Tredrea Weighs In

[Macca19]

Port Adelaide generates 12 million in revenue which goes directly into the SANFLs coffers on a yearly basis. This is money the club generates, the SANFL just opens its stadium. This is money that goes direct to the SANFL, Port get none of it. Feel free to explain how given this, and given that BOTH the states AFL clubs are combined 7 million behind in stadium return compared to the rest of the league, how the Power returns nothing to the SANFL.

The money the SANFL has given the PAFC is just money it has made by playing games at Footy Park. Its money the club would have kept for itself, if playing at any other ground in any other state in the country.

These are facts stated by Whicker himself. So again, feel free to explain who is propping up whom here. Im not expecting any sympathy here, given its an SANFL site and all, but most people should be able to realise that the deal between the SANFL and the Crows and the Power is seriously ****** up. The fact that the Crows are $2.4 million behind the rest of the league despite selling out the ground every week for the past 10 years, shows which out of the SANFL and the AFL clubs is propping up who.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the funding model for the Crows ad Port Power changed in the early 2000s from one where they returned a part of their profit to the SANFL (80%) IIRC but had cheaper costs at the the stadium to one where they kept their more of their end of year return but had increased cost at the Footy Park??

If my memoery is correct isn't this stadium deal the AFL clubs own making??

The end of year dividend is completely seperate to the stadium deal. You are correct that up to 2000 or so, the clubs gave 80% of their profits to the SANFL for the end of year dividend. Now, they pay a set fee on a yearly basis regardless of profit or loss (i think the Crows pay $550k and Port pay $360k, or thereabouts). I dont think the stadium deal was any part of this.

Obviously though, times change. What may have been ok or workable 10 years ago, obviously isnt now, for both clubs.

[Dogwatcher]

C'mon guys - remember Tredders isn't the world's best financial consultant, he won't be able to follow what you're saying. Get back on topic.

[TimmiesChin]

C'mon guys - remember Tredders isn't the world's best financial consultant, he won't be able to follow what you're saying. Get back on topic.

He probably isn't - but some of the numbers forecast by Whicker dont stack up either.

He mentioned the projected losses for the Power over the next 2 years ...... added them together and stated this was the expected debt of the power for the two years.

However the numbers he seems to be using are the numbers the Power presented to the SANFL to highlight their issues with stadium deals. Since that time, they have added to their sponsorship pool, and gained a revenue stream from NT. They have also been given an undertaking that the SANFL stadium deal is close. If their deal goes even close to the average (for like sized clubs - ie Kangaroos), then they would be in the black.

Whicker went on to add on the porjected magpies losses to these power losses .... but again he simply added together projections assuming no merger or stadium deals went ahead. Hence he didnt take into account the finances saved my merging administration, such as saved money on property rental, improved revenue from pokis as they got consolidated and built on.

[CUTTERMAN]

I'm not saying that the stadium deal is the best when concerning the 2 AFL clubs, but the simple fact is that Adelaide do the heavy lifting, Power probably half as much as Adel., so again we have a representative from Port Adelaide not being able to look outside the fishbowl. Correct me if I'm wrong but both clubs aren't charged to play at FP, for the