the Port one's were, but plenty of people are in prominant or important positions and no doubt we've met them, rolled our eyes and wondered how the hell they even function as a human.

Sturt has had club officials that fall into this category. So I'm not saying your club is any different to any other...

[Barto]

The thing with submitting that proposal(s) to eight different clubs is that one group of people poring over it may notice something not right that another group might've missed. Port had no hope unless it was spot on.

[Go Legs]

Utterly sick of this whole issue.

At the other end of this issue, which no-one has raised is that if the Power and Maggies merge and the Power fail to produce the goods
and need to fold or the licence is sold off by the SANFL, then the Maggies go too.

Cheers,

[nickname]

So the Power are going to give the Magpies 1.36million a year if a merger goes ahead in exchange for the POW. Cant they just do this anyway?

I don't think it's quite like that. The combined PAFC is only allowed to allocate 1.36m a year to running the Magpies. It's not like a handout.