Whilst the SANFL safety net is gone, the AFL one will play a bigger part. The AFL have been all over this since day 1. The AFL already have a safety net over half the comp in one way or another.
-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Independence, only days away
- Thread starter Big Gazoongas
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Completely incorrect. Some franchises operate this way, but in most the franchise holder has the opportunity to build value into the franchise and then sell to an approved buyer for what ever they want to charge. Goodwill in a franchise is no different to a normal business in most respects.
so erm, not completely incorrect then
Will Smith to CHF!
You dont want to be one of those clubs the AFL prop up for TV rights money.
Those clubs will never win a flag.
Well said Macca. I've seen organisations whose boards are dominated by members, parents and friends and not a scrap of governance, strategic, people or financial skill between them - and those organisations have suffered badly. Members views are important but they shouldn't dominate. Balance is they key IMO.
SpeciousArgument
Premiership Player
So why dont the AFL rescind the licenses that the sanfl hold and reissue them? I dont wabt to see the sanfl get screwed but at this point theyre taking the piss arent they?
SpeciousArgument
Premiership Player
I guess this does reinforce what weve known for a long time though. ppfc, only worth 60% of what the afc is.
Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk
Because the SANFL paid $8M for them back in the day, making them worth around $15M in today's dollars (no, I haven't done the calculation - rough guesstimate). The AFL sold them to the SANFL - making the SANFL the new owners. You can't just take back something you've already sold & sell it to someone else, without compensating the first party.
- Jul 25, 2010
- 32,674
- 18,767
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
Add to that, the SANFL are under no obligation to actually sell them.
They will stand to lose millions of dollars in future earnings. The Crows, not Port Adelaide won the licence, the SANFL did and this history behind the competition was the reason they were able to gain 2 AFL licences.
I think the season launch is in the next couple of days and AFL heavies will be in town, Chapman pretty much confirmed to Rowie that it will be announced then.
A licence to play in the AFL can't be bought. It can't be sold. It can only be withdrawn by the AFL in special circumstances.
It's not like a taxi licence. Think of your Driver's Licence. You can't sell that to your mate. You can't buy one. And if you have one you can only loose it by breaking the agreement (in this case the road rules) under which you were given it.
There are currently 18 licences issued by the AFL granting the right to play in their competition. But unlike your Driver's Licence, which was gained by you under the same rules that apply to everyone else, each of the 18 AFL Licences were granted under a different, separately negotiated agreement. Don't bother saying that's not fair - they are commercial agreements and they are what they are! If you look at (Google) the constitutions of the various AFL clubs, you will see that they all (well, the one's that are public) have a section dealing with their licence AGREEMENT.
And that's what is important - the agreements the AFL entered into when granting a licence to play. SANFL negotiated agreements with the AFL in 1990 and 1994 for 2 licences, which they then sub-licenced to the Crows and Port. Legally binding agreements. The negotiations, and the reason for the lawyers, are about rescinding those agreements first. Naturally SANFL wants a return: they are voluntarily giving up valuable assets, and they don't have to. The AFL can't break the original agreements without either cause, which they don't have; or SANFL's cooperation, which is why they are negotiating.
Remember, even then, SANFL OWNS the Adelaide Football Club, lock, stock and barrel. I assume part of the negotiation between the AFL and SANFL is clauses in the agreement to limit the influence the SA Football Commission has on the Board of the AFC (which is a commercial entity owned by SANFL, and that is not going to change in this exercise).
So this 'INDEPENDENCE' will be the result of a negotiated agreement. Binding on the AFL, SANFL and the AFC, but just as subject to future renegotiation as the old agreement was.
The media, if they even understand this, thinks explaining it might be too hard, they like to Keep It Simple for Stupid.
It's not like a taxi licence. Think of your Driver's Licence. You can't sell that to your mate. You can't buy one. And if you have one you can only loose it by breaking the agreement (in this case the road rules) under which you were given it.
There are currently 18 licences issued by the AFL granting the right to play in their competition. But unlike your Driver's Licence, which was gained by you under the same rules that apply to everyone else, each of the 18 AFL Licences were granted under a different, separately negotiated agreement. Don't bother saying that's not fair - they are commercial agreements and they are what they are! If you look at (Google) the constitutions of the various AFL clubs, you will see that they all (well, the one's that are public) have a section dealing with their licence AGREEMENT.
And that's what is important - the agreements the AFL entered into when granting a licence to play. SANFL negotiated agreements with the AFL in 1990 and 1994 for 2 licences, which they then sub-licenced to the Crows and Port. Legally binding agreements. The negotiations, and the reason for the lawyers, are about rescinding those agreements first. Naturally SANFL wants a return: they are voluntarily giving up valuable assets, and they don't have to. The AFL can't break the original agreements without either cause, which they don't have; or SANFL's cooperation, which is why they are negotiating.
Remember, even then, SANFL OWNS the Adelaide Football Club, lock, stock and barrel. I assume part of the negotiation between the AFL and SANFL is clauses in the agreement to limit the influence the SA Football Commission has on the Board of the AFC (which is a commercial entity owned by SANFL, and that is not going to change in this exercise
).So this 'INDEPENDENCE' will be the result of a negotiated agreement. Binding on the AFL, SANFL and the AFC, but just as subject to future renegotiation as the old agreement was.
The media, if they even understand this, thinks explaining it might be too hard, they like to Keep It Simple for Stupid.
One of the big changes that may happen once we hold our licence is that we can own a licensed facility.
I wonder if something may be announced before our first game. I place to meet before games for supporters perhaps.
I am sure Peter Hurley is working on it.
I wonder if something may be announced before our first game. I place to meet before games for supporters perhaps.
I am sure Peter Hurley is working on it.
I was always under the impression that both Adelaide and Port Adelaide both paid off their licenses to the SANFL in their first 4-6 years in the competition
So was it Crows or the SANFL that won the first License to join the AFL.
I don't know how old you were when this all went down but I pretty sure the Crows did not exist when the SANFL took Port to court to block their entry.
Technically I think we were, I beleive Adelaide Football club was registered as a trading name in the 80's buy the SANFL.
But you are right the SANFL hold both licences.
Correct, 1n 1981.
- Jul 25, 2010
- 32,674
- 18,767
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
Oops, that was a typo. My apologies.
That should have said. The Crows, nor Port Adelaide won the licence, the SANFL did.
Nether AFL club won the licences, the SANFL competition did. The 10 clubs - collectively did.
The SANFL formed the Adelaide Football Club Inc in 1986 after declining an offer to join the VFL.
Is this event different to creating the Trading Name you say happened in 1981?
And still i cant get an answer to my question.
If we buy our licence back from the SANFL for market value, as well as PAP, why does the SANFL then think they deserve to take 1.8 million a year out of the SMA?
If we buy our licence back from the SANFL for market value, as well as PAP, why does the SANFL then think they deserve to take 1.8 million a year out of the SMA?
Because they're 50% owners of the SMA?
So apparently independence is only days away http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...de-oval-showdown/story-fnia3v71-1226862709036
We'll see.
We'll see.
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
At this rate... we'll be independent by 2020!
