NAFC injunction on the SANFL re the Power

[Hondo]

I wasn't threatening to leave the site Wedgie

It was short hand to ask you to delete my post after you'd read it. Call it quits = stop arguing with you about it

[doggies4eva]

d4eva if you really want to further research these issues, there's an article on AdelaideNow on 19 July. Admittedly, it's from Port's POV. But I just offer it to you to read. Like anything on this subject, take everything you read with some healthy sceptisicm and open mind because there's probably truth in the arguments from both sides and the answer is somewhere in the middle.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25801651-12428,00.html

If you want to get up to speed on the stadium deal issue, I have posted this link several times because it helps understand why Port and most teams in Melbourne are financially challenged by their stadium deals compared to teams like West Coast and Freo. It's long!

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=554729&highlight=Stadium+deal

Again, it's written by a Port Adelaide person so you need to take that into account when reading it.

It's interesting stuff when you get into it! I'd love to get my hands on a copy of the SANFL Inc's financial statements but cannot find them anywhere. That would make for interesting reading in light of all the debate recently.

Thanks for these threads Hondo. Maybe I have come late to the debate but I hadn't read them. The Bigfooty article was excellent. Probably the nest researched information that I have seen. I need to read it carefully as I don't think I have taken it all in yet.

[doggies4eva]

Also what costs do the other clubs have that Port doesn't? They play at football park for free (given that the SANFL keeps the proceeds). Do other clubs have to pay grand fees and other costs that increase their costs?

How do you come to the conclusion that Port play at Football Park for free, given that this entire debate and issue is based around how much money the SANFL take from Port home games?

Macca what I meant was there is no rental or facilities fee paid by Port. Granted that they pay a sub-licence fee but this is a separate item. This means that if a Victorian club has to pay a fee (and then collects some or all of the gate) then this will inflate their expenses and make the comparisons less reliable. Have I made myself clear?

[Sojourner]

One of the things that the SAFC does seem to have changed for the better, is to have an opportunity on the Panthers forum for people to ask questions of the Club Administration, the current NAFC issue was raised on that forum, I thought that you may be interested in the response, it would also be interesting to see what the other seven SANFL clubs thoughts on the matter are, yet I do think Ben Kavenaughs response is a good way of going and I think its good that they are looking into it carefully and getting all the facts laid out.

Ben W and Blue and White,

The issue you raise is one that our Club and all SANFL clubs (and the SANFL) are treating extremely seriously. We all need two financially healthy AAMI Stadium based teams in the AFL to protect our annual dividends which are derived from AAMI Stadium games.

As has been publicised in the media recently, North Adelaide FC have written to the SANFL seeking answers to a number of questions. Our Club opted to meet with the Commission face-to-face to seek these answers.

Over the next week we understand that there will be further information to come to hand through a scheduled League Directors meeting and a CEO's meeting. I have also scheduled to meet with North Adelaide FC. Following this further intelligence gathering, the matter will be discussed at our monthly Board meeting next week. I am happy to report back then on an official club view.

Regards ... Ben

SAFC Office

[Chambo100]

This is a good approach from the South people and it would be worth similar statements from other clubs too, to be made public after they have sought the information they need to form a club position.

I believe the collective will have the most sway from an sanfl perspective, rather than individual clubs, however, North has brought the matter into the public domain, rather than behind closed doors.

...and I am totally bamboozled what is going on between Wedgie and Hondo on this thread. For what its worth, Hondo seems to be raising reasonable issues to me.

[Wedgie]

...and I am totally bamboozled what is going on between Wedgie and Hondo on this thread.

Disregard, we've worked it out by PM.

[drebin]

This is a good approach from the South people and it would be worth similar statements from other clubs too, to be made public after they have sought the information they need to form a club position.

I believe the collective will have the most sway from an sanfl perspective, rather than individual clubs, however, North has brought the matter into the public domain, rather than behind closed doors..

I think you will find that the SANFL clubs have a collective approach to this matter however the League wanted to "meet" individually with each club to explain / justify their position (and complicity?) after the Power presented their current plight to a collective group. North chose not to take this option believing an open formal response was the way to go. The SANFL of course would find it easier to "calm" one club at a time (and bluff, baffle and bullshit!) rather than have to justify the real position and it's complicity to the whole group at once.

The SANFL clubs are as well united in resisting some of the "proposed" knee jerk type changes wanted by Whicker and Co re salary cap etc which is essentially just bowing to the wishes of the AFL but they are using one years unusual collective financials as the base?

[harley d]

I wonder if the South board know who gave the repost to Rucci ? Obviously they cant say it but allegedly someone at NAFC has slippery hands.

[drebin]

I wonder if the South board know who gave the repost to Rucci ? Obviously they cant say it but allegedly someone at NAFC has slippery hands.

Why would North leak the report??? I think it is most likely someone from the SANFL Commission or SANFL Admin and / or a Port Power official not happy with the fact the NAFC is "questioning" the handling of this whole fiasco?

[harley d]

I dont know but allegedly someone has . I wonder if Rucci will tell us his source ? Most clubs know the alleged source.

[Wedgie]

Rucci's on friendlier terms with the SANFL than he is with the NAFC.
Make of that what you will.

[redandblack]

I wonder if the South board know who gave the repost to Rucci ? Obviously they cant say it but allegedly someone at NAFC has slippery hands.

Why would North leak the report??? I think it is most likely someone from the SANFL Commission or SANFL Admin and / or a Port Power official not happy with the fact the NAFC is "questioning" the handling of this whole fiasco?

Why would the SANFL leak the report? They would hardly like it to be publicised. North, on the other hand, would have been very keen to have their agenda publicised as much as possible.

