Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance

[Macca19]

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.

Well thats ok. If we are getting a bit shafted, it still means you are getting shafted too.

 

[Demonheart]

Your view is that of a Victorian who still thinks it is the VFL.

Going from your last post your view is that of a person who has absolutely no idea on what they're talking about.

 

[Stinger...]

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...

The SACA can 'offer' clubs whatever they like but it isnt going to happen as long as the SANFL have anything to do with it. Yes the 'deal' the SANFL and AFL have/had died in the courts but the AFL won't even open the door if the SACA knocked on it...it's just fairytale stuff!

If Vic clubs want to sell a game and bring it to SA, it WILL be played at AAMI...no where else!

 

[windyhill]

And this mob replaced Fitzroy !?!?!?

 

[aneale]

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.



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.

Not all of those 10,000 are Crows supporters

Fremantle make $2M because they show up

Port Adelaide (avg) Fremantle (avg)
2003 – 31,845 2003 – 30,681
2004 – 29,877 2004 – 36,258
2005 – 32,911 2005 – 35,254
2006 – 28,546 2006 – 36,569
2007 – 27,870 2007 – 37,474
2008 – 22,126 2008 – 35,877


Whilst Port plummet and moan about stadium deals, Freo with zero success to drive them show up in droves. That's why they make $2M and why Port have asked for millions

2008, thats a massive 13,500+ difference. Port: 7 W's 15 L's. Freo: 6 W's 16 L's.

Port are poorly run, poorly attended. And to think all we had to lose was Fitzroy for a rabble than in 13 short seasons has come to this.

 

[PrideOf]

The SACA can 'offer' clubs whatever they like but it isnt going to happen as long as the SANFL have anything to do with it. Yes the 'deal' the SANFL and AFL have/had died in the courts but the AFL won't even open the door if the SACA knocked on it...it's just fairytale stuff!

If Vic clubs want to sell a game and bring it to SA, it WILL be played at AAMI...no where else!

That's what I was saying. You can talk about $$ or embargoes or whatever, but the SANFL has a tight agreement with the AFL saying they get to say where the games are played, and the politics of history say they're never going to go back to the SACA and Adelaide Oval.

Well, I was asked where else they could play.

Cool. Just giving you the local backstory.

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.

Ian McLachlan likes to bluster all he can about playing AFL footy at AO, it's just not going to happen. Honestly, if it was possible, it would have happened by now.

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.

No. Neither do we at the AFC.

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.

Footy Park was built so the SANFL had their own facility and didn't have to rent from anyone else. Their view would be there is no point having this facility if they don't play there.

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.

Yeah it is, that's why I offered some more local background on it. Logically it makes sense to consider Adelaide Oval, but this is based on ownership and a 50-year-old turf war, so we know logic won't play a big part in any thinking.

 

[arzach]

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 had a feeling that Freo had pretty good home attendances...

I was right. Over the last 3 years, Freo have had 340,452 more people through the gate at Subi than Port at AAMI. Bit of a worry when the CEO doesn't seem to be able to count.

 

[Helix]

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

I dont understand the comment that Port are the first Non-Vic club to ask for a handout/assitance from AFL.

WCE went broke in first few years, is a superclub now though
Brisbane have had salary cap assistance.
The AFL basically owns Sydney
Freo had some troubles, not sure the AFL helped them at all though.

Do you know what that actually means? They didn't give us any money, you know that right? Quite the opposite, they allowed us to pay the players MORE to keep them at the club.

 

[relapse]

Well thats ok. If we are getting a bit shafted, it still means you are getting shafted too.

Yes, but the issue is that if Port are giving less then the crows have to give less as well, while it is good for us it means that the SANFL is taking less money from both clubs which is something that the SANFL wont like.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

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

And immediately lose a quarter of a million fans, well over 100,000 paying mebers and tens of millions in revenue.

What a masterstroke that would be.

