Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance

[FOOOOTY]

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.

From my point of view,(a fan) theres no difference, from the AFLs the same cant be said.

This Affiliation Agreement means they cannot issue a licence directly to a SA club, the SANFL stick their head in and jump up and down, but when it comes to sending 7 figure sums of assistance, suddenly the AFL are welcome to come play in the SANFLs sandbox?

 

[Papa G]

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..

Saw on the news that 7 of the 9 SANFL clubs are making financial losses with an 8th club only in the black due to its GF prize money - this is mainly because most are living beyond their means - I mean some SANFL clubs now have 3 or 4 assistant coaches for Christ Sake! Port Adelaide and the Crows are in part paying/ subsidising these clubs (with easily the biggest salary caps anywhere outside the AFL) to be over spending money that is funnelled to them by the SANFL which is funding this through it's 2 cash cow AFL licences. Does that seem fair? So while Port are struggling financially, the large sums of money they still generate gets fed off to money hungry clubs in a second teir league that actually have done nothing to deserve that money in the first place.

Whicker the massive arse clown needs to make a stand here. Surely after 15 years he can put aside his hatred for Port and do something that benefits the other team in this town. Port aren't going away, but being totally subservient and having to answer to your masters the AFL or SANFL due to lack of financial mass is humiliating and not what the PAFC is about.

Also, our ****ing supporters need to buy ****ing memberships and get to ****ing games. We can not rely on anyone but ourselves. We do not have the luxury like some other clubs of VFL apologists chipping in to help us out with memberships crowd number etc. It, as it has always been up to us.

 

[Zvim]

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.

It is not a lack of supporters at all. If Port was playing in a 30k clean stadium where they got the vast majority of the proceeds other than operating costs then they would be making heaps of money.

Same with us.

Clubs that do well have somewhere reasonable to fantastic to play at for their supporter base. AAMI is not a good place for them to play, it is not clean and the SANFL retain a lot of the money made from the games for the support level they have.

Would have they done better with a Crows mk2? Possibly. But the AFL have no real say in what happens in SA or WA, the affiliation agreement allows the SANFL and WAFL to run football in those states, AFL largely controls everything else.

You just can't take the good elements of affiliation and neglect the bad, they don't want the AFL interfering with the operation of football in their states. Port is not getting screwed by third parties that the AFL have forced on the clubs, Port is getting screwed by their owner. Why "should" the AFL help? Because they help clubs that they are screwing? It is a very different environment here.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Saw on the news that 7 of the 9 SANFL clubs are making financial losses with an 8th club only in the black due to its GF prize money - this is mainly because most are living beyond their means - I mean some SANFL clubs now have 3 or 4 assistant coaches for Christ Sake! Port Adelaide and the Crows are in part paying/ subsidising these clubs (with easily the biggest salary caps anywhere outside the AFL) to be over spending money that is funnelled to them by the SANFL which is funding this through it's 2 cash cow AFL licences. Does that seem fair? So while Port are struggling financially, the large sums of money they still generate gets fed off to money hungry clubs in a second teir league that actually have done nothing to deserve that money in the first place.

Exactly, its not Ports fault.. if they had it their way they wouldve directly dealt with the AFL in the beginning and not had a middleman and been in control of their own licence, but the SANFL want to keep their state competition strong and with total control over football in SA they use money which should be helping out Port to fund the 2nd tier clubs.. I could see the AFL saying theres plenty of money in SA football but the SANFL are just spending it in the wrong places..

They use their control of the licence to stop Port investigating making money from selling a few of their home games to development areas which North, Melbourne and WB have had to do for the last 6-7 years to stay afloat, simply put the SANFL (imo) need to either surrender control of the licences to the clubs and negotiate a arrangement for AAMI simply as a stadium manager... or start putting up the cash to make them viable when they arent doing so well.

 

[relapse]

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.

