ONE Port Adelaide Football Club

[tribey]

Once the tender rules came out, the clubk new it couldn't control the SANFL club so it agreed to the split so it could win the tender. I've posted the clubs fact sheet plenty of times whereby the club set out it's thoughts on setting up the SANFL club.

But jesus it was a killer.

The identity crisis, the history wars, the $1,100,000 up in smoke to set the Magpies up at Ethelton, the lost revenue streams.

We of course are to blame for this, not the SAFC who demanded it when a tenable compromise - with appropriate auditing and oversight - could've resulted in a favourable outcome for everyone.

Had the $800,000 in Ethelton monies (the other $300,000 was for transfer funds) been invested in a joint revenue stream for the two arms rather than merely going up in smoke combined with the money saved by not moving the Magpies out in the first place the possibilities for sustainability and growth were endless.

 

[tribey]

It wasn't the PAFC that wanted an SANFL team, it was the SANFL insisting on a 'Port' presence in the local compeition. PAFC wanted nothing to do with having a mikey-mouse Port side in the SANFL. The SANFL are to blame.

In 1990, but not in 1994-6.

PAFC wanted to retain a Port Adelaide team in the SANFL but under the circumstances of one club, two teams.

The SANFL counteroffer to this, presented as a fait accompli, was that any Port Magpies entity be completely divorced from the AFL operation - hence Ethelton, etc.

It was a paranoid, chicken little response that was revisited last year when the likes of North Adelaide believed the merger talks were all a wily plan to have a resurgent AFL-cash fueled Magpies re-take its monopoly on the Thomas Seymour Hill Trophy by force.

We absolutely had to bite into the shit sandwich regarding the AFL conditions, but the SANFL conditions we could've said no to. In hindsight, well...

 

[Steve Dore]

...... We absolutely had to bite into the shit sandwich regarding the AFL conditions, but the SANFL conditions we could've said no to. In hindsight, well...

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

At the time I was totally ambivalent to the creation of the PAMFC but now I see it as the biggest mistake the PAFC has made in my lifetime.

I don't want a merger of the PAFC and the PAMFC. I want to see the PAMFC cease to exist and any remnants be reabsorbed by the PAFC.

 

[*PAF]

In 1990 the board didn't really know. There was still a reserves and u/19 comp in the AFL so moving lock stock and barrel to the AFL made sense. Especially given the draft in 1990 was mickey mouse compared to today. Vic teams had metro and country zones. But the board only concentrated on the A grade playing in the AFL. The rest was open and once the shit hit the fan there was no real thought of what might be re a reserves and u/19 team in the AFL.

In 1994 the u/19's had gone, the draft was a real draft, and the reserves comp was seen as one day dieing out which it did by 1999. When we had time to plan to enter into the AFL this is what the club decided to do;

Port's initial licence bid in early 1994 before the tender rules were set up, was to field a team in the AFL with its base at Alberton and use Footy Park. That's happened. It also wanted to have another team in the SANFL and use Alberton oval as its base and home ground. It would invite the SANFL to have directors on its board, but not control. [See pages 8 and 9 of the SANFL's official publication - South Australian Football 1994 Year Bookpublished in May 1994 for the summary of the proposal by Port, Glenelg/South, Norwood/Sturt and The Cartel (ie other 4clubs)]

Once the tender rules came out, the clubk new it couldn't control the SANFL club so it agreed to the split so it could win the tender. I've posted the clubs fact sheet plenty of times whereby the club set out it's thoughts on setting up the SANFL club.

There is no way the club could have said to guys like Ginever, Delany, R and D Smith, Northeast, Hodges, Poole, Mead etc - you go and bust your balls and win us flags to jusify us getting into the AFL, we don't know when we will get in, and when we do, we are going to abandon you and you can go and play WWT, WA, NA etc.

They way I recall it, and I could be wrong, a main reason for remaining in the SANFL, if not the main reason, had more to do with maintaining pathways for kids in the "area" than having a "firsts" team for "oldies" to follow.
Lots of "s hey?

Now if that is the case, were we trying to take on more responsibility than we could afford?
Did we not trust the SANFL to do it properly and thus there was no other option?

Now we are still trying to do the same thing, but the question needs to be asked, if we are trying to do the SANFL's job, can we afford it?
No other AFL club can, or at least doesn't want to spend any of their money on anything other than the AFL team.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I doubt there's a big pot of gold coming the way of the SANFL clubs from the sale of footy park land. The SANFL will want to retain the money as a nest egg. I can see the advantage of making sure we get anything that's going though.

