NAFC injunction on the SANFL re the Power

[dedja]

I think the Power have spent a lot of money trying to get "up to speed" with other clubs who have been more established than them. This has been driven by a view that having every tool at their disposal, leaving no stone unturn, would be the best means of success. That has meant things like visiting overseas "sports corporates" like Man U, building a training facility at Alberton (with contributions from the SANFL and Alan Scott), having plenty of staff (including some who are unique in their roles at Port because no other clubs have similar roles). In essence, they have been chasing success by spending a lot of money on a lot of things in a short space of time.
The 2004 GF win and the 2007 GF loss (3 yrs apart) would have encouraged them to believe that everything they were doing was bringing on-field results. Maybe it did. However, maybe they forgot to consider the off field impact, thinking that GF appearances and the like would bring the supporters and their money and attract new supporters and their money.

This is probably a fair bit of supposition, but in essence I have a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they have been willing to spend money to fast track success, and maybe their expenditure has not produced the yields and dividends they hoped to get - on and off field.

If I am right, it would be interesting to consider whether the Gold Coast will look at greenfields franchises like the Bears, Crows, Eagles, Power and Dockers, and see what worked well and what didn't over the period 1987-now.

try another theory I'm afraid ... they're one of the lowest spending clubs in the AFL.

[heater31]

I think the Power have spent a lot of money trying to get "up to speed" with other clubs who have been more established than them. This has been driven by a view that having every tool at their disposal, leaving no stone unturn, would be the best means of success. That has meant things like visiting overseas "sports corporates" like Man U, building a training facility at Alberton (with contributions from the SANFL and Alan Scott), having plenty of staff (including some who are unique in their roles at Port because no other clubs have similar roles). In essence, they have been chasing success by spending a lot of money on a lot of things in a short space of time.
The 2004 GF win and the 2007 GF loss (3 yrs apart) would have encouraged them to believe that everything they were doing was bringing on-field results. Maybe it did. However, maybe they forgot to consider the off field impact, thinking that GF appearances and the like would bring the supporters and their money and attract new supporters and their money.

This is probably a fair bit of supposition, but in essence I have a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they have been willing to spend money to fast track success, and maybe their expenditure has not produced the yields and dividends they hoped to get - on and off field.

If I am right, it would be interesting to consider whether the Gold Coast will look at greenfields franchises like the Bears, Crows, Eagles, Power and Dockers, and see what worked well and what didn't over the period 1987-now.

try another theory I'm afraid ... they're one of the lowest spending clubs in the AFL.

not really they wasted $$$$$ on buying each player a Blackberry phone so they could receive match review information from the coaching staff. What don't these kids know how to operate a DVD these days

[Sojourner]

Bohdan Jaworskyj just had a an interesting interview on 5aa, he talked about a few things including the Salary cap in the SANFL will be reduced

It seems to me that we are being lulled into a sense that this has to be done so that the SANFL clubs can survive by having their costs lowered by having a lesser salary cap, yet if that happens I do think that the standard of the SANFL will drop as a result and will struggle to retain the standard of the competition, we already have a situation where junior and fringe players are being picked off by Amatuer league sides.

What I also took out of the conversation today was the projected reduced revenues for the SANFL competition over the next three years, As that funding reduces it has to be replaced from somewhere just to maintain the current level. I think that the NAFC have gotten involved to shore up their own position rather than to be the white knight and help others, if they have realised that less coin is coming into the club, it is the right thing to do to challenge the SANFL and ask for proper accounts, why should they psis money to the tune of 2 million against the wall if a specific plan has not been put to them to show how doing so will benefit the club. I hope more SANFL boards are as perceptive on the issue as its far easier to negotiate from a position of strength as from a position of weakness which may well be the future for some of the clubs if changes are not made.

[Squawk]

Yes, (Dedja) but isn't that in the category of "lowest spend in football operations per wins achieved on the field". That's my recollection and if so, it's a 'nothing' stat. But you know the saying ' "lies, lies and damned statistics" - there is always a stat for something.

The only way you get in to financial trouble is if your expenditure exceeds your income. Oh, and atm we also have the GFC (which, I fear, is starting to affect the rate of growth of pineapples in Queensland and responsible for mini-tornadoes at Port Noarlunga). In all seriousness, Port have a low-socioeconomic supporter base and have to fight the Crows for the Corporate $$$ at the top end of town - not easy. They apparently have a crap stadium deal as well. They came into the comp in 1997 and that year and the next, the Crows won consecutive flags which was no help to a new club trying to appeal to a marketplace. But they did win the flag in 2004 ($$$$) and were runner up in 2007 ($$).

