Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance

[aneale]

I think their numbers are okay when they doing well, much like Brisbane and Sydney do. We really haven't seen a major drought for Adelaide or West Coast. Their attendance has dropped a bit despite a membership queue, don't know how well they would do with a long drought. Freo has been very solid of late despite no real success.

I don't think they overcharge in SA, like they do in WA, so I think Crows would feel a support drop a lot more than they would in the west.

I think the inherit weakness of Port vs Crows is that Port represents one SA team while Crows represent everyone else. If they were to change name to South Australian Power and make more of an emphasis to represent all their feeder clubs then over time they would probably get a lot more support from the other supporter bases than they presently get.

I don't think Port Adelaide supporters would like that, it would diminish the club in terms of being the Port Adelaide Magpies entry into the AFL but it would significantly broaden their supporter base.

They wouldn't accept that at all - and I wouldn't blame them really. If you changed their name to Adelaide Power, even if based at Alberton and keeping colours, logo etc their fans would drop off in droves, chicken poo would be dumped on the doorstep AND no neutral would fall for it and support them. So then you'd have a white elephant. If you were to do that you may as well move them to Tassie because they would have nothing here. The broader SA community would STILL think of them as Port.

They wouldn't do well with a long drought, they'd do it tough, their supporters aren't used to that and would react.

 

[FuManchu]

I think their numbers are okay when they doing well, much like Brisbane and Sydney do. We really haven't seen a major drought for Adelaide or West Coast. Their attendance has dropped a bit despite a membership queue, don't know how well they would do with a long drought. Freo has been very solid of late despite no real success.

I don't think they overcharge in SA, like they do in WA, so I think Crows would feel a support drop a lot more than they would in the west.

I think the inherit weakness of Port vs Crows is that Port represents one SA team while Crows represent everyone else. If they were to change name to South Australian Power and make more of an emphasis to represent all their feeder clubs then over time they would probably get a lot more support from the other supporter bases than they presently get.

I don't think Port Adelaide supporters would like that, it would diminish the club in terms of being the Port Adelaide Magpies entry into the AFL but it would significantly broaden their supporter base.

Thats the problem perhaps, Port fans feel they have to hold onto that old club image and are forever protesting their loss of old identity with their colours.

Maybe its their old identity which is stopping them growing beyond their narrow base as it is. Remembering not all Port supporters would have automatically transferred their allegiance in 1996 anyway, so their base narrowed even further.

 

[Chops_a_must]

From a previous Fremantle chief executive, your current ceo/president Hart at a Dockers v North Chairmans function at Subi, from board members, from players, from your own supporters, from living in WA for over 10 years; working there for over 14 years, living there when freo came into the competition, from supporters and members of fremantle, the WA media etc.

There have been a few demographic studies on this.

Generally, the highest density of Freo members are in the strip directly east of freo, out to Canning Vale.

But surprisingly, Willetton and Canning Vale have high levels of WC memberships as well.

 

[Zvim]

I'm not sure you'd be much better off at the MCG?, the 600k the docklands clubs get must be compensation for paying off the stadium, otherwise i don't see why Essendon who do ok there get the money?

Patrick Smith on SEN this morning seemed to think the AFL want the journos to apply 'media pressure' regarding the stadium deals, as they have hit a snag.. though thats probably him and his ego falsly thinking that his articles in the Australian make a difference to anything..

Essendon have a totally different deal. Our breakeven mark at TD is 30k, Essendon's is about 15k I think because they get a significantly better deal in terms of what they get from catering, pourage, etc.

MCG has a lower breakeven point, I think it is about 25k.

If the stadium was clean the break even mark at TD should really be in the vicinity of under 5k.

Our big drawing games were all played at TD, so we get the mid to high 40s mark rather than 50s or 60s you could get at MCG. So our margin for profit is about 15k and that is only on a sellout. A lot of people avoid North vs Collingwood or North vs Essendon games at TD because it can be very hard finding a seat.

TD is just a shocking model, they return a lot more to a team like Essendon because they want to draw more than one or two of their games. They might not get as much money from our games because our crowds are lower, but, if they had to negotiate for all their games they would have to offer much better deals otherwise they couldn't affford to lure a team like Essendon because their overheads would be far too great if they couldn't get the sheer number of games.

TD is just being greedy, I don't blame them because their owners just want to make as much money as possible, the problem is the AFL who sold us down this road.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Thats the problem perhaps, Port fans feel they have to hold onto that old club image and are forever protesting their loss of old identity with their colours.

Maybe its their old identity which is stopping them growing beyond their narrow base as it is. Remembering not all Port supporters would have automatically transferred their allegiance in 1996 anyway, so their base narrowed even further.