It depends on how much they get as to how big the lump(y) sum of monies will be and how much the SANFL would retain to build a new income stream.

The AFL distributed approx 1/3 of it's Waverley Park monies to the clubs over 7 years ( $300k/yr for 5 years + $250k for 2 years). ie $2mil/club x 16 = $32mil of $100mil.

The sale of Footy Park should generate $100mil but could generate $300mil, especially if the SANFL become partners in real estate developments.

The SANFL could say distribute $8mil to each of the 9 clubs say over 3 or 4 years and the clubs could use it in the following manner, $5mil to build their own centre of excellence, $2mil to pay off debt or buy a non footy income producing asset and $1mil for junior development. That leaves $200mil to invest in the best case scenario.

As a guide, the Australian Olympic Committee took the $90mil it got from the Sydney Olympics and stuck it in it's A.O. Foundation, invested the majority of it listed securities and within 3 or 4 years - in a booming stock market - it was generating $20mil+ per annum in dividends, interest, realised capital gains and unrealised capital gains to fund their Olympic programs. Even when the stock market went south after the GFC and they made unrealised capital losses of about $25mil, they will still generating $10mil in annual cash profits.

So if the SANFL set up an AOC type foundation and investment strategy, it's just not the distributions that the SANFL clubs and maybe the 2 AFL clubs get upfront, but the long term revenue streams the investment generates, that has to be considered.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

You're a mine of information Russ.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

They way I recall it, and I could be wrong, a main reason for remaining in the SANFL, if not the main reason, had more to do with maintaining pathways for kids in the "area" than having a "firsts" team for "oldies" to follow.
Lots of "s hey?

Now if that is the case, were we trying to take on more responsibility than we could afford?
Did we not trust the SANFL to do it properly and thus there was no other option?

Now we are still trying to do the same thing, but the question needs to be asked, if we are trying to do the SANFL's job, can we afford it?
No other AFL club can, or at least doesn't want to spend any of their money on anything other than the AFL team.

A pathway for the kids was mentioned in 1994 but I can't remember if it was or wasn't the main reason.

You have to look at this with a 1994 hat on not a 2010 hat on. In 1994 we wanted to be different to the crows and west coast. They were a team - a state team and not really a club. Up until then, the PAFC's whole thinking had been as a club - ie many teams and we developed footballers. The draft in November 1994 was the first real draft. So our thinking between 1990 and when we submitted the tender in September 1994 was more about how we had developed footballers ie a zone rather than how a draft was going to change things. By the time in June or July 1996 we were told we were in the AFL in 1997, our thinking about developing the players via a proper draft rather than a mickey mouse one and zones would have changed.

Your last two questions are spot on. But they are also 2010 type questions not 1994 type questions. In 1994 the football industry economics where such that it meant we could think of developing footballers in the lower grades.

Last year when North Adelaide jumped up and down about the monies the SANFL gave us, Greg Boulton produced a spreadsheet with revenue, debt levels and SANFL distributions. In 1997 we had revenue of $12.3mil and made such a decent profit that under the 80% of profits licence fee conditions, we paid the SANFL a licence fee of $649,000. In 1998 we had revenue of $12.6mil and paid the SANFL a fee of $696,00. And in those years who knows how much we pumped into the Footy Park SANFL stadium yield coffers.

So just looking at those 2 years it wasn't foolish to think in 1994 that we could fund development of kids in the Port zone. Imagine if we had a cleanish stadium deal back then how much we could have generated to pump back into junior development.

But in 2010 it is something we have to consider very seriously. The economics of the football industry has changed. Can we afford as a merged club to fund an u/18 + SANFL reserves + SANFL A grade team as well as an AFL side? Last year we needed $31mil to break even. We didn't generate that much ourselves and had to get assistance from the SANFL and AFL.

I would like to think that given the amount of work the PAFC + PAMFC board and management teams put into the merger proposal over summer that their conclusions that it was feasible, was correct. Or at the very least had a very high probability of being correct.

 

[krudmonk]

Not being in Australia, I have no idea of the atmosphere surrounding this issue nor the history behind it. Pardon me if I ask a few questions:

- Are there more PAMFC supporters who reject the Power than there are PAFC supporters who also follow non-Magpies SANFL clubs? From what I gather, it would seem not.

