AFL rejects Port's bailout plea

[Waspy79]

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.

Interesting point. Would reading this really get anyone from SA considering following AFL passionate? I don't think so.

 

[PrideOf]

Interesting point. Would reading this really get anyone from SA considering following AFL passionate? I don't think so.

Not much about the AFL at the moment makes me passionate. The whole AFL administration is f*cking up footy by trying to turn it into entertainment rather than sport.

 

[Power Pete]

Not much about the AFL at the moment makes me passionate.

The trouble with the AFL is...it's still acting like the VFL.

 

[Steve Dore]

..... The whole AFL administration is f*cking up footy by trying to turn it into entertainment rather than sport.

Patrick Smith wrote an interesting piece on this subject in the Oz a while back. It is a Catch 22. If we want to see the game played by elite professional athletes in comfy stadiums or be able to watch it live in HD on FTV in the comfort of our own lounge rooms then there has to be entertainment value to make it viable.

Sports without entertainment value are only watched by the family and close friends of the participants.

Columnists worry too much about money

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Patrick Smith wrote an interesting piece on this subject in the Oz a while back. It is a Catch 22. If we want to see the game played by elite professional athletes in comfy stadiums or be able to watch it live in HD on FTV in the comfort of our own lounge rooms then there has to be entertainment value to make it viable.

Sports without entertainment value are only watched by the family and close friends of the participants.

Columnists worry too much about money

This may be true of TV audiences but in SA the AFL matchday audiences are going down whilst the SANFL figures are going up. One is focused on entertainment, one is focused on football.

 

[Zvim]

Firstly, I am all for supporting Port, if they need help they should get it.

However, I think the AFL has done the right thing. If they just cut a cheque for a big wad of money it will solve nothing because that money is just going to siphon off to the SANFL.

By telling Port and SANFL to sort out their business plan first and not just hand over money it allows Port to get a much better deal from the SANFL, then if there is a short-fall they can give help, but clubs that get help at present have to significantly cut spending on and off the field to qualify.

Once you get a better deal it allows you to profit a lot more in better times so this stand will do more long-term good for the club.

AFL did the wrong thing with us, Bulldogs and Melbourne. We are getting screwed because of the AFL and the TD/MCC contracts they agreed to. There are no easy fixes but the AFL was just throwing money away rather than fixing the problem. Had they put the effort to constructing a clean 30k stadium when they started the CBF/SDF then they would have resolved the issues and spent less money than they are going to spend.

If AFL give you guys cash, it wont resolve the underlying issue and that is you get a poor deal from the SANFL. SANFL should take smaller amounts from smaller crowds and scale up the amount as the crowds get bigger, much like tax rates scale based on income. This would allow you to still make enough to get by with lower crowds, you shouldn't be severely penalised due to AFL cycles.

 

[Portia]

However, I think the AFL has done the right thing. If they just cut a cheque for a big wad of money it will solve nothing because that money is just going to siphon off to the SANFL.

By telling Port and SANFL to sort out their business plan first and not just hand over money it allows Port to get a much better deal from the SANFL,

Yeah, nah, thats bullshit.

If the AFL were being a responsible league management, they would be looking to negotiate with the SANFL on the issue, not telling Port to **** off and sort it out themselves.

Right now, Port go the SANFL and say `we need more money' - where's our leverage? We've got sod all and can only hope for a very minor concession, because SANFL money is the only money that the SANFL have.

If the AFL were to come to the table and agree to come at least part way to replacing the funds that the SANFL surrender (and in so doing, do their part as a national football administrative body!!), then we would have the necessary leverage to get the changes that we need.

If the AFL don't come to the table with the SANFL, not only are Port not going to get anywhere much, but the AFL administration are quite simply not doing their job.

 

[Steve Dore]

I partly agree with both Zvim and Porthos.

We are in a complicated relationship with the AFL. We are the club participating in the AFL but as far as the AFL are concerned we are owned by the SANFL. The AFL can clearly see that we are being bled dry by the SANFL so why give us more money which is only going to go to the SANFL and not alter our financial position significantly.

As I have posted before the SANFL has refused to come in line with the AFL's national program and by doing so has rejected additional AFL funding. Why would the AFL allow the SANFL to snub their noses at them on one hand and then give them additional funding via the PAFC?

According to Rucci in this am's 'Tiser the PAFC has not asked the AFL for emergency funding relief of $1M/season for the next 3 seasons as has been previously reported but instead asked the AFL late last year for a one off $1M "development grant" to be used to reduce debt.

