Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance

[tribey]

And you make millions out of them - you get to play in a stadium for no cash outlay.

No cash outlay? If we don't get at least 27000 to a home game we're writing cheques to the SANFL who take all the matchday income from that game to begin with.

Also, the whole issue of Football Park is a crock of shit. Port Adelaide's repeated presence in finals, Grand Finals and marquee minor round matches for decades helped build and finance that piece of crap more than anyone, but I digress.

It's simple maths. If we were allowed a similar deal to you we'd come out ahead by $1-2m as Haysman has said (Let's say $400k * 11 home games = $4.4m - $3m in rent to the SANFL = everyone's happy).

 

[Rob]

Yes the ticket prices are part of it but our CEO said for a similar stadium deal Port would make about $1.5mil to $2.5mil. Look at the table I put up for 2005 net stadium results. Freo averaged 3,000 more people per home game than Port in 2005 yet made $4.4mil more than Port. So the figures have been adjusted back for ticket price difference between the two stadiums.

What? No they haven't. It's the gross income from all sources less stadium expenses. If income is high, then your 'net stadium return' will be higher than someone whose income is low, even if their stadium deal is identical. If Port increased their ticket prices by 50% and maintained their attendance levels, then their 'net stadium return' will go up substantially.

Put simply, those figures say absolutely nothing about how good the stadium deal is between clubs.

I am not saying all the increased return is due to a clean stadium and nothing to do with higher ticket prices. But there is no doubt a big chunk of it is.

I produced net stadium return figures. That takes into account the high rent and most income streams vs low rent and little of the income streams. Those net figures include gate receipts, signage, membership, reserved seating, catering and corporate hospitality, less the expenditure for ground rental and match day costs. We get SFA compared to the two WA clubs from the corporate revenue Footy park generates. Apart from a new facility we built in 2006 we get virtually nothing. Filling our corporate books hasn't been our problem in fact its a shinning light for us. We don't get enough of our fans to the stadium often enough.

If you broke down those net figures I posted between the different revenue streams and compared them you would see that they are substantial across all components.

You're probably right - which if you're trying to prove a point you need to.

Another big difference between Subi and the Gabba and Footy Park is the SANFL members take up a larger slice of the ground. We get some revenue from these membership sales but we can't sell the best seats on the wing at a premium price on the members side of the ground like we do on the outer. The Gabba have a relatively small BCG Trust membership and the SCG is somewhere between the Gabba and Footy Park.

You're not wrong, but their existence doesn't necessarily disadvantage you. You get a shitload of income from AAMI members as they pay a basic membership fee to either 1 or both AFL clubs depending on what class of member they are. Abolish AAMI stadium membership (and charge the clubs a big rental amount every year) and no doubt a lot of these people wouldn't purchase a standalone Port membership.

Now i'm not trying to suggest that you would be better or worse off than the current arrangement. What i'm saying is that if you want to make a point about how much you're being had by the SANFL, then you need to come up with much better figures than a bunch of dollar signs that mean nothing, and a ridiculously simplistic quote like 'Fremantle earn X dollars more despite only getting X more though the gates'. Those points are valid when all other things are equal - in this case, pretty much no other things are equal.

Yes we pay little rent. Just like the 9 Melbourne team we pay match day costs and get very little of the other revenue streams.

Yep - and the ones with decent support bases make money and the ones with small support bases struggle.

Yet despite what appears to me to be an obvious correllation, people still insist on blaming poor financial results on stadium deals and not the massive elephant that's standing in the corner of the room.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And like most of this rubbish, it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

What each club makes based on whether they get 25,000 people through the gate is irrelevant, the issue is why Port can't get 25,000 people through the gate. Stop wasting time on irrelevant stats and put some effort into helping your Club work out why their supporter base is a dogs breakfast and don't feel the need to support their Club that they all claim to be so passionate about. So far you are no better than the South Adelaide Panthers.

If Port were averaging 35,000 - 37,000 per game like Freo, you would not be on your knees begging to the AFL. The fact that AAMI is not a clean stadium means nothing to the man on the seat.

"What's that love?"
"going to the footy ........ nah my sciatica is playing up and apparently the Stadium isn't clean, I don't know what that means but apparently we don't like it so I'm boycotting the games. That'll show em!"

Port should worry about what they can control than pointingand fixating on what is happening in WA. Getting, 25,000 to a game, would be a good start.

You made an incorrect statement. I corrected it. Simple as that.

I have said in another thread to you that we should be getting 30,000 to 32,000 to our games. If I knew the answer to how to get them back over night I would have offered the solutions by now.

You say Port should concentrate on what they can control. One thing is their stadium deal. If our management believes we have to plan for an average crowd of only 25,000 then they have to manage that part of the business. If they are changing the stadium deal then they have to have a point of comparison. It doesn't mean that they will get the deal changed but you have to show your landlord how a change in the stadium deal affects both parties.

Yes it's irrelevant to the average bloke in the street. But it's not irrelevant to managing a core part of the club's business. Management has to worry about both at the same time.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Yes, but the issue is that if Port are giving less then the crows have to give less as well, while it is good for us it means that the SANFL is taking less money from both clubs which is something that the SANFL wont like.

Why would crows have to give less? Port aren't negotiating a group enterprise bargaining agreement. They're negotiating a better deal for themselves. There's no reason for the SANFL to alter the crows deal.

But ...

What each club makes based on whether they get 25,000 people through the gate is irrelevant, the issue is why Port can't get 25,000 people through the gate. Stop wasting time on irrelevant stats and put some effort into helping your Club work out why their supporter base is a dogs breakfast and don't feel the need to support their Club that they all claim to be so passionate about. So far you are no better than the South Adelaide Panthers.

If Port were averaging 35,000 - 37,000 per game like Freo, you would not be on your knees begging to the AFL. The fact that AAMI is not a clean stadium means nothing to the man on the seat.

This is the bottom line. I was appalled at the collapse of our crowds in 2008. And never mind this media hype that it was Williams calling the season off after the Richmond game. The Carlton game killed our season. The second major collapse for the season in front of what was left of the faithful. That was all she wrote.

We had just over 29,000 at the Carlton game, the next home game against Richmond (we were belted by Geelong at Kardinia Park in between), there was under 21,000. Richmond are usually good for 26-25,000 at Footy Park even allowing for ordinary season results. The more it unraveled after that, the worse it became. It didn't matter Williams called the finals off after that, people had already voted with their feet. There are probably other issues with Choco that put people off, but that's another story. Off-field Port have worked to reduce his workload and public profile. It should help his coaching and stress levels, and maybe increase attendances for the club.

Crowds under the mid 20s meant that even the rusted ons had dropped off. They should mostly be back at the start of this season (fingers crossed), but the only thing that will keep them there is winning. Game plan is good and as attractive footy as can be played in these zoning days will help, but winning gets the add-ons, the theatre-goers if you like, back through the gate. That pushes the crowd figures up.

But it's going to be a tough haul. Even the crows with their vast supporter base and perennial season-ticket sell outs couldn't draw 40,000 to six out of twelve games (incl the one final) last year. How we stack up against that, is the $64 question.

 

[Rob]

No cash outlay? If we don't get at least 27000 to a home game we're writing cheques to the SANFL who take all the matchday income from that game to begin with.

So draw 27,000.

Also, the whole issue of Football Park is a crock of shit. Port Adelaide's repeated presence in finals, Grand Finals and marquee minor round matches for decades helped build and finance that piece of crap more than anyone, but I digress.

Which you'd think would improve Port's supporter base, membership and crowds. Yet despite that, your crowds have fallen since your inception in the league. That's the worry - you have one bad year and the club is in deep shit. What if you have a few bad years in a row?

It's simple maths. If we were allowed a similar deal to you we'd come out ahead by $1-2m as Haysman has said (Let's say $400k * 11 home games = $4.4m - $3m in rent to the SANFL = everyone's happy).

And $400k per game comes from where? Why not $200k? Hell, why not say $1m a game, then you'd really be raking it in eh?

Can you at least breakdown this $400k a game?

 

[Janus]

So draw 27,000.



Which you'd think would improve Port's supporter base, membership and crowds. Yet despite that, your crowds have fallen since your inception in the league. That's the worry - you have one bad year and the club is in deep shit. What if you have a few bad years in a row?



And $400k per game comes from where? Why not $200k? Hell, why not say $1m a game, then you'd really be raking it in eh?

Can you at least breakdown this $400k a game?

I don't know the exact figures, but it's not that hard to work out - take a crowd of 20,000 and multiply it by $20 per ticket (as an example, and averaging out concessions, premium seats etc.) = $400k.

If anything, he lowballed the figure, because we don't average crowds of 20,000

 

[relapse]

Why would crows have to give less? Port aren't negotiating a group enterprise bargaining agreement. They're negotiating a better deal for themselves. There's no reason for the SANFL to alter the crows deal.

Because it directly effects the AFC also, there would be a massive uproar if the SANFL are charging Port less to play at footy park than the crows. It is just something that the SANFL couldnt do, they will decide on something that is equitable for both the AFC and PAFC, Adelaide pay a higher dividend because they have more members but both clubs you would assume legally would have to have the same stadium deal surely it wouldnt be legal to charge more club more than the other club.

I am sure you would be all against a situation where the Crows would make more from a 40k crowd that Port would with the same crowd. As I have said before I would question the legality of the SANFL offering Port a super sweet permanent stadium deal while leaving the Crows under the old deal.

Maybe the SANFL can look at some sort of tier system depending on the crowd levels or something.

 

[Janus]

Because it directly effects the AFC also, there would be a massive uproar is the SANFL are charging Port less to play at footy park than the crows. It is just something that the SANFL couldnt do, they will decide on something that is equitable for both the AFC and PAFC, Adelaide pay a higher dividend because they have more members but both clubs have to have the same stadium deal.

I am sure you would be all against a situation where the Crows would make more from a 40k crowd that Port would with the same crowd. As I have said before the SANFL wouldnt give Port some super sweet permanent stadium deal while leaving the Crows under the old deal.

Maybe the SANFL can look at some sort of tier system depending on the crowd levels or something. I would be shocked though if Adelaide's deals werent changed at the same time, tis the only fair thing to do.

The easiest way to do it would to charge rent according to crowd numbers - if you get 40k for one match, you pay X amount of dollars, and if you only get 25k, you pay Y amount. Increases the incentive for the SANFL to actually do some work and promote BOTH their investments.

 

[tribey]

So draw 27,000.

And make $0 per game. Sounds great.

You sound like a fan of our stadium deal. Perhaps you should ring your club and the WAFC and encourage the Dockers to switch over?

 

[aneale]

You made an incorrect statement. I corrected it. Simple as that.

I have said in another thread to you that we should be getting 30,000 to 32,000 to our games. If I knew the answer to how to get them back over night I would have offered the solutions by now.

You say Port should concentrate on what they can control. One thing is their stadium deal. If our management believes we have to plan for an average crowd of only 25,000 then they have to manage that part of the business. If they are changing the stadium deal then they have to have a point of comparison. It doesn't mean that they will get the deal changed but you have to show your landlord how a change in the stadium deal affects both parties.

Yes it's irrelevant to the average bloke in the street. But it's not irrelevant to managing a core part of the club's business. Management has to worry about both at the same time.

Granted, but frankly, that's a very negative way of looking at things. Rather than focussing on getting fans back, the Club is looking at fixing the result rather than the symptom. It's like the Bulldogs referring to themselves as the 'Scraggers' or Freo's Anchor before some Psychologist told them to stop being so negative. By accepting that Port need a better deal to survive for a 25,000 crowd they should be worrying about a 35,000 - 40,000 crowd. It's all about mindset. And right now Port have their hand out and all we hear about from the fans and the CEO is Stadium deals. Not increasing the gate, Haysman was pseudo impressive today, pity he completely ignores feedback on membership from his supporters. There are plenty of things that bother PAFC members about their membership, a great deal go unanswered.

 

[tribey]

I don't know the exact figures, but it's not that hard to work out - take a crowd of 20,000 and multiply it by $20 per ticket (as an example, and averaging out concessions, premium seats etc.) = $400k.

