SA Footy

Just got my renewals, its gone up to $650 for each one!!!

You will notice there's been an increase in the price of membership

The increase is a result of the recent AFL-led review of the financial model that exists between the SANFL and the AFC and PAFC. In order to assist both AFL clubs as they strive for success in the highly competitive AFL competition the full increase will be distributed equally to the Adelaide and Port Adelaide Football clubs.

WTF?
The members have to pay basically because Port are financially incompetent?
Well I'm not renewing my 3 memberships so there goes $1500+ catering, beers, etc down the drown to them.
Instead of shifting the blame and forcing others to cover for their incompetence perhaps its time they got their club in order?
They'll run out of scapegoats and others patience eventually.

Wedgie wrote:Just got my renewals, its gone up to $650 for each one!!!

You will notice there's been an increase in the price of membership

The increase is a result of the recent AFL-led review of the financial model that exists between the SANFL and the AFC and PAFC. In order to assist both AFL clubs as they strive for success in the highly competitive AFL competition the full increase will be distributed equally to the Adelaide and Port Adelaide Football clubs.

WTF?
The members have to pay basically because Port are financially incompetent?
Well I'm not renewing my 3 memberships so there goes $1500+ catering, beers, etc down the drown to them.
Instead of shifting the blame and forcing others to cover for their incompetence perhaps its time they got their club in order?
They'll run out of scapegoats and others patience eventually.

So let me get this straight. The stadium deal is going to change in favour of the PAFC and AFC and the SMA needs to recoup this through Adelaide Oval members. Yep seems to logical.

Wedgie wrote:Just got my renewals, its gone up to $650 for each one!!!

You will notice there's been an increase in the price of membership

The increase is a result of the recent AFL-led review of the financial model that exists between the SANFL and the AFC and PAFC. In order to assist both AFL clubs as they strive for success in the highly competitive AFL competition the full increase will be distributed equally to the Adelaide and Port Adelaide Football clubs.

WTF?
The members have to pay basically because Port are financially incompetent?
Well I'm not renewing my 3 memberships so there goes $1500+ catering, beers, etc down the drown to them.
Instead of shifting the blame and forcing others to cover for their incompetence perhaps its time they got their club in order?
They'll run out of scapegoats and others patience eventually.

Seriously wedgie? We didn't even get the money that was projected for us to make, yet the SANFL made more then they projected to make. The crows will break even with a $2million free rent from the SANFL. If you can't see whats going on at AO then you seriously need to wake up and have a good look. We were told we need more members and more bums on seats. Well we did that record members and record attendances. Now we are told we need to sell our corporate seats to make money, well look at the crows sell 85% and still just break even.

What happens when we sell everything we have available to sell at AO and still make no money. What needs to happen is the SANFL need to stop putting their hands in the money and have a fair distribution to the clubs. If the SANFL fail to do this then the state government needs to kick them them out of AO. I bet they change their act pretty quick if they get a little heat from the government.

Oh dear kickint. Port wanted a virtually clean stadium and couldn't sell their corporate facilities.
They knew the figures before a ball was bounced.
Got nothing to do with the SANFL, they get what they agreed to get to move footy away from Footy Pk.
Fully entitled and agreed to. There is no issue with the SANFL's share.
The only thing the SANFL has been incompetent at is propping up the Power in the past with millions of dollars.
This price increase (and topic) is purely the clubs getting additional funds on top of what they'd previously agreed to.
Ironically it could mean they get less eventually.

Wedgie wrote:Oh dear kickint. Port wanted a virtually clean stadium and couldn't sell their corporate facilities.
They knew the figures before a ball was bounced.
Got nothing to do with the SANFL, they get what they agreed to get to move footy away from Footy Pk.
Fully entitled and agreed to. There is no issue with the SANFL's share.
The only thing the SANFL has been incompetent at is propping up the Power in the past with millions of dollars.
This price increase (and topic) is purely the clubs getting additional funds on top of what they'd previously agreed to.
Ironically it could mean they get less eventually.

Totally agree with you about the cubs knowing the figures before the start of the season. The problem is Wedgie both the crows and Port had a figure they would make with a average attendance. Now we both know that Port and the Crows had higher attendance figures then were projected. The problem is if you had a higher attendance then you would expect the $$ to be going up as well. Well guess what wedgie they didn't, but hey the SANFL projected $$ surely went up when the attendances went up. If you actually think there is no problem with the SANFL share then you truly are diluted. This price increase is purely so the clubs can make the money they should made according to the deal they had, the additional funds are going to help the SANFL keep there extra money they have taken while giving the clubs what they should of got in the first place.

