AFL rejects Port's bailout plea

[RussellEbertHandball]

Theres a big difference simply put.

WB: 1/16th ownership of AFL
NM: 1/16th ownership of AFL
Mel: 1/16th ownership of AFL
PA: 0 ownership of AFL
SANFL: 2/16th ownership of AFL

Yes and no. The "ownership" is pretty meaningless unless there is a super critical decision to be made. When was the last time the clubs overturned an AFL decision and took advantage of their ownership share? I'm not sure if the 1996 merger of North Melbourne and Fitzroy counts as the AFL prefered a Brisbane Fitzroy merger and the clubs ruled out the former and went with the later.

Apart from the stadium issue, how does the AFL treat Port any differently than any other club if it doesn't have any ownership?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I'm not so sure.

The SANFL have rejected the AFL's request to come on board with their national program. The SANFL is the only state league to do this. There is significant funding that the SANFL will receive from the AFL if they join this program. While the SANFL are bleeding the PAFC dry they can get by without this extra funding from the AFL and therefore continue to resist joining the national program. There are some big egos at the SANFL that don't want to be seen as playing second fiddle to the AFL.

I believe it is quite a wise move by the AFL to put the financial health of the PAFC back in the lap of the SANFL.

Correct! This is one of the reasons why this will drag on. As Caro said in her interview with 5AA breakie team there is a 3 way political process this will go thru.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That is all a bit grey these days.

The PAFC is one of the founding clubs of the SAFA in 1877 which went on to become the SANFL. In 1990 when Port tried to join the AFL the other clubs wanted Port expelled from the SANFL so Port said, "fine, just give us our 10% share of the SANFL's assets". I'm not sure how this works legally but I suspect that no member club has any claim on the SANFL's group assets.

Yeah it's a grey area when a member of a organisation that is governed by Associations Incorporation Act 1985, makes a claim on that organisations assets.

The PAFC also spawned a new SANFL club, the PAMFC. The PAMFC probably inherited the PAFC's stake in the SANFL and the PAFC most likely does not have any stake in the SANFL at all. I don't really know. The whole thing is screwy thanks to the deal done between the SANFL and the AFL in 1990.

I don't believe either the PAFC or the AFC are actually affiliated with the SANFL. Neither club has a vote in appointing members of the SA Football Commission. The PAMFC has a vote.

Yes the PAMFC inc took over the PAFC's "share" in the SANFL inc. The correct phrase is that the PAMFC is one of the 9 members of the SANFL inc. an organisations that is subject to the laws of the Associations Incorporation Act 1985, not the Corporations Act 2001.

Affiliation isn't the correct word as the SANFL and AFL have an Affiliation Agreement and all footy teams and footy organisations in SA are affiliated to the SANFL, and all teams and footy organisations in Australia are affiliated to the AFL.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Is that the same Brian Cunningham that was appointed as Chief Executive of the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club in 1992?

Let the misinformation continue....

* Please note: this is not in anyway a reference to your post REH, just the crappola the SANFL continues to promote -see SANFL website!

As soon as I read it I had to laugh.

 

[Steve Dore]

Is that the same Brian Cunningham that was appointed as Chief Executive of the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club in 1992?

Let the misinformation continue....
......

SA Football Commission

BRIAN CUNNINGHAM
......
Became involved in football administration in 1992 when he was appointed Chief Executive of the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club.

Just further proof of what a bunch of unprofessional arse clowns the SANFL are.

They don't even realise that the PAMFC didn't exist in 1992 and that it only exists because they forced the PAFC to form it in 1996

 

[FOOOOTY]

Apart from the stadium issue, how does the AFL treat Port any differently than any other club if it doesn't have any ownership?

Telling the stakeholder its their job to look after you as opposed to doing it themselves is probably an example

 

[relapse]

That didn't stop the AFL from bailing the Carlton Football Club out of their Princes Park deal with their cruel landlords the Carlton Football Club.

