The SANFL and the Port Power Financial Issue

[Barto]

Sorry only could afford 50 cents today for there a $1 a day membership found

How did it feel to be a Port member for 12 hours?

[Brodlach]

Sorry only could afford 50 cents today for there a $1 a day membership found

How did it feel to be a Port member for 12 hours?

Dirty

[nickname]

confused ? port pay AFL for licence and SAFL get it ?
Who owns brisbane and sydneys licence ?

SANFL own the licences and sub-let them to Port and Adelaide.

[Thiele]

Sorry only could afford 50 cents today for there a $1 a day membership found

How did it feel to be a Port member for 12 hours?

I was thrown out of the family for that 12 hours

[SimonH]

Does anyone know how the license works in this example ?

eg The SANFL decide Port aren't worth a bucket of s***t, so they come to the conclusion that a composite side evolved from say Central / North & say Norwood would be a better option. They tell Port to pi55 off, and then form a new club called the Northern Morons for example. Can they do that ? Bit like how in the States if a "franchise" isn't performing in a city, they'll relocate them to another place and try there, except in this case it replacing one make up with another.

It would have to be approved by the AFL for that to happen. So they dump Port, put this other franchise in, only get 5000 members, lose $4.8 million in their first year...then what happens? Dump them and give Glenelg/Sturt a go?

As I said, it wouldnt be a simple case of dumping Port and putting Centrals in. If Port fold, id say the AFL will suspend SAs 2nd license and there would be no 2nd SA side until the AFL run a bunch of evaluation reports to find out if some other 'franchise' would be at all profitable.

Why? If the SANFL really are the license holder, and Port are a mere sublicensee (which is implied if what you say is true about the SANFL having power-- sorry-- to take over administration of the franchise if they choose), then it's the SANFL's license and they can do whatever the hell they like with it. The change in identity of the club/team in the competition, would have nothing to do with the ongoing validity of the license.

And there is little doubt in my mind that Adelaide with a population of 1.1 million is well and truly capable of supporting 2 AFL clubs, bearing in mind that Melbourne with about 3.8 million, even if it currently has 2 too many clubs, can certainly have 7 that thrive. The average population required per AFL club works out the same.

It would be quite a stretch for the AFL to say 'we're suspending or revoking the license'. Unless it's an explicit condition of the license that it's for a team called the PAFC (or approved by the PAFC) to participate in the AFL competition, it would be an utterly blatant breach of contract opening the AFL up to legal action for many tens of millions. And if there is such a condition, then the SANFL aren't really the licensee in any meaningful sense (b/c the PAFC actually have the ultimate, ahem, power).

Yes, I understand that it's very unlikely that any of this would unfold; just talking about the technicalities.

[once_were_warriors]

Need a clarification explanation on the following.

As I understand it prior to the Crows, the Sanfl was effectively owned by the 10 clubs

Crows come in , Woodville and Torrens merger with Torrens 1/10th share of the SANFL paying of their debt.

Therfore back to 9 clubs owning the SANFL.

Port go into the AFL in 97

Question is why does Port not have a 1/9th share in Sanfl distribution and therefore to some extent negating their contribution in renting out Football Park?

If it was part of the deal in getting the sublicence for the AFL that they relinquish their share , how did the other 8 clubs just let a new club like the Port Magpies automatically recieve a 1/9th distribution?

Or are the Port Magpies the original club and its situation normal.

[am Bays]

Question is why does Port not have a 1/9th share in Sanfl distribution and therefore to some extent negating their contribution in renting out Football Park?

If it was part of the deal in getting the sublicence for the AFL that they relinquish their share , how did the other 8 clubs just let a new club like the Port Magpies automatically recieve a 1/9th distribution?

Or are the Port Magpies the original club and its situation normal.

there's your answer my friend...

Port Power (the AFL club) are 12 years old....

Which makes a mockery of teh 1870 rubbish on teh back of their guernsey..

