Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance

[fishmonger]

Funny how last time all the clubs started going broke, the VFL had to sell licences to Perth and Brisbane to raise the cash to prop up the league.

These days they're not just giving licences away, they're literally paying people to have licences (by that I mean GC17 and WSYD) ....

my how times have changed.

Every time GC17 decision comes up I have a quiet chuckle. Amazing when they went to "tender" just how many responses they got. One consortium and the AFL is on the board ! Heaps of choice there. Hardly putting all your eggs in.

Whereas every single A-League proposed club has at least 2 or 3 different consortiums putting their hands up.

I'm all for membership based clubs, but when members can't even keep their clubs financial before the full impact of the financial crisis, you've got to ask whether it is the right strategy ...

 

[Monty of the Shire]

Untill the AFL itself is affected by the downturn, they will keep propping up the failing clubs.

Surely GC is off now??

10 Superleague team comp would be perfect
Adelaide Sharks
Perth Pirates
Fremantle Clippers
Collingwood Zebras
Carlton (cant think of Blues alternative)
Essendon Jets
Sydney Storm
Brisbane Cyclone
Port Adelaide Thunder
Melbourne Tigers (Richmond, Melb) Although Melb not a rich club they are in to allow use of MCG.

It would good if this superleague doesnt go down your route of using extremely tacky american names for australian football clubs.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Seriously where the #$%K is all the money going??????? Average clubs turn over is around 20-30 million... the players get 7 million add 3 million for the football department. 10 x 16 = 160 million

7 million people pay to watch the game X $30 dollars average ticket price.
Add to that various sponsorship deals and a 100 million dollar TV deal.

Thats close 320 million dollars to pay 160 million dollars...

The stadiums obviously have to get paid but seriously where is the money going?

Surley there is enough money in the game to ensure that we dont have to hear about a side going broke every $%^KING 5 minutes.

Deadset fortunes are being spent in QLD and NSW on 'game development and promotion'.

 

[escobar75]

i live in WA try and fly over at least once a year to see the boys in S.A

i have a fully paid membership even though i am in W.A...

Now if i was in S.A i would be at teh game rain,hail or shine....no matter...

As i look through some at the excuses made by fellow port supports on this thread it makes shake my head....

its no ones fault but the support bases fault for not buying meberships and not going to games...simple...there is no other excuse and stop LOOKING for other excuses because you know you are one of the "port supporters" thats sits on the couch...

makes me cringe because i KNOW for a fact i read on the port board "port supporters" quoting things like this...

this is for home games mind you....

"i am so pissed they arent telecasting the game live"....

"i am so pissed off its not FTA telivision" " crows get this and that"....

shut your damn mouth you whingers and get to the game.....the reason why crows get treated better is because they make money and get bums in seats...this is a fact of life ...not favorutism of some football rivalry..

 

[Genesis67]

Deadset fortunes are being spent in QLD and NSW on 'game development and promotion'.

Isnt the AFL supposed to have something stupid like $100m set aside for the GC team?

 

[Bouvet_Island]

Take a straw poll at the footy at a Collingwood Essendon game of who wants to start a new league, change their names to Abbotsford Pies and Pascoe Vale Trams, throw history out the door, change jumpers, colours, etc etc You would get beaten to a bloody pulp. Let me say this again just for you as you seem a little slow; T-H-E A-F-L O-W-N-S T-H-E N-A-M-I-N-G R-I-G-H-T-S.

The "naming rights" would refer to the entire team name eg "Collingwood Magpies".

Suburb names such as "Collingwood" can't be owned by the AFL. Just in the VPL (soccer's Victorian state league) there are two teams sharing names with AFL clubs - Melbourne Knights and Richmond SC. I'm sure their are plenty of other lower level teams in Melbourne across all sports sharing a suburb name with an AFL club. Nor can the AFL own colour combinations.

So if Collingwood Magpies wanted to leave the AFL, they'd need to lose the "... Magpies" part of their name, and (I presume) their logo.