Oh sure it makes sense, but who was it that saddled us with being an SANFL sub-licensee in the first place? The AFL!

So surely they have the same responsibility to the PAFC that they do to all the Victorian clubs that they renegotiate for and bail out.

This is why I have always been against AFL handouts to struggling clubs, because we have always known that when push came to shove, they would be one-way; that we have paid for the Dees, Dogs and Roos every year and now we need a bit of cash we're being told to **** off.

This is a ****ing rort, and anyone who thinks the AFL's position is a fair or just one is a ****ing idiot.

Those other clubs dont operate under a privately owned license like Port do, this is the difference.

The SANFL are taking money every year from Port and not really giving anything back, the AFL is merely saying that the SANFL needs to be more responsible than just hanging Port out to dry financially and milking money from them.

The AFL havent said no, but have advised that the SANFL needs to work the issues out first and then if Port still arent financially viable and the SANFL has exhausted money and various options then the AFL will assist.

 

[captain ebert]

haysman anticipated a response from the afl within 6 or 7 weeks, he mentioned during the presser yesterday.

wonder if the (initial) refusal, no more than 24 hours later was then a surprise to him? this says to me that the situation has been common knowledge in some circles for longer than we were initially led to believe - perhaps caro does speak some truth?

either way, i'm glad the sanfl nut jobs, greedy bastards they are, are finally getting the boot up the ass as they deserve.

i fully support the afl here - "stop screwing port, then we'll consider".

 

[Forzaport]

^ I would imagine that haysman isn't surprised by this initial rejection. In fact it's probably exactly what he was hoping for to put extra pressure on the SANFL to nut out a new stadium deal with port.

 

[aneale]

^ I would imagine that haysman isn't surprised by this initial rejection. In fact it's probably exactly what he was hoping for to put extra pressure on the SANFL to nut out a new stadium deal with port.

Correct. I imagine he was negotiating with the SANFL, they wouldn't budge, he thought - righto, watch this. Goes to AFL, forces AFL to publically say - no go back to SANFL. Now SANFL have been outed. Negotiation 101, find the edge to bring the parties you want at the table, back to the table with a different attitude. Smart play. He's got his head screwed on, I like him, probably the first one since Bucky I've felt that way about.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

According to Haysman, the AFL haven't said 'no', they've said 'not yet'.

 

[captain ebert]

you mean like, "initial rejection"?

 

[captain ebert]

I like him, probably the first one since Bucky I've felt that way about.

do you need to be alone for a while?

 

[FOOOOTY]

^ I would imagine that haysman isn't surprised by this initial rejection. In fact it's probably exactly what he was hoping for to put extra pressure on the SANFL to nut out a new stadium deal with port.

I imagine he has to tread carefully seeing as he reports to PA's board, which is 50% SANFL appointed

 

[Power freak 2008]

I say that we are not in a great position but not a hopeless one. What choice does the SANFL have now. It can not bleed us dry. I hate the way that they say, " we've put money into Port to make up the shortfall in gate reciepts and the AFL has matched tht dollar for dollar". I guess that depends on how much you want to bleed us dry. The SANFL are in between a rock and a hard place because if they negotiate a new dweal with us then they might have to make a few concessons for Adelaide. They can not let us go Adelaide Oval because it will downgrade the image of their own stadium and but they still want to keep grabbing all this cash.

 

[El_Scorcho]

SANFL appointed based on recommendations from the PAFC. All are Port men. The SANFL would only step in and actually appoint their own board members if they thought they had to.

 

[Waspy79]

Sorry Fooooty,

disagree. The AFL has consistently screwed SA footy, be it SANFL or AFL

This is exactly why the Port Adelaide Football Club finds itself in the position it does now. The fans have had a gutful of this constant bias and over the years have dropped off to follow alternative sports, teams or codes totally disillusioned. I have several examples of friends and family who no longer attend AFL games because of biased fixtures, umpiring, tribunal decisions, you name it. The football public in SA is not stupid, and interest is falling in the crows camp too.

