Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance

[Brock Machine]

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.

It would rip the club apart. In a rational world without emotion, maybe, but football clubs are extremely emotional places.

Look at the Melbourne near merger in 96, people take sides and the rifts can take generations to heal. We are still on our knees from the fall out.

 

[D_One]

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

this really highlights the unsustainable structure and 3rd party ground share arrangements of the AFL competition.

most viable football clubs/organisations around the world use the their home ground as a major revenue earner from all activities. the home ground is important for any team.

Port Adelaide FC and football park are not a good fit. the ground is too big for the team for all but 1 or 2 of their 11 home matches each season......but the landlord (SANFL) takes into account the whole 51k capacity when determining their lease and thus the level at which the club can break even from attendances is too high for the club.

ground rationalisation will end up sending clubs to the wall.

my question is this........a) why didnt clubs purchase grounds off council during the 20th century, and maintain them to their specifications; b) in leiu of not purchasing grounds, why didnt clubs use their status as major tenants to pressure councils for substantial improvement works, or the club take on improvement works themselves. this foresight from clubs would not have led to the ground rationalisation situation the clubs find themselves in now. clubs would have control of their gameday activities, from ticket prices to ground advertising and a ground that can cater to their own supporters. instead clubs are copping the stake up their collective arses.

due to the inferior state of many grounds, the AFL did the wheelin and dealin for the clubs and forced them into ground share arrangements with 3rd parties own bigger capacity grounds than what is required for the tenant, and who have their own sponsorship commitments, hence poor deals. so now, the monies which nearly half the clubs collect at the gate for many games are now neglible. it's all well and good to have a 95k & 55k capacity stadium in melb, but most teams cant get anywhere near selling these out or making money out the arrangements.

it's too late for clubs to go home now...these grounds are now in a derelict state, or have been modified for public access use.......but giving up this important of assets for the ground rationalisation setup was an error IMO.

Correct, only Essendon and Collingwood average more than 28,000 when hosting non-Vic clubs. Having Melbourne hosting Port or Freo in front of 80,000 empty seats is not viable. There is no pressure for supporters of many of the Vic clubs to take out membership as they canget a ticket any time they want. Programming games at Princes Park would create pressure on supporters.

Likewise Port should be playing at a 30,000 seat stadium and the Crows should be playing at a 60,000 seat stadium. Having one 50,000 seat stadium benefits neither party.

 

[Geoffa32]

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.

That is correct, however the Crows crowds have not been as affected. They ahve operated under the same conditions yet the average crowd has stuck around the 40-42k mark.

The club needs to adapt to change. Most others have. Look at Hawthorn. less than a decade ago they were on the verge of a merger. They were proactive and creative and are now one of the most financial clubs in the league.

Maybe an independent review of the club, not one conducted by Choco and Peter Rhodes is needed??

 

[tribey]

That is correct, however the Crows crowds have not been as affected. THey ahve operated under the same conditions yet the average crowd has stuck around the 40-42k mark.

35649 turning up to Andrew McLeod's 300th last year wasn't flash. It will be interesting to see how the figures are this season for both clubs.

 

[relapse]

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

So lets get this straight Port will take the SANFL to court.

The SANFL own the actual license and the Port Adelaide Football Club have a sub-license agreement with the SANFL's to operate the SANFL's2nd license, which they actually applied for so, what grounds exactly do Port have to be able to take the SANFL to court ???

 

[Geoffa32]

35649 turning up to Andrew McLeod's 300th last year wasn't flash. It will be interesting to see how the figures are this season for both clubs.

That is true, and already you can see the older people not coming to games. That was a fairly cold night.

But when they give up their membership another person will take their place. As long as there is still a waiting list. I think once the waiting list is no more the Crows will worry about membership.

Members not going to games is a concern though.

 

[Geoffa32]

So lets get this straight Port will take the SANFL to court.

The SANFL own the actual license and the Port Adelaide Football Club have a sub-license agreement with the SANFL's to operate the SANFL's2nd license, which they actually applied for so, what grounds exactly do Port have to be able to take the SANFL to court ???

It must be the "Vibe"

 

[FOOOOTY]

That Port confirm they are requesting a 7 figure sum, but wont talk about howmuch is a bit of a worry, seems to suggest it could be well in excess of 1m...

 

[FevolasFox]

Port will be on top of the afl ladder after round 1...

 

[Zvim]

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.