If they renamed themselves to "Collingwood White Backs" (the White-Backed Magpie being the magpie found in Victoria), kept the same colours, changed their logo enough to be legally distinct from their current, I think most fans would follow them.

 

[Zvim]

Port should not get any assistance until the club is returned to the members. AFL said they wouldn't support us financially while the club was not owned/controlled by the members. I happen to believe that the AFL was right on that call and think it should apply to any other club as well.

There is no ****ing way the AFL should be kicking in extra money when Port is just going to pay it to the SANFL.

Port is owned by the SANFL, either they put the capital into Port or they hand the club to the members, the same ultimatum the AFL made with us. I think it would be far better for Port fans if their club was in their hands and they wouldn't have to worry about getting shipped off to Tasmania because they are not making money for the SANFL.

I am ALL for the AFL helping Port out, but not if they are continuing to pay money to the SANFL. If Port is struggling financially the SANFL should stop taking money from them and put something back in.

 

[tess]

Maybe that Soccer Coach was right about Adelaide.

Of course Port could always seek out Collingwood for a merger, I'm sure we could create the Collingwood Magpie Power name for our VFL team!

 

[Belnakor]

Seriously where the #$%K is all the money going??????? Average clubs turn over is around 20-30 million... the players get 7 million add 3 million for the football department. 10 x 16 = 160 million

7 million people pay to watch the game X $30 dollars average ticket price.
Add to that various sponsorship deals and a 100 million dollar TV deal.

Thats close 320 million dollars to pay 160 million dollars...

The stadiums obviously have to get paid but seriously where is the money going?

Surley there is enough money in the game to ensure that we dont have to hear about a side going broke every $%^KING 5 minutes.

The AFL's budget for admin is like 50 million a year too.

 

[Belnakor]

I am ALL for the AFL helping Port out, but not if they are continuing to pay money to the SANFL. If Port is struggling financially the SANFL should stop taking money from them and put something back in.

Yup thats what the WAFL did when Freo got into a bit of trouble (though in the end they didn't do anything other than cut their profits for awhile)

 

[Zvim]

The problem with getting AFL assistance is that it is not good for ultimate success. They put restrictions on your salary cap and coaching expenditure. I am sure North/Bulldogs/Melbourne supporters can fill in the details. But it will affect on field success eventually. Unless of course you can be as efficient as North were in the 90s and this decade. Given that Choco is one of the highest paid coaches I would say this is something the Power will have to learn.

.

To qualify for assistance you also have to slash spending to bare minimum, many of the clubs that have been on assistance have operated on near minimum salary cap, have had to go without rookies, minimum staff, cut spending on coaching to a minimum.

It does have a significant impact on-field and makes it much harder to stay competitive.

The problem is CBF/SDF is not a solution, it is a band-aid. Most clubs that have been in trouble have had the combined problem of poor stadium deals and a problem that their supporter base is not sufficient. The extra money helps to balance the books but the only way to increase the supporter base is with marketing and long-term development work and that is expensive, the results don't come for years after you spend the money.

Without the means to expand your supporter base you get stuck in the trap of being dependent on the support.

They need to change how they define the support and define the solutions for the various clubs that need support. Part of the emphasis should be what it takes to keep them from losing money but the other part should be what needs to go into the clubs to resolve the issues as fast as possible and thus reduce the overall amount of support required.

Had the AFL put more into the support of some clubs early on they would have not needed to be receiving any support by now.

 

[tess]

Yup thats what the WAFL did when Freo got into a bit of trouble (though in the end they didn't do anything other than cut their profits for awhile)

But remember this is the SAnFL we are talking about!

 

[FOOOOTY]

The AFL's budget for admin is like 50 million a year too.

That high??? What a joke

 

[malph]

Port should not get any assistance until the club is returned to the members. AFL said they wouldn't support us financially while the club was not owned/controlled by the members. I happen to believe that the AFL was right on that call and think it should apply to any other club as well.