But didnt Port make a loss of $4m + last year?
So that would mean they have done significantly better under this years deal. Perhaps they need to trim some of their spending. The stadium deal isnt ideal but there is no guarantee that would solve all their problems. They need to sell more corporate facilities and its also hard to make money when your memberships are the cheapest in the country, how about raising your membership price up a fraction?

kickinit wrote: If you actually think there is no problem with the SANFL share then you truly are diluted.

Thank you!
Better than be deluded.

Is this for SMA members? The SACA membership better not be increasing....

heater31 wrote:Is this for SMA members? The SACA membership better not be increasing....

SACA memberships are still the same, $315.

heater31 wrote:Is this for SMA members? The SACA membership better not be increasing....

There isn't a SMA membership mate, its for the Adelaide Oval Football Members, see thread title.
They canned the idea of SMA memberships a couple of years ago when they couldn't work out a distribution policy for them.

Jim05 wrote:But didnt Port make a loss of $4m + last year?
So that would mean they have done significantly better under this years deal. Perhaps they need to trim some of their spending. The stadium deal isnt ideal but there is no guarantee that would solve all their problems. They need to sell more corporate facilities and its also hard to make money when your memberships are the cheapest in the country, how about raising your membership price up a fraction?

We definitely need to up the sales of our corporate packages. Nowhere near where we need to be in that regard. As for 2015 membership prices, they have gone up 11.5%, so the club has made the right move there.

I still believe both Port and the Crows can do better from the stadium deal.

This might be a stupid question but who gets money from ticket sales?

Wedgie is that 650 for Crows, Power and cricket matches? Seems pretty cheap considering cricket is 315 of that, even if its only one AFL club its cheap

daysofourlives wrote:This might be a stupid question but who gets money from ticket sales?

Wedgie is that 650 for Crows, Power and cricket matches? Seems pretty cheap considering cricket is 315 of that, even if its only one AFL club its cheap

The $650 is for football only.

85 WAS A GOOD YEAR wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:This might be a stupid question but who gets money from ticket sales?

Wedgie is that 650 for Crows, Power and cricket matches? Seems pretty cheap considering cricket is 315 of that, even if its only one AFL club its cheap

The $650 is for football only.

Cheers for that
Thats pretty cheap compared to the cricket membership for what you get

Isn’t some of the $$ loss that PAFC had due to increasing their football department spend? I know they had to increase this area after spending low in this area previously, but have they over stretched themselves slightly rather than consolidating at AO first…. Not having ago at PAFC, but going on what I had heard it also has something to do with their increased expenditure not purely the SMA numbers.

Footy Smart wrote:Isn’t some of the $$ loss that PAFC had due to increasing their football department spend? I know they had to increase this area after spending low in this area previously, but have they over stretched themselves slightly rather than consolidating at AO first…. Not having ago at PAFC, but going on what I had heard it also has something to do with their increased expenditure not purely the SMA numbers.

Bottom 4 in terms of football department spend in the competition.

Booney wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:Isn’t some of the $$ loss that PAFC had due to increasing their football department spend? I know they had to increase this area after spending low in this area previously, but have they over stretched themselves slightly rather than consolidating at AO first…. Not having ago at PAFC, but going on what I had heard it also has something to do with their increased expenditure not purely the SMA numbers.

Bottom 4 in terms of football department spend in the competition.

But that doesn't answer the question....Was there an increase in expenditure?

heater31 wrote:

Booney wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:Isn’t some of the $$ loss that PAFC had due to increasing their football department spend? I know they had to increase this area after spending low in this area previously, but have they over stretched themselves slightly rather than consolidating at AO first…. Not having ago at PAFC, but going on what I had heard it also has something to do with their increased expenditure not purely the SMA numbers.

Bottom 4 in terms of football department spend in the competition.

But that doesn't answer the question....Was there an increase in expenditure?

I know Boon, not saying you spent the world but from all reports a significant increase in spend which always contributes to the bottom line.

I'd say yes, there was an increase in spend.

This whole Stadium Deal debate is, in essence, futile.

We don't know half of the conditions the SANFL / two AFL sides work under, we don't know what the SMA does with the revenue it generates, hell, we don't even know how much it generates. So without knowing all the information required to make sense or otherwise of the stadium deal, how the hell can you figure it out?

kickinit wrote:The problem is Wedgie both the crows and Port had a figure they would make with a average attendance.

And accepted the deal on that basis? (Btw I agree with you in expecting higher than average attendance should equate to greater revenue for the clubs - Surely the clubs themselves confirmed this through the negotiation process?)