The traditional supporter base isnt enough, this is the problem. Are you seriously saying that 10k more will turn up to game because their motto is now "live the creed" ?? You are appealling to an already converted market.

Time will tell, one thing is for certain if the "live the creed" doesnt work the foundations of the football club will change forever and push to totally become a second universal club and totally move away from their traditional roots. If you think that is what they were doing over the last couple of years you will be in for a massive shock if it actually does happen.

 

[Zvim]

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

The traditional supporter base isnt enough, this is the problem. Are you seriously saying that 10k more will turn up to game because their motto is now "live the creed" ?? You are appealling to an already converted market.

Time will tell, one thing is for certain if the "live the creed" doesnt work the foundations of the football club will change forever and push to totally become a second universal club and totally move away from their traditional roots. If you think that is what they were doing over the last couple of years you will be in for a massive shock if it actually does happen.

Port's problem would be the same problem if the VFL turned into the AFL like it happened in SA. If Vic produced Collingwood and Melbourne then Collingwood would an insignificant wart compared to the power of a team comprising largely of "everyone else". Both clubs are the type you either love or hate and got their rocks off over a long period of time of annoying everyone else in the state.

I think Port have done as well as you could expect in the period of time since inception given their relationship in general with the people of Adelaide. Had they come into the competition with the same modern attitude the AFL has now in relation to what makes a successful club then you would have seen major upgrades to Alberton Oval as part of their induction which would allow them to have greater demand than supply and charge a premium for seating in a clean stadium, they would have made money hand over fist.

Port was just a bad choice for having another AAMI resident.

 

[relapse]

Saw on the news that 7 of the 9 SANFL clubs are making financial losses with an 8th club only in the black due to its GF prize money - this is mainly because most are living beyond their means - I mean some SANFL clubs now have 3 or 4 assistant coaches for Christ Sake! Port Adelaide and the Crows are in part paying/ subsidising these clubs (with easily the biggest salary caps anywhere outside the AFL) to be over spending money that is funnelled to them by the SANFL which is funding this through it's 2 cash cow AFL licences. Does that seem fair? So while Port are struggling financially, the large sums of money they still generate gets fed off to money hungry clubs in a second teir league that actually have done nothing to deserve that money in the first place.

Whicker the massive arse clown needs to make a stand here. Surely after 15 years he can put aside his hatred for Port and do something that benefits the other team in this town. Port aren't going away, but being totally subservient and having to answer to your masters the AFL or SANFL due to lack of financial mass is humiliating and not what the PAFC is about.

This what Port applied for and they got. The SANFL own the license and Port have the sub-license agreement over that license with the SANFL.

The SANFL established it this way for the money to go into the SANFL each year, Port knew this before they applied and they bragged about how many people would be going etc to the games.

No point accepting the sub-license agreement and now wanting to change the rules. If Port dont like the agreement then they can terminate it, and the SANFL will have to find another entity to operate their 2nd license. At the end of the day, the sad reality is that it is that both the Crows and Power are cash cows putting money into the SANFL. The SANFL arent interested in any of those clubs being a liability and if things are financially dire the SANFL can actually take control of the club and run it.

It has nothing to do with Whicker hating Port Adelaide, Port applied for the second license under the same conditions that Adelaide has. The SANFL are only interested in the revenue generated from both clubs and thats all.

 

[FOOOOTY]

For the record id much rather see the AFL spend 100 million on a stadium in SA for Port then one on the GC for a bunch of rugby fans that might watch the occasional game of AFL. But while the SANFL want to keep their 2nd tier comp strong at the expense of the AFL teams it isnt really the AFLs problem.

When you look at the money being generated in WA and SA, theres no way on earth the SANFL should be a stronger competition then the WAFL...

 

[JHF1870]

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..

While I agree with You, I will take a more positive approach. Lets pull up the figures on %of members on average that end up filling the stands.