 

[Geoffa32]

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

Do you know what that actually means? They didn't give us any money, you know that right? Quite the opposite, they allowed us to pay the players MORE to keep them at the club.

Yes I know that. The AFL bent the rules to help Brisbane (and Sydney). It was non-financial assistance.

Never understood why Brisbane got that. It cost just as much to relocate to Perth, or even Adelaide. Cost of living across most mainland cities is comparable, apart from Sydney.

 

[Macca19]

Not all of those 10,000 are Crows supporters

Whilst Port plummet and moan about stadium deals, Freo with zero success to drive them show up in droves. That's why they make $2M and why Port have asked for millions

I had a feeling that Freo had pretty good home attendances...

I was right. Over the last 3 years, Freo have had 340,452 more people through the gate at Subi than Port at AAMI. Bit of a worry when the CEO doesn't seem to be able to count.

Apologies, after listening to it again, I misunderstood what he said.

His exact words were:

"...if you looked at comparisons, if we were playing over at Subi, given the arrangements they have over there, you'd be somewhere between $1.5-2.5 million a year better off. If we were playing up in Brisbane, with the sort of crowds they get which arent far off ours, you're looking at somewhere between $2.5-3.5 million a year better off, so they are the sort of comparisons you're looking at..."

Still pretty significant.


As for Fremantle....heres a post written by REH on the Port board which has stats from the WA annual report. Again, pretty significant:

The WAFC helped out Freo by also suspending their licence royalty fee. They let Freo retain 100% of their profits in the following years

2003 $711,000
2004 $1,254,000
2005 $1,015,000
2006 $1,261,000

Total $4,241,000That's a suspension of $2,800,000+ in licence fees over these 4 years. And between 1999 and 2002 they made 4 losses totalling $5mil and didn't pay $1 in licence fee in that 4 years so for 8 years Freo paid no licence fee between 1999-2006.

The difference in rent and licence fee according to the WAFC 2007 and 2006 annual report was;

Rent ---2007-- ---2006-- --2005--
WCE 3,051,000 2,972,500 2,900,000
FFC- 3,051,000 2,500,000 2,250,000

Licence fee --2007 ---2006-- --2005
WCE--- 2,766,450 2,516,578 2,297,764
FFC------ 519,454 --------0 --------0

 

[Geoffa32]

Apologies, after listening to it again, I misunderstood what he said.

His exact words were:

"...if you looked at comparisons, if we were playing over at Subi, given the arrangements they have over there, you'd be somewhere between $1.5-2.5 million a year better off. If we were playing up in Brisbane, with the sort of crowds they get which arent far off ours, you're looking at somewhere between $2.5-3.5 million a year better off, so they are the sort of comparisons you're looking at..."

Still pretty significant.


As for Fremantle....heres a post written by REH on the Port board which has stats from the WA annual report. Again, pretty significant:

The WAFC helped out Freo by also suspending their licence royalty fee. They let Freo retain 100% of their profits in the following years

2003 $711,000
2004 $1,254,000
2005 $1,015,000
2006 $1,261,000

Total $4,241,000That's a suspension of $2,800,000+ in licence fees over these 4 years. And between 1999 and 2002 they made 4 losses totalling $5mil and didn't pay $1 in licence fee in that 4 years so for 8 years Freo paid no licence fee between 1999-2006.

The difference in rent and licence fee according to the WAFC 2007 and 2006 annual report was;

Rent ---2007-- ---2006-- --2005--
WCE 3,051,000 2,972,500 2,900,000
FFC- 3,051,000 2,500,000 2,250,000

Licence fee --2007 ---2006-- --2005
WCE--- 2,766,450 2,516,578 2,297,764
FFC------ 519,454 --------0 --------0

This stadium deal problem stems from the monoply that the SANFL has on footy in this state. There is no such monopoly in those cases. A monoply the PAFC gave to them when accepting the second licence.

 

[Helix]

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

Yes I know that. The AFL bent the rules to help Brisbane (and Sydney). It was non-financial assistance.

Never understood why Brisbane got that. It cost just as much to relocate to Perth, or even Adelaide. Cost of living across most mainland cities is comparable, apart from Sydney.

To allow Brisbane to offer players an incentive to stay in a one team town, particularly for players thinking of returning home. It is less of an issue now, as we draw a larger number of players from Queensland since the increase in popularity amongst young players.

 

[Geoffa32]

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

To allow Brisbane to offer players an incentive to stay in a one team town, particularly for players thinking of returning home. It is less of an issue now, as we draw a larger number of players from Queensland since the increase in popularity amongst young players.

I guess so. I am not bitter about it like Collingwood, just never understood why. Brisbane are my "second" team having been born up there. Plus similarish colours to the Crows. And you beat Port most times you come down here.....

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

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!!!!!

We are building a stadium - Docklands. And every club will get to use it even though we've paid disproportionately for it.

 

[aneale]

Apologies, after listening to it again, I misunderstood what he said.

His exact words were:

"...if you looked at comparisons, if we were playing over at Subi, given the arrangements they have over there, you'd be somewhere between $1.5-2.5 million a year better off. If we were playing up in Brisbane, with the sort of crowds they get which arent far off ours, you're looking at somewhere between $2.5-3.5 million a year better off, so they are the sort of comparisons you're looking at..."

Still pretty significant.


As for Fremantle....heres a post written by REH on the Port board which has stats from the WA annual report. Again, pretty significant:

The WAFC helped out Freo by also suspending their licence royalty fee. They let Freo retain 100% of their profits in the following years

2003 $711,000
2004 $1,254,000
2005 $1,015,000
2006 $1,261,000

Total $4,241,000That's a suspension of $2,800,000+ in licence fees over these 4 years. And between 1999 and 2002 they made 4 losses totalling $5mil and didn't pay $1 in licence fee in that 4 years so for 8 years Freo paid no licence fee between 1999-2006.

The difference in rent and licence fee according to the WAFC 2007 and 2006 annual report was;

Rent ---2007-- ---2006-- --2005--
WCE 3,051,000 2,972,500 2,900,000
FFC- 3,051,000 2,500,000 2,250,000

Licence fee --2007 ---2006-- --2005
WCE--- 2,766,450 2,516,578 2,297,764
FFC------ 519,454 --------0 --------0

So the upshot of it all is, that if Port Adelaide played in a one team Rugby League town, they'd probably get a better Stadium deal? No, really?

And, That Freo, whose crowd excel Port's by far, is all due to the WAFL not making them pay their license? I know that would make me go to a game, nothing says passion for the game more than a third party waiving administrative obligations to your club.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Not all of those 10,000 are Crows supporters

Fremantle make $2M because they show up

Port Adelaide (avg) Fremantle (avg)
2003 – 31,845 2003 – 30,681
2004 – 29,877 2004 – 36,258
2005 – 32,911 2005 – 35,254
2006 – 28,546 2006 – 36,569
2007 – 27,870 2007 – 37,474
2008 – 22,126 2008 – 35,877


Whilst Port plummet and moan about stadium deals, Freo with zero success to drive them show up in droves. That's why they make $2M and why Port have asked for millions

2008, thats a massive 13,500+ difference. Port: 7 W's 15 L's. Freo: 6 W's 16 L's.

Port are poorly run, poorly attended. And to think all we had to lose was Fitzroy for a rabble than in 13 short seasons has come to this.

No Freo and West Coast make more than Port for a 25,000 people crowd because they have a clean stadium vs a non clean one. Brisbane are the same a they have a clean stadium deal as well.

If you don't understand that, then you don't understand much about the difference in clean stadium deals vs non clean deals and the impact that has on the different clubs across the different states and different stadiums.

From an article in The Australian on Thursday June 1 2006, page 37, titled "Swans hand-out reveals cash stance," which I have a hard copy of, it explained the AFL's 2005 Clubs Financial Review which was released in April. It also talked about the 2006 ASD's and how the clubs were arguing for a greater share of the TV monies as a result of the $780mil deal for the 2007-11 TV rights that was finalised in January 2006.

I can't find the article on the net and the info on net stadium returns wasn't in the internet article but I did reproduce it at this post back in 2006. I have added the average home attendances to show how the clean stadium deals are way ahead non clean stadium deals when looking at net $ per seat. This is 3 years old but it's the only info published on individual clubs and their net stadium returns.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6378922&postcount=42

Home crowd averages from;

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2005.html

Net Stadium Returns - 2005

WCE $10.93m (Average home attendance in 2005 was 40,267)
Bris_ $10.84m (33,267)
Col_ $10.30m (41,759)
Fre_ $10.29m (35,224)
Syd__ $7.62m (32,346)
Ess__ $7.49m (46,198)
Adl__ $7.28m (42,341)
Clt___$7.18m (36,976)
Gee__ $7.06m (27,783)
Mel__ $6.10m (39,869)
Stk__ $6.03m (36,856)
PA___ $5.93m (32,911)
Haw__ $5.65m (30,541)
Ric___ $5.57m (35,800)
Kan__ $5.14m (30,795)
WB___ $4.64m (28,321)

Average $7.38m. Victorian Average $6.52m.

The net Stadium return is the revenue figure which includes gate receipts, signage, membership, reserved seating, catering and corporate hospitality, less the expenditure for ground rental and match day costs.

 

[Rob]

No Freo and West Coast make more than Port for a 25,000 people crowd because they have a clean stadium vs a non clean one. Brisbane are the same a they have a clean stadium deal as well.

If you don't understand that, then you don't understand much about the difference in clean stadium deals vs non clean deals and the impact that has on the different clubs across the different states and different stadiums.

You also don't seem to understand the fundamental difference in ticket prices. Is it any surprise that West Coast, Fremantle and Brisbane (along with Sydney) also have the highest ticket prices in the league? Consequently, 30k people at a home game for those clubs will straight off the bat earn a shitload more in gross income than if your club pulls in 30k.

Yet you're suggesting that the reason why these clubs earn more than Port is simply because of a clean stadium deal (to which all 3 of those clubs pay sizable rents for )? Wake up - you're not getting killed on expenses, you're getting killed on income.

Out of interest, how much does Port pay in rent for AAMI every year? I'm guessing very very little.

 

[Carnthe]

At least we all still get to watch good footy, even if the competition is ****ed.

Yep, that's what I've always said.

 

[aneale]

No Freo and West Coast make more than Port for a 25,000 people crowd because they have a clean stadium vs a non clean one. Brisbane are the same a they have a clean stadium deal as well.

If you don't understand that, then you don't understand much about the difference in clean stadium deals vs non clean deals and the impact that has on the different clubs across the different states and different stadiums.

From an article in The Australian on Thursday June 1 2006, page 37, titled "Swans hand-out reveals cash stance," which I have a hard copy of, it explained the AFL's 2005 Clubs Financial Review which was released in April. It also talked about the 2006 ASD's and how the clubs were arguing for a greater share of the TV monies as a result of the $780mil deal for the 2007-11 TV rights that was finalised in January 2006.

I can't find the article on the net and the info on net stadium returns wasn't in the internet article but I did reproduce it at this post back in 2006. I have added the average home attendances to show how the clean stadium deals are way ahead non clean stadium deals when looking at net $ per seat. This is 3 years old but it's the only info published on individual clubs and their net stadium returns.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6378922&postcount=42

Home crowd averages from;

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2005.html

And like most of this rubbish, it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

What each club makes based on whether they get 25,000 people through the gate is irrelevant, the issue is why Port can't get 25,000 people through the gate. Stop wasting time on irrelevant stats and put some effort into helping your Club work out why their supporter base is a dogs breakfast and don't feel the need to support their Club that they all claim to be so passionate about. So far you are no better than the South Adelaide Panthers.