If anything, he lowballed the figure, because we don't average crowds of 20,000

Something like that. To meet Rucci's stated figure of $400k per Port home game would mean that overall, between parking, pourage, advertising, corporate box, catering and matchday ticket sales you'd need to make $17.02 off every individual entering the ground assuming an average matchday attendance of 23500 after expenses.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Put simply, those figures say absolutely nothing about how good the stadium deal is between clubs.

Of course they say something. They give you an idea of what the clubs can generate net per seat sold. They show that bigger isn't necessarily better and that a smaller stadium where a premium can be charged is going to be more beneficial to clubs than having a big stadium that has plenty of unsold seats and that getting access to as many revenue streams as possible is the most beneficial. Geelong playing at Kardinia Park vs Docklands is a case in point.

You're not wrong, but their existence doesn't necessarily disadvantage you. You get a shitload of income from AAMI members as they pay a basic membership fee to either 1 or both AFL clubs depending on what class of member they are. Abolish AAMI stadium membership (and charge the clubs a big rental amount every year) and no doubt a lot of these people wouldn't purchase a standalone Port membership.

We would have got about $1.5mil from SANFL memberships in 2008 and a little less in 2005. If we sold 5,000 memberships in the SANFL reserve charging $360 the same price as the premium seats in the outer wing we would equalise that revenue stream but have access to the corporate and catering revenue (to help offset the higher rent).

Now i'm not trying to suggest that you would be better or worse off than the current arrangement. What i'm saying is that if you want to make a point about how much you're being had by the SANFL, then you need to come up with much better figures than a bunch of dollar signs that mean nothing, and a ridiculously simplistic quote like 'Fremantle earn X dollars more despite only getting X more though the gates'. Those points are valid when all other things are equal - in this case, pretty much no other things are equal.

Honestly without knowing all the info I don't know how better off we would be in making a change. I'm trying to get a feel for what has been put out there in public. I know our management team has been working with AFL on this since November. I know the AFL has all the info on the 16 clubs finances and I know the AFL has since 2005 realised that stadium returns, gross and net has become a critical issue to most clubs. There has to be some truth in what is out there in the public other wise I would expect the AFL to laugh at us.

Yep - and the ones with decent support bases make money and the ones with small support bases struggle.

Yet despite what appears to me to be an obvious correllation, people still insist on blaming poor financial results on stadium deals and not the massive elephant that's standing in the corner of the room.

Look I have said our biggest problem is that we don't get enough of our people to our games. No ifs or buts about it. Stadium deals are critical to most clubs because getting good crowds and not making any real money isn't sustainable.

But the Melbourne clubs don't make any money from their stadium deals if they get 30,000 to a game, yet they have 2 shiny new stadiums for their fans to sit in and help pay off.

Subi, according to many is a shitty stadium which has little debt so the clubs make decent money if they get 30,000 there and substantially more if they get it close to capacity.

Footy Park according to many is a shitty stadium in the wrong location with little debt which is in many ways is the worst of both worlds. With a crowd of 30,000 you don't make the money the WA clubs make for a 30,000 crowd, but you have similar outdated facilities as in WA. ie the SA clubs don't make much money like the Vic clubs for a 30,000 crowd, but they don't get the up to date modern facilities either. And the SANFL does nicely out of it, ie a football body, unlike the Docklands where the private owners do nicely out of 30,000 or at the MCG where the MCC bankers do very nicely out of a 30,000 crowd.

If the SANFL had a WAFC stadium model, the crows would be the most profitable club in the land, bigger than the WCE and they would be bigger than the SANFL itself. Its probably another reason why I'm not sure if a change is going to happen.

 

[Janus]

Something like that. To meet Rucci's stated figure of $400k per Port home game would mean that overall, between parking, pourage, advertising, corporate box, catering and matchday ticket sales you'd need to make $17.02 off every individual entering the ground assuming an average matchday attendance of 23500 after expenses.

Cheers, I knew someone with a better understanding of mathematics and economics would be able to explain it!

 

[Rob]

I don't know the exact figures, but it's not that hard to work out - take a crowd of 20,000 and multiply it by $20 per ticket (as an example, and averaging out concessions, premium seats etc.) = $400k.

If anything, he lowballed the figure, because we don't average crowds of 20,000

Are you serious?

