-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance
- Thread starter Beaussie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Re: Port tell league: we'll go broke without handout
He doesn't have to understand it, the AFL will meet with the club presidents later this month. It is probably the first time since the national competition that could see the clubs get the 12 votes to veto the commission and hold off expansion until major problems are resolved and/or the economy improves.
The expansion may also be torpedoed if the LNP win the election this weekend, it would avoid the AFL having to make a decision.
I think the AFL really needs to sort out these stadium issues, it is very risky to expand when half the clubs are on shaky ground. Expansion will leave the coffers dry and AFL will unlikely be able to help if the shit hits the fan somewhere.
He doesn't have to understand it, the AFL will meet with the club presidents later this month. It is probably the first time since the national competition that could see the clubs get the 12 votes to veto the commission and hold off expansion until major problems are resolved and/or the economy improves.
The expansion may also be torpedoed if the LNP win the election this weekend, it would avoid the AFL having to make a decision.
I think the AFL really needs to sort out these stadium issues, it is very risky to expand when half the clubs are on shaky ground. Expansion will leave the coffers dry and AFL will unlikely be able to help if the shit hits the fan somewhere.
0. Port needs to dump the major sponsor that wont pay and find an alternative.
Richmond get guaranteed a lot more games vs Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton than other Victorian clubs and they go into gate sharing arrangements with some of those said clubs.
Victorian clubs are also less dependent on our membership because of the number of neutral games in Melbourne. It doesn't matter if you have 30k members if you get 50k average to home games.
Port is more dependent on their own supporters than Richmond. If Richmond was base in Adelaide with their membership base they would also be screwed.
I think what they should do is just put in a capitalisation element into TD, each home game played there will earn you a percentage of the ownership of the stadium. It would go a long way to making up for the club being screwed there.
Especially if in the future the stadium operates on the basis of say overheads plus 15% commission per game and the rest is returned to home team then being part owners of the stadium would also see the clubs get a future income stream as well as a share in a valuable asset.
If an AFL game grosses an average of say $1.5m per game. Assume overheads for a game is $500k. Commission would be $225k and clubs would net $775k.
Say the major tenants being Essendon, North, Bulldogs and Saints had about 15% ownership and the other clubs had a proportion of the balance due to fewer games played there.
Each major owner would see about $33,750 average per game played there, assuming 3 games a week at the stadium then that is a return of $2,227,500 for just the H&A season for each major stakeholder.
Now, if you were looking at that kind of return on investment then sure, feel the pain while the stadium is being paid off.
But we are paying off a lucrative investment and getting nothing for it. THAT is the problem.
Of course you are and it looks like it is unfortunetly going to send some teams to the wall. Stadium deals at the time (and still is) was a complex issue and clubs made decisions on what they thought was best for them, rightly or wrongly. Lets also not forget the AFL also have obligations to play a certain amount of games at the MCG to help pay off the redevelopments there.
NMFC knew what they were signing on for at TD, so did Essendon, St.Kilda and Bulldogs. Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Melbourne opted for the MCG instead, the Cats held out on signing and eventually got a 50/50 split with games at the Cattery, while the Blues intially refused to move as well.
Are you now suggesting that teams that made smart decisions (the MCG clubs) would miss on the TD ownership or get a smaller percentage because they fill another AFL obligation to play at the MCG?
the major sponsor is just the start of their problems
ZachPower
Senior List
Have signed a 1000 members since the news broke and loads of classic memberships (ones that are not counted)
It is now over 25,000 game day with around 5,000 non game day.
Also two new corporate sponsors, BBX and Betezy have joined up, each with six-figure sponsorships, while Reebok have extended their sponsorship until the end of 2012.
That's some good news atleast.
It is now over 25,000 game day with around 5,000 non game day.
Also two new corporate sponsors, BBX and Betezy have joined up, each with six-figure sponsorships, while Reebok have extended their sponsorship until the end of 2012.
That's some good news atleast.
Your getting $600,000 a season along with the other tenant clubs
Re: Port tell league: we'll go broke without handout
He doesn't have to understand that there isn't room for 2 teams in Sydney? Are you kidding? He's about to splash a wad of cash in western Sydney so I'd hope he understands exactly the market he's going for.
He doesn't have to understand that there isn't room for 2 teams in Sydney? Are you kidding? He's about to splash a wad of cash in western Sydney so I'd hope he understands exactly the market he's going for.
We cop so much rubbish over our attendences. 25K doesn't loook like much for a game, but is 50K for Carlton Vs Richmond at the MCG any better? It would be nice if we could play Carlton and pull in 10k of their supporters wouldn't it!
Yes, it's 25K better.
Unfortunately for you, the league counts attendances, not attendances per capita.
By the same token, Victorian clubs don't have the lack of competition and 22 FTA games beamed annually into their home market
Its much easier to compete with a rival for major sponsorship then it is with 9 other clubs
Its much easier to compete with a rival for major sponsorship then it is with 9 other clubs
I can expect it instantaneously, they have the supporters.