The creation of Port Adelaide Magpies to continue on in the SANFL cant of helped things, it tracks that any support they receive is probably support the Power isnt, i know people can support 2 different teams but when your really struggling you see supporters of clubs like NM doubling up on their membership etc

 

[FuManchu]

But surprisingly, Willetton and Canning Vale have high levels of WC memberships as well.

Not to mention all the bogans out at Gosnells. Dont ever laugh at Collingwood when you have the biggest bunch of socially challenged actually residing in Perth and supporting the eagles.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Essendon have a totally different deal. Our breakeven mark at TD is 30k, Essendon's is about 15k I think because they get a significantly better deal in terms of what they get from catering, pourage, etc.

Thats what im saying though, Essendon receive 600k a year from the AFL as well to play there, what other reason could it be for other then paying off the stadium?

 

[Zvim]

Thats the problem perhaps, Port fans feel they have to hold onto that old club image and are forever protesting their loss of old identity with their colours.

Maybe its their old identity which is stopping them growing beyond their narrow base as it is. Remembering not all Port supporters would have automatically transferred their allegiance in 1996 anyway, so their base narrowed even further.

I wouldn't blame Port for not wanting to abandon what is primarily the heritage of one club, but I think if they made a greater effort to represent all their feeder clubs and incorporate their heritage into their club then they would probably find it easier to gain support from non-Port Adelaide supporters.

I'm no SA expert though. They may feel differently.

 

[FuManchu]

The creation of Port Adelaide Magpies to continue on in the SANFL cant of helped things, it tracks that any support they receive is probably support the Power isnt, i know people can support 2 different teams but when your really struggling you see supporters of clubs like NM doubling up on their membership etc

I know I couldnt do it. I always felt that continuing to support the Port Maggies was something of a protest vote against the Power. I am sure some support both, but I am sure some cant stand the thought of backing Port Power.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Not to mention all the bogans out at Gosnells. Dont ever laugh at Collingwood when you have the biggest bunch of socially challenged actually residing in Perth and supporting the eagles.

After all... the Gozzy colours are gold and blue.

 

[FuManchu]

I wouldn't blame Port for not wanting to abandon what is primarily the heritage of one club, but I think if they made a greater effort to represent all their feeder clubs and incorporate their heritage into their club then they would probably find it easier to gain support from non-Port Adelaide supporters.

I'm no SA expert though. They may feel differently.

To be that requires a complex range of skills in the area of social issues.

 

[captain ebert]

Maybe its their old identity which is stopping them growing beyond their narrow base as it is. Remembering not all Port supporters would have automatically transferred their allegiance in 1996 anyway, so their base narrowed even further.

yes, the old identity (in a world thats all about branding i read somewhere around here) - it happens to be our strongest asset, you know, the things the crows crave - yes, thats what's holding us back, a footy club with heart & soul..... c'mon....

port supporters are unfortunately a divided bunch in some ways. put it this way, many, including me, consider the newly formed pamfc to be nothing other than a distraction - marketing the heritage etc that really, rightly, belongs to the pafc - the sanfl wanted its cake & to be able to eat it - is it any wonder thats things have come to this?

anyway, i support the afl telling the sanfl to get its shit together & to stop screwing its most famous club - time to finally work with & respect the club that has given the sanfl so much for, oh, i dont know.... 130+ years.

 

[FOOOOTY]

"The players tried to take the field... the SANFL refused to yield...."

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/defa...x?newsid=73404

Power and SANFL do battle over stadium deal

Wed, Mar 18, 09 7:23 PM Wed 18 March, 2009

PORT Adelaide and the SANFL must overcome fundamental differences of opinion if they are to successfully re-negotiate the stadium deal the Power stress as pivotal to their AFL future.

SANFL executive commissioner Leigh Whicker presented a firm case against many of the contentions of Port Adelaide chief executive Mark Haysman on Wednesday, suggesting it will take some time before the two parties can reach a satisfactory agreement.

The AFL has made it clear to the Power that they must sort out their dealings with the SANFL before the national body will agree to provide short-term funding relief but Whicker and Haysman appear to diverge markedly on several key points.

Whicker said the stadium deal was only a minor element of Port's financial problems, whereas Haysman has repeatedly referred to it as the core issue.

The figures presented by Haysman on the yields from AFL matches at the Gabba and Subiaco were dismissed as irrelevant by Whicker when placed alongside the deals that exist between Adelaide, Port Adelaide and the SANFL, which owns both AAMI Stadium and the AFL licences.

Thirdly, Whicker argued it was realistic to expect the Power to build a larger supporter and membership base that would allow the club to flourish without a redraw of the stadium agreement, even though Port have seemingly resigned themselves to home crowds of 25-30,000 - not enough to turn a decent profit under the current terms.

During an often heated press conference, Whicker reiterated that the Power were already receiving extra help from both the SANFL and the AFL, in the shape of $250,000 a year from each body over three years to cover for a crowd shortfall.