If Port were averaging 35,000 - 37,000 per game like Freo, you would not be on your knees begging to the AFL. The fact that AAMI is not a clean stadium means nothing to the man on the seat.

"What's that love?"
"going to the footy ........ nah my sciatica is playing up and apparently the Stadium isn't clean, I don't know what that means but apparently we don't like it so I'm boycotting the games. That'll show em!"

Port should worry about what they can control than pointingand fixating on what is happening in WA. Getting, 25,000 to a game, would be a good start.

 

[tribey]

Out of interest, how much does Port pay in rent for AAMI every year? I'm guessing very very little.

We don't pay rent.

Under our deal the SANFL takes the vast majority of our matchday earnings (Rucci has repeatedly stated they make $400k per Port home game between taking all the parking, pourage and catering and the vast majority of the advertising and corporate box revenue as well as Port writing them a cheque for breakeven shortfall) as well as asking an end of year sublicence fee.

Whereas you lot get to keep the bulk of your matchday revenue and then pay a set rent fee.

Either way the SANFL makes millions out of us.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You also don't seem to understand the fundamental difference in ticket prices. Is it any surprise that West Coast, Fremantle and Brisbane (along with Sydney) also have the highest ticket prices in the league? Consequently, 30k people at a home game for those clubs will straight off the bat earn a shitload more in gross income than if your club pulls in 30k.

Yet you're suggesting that the reason why these clubs earn more than Port is simply because of a clean stadium deal (to which all 3 of those clubs pay sizable rents for )? Wake up - you're not getting killed on expenses, you're getting killed on income.

Out of interest, how much does Port pay in rent for AAMI every year? I'm guessing very very little.

Yes the ticket prices are part of it but our CEO said for a similar stadium deal Port would make about $1.5mil to $2.5mil. Look at the table I put up for 2005 net stadium results. Freo averaged 3,000 more people per home game than Port in 2005 yet made $4.4mil more than Port. So the figures have been adjusted back for ticket price difference between the two stadiums.

I am not saying all the increased return is due to a clean stadium and nothing to do with higher ticket prices. But there is no doubt a big chunk of it is.

I produced net stadium return figures. That takes into account the high rent and most income streams vs low rent and little of the income streams. Those net figures include gate receipts, signage, membership, reserved seating, catering and corporate hospitality, less the expenditure for ground rental and match day costs. We get SFA compared to the two WA clubs from the corporate revenue Footy park generates. Apart from a new facility we built in 2006 we get virtually nothing. Filling our corporate books hasn't been our problem in fact its a shinning light for us. We don't get enough of our fans to the stadium often enough.

If you broke down those net figures I posted between the different revenue streams and compared them you would see that they are substantial across all components.

Another big difference between Subi and the Gabba and Footy Park is the SANFL members take up a larger slice of the ground. We get some revenue from these membership sales but we can't sell the best seats on the wing at a premium price on the members side of the ground like we do on the outer. The Gabba have a relatively small BCG Trust membership and the SCG is somewhere between the Gabba and Footy Park.

Yes we pay little rent. Just like the 9 Melbourne team we pay match day costs and get very little of the other revenue streams.

 

[Rob]

We don't pay rent.

Under our deal the SANFL takes the vast majority of our matchday earnings (Rucci has repeatedly stated they make $400k per Port home game between taking all the parking, pourage and catering and the vast majority of the advertising and corporate box revenue as well as Port writing them a cheque for breakeven shortfall) as well as asking an end of year sublicence fee.

Whereas you lot get to keep the bulk of your matchday revenue and then pay a set rent fee.

Either way the SANFL makes millions out of us.

And you make millions out of them - you get to play in a stadium for no cash outlay.

 

[El_Scorcho]

How is it beneficial to have no cash outlay when they take the vast majority of profits from each game, and if we don't make a certain amount they just force us to write them a cheque?