 

[Zvim]

Yeah, nah, thats bullshit.

If the AFL were being a responsible league management, they would be looking to negotiate with the SANFL on the issue, not telling Port to **** off and sort it out themselves.

Right now, Port go the SANFL and say `we need more money' - where's our leverage? We've got sod all and can only hope for a very minor concession, because SANFL money is the only money that the SANFL have.

If the AFL were to come to the table and agree to come at least part way to replacing the funds that the SANFL surrender (and in so doing, do their part as a national football administrative body!!), then we would have the necessary leverage to get the changes that we need.

If the AFL don't come to the table with the SANFL, not only are Port not going to get anywhere much, but the AFL administration are quite simply not doing their job.

I don't think it will happen that way because of the structure of the relationship between the AFL, Port Adelaide and the affiliation agreement with SANFL.

While I don't think Port gets a great deal your level of revenue isn't shockingly low, it was about $4m more than us last year despite the extra assistance we currently get so excluding the support your revenue is about $5m or so more than ours.

SANFL claim you get a good deal, a better deal than Crows but it is just modelled on a much higher level of support/attendance and that is what they are helping you to address. That doesn't help you when the support is low.

The AFL look that your revenue level is still reasonably good but it is the nature of what SANFL take from you that puts a burden on your club. AFL do not contribute financially to SA or WA, it is the nature of the affiliation agreement. AFL have considerable influence of the leagues it contributes to. SANFL and WAFL do not want that. AFL has their own grass roots programs in all states but SANFL and WAFL want to remain independant. The only association is the two licenses sold to SANFL and WAFL and the affiliation agreement.

From an AFL point of view, your financials are not bad in terms of a football club given the membership and attendance levels. What is the problem is how much the SANFL take out.

Port is an investment for the SANFL, but they need to look at it as that. In tough times when a company doesn't do well they offer a significantly lower or no dividend, the health of the company is more important than a distribution. It just seems there is no throttle with Port and SANFL, if you have a poor year it seems you just get hosed by the SANFL, I think that is what the AFL has problems with, they made no guarantees about the return on investment and lets be serious, SANFL's investment cost was minimal and what they have returned from it has been massive to date.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

According to Rucci in this am's 'Tiser the PAFC has not asked the AFL for emergency funding relief of $1M/season for the next 3 seasons as has been previously reported but instead asked the AFL late last year for a one off $1M "development grant" to be used to reduce debt.

I don't know where rooch got that from.

In his presser on Tuesday Haysman confirmed it was a seven figure sum for each of three yearsis what they are looking for. He was asked by a journo (from left of screen), I know the voice I think it's either John K or Graham Badger of the ABC or maybe someone else, but I recognise it.

http://bigpondvideo.com/portadelaidetv/114666
go to PTV Mark Haysman media conference in full, between 4:43 and 5:05

reporter: And that seven figures you are seeking, is that seven figures over three years or seven figures every year for 3 years.

Haysman: We'd prefer the later, yes. Yep, certainly in terms of seven figure sum that would be on a per annum figure basis for the next 3 years, while we get our house in order, get the stadium deal sorted out, so that we can I guess prosper in the future.

And in Tuesday interview on 5AA he said, " no point in mucking around Rowey, if you are going to ask for help, you mind as well ask for decent help."

So if rooch is right, then we have changed our request since November, or Haysman has spun it that we are going to ask for more than our initial request.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

It's the SANFL's very own conflict of interest. They want to own successful and sustainable AFL clubs, while at the same time wanting to run the second best competition below the AFL in the country (whatever that's worth).

The SANFL allows its clubs an annual salary cap of $360,000 compared to the VFL's $175,000 (altho I've read that the SANFL does include a nominal fee for AFL listed players while the VFL doesn't). One of the key sticking points that's done the rounds for a while is the AFL want the SANFL salary cap reduced before they'd consider providing funds to the SANFL.

Meanwhile seven of the nine SANFL clubs ran at a loss last year, one has been smacked over the head for running over the already generous salary cap and a couple more are still being investigated. According to Rooch, they will be getting their football departments capped too, as they overspend there. No wonder we can't get any largesse from the SANFL.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And when comparing like with like, the WAFL have a salary cap of about $185,000, a points system which is a disencentive to the WAFL clubs to recruit blokes from other comps or other WAFL clubs, which puts the emphasis on them developing kids and as a result producing more draftees over the last few years than SANFL clubs, and doing better at U-18 and U-16 championships.

