by MW » Mon May 15, 2017 11:17 am
by Trader » Mon May 15, 2017 11:30 am
by Booney » Mon May 15, 2017 11:32 am
Dutchy wrote:Good on them for having a go, however told for months that it was a 14k sell out, then only 10k turn up in a city with 120k expats?
Then again they have been open that this is purely about $$$$ so would still play the game with a few hundred there I suspect....Ill wait and judge when they announce their financials come year end, we keep hearing about the upside but very little about what this has costed. My suspicions will be "we made a $300k loss but spent $800k on the China experiment which will pay off for us further down the track.
by The Bedge » Mon May 15, 2017 11:33 am
Trader wrote:The other thing that I haven't seen taken into account is the sponsors that are getting bumped for the China income. IE: MJK are now the "collar sponsor" and the full $3m is applied to the income line of the china figures. But what was the previous Collar Sponsor paying? I assume that income is no longer coming in.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
by Trader » Mon May 15, 2017 11:38 am
Zartan wrote:Trader wrote:The other thing that I haven't seen taken into account is the sponsors that are getting bumped for the China income. IE: MJK are now the "collar sponsor" and the full $3m is applied to the income line of the china figures. But what was the previous Collar Sponsor paying? I assume that income is no longer coming in.
Did they have a collar sponsor previously? I don't recall seeing one?
by Booney » Mon May 15, 2017 11:39 am
Zartan wrote:Trader wrote:The other thing that I haven't seen taken into account is the sponsors that are getting bumped for the China income. IE: MJK are now the "collar sponsor" and the full $3m is applied to the income line of the china figures. But what was the previous Collar Sponsor paying? I assume that income is no longer coming in.
Did they have a collar sponsor previously? I don't recall seeing one?
by Jim05 » Mon May 15, 2017 11:44 am
by Dutchy » Mon May 15, 2017 11:50 am
Booney wrote:Dutchy wrote:Good on them for having a go, however told for months that it was a 14k sell out, then only 10k turn up in a city with 120k expats?
Still more there than the North v Adelaide game in Hobart.
by Dutchy » Mon May 15, 2017 11:52 am
Booney wrote:Here's the bit you'll be interested in, Dutchy :
“But the game is just a small part of our ‘China Strategy’,” added Koch. The Power has signed 20 commercial partners, 12 in China, to bankroll an annual game in Shanghai that cost $4 million this time but will have no “start-up” costs in the future. This would allow Port Adelaide to collect as much as $2 million from any match next season.
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/spo ... 7bd819df6f
On May 13 Port announce MJK as a $1m per year for 3 year partner :
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... es-sponsor
by Trader » Mon May 15, 2017 11:56 am
Jim05 wrote:Congrats to Port, anything thing that stops any clubs having to have handouts is a good thing IMO.
I would suspect Port will need to cough up more than $500k for anyone to go over next year, probably $1m as a minimum
by Jim05 » Mon May 15, 2017 11:59 am
Trader wrote:Jim05 wrote:Congrats to Port, anything thing that stops any clubs having to have handouts is a good thing IMO.
I would suspect Port will need to cough up more than $500k for anyone to go over next year, probably $1m as a minimum
That 500k was partly because it was Gold Coast's home game we were buying wasn't it?
The only reason we couldn't use our own home game was due to the deal at Adelaide Oval requiring 11 games.
How long does that deal run for?
Once over, there is no reason why Port Couldn't play their home game in China, therefore not having to pay the away team anything.
Over the years Port has had to play a number of away games at alternative venues without payment:
Darwin 10 times
Launceston 8 times
Canberra 6 times
Alice Springs 3 times
Hobart once
Sure, those venues aren't the likes of another country, but there have been plenty of times we've been told to go to the unique venue, it wouldn't be unreasonable for us to do it to someone else once or twice.
by Dutchy » Mon May 15, 2017 12:02 pm
by Trader » Mon May 15, 2017 12:05 pm
Jim05 wrote:Long term deal at AO, Port are locked into for years and no way they will be allowed out of it.
by Jim05 » Mon May 15, 2017 12:08 pm
Dutchy wrote:What happens in no team wants to go to China? AFL make one go now? (ie GWS)
by Wedgie » Mon May 15, 2017 12:10 pm
Zartan wrote:ground looked reasonable (although looked small)
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Booney » Mon May 15, 2017 12:13 pm
Dutchy wrote:What happens in no team wants to go to China? AFL make one go now? (ie GWS)
by Dutchy » Mon May 15, 2017 12:15 pm
Booney wrote:Dutchy wrote:What happens in no team wants to go to China? AFL make one go now? (ie GWS)
It will be the Suns, the Giants or the Lions. Anyone who the AFL bankrolls will be told to get on a plane.
by Booney » Mon May 15, 2017 12:18 pm
Wedgie wrote:Zartan wrote:ground looked reasonable (although looked small)
I couldnt believe how massive it was!
Wider than Adelaide Oval and without the temp stands you could almost fit 2 Adelaide Ovals in it lengthways!
by Jim05 » Mon May 15, 2017 12:42 pm
Booney wrote:Dutchy wrote:What happens in no team wants to go to China? AFL make one go now? (ie GWS)
It will be the Suns, the Giants or the Lions. Anyone who the AFL bankrolls will be told to get on a plane.
by The Bedge » Mon May 15, 2017 12:50 pm
Jim05 wrote:It will be the Suns, the Giants or the Lions. Anyone who the AFL bankrolls will be told to get on a plane.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |