pickard drops offer

[hereselmo1]

Wow we got a new AAMI stadium agreement?

Someone should tell the club!

[TimmiesChin]

Macca, with respect, that is just not correct.

If the Power increase their crowds by 7-8K, they will make a very good profit out of a home game, including catering, etc.

The Crows don't make a 'very good profit' out of home games ..... they are well below the AFL average. Their CEO is concerned about their low revenue at AAMI.

[TimmiesChin]

Macca, dedja is correct, I'm sure there is a new agreement that guarantees Port a good profit if they draw over 25,000.

Not yet theres not.

The SANFL's solution to the stadium deal however seems to be along those lines.



I think the deal should be:
The clubs pay match day wages/costs and get nothing back until the point that wages etc have been covered. After that point the clubs get a known percentage of all profits.

The SANFL seems to be using a magic number to determine when the clubs start getting revenue back.

[stan]

Macca, dedja is correct, I'm sure there is a new agreement that guarantees Port a good profit if they draw over 25,000.

Not yet theres not.

The SANFL's solution to the stadium deal however seems to be along those lines.



I think the deal should be:
The clubs pay match day wages/costs and get nothing back until the point that wages etc have been covered. After that point the clubs get a known percentage of all profits.

The SANFL seems to be using a magic number to determine when the clubs start getting revenue back.

The arrangement with the SANFL over AAMI stadium is a shocker, no wonder the AFL say....Look at your stadium deal before they will burn money at another AFL club.

[CUTTERMAN]

That never stopped the AFL handing out millions to WB, Melb,NM over the years at the same time their stadium deals had them over the table!

[hereselmo1]

Those clubs are not partly run by the same entity that is charging the massive rent.

[Dutchy]

That never stopped the AFL handing out millions to WB, Melb,NM over the years at the same time their stadium deals had them over the table!

Zzzzzzz here we go again

[Booney]

That never stopped the AFL handing out millions to WB, Melb,NM over the years at the same time their stadium deals had them over the table!

Zzzzzzz here we go again

Well is it true, or not?

[mighty_tiger_79]

That never stopped the AFL handing out millions to WB, Melb,NM over the years at the same time their stadium deals had them over the table!

Zzzzzzz here we go again

Well is it true, or not?

of course its true

[Dutchy]

Its true because of the equalisation fund, which is Melbourne based and allows the powerful clubs to play twice a year to boost revenue e.g. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond - which in turn disadvantages the clubs with lower attendences cause we will only get a home game against these teams once every 2 years at best.

It isnt an issue here

[Booney]

Its true because of the equalisation fund, which is Melbourne based and allows the powerful clubs to play twice a year to boost revenue e.g. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond - which in turn disadvantages the clubs with lower attendences cause we will only get a home game against these teams once every 2 years at best.

It isnt an issue here

Poor old Melbourne based clubs.....

[Hondo]

Its true because of the equalisation fund, which is Melbourne based and allows the powerful clubs to play twice a year to boost revenue e.g. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond - which in turn disadvantages the clubs with lower attendences cause we will only get a home game against these teams once every 2 years at best.

It isnt an issue here

That's a slight spin because, as you say, the underlying reason that those clubs need hand-outs is their own attendances being lower than the likes of Collingwood. If they were higher then they wouldn't be as disadvantaged by not having those block-buster games. Port's hand-out from the SANFL is partly an "equalisation" payment related to the Stadium deal at AAMI due to their own lower attendances.

Likewise, the AFL had poor stadium deals (from the club's POV) with the MCG and Docklands which were improved after negotiations last year.

So I see the issues faced by those Melbourne-based clubs as very similar to Port's and they have received a larger amount over the years than Port have received.

However, in fairness one key difference is that there's 10 clubs in Melbourne competing for attendances and only 2 year. With 3 times the population it still works out to 300,000 people per team in Melbourne v 500,000 per team in Adelaide.

[hereselmo1]

Yes but remember also that the melbourne teams have a huge advantage in terms of away team support.

Port and Adelaide only get great away team support once a year (showdowns) whilst Melbourne clubs get it every second game.

[JK]

Its true because of the equalisation fund, which is Melbourne based and allows the powerful clubs to play twice a year to boost revenue e.g. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond - which in turn disadvantages the clubs with lower attendences cause we will only get a home game against these teams once every 2 years at best.

