Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance

[Whit3y]

Nobody has the ability to predict the future!!!

mate
the futures bright, the futures blue and white

 

[D_One]

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.

I actually agree with this. Why should the AFL give Port money so that the SANFL can continue to rip off Port and give the money to clubs like South Adelaide and Woodville-West Torrens?

 

[Macca19]

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.

As Haysman said in his conference today, Freo make around $2m on their stadium deal with similar crowd figures to what Port get. Port end up having to pay the SANFL.

If anything is inconceivable...id say that is.

 

[aneale]

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.

I have a big HD LCD, delays, FTA, Foxtel, never stopped me from going.

the SANFL will look into it, but they shouldn't. Port should stand on it's own two feet and fix it's own problems rather than expecting the SANFL to fix it for them. Then what happens in 7 years time, now instead of 27,000 to break even, you need 22,000. Now, you don't seem to be hitting that either, what next? whine to the SANFL again? ask the AFL if you can play at Alberton? You become a handout club, you will stay a handout club.

 

[Zvim]

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...

AFL wouldn't let us play in SA, have said so before and last year said we couldn't play in WA for $1m per game.

I don't think any club should sell home games tbh, I think it does have an impact on the ladder and is unfair for sides to see some teams effectively get more home games.

I would like us to play some games against interstate teams in Ballarat, especially if/when GC and WS come in. We are working hard to establish ourselves in the North West region and for low drawing games it is better to promote football in regional areas than just hand over money to TD. Ballarat is also more accessible by our supporters and I think the people of Ballarat would like to see us play the odd game there, they are starting to build up support for hosting the odd game.

 

[anchor man]

As Haysman said in his conference today, Freo make around $2m on their stadium deal with similar crowd figures to what Port get. Port end up having to pay the SANFL.

If anything is inconceivable...id say that is.

Taken over all in the past years I think you will find that Freo have a far bigger supporter base than Port.It has been a very long time since Freo only had 19,000 at a game at Subi.That is a constant number that seems to be at Port games.The crowds between Freo and Port are nowhere near the same.

 

[FOOOOTY]

They should get the same support you do. There is no valid reason why they should not.

IF you cant understand the difference by now its pointless to keep explaining it to you. Why dont Port sell some home games to Collingwood at the MCG, or Freo at Subi for 700k a pop first? We had to. Going by your argument if it was good enough for us, its good enough for them.. right?

When the OWNERS of your licence, are the ones causing you to lose money, why should the league who sold the licence to said owner bail out the sub licencee?

The AFL going through the books and going 50/50 in any such assistance with the SANFL seems more reasonable.

 

[FOOOOTY]

I actually agree with this. Why should the AFL give Port money so that the SANFL can continue to rip off Port and give the money to clubs like South Adelaide and Woodville-West Torrens?

It staggers me howmuch they spend on the SANFL compared to WA and the WAFL, i really do feel sorry for Port they are getting right royally screwed, and while they entered into the agreement, the way it was setup, it was either that or stay in a 2nd tier league.

 

[greennick]

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.

That is my point. They don't get enough people to games. End of story. That is the issue, you can blame it on poor stadium returns all you want, but if they got more people to the games, it wouldn't be an issue.

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.

The payments to the SANFL is their way of supporting the local league (as you have said below). In WA we do it through renting Subiaco and through dividend payments of profits to the WAFL. This is their way. In Victoria, none of the teams pay for the VFL and its related entities, however the AFL gives money on their behalf. It is a different way of structuring the same deal. As I have said a few times, there is no doubt some fat needs to be cut off the SANFL going forward, but why should Port pay for this?? You get money because of your crappy deals, why doesn't Port deserve the same??

Arden St is shit, of course they won't let you play there. You don't even have a stand. That is the point, you all want a good stadium to get higher returns, but won't (and wouldn't in the past) contribute the cash to get it. Someone needs to pay for it eventually. The magical stadium fairy sure as hell won't.

On the SANFL needs to be flexible, they certainly do. They need a model like ours. Rent the stadium and pay a percentage of profits. So, there is always a base minimum amount, but they share in the highs and the lows.

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.

I don't get what the contribution from Victoria has to do with anything. No shit it is significant. About 50% of players last I saw. So? I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

Government appointing AFL as custodians of the game? What government? When? I thought they were just self-appointed (or more so, appointed by the clubs). This is not a real point about this issue, I have just never heard that.

Of course it is an issue the SANFL and Port need to resolve. But they still deserve assistance. Just as you do for your shitty deals. Just as you agreed to yours, they agreed to theirs.

I agree that the deal for the Dome was shitty. However, you all agreed to it. You should have dug your heels in with the AFL and demanded they contribute more from Waverly towards the project to reduce the costs being placed on the clubs long-term. Or demanded the AFL make co-payments (I assume they don't do this) given they will be the eventual owners.