I totally agree with you about the reasons for not going to the games, they aren't valid reasons. If you love your footy you will go, forget the tv, see the real thing. One big problem with a lot of Port supporters is that you hear them at the ground every single week, complaining about the team, and if they lose, threaten to leave the club. We have a massive % of supporters that only go to the game in good times. start losing they run away.

We need to get more supporters to games for a start, secondly if we aren't making money at AAMI, the AFL needs to change the venue to a more appropriate venue, so that it is making money, before they start handing money out. The biggest home game I've seen is 39,500 for a round 21 match. and finals only 44,000. Time to wake up AFL and allow Port Adelaide to play at a more suitable venue.

The financial crisis is certainly hitting hard, and if anyone from other clubs think it can't happen to them, think again, because a lot of businesses are cutting costs. sponsorship is a big deal in football. We really need someone to step on board and sponsor the club.

 

[greennick]

From my point of view,(a fan) theres no difference, from the AFLs the same cant be said.

This Affiliation Agreement means they cannot issue a licence directly to a SA club, the SANFL stick their head in and jump up and down, but when it comes to sending 7 figure sums of assistance, suddenly the AFL are welcome to come play in the SANFLs sandbox?

I think I have answered most of this below.

It is not a lack of supporters at all. If Port was playing in a 30k clean stadium where they got the vast majority of the proceeds other than operating costs then they would be making heaps of money.

Same with us.

Clubs that do well have somewhere reasonable to fantastic to play at for their supporter base. AAMI is not a good place for them to play, it is not clean and the SANFL retain a lot of the money made from the games for the support level they have.

How do the Crows make so much money then? They play at the same ground. If the ground is so crappy, then why do they still make money??

It is not the ground that is the problem, it is the lack of bums on seats. Cut it whichever way you want. The ground may not work for them, but that is only because of their lack of bums on seats.

And where will this magical 30,000 person clean stadium come from anyway?? They need to fix their issues with their supporter base, because the stadium one is not going to magically fix itself.

Would have they done better with a Crows mk2? Possibly. But the AFL have no real say in what happens in SA or WA, the affiliation agreement allows the SANFL and WAFL to run football in those states, AFL largely controls everything else.

You just can't take the good elements of affiliation and neglect the bad, they don't want the AFL interfering with the operation of football in their states. Port is not getting screwed by third parties that the AFL have forced on the clubs, Port is getting screwed by their owner. Why "should" the AFL help? Because they help clubs that they are screwing? It is a very different environment here.

Whilst I agree that the SANFL shouldn't be raping Port for its money if it is effectively bankrupt (I don't know exactly how much of it is the SANFL's fault - I know over here it is all based on our profits though - I am sure they have a different agreement), I don't think you can tie that to whether they get AFL assistance. If they get screwed by the ground (whoever owns it), they get a shit draw (mainly interstate sides ) and they get shit FTA television into the main markets (reducing the value of their sponsorships), then they should get the same assistance the poorer Vic clubs get for those same reasons.

On the issue of North and them having to change. I think there is a big difference to the AFL between a club that is in private hands and one that is owned for the benefit of the local league, who does so well at developing players for the 16 clubs to rape and pillage.

 

[Demonheart]

Because TV stations dont really give a rats about football clubs or competitions. They give a rats about advertising exposure. Were Sydney and Brisbane to go along with the Superleague, each of the key markets is covered for exposure by the new Superleague. Where would C9's interest be? In a newly formed competition with exposure in each major city? Or in an existing competition with dominant exposure in one city (Melbourne)? Bit of both methinks.

No wonder you didn't reply to all of my post, your logc is flawed.

Sre the current administrations may go to the superleaguge, but all the AFL needs to do is to appoint a new admin to continue on the clubs.
A superleague competition with no guarantee of players andguarantee a fans, which network station would be prepared to spend hunfreds of millions of dollars on a venture like that? Especially when the last one tried in Australia was a dismal failure.

It's fantasy land thoughts, it will never happen in our life time.

