Setting the record straight re Port's finances - We are a net contributor financially

[aneale]

Read a number of other sources and you will find that: -

A) The Crows ARE making a loss, this year and last.

B) The SANFL itself is making a $27 million loss.

Yet the Port haters don't mention that!

Let's put that into perspective, they had one loss due to the building of the Westpac Centre and an an unusually high injured player payment. End of year loss, that is all. They didn't make match day losses.

The 2011 'loss' is nothing but a guess by people who didn't understand where last years loss actually come from.

 

[SimonH]

Yeah ok so image wise they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. I'm not disputing that. What I dont understand is how there is a complete lack of outrage that essentially the SANFL is bleeding the Power to prop themselves up.

Yes I understand the Power did nobody any favours by ****ing around with their image but I'm talking pure dollars and cents. Surely someone somewhere has got to tell the SANFL to go find another cash cow because this one simply can't keep going.

The other thing I liked reading, which by the way may be wrong since I only know what I read in the paper, was that the SANFL want NONE of the financial responsibility of Port since they can't afford it but they want ALL of the benifits ie. complete ownership AND continuing to take the money from Port.

How the hell is that fair?

Sorry to start with a sweeping statement, but the whole argument is a nonsense.

Closer to a typewriter analogy, is someone applying to be licensed a franchise. The contract is clear, the conditions are known, a business plan is put to the franchisor about how this is going to be a big money-spinner, and other franchisees bidding to open the same chain of stores won't do as well, and the new franchisee gets the gig.

Opens up, starts trading, and after the occasional blaze of glory, starts fairly consistently losing money, failing to meet targets, and is headed in only one direction.

Then, the whinging starts from the franchisee to franchisor. Our stores are all in the wrong spots. The advertising isn't good enough and we're paying too much for it. You own the store bricks and mortar, so we're being extorted on rent as well, to further top up your cash-flow from our diminishing coffers. How can you keep ripping us off, making heaps of money selling us the raw product on tie-in contract, when we're going to the wall?

There's just one little problem. All of these things were known at the time of the bid. All of these things were in the contract that you signed. Nothing has changed. No-one forced you to go into this business. If the things that you complain about made this franchise unviable, then basic due diligence by you would have made this clear at the start and you should never have bid for the franchise. Don't start whinging years later about the rules of the game, when the shiny business plan that you presented to us was based on those same rules... and it just turns out that your business plan was a dud.

Sure, ultimately the franchisor needs to fish or cut bait, i.e. it has to either take over the stores, salvage those that are sustainable, and run or re-sell them itself, or it has to cut the franchisee loose and just close 'em down, probably damaging the brand in the process. And that's the dilemma that the SANFL faces, with the further complication that there's a semi-friendly, semi-rival wannabe-parent company based over the border who's quite happy to come to the franchisee's aid and bail them out... but its largesse will come at a horrible cost.

But to complain that someone else is taking 'your money', or even more hilariously 'your profits', when under no business plan, no bid document, no contract, has that money ever even potentially been the Pahhhr's... that's either wishful thinking, or fraud, depending on which side of the fence you come from.

 

[Slattery_20]

In all fairness, that's not what he said. He said they were a net contributor to the SANFL.

I guess my question should've been "why should I care about your contributions to the SANFL?"

I don't care for the SANFL whatsoever. I'd like to see Port back on track for the good of the AFL and they simply shouldn't be in the hole they're in, but the SANFL have acted like gits from the start and can all GAGF as far as I'm concerned.

But in any case, there are a lot of numbers floating around that paint a different picture of the reality. Like saying they have 36,000 members. What a crock of shit. If that figure is even remotely close to the truth, then far too many of those are bargain basement associate memberships and the like. Because if they had 36,000 genuine members, they wouldn't be consistently drawing about half that figure to home games.

Only thing that really matters with memberships is total income. Like the QAFL club (Southport???) that has a bazillion members... cos everyone who comes to play the pokies signs up as a FC 'member' for $10... means nothing.
If one club can sell 10,000 memberships for $1k they are better off than the club that can sell 50,000 for $50.

 

[R00StaR]

So back in the day when the VFL set about expanding, wouldve the SA people supported a team they just made, a team without any real SA connection? I highly doubt it, so without the SANFL type set up the only choice wouldve been taking on a break away club. In which case the Port model of an existing club with strong following, wouldve been the only way to make it work.

Since that model everyone is highly critical of, then that leaves the SANFL one. One where they have support of the people, one the people can get behind knowing it supports their comp.