*grabs popcorn, sits back in comfy chair and waits*

[Barto]

Why? If the SANFL really are the license holder, and Port are a mere sublicensee (which is implied if what you say is true about the SANFL having power-- sorry-- to take over administration of the franchise if they choose), then it's the SANFL's license and they can do whatever the hell they like with it. The change in identity of the club/team in the competition, would have nothing to do with the ongoing validity of the license.

And there is little doubt in my mind that Adelaide with a population of 1.1 million is well and truly capable of supporting 2 AFL clubs, bearing in mind that Melbourne with about 3.8 million, even if it currently has 2 too many clubs, can certainly have 7 that thrive. The average population required per AFL club works out the same.

It would be quite a stretch for the AFL to say 'we're suspending or revoking the license'. Unless it's an explicit condition of the license that it's for a team called the PAFC (or approved by the PAFC) to participate in the AFL competition, it would be an utterly blatant breach of contract opening the AFL up to legal action for many tens of millions. And if there is such a condition, then the SANFL aren't really the licensee in any meaningful sense (b/c the PAFC actually have the ultimate, ahem, power).

Yes, I understand that it's very unlikely that any of this would unfold; just talking about the technicalities.

If the SANFL own the licence, then would that effectively make them a majority shareholder? Wouldn't you as a shareholder expect the company to make a profit for you?

Hypothetically could the SANFL step and say that Port are running themselves into the ground will all this bullshit to-ing and fro-ing with what identity they want to go with and how that affects their crowd numbers. The fact remains that their crowds are worse than they were 12 years ago and they're not turning a profit. Can the SANFL start telling them how to run things?

[Barto]

Or am I going with the wrong analogy and the SANFL are the landlords and they can boot the tenants out for being smelly ferals who cant pay the rent?

[nickname]

Why? If the SANFL really are the license holder, and Port are a mere sublicensee (which is implied if what you say is true about the SANFL having power-- sorry-- to take over administration of the franchise if they choose), then it's the SANFL's license and they can do whatever the hell they like with it. The change in identity of the club/team in the competition, would have nothing to do with the ongoing validity of the license.

I would assume the AFL has approval rights over the sub-licencee. I would also think, if it came to it, the AFL could issue a licence directly to whomsoever it pleases, bypassing the SANFL, unless there's an agreement between the AFL and SANFL that the SANFL will be the only licence holder in S.A.

[UK Fan]

not happy with ruccis analogy that we need profitable afl clubs for football to succesful in sa

If nine SANFl clubs were profitable.

would it really matter what the power makes ???????

its not like the crows are going to make a loss. what a load of bollocks.


how about if the sanfl is strong that would equal strong sa afl clubs.


cos as wedgie said. north and central make more than the power. how is that bad for football in sa.

[nickname]

Why? If the SANFL really are the license holder, and Port are a mere sublicensee (which is implied if what you say is true about the SANFL having power-- sorry-- to take over administration of the franchise if they choose), then it's the SANFL's license and they can do whatever the hell they like with it. The change in identity of the club/team in the competition, would have nothing to do with the ongoing validity of the license.

I would assume the AFL has approval rights over the sub-licencee. I would also think, if it came to it, the AFL could issue a licence directly to whomsoever it pleases, bypassing the SANFL, unless there's an agreement between the AFL and SANFL that the SANFL will be the only licence holder in S.A.

I believe there IS such an agreement in place, such that the SANFL will be the only licence holder in S.A., or at least for any future third licence. (Of course a club could get around that by relocating interstate.) But I'm sure the contract between Power and the SANFL and AFL stipulates the only conditions (if any) under which a sublicence could be revoked.

[Macca19]

Why? If the SANFL really are the license holder, and Port are a mere sublicensee (which is implied if what you say is true about the SANFL having power-- sorry-- to take over administration of the franchise if they choose), then it's the SANFL's license and they can do whatever the hell they like with it. The change in identity of the club/team in the competition, would have nothing to do with the ongoing validity of the license.

Yes, the SANFL are the license holder. Port are the sub license. The SANFL can take over the club if its completely in the shit (which it isnt at the moment).