 

[Papa G]

This what Port applied for and they got. The SANFL own the license and Port have the sub-license agreement over that license with the SANFL.

The SANFL established it this way for the money to go into the SANFL each year, Port knew this before they applied and they bragged about how many people would be going etc to the games.

No point accepting the sub-license agreement and now wanting to change the rules. If Port dont like the agreement then they can terminate it and the SANFL will have to find another entity to operated their 2nd license. At the end of the day, the sad reality is that it is about the Crows and Power are cash cows putting money into the SANFL. The SANFL arent interested in any of those clubs being a liability and if things are financially dire the SANFL can actually take control of the club and run it.

We didn't have a choice. You can't say we didn't try an alternate route, we did and I don't think Whicker and his cronies will ever forget it. So whilst we struggle financially, Leigh goes and spends the money we (and the Crows) make on teams like the one you used to go for who have had nothing to do with actually making that money in the first place. This is akin to you working all week, getting paid $1,500, then your boss asking you to pay him $1,800 back which he then proceeds to give $200 each to the 9 little punks down the street who end up spending it on domestic cask wine and imported beer.

 

[greennick]

While I agree with You, I will take a more positive approach. Lets pull up the figures on %of members on average that end up filling the stands.

I totally agree with you about the reasons for not going to the games, they aren't valid reasons. If you love your footy you will go, forget the tv, see the real thing. One big problem with a lot of Port supporters is that you hear them at the ground every single week, complaining about the team, and if they lose, threaten to leave the club. We have a massive % of supporters that only go to the game in good times. start losing they run away.

We need to get more supporters to games for a start, secondly if we aren't making money at AAMI, the AFL needs to change the venue to a more appropriate venue, so that it is making money, before they start handing money out. The biggest home game I've seen is 39,500 for a round 21 match. and finals only 44,000. Time to wake up AFL and allow Port Adelaide to play at a more suitable venue.

The financial crisis is certainly hitting hard, and if anyone from other clubs think it can't happen to them, think again, because a lot of businesses are cutting costs. sponsorship is a big deal in football. We really need someone to step on board and sponsor the club.

You find an AFL standard venue in Adelaide that is right for you and I am sure the AFL will let you play there. So, where is that venue???

 

[FOOOOTY]

We need to get more supporters to games for a start, secondly if we aren't making money at AAMI, the AFL needs to change the venue to a more appropriate venue, so that it is making money, before they start handing money out. The biggest home game I've seen is 39,500 for a round 21 match. and finals only 44,000. Time to wake up AFL and allow Port Adelaide to play at a more suitable venue.

The AFL have no say in the matter. Port won't let them schedule matches elsewhere because Ports board, and licence is SANFL controlled, and the SANFL own AAMI thus any matches not scheduled there is cash they dont get to spend on their local competition.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Whilst I agree that the SANFL shouldn't be raping Port for its money if it is effectively bankrupt (I don't know exactly how much of it is the SANFL's fault - I know over here it is all based on our profits though - I am sure they have a different agreement), I don't think you can tie that to whether they get AFL assistance. If they get screwed by the ground (whoever owns it), they get a shit draw (mainly interstate sides ) and they get shit FTA television into the main markets (reducing the value of their sponsorships), then they should get the same assistance the poorer Vic clubs get for those same reasons.

The poorer Vic clubs went quite a few years actually selling their home games interstate (in our case, we played home games at the Gabba vs Brisbane), thus making it harder to play finals etc at the end of each year, because of the Affiliation Agreement, Port dont have that same option, which im sure they dont really want anyway, (neither did we, but we'd rather survive then fold, its amazing what you'll do when faced with extinction) this is all in the SANFLs hands, its not Ports fault the way things are, (except for the fact they entered into this sub licencesing agreement in the first place) but its much less the AFLs fault.