"The stadium deal is only a small part of their business plan and their problems and they know that," Whicker said on Wednesday.

"It's not easy street at present and Port Adelaide are doing it tough like a lot of other clubs, but they're not in dire straits like some are making out."

The SANFL has commissioned a financial modelling of AAMI Stadium through accounting firm Ernst and Young, and will not consider redistributing funds from home matches at the venue until that report has been finished later this year.

Haysman, though, was adamant that the stadium deal had to be re-drafted so as to be more suitable for Port Adelaide.

"We are working through our stadium deal with the SANFL, so we'll work through that, and then resubmit some plans to the AFL and from there they'll look at what level of support they'll give us," Haysman said at Port's season launch.

"We need to make sure we come up with the right stadium deal from the SANFL, submit that through and then we may get some additional funding from the AFL.

"(It's) just breaking up the pie in a slightly different way to the way it's done now, the world's moved on and that just needs to be revisited."

 

[1jasonoz]

Your getting $600,000 a season along with the other tenant clubs

That figure is our total return after costs for playing at Docklands; what would be our return for playing at Docklands if the AFL was not using the income from the tenants/our games as the source of funds to buy the stadium off the current owners?

 

[FOOOOTY]

That figure is our total return after costs for playing at Docklands; what would be our return for playing at Docklands if the AFL was not using the income from the tenants/our games as the source of funds to buy the stadium off the current owners?

No its a seperate 600k that the AFL issue to all docklands tenants

 

[1jasonoz]

No its a seperate 600k that the AFL issue to all docklands tenants

Proof of this claim?

 

[FuManchu]

yes, the old identity (in a world thats all about branding i read somewhere around here) - it happens to be our strongest asset, you know, the things the crows crave - yes, thats what's holding us back, a footy club with heart & soul..... c'mon....

thats your perception of the club, what about the perception of those who are not all that inclined to hop on board the Power's wagon. Your perception is to be expected as someone who loves his club. but your old branding is probably what prevents others wantng to get on board.

BTW, I dont think you really can identify too heavily now with that old branding, but others might not be able to distance you from it enough for their liking. The harder you hold onto it, maybe, ( thats a maybe) the less inclined others are to.

As for heart and soul, surely the mixed feelings both the Port Maggies and Power have had over the years serves no purpose to anyone wanting to retain some link. I'd say the Magpies version probably has the heart and soul and the power version have the 'McDonalds' feel to it.

its cake & to be able to eat it - is it any wonder thats things have come to this?port supporters are unfortunately a divided bunch in some ways. put it this way, many, including me, consider the newly formed pamfc to be nothing other than a distraction - marketing the heritage etc that really, rightly, belongs to the pafc - the sanfl wanted

see above

anyway, i support the afl telling the sanfl to get its shit together & to stop screwing its most famous club - time to finally work with & respect the club that has given the sanfl so much for, oh, i dont know.... 130+ years.

Its OK for the AFL to tell the SANFL to pull their heads in and do something to sustain the national presence at state level, but the SANFL have always been belligerant towards the AFL . And asking them to do something sometimes has the opposite result. The only thing saving Port in all of this is that the SANFL cant do wthout the cash from them. I'd like to see if there has always ben a plan B hiding in some SANFL draw somewhere if the Power ever fell over. I'm betting there always has been and they would use it without too much prompting.

Port may never have forgiven the SANFL for 1990, but the SANFL have never forgotten either!

 

[FOOOOTY]

Proof of this claim?

In the AFL Financial Year to 31 October 2007 all Clubs received base funding of $4.913 million, totalling $78.61 million. Other payments (total AFL funding in brackets) were as follows:

W Bulldogs $4.570 million ($9.484 million total)
Kangaroos $4.104 million ($9.017 million)
Carlton $3.668 million ($8.581 million)
Melbourne $3.326 milliuon ($8.239 million)
Collingwood $3.294 million ($8.207 million)
Geelong $3.269 ($8.172 million)
St Kilda $3.021 million ($7.934 million)
Richmond $2.915 million ($7.838 million)
Sydney $2.865 million ($7.778 million)
Essendon $2.755 million ($7.668 million)
Port Adel $2.615 million ($7.528 million)
Hawthorn $2.458 million ($7.372 million)
WCE $2.231 million ($7.144 million)
Fremantle $2.013 million ($6.926 million)
Brisbane $1.909 million ($6.822 million)
Adelaide $1.872 million ($6.786 million)

Other payments totalled $46.88 million resulting in total AFL funding of the Clubs of $125.5 million.