If the people of SA wouldve supported brand new independent clubs created by the VFL then this wouldnt be happening. But now thats exactly what most SA people want, independence, free from the very thing most needed to get involved in the first place.

The SANFL own the licences so obviously they can do as they please, but to take X amount from each license no matter how much they generate is unsustainable. I dont see the AFL has much choice however, they either play the SANFL's game and continually pay up (essentially guaranteeing a set return on investment) a or allow one of their licences to reincarnated. I say reincarnated simply because the SANFL would be crazy to give up their cash cow, it just wont happen.

'IF' the SANFL have rights over future SA licences then there arent too many choices

* SANFL reincarnates the licience. Re-badge Port into something else.
* AFL pays the ransom
* SANFL take percentage of profit rather than set figure
* AFL says stuff you SANFL, if you let your licence die then we'll relocate Port. They'd really have no choice since TV rights demands 18 clubs and the SANFL would be blocking a workable solution.

 

[PortBrillance]

SANFL has supported them with a multi-million dollar bail-out already.

It's our money to begin with. Yet ignorant people like yourself think otherwise

 

[ausbacker]

It's our money to begin with. Yet ignorant people like yourself think otherwise

It's not your money to begin with if Port Adelaide agreed to the contractual obligations at the time they lobbied to enter the AFL. It's money the SANFL is rightfully entitled to under contract and by agreement that your club signed.

The argument that whether or not the SANFL continuing to use the Crows and Power as income streams to fund their own misguided and poorly managed agenda rightfully or wrongfully is the flow on point. It most certainly isn't fair to the Crows & Power organizations nor their fans.

Doesn't seem like you have an educated opinion on this PortBrillance.

 

[King Elvis]

It's our money to begin with. Yet ignorant people like yourself think otherwise

Yea, nah.

 

[boncer34]

Sorry to start with a sweeping statement, but the whole argument is a nonsense.

Closer to a typewriter analogy, is someone applying to be licensed a franchise. The contract is clear, the conditions are known, a business plan is put to the franchisor about how this is going to be a big money-spinner, and other franchisees bidding to open the same chain of stores won't do as well, and the new franchisee gets the gig.

Opens up, starts trading, and after the occasional blaze of glory, starts fairly consistently losing money, failing to meet targets, and is headed in only one direction.

Then, the whinging starts from the franchisee to franchisor. Our stores are all in the wrong spots. The advertising isn't good enough and we're paying too much for it. You own the store bricks and mortar, so we're being extorted on rent as well, to further top up your cash-flow from our diminishing coffers. How can you keep ripping us off, making heaps of money selling us the raw product on tie-in contract, when we're going to the wall?

There's just one little problem. All of these things were known at the time of the bid. All of these things were in the contract that you signed. Nothing has changed. No-one forced you to go into this business. If the things that you complain about made this franchise unviable, then basic due diligence by you would have made this clear at the start and you should never have bid for the franchise. Don't start whinging years later about the rules of the game, when the shiny business plan that you presented to us was based on those same rules... and it just turns out that your business plan was a dud.

Sure, ultimately the franchisor needs to fish or cut bait, i.e. it has to either take over the stores, salvage those that are sustainable, and run or re-sell them itself, or it has to cut the franchisee loose and just close 'em down, probably damaging the brand in the process. And that's the dilemma that the SANFL faces, with the further complication that there's a semi-friendly, semi-rival wannabe-parent company based over the border who's quite happy to come to the franchisee's aid and bail them out... but its largesse will come at a horrible cost.

But to complain that someone else is taking 'your money', or even more hilariously 'your profits', when under no business plan, no bid document, no contract, has that money ever even potentially been the Pahhhr's... that's either wishful thinking, or fraud, depending on which side of the fence you come from.

Interesting that you say my argument, which was actually more a question since I'm only out for information, is nonsense and then you follow it up with your argument.

So Port knew the risks going in. Ok. So question, if they didn't sign the agreement that basically allowed the SANFL to bleed them would they have been allowed in the AFL? Was there any other way for them to get in?

Yea, nah.

Why isn't it their money? If they contribute millions to the SANFL and then recieve only a fraction of that back to boost themselves then I can't see why that isn't fair?

 

[absfab]

What a misleading thread this is.

It conveniently ignores the considerable sums of money routinely surrendered from the total gate by other Clubs as part of their stadium deals.

Just one example. A few years Carlton received FORTY CENTS return for each ticket sold for a "home" game.

It may not be ideal that the SANFL has administered Port's stadium access, but to claim the total gate as something that the Club is unfairly missing out on is either deluded, dishonest, or both.

 

[King Elvis]

Why isn't it their money? If they contribute millions to the SANFL and then recieve only a fraction of that back to boost themselves then I can't see why that isn't fair?

Does your employer make money from your efforts?

 

[_Christoh_]

Waa Waa Waa, the big bad SANFL are causing all our problems, please Mr Demetriou take them away, Waa Waa Waa.


No one has forced you into this position, all the decisions that have been made have been your own. You all carry on like a bunch of spoilt brats. How about you admit your own mistakes and acknowledged that your own club has driven you to this precipice. Instead of blaming everyone else.

The Port Adelaide Football Club are the sole architects of their own misery. The SANFL, the Crows, the AFL have not forced Port into this position.

The SANFL appoint 50% of our board, really all our own doing.

 

[Geoffa32]

The Power have two big problems.

1. Lack of real support. By real support I mean people going to games. They clearly dont have enough people going to games to cover the cost of putting the game on.
2. The above issue is compounded by the Owners of both the licence and the Stadium, who are taking more than the industry average to put the games on. Or maybe it is just the method in which the SANFL collect their money......


Interestingly the WCE pay $2m in royalties to their licence owner

After royalties of $2,040,846 are paid to the club’s owner, the West Australian Football Commission, the club will announce a post-royalty operating profit of $2,760,573.

http://www.***************.com.au/articles/2010/12/17/eagles-announce-bumper-profit/

They also pay $3m in rent to use Subiaco. I assume this is paid just like any other creditor. ie the WCE have control of the ground on the day and pay the rent on an annual basis.

http://www.insidesport.com.au/is/index?pg=features&spg=0706_Your-Team_01.htm

The WCE pay a total of $5m to their state authoriity, yet are a financial powerhouse.

Interestingly the royalty to the WAFC is calculated on the total profit the club makes. So it is in the State Leagues interest that the club makes money.

http://www.insidesport.com.au/is/index?pg=features&spg=0706_Your-Team_03.htm#Adelaide-Crows

Whereas the Crows and Power pay a set fee in distributions to the SANFL, regardless of a profit or loss, and the SANFL control Football Park on match day. Meaning they run the stadium and give the clubs a return based on the money generated on that day. Any shortfall from the break even figure is paid by the club to the SANFL. There is no incentive from the SANFL for our clubs to make money. They get their cut regardless.


From what I can see the main difference is the treatment of the stadium on match day. WCE and Freo get a clean stadium. In that they run the stadium on the day and collect all the revenue, and then pay a yearly rent. However the AFC and PAFC have the SANFL run the stadium for their games and only make money if all the SANFL costs are covered, and the club pays if there is a shortfall.

Maybe the solution is for us to follow the WAFC/WCE/FREO model. Increase the yearly royalty, base it on profits made and then charge a flat rent for the use of a clean stadium? It seems to work for them.

 

[TooFar]

It's our money to begin with. Yet ignorant people like yourself think otherwise

PB, it is obvious to everyone except yourself that you add no value to topics here on the main board. Your a troll that should remain in the Bay. You offer no facts or figures, no reasoned argument or counter. You present no logical debate, no historical perspective, nada. All you do is through up your biased opinion and assume it is fact. Either watch how the adults do it, or stay on the bay.

 

[Geoffa32]

Some might say he is a clever troll sending up the stereotypical Tealster.............

 

[R00StaR]

Cmon Geoffa32 havent you been listening. Stadium deals make zero difference to clubs, we've been told that time and time again so it must be true.

Clean stadiums, pffft who wants to wash all that stale urine after a game. Leave em dirty! Anyway no matter the break even figure you can make as much as Microsoft.....each and every game! Just get sexy man the peeps they'll come, then just squeeze em in. Cha-ching!!

 

[Geoffa32]

Yes but poor drawing power compounds the poor stadium deal problem.

 

[Powerade 08]

PB, it is obvious to everyone except yourself that you add no value to topics here on the main board. Your a troll that should remain in the Bay. You offer no facts or figures, no reasoned argument or counter. You present no logical debate, no historical perspective, nada. All you do is through up your biased opinion and assume it is fact. Either watch how the adults do it, or stay on the bay.

This was meant to be ironic... yeah?

 

[*PAF]

Flowchart time.

[AFL] ==$9M=> [Port] ==$12M=> [SANFL] ==$0=> [AFL]

Is that (roughly) correct?
How does that make you a net contributor to the AFL?

It is what it is. You're being bent over by the SANFL who have acted like gits from go to whoa, and the AFL is propping you up because it's taken until now to get something done.

That doesn't make you a net contributor to this competition.

No it doesn't but it makes look as if the AFL are a net contributor to the SANFL to the tune of $9M. Cheeky sneaky SANFL hey?

Thing is this makes a lot of sense. And other then pathetic trolls and people telling Port to stop crying I haven't seen one sensible argument to counter it. Why are people not up in arms about the fact that the SANFL is essentially bleeding the Power dry and now the AFL are being forced to prop them up?

So people like the SANFL, good for you, but it doesn't change facts. The Power can't make a profit while the SANFL holds their licence and continues to bleed them to curb their own mountain of debt.

Well it could be coincidence or could it be that the AFL may have been fighting back for a while?
How did the AFL deal with Docklands and the MCG?
The fixtures for both Port and the Crows have not been as favourable as years back.
Dry the money up, take the licences back, work out a new deal.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's not your money to begin with if Port Adelaide agreed to the contractual obligations at the time they lobbied to enter the AFL. It's money the SANFL is rightfully entitled to under contract and by agreement that your club signed.

The argument that whether or not the SANFL continuing to use the Crows and Power as income streams to fund their own misguided and poorly managed agenda rightfully or wrongfully is the flow on point. It most certainly isn't fair to the Crows & Power organizations nor their fans.

Doesn't seem like you have an educated opinion on this PortBrillance.

Port Adelaide needs to remember that it was they who forced the SANFL into this arrangement when they tried to backdoor the SANFL clubs prior to the formation of the Crows. Had they allowed the SANFL and the clubs more time to bargin with the (then) VFL, a better deal for everyone could have been arranged.

Once again, Port Adelaide cared about nobody but themselves, and once again they screwed themselves and the other SA clubs to the wall. There's an old saying, and it goes like this .. "You reap what you sew", and Port Adelaide are getting exactly what they deserve.

No use pointing the finger at everyone else Port, it's ALL YOUR fault. And please infantile Port fans, don't insult me be trying to argue the irrefutable FACTS.

Since 1997, Port Adelaide have no longer been a big fish in a small pond, the class bully, and they've never been able to accept this role in the footy world. Get off your bums and work for a chance and stop looking for welfare.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Port Adelaide weren't the only club that tried to "back door" the SANFL, as you put it. Norwood tried the same thing in 1982. It's no wonder Norwood suporters are the first to give their two bob in the arguments this week. So much angst and jealousy we got in.

 

[Portsmeff]

Port Adelaide needs to remember that it was they who forced the SANFL into this arrangement when they tried to backdoor the SANFL clubs prior to the formation of the Crows. Had they allowed the SANFL and the clubs more time to bargin with the (then) VFL, a better deal for everyone could have been arranged.

Once again, Port Adelaide cared about nobody but themselves, and once again they screwed themselves and the other SA clubs to the wall. There's an old saying, and it goes like this .. "You reap what you sew", and Port Adelaide are getting exactly what they deserve.

No use pointing the finger at everyone else Port, it's ALL YOUR fault. And please infantile Port fans, don't insult me be trying to argue the irrefutable FACTS.

Since 1997, Port Adelaide have no longer been a big fish in a small pond, the class bully, and they've never been able to accept this role in the footy world. Get off your bums and work for a chance and stop looking for welfare.

ah you complete piss weak Norwood supporter taking pot shots behind a keyboard. How typical. You really think were going to just slip by and accept this stadium deal the SANFL dishes out to us.

Get off our bums eh, thats the reason we have our own AFL team. Maybe you should tell those thousands of Norwood supporters who havent been to a Norwood game since the advent of the crows. And thats why you support some random club from some inner suburb of another city in another state. Norwood forver eh, yeah whatver

Worst troll post ive ever seen here

 

[PortBrillance]

Yep, Norwood wish they had of made the AFL. So do all the other little nothing clubs.

Oh well, haters gonna hate

 

[Geoffa32]

Isn't you main financial backer, Gordon Pickard, a Norwood man?

 

[reCOGnise]

Isn't you main financial backer, Gordon Pickard, a Norwood man?

Like very few South Australians, he has moved on.

 

[PortBrillance]

Crows fans have the biggest chip on their shoulders. They just can't move on since 1990.

It's a FACT that the SANFL are leeching money off both clubs, yet crows fans just can't accept it. And yet they blame Port supporters LOL.

It's not our fault, it's not the clubs fault. Its the SANFL. Don't blame us