The change of identity of the club would be very relevant. If the SANFL want to pull the PAFCs sub license, they would have to get the agreement from the AFL, its as simple as that. Otherwise, just for petty arguments sake, whats to stop the SANFL changing the club on a yearly basis? Nothing.

The identity of the club would most definitely have a lot to do with the validity of the license as well. If the SANFL just pull Port, put a different side in, that side gets **** all members, no support, minimal backing and loses multi million dollars in its first couple of years, its not a good look is it? In any case, it is only my opinion that the 2nd license would be suspended.

And there is little doubt in my mind that Adelaide with a population of 1.1 million is well and truly capable of supporting 2 AFL clubs,

I agree. Adelaide can sustain two AFL clubs.

It would be quite a stretch for the AFL to say 'we're suspending or revoking the license'.

To use a quote from your post with a bit of a change 'Its the AFLs license and they can do whatever the hell they want with it'.

As I said though, its only my opinion. The AFL would have expected Port to work and work out well. If by chance Port go terminal, why would the AFL just simply click their fingers and accept another side without looking at the figures and seeing if its sustainable? Especially if the new side only has a couple of weeks to get itself sorted with possible membership structures etc. Its my opinion that the 2nd license would be temporarily suspended until the AFL - and SANFL - crunched the numbers to see if its viable to have a 2nd side.

As you said though, its all an unlikely scenario at this point.

[Macca19]

cos as wedgie said. north and central make more than the power. how is that bad for football in sa.

Hardly a relevant stat considering the Power would turnover probably $10 million more than North and Central combined in any given year.

[Wedgie]

cos as wedgie said. north and central make more than the power. how is that bad for football in sa.

Hardly a relevant stat considering the Power would turnover probably $10 million more than North and Central combined in any given year.

Agreed, the more you turnover, the more you'd expect to make money, otherwise it'd be pointless and they might as well as play SAAFL.
Very relevent point when a club can turnover half as much and make a million more, serious questions have to be asked.

[Mic]

Maybe Power could sell off some of their tradition that they apparently have. Perhaps a million dollars for 10 years of tradition.

[Pseudo]

If the SANFL just pull Port, put a different side in, that side gets f*** all members, no support, minimal backing and loses multi million dollars in its first couple of years, its not a good look is it?

Then they'd be replacing Port with a team Just Like Port

[Big Kev of SA]

after a few beers ...................I've realised , as a port supporter , we're in strife ! because even if Port won xlotto, lets say 50 million, money and a profitable club do not equal success on the field. example being the adelaide crows,
crows may have the coin , but nothing to show for over 10 years !!!
hope Port look beyond the crow model
knocking others does nothing to improve your own club , keep your eyes on your own plate
thats why I am not going to bag Neil Craig on this forum.....................burp !

[Dogwatcher]

Fantastic post!

[Hondo]

after a few beers ...................I've realised , as a port supporter , we're in strife ! because even if Port won xlotto, lets say 50 million, money and a profitable club do not equal success on the field. example being the adelaide crows,
crows may have the coin , but nothing to show for over 10 years !!!
hope Port look beyond the crow model
knocking others does nothing to improve your own club , keep your eyes on your own plate
thats why I am not going to bag Neil Craig on this forum.....................burp !

Great post!

The Crows made only made $88K last year, after writing off some value of a training facility. Geelong interestingly made only $52K ....

The Crows are NOT a license to print money like many assume. As Triggy says, running an AFL club gets more and more expensive each year and the income streams are difficult to increase.

That's why you can't go comparing CDFC to an AFL club as they have a football operations budget of say $1.5m compared to $15m. Look at the respective salary caps for starters ... $8m compared to $400K(?) Power's net assets are $4m while NAFC's are $400K!

Mate, everyone's an expert when it comes to how other clubs should be marketed or run. Non-Port people telling the club how to appeal to supporters is like ALP members writing election campaigns for the Liberal Party! IGNORE THEM!

In 5 years time, with the new TV deal and the GFC over Port will be right and the Crows-Power rivalry will roll on, as much as many hate the thought.