Port Lose $4.12 million in 2012

[UK Fan]

All clubs include grants in their revenue from what I can tell

http://www.iibuy.com.au/images/l/Genius.jpg

[Dog_ger]

All clubs include grants in their revenue from what I can tell

http://www.iibuy.com.au/images/l/Genius.jpg

I think the AFL need a second team in South Australia.

Weather it's Port, Legs, South, West, Centrals, Eagles, Bays, Roosters, Sturt..?

All the $$ have been invested in Port. It may be too late to retract the investment.

The AFL really just has to find the right management group.

In Hind sight Port@Alberton was wrong. 2 teams on the Western Side of South Australia (Adelaide) was a mistake.

Should have been AdelaideRedlegs@NorwoodOval.com.au

[Ruben Carter]

yeah, because Norwood have such an impressive history of success.... oh please

[UK Fan]

You can tell Koch has been hanging around Port board members/fans.

For a financial expert his collingwood/port Adelaide 2012 financial comparison is embarrassing.

[stan]

You can tell Koch has been hanging around Port board members/fans.

For a financial expert his collingwood/port Adelaide 2012 financial comparison is embarrassing.

Lol i didnt read that but i did see that he had bit of a rant.

[Magpiespower]

New Zealand Power to thread.

regards,

REB

And adopt the national colours...

[stan]

Adelaide made a profit of $122K.
I’m going to ask a couple of questions now:

1. Only 122k. Plenty of sponsors and good crowd attendances. Much better than the WB or North and in a town of only 2 teams have pretty good sponsorship $$$. So how did they only make $122K profit?

2. Is this including the $300K Tippett fine?
In general I thought Adelaide were in a massively positive financial position and should be making good $$$.

Just slightly puzzled how North have done so well and Adelaide are doing well not as good, still good but you know thought they would be easily cruzing along.

[LaughingKookaburra]

Didn't they make a loss last year? 122k profit is better considering the fine payout and I would think the Rendell situation would have cost some $$ too. Paying over the salary cap wouldn't help profits either....

[Hondo]

Yes, Adelaide made a loss last year IIRC. When comparing results we have to be careful of comparing apples with apples as we found with the variations on the Port loss.

As I understand it, NM and the WB were the biggest beneficiaries of the AFL's $144m funding commitment to the clubs from 2012-2016. NM were scheduled to receive $7m from "equalisation payments" during 2012-2014 compared to Adelaide scheduled to receive $0.0m (for interest's sake Port's was $3.9m which divided by 3 I think is the $1.3m that the Advertiser picked up on).

So assuming NM received $7.0m/3 = $2.33m then that would have helped them record a profit of $1.0m overall. Not that I have an issue with NM getting $7.0m more than the Crows as they operate in different trading conditions obviously. Just gotta compare apples with apples. Equalisation payments 2012-2014:

WB, NM $7.0m
Melbourne $5.8m
St K $5.7m
Rich $4.7m
PA, Sydney, Brisbane $3.9m
Essendon $1.5m
Calrton, Coll, WC, Freo $1.0m
Geelong, Haw, Adelaide, GCS, HGWS $0.0m

[Footy Smart]

Adelaide made a profit of $122K.
I’m going to ask a couple of questions now:

1. Only 122k. Plenty of sponsors and good crowd attendances. Much better than the WB or North and in a town of only 2 teams have pretty good sponsorship $$$. So how did they only make $122K profit?

2. Is this including the $300K Tippett fine?
In general I thought Adelaide were in a massively positive financial position and should be making good $$$.

Just slightly puzzled how North have done so well and Adelaide are doing well not as good, still good but you know thought they would be easily cruzing along.

could be wrong, but does that include the repayments for the new facilities down at westlakes? also, crowds werent that great...

[Hondo]

So to give a positive perspective on the NM result ... the WB with the same equalisation payment as NM recorded a loss of $136K.

[Booney]

Adelaide made a profit of $122K.
I’m going to ask a couple of questions now:

1. Only 122k. Plenty of sponsors and good crowd attendances. Much better than the WB or North and in a town of only 2 teams have pretty good sponsorship $$$. So how did they only make $122K profit?

2. Is this including the $300K Tippett fine?
In general I thought Adelaide were in a massively positive financial position and should be making good $$$.

Just slightly puzzled how North have done so well and Adelaide are doing well not as good, still good but you know thought they would be easily cruzing along.

could be wrong, but does that include the repayments for the new facilities down at westlakes? also, crowds werent that great...

Interesting that one. I agree they were below what should be expected of a team with Adelaide's following who lost 4 games for the minor round.

[Hondo]

Despite the better season the average attendance at Crows game only went up from 35020 in 2011 to 36829 in 2012

Up to 2008 our average only went below 40,000 6 times with the lowest in that time being 38248 in 1992. 2003 when we made a prelim as well our average was 44,524. So over the last decade we have declined attendances of 8000 per week.

Port fell from about 31000 to 19000 in the same time. A lot of people have stopped attending AFL games in Adelaide over the last 10 years.

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/summary.html

[UK Fan]

Adelaide made a profit of $122K.
I’m going to ask a couple of questions now:

1. Only 122k. Plenty of sponsors and good crowd attendances. Much better than the WB or North and in a town of only 2 teams have pretty good sponsorship $$$. So how did they only make $122K profit?

2. Is this including the $300K Tippett fine?
In general I thought Adelaide were in a massively positive financial position and should be making good $$$.

Just slightly puzzled how North have done so well and Adelaide are doing well not as good, still good but you know thought they would be easily cruzing along.

could be wrong, but does that include the repayments for the new facilities down at westlakes? also, crowds werent that great...

Interesting that one. I agree they were below what should be expected of a team with Adelaide's following who lost 4 games for the minor round.

So onfield success isn't the be all and end all.

It's a fair point you make

[stan]

Well what nobody has been able to throw done is how this has happened. How can a club with 40K plus members, average home crowds of say 36K, good major sponsors, and it a good position on the field be in that position?

Is the SANFL really bleeding these clubs dry??? Is there some crazy football department spending???

Seriously anything else?

[Booney]

So onfield success isn't the be all and end all.

It's a fair point you make

No, unlike yourself, it isn't that simple.

[UK Fan]

So onfield success isn't the be all and end all.

It's a fair point you make

No, unlike yourself, it isn't that simple.

So it's a lot more complex than on/off field success.

Its a Fair point you make mr boon

[Booney]

Poor on field performance = lower crowds.
Lower crowds + lower membership = lower revenue
Lower crowds + rubbish stadium deal = lower revenue
Lower crowds = rubbish time slots and draw = lower sponsorship = lower revenue
Paying out previous coach truck load of money = money for nothing

So onfield success isn't the be all and end all.
It's a fair point you make

No, unlike yourself, it isn't that simple.

So it's a lot more complex than on/off field success.
Its a Fair point you make mr boon

About as sharp as a pound of wet leather that boy.

[UK Fan]

Poor on field performance = lower crowds.
Lower crowds + lower membership = lower revenue
Lower crowds + rubbish stadium deal = lower revenue
Lower crowds = rubbish time slots and draw = lower sponsorship = lower revenue
Paying out previous coach truck load of money = money for nothing

I love how you are so proud Of the above.

If this is ports/booneys/kts plan to turn around a $6 mill deficit hilarious.

Here's my summary



http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5zvn ... o1_400.png

[valleys07]

Poor on field performance = lower crowds.
Lower crowds + lower membership = lower revenue
Lower crowds + rubbish stadium deal = lower revenue
Lower crowds = rubbish time slots and draw = lower sponsorship = lower revenue
Paying out previous coach truck load of money = money for nothing

I love how you are so proud Of the above.

If this is ports/booneys/kts plan to turn around a $6 mill deficit hilarious.

Here's my summary



http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5zvn ... o1_400.png

WTF are you on about UK?

no offense mate, but where has Booney said he is "proud" of the above factors. Last time i read this topic, he simply stated reasons as to why we are registering the losses we are.

I would have thought:

- Winning games = better crowds is common sense
- Better crowds = better membership levels = more revenue (also common sense)
- Better crowds = better timeslots = greater exposure = greater sponsorship opportunities (once again common sense)

Making poor business decisions such as the Williams saga certainly didnt help.....and we can only hope that adelaide oval gives us a better stadium deal, but that remains to be seen.