If the SANFL call the AFL's bluff on this hand-out, which they appear likely to do, the AFL is either going to look inferior in power to the SANFL and eventually offer support, or more likely, it will refuse to offer support and yet again fail to treat all clubs (especially those west of Victoria) equally.

 

[Deaneus!]

This is exactly why the Port Adelaide Football Club finds itself in the position it does now. The fans have had a gutful of this constant bias and over the years have dropped off to follow alternative sports, teams or codes totally disillusioned. I have several examples of friends and family who no longer attend AFL games because of biased fixtures, umpiring, tribunal decisions, you name it. The football public in SA is not stupid, and interest is falling in the crows camp too.

True. I'm obviously a Crows supporter, and always will be, but i honestly can't be bothered sometimes simply because we (and you guys) don't get a fair shake.

As for the money problem, I've always hated Port, but i'm smart enough to recognise we (the Crows and SA) need you in the competition.

The VFL (sorry, AFL) are screwing you royally on this. Sure, the SANFL take the profits, but they have to prop up an entire state of league & grassroots footy - which i'm sure the VFL couldn't give a stuff about.

I've heard more and more in recent years from within my social circle of friends that AFL is bull**** these days and they'd rather go to the SANFL (hint to VFL commentators: it's S-A-N-F-L, not SAN-FUL)

We've got the SANFL fixture poster from The Advertiser up at work for this year, and it says that last year crowd figures were up 6.8%.

I will be very interested to see how the crowd figures go this year. I'd expect a big jump again. For interest's sake, what's the ticket cost for an AFL game for you guys versus a SANFL game?

 

[Waspy79]

^ The dislike of the games administrators and the unequal treatment of our clubs compared to others is probably the only thing that crows and power fans will almost unanimously agree on.

I expect SANFL crowds to rise again in 2009. Fewer people will fork out for AFL tickets, more people will watch AFL on foxtel or not at all, and as a result, people will look to the SANFL for their football fix. (I am not sure what prices are)

 

[_Christoh_]

This whole situation does open a can of worms, where do PAFC primary interests point to, the AFL? or the SANFL?

i dont know and hope someone can tell me.

Altho not as educated as some on this board i always was of the understanding that as the license holder the SANFL is soley responsible for the well being of both PAFC and AFC.

So here is a senario for all the alarmists, lets say the PAFC find themselves in a similar situatin 20 years from now. Any extra assistance from the SANFL would place themselves in financial difficulties. Does this mean the SANFL would look to their cash cow (no pun intended lol) the AFC?

Im sure the AFC would object, who wouldnt but what other option would there be if the AFL didnt intervene? And why would they when the SANFL are so proudly independant from the AFL (altho affiliated)?

I am eagerly awaiting the outcome altho it seems the SANFL will have to cut PAFC a new stadia deal. But rightly so the AFC will be asking some questions about this and what it means to them. This is the thin line the SANFL must walk, favour one club and not the other based on economics and altho to the benifit of my team i wonder if this has the potential to compromise the SANFL?

This is why bigeer people with bigger brains than mine make these desicions.

South Australians see how messed up this whole situation is, has been and where the potential for problems are and are either leaving footy here or going back for satisfaction with their SANFL club. The fact that the AFL is based in melbourne alone makes this desicion easier for some as well.

But in better news i get my memership this week yipee!!!! so add another to the membership thread fellas!!

EDIT: Add two going to get the daughter one too, she was after all born on the first day of the 2004 season and we all know how the last day went.

 

[blaargh]

I am quite new around here, but I have been a 'lurker' for quite a while...

It just struck me that the amounts that we are talking about to the administration must seem fairly trivial in comparison to their paypackets - I have read that Andrew Demetrio is on $1.6mil a year - and when Port had the "massive" loss of $1.4mil in 2008, surely you have to ask if we are truly getting value for money.