It isnt an issue here

That's a slight spin because, as you say, the underlying reason that those clubs need hand-outs is their own attendances being lower than the likes of Collingwood. If they were higher then they wouldn't be as disadvantaged by not having those block-buster games. Port's hand-out from the SANFL is partly an "equalisation" payment related to the Stadium deal at AAMI due to their own lower attendances.

Likewise, the AFL had poor stadium deals (from the club's POV) with the MCG and Docklands which were improved after negotiations last year.

So I see the issues faced by those Melbourne-based clubs as very similar to Port's and they have received a larger amount over the years than Port have received.

However, in fairness one key difference is that there's 10 clubs in Melbourne competing for attendances and only 2 year. With 3 times the population it still works out to 300,000 people per team in Melbourne v 500,000 per team in Adelaide.

I reckon North and any other Victorian club receiving assistance probably all had to operate on a smaller salary cap too .. Im not aware of the Power needing to reduce their TPP for having received assistance?

All of that of course is probably irrelevant, the Power are still bringing more $$ into football in SA than they are costing.

[Booney]

Its true because of the equalisation fund, which is Melbourne based and allows the powerful clubs to play twice a year to boost revenue e.g. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond - which in turn disadvantages the clubs with lower attendences cause we will only get a home game against these teams once every 2 years at best.

It isnt an issue here

That's a slight spin because, as you say, the underlying reason that those clubs need hand-outs is their own attendances being lower than the likes of Collingwood. If they were higher then they wouldn't be as disadvantaged by not having those block-buster games. Port's hand-out from the SANFL is partly an "equalisation" payment related to the Stadium deal at AAMI due to their own lower attendances.

Likewise, the AFL had poor stadium deals (from the club's POV) with the MCG and Docklands which were improved after negotiations last year.

So I see the issues faced by those Melbourne-based clubs as very similar to Port's and they have received a larger amount over the years than Port have received.

However, in fairness one key difference is that there's 10 clubs in Melbourne competing for attendances and only 2 year. With 3 times the population it still works out to 300,000 people per team in Melbourne v 500,000 per team in Adelaide.

I reckon North and any other Victorian club receiving assistance probably all had to operate on a smaller salary cap too .. Im not aware of the Power needing to reduce their TPP for having received assistance?

All of that of course is probably irrelevant, the Power are still bringing more $$ into football in SA than they are costing.

Woohoohooo, watch that one go off...!

[Hondo]

CP, I thought all AFL clubs had to spend at least 90% of the whatever the cap is for that year? Thinking being that players shouldn't be disadvantaged by getting drafted into a less financial club. I don't think there's a link to any hand-outs they might have received.

[JK]

CP, I thought all AFL clubs had to spend at least 90% of the whatever the cap is for that year? Thinking being that players shouldn't be disadvantaged by getting drafted into a less financial club. I don't think there's a link to any hand-outs they might have received.

Ah ok ... It was always my understanding (probably wrongly) that when clubs received AFL assistance they could only operate to %92.5 of the Salary Cap?

[Hondo]

You could well be right CP

I don't know for sure

It's fair to speculate that they were paying the minium % v (say) the WCE. Apparently, the Crows by policy don't pay the full 100% even though they could. Again, don't know this for sure.

[Dutchy]

CP, I thought all AFL clubs had to spend at least 90% of the whatever the cap is for that year? Thinking being that players shouldn't be disadvantaged by getting drafted into a less financial club. I don't think there's a link to any hand-outs they might have received.

Ah ok ... It was always my understanding (probably wrongly) that when clubs received AFL assistance they could only operate to %92.5 of the Salary Cap?

yep spot on.

Yes but remember also that the melbourne teams have a huge advantage in terms of away team support.

Port and Adelaide only get great away team support once a year (showdowns) whilst Melbourne clubs get it every second game.

But the Melbourne clubs dont have a true home ground like interstate clubs skip

[hereselmo1]

Yeah but I was referring to crowds only.

The home games debate in terms of on field performance is one that could go on forever.

In terms of attendances though the Melbourne clubs have many more games where both of the clubs are in their home state and therefore can be reasonably expected to draw a better away support.