Port Cash Crisis = ? for SANFL Clubs and Comp?

[Alby_Green]

It's over.......shut the doors ......move on nothing to see here !!!!!

answer me this why dont the sanfl move on and pass in port to the afl???????

Yes, the SANFL should probably just "move on" and sell their 2nd AFL licence to Tasmania . Tassie are desperate to get their own team in the AFL.

Im pretty sure the AFL would have conditions attached to the licenses to prevent the holder from on-selling to whomever or wherever they want.

"Pretty sure", Jason? Would be interesting to know for sure.

[hereselmo1]

Gee Port are such a drain on the poor SANFL that the SANFL only value holding onto the license as worth $30-40 million.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/deba ... 6072795276

[topsywaldron]

If an independent license is the be all and end all for Port Adelaide why did they bid for the second license at all?

I mean, it's hardly as if the governance structure should come as a surprise to them, they were the ones trampling over everyone to get their hands on it.

Weird.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Gee Port are such a drain on the poor SANFL that the SANFL only value holding onto the license as worth $30-40 million.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/deba ... 6072795276

Is any of the article you linked fact? Or just speculation?

[smac]

Gee Port are such a drain on the poor SANFL that the SANFL only value holding onto the license as worth $30-40 million.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/deba ... 6072795276

The licence of a club underwritten by the AFL and their billions would be worth that much, absolutely. What is the likelihood of the AFL underwriting Port to the point where the current licence holder were still able to profit from it? As much chance of me buying The Advertiser ever again.

[Apachebulldog]

They have'nt been a drain at all just, LEECHES as other posters have said ,10 mil in the last 3 years, another 5 mil for this year, another 9 mil for the next 3 years wow whats that now 24 MILLION DOLLARS thats one fat PORT ADELAIDE LEECH no wonder the SANFL is in financial strife but of course some Port supporters play the blame game and blame every one else for their woes.

I think you got it wrong hereselmo 1 !!

[JK]

Does anyone know what the TV generated income for the AFL was back in 1997?

The reason I ask is that whilst the stadium deal has never likely been ideal for Port (and the Crows), the landscape in terms of coverage and live against the gate has changed dramatically over the last 14 years.

Shouldn't the AFL be covering these losses (either in-part or fully) with the boot-load of money they now make from one of the biggest contributing factors for the smaller crowds? (and not just Port, but any clubs with reduced attendance in that time)

[Macca19]

Does anyone know what the TV generated income for the AFL was back in 1997?

The reason I ask is that whilst the stadium deal has never likely been ideal for Port (and the Crows), the landscape in terms of coverage and live against the gate has changed dramatically over the last 14 years.

Channel 7 paid $20 million for the rights in 1997. 10 years later, 7 and 10 paid $780 million for the rights. Now its what...$1.2 billion or something?

In 1997, you used to be able to go to the game on a Sunday, come home and watch the replay from 6:30-8:30 in between the news and the sunday night movie. Score updates were radio or 1/4 time breaks on Channel 7. Every reason to go to the game. Now youve got every SA game live on Fox, maximum 20 minute delay on FTA (sometimes live) and with just about everybody having a movie screen sized plasma there is every reason to stay home.

[JK]

Does anyone know what the TV generated income for the AFL was back in 1997?

The reason I ask is that whilst the stadium deal has never likely been ideal for Port (and the Crows), the landscape in terms of coverage and live against the gate has changed dramatically over the last 14 years.

Channel 7 paid $20 million for the rights in 1997. 10 years later, 7 and 10 paid $780 million for the rights. Now its what...$1.2 billion or something?

In 1997, you used to be able to go to the game on a Sunday, come home and watch the replay from 6:30-8:30 in between the news and the sunday night movie. Score updates were radio or 1/4 time breaks on Channel 7. Every reason to go to the game. Now youve got every SA game live on Fox, maximum 20 minute delay on FTA (sometimes live) and with just about everybody having a movie screen sized plasma there is every reason to stay home.

I actually agree with you Macca, and think the AFL should take some responsibility for at least some of the shortfall in attendance and matchday revenue .. Obviously the Crows and Power should continue to push for better stadium returns, but the AFL has $ coming out of the wazoo and most of it comes from something that severely impacts on attendance levels.

[spell_check]

Does anyone know what the TV generated income for the AFL was back in 1997?

The reason I ask is that whilst the stadium deal has never likely been ideal for Port (and the Crows), the landscape in terms of coverage and live against the gate has changed dramatically over the last 14 years.

Channel 7 paid $20 million for the rights in 1997. 10 years later, 7 and 10 paid $780 million for the rights. Now its what...$1.2 billion or something?

In 1997, you used to be able to go to the game on a Sunday, come home and watch the replay from 6:30-8:30 in between the news and the sunday night movie. Score updates were radio or 1/4 time breaks on Channel 7. Every reason to go to the game. Now youve got every SA game live on Fox, maximum 20 minute delay on FTA (sometimes live) and with just about everybody having a movie screen sized plasma there is every reason to stay home.

And of course the dear CEO of the AFL says TV ratings aren't to blame for the poor crowds. Despite this post saying exactly what the problem is - Demetriou can deny all he wants, but the bottom line is that live against the gate will always hamper crowds.