You already receive that income from people coming through the gates. Given they're mostly members, you're going to get a lot of it upfront, before the season starts.

What I was referring to is the $400k is extra income you are not receiving now that you would otherwise receive.

 

[tribey]

Cheers, I knew someone with a better understanding of mathematics and economics would be able to explain it!

Except I don't think I have . My example above would be the rough figure for an average homegame gross return of $400k from an average attendance of 23500 = $17.02 per individual who enters the ground.

Not knowing what the expenses are for a weekly home game I can't really guess at what would constitute a net profit of $400k, but for shits and giggles, assuming there are $100k worth of individual matchday expenses(? no idea if that's high or low), you'd need to up the figure to $21.28 per individual assuming the same average attendance.

 

[Rob]

Of course they say something. They give you an idea of what the clubs can generate net per seat sold. They show that bigger isn't necessarily better and that a smaller stadium where a premium can be charged is going to be more beneficial to clubs than having a big stadium that has plenty of unsold seats and that getting access to as many revenue streams as possible is the most beneficial. Geelong playing at Kardinia Park vs Docklands is a case in point.

That is correct, but without elaborating on all those variables, they're just a bunch of random numbers. And certainly don't go anyway to explaining how good each team's stadium deal is.

Really, I have 1 question for someone in the know. Exactly how much does the SANFL make from AAMI stadium? Even a figure rounded to the nearest million is fine. And just from the stadium - not from parking or anything otuside the stadium.

I think that as a stadium, it's comparable to Subiaco. I think it's a slightly better structure but in a shittier location. I think it's probably reasonable that the cost to play at AAMI is similar to the cost to play at Subiaco.
Now - we know what the WAFC make from both AFL clubs over here - a tick over $6 million in rent. If the SANFL makes more than this from their different economic structure, they're probably ripping both clubs off. If less, then both clubs don't have any worse a stadium deal than the WA clubs. Arguably better.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Granted, but frankly, that's a very negative way of looking at things. Rather than focussing on getting fans back, the Club is looking at fixing the result rather than the symptom. It's like the Bulldogs referring to themselves as the 'Scraggers' or Freo's Anchor before some Psychologist told them to stop being so negative. By accepting that Port need a better deal to survive for a 25,000 crowd they should be worrying about a 35,000 - 40,000 crowd. It's all about mindset. And right now Port have their hand out and all we hear about from the fans and the CEO is Stadium deals. Not increasing the gate, Haysman was pseudo impressive today, pity he completely ignores feedback on membership from his supporters. There are plenty of things that bother PAFC members about their membership, a great deal go unanswered.

You wont find too many more Port supporters than me, that are more disappointed that we have come to this. But part of it is being proactive if the worst does happen. Nothing wrong with hoping for the best but planning for the worst.

I suspect part of this is to try to lock in funding from the AFL now in case the recession gets worse and the AFL commits all its money to the Gold Coast and we can't get the SANFL to budge on a stadium deal. As has been reported in the GC stadium threads the AFL has to upfront come up with $51mil to build the stadium before the Qld government reimburses it in 2 years time and maybe as much as another $50mil depending on how much the federal government throws to the stadium. The AFL is going to have to subsidise the GC team $6mil to $10mil a year for 5 years and who knows what is going on with a western suburbs team. And then there is the 2012-16 TV deal which will be negotiated by the end of 2010. What happens if it doesn't go up as much as the AFL thought and can't fully subsidise the GC expansion? What happens if it stays the same or if it indeed was less? So getting some guarantees now is a smart move.

I hope we don't need the funding because the recession doesn't bite as deep, we play decent footy and our crowds are around 30,000 per game, we are better at connecting with our fans and our corporate sponsorship at worst maintains its existing level. But if we can get a better stadium deal out of this, which also means an equal improvement for the crows as they get a better deal as well, then that is a least one decent thing to come out of this crappy situation my club finds itself in.

 

[Waspy79]

Re: Port tell league: we'll go broke without handout

This is what happens when a club abandons its roots and pretends to be something it’s not.

Time to **** off this concept of “Crows Mach II” and work on restoring ties to our traditional supporter base.

I am looking upon John James' reign with more and more cyncicsm.