This is exactly the same situation Port is in. They deserve support as much as you do.

I can't believe of all the people on here arguing Port should NOT be getting assistance, it is primarily a North supporter and a Melbourne supporter. How ironic is that?

 

[FOOOOTY]

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!!!!!

Heres an easy way to explain it for simpletons.

(hypothetical example)

North are still owned by Shareholders, they operate at about a 1million dollar loss per year.

Shareholders take a 2million dividend despite loss.

AFL provide 3 million dollars assistance, 2 million into Shareholders back pockets, and 1 million to keep North afloat.

 

[relapse]

Taken over all in the past years I think you will find that Freo have a far bigger supporter base than Port.It has been a very long time since Freo only had 19,000 at a game at Subi.That is a constant number that seems to be at Port games.The crowds between Freo and Port are nowhere near the same.

I think you have hit the nail on the head no point complaining about how much freo are making each home game when they are getting anywhere from fifteen to twenty thousand more at their games.

 

[greennick]

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.

To be fair, our stadium is pretty bloody old, is all paid for and we rent it straight up from the WAFC. Also, our stadium is sold out every week. Every single week. In fact, I believe we make more money when we get a lower crowd as the returns from the catering and all is set. How much money would you make if you sold out every week?? All our games are live on TV against the gate too, as they are all sold out. This is one of the reasons the WAFC is not so keen on a new stadium, they are scared they won't make us much money from a half-full stadium where they are paying market rates. Good for the club, bad for the fans.

We have a better set-up than you as the WAFC owns the licences, not the WAFL. The WAFL is a seperate entity altogether. The WAFC is a government organisation set-up to bail out Indian Pacific Ltd after it went bankrupt due to the high start-up costs of the WCE, including the $4m initial payment to join the league.

 

[greennick]

IF you cant understand the difference by now its pointless to keep explaining it to you. Why dont Port sell some home games to Collingwood at the MCG, or Freo at Subi for 700k a pop first? We had to. Going by your argument if it was good enough for us, its good enough for them.. right?

When the OWNERS of your licence, are the ones causing you to lose money, why should the league who sold the licence to said owner bail out the sub licencee?

The AFL going through the books and going 50/50 in any such assistance with the SANFL seems more reasonable.

Then the whole arrangement of the AFL not supporting the SANFL would need to be changed to align it with the AFL supporting the other state leagues. Either way, more money is going from the AFL to SA.

 

[snrub]

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

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]

That's exactly the point I was making - that the current incarnation of the fund had benefitted Port whereas the previous funding models had obviously been used to prop up Sydney among other clubs.

 

[1jasonoz]

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.

Yet your club and its supporters run this freo owns the south of the river line when talking football in the west.

Freo: south of the river
Eagles: North of the river is how many see the division in WA

 

[1jasonoz]

Heres an easy way to explain it for simpletons.

(example)

North are still owned by Shareholders, they operate at about a 1million dollar loss per year.

Shareholders take a 2million dividend despite loss.

AFL provide 3 million dollars assistance, 2 million into Shareholders back pockets, and 1 million to keep North afloat.

North shareholders did not take a dividend from the club!

 

[FOOOOTY]

Then the whole arrangement of the AFL not supporting the SANFL would need to be changed to align it with the AFL supporting the other state leagues. Either way, more money is going from the AFL to SA.

The AFL control the other state leagues, if SANFL give up control of SA footy i am certain you would see such an arrangement. But even if we ignore that! There really is no reason why the SANFL need to stamp their foot and hold their breath until they are blue in the face in regards to the AFL part of SA footy.

Let the AFL deal with Port directly in regards to Port owning their own licence, and receiving AFL assistance, and then yes i agree with you, they deserve just as much assistance as we have.

Also then at least you would see Port own 1/16th of Docklands when the time comes, instead they will get screwed over again by the greedy SANFL.

 

[FOOOOTY]

North shareholders did not take a dividend from the club!

relax! it was a hypothetical example

 

[greennick]

Heres an easy way to explain it for simpletons.

(example)

North are still owned by Shareholders, they operate at about a 1million dollar loss per year.

Shareholders take a 2million dividend despite loss.

AFL provide 3 million dollars assistance, 2 million into Shareholders back pockets, and 1 million to keep North afloat.

That is not a complete example but.

How about the real example:

Port are owned by the SANFL, they operate at about a 1million dollar loss per year.

The SANFL takes a 2 million dividend despite loss.

AFL provide 3 million dollars assistance, 2 million into SANFL's back pockets, and 1 million to keep North afloat.