Crows get far more people on average to the games, from what I am lead to believe AAMI has a very high break even mark, like TD, although it is not high because of third party profiteering but because it is not clean and SANFL take a fair chunk out of the revenue. Crows have a waiting list for members, games only don't reach capacity because the Category A port supporters who have access to all games don't show up, they are however, paid for. Port's problem is the gap in terms of supporters is pretty much the profit margin zone for the clubs playing there.

Adelaide Oval is about the right size and has much lower overheads, SACA were offering us $500k per game to play there 5 years ago, I would imagine that has risen since then, WAFL offered us about a million per game at Subi. Port would make a lot more money there than they would at AAMI, largely because SACA wouldn't be skimming anywhere near as much as SANFL does.

It is the difference between playing somewhere where a lot of the profit goes back to the club and one where it does not. I don't know if Crows have the exact same deal at AAMI or not.

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.

I dunno. If our shareholders were expecting a $2m dividend every year and it was the reason we asked for assitance I think the AFL would have told us to get stuffed.

I'd prefer we weren't receiving assistance and had somewhere to play that gave us a decent return. But, the AFL wouldn't let us play at Arden Street even if it was significantly more attractive. AFL wouldn't stop Port from playing anywhere. SANFL wont let them because they are milking them from AAMI as well as the dividend. Port just needs to make sure SANFL is more flexible in tough times and that they help Port help themselves by helping them to grow support, they are the beneficiaries of Port doing well.

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.

AFL contributes some $6m a year to AFL Victoria and contributes some money to VFL but they do not to SANFL or WAFL. They do to the other leagues. It is largely due to the affiliation agreement. In 2007 (dont have the 2008 report), 104 players came from the Victorian system onto club lists, given there are only 800 odd positions on club lists the contribution from Victoria on an annual basis is significant.

AFL would love nothing more than to absorb the SANFL and WAFL but they don't want that. AFL's relationship with those two states exists in the form of the four teams, nothing more, nothing less. Your states are a significant part of the league but by your league's own desires you are still very different entities despite the government appointing the AFL as custodians of the game.

I am not saying the AFL wont help Port, they already help Port, but I think it is more an issue that Port and the SANFL need to resolve and I feel the SANFL need to be more pro-active to assist Port to become a strong club because they have a vested interest in them being strong.

North just has a 25 year prison term until TD is paid off, with 14 odd years left. I think once it goes into AFL hands there would be a significant higher return from games there, we just need to keep growing our supporter base and do what we need to do in order to live through TD as a third party. I think if we can do that and raise our sustainable membership base to around 40k then we will be right. We are a significant part of the group of clubs repaying a $500m stadium AND allowing a third party to make a reasonable profit on it, it is a significant drain on a club like ours.

 

[Falchoon]

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

you've never seen a map of Melbourne have you?

 

[PrideOf]

Adelaide Oval is about the right size and has much lower overheads, SACA were offering us $500k per game to play there 5 years ago, I would imagine that has risen since then, WAFL offered us about a million per game at Subi. Port would make a lot more money there than they would at AAMI, largely because SACA wouldn't be skimming anywhere near as much as SANFL does.

Playing AFL at Adelaide Oval will never happen, regardless of the finances.

The SANFL and SACA hate each other. Footy Park was built out of this hatred and after the SACA r*ped football for decades. While that animosity exists, the SACA could offer $5m per game and it still isn't going to happen.

So we can remove $$$ out of that argument.

 

[bucksfan1987]

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

While I think you have a very good point

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

That has a lot to do with scheduling. The AFL have done well promoting "blockbuster" games and making the big drawing teams play twice a year every year. While the lower drawing teams will continue to play off against each other. Not saying it's not smart from the AFL, just that it will make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

 

[Pie eyed]

you've never seen a map of Melbourne have you?

I don't think he is using geographic proximity as reasoning for the merger.....

That said if Port can't make a go of it then they have to go before any of the foundation clubs even have to be considered. They are after all a licensee and the second newest addition to the league.

 

[anchor man]

you've never seen a map of Melbourne have you?

Shouldn't make any difference nowdays.No club is really affiliated to any particular area.Look at Freo we have our training gorund in Freo,but have players from all over the country.Same as every other club.
Your view is that of a Victorian who still thinks it is the VFL.

 

[Geoffa32]

Playing AFL at Adelaide Oval will never happen, regardless of the finances.

The SANFL and SACA hate each other. Footy Park was built out of this hatred and after the SACA r*ped football for decades. While that animosity exists, the SACA could offer $5m per game and it still isn't going to happen.

