Magpies and Power merger to be announced in a fortnight.

[Media Park]

why? what was wrong with what was said?

pop on down to the "things that make you laugh" thread in General Discussion...

[hereselmo1]

am bays and Wedgie are now into the debate, creed/crows MkII back in discussion and even I am repeating myself for the 400th time across 59 Port threads. I thought this thread had gone on too long without the same posters saying the same things all over again (including me!). These Port threads eventually suck us all back in!

They could shut us all up by turning up to games and being profitable

This is an example of what I mean about Port fans wanting to kill the SANFL:

http://bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php? ... tcount=299

And this guy moderates the SANFL board on Big Footy. They sound like Victorians.

What they've never been able to answer without launching into a tirade of abuse is who develops footballers in the state if all the income is kept by the two AFL clubs?

That post says nothing about wanting to kill the SANFL and a lot about Port wanting to have control of it's own license.

p.s. you will find the Crows fans arent all that keen on the current situation either.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=772885

[Macca19]

am bays and Wedgie are now into the debate, creed/crows MkII back in discussion and even I am repeating myself for the 400th time across 59 Port threads. I thought this thread had gone on too long without the same posters saying the same things all over again (including me!). These Port threads eventually suck us all back in!

They could shut us all up by turning up to games and being profitable

This is an example of what I mean about Port fans wanting to kill the SANFL:

http://bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php? ... tcount=299

And this guy moderates the SANFL board on Big Footy. They sound like Victorians.

What they've never been able to answer without launching into a tirade of abuse is who develops footballers in the state if all the income is kept by the two AFL clubs?

Feel free to point out in that post where it says anything about killing off the SANFL? Hate to say it again, but paranoid much?

[Barto]

Says he who reckons the SANFL have always been out to get Port. Seriously if you don't think what they're insinuating on that forum isn't about (not only Port but the Crows) breaking free of the SANFL and leaving it to rot then you're being disingenuous.

Although sometimes I think the SANFL should just give them what they want and hand over the licence lock stock and barrel and wish them all the best.

[Macca19]

Says he who reckons the SANFL have always been out to get Port. Seriously if you don't think what they're insinuating on that forum isn't about (not only Port but the Crows) breaking free of the SANFL and leaving it to rot then you're being disingenuous.

Although sometimes I think the SANFL should just give them what they want and hand over the licence lock stock and barrel and wish them all the best.

Why does breaking free of the SANFL = leaving it to rot. In any case, this is something that has been mentioned and talked about by the AFL for over 12 months now....it could very well be on the cards.

Bit hypocritical whinging about Port supporters on a Port forum whinging about the SANFL, when there have been an equal number of posts on her whinging about Port and hoping they rot. I dont see the point in it.

[Media Park]

Feel free to point out in that post where it says anything about killing off the SANFL? Hate to say it again, but paranoid much?

Macca, I don't know if you frequent bigfooty often, but I made a rare sojourn over there today, and copped a ban, because of my reply to the post that's been quoted up there ^^.

Mine got deleted, which was fair enough, because I just tried to have a crack at the bloke, but there were plenty of valid points about that post, and killing off the SANFL... They just got deleted like mine...

Paranoid much?

[CENTURION]

I get it now, BF stands for BigFooty! I thought something else, my bad.

[Trent Plucktrum]

I get it now, BF stands for BigFooty! I thought something else, my bad.

Thats because you have been called it so often !!

[CENTURION]

I get it now, BF stands for BigFooty! I thought something else, my bad.

Thats because you have been called it so often !!

only by you, sweetness xx

[Trent Plucktrum]

I get it now, BF stands for BigFooty! I thought something else, my bad.

Thats because you have been called it so often !!

only by you, sweetness xx

I do not believe i'm the only one !!

[nickname]

Why does breaking free of the SANFL = leaving it to rot. In any case, this is something that has been mentioned and talked about by the AFL for over 12 months now....it could very well be on the cards.

The AFL want all clubs to own their own licences. Which is curious because if Port owned their own licence now, with their projected losses over the next 3 years, they'd be wound up.

[Ronnie]

Why does breaking free of the SANFL = leaving it to rot. In any case, this is something that has been mentioned and talked about by the AFL for over 12 months now....it could very well be on the cards.

The AFL want all clubs to own their own licences. Which is curious because if Port owned their own licence now, with their projected losses over the next 3 years, they'd be wound up.

Not so sure about that, in a normal business, yes. However, the AFL is committed to keeping its comp to 16-17-18 teams by 2012 if only for TV rights.
Port would be thinking that the AFL would simply not allow them to go under, even if it meant AFL welfare money for a period of time.

[Psyber]

Why does breaking free of the SANFL = leaving it to rot. In any case, this is something that has been mentioned and talked about by the AFL for over 12 months now....it could very well be on the cards.

The AFL want all clubs to own their own licences. Which is curious because if Port owned their own licence now, with their projected losses over the next 3 years, they'd be wound up.