OR, they could just structure the same deal like they do in Victoria:

North are owned by the pope (it is irrelevant who owns them for the argument), they operate at about a 1million dollar loss per year.

AFL provide 1 million dollars assistance to North. And kick in a further 2 million to keep the VFL and its related entities afloat.



Same deal, same support to the club and the league. There is no doubt some of the fat needs to be taken out of the SANFL, I don't know much about that though. Port should be held no more responsible than you are for their predicament, it is based on the same issues (poor crowds, poor stadium returns, poor sponsorships, poor FTA coverage nationally, poor fixturing, etc).

People need to be held responsible for this, however in the meantime the AFL should still help them.

 

[relapse]

As Haysman said in his conference today, Freo make around $2m on their stadium deal with similar crowd figures to what Port get. Port end up having to pay the SANFL.

If anything is inconceivable...id say that is.

I guess the problem is that if they alter the stadium deal for port then obviously they will have to change the crows one also. You can't charge one club one price and another club a higher price this is why the sanfl will be hesitant to change it.

The real issue is the lack of people going through the turnstiles at the game live against the gate is just an evolution of the game you either learn to adapt with it or die by it every other club have the same issue but let's not forget the payout that the clubs get from the tv rights that they previously weren't. Too many people are quick to slag the tv hurting the attendances while at the same time ignoring the money that they are getting from the tv rights deal.

 

[Zvim]

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!!!!!

Your bullshit over-generalisations do not accurately reflect the reality.

Our only real "let down" was the fact we were stuck in between Essendon, Footscray, South Melbourne and Melbourne and our home was heavily industrialised.

The only reason we weren't in at inception of the VFL was because we were strategically too close to Essendon and as they were one of the 6 clubs forming the break-away VFL they had a political advantage.

Ammusingly, of those 6 clubs (Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Fitzroy, Melbourne and South Melbourne) 2 are dead, they tried to kill off Geelong when they were lame and Melbourne has been wobbly of late.

While footy was very much suburban we were disadvantaged, but it is no longer suburban. Zones are gone and support now comes from all over the city and all over the country. We were just a long way back and in a competitive market it takes longer to grow. AFL came in when we were at a low point and the club spent too much focus on keeping their head above water rather than finding long-term solutions, largely because AFL help was nothing at all about finding solutions.

As to the stadium, we are one of the major residents at TD, it is the clubs that play games there that are paying off a $500m stadium. I just hope we reap the benefits of paying it off, just 14 years to go.

 

[FOOOOTY]

I can't believe of all the people on here arguing Port should NOT be getting assistance, it is primarily a North supporter and a Melbourne supporter. How ironic is that?

Maybe you missed my post saying how id rather the AFL build Port a 100million dollar stadium over the Gold Coast,

im not anti-port here, im anti SANFL, some of the Port posters can see where im coming from and im sure they understand the situation and howmuch the SANFL have them over a barrel.

 

[Macca19]

I have a big HD LCD, delays, FTA, Foxtel, never stopped me from going.

You also seek out information enough to post on an internet forum. People on this board cant be included because we are all generally obsessed. Not everyone has the level of support for their club that people on this board do.

There are plenty of people out there that would choose to stay home if the game is on live and its cold. This explains why 17,000 Crows members chose to stay home for their favourite sons 300th match this year and why 10,000 Crows members on average dont turn up every week. This is why Collingwood, Essendon etc. dont sell out the MCG every week despite having 6-7-800k supporters.

the SANFL will look into it, but they shouldn't. Port should stand on it's own two feet and fix it's own problems rather than expecting the SANFL to fix it for them. Then what happens in 7 years time, now instead of 27,000 to break even, you need 22,000. Now, you don't seem to be hitting that either, what next? whine to the SANFL again? ask the AFL if you can play at Alberton? You become a handout club, you will stay a handout club.

Of course the SANFL should look into it. If teams are making upwards of $2m more with similar crowd figures then it most definitely should be looked at. In any case, this garbage is bay 13 worthy.

 

[FOOOOTY]

People need to be held responsible for this, however in the meantime the AFL should still help them.

Your example is closer, but as some people seemed to not get it, i used North, i agree Port need help, they are an AFL club now with a premiership under their belt, they are part of our competition, im just concerned that AFL assistance will just enable the SANFL to spend more on Norwood, Glenelg, Sturt etc. Why should SA Footy be spending money on 2nd tier clubs and allowing one of their AFL clubs to go belly up?

 

[Macca19]

It has been a very long time since Freo only had 19,000 at a game at Subi.That is a constant number that seems to be at Port games.The crowds between Freo and Port are nowhere near the same.

Constant? Weve had something like 4 sub 20k crowds ever. Id say your idea of 'constant' is completely different to the rest of societys.