I agree, but the work has begun (see The Creed, 1870 etc), but is it too late? All of this is really making me think that Choco is gone at the end of the season regardless of results. We wont be able to afford him and the board will be keen to win back all the fans that Choco has alienated over the years by showing him the door.

 

[FOOOOTY]

I could see the AFL saying theres plenty of money in SA football but the SANFL are just spending it in the wrong places.

Good call, you must indeed be a smart fella

THE AFL has refused to bail out the debt-laden Port Adelaide Football Club, instead telling the SANFL - owner of the Power's licence - to deliver a new deal to keep it viable.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou last night virtually closed his chequebook on the Power, which has $3.5 million of debt, saying he will not hand cash to Port until its business model is rewritten, with SANFL support.

AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick made it clear the key to resolving the Power's financial woes, highlighted by a record $1.4 million loss last year, rests in Adelaide with the SANFL and not at AFL House.
"Sort yourself out first before you come to us," Mr Fitzpatrick said.

"Do not assume there will be a cash contribution to Port Adelaide," Mr Demetriou said last night. "Help does not always come in cash – it is not the panacea to fix everything.

"The responsibility for that licence, that football club, is with the SANFL. And the SANFL comprehends that well.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25198880-5006301,00.html

 

[SimonH]

Something like that. To meet Rucci's stated figure of $400k per Port home game would mean that overall, between parking, pourage, advertising, corporate box, catering and matchday ticket sales you'd need to make $17.02 off every individual entering the ground assuming an average matchday attendance of 23500 after expenses.

1. What proportion of a crowd of 23,500 are walk-up purchases?
2. Does anyone really believe that this figure intuitively sounds right? I'm certainly disinclined to believe any fact asserted by Rucci until independently proved.
3. Talk of 'makes' is inherently misleading. Like my local restaurant makes $5000 a week; they're rolling in it. Or would be if not for the fact that their weekly costs of food, wages, rent etc total $4900. Profit is income minus expenditure. And in the SANFL's case, their major expenditure isn't beer to sell or people to staff the carparks and bars (nor, as some would have it, is it massive recurrent handouts to Norwood, Glenelg, South Adelaide etc); it's capital works to bring their major asset up to a 21st century standard that will entice people away from their plasmas and to the game. And even if their income from Port was close to $5m per annum (which I doubt), it would barely touch the sides of that line item of expenditure.

To state the obvious: neither the SANFL nor the AFL wants the Port AFL franchise to go bust. At least not in the short-medium term. So it's simply a matter of brinkmanship between the two bodies as to who has to pay to keep it afloat (or more realistically, how the percentages get divided).

In fact, after I wrote that last sentence, but before I posted the message, I see that the first shot in the war has already been fired by Demetriou.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Essentially, a new front has opened up in The Great Stadium Deal Wars.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That is correct, but without elaborating on all those variables, they're just a bunch of random numbers. And certainly don't go anyway to explaining how good each team's stadium deal is.

Really, I have 1 question for someone in the know. Exactly how much does the SANFL make from AAMI stadium? Even a figure rounded to the nearest million is fine. And just from the stadium - not from parking or anything otuside the stadium.

I think that as a stadium, it's comparable to Subiaco. I think it's a slightly better structure but in a shittier location. I think it's probably reasonable that the cost to play at AAMI is similar to the cost to play at Subiaco.
Now - we know what the WAFC make from both AFL clubs over here - a tick over $6 million in rent. If the SANFL makes more than this from their different economic structure, they're probably ripping both clubs off. If less, then both clubs don't have any worse a stadium deal than the WA clubs. Arguably better.

Do the 2 WA clubs pay match day costs? Ie is it $6mil and the WAFC have to pay matchday wages to staff etc out of that $6mil or is it $6mil net.

Also who gets the catering income/profits? The two clubs or the WAFC?

No one without access to info from the SANFL knows these figures. I get the SANFL annual reports and they present global figures.

But they do report their retail catering which does some non Footy Park stuff as well, earned just over $5mil in 2007 and reported about a $2.5mil profit. The corporate catering had revenues of almost $6mil and a profit of about $1.5mil and the Crows Tavern made a net profit of about $900k. They do give the crows some distribution from this venue in the members area.