Wouldn't there be contractual requirements for the the AFL or the SA based AFL clubs to buy the licences I assume the SANFL paid for?
With that compensation to put into a new player retention scheme that may be the way to go!
Then when all AFL is on Foxtel people like me can ignore it and enjoy the SANFL.

Presumably then the Power and the Crows would each have to have a seconds team in the VFL.

[TimmiesChin]

Wouldn't there be contractual requirements for the the AFL or the SA based AFL clubs to buy the licences I assume the SANFL paid for?

The clubs themselves paid for their AFL licences .... although the SANFL did loan them money, and I think may have made a contribution towards the end of each.

Whats the point though ... both clubs each year seem to put money back into the SANFL.... even though both this year have posted losses.

Its naive to think the problems of the AFL clubs are entirely the AFL clubs doings ... the money they bring in is greater than what they spend ... the problem is that the money they bring in also props up an SANFL league that doesn't generate enough of its own revenueto be self sufficent .... and hence relies on AFL dividends.

[nickname]

Not so sure about that, in a normal business, yes. However, the AFL is committed to keeping its comp to 16-17-18 teams by 2012 if only for TV rights.
Port would be thinking that the AFL would simply not allow them to go under, even if it meant AFL welfare money for a period of time.

Maybe, but with Port projecting losses in excess of $10million over the next 3 years...I don't think the AFL has ever propped up a club to that extent.

[james07]

Not so sure about that, in a normal business, yes. However, the AFL is committed to keeping its comp to 16-17-18 teams by 2012 if only for TV rights.
Port would be thinking that the AFL would simply not allow them to go under, even if it meant AFL welfare money for a period of time.

Maybe, but with Port projecting losses in excess of $10million over the next 3 years...I don't think the AFL has ever propped up a club to that extent.

The AFL hasnt jumped in to help in a big way because they understand how the licenses are run. The Sanfl get a large slice of the revenue generated by these clubs. Hence the AFL clubs posting a loss.

[Hondo]

Not so sure about that, in a normal business, yes. However, the AFL is committed to keeping its comp to 16-17-18 teams by 2012 if only for TV rights.
Port would be thinking that the AFL would simply not allow them to go under, even if it meant AFL welfare money for a period of time.

Maybe, but with Port projecting losses in excess of $10million over the next 3 years...I don't think the AFL has ever propped up a club to that extent.

The Brisbane Lions apparently have a $2m loss this year, $600K loss in 2009, $2m loss in 2008 and losses in 2006-2007. This all based on a quick internet search. I presume it's AFL money supporting them.

There's also the equalisation payments that are paid to the lower drawing Melbourne based teams to offset the gains the AFL make from their blockbuster draw policy. They are very large sums of money. I don't have those stats handy.

[once_were_warriors]

Not so sure about that, in a normal business, yes. However, the AFL is committed to keeping its comp to 16-17-18 teams by 2012 if only for TV rights.
Port would be thinking that the AFL would simply not allow them to go under, even if it meant AFL welfare money for a period of time.

Maybe, but with Port projecting losses in excess of $10million over the next 3 years...I don't think the AFL has ever propped up a club to that extent.

The AFL hasnt jumped in to help in a big way because they understand how the licenses are run. The Sanfl get a large slice of the revenue generated by these clubs. Hence the AFL clubs posting a loss.

This I agree with, the SANFL own the licenses so therfore they are ultimately responsible for the financial position of the two AFL Clubs not the AFL.
Its one big pool of money the SANFL get from running football park . How they distribute it to the AFL clubs, SANFL clubs, Maintenance and upgrading of Footy Park and other things ultimately, is the question and bugbear.

However (and I'm happy to be corrected). I believe the two AFL clubs get the TV Money distribution from the AFL and the runnings of their social clubs.

Social club money I am happy for them to retain , however the TV money shouldn't that be given to the licensee (SANFL)?

[Royal City]

Wouldn't there be contractual requirements for the the AFL or the SA based AFL clubs to buy the licences I assume the SANFL paid for?

The clubs themselves paid for their AFL licences .... although the SANFL did loan them money, and I think may have made a contribution towards the end of each.

Whats the point though ... both clubs each year seem to put money back into the SANFL.... even though both this year have posted losses.

Its naive to think the problems of the AFL clubs are entirely the AFL clubs doings ... the money they bring in is greater than what they spend ... the problem is that the money they bring in also props up an SANFL league that doesn't generate enough of its own revenueto be self sufficent .... and hence relies on AFL dividends.

you agreed to give us dividends as compensation for taking over the sanfls market share . If you don't want to pay dividends you are more than welcome to hand back our market .

Sanfl aren't self sufficient ??? Oh really port Adelaide fans whose club is currently $6 mill in debt. Please give us a lecture about not being self sufficient.

The sanfl paid $8 mill for the two licences upfront. Guess how the sanfl (hint) raised those funds to allow your club access to an afl licence.

Question for port fans ?? Why do we now take a set amount of dividends from pafc and not a % of your profits like originally set up . I know the answer and I wouldn't complain about it if I was you

[Booney]

I know the answer....

Tell us something we dont know...