The diplomatic way South have referred to it is very clever and doesn't leave much doubt about who they think leaked it. As harley d has said, most clubs know who leaked it and they aren't looking at the SANFL.

[nickname]

One of North's criticisms of the SANFL was that, with the knowledge of Port's financial position, the SANFL didn't seek to curb Port's spending.
Given that apparently 7 of the SANFL clubs recorded losses last year, wouldn't logic suggest North would endorse the SANFL slashing the salary cap?

[Wedgie]

One of North's criticisms of the SANFL was that, with the knowledge of Port's financial position, the SANFL didn't seek to curb Port's spending.
Given that apparently 7 of the SANFL clubs recorded losses last year, wouldn't logic suggest North would endorse the SANFL slashing the salary cap?

No. Logic would suggest you have a detailed look at the club's finances and make an assessment on that and that is exactly what North are saying. I know of at least one club that showed a loss last year but could have showed a half million dollar profit if they wanted to, Im sure other clubs may have been in a similar situation or had one off extraordinary costs such as redeveloping grounds, paying off more debt than needed to or building a new pokies parlours.
Logic would dictate you get an accurate measure of the club's financial situations and future business prospects and not just make an ignorant comment looking at one set of figures.
I think you'll find all clubs agree with that common sense and logical approach, not just North.

Also in regard to previous posts about documents and leaks make sure you keep using the word 'allegedly' folks, SAFooty.net apprecites it!

[tipper]

I dont think the losses had, in most cases, the salary cap as the cause. if you ask the clubs they all had extra one off expenses in renovating their licenced venues. they all had to incorporate an outdoor area to satisfy the no smoking inside pubs laws (or whatever they were called). i know this contributed in Norths case. a more accurate guide might be this years results (although the financial crisis might stuff that right up too)

And the salary cap is not the reason the power are losing money either, it is one of the things they spend money on, not the only thing. same with the SANFL clubs. there are many other areas that can be monitored to curb spending.

cutting the cap will in the long term lower SANFL revenues further by driving down the standard of the competition, and therefore turning fans away. and if i am right havent the power made losses more than just last year? (happy to be corrected) and are projecting further significant losses in coming years. If the SANFL clubs in general are predicting to lose 12 million dollars in the next few years (each), by all means cut the cap.

[harley d]

I think you will find Rucci is good friends with someone heavily involved with this issue. It is NOT the SANFL .Obviously I cant reveal his identity but it has been alleged.

[nickname]

One of North's criticisms of the SANFL was that, with the knowledge of Port's financial position, the SANFL didn't seek to curb Port's spending.
Given that apparently 7 of the SANFL clubs recorded losses last year, wouldn't logic suggest North would endorse the SANFL slashing the salary cap?

No. Logic would suggest you have a detailed look at the club's finances and make an assessment on that and that is exactly what North are saying. I know of at least one club that showed a loss last year but could have showed a half million dollar profit if they wanted to, Im sure other clubs may have been in a similar situation or had one off extraordinary costs such as redeveloping grounds, paying off more debt than needed to or building a new pokies parlours.
Logic would dictate you get an accurate measure of the club's financial situations and future business prospects and not just make an ignorant comment looking at one set of figures.
I think you'll find all clubs agree with that common sense and logical approach, not just North.

Also in regard to previous posts about documents and leaks make sure you keep using the word 'allegedly' folks, SAFooty.net apprecites it!

And if they make those assessments and take into account extraordinary costs and they determine that a significant number of clubs are likely to continue to make losses, should they then cut the salary cap? - that being the only way I can see for the SANFL to limit clubs' expenditure. (I'm fiercely opposed to cutting the cap BTW, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)

[drebin]

Slashing the Salary Cap is the easy way (and will appease the AFL ). There are other ways of curbing spending if clubs really want to.

The other issue with slashing the cap is that it could lead to more "paper bag" payments etc by those clubs with the money to do so to recruit / retain players so it there will be an increase in "creative accounting" and even more abuse of the rules occuring than presently happens.

[tipper]

One of North's criticisms of the SANFL was that, with the knowledge of Port's financial position, the SANFL didn't seek to curb Port's spending.
Given that apparently 7 of the SANFL clubs recorded losses last year, wouldn't logic suggest North would endorse the SANFL slashing the salary cap?

No. Logic would suggest you have a detailed look at the club's finances and make an assessment on that and that is exactly what North are saying. I know of at least one club that showed a loss last year but could have showed a half million dollar profit if they wanted to, Im sure other clubs may have been in a similar situation or had one off extraordinary costs such as redeveloping grounds, paying off more debt than needed to or building a new pokies parlours.
Logic would dictate you get an accurate measure of the club's financial situations and future business prospects and not just make an ignorant comment looking at one set of figures.
I think you'll find all clubs agree with that common sense and logical approach, not just North.

Also in regard to previous posts about documents and leaks make sure you keep using the word 'allegedly' folks, SAFooty.net apprecites it!

And if they make those assessments and take into account extraordinary costs and they determine that a significant number of clubs are likely to continue to make losses, should they then cut the salary cap? - that being the only way I can see for the SANFL to limit clubs' expenditure. (I'm fiercely opposed to cutting the cap BTW, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)

i think the salary cap expenditure of any SANFL club would only be a small outlay compared to the rest of the running costs of the club. yes it may cut some money from the "outgoings" side of the ledger, but not enough to make a significant difference.

It would be more of a political stunt than an actual remedy, something that they can show the general public as an example of what they are doing to curb the problem, without actually doing anything constructive. (something the state government seem to be good at doing) and quite possibly in the long run it could cause more hassles with revenue de to decreased interest in a watered down league.

[Pseudo]

I think you will find Rucci is good friends with someone

Wonders will never cease!