But then there is the development monies issue thrown in their which the WAFC get more from the AFL than the SANFL because of their salary cap levels as well as the control issue.

All these issues are coming to a head. The report the SANFL has commissioned Ernest and Young to produced which will be released in 4 to 6 weeks should be pretty interesting to read.

 

[Portia]

The SANFL allows its clubs an annual salary cap of $360,000 compared to the VFL's $175,000 (altho I've read that the SANFL does include a nominal fee for AFL listed players while the VFL doesn't).

And thats precisely the point.

The VFL has 10 AFL clubs reserves split among 16 sides - thats an average of 62.5% of an AFL club aligned to each VFL club.

The SANFL has 2 club reserves split among 9 sides. Thats 22% of an AFL club aligned to each SANFL club.

By my reckoning, VFL sides get 3 times the (completely cost-free) support of AFL-listed players that SANFL clubs do. To maintain anything like a reasonable standard of football for our guys to drop back to, the salary cap for ringers needs to reflect this.

 

[Power freak 2008]

I don't rate Dimwitt very highly. The right man for the job was Brian Cunningham but they pulled ranks around one of their own when they chose the head honcho for the AFL. I find Dimwitt vindictive, a little overbearing and inflexible in negotiations. Bucky would have had more insight into managing the expansion of the league and dealing with inter state differences. I have heard Bucky talk before and there is no way Dimwitt would have beat him in an interview.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Bucky and Brian Cook, CEO of Geelong (10 year at WCE , 10 at the cats) were the two serious candidates for 2IC job to Demetriou in 2004, ie Football Operations Manager. He went for Anderson because he knew that Anderson wasn't going to be a serious challenger for his job. Demitriou was 2IC to Jackson so he knew the stepping stone it provided. One of the two Brian's would have one day made a very good CEO. I hope Cook still gets the chance.

I will spew up if "Gilligan" McLachhlan ever becomes CEO. His predecessor, Ben Buckley would have been a good candidate as well. He was pretty impressive before he went to the FFA and has been impressive as CEO of the FFA. Obviously can handle working well with big egos, Lowy and Demetriou.

I actually reckon Demetriou is pretty talented and a good operator. Just that his hard edge can be bloody hard and grating and he can be a stubborn prick. But if didn't have that side to him, he wouldn't have done such a good job at the Player's Association and then as Jackson's 2IC.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

The SANFL are going ahead with capital works at Footy Park, despite the government holding back funds. That should convince the AFL of their inability to divert some extra funding to Port.

Stadium project stage go-ahead
MICHELANGELO RUCCI | March 21, 2009 12:30am

AAMI Stadium will continue to be redeveloped by the SANFL regardless of the new delay in state government funding.

State Treasurer Kevin Foley, who late last year held back the $100 million promised for AAMI Stadium's upgrade, yesterday declared the funds "would be delayed at least two years and I have to say it is looking like being deferred further".

SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker last night revealed the league, would in the next two years, persist with $21 million in capital works at the West Lakes arena regardless of the government's announcement.

"We are all understanding of the economic crisis and of the government's budget issues," he said. "It is a responsible approach by the government.

"In the meantime, we will spend $21 million redeveloping AAMI Stadium - and that will make a difference with better transport access to the ground, covering of the outer concourse area on the eastern side and upgrading facilities to enhance the experience at our venue.

"We will continue to make the experience of watching football at AAMI Stadium more enjoyable, from the moment you leave home, enter the stadium and get home again.

"These works will take us to 2010. And then we will have a better understanding of where the economy is sitting and where the government is placed.

"For now, we go ahead with our plans. Our hope is the economy turns around when we move to the next phase of the upgrade and enter into further discussions with the state government."

Whicker last night also revealed the SANFL was developing new revenue streams outside football at AAMI Stadium by developing commercial and residential real-estate projects.

"These will generate on-going revenue streams for the SANFL so that we can further develop AAMI Stadium not only for football but for the local community," he said.

The first of these projects is before the City of Charles Sturt to approve a "community hub" on the north-west corner of AAMI Stadium between the members' grandstand the nearby shopping centre.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/sport/afl/story/0,26547,25218850-5016212,00.html

 

[Ford Fairlane]

And thats precisely the point.

The VFL has 10 AFL clubs reserves split among 16 sides - thats an average of 62.5% of an AFL club aligned to each VFL club.

The SANFL has 2 club reserves split among 9 sides. Thats 22% of an AFL club aligned to each SANFL club.