It also surprises me that the AFL would consider blowing many many millions on a second team in Sydney (which isn't a traditional market), when it could be spending it's time and money ensuring that the current teams are stable and well run.

I understand that everyone has to make a buck, but it really surprises me just how unbalenced the expenditure seems to be.

Of course, memberships declining has to be partly the club/supporters responsability too, and we should be doing as much as we can to support the club financially.

 

[PrideOf]

It also surprises me that the AFL would consider blowing many many millions on a second team in Sydney (which isn't a traditional market), when it could be spending it's time and money ensuring that the current teams are stable and well run.

It's not surprising when you look at Vlad's KPIs. One of the biggest is TV rights - he's said as much in several radio interviews I've heard.

Quite simply, the AFL will get greater $$$ if they have more teams in key TV markets (NSW & Qld). So those markets are more key for him than SA, WA or even Tas - even though these footy states are more financially viable in the short-term.

So Gold Coast and Western Sydney achieves one of Andy's biggest ticks ... and gives him the biggest bonus.

 

[Steve Dore]

It's not surprising when you look at Vlad's KPIs. One of the biggest is TV rights - he's said as much in several radio interviews I've heard.

Quite simply, the AFL will get greater $$$ if they have more teams in key TV markets (NSW & Qld). So those markets are more key for him than SA, WA or even Tas - even though these footy states are more financially viable in the short-term.

So Gold Coast and Western Sydney achieves one of Andy's biggest ticks ... and gives him the biggest bonus.

This is why, as I have posted in another thread, the AFL (read Dimwitreou) couldn't give a rat's toss bag about our home game crowds. While it may look better on TV to have a full stadium the AFL's revenue for a Port home game is not attendance dependant. I'm fairly sure Port home game attendance is not one of Dimwitreou's KPI's.

 

[mattys123]

From an outsider looking in there seems to be 2 ways at looking at this situation;

1. The AFL are actually being quite prudent in asking Port for a proper submission and financial plan before handing over the financial assistance package

or;

2. The AFL are being biased in their approach to interstate clubs, especially in SA, as they seem to want more information out of interstate clubs before handing over any financial assistance.

As I said, I'm an outsider, but I do believe that when Nth Melbourne has asked for financial assistance in the past, as well as Melbourne, they were both asked to submit a financially stable business plan, before gaining the financial package from the AFL.

If the SANFL and the PAFC work together on this, and produce a plan that is in some part financially viable, it seems the AFL will give you the required money, but on this we will just have to wait and see.

Just one more thing, I agree that we should be making sure all our interstate clubs are able to stand on their own 2 feet financially before bringing the West Sydney team into the comp.

 

[PrideOf]

From an outsider looking in there seems to be 2 ways at looking at this situation;

1. The AFL are actually being quite prudent in asking Port for a proper submission and financial plan before handing over the financial assistance package

or;

2. The AFL are being biased in their approach to interstate clubs, especially in SA, as they seem to want more information out of interstate clubs before handing over any financial assistance.

As I said, I'm an outsider, but I do believe that when Nth Melbourne has asked for financial assistance in the past, as well as Melbourne, they were both asked to submit a financially stable business plan, before gaining the financial package from the AFL.

It's both. I wouldn't hand over $3 million either unless I knew where it was going.

But it's more than just a business decision for the AFL. This is there opportunity to pressure the SANFL, who haven't played according to AFL House's rules for a long time.

If the SANFL and the PAFC work together on this, and produce a plan that is in some part financially viable, it seems the AFL will give you the required money, but on this we will just have to wait and see.

That's the sticking point. The SANFL and PAFC are months away from working together, if at all, based on previous history, politics and other issues that have lingered for a very long time.

Just one more thing, I agree that we should be making sure all our interstate clubs are able to stand on their own 2 feet financially before bringing the West Sydney team into the comp.

Not going to happen - see my post above about TV rights. TV networks don't really give a shit about whether there are 8 teams in Melbourne or 10. But they do care about more of a presence in markets they care about, namely Sydney and Brisbane.