centrecirclelegend wrote:A comment from a Rick on the story,
Gullible, that is all I can say about Koch. A quarter of the way into the season and he wants a NEW deal at AO. The 2 AFL teams had a football ground at AAMI that was the home of football, and the SANFL were debt free until their continued bail outs of the power, now we are sharing AO, with cricket and the oval management authority, at AAMI 4 bodies shared every dollar raised, at AO 6 bodies share every dollar, I thought Koch was a money man. Not only have the 2 AFL teams been short changed but so have the public with food cost very high and parking at AO non existent, and public transport, similar to a 3rd world country, at times. AFL at AO was never going to be the money generator for the CBD that Demetriou, the SA media and the spin doctors wanted us all to believe. AO looks nice now but so did Football Pk when first opened.. I have seen my first and last game at AO, I will now watch AFL on Foxtel, and real football in the SANFL
Cool post mate. So I guess 1 persons opinion substantiates the generalisation that AO is going to be a failure? Good to know.
For those that are interested, here is the article:
ADELAIDE Oval’s new deal for its AFL tenants is already under fire for not delivering the “pots of gold” the SANFL claims are on offer to the Crows and Power.
New AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan will chair a review of the AFL clubs’ deal with the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority in July. The meeting was originally set for June 1.
But already the Crows and Power feel they are being short-changed in the $12 million uplift
projected by the SANFL because of significant cost increases in hosting AFL games at the Oval when compared to Football Park.
Port Adelaide Football Club president David Koch yesterday was forthright in calling for the stadium deal at the Oval to be changed.
“It needs to be looked at because it is not the gold mine that we are being told it is,” Koch said at the Oval. “Some of the costs are way more than AAMI Stadium and way more than we expected — and it’s not just us. It’s the Crows as well.”
These cost increases are in booking stadium rooms, security, cleaning and in managing the traffic around the Oval.
Adelaide Football Club chairman Rob Chapman said his first glance at the receipts from the Oval show “we are incurring increases in our expenses”.
“But I have no axe to grind just yet and I want to see more figures, say from 12 weeks of attendances, revenues and costs to test the stadium model,” Chapman told The Advertiser yesterday.
“And I want to make sure the uplift that comes from Adelaide Oval does indeed go to where it was originally intended — the two AFL clubs.”
SANFL president John Olsen, the new SMA chairman, last month raised the ire of the AFL clubs by saying they would together claim a $12 million increase stadium return by the move to the redeveloped Adelaide Oval when compared to takings at AAMI Stadium.
But the two AFL clubs say that Olsen has ignored the extra costs they are incurring in putting on games at the Oval. Port expects its net benefit to be at $3.9m. Adelaide is expecting a $3m net benefit. The combined $6.9m is far short of Olsen’s $12m prediction.
Koch yesterday acknowledged Port’s net benefit could exceed the $3.9m projection because the Power’s attendances at the Oval are greater than expected.
“We were thinking we would get an average of 32,000-35,000 at Adelaide Oval and we are tracking at well mover 40,000 (44,545) at the moment,” Koch said.
“But forget about the numbers of people turning up. It is what we earn out of the stadium that will determine what we make (as a profit or loss this season).
“Yes, (Adelaide Oval) is a significant benefit to us — there is no doubt about that) — but there have been some surprises (in the costs). The stadium deal is better, but it is not as good as some of the numbers that have been bandied about.”Personally- I think Chapman is accurate here- waiting until about round 12 to gain an accurate idea of the trends of attendances, revenue and costs is the best way to determine if the stadium model is fit for both clubs.
Kochie has never been one to hide his feelings, and on this occasion has probably jumped the gun- in saying that though- if Olsen has proposed to both boards, the possibility of $12m in extra staduim revenue, without factoring in increased stadium expenditure, then both Koch and Chapman are well within their rights to enquire on behalf of both clubs why they are being short changed.
I love AO- and see it as a massive boost to the SA sporting landscape. It goes far beyond what it does for the crows and power, but its sheer ability to put Australia firmly on the map for international world cups and sporting events. Hopefully even the financial position of SACA can be improved with increased attendances to international cricket matches, plus the redbacks / strikers.
Yes there will be issues and taxpayers against the idea- you will never construct anything that has 100% taxpayer backing. I don't believe the public transport is that bad at all (personally speaking), and hopefully Gill investigates the costs of food and drinks, as well as admission costs at the games to entice people to come to the football.
I believe at this early stage, the people are speaking with their feet, with both port and adelaide drawing magnificent crowds. Maybe it is novelty, maybe it is performance based (on ports behalf), only time will tell, but to say that Football Park is still a viable alternative for both clubs is absolutely ludicrous at best.
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 11:06 am