By my reckoning, VFL sides get 3 times the (completely cost-free) support of AFL-listed players that SANFL clubs do. To maintain anything like a reasonable standard of football for our guys to drop back to, the salary cap for ringers needs to reflect this.

Have you understated your case - the VFL only has 13 teams? From what I can gather, 9 of those sides has a one to one relationship with an AFL club (which would give them an even bigger leg-up in terms of players not covered by the salary cap), while North Melbourne splits its players across two clubs (North Ballarat and Werribee). Two clubs go it alone (Frankston and Port Melbourne).

Those two clubs must have an interesting time of it, altho there is a special rule in the VFL for them - the 12-10 rule.

There are actually two 12-10 rules – one for the home-and-away season and a different rule for the V.F.L. final series.

During the home-and-away rounds, an A.F.L. affiliated club playing a “stand alone” club (currently only Port Melbourne and Frankston) can field a maximum of 12 A.F.L. listed players including rookies*. Any A.F.L. players not selected can play in the V.F.L. club Reserves team, but under a vague “gentlemen’s agreement”, most clubs do not field A.F.L. players unless they are regularly playing in the Reserves or are returning from injury.

In the V.F.L. finals, all clubs are restricted to 12 A.F.L. players regardless of whether their opponents are aligned or not. This rule applies to all finals regardless of whether the A.F.L. is playing, and for 2007 is also applicable to Geelong, the only Victorian A.F.L. club retaining an independent Reserves team.

http://www.northernbullants.com.au/pages/our-club/f.a.q.php

* although Wikipedia states that it's at least 12 VFL players and no more than 10 AFL players.

 

[portentous]

Given that many in the State ALP are Port supporters, maybe we should ask for funding from the State Government, I mean they've plied plenty of money into other sports over the years.

As a side benefit, if they helped us reduce ticket prices by subsidising them, crowd numbers go up and hence the crime rate goes down. It's a win/win situation.


Yeah I jest on the last bit.

 

[Phhht]

It's the SANFL's very own conflict of interest. They want to own successful and sustainable AFL clubs, while at the same time wanting to run the second best competition below the AFL in the country (whatever that's worth).

........

I reckon FF makes a significant point here.

Over the years the SANFL has largely become a league where telanted youngsters viewed the SANFL as a great stepping stone into the AFL to now a league where players 'return' to once they can't make the 'big league'.

Is that what is in the best interests of football in this state or should the SANFL as REH points to,

And when comparing like with like, the WAFL have a salary cap of about $185,000, a points system which is a disencentive to the WAFL clubs to recruit blokes from other comps or other WAFL clubs, which puts the emphasis on them developing kids and as a result producing more draftees over the last few years than SANFL clubs, and doing better at U-18 and U-16 championships.

try and create the best grassroots/breeding ground system for youngsters.

Its a tough balancing act when they need to consider the interests of the 9 SANFL clubs and also maintain a quality league for the development of the younger players of the 2 AFL clubs.

Tough tough issue but one which as Porthos says, is not Ports fight. AFL and SANFL need to both take a deep breath and make the concessions required that will benefit football in this state, longterm!

 

[malph]

I reckon FF makes a significant point here.

Over the years the SANFL has largely become a league where telanted youngsters viewed the SANFL as a great stepping stone into the AFL to now a league where players 'return' to once they can't make the 'big league'.

Is that what is in the best interests of football in this state or should the SANFL as REH points to,




try and create the best grassroots/breeding ground system for youngsters.

Its a tough balancing act when they need to consider the interests of the 9 SANFL clubs and also maintain a quality league for the development of the younger players of the 2 AFL clubs.

Tough tough issue but one which as Porthos says, is not Ports fight. AFL and SANFL need to both take a deep breath and make the concessions required that will benefit football in this state, longterm!

That's what the AFL wants, and really, the AFL will probably get it. The AFL wants the SANFL to reduce its salary cap, and as I understand it, the AFL can't force the SANFL to make that happen. However, with so many local clubs operating on losses, there will be no choice but to do that, and that's another step towards pegging back the local league. If Port Adelaide negotiates a more beneficial stadium deal with the SANFL, so will the Crows. That will be less money making its way to the SANFL, which is also exactly the way the AFL would like it.

My suspicion, clearly along with some others here, is that the AFL telling Port to go back to the SANFL to negotiate has nothing to do with what is the best way to secure Port Adelaide's viability (even if that is the result). It has everything to do with drying up some more of the SANFL's revenue, in turn making them dependent on AFL money, and you know the rest . . .