So, the money has gone somewhere - where? Has it been spent based on forecasts of future earnings that were/are eroneous?

As I said, I might be totally wrong but I'm only trying to illustrate what my perception is.

[dedja]

Squawk, you're half-right ... I know it's semantics but you're stating expenditure exceeds income but in the case of PAFC, my understanding is that revenue has dropped. I maintain that expenditure is not the issue (or as some have claimed, excessive expenditure).

In all honesty, there have been a lot of views in the this topic but I think we need to establish some facts to start with so we can work through the actual issues.

From what I can gather (yes, I listend to the interview on 5AA today) is that NAFC have asked some questions which will help to identify the transparency and governance of PAFC financials going forward ... nothing wrong with that.

[Squawk]

I think we need to establish some facts to start with so we can work through the actual issues.

Is there a registered user on this site called "Dr SANFL"?? (or Nurse SANFL? )

[dedja]

I think we need to establish some facts to start with so we can work through the actual issues.

Is there a registered user on this site called "Dr SANFL"?? (or Nurse SANFL? )

[Macca19]

Yeah im not sure if Port have been going on a billionaires spending spree which as got them into trouble. Theyve been one of the lowest spenders in terms of salary cap as far as im aware and this year have $700k spare in the cap. Going back to 03-04 they had one of the highest football department costs, last year it had the 3rd lowest overall (not per win, overall).

Ports been in and around $3m debt from the very beginning but it hasnt been an issue as its been able to service it.

If its true that Port have been transparent from the start about the financial situation, then I cant understand why the SANFL would simply hide this fact from the SANFL clubs. In doing this its put in jeopardy the existence of both Port and the SANFL clubs.

[doggies4eva]

So let me get this right, we have 7 pages in this topic because NAFC wrote a nasty letter to the SANFL like Hans Brix did in Team America World Police?

Yes I think this is the most interesting thread that we have had for a while.

Underlying it are all of the key issues associated with SANFL:

What is the role of the AFL clubs? - cash cows or the "main game"

Should the SANFL own its own stadium or sell it cash up and use Adelaide Oval (I am not advocating this because I am pretty sure that the numbers won't stack up).

What is Port Power? (they seem to have a split personality - they can't be both a club with 200 years of history and a new club targetting potential members with loyalties to SANFL clubs other that the PAMs. Who should run Port Power - should they be autonomous or controlled by the SANFL.

Does the SANFL have to make improvements? There have been criticisms here of it's decision making, transparency and accountability.


There are all fundamental questions that will impact on the smooth operations of football in SA for some time!

[SABRE]

Plenty of Norwood/Sturt supporters for a start will jump on board Port if they play at Adelaide Oval.

Keep your heads down boys and girls, the pigs are flying low today !

[dedja]

So let me get this right, we have 7 pages in this topic because NAFC wrote a nasty letter to the SANFL like Hans Brix did in Team America World Police?

Yes I think this is the most interesting thread that we have had for a while.

Underlying it are all of the key issues associated with SANFL:

What is the role of the AFL clubs? - cash cows or the "main game"

Should the SANFL own its own stadium or sell it cash up and use Adelaide Oval (I am not advocating this because I am pretty sure that the numbers won't stack up).

What is Port Power? (they seem to have a split personality - they can't be both a club with 200 years of history and a new club targetting potential members with loyalties to SANFL clubs other that the PAMs. Who should run Port Power - should they be autonomous or controlled by the SANFL.

Does the SANFL have to make improvements? There have been criticisms here of it's decision making, transparency and accountability.


There are all fundamental questions that will impact on the smooth operations of football in SA for some time!

My post was obviously in jest because the thread started off with a rumour and it has taken a lot of posts to understand what the crux of the issue was/is ... with a few deviations and tosses and turns in between.

As I have stated a few times here, it seems the main focus is the transparency and governance issue, but agreed, there are a lot of peripheral issues that come into the mix.

Cheers ...

[doggies4eva]

So let me get this right, we have 7 pages in this topic because NAFC wrote a nasty letter to the SANFL like Hans Brix did in Team America World Police?

Yes I think this is the most interesting thread that we have had for a while.

Underlying it are all of the key issues associated with SANFL:

What is the role of the AFL clubs? - cash cows or the "main game"

Should the SANFL own its own stadium or sell it cash up and use Adelaide Oval (I am not advocating this because I am pretty sure that the numbers won't stack up).