So we can remove $$$ out of that argument.

The SACA can get a non SA club to play ahome game there. There was an embargo on AFL footy there, but it has been lifted. So they could, and after development will, offer clubs like North/Melbourne/Bulldogs etc games at Adelaide Oval. North Melbourne (home) V Port at Adelaide could happen. That would be a true test to crowd size. I for one dont think Adelaide Oval would be a good venue on a cold wet Saturday night...

 

[anchor man]

Oh and by the way I think that Port should get the same ammount of support from the AFL as the almost broke Melbourne clubs.Clubs like Melbourne,Richmond,Bulldogs,North Melbourne etc were and some are still being propped up by the AFL.
If it is good enough for one then it should be good enough for all,regardless of how long they have been in the comp.
Lets not forget that Freo was $8m in the red but got themselves out of it,with NO assistance from the AFL,other than to tell the club to get its act together.

 

[Goat 53]

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

Let us know how you go building your own stadium.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Oh and by the way I think that Port should get the same ammount of support from the AFL as the almost broke Melbourne clubs.Clubs like Melbourne,Richmond,Bulldogs,North Melbourne etc were and some are still being propped up by the AFL.
If it is good enough for one then it should be good enough for all,regardless of how long they have been in the comp.
Lets not forget that Freo was $8m in the red but got themselves out of it,with NO assistance from the AFL,other than to tell the club to get its act together.

Port should certainly get help, but their situation with the SANFL makes it an entirely different kettle of fish. AFL assistance shouldnt be made available to cover shortfalls caused by overspending on a 2nd tier league.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Let us know how you go building your own stadium.

A rich benefactor could come in and build Port a stadium and give them free rent for life, yet they could still be blocked from playing there by the SANFL who want AAMI to host games to generate them revenue to spend on Norwood, Glenelg, etc..

 

[Zvim]

Playing AFL at Adelaide Oval will never happen, regardless of the finances.

The SANFL and SACA hate each other. Footy Park was built out of this hatred and after the SACA r*ped football for decades. While that animosity exists, the SACA could offer $5m per game and it still isn't going to happen.

So we can remove $$$ out of that argument.

Well, I was asked where else they could play.

SACA cleared the way for games being played there by taking the AFL and SANFL to court over restraint of trade, the court made the contract that AFL games can only be played at AAMI void. Port have the ability to play there if they are in control of their club. Do they have any kind of control of their club? I don't know.

AO is the best fit for Port, they would make mad cash there and easily able to pay their dividend BUT SANFL probably get a lot more money from the games than from the dividend. It is probably a significant reason why they are in this predicament.

Again, this whole issue is a whole lot more complex than the issue here in Melbourne, Port's major obstacle is the owner of their license.

 

[anchor man]

I don't see asny difference.Your mob was as bad as and are still as bad as Port.Your members have let you down for many years now.You still have your hand out to the AFL asking for money.How about if you had to build your own stadium or pay your own way!!!!!

 

[Macca19]

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.

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.

12 years ago, in our first year, you could go to the game, take 30-45 minutes getting home because of traffic, have something to eat and THEN start watching the delayed telecast on Channel 7. Now we had almost all our home games live on Fox with a couple live on FTA as well which people can watch on their big cheap Plasma/LCD (again, not many of those in 97) in HD. Absolutely completely different situation. Whats changed at Footy Park since that time? Bucket Seats (moving into the 70s) and video screens (again, 10-15 years later than other grounds). Great stuff.

The game day experience for supporters is completely different to what it was in 1997. The SANFL needs to change with the times as well. Its not blaming anyone else...this is Ports problem to deal with.

When you hear that with similar average crowd figures, the WA clubs make upwards of $2M and Brisbane $3M on home games, and Port end up having to PAY the SANFL up to $400k a game in some cases, then things obviously arent right and the SANFL should look into it.

 

[greennick]

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.

They should get the same support you do. There is no valid reason why they should not. The SANFL makes money off the club as they need to support their league. The AFL supports the VFL and Vic footy generally, so this is the SA way of getting their share. Though, I agree that the SANFL clearly needs to pull back what they are taking though, I am sure this will be part of the AFL's discussions with them. I just don't think Port should be totally cut off because of this. If we are going to start cutting clubs off, we should cut them all off. Yours included.

 

[Zvim]

Re: Port ask AFL for emergency funding

I think this year will see significant challenges for a lot of clubs.