SA Footy

Tonight at the Season Launch the Glenelg Football CLub confired a $1 000 000 Sponsorship over 10 years from Gliderol. $50 000 a year for naming rights to the Bay Oval - Gliderol Stadium at Glenelg and $50 000 a year for Major Sponsorship of the club.

As I understand it the sponsorship is forward loaded which the club will use to reduce debt and consequently interest payments on the loan for the renovations the club undertook in 2007-08. So in real terms the value of the sponsorship is more than $1 000 000 when you consider the interest savings.

where's rucci ?

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:So in real terms the value of the sponsorship is more than $1 000 000 when you consider the interest savings.

LMAO.

So that'll make Norwood's sponsorship deals worth even more than Glenelg's because we're earning interest on the sponsorship payments and not retiring debt? Glenelg will be hoping they'll be able to fill the hole in their income in a few years time when the genius front-ended deal suddenly turns into the revenue killing back end part of the deal.

$100,000 for combined oval naming rights and major sponsorship is about two thirds of what some other clubs get for the same package BTW.

topsywaldron wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:So in real terms the value of the sponsorship is more than $1 000 000 when you consider the interest savings.

LMAO.

So that'll make Norwood's sponsorship deals worth even more than Glenelg's because we're earning interest on the sponsorship payments and not retiring debt? Glenelg will be hoping they'll be able to fill the hole in their income in a few years time when the genius front-ended deal suddenly turns into the revenue killing back end part of the deal.

$100,000 for combined oval naming rights and major sponsorship is about two thirds of what some other clubs get for the same package BTW.

Oh Topsy you never fail to disappoint, you come talk to me about "genius" administration when your lot can manage six figures ($350 000) let alone seven....

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Oh Topsy you never fail to disappoint, you come talk to me about "genius" administration when your lot can manage six figures ($350 000) let alone seven....

I'm not the one trumpeting a heavily front ended deal to partially retire vast debt as 'the biggest sponsorship deal' in history here though.

Keeping spinning away though, I'm sure even you'll believe it's a good deal eventually.

topsywaldron wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Oh Topsy you never fail to disappoint, you come talk to me about "genius" administration when your lot can manage six figures ($350 000) let alone seven....

I'm not the one trumpeting a heavily front ended deal to partially retire vast debt as 'the biggest sponsorship deal' in history here though.

Keeping spinning away though, I'm sure even you'll believe it's a good deal eventually.

would you knocked this sponsorship back topsy ? i think tassie was just letting us know what was announced at last nights jumper presentation etc

any sponsorship involving this kind of money has to be good

maybe norwood need to get some decent accountants.......

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:maybe norwood need to get some decent accountants.......

We're not the ones in huge debt. We'll kick them your way instead.

topsywaldron wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:maybe norwood need to get some decent accountants.......

We're not the ones in huge debt. We'll kick them your way instead.

huge debt maybe but the were reasons (renovations) but at least we don't have to fork out 50 big ones wally would never had made that mistake

bayman wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:maybe norwood need to get some decent accountants.......

We're not the ones in huge debt. We'll kick them your way instead.

huge debt maybe but the were reasons (renovations) but at least we don't have to fork out 50 big ones wally would never had made that mistake

Some Wally did.

Dogmatic wrote:

bayman wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:maybe norwood need to get some decent accountants.......

We're not the ones in huge debt. We'll kick them your way instead.

huge debt maybe but the were reasons (renovations) but at least we don't have to fork out 50 big ones wally would never had made that mistake

Some Wally did.

that's very good infact gold

topsywaldron wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:maybe norwood need to get some decent accountants.......

We're not the ones in huge debt. We'll kick them your way instead.

At least they did something about their debt.

10 years is a long time though. In 2018 what would a major sponsorship and oval naming rights be worth?

I guess it depends on inflation and how strong the SANFL will be then.

FFS, I nearly died when I saw the thread title. $100k a year is still pretty damn good. Congrats to the Bays.

Given a $380K (approx.) loss this generous benefaction should come in handy. How the hell do the Bays lose that sort of money when they made the GF (admittedly only to be pantsed) and had 12,000 at least a couple of home games? You can't tell me those renovations were THAT expensive - what the hell did South's cost then, as their's was a bigger job than the Bay, surely?

Still, if the major sponsor kicks in some big dough it leaves a bit more in the kitty for undeclared *cough* Todd Grima *cough* payments, if they can hide it well enough. Hopefully better than we did, for their sakes. Actually, no, hopefully they hide it just as badly and get torched!

Go the Leggies!

Legless Leggy wrote:How the hell do the Bays lose that sort of money when they made the GF (admittedly only to be pantsed) and had 12,000 at least a couple of home games? You can't tell me those renovations were THAT expensive

Not only were the renovations expensive, but they caused significant disruption to the cash cows (pokies).

Legless Leggy wrote:Given a $380K (approx.) loss this generous benefaction should come in handy. How the hell do the Bays lose that sort of money when they made the GF (admittedly only to be pantsed) and had 12,000 at least a couple of home games? You can't tell me those renovations were THAT expensive - what the hell did South's cost then, as their's was a bigger job than the Bay, surely?

Leggies we lost $280 K not $380 and if you look at our annual report the Footballers Club experienced a $270 K downturn in gaming revenue due to the smoking legislation and operating with 25 machines instead of 40 for six months. We also had another $70 K shortfall in another fundraising activity. So our increased matchday revenue only helped make the loss "better.

Renovations aren't included in the profit and loss statement (the loan re-payments are)

You'll be pleased to know gaming revenue is back on budget and bck to where it was pre-rennovations. The brown paper bags are starting to refill for next year - not that there will be as great a need for them though given that we'll be fighting on less club for interstate recruits....

Legless Leggy wrote:Still, if the major sponsor kicks in some big dough it leaves a bit more in the kitty for undeclared *cough* Todd Grima *cough* payments, if they can hide it well enough. Hopefully better than we did, for their sakes. Actually, no, hopefully they hide it just as badly and get torched!

Maybe the fact that Glenelg are able to secure good employment for our players is the reason? If it came to $$ he would have gone to Centrals...

Glenelg also worked to secure a exAFL player in the off season, they lined up interviews, which he attended, at numerous businesses...one would have earnt him around $60k - add his footy income to that and it would have been a real nice package

Do the work get the rewards

Dutchy wrote:

Legless Leggy wrote:Still, if the major sponsor kicks in some big dough it leaves a bit more in the kitty for undeclared *cough* Todd Grima *cough* payments, if they can hide it well enough. Hopefully better than we did, for their sakes. Actually, no, hopefully they hide it just as badly and get torched!

Maybe the fact that Glenelg are able to secure good employment for our players is the reason? If it came to $$ he would have gone to Centrals...

Glenelg also worked to secure a exAFL player in the off season, they lined up interviews, which he attended, at numerous businesses...one would have earnt him around $60k - add his footy income to that and it would have been a real nice package

Do the work get the rewards

What was the job that would earn him 60K? Licking envelopes?

Dutchy wrote: Maybe the fact that Glenelg are able to secure good employment for our players is the reason? If it came to $$ he would have gone to Centrals...

Now, now Dutchy, given the news of the past month, we all know that if it had come down to $$$, the said player would've gone to Norwood