What is Port Power? (they seem to have a split personality - they can't be both a club with 200 years of history and a new club targetting potential members with loyalties to SANFL clubs other that the PAMs. Who should run Port Power - should they be autonomous or controlled by the SANFL.

Does the SANFL have to make improvements? There have been criticisms here of it's decision making, transparency and accountability.


There are all fundamental questions that will impact on the smooth operations of football in SA for some time!

My post was obviously in jest because the thread started off with a rumour and it has taken a lot of posts to understand what the crux of the issue was/is ... with a few deviations and tosses and turns in between.

As I have stated a few times here, it seems the main focus is the transparency and governance issue, but agreed, there are a lot of peripheral issues that come into the mix.

Cheers ...

I know you were having a joke but many a true word is said in jest.

Just remember there's no I in Team America!

[UK Fan]

So let me get this right, we have 7 pages in this topic because NAFC wrote a nasty letter to the SANFL like Hans Brix did in Team America World Police?

Yes I think this is the most interesting thread that we have had for a while.

Underlying it are all of the key issues associated with SANFL:

What is the role of the AFL clubs? - cash cows or the "main game"

Should the SANFL own its own stadium or sell it cash up and use Adelaide Oval (I am not advocating this because I am pretty sure that the numbers won't stack up).

What is Port Power? (they seem to have a split personality - they can't be both a club with 200 years of history and a new club targetting potential members with loyalties to SANFL clubs other that the PAMs. Who should run Port Power - should they be autonomous or controlled by the SANFL.

Does the SANFL have to make improvements? There have been criticisms here of it's decision making, transparency and accountability.


There are all fundamental questions that will impact on the smooth operations of football in SA for some time!

VEry valid points you make Doggies4eva. Unfortunately they are completely wasted on a supporter like Hondo. Youd have more luck getting Graham Cornes to concede.

Hondo believes these AFL clubs are absolute cash cows and nobody can convince him otherwise(eventhough Port $5 mill in debt standing to lose another $12mill).

I have tried for years to convince him they arent as profitable as we are led to believe. And that the current SANFL set up is completely wrong and will never work.

Youll hear Hondo make claims how the AFL clubs profits are good for the wider football community. Where SANFL clubs just work for themselves. But you have to believe when the very same AFL clubs make a loss it is to no detriment to anyone but that club. Profits good for everyone . Losses only bad to the individual club. So dont waste your breathe trying to get him to take a holistic view on things.

Scary thing is he still believe he is a NAFC supporter.

[UK Fan]

Yeah im not sure if Port have been going on a billionaires spending spree which as got them into trouble. Theyve been one of the lowest spenders in terms of salary cap as far as im aware and this year have $700k spare in the cap. Going back to 03-04 they had one of the highest football department costs, last year it had the 3rd lowest overall (not per win, overall).

Ports been in and around $3m debt from the very beginning but it hasnt been an issue as its been able to service it.

If its true that Port have been transparent from the start about the financial situation, then I cant understand why the SANFL would simply hide this fact from the SANFL clubs. In doing this its put in jeopardy the existence of both Port and the SANFL clubs.

So just to clarify an independent audit into the PAFC financials show the PAFC have clearly overspent. "Lived above their means for many years" .

And Macca still denies Port have been wasting money. What a surprise.

Denial is strong with you Macca.

If Port has the third lowest on field expenses at any club can I ask.

1) Shouldn't it be the lowest as they have officially the lowest attendance of any AFL club in the league.

2) Are the AFL clubs with less on field expenses than the PAFC currently. Do they stand to make more than a combined loss of $12 mill in the next three years ????


Port have clearly overspent. But what I like is the PAFC excuses. Over the last month Its been the SANFLs fault , the PAMFC's fault, the 8 other clubs fault, the SANFL salary cap and now it is the world global crisis.

Great way to take ownership PAFC. And Rucci today "obviously the SANFL clubs are still angry at Port getting the AFL licence". COs that is our motivation on this obviously. Absolutely nothing to do with the 5 mill in debt plus the forecasted $12 mill more.

Rucci you have NFI .

If the $12 mill over the next 3 years is correct. Sorry but this cash cow needs to be put out to pasture immediately.

[Barto]

Great way to take ownership PAFC. And Rucci today "obviously the SANFL clubs are still angry at Port getting the AFL licence". COs that is our motivation on this obviously. Absolutely nothing to do with the 5 mill in debt plus the forecasted $12 mill more.