2006 Members: 35,648 Avg Attendance: 28,546
2007 Members: 34,073 Avg Attendance: 27,870
2008 Members: 34,185 Avg Attendance: 22,126
This is the what Port's membership looks like since the 2004 Flag and on the right their average attendance for the year. And you ask how they can get more attendance if they are going broke? Get a clue! Port need 27,000 to break even. Since averaging 35,000 per game in 1997 they have slowly sunk to this level. Their membership peaked at 38,000 in their second year and never dropped below 33,000 until probably this year, they are there.
They don't need money to get their fans to games, they need to shut up in the media, stop whining and start playing a brand of football people want to watch and then get their supporters who have been spoilt with success in the SANFL (which has masked their fickle nature when they are not winning GF's) to not spit the dummy and jump off the bandwagon.
It's absolute rubbish that any organisation should be expected to hand over money, whether in cash or in form of some benefit without some assurance that the receiver is doing something about addressing the root cause, otherwise you are just throwing good money after bad at a problem.
- Banned
- #290
North Melbourne board.
Well they may not go broke but they'll certainly have a crap list if Ayres stays there for a few years
salty parish
Senior List
they were quick to feed off fitzroys broke carcass.....what goes around comes aroundI agree, but probably something that is the easiest to resolve you would imagine and the extra cash flow wouldn't hurt.
Yep, and getting nothing for repaying what is a $500m investment for the AFL.
Just saying, if the clubs paying it off end up with the asset then at least going through the pain would be worth it in the long-run and rather than getting a hand-out we could get assistance from the AFL during the term that would be repaid, for those that have troubles to make ends meet.
It is just illogical at present. The AFL is making the tenants and the other Melbourne clubs pay for the stadium but get nothing out of it other than have their profits siphoned off by a profiteering third party.
AFL is telling Port to go sort it out with SANFL but what is the AFL doing about ripping us off?
Re: Port tell league: we'll go broke without handout
As long as the clubs understand the problem they can veto the commission, just need 12 votes. AFL control Sydney's vote so we need 12 of 15 votes.
If the clubs sit down next week and decide it is too risky to continue with the expansion they have the power to stop it.
As long as the clubs understand the problem they can veto the commission, just need 12 votes. AFL control Sydney's vote so we need 12 of 15 votes.
If the clubs sit down next week and decide it is too risky to continue with the expansion they have the power to stop it.
Too much to read here and I am sure it has been mentioned. But maybe, just maybe Port werent all that big to start off with. maybe all the assumptions about their supporter base were 'baseless'.
Or maybe they just dont appeal to too many because they really arent the old Port that many would have grown up with. No black and white stripes in a time when branding is everything.
Apart from Sydney and to a lesser extent Brisbane, no other interstate club has formed from an established club. West Coast, Adelaide and Freo to a certain extent are modern contrivances. Maybe that is the way to go. Start one club up, those that dont like that club are not bound by any old dislikes when a completely new entity starts up as a cross town rival later on.
Or maybe they just dont appeal to too many because they really arent the old Port that many would have grown up with. No black and white stripes in a time when branding is everything.
Apart from Sydney and to a lesser extent Brisbane, no other interstate club has formed from an established club. West Coast, Adelaide and Freo to a certain extent are modern contrivances. Maybe that is the way to go. Start one club up, those that dont like that club are not bound by any old dislikes when a completely new entity starts up as a cross town rival later on.
While Fitzroy and South Melbourne were two of the six teams to break away from the VFA to form the VFL. They killed a lot of good VFA clubs simply by turning the VFA into a second rate league overnight. Supporter of those clubs might also claim karma.
I think everyone involved with the AFL to some extent has sold their soul, doubt any angels are walking amongst us.
I'm not sure you'd be much better off at the MCG?, the 600k the docklands clubs get must be compensation for paying off the stadium, otherwise i don't see why Essendon who do ok there get the money?
Patrick Smith on SEN this morning seemed to think the AFL want the journos to apply 'media pressure' regarding the stadium deals, as they have hit a snag.. though thats probably him and his ego falsly thinking that his articles in the Australian make a difference to anything..
I think their numbers are okay when they doing well, much like Brisbane and Sydney do. We really haven't seen a major drought for Adelaide or West Coast. Their attendance has dropped a bit despite a membership queue, don't know how well they would do with a long drought. Freo has been very solid of late despite no real success.
I don't think they overcharge in SA, like they do in WA, so I think Crows would feel a support drop a lot more than they would in the west.
I think the inherit weakness of Port vs Crows is that Port represents one SA team while Crows represent everyone else. If they were to change name to South Australian Power and make more of an emphasis to represent all their feeder clubs then over time they would probably get a lot more support from the other supporter bases than they presently get.
I don't think Port Adelaide supporters would like that, it would diminish the club in terms of being the Port Adelaide Magpies entry into the AFL but it would significantly broaden their supporter base.