- Might it not be beneficial to remove a "Port Adelaide" from the SANFL to allow more supporters to be drawn to the PAFC? I've noticed that some say the Power are limited to their pre-1997 fanbase, even today.

- If the Magpies become the Power reserves, what does that make the other clubs? Maybe I'm not looking at this correctly (had a few drinks), but I see it as tipping the scales for the Crows.

 

[*PAF]

... So just looking at those 2 years it wasn't foolish to think in 1994 that we could fund development of kids in the Port zone. Imagine if we had a cleanish stadium deal back then how much we could have generated to pump back into junior development.

But in 2010 it is something we have to consider very seriously. The economics of the football industry has changed. Can we afford as a merged club to fund an u/18 + SANFL reserves + SANFL A grade team as well as an AFL side? Last year we needed $31mil to break even. We didn't generate that much ourselves and had to get assistance from the SANFL and AFL.
...

Yep, spot on REH that is where I was leading. Times have changed, and can we in 2010 terms, afford to do something that other (wealthier) AFL clubs do not dare to do. Are we being too romantic? Is the heart ruling the head?

...

I would like to think that given the amount of work the PAFC + PAMFC board and management teams put into the merger proposal over summer that their conclusions that it was feasible, was correct. Or at the very least had a very high probability of being correct.

One would hope so, however chances are it will be against the odds and there wouldn't be much room for error.


EDIT: Hopefully no one will come to a conclusion that I am against the merger, it's just that IMO there are a number of questions that need to be answered (cleared up) first.

Personally I was cheesed off that we went after non Port supporters with such gusto that we totally ignored our bread and butter ones. That sucked and we are still paying for it.
Now not only are we trying to do something challenging (financially) but we need to be careful we do not do a full circle and err on the opposite side, ie ensure we do not piss off the non Magpie Power supporters like we did with the Magpie ones a few years back.

 

[*PAF]

...- Are there more PAMFC supporters who reject the Power than there are PAFC supporters who also follow non-Magpies SANFL clubs? From what I gather, it would seem not.

...

I wouldn't think so, however the SANFL and "others" won the propaganda battle and many people ended up blaming the PAFC for the Mapies woes.
Reality is that the PAFC was not allowed to help the Magpies and now, after many years, the "truth" is finally starting to be understood by most.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Just to clarify things, I have called for reunification on here since 2005. The longer it goes the tougher the economics of such a full reunification become.

The merger proposal the 2 clubs made public in February was a merger of administration rather than a full reunified club and Port in the SANFL becoming the AFL club's reserves. A merger would be the first step of a two or three step proposal because the SANFL wont let a simple one step reunification process to happen.

A merger probably is more likely to succeed financially, than a complete reunification and the one club funding 4 teams - AFL + B grade in the SANFL + SANFL reserves + U/18.

But Geelong is good guide what to do. Have it's seconds in the VFL with top up VFL only players and the u/18 TAC side the Geelong Falcons have a strong relationship with the Geelong FC and get to use their facilities at Kardinia Park and assist with junior development.

 

[*PAF]

...
But Geelong is good guide what to do. Have it's seconds in the VFL with top up VFL only players and the u/18 TAC side the Geelong Falcons have a strong relationship with the Geelong FC and get to use their facilities at Kardinia Park and assist with junior development.

However the stadium deal they have (Kardinia Park) would help them heaps.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

However the stadium deal they have (Kardinia Park) would help them heaps.

Most of the funding for the u/18 comp comes from the AFL. I think all the 16 AFL clubs have to pay a development levy. I will try and see if I can find some info on that. There are also ongoing transfer fees paid to the u/18 clubs at different stages ie on draft, after they play a game, 20 games and 50 games etc.

I don't think the Geelong stadium deal helps the u/18 but it does help with the VFL side.

What it does mean for the u/18 players is that they get to use AFL standard facilities compared to the Northern Knights or Calder Cannon kids.

 

[madman]

Looks like a great Site, I'll try and register tommorow.

 

[tribey]

The ONEPAFC website has posted the comments people have left when registering. Apart from the good predictable fare backing the move, a smattering of the misinformed attitudes that are harming us are there for all to see:

I have supported the power because I grew up supporting the maggies but seeing the way the Power have taken all that is good from port but offered very little in return has left me a little ashamed! I support one port as long as the maggies get a fair go - good training grounds, rights to alberton and financial support with a shared fan base.