The SANFL own the licences to these clubs, and also set the stadium arrangement to which they live and die by profit wise, which makes it a totally different situation to clubs negotaiting with Docklands or the MCG.

 

[morell]

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

The traditional supporter base isnt enough, this is the problem.

Of course it is. We have a massive amount of club allegiance and one of the faster growing supporter groups.

The main issue here is that people aren't going to the games anymore.

We need to return to being Port Adelaide again, not just another franchise. Port have slowly diluted ourselves in our time in the AFL, now I ask, how exactly has that worked out for us? The proof is in the pudding.

Are you seriously saying that 10k more will turn up to game because their motto is now "live the creed" ?? You are appealling to an already converted market.

Would you like some straw for that man?

Time will tell, one thing is for certain if the "live the creed" doesnt work the foundations of the football club will change forever and push to totally become a second universal club and totally move away from their traditional roots. If you think that is what they were doing over the last couple of years you will be in for a massive shock if it actually does happen.

Rubbish.

Our financial position has far more to do with the AFL product being shithouse than any other marketing gimmick you can muster.

 

[relapse]

We didn't have a choice. You can't say we didn't try an alternate route, we did and I don't think Whicker and his cronies will ever forget it. So whilst we struggle financially, Leigh goes and spends the money we (and the Crows) make on teams like the one you used to go for who have had nothing to do with actually making that money in the first place. This is akin to you working all week, getting paid $1,500, then your boss asking you to pay him $1,800 back which he then proceeds to give $200 each to the 9 little punks down the street who end up spending it on domestic cask wine and imported beer.

I say AGAIN Port Adelaide knew all of this before applying for sub-license for the forthcoming 2nd SANFL owned AFL license. They knew how it was going to established long before they lodged their application. The SANFL set clear KPIs which needed to be proven by the applicant etc and Port claimed that they would get at least 35k to all of their home games.

You dont seem to understand that Leight Wicker doesnt really give two hoots about the Crows or Port, the license system was established to ensure that any SA based AFL clubs were putting money into the SANFL. Port's annual payment is already less than Adelaide's, so the AFC are already more disadvantaged than Port.

At the end of the day, this is what Port chose to do, its like getting a loan to buy a house that you cant afford just because you feel entitled to it. It's funny that it is always everyone elses fault and not Port's, the big issue is getting Port supporters to the football and that is something that the club needs to work on until that is rectified it's not going to matter what handouts etc Port get.

 

[JHF1870]

Well its about time we take the SANFL to the high court and get rid of them.

 

[JHF1870]

I say AGAIN Port Adelaide knew all of this before applying for sub-license for the forthcoming 2nd SANFL owned AFL license. They knew how it was going to established long before they lodged their application. The SANFL set clear KPIs which needed to be proven by the applicant etc and Port claimed that they would get at least 35k to all of their home games.

You dont seem to understand that Leight Wicker doesnt really give two hoots about the Crows or Port, the license system was established to ensure that any SA based AFL clubs were putting money into the SANFL. Port are already paying less than us as it is, so we are already most disadvantaged than Port.

At the end of the day, this is what Port chose to do, its like getting a loan to buy a house that you cant afford just because you feel entitled to it. It's funny that it is always everyone elses fault and not Port's, the big issue is getting Port supporters to the football and that is something that the club needs to work on until that is rectified it's not going to matter what handouts etc Port get.

Nobody has the ability to predict the future!!!

 

[tribey]

This what Port applied for and they got. The SANFL own the license and Port have the sub-license agreement over that license with the SANFL.

The SANFL established it this way for the money to go into the SANFL each year, Port knew this before they applied and they bragged about how many people would be going etc to the games.

No point accepting the sub-license agreement and now wanting to change the rules. If Port dont like the agreement then they can terminate it, and the SANFL will have to find another entity to operate their 2nd license. At the end of the day, the sad reality is that it is that both the Crows and Power are cash cows putting money into the SANFL. The SANFL arent interested in any of those clubs being a liability and if things are financially dire the SANFL can actually take control of the club and run it.