He's got to be joking. He probably also believes that the league expanded in the early 60s to chip away at Port's dominance.

It's a deflection. Of course the clubs are going to be angry if a black hole opens up and swallows money that should be flowing towards grass roots football.

[harley d]

Have a read of his colum ( if you can stomach his poor writing) about Ports 5 year plan. He talks about consequences which means "if we do this what could happen". But they are not even remotely near consequences. ??? He mention the Magpies but I thought he says they are a different entity and have nothing to do with the PAPS?? Boy he is ordinary journalist. He should spill his beans on how he got the confidential report as well. Why cant he just name names rather than his constant innuendo and digs at people. EG The Norwood rover he mentions...... we all know it is Rowey you clown.

[Macca19]

Yeah im not sure if Port have been going on a billionaires spending spree which as got them into trouble. Theyve been one of the lowest spenders in terms of salary cap as far as im aware and this year have $700k spare in the cap. Going back to 03-04 they had one of the highest football department costs, last year it had the 3rd lowest overall (not per win, overall).

Ports been in and around $3m debt from the very beginning but it hasnt been an issue as its been able to service it.

If its true that Port have been transparent from the start about the financial situation, then I cant understand why the SANFL would simply hide this fact from the SANFL clubs. In doing this its put in jeopardy the existence of both Port and the SANFL clubs.

So just to clarify an independent audit into the PAFC financials show the PAFC have clearly overspent. "Lived above their means for many years" .

And Macca still denies Port have been wasting money. What a surprise.

Sorry, what has this got to do with the salary cap or football dept? Plenty of other areas which the club could have over spent on.

If Port has the third lowest on field expenses at any club can I ask.

1) Shouldn't it be the lowest as they have officially the lowest attendance of any AFL club in the league.

What the **** does this question even mean? What do crowds have to do with the football department?

2) Are the AFL clubs with less on field expenses than the PAFC currently. Do they stand to make more than a combined loss of $12 mill in the next three years ????

Id have to find where the stats are and have a look again at which clubs were lower.

[Macca19]

Football Department Spending 2008

_1. Sydney $16.9mil
_2. Collingwood $16.4
_3. West Coast $16.2
_4. Fremantle $15.2
_5. Hawthorn $15.1
_6. Geelong $15.1
_7. Brisbane $14.6
_8. St Kilda $14.3
_9. Melbourne $14.2
10. Adelaide $14.1
11. Carlton $13.6
12. Richmond $13.4
13. Port Adelaide $13.3
14. Essendon $13.2
15. Western Bulldogs $12.8
16. North Melbourne $12.7

Made a mistake, was 4th lowest, not 3rd.

[Hondo]

VEry valid points you make Doggies4eva. Unfortunately they are completely wasted on a supporter like Hondo. Youd have more luck getting Graham Cornes to concede.

Hondo believes these AFL clubs are absolute cash cows and nobody can convince him otherwise(even though Port $5 mill in debt standing to lose another $12mill).

I have tried for years to convince him they arent as profitable as we are led to believe. And that the current SANFL set up is completely wrong and will never work.

Youll hear Hondo make claims how the AFL clubs profits are good for the wider football community. Where SANFL clubs just work for themselves. But you have to believe when the very same AFL clubs make a loss it is to no detriment to anyone but that club. Profits good for everyone . Losses only bad to the individual club. So dont waste your breathe trying to get him to take a holistic view on things.

So why don't the SANFL clubs want to stop this money going to the Power or want the Power to fold if that's the best solution?

Where do you think the SANFL has found the $4m or so spare to distribute to the SANFL clubs each year since 1991?

I have told you many times that there's losses within the Power but profits being generated for the SANFL from their home games. Overall, I believe the SANFL are in front. Currently, they are not as in front as they should be and so I don't defend the management at the Power over the last 3 years that have created this current problem. It seems the amount of money required to fix the problem will impact the distributions to the SANFL clubs and that is disappointing. No argument there.

I do believe however, that this is a short term problem that will sort itself out over the coming years. The AFL will sign an astronomical TV deal next time around and some of that will find it's way into our SANFL comp eventually. Remember too that Port are not the only AFL club relying on hand-outs from someone right now.

And for the second time, I never said SANFL clubs don't support the local community. I don't even recall making a point that the AFL clubs do.

[Macca19]

Thought you would have realised long ago that UK fan likes to make anything up so long as it suits his argument.