Just like another hot political topic both nationally and internationally, using a set starting point to prove something does not tell the full story to what happened before. Maniac Mike uses 2007 as a starting point http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6073070558 when of course 2007, the Crows made the finals, and was after a year in which they made the Preliminary Final. Of course the crowds would be better then!

[Macca19]

And of course the dear CEO of the AFL says TV ratings aren't to blame for the poor crowds. Despite this post saying exactly what the problem is - Demetriou can deny all he wants, but the bottom line is that live against the gate will always hamper crowds.

He probably has a point in SA. Both Port and Adelaides crowds are down by over 20% in the last 7-8 years and TV ratings have decreased as well. So all across the board, there are less people watching AFL in SA.

Just like another hot political topic both nationally and internationally, using a set starting point to prove something does not tell the full story to what happened before. Maniac Mike uses 2007 as a starting point http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6073070558 when of course 2007, the Crows made the finals, and was after a year in which they made the Preliminary Final. Of course the crowds would be better then!

Well he could have chosen 2003, where Adelaides crowds have decreased by nearly 10,000 per game from 03 to now. Coupled with the fact their membership has decreased significantly and their 'waiting list' is a thing of the past, you cant tell me Adelaide wouldnt be worried by this as well.

[spell_check]

It's probably good for another thread, but to be honest, it may be accurate to a point, but I can't quite work out how much you can read into TV ratings when they are a sample of so few people. However, I'm not saying they are totally inaccurate, just a bit wary on how accurate they are. I'm sure like anything on here, an expert in the field will put me on the right path there.

Crows finished 6th after the minor round in 2003 with 13 wins. That was off the back of another Prelim appearance. I think after the disappointments from the mid 2000s, then a slide in fortunes have hurt Adelaide and its crowds as much as the almost live gate.

[Barto]

Does anyone know what the TV generated income for the AFL was back in 1997?

The reason I ask is that whilst the stadium deal has never likely been ideal for Port (and the Crows), the landscape in terms of coverage and live against the gate has changed dramatically over the last 14 years.

Channel 7 paid $20 million for the rights in 1997. 10 years later, 7 and 10 paid $780 million for the rights. Now its what...$1.2 billion or something?

In 1997, you used to be able to go to the game on a Sunday, come home and watch the replay from 6:30-8:30 in between the news and the sunday night movie. Score updates were radio or 1/4 time breaks on Channel 7. Every reason to go to the game. Now youve got every SA game live on Fox, maximum 20 minute delay on FTA (sometimes live) and with just about everybody having a movie screen sized plasma there is every reason to stay home.

All the SANFL's fault of course

[Sojourner]

He probably has a point in SA. Both Port and Adelaides crowds are down by over 20% in the last 7-8 years and TV ratings have decreased as well. So all across the board, there are less people watching AFL in SA.

If the Crows and Power were in the eight and exhibiting good form the attendances would likely be as they were and tv ratings on a par with their traditional results. All sides have there hangers on that are only there when they are winning, that is hardly a new phenomena, when South put together a string of wins its amazing the number of termites that wriggle out of the woodwork!

Port have there issues in marketing the club to people that are not from the PAFC 1870 background, The Crows are facing an organised boycott through facebook of people who have declared they will not attend games whilst Neil Craig remains the Senior Coach of the club. Both clubs need to work on strategies to solve these issues if they are to get themselves out of their respective slumps.

[stan]

They have'nt been a drain at all just, LEECHES as other posters have said ,10 mil in the last 3 years, another 5 mil for this year, another 9 mil for the next 3 years wow whats that now 24 MILLION DOLLARS thats one fat PORT ADELAIDE LEECH no wonder the SANFL is in financial strife but of course some Port supporters play the blame game and blame every one else for their woes.

I think you got it wrong hereselmo 1 !!

As I posted in the other thread sort of about this, if the SANFL see this as such a drain and a problem then they should get rid of the bad "debt" in the power. Either sell it off or hand them back to the AFL. Selling off is probably the best as it has been stated that there licence is worth $30-40 mil which I seem crazy to be honest but then again I dont really have my head around that aspect of it.
Then Mr. bulldog you will have the crows as the revenue machine, Port will probably move to Adelaide oval before the ink dries and the problem will be solved.

[Wedgie]

Port will probably move to Adelaide oval before the ink dries and the problem will be solved.

Yep, and there will be world peace and no more hunger when AFL is played at Adelaide Oval too.

[CENTURION]

Port will probably move to Adelaide oval before the ink dries and the problem will be solved.

Yep, and there will be world peace and no more hunger when AFL is played at Adelaide Oval too.

And land rights for gay whales as well?

[HOORAY PUNT]

And Glenelg will win a final ....... Sorry , I have taken it too far now.

[stan]

Port will probably move to Adelaide oval before the ink dries and the problem will be solved.

Yep, and there will be world peace and no more hunger when AFL is played at Adelaide Oval too.

And land rights for gay whales as well?

Yes exactly, world peace will probably come because the conflict will finally end in the middle east because they'll all come to adelaide to watch football at adelaide oval, in the current grandstand that leaks or should I say just lets the rain in...anyway I guess I'm looking at it from a simply point of view.

And gay whales and land rights?

[stan]

And Glenelg will win a final ....... Sorry , I have taken it too far now.

And so will richmond