There is no ****ing way the AFL should be kicking in extra money when Port is just going to pay it to the SANFL.

Port is owned by the SANFL, either they put the capital into Port or they hand the club to the members, the same ultimatum the AFL made with us. I think it would be far better for Port fans if their club was in their hands and they wouldn't have to worry about getting shipped off to Tasmania because they are not making money for the SANFL.

I am ALL for the AFL helping Port out, but not if they are continuing to pay money to the SANFL. If Port is struggling financially the SANFL should stop taking money from them and put something back in.

You have brought this up before, and it has been explained to you before. Port Adelaide's relationship with the SANFL is inherently tied in with the AFL's relationship with the SANFL via the Affiliation Agreement. Answer this: in what way does turning the control of Port Adelaide over to the members affect the AFL's obligations to Australian football, financial and otherwise, in South Australia?

Stop trying to simplify Port Adelaide's situation in to something plainly ludicrous. They are not comparable with North Melbourne in this way.

 

[Zvim]

Untill the AFL itself is affected by the downturn, they will keep propping up the failing clubs.

Surely GC is off now??

10 Superleague team comp would be perfect
Adelaide Sharks
Perth Pirates
Fremantle Clippers
Collingwood Zebras
Carlton (cant think of Blues alternative)
Essendon Jets
Sydney Storm
Brisbane Cyclone
Port Adelaide Thunder
Melbourne Tigers (Richmond, Melb) Although Melb not a rich club they are in to allow use of MCG.

That "super league" wouldn't make it to round 1.

I heard on the radio that part of the player contracts with the AFL is a condition that the players agreed that they would not leave to play for a rival league for a period of time after leaving the AFL. This effectively makes super league in AFL an impossibility unless they target unknown kids who will likely be looking at a life ban if they play for a rival league.

I also take offence to calling clubs "failing", the only failure is that of the AFL who hasn't looked after the clubs since the ground equalisation policy came into effect. They wanted all the clubs to leave the suburban stadiums but ended up forcing the clubs to move into financial deathtraps.

 

[Zvim]

I'd merge North Melbourne and Melbourne, and the Saints and Bulldogs

I'd merge Fremantle with West Coast and just have one big overpriced stadium so we can make a lot more money.

Sounds stupid, huh?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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

Port is the first to take money from this particular assistance scheme which is about 2 years old.

No the assistance scheme is almost a decade old. It's just that's its changed it's name a few times and the current name is 2 or 3 years old. And as of 2007, 9 clubs were getting a special assistance distribution.

From page 92 of the 2007 AFL annual report you can find on their website.

A total of $6.3 million was paid from the AFL’s Annual Special Distribution fund to the;
Western Bulldogs ($1.7 million),
the Kangaroos Football Club ($1.4 million),
Melbourne Football Club ($1 million),
Sydney Swans Football Club ($0.7 million),
Richmond Football Club ($0.4 million),
Hawthorn Football Club ($0.25 million), and
Port Adelaide Football Club ($0.25 million),
with $0.6 million paid to Telstra Dome to assist clubs playing at this venue.
[ie add Carlton and St Kilda to that list]

 

[tribey]

But remember this is the SAnFL we are talking about!

Back to that mistaken chestnut are we?

 

[FOOOOTY]

You have brought this up before, and it has been explained to you before. Port Adelaide's relationship with the SANFL is inherently tied in with the AFL's relationship with the SANFL via the Affiliation Agreement.

Ok, so the Affiliation Agreement puts total control of all football in SA in the SANFLs hands, then its the SANFL that Port should be turning to for cash correct?

The SANFLs prioritys are not the same as an AFL football clubs, the setup is flawed.

The SANFL as i understand it view both the Crows and Port as investments, to generate revenue, well if they want to take the profits surely they have to take responsibilty when their investment is struggling and turning losses, seems to me to be having the best of both worlds..

 

[acker]

Port ask AFL for emergency funding

As well as the following I heard on Sky that Ports Vodaphone sponsorship is in its final year and they will not be renewing their sponsorship with the club.