Urgh.

Now the vanquished those who failed to defeat the Titan with honour, look for more devious and sinister ways to bring the Titan down. Please do not allow those that habitually fail to destroy or Titan the Magpies and its offspring the Power. United we must stand and with honour we will succeed

Wut?

Im not a Member of either side but follow both with a passion with What do I do to become a memmber and Im in full agreeance with Tim, we must unite to survive and become a force that other sides fearlike they did in the Fifties and Sixtys

:/

Carn power supporters sign up and save the maggies otherwise 140 years of port down the drain...

:\

As a ex pat living in VIC, it's dificult to see that the Power display the old ethic of the jumper is everything when playing over here. I'm sure a united club will help to instill and cement this ethic into any plyer who is recruited from interstate. I would be great to be able to stand up to supporters of other Vic teams and extoll the virtues of a proud SA club. good luck TIM.

Facepalm of the year.

 

[*PAF]

I wouldn't think so, however the SANFL and "others" won the propaganda battle and many people ended up blaming the PAFC for the Mapies woes.
...

Look no further than tribey's quotes.

The ONEPAFC website has posted the comments people have left when registering. Apart from the good predictable fare backing the move, a smattering of the misinformed attitudes that are harming us are there for all to see:
...

Facepalm of the year.

Wow talk about winning a propaganda war. WWII type stuff that Pauline Hanson would have been proud of.

...
Reality is that the PAFC was not allowed to help the Magpies and now, after many years, the "truth" is finally starting to be understood by most.

Obviously there is still quite some way to go given the above quotes.

 

[PowerKat]

A way to go about resolving some of the misinformation would be for the clubs to write a joint communication to everyone that they have on any database anywhere (ex-members & season ticket holders of both clubs, members of both clubs, ppl on the onepafc site, even all ex and current sanfl members) and explain in simple terms that the PAFC won the licence bid and it is that club that is playing in the AFL now, and that the sanfl/sfac imposed the separation of clubs/creation of PAMFC.

Also, the progress made since that time under restrictive conditions, such as returning the magpies to Alberton for their training and now admin. Should also publish it in the sadvertiser and again in club mag's/emails etc. Needs to perfectly clear that both clubs see these facts in exactly the same way, with both club logos and be signed by both executive teams. morell's diagram might be helpful also

The time to kill the crap is NOW.

 

[PortBrillance]

yeah I don't want this to go ahead.

PAMFC, please just **** off and fold

 

[wapower]

yeah I don't want this to go ahead.

PAMFC, please just **** off and fold

I'm becoming increasingly offended by your attitude towards wanting the club other people follow to fold. I'm not fussed by the Magpies but some people are. It's people like you on both sides of the Port Adelaide debate that contribute to the bitterness.

 

[simba_]

The time to kill the crap is NOW.

It's very embarrassing, really. All Port (both) members must meet at the club once the PAMFC have moved in to get all these heads in the same room. Let those who are proud of their opinions state why they think who should fold or what should happen. Let a debate go on.. let people be killed.. just let Port Adelaide supporters get on level ground for ****s sake..

 

[PortBrillance]

I'm becoming increasingly offended by your attitude towards wanting the club other people follow to fold. I'm not fussed by the Magpies but some people are. It's people like you on both sides of the Port Adelaide debate that contribute to the bitterness.

It's my opinion, if you don't like it then I don't give a shit

 

[_Christoh_]

yeah I don't want this to go ahead.

PAMFC, please just **** off and fold

Your an ignoramus, look it up.

I come from a North Adelaide back ground and no matter the club at ANY level you just dont let football clubs die if there are alternative options that are mutually beneficial.

and spell your avatar correctly cos your an embarrassment to yourself.

 

[Spadge]

yeah I don't want this to go ahead.

PAMFC, please just **** off and fold

mate you are like a broken record
you have copied and pasted the above statement about 1000 times i reckon

 

[PortBrillance]

don't care, it would be good for the PAFC to end the identity crisis, and by either both clubs setting the record straight or the magpies folding will help do that.

If magpies have to fold well I won't be losing sleep at night

 

[PowerKat]

PB - it won't end if the PAMFC folds. People will say 'the Power' killed them, the 'real port' is dead etc etc. Won't solve anything in the short to medium term.