Ignoring government grants to help pay of the northern stand and some capital works in 2006 and 2007 and some monies from the AFL facilities development reserve, the SANFL made about $4.5mil operating profit per year since 2003 and has distributed $3.4mil in 2003 growing to $3.8mil in 2007 to it's 9 clubs. The overwhelming majority of these profits are generated by Football Park related activities.

I did download a powerpoint presentation from the WAFC site when I downloaded the WAFC 2007 annual report that presents info on its distribution to the WAFL.

Slide 3

WAFC cash distribution
Accompanying the increase in cash available to the WAFC has been a commensurate increase in cash grants to the WAFL

* WAFC available cash has increased by 23% over the past 4 years.
* This increase is due to the increased returns from the AFL clubs, events and profitability of Subiaco Oval.
* The distribution of available cash to the WAFL clubs has increased from $4.6m in 2005 to $5.78m in 2008 (26% increase)
* By agreement the WAFL Service Grant has increased by CPI over the past 3 years.
* Additional funding has occurred through facilities and technology grants.

Slide 4

There has been a 26% increase in funding to the WAFL in the past 4 years in accordance with the available cash to the WAFC.

Year_______	2005____	2006____	2007______	2008
Direct Grant	$2,790,000	$2,880,000	$3,015,000	$3,132,000
WAFL Comp	$624,000	$635,000	$657,000	$685,000
Sandover	 $104,000	$118,000	$145,000	$135,000
Finals____	$194,000	$172,000	$212,000	$180,500
Umpiring WAFL	$389,000	$398,000	$414,000	$455,000
Facility Grant	______$0	______$0	$243,000	$333,000
Standard Technology 	$0	______$0	______$0	$110,000
Transfer Fees	$499,000	$561,000	$744,000	$750,000
TOTAL___	$4,600,000	$4,764,000	$5,430,000	$5,780,500

I assume the Direct Grant is the equivalent of the SANFL's distribution to it's 9 clubs.

Edit you can download the above slides at the link listed on the following page
http://www.wafootball.com.au/wafl/512-wafl-funding-overview

 

[FOOOOTY]

Net Stadium Returns - 2005

WCE $10.93m (Average home attendance in 2005 was 40,267)
Bris_ $10.84m (33,267)
Col_ $10.30m (41,759)
Fre_ $10.29m (35,224)

Mel__ $6.10m (39,869)

Ouch.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Do the 2 WA clubs pay match day costs? Ie is it $6mil and the WAFC have to pay matchday wages to staff etc out of that $6mil or is it $6mil net.

Also who gets the catering income/profits? The two clubs or the WAFC?

No one without access to info from the SANFL knows these figures. I get the SANFL annual reports and they present global figures.

But they do report their retail catering which does some non Footy Park stuff as well, earned just over $5mil in 2007 and reported about a $2.5mil profit. The corporate catering had revenues of almost $6mil and a profit of about $1.5mil and the Crows Tavern made a net profit of about $900k. They do give the crows some distribution from this venue in the members area.

Ignoring government grants to help pay of the northern stand and some capital works in 2006 and 2007 and some monies from the AFL facilities development reserve, the SANFL made about $4.5mil operating profit per year since 2003 and has distributed $3.4mil in 2003 growing to $3.8mil in 2007 to it's 9 clubs. The overwhelming majority of these profits are generated by Football Park related activities.

I assume the Direct Grant is the equivalent of the SANFL's distribution to it's 9 clubs.

Do you hold much hope in getting the SANFL to come to the party, the way i read the comments yesterday from each of the parties was Port saying that membership, crowds werent the issue, while the SANFL seem to think it is, interesting times ahead..

 

[gaelictiogar]

Re: Port tell league: we'll go broke without handout

Oh yeah, I agree. I am most certainly NOT having a go at Port here. I reckon you guys will be OK in the medium term.

My larger point is that the AFL would be mad to start throwing money at even more expansion in the current environment.

Absolutely. In the current environment it should be a case of "what we have we hold" and batten down the hatches.

Frankly there isn't room for 2 Syney teams anyway and everyone knows that.