It has nothing to do with Whicker hating Port Adelaide, Port applied for the second license under the same conditions that Adelaide has. The SANFL are only interested in the revenue generated from both clubs and thats all.

In 1995-6 when the initial agreement was signed I doubt anyone could've predicted that in a decade's time Port Adelaide would be fixtured to play Richmond on a Saturday afternoon live against the gate on both Foxtel and Free-To-Air.

This was also before we had our eyes opened to the quality of experience enjoyed at the likes of the Telstra Dome and the redeveloped MCG.

It's a world away.

 

[sdrawkcab]

Nobody has the ability to predict the future!!!

I just won $10 - bet a mate you would post that.

 

[aneale]

Well its about time we take the SANFL to the high court and get rid of them.

Yeah and the High Court would rule in their favour as owners of the license and Port would be playing Div 1 in the Amatuers whilst trying to realign with PAMFC and claiming a shared history.

 

[Genesis67]

No wonder you didn't reply to all of my post, your logc is flawed.

Sre the current administrations may go to the superleaguge, but all the AFL needs to do is to appoint a new admin to continue on the clubs.
A superleague competition with no guarantee of players andguarantee a fans, which network station would be prepared to spend hunfreds of millions of dollars on a venture like that? Especially when the last one tried in Australia was a dismal failure.

It's fantasy land thoughts, it will never happen in our life time.

I didnt reply to your whole post because only part of your post was relevant to what I said. Not at any point have I commented on whether a Superleague should form or not. As I said again above, it was a "what if" post. Mind you, if your reading level is the same as your writing level, I can't say I'm surprised that you missed that.

With reference to the administration comment, each club appoints it's own administrators. They are their own legal entities (eg the Eagles and Dockers being 'owned' by the WAFC), not mere branches of the AFL itself, contracted to the AFL via a licensing agreement. If they were just branches of the one AFL company, the debate over the legality of the Draft and player trading would be moot.

Should a group of clubs decide to not renew or break their licensing agreement with the AFL, and form their own competition, they would be doing so as the entire entity. The AFL would have nothing to appoint a new administration to. They would have to create a new entity from scratch, albeit with the same name and logo as the current team because they own those logos and names.

Will it ever happen? No, I doubt it, especially if Zvim's comment about player contracts requiring that they be unable to play in an opposing competition for 2 years be true. Could it? Of course it could. My original post was simply musing what it would take for it to do so.

 

[relapse]

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

Our financial position has far more to do with the AFL product being shithouse than any other marketing gimmick you can muster.

While I think you have a very good point

The AFL will counter argue that their average attendances are increasing every year.

as for your comment about the fastest growing supporter bases, i think all you will find is that it has grown because Port are a new club the disproportion between the Crows and Power is the biggest it has ever been so I would argue that "supporter" numbers are irrelevant versus those supporters that financially support the clubs by attending matches/buying memberships etc.

 

[relapse]

In 1995-6 when the initial agreement was signed I doubt anyone could've predicted that in a decade's time Port Adelaide would be fixtured to play Richmond on a Saturday afternoon live against the gate on both Foxtel and Free-To-Air.

This was also before we had our eyes opened to the quality of experience enjoyed at the likes of the Telstra Dome and the redeveloped MCG.

It's a world away.

I also think that when Port applied for that license they also werent aware that the rights would be eventually be worth $180 million dollars a year.

This argument has come up before, the AFL have publicly stated that the money that the clubs now get from the television license agreement more than subsidises for lost revenue from supporters not attending.

Lets not forget that attendances are up and that the Crows, Freo and West Coast all have live telecasts of their matches as well.

If Port dont want live against the gate telecasts maybe they should give back their 5-6 million that they receive every year for the television rights. The honest truth is that IMO freo should be far worse off than Port and it is inconceivable that they are financially stronger than Port.