Included in the "other payments" were Annual Special Distribution payments. Recipients were W Bulldogs ($1.7 million), Kangaroos ($1.4 million), Melbourne ($1 million), Sydney ($700k), Richmond ($400k), Hawthorn ($250k), Port Adelaide ($250k) and $600k paid to "Telstra Dome tenants to assist (home) clubs playing at this venue

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

In the AFL Financial Year to 31 October 2007 all Clubs received base funding of $4.913 million,

Other payments totalled $46.88 million resulting in total AFL funding of the Clubs of $125.5 million.

Don't forget that included in this other payments is the $1.2mil non TPP distribution that was based on the extra TV monies from the 2007-11 TV deal and each club gets for those 5 years. The $250k 2nd final instalment of the Waverley Park sale and $155k from the refund of legal fees Ch 7 had to pay from losing the C7 court case. So all 16 clubs got this $1.605mil

 

[tribey]

If they were to change name to South Australian Power and make more of an emphasis to represent all their feeder clubs then over time they would probably get a lot more support from the other supporter bases than they presently get.

I don't think Port Adelaide supporters would like that, it would diminish the club in terms of being the Port Adelaide Magpies entry into the AFL but it would significantly broaden their supporter base.

Tremendous idea Zvim.

1) Dropping the name worked wonders for your club didn't it. I mean, as just 'Kangaroos' and playing games in Sydney, Canberra and the Gold Coast your membership and long-term viability skyrocketed to the point where you were fighting off prospective supporters with all manner of melee weapons.

2) Look at how awesome the Melbourne Football Club is. I mean, they represent the WHOLE OF MELBOURNE and appeal to every footy follower in the state of Victoria as a result.

Apologies for the sarcasm, but cripes. That's the second time I've heard a North Melbourne fan, of all people, suggest this as a serious remedy.

Fact is, the SANFL cornered the broadbased market well and truly the minute they concocted the Crows, what with the state colours, the capital city's name and a mascot derived from the state team mascot - complete with a 6 year headstart and back-to-back flags in the second licence holder's first two years in the competition.

What's done is done. The only option we have is to embrace our tradition and unique selling points the same as your club recently came to its senses and did.

 

[Waspy79]

thats your perception of the club, what about the perception of those who are not all that inclined to hop on board the Power's wagon. Your perception is to be expected as someone who loves his club. but your old branding is probably what prevents others wantng to get on board.

BTW, I dont think you really can identify too heavily now with that old branding, but others might not be able to distance you from it enough for their liking. The harder you hold onto it, maybe, ( thats a maybe) the less inclined others are to.

As for heart and soul, surely the mixed feelings both the Port Maggies and Power have had over the years serves no purpose to anyone wanting to retain some link. I'd say the Magpies version probably has the heart and soul and the power version have the 'McDonalds' feel to it.


see above

Sorry but your story would be completely different if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Collingwood who joined the SANFL, changed its guernsey (heaven forbid) and nickname, and retained a Collingwood Magpies FC in the VFL. This is where your argument goes to water.

 

[aneale]

Agreed. There were two options - Port Adelaide and all it entails or create a second "Adelaide" to begin with. You can't stick feathers on a chair and now call it a duck.

 

[Waspy79]

Does anyone else sense that the AFL is trying to bluff the SANFL by washing their hands of the problem? Given the comments made by Leigh Whicker today, it seems likely the SANFL is going to call that bluff, and Port could be somewhere in the middle, like a clown at the show opening its mouth out to anyone who will put a ball in it.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Tremendous idea Zvim.

1) Dropping the name worked wonders for your club didn't it. I mean, as just 'Kangaroos' and playing games in Sydney, Canberra and the Gold Coast your membership and long-term viability skyrocketed to the point where you were fighting off prospective supporters with all manner of melee weapons.

2) Look at how awesome the Melbourne Football Club is. I mean, they represent the WHOLE OF MELBOURNE and appeal to every footy follower in the state of Victoria as a result.

Apologies for the sarcasm, but cripes. That's the second time I've heard a North Melbourne fan, of all people, suggest this as a serious remedy.

Fact is, the SANFL cornered the broadbased market well and truly the minute they concocted the Crows, what with the state colours, the capital city's name and a mascot derived from the state team mascot - complete with a 6 year headstart and back-to-back flags in the second licence holder's first two years in the competition.

What's done is done. The only option we have is to embrace our tradition and unique selling points the same as your club recently came to its senses and did.

Yep, really well put dyertribe. The sarcasm is eminently understandable.

 

[FuManchu]

Sorry but your story would be completely different if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Collingwood who joined the SANFL, changed its guernsey (heaven forbid) and nickname, and retained a Collingwood Magpies FC in the VFL. This is where your argument goes to water.

Hardly, we didnt have to go upline, join anything, we are already there.

Forget what others would need to do, you need to think about what YOU HAVE to do. Bitter words wont save you, action and forward thinking is your course of action.

You are in no mans land, you arent the old Port that all Port lovers identified with, and you aint removed enuf from the old club to drag in any crows haters. You need to sort this WE dont need to.