Port Adelaide confirm they need emergency AFL funding

3 hours 46 minutes ago.

Port Adelaide will on Tuesday morning detail their reasons for asking the AFL for emergency funding.

The Power, who last year posted a $1.4 million loss, have asked the AFL for immediate money from the league's special distribution funds, The Age newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Port's chief executive Mark Haysman told the newspaper the club has asked for a seven-figure sum as part of a three-year funding bid to ease the club's financial crisis.

Haysman will hold a media conference at 1100 CDT Tuesday at the club's Alberton headquarters.

Port coach Mark Williams last week said the club's financial plight was pressing on all involved at Port.

"Certainly financially we're facing huge issues," Williams told AAP.

"Over the last five years our money spent in football per win is No.1 in the AFL, so we're very frugal - we don't have much money to spend and we win a lot of games.

" ... Financially we have to get things on an even keel.

"Our supporters have to know that we are a team that's under the pump financially all the time."

http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2009/03/17/Port_Adelaide_to_seek_emergency_funding_from_AFL

 

[Spadge]

Re: Port ask AFL for emergency funding

As well as the following I heard on Sky that Ports Vodaphone sponsorship is in its final year and they will not be renewing their sponsorship with the club.

Vodafone will still be a sponsor of the PAFC next season but will be significantly reducing the amount of sponsorship

So yes they will still be a sponsor of Port, but wont be a major sponsor

 

[conwaynmfc]

Re: Port ask AFL for emergency funding

I was going to say they need to pay up and turn up.

But it'd be incredibly "rich" coming from me.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Re: Port ask AFL for emergency funding

mods might want to merge this thread with the other one

 

[greennick]

Ok, so the Affiliation Agreement puts total control of all football in SA in the SANFLs hands, then its the SANFL that Port should be turning to for cash correct?

The SANFLs prioritys are not the same as an AFL football clubs, the setup is flawed.

The SANFL as i understand it view both the Crows and Port as investments, to generate revenue, well if they want to take the profits surely they have to take responsibilty when their investment is struggling and turning losses, seems to me to be having the best of both worlds..

And then how does that justify the Vic (and Sydney) clubs getting support from the AFL??

There is no difference to Port getting some support.

It is interesting, that like North, Melbourne, St Kilda, and Footscray, Port's issue is a core lack of supporters. Sure when times are good they could fill out a stadium, but what teams can't?? There are just not enough supporters of Port due to them previously being the most hated SANFL team. They would have been much better off being a Fremantle-like entity, combined from a few different SANFL clubs, rather than directly being linked to Port alone. They had to change so much to get to the AFL anyway, I really don't see the point in them keeping so much of the SANFL Port. It is now to the detriment of their ability to attract supporters.

 

[Zvim]

You have brought this up before, and it has been explained to you before. Port Adelaide's relationship with the SANFL is inherently tied in with the AFL's relationship with the SANFL via the Affiliation Agreement. Answer this: in what way does turning the control of Port Adelaide over to the members affect the AFL's obligations to Australian football, financial and otherwise, in South Australia?

Stop trying to simplify Port Adelaide's situation in to something plainly ludicrous. They are not comparable with North Melbourne in this way.

The answers were bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

It has nothing to do with where the money is sourced and where it is going, it is about the relationship the club has with it's supporters and their ability to decide how their club is to be run. Our shareholders derived no benefits at all but the AFL still said their support was conditional on the members deciding what is best for their club.

If SANFL wants to milk Port dry then they either live with the consequence of them doing so or release the club to make decisions based on what is best for them. When Fremantle wasn't in the best of shape the WAFL assisted them during that period.

Port is either a member controlled club that gets help from the AFL when in trouble or they are not and the owner helps when they are in trouble. AFL have no influence or control of what Port do, they have a significant input in the clubs here and the AFL said they believe if they need to give extra money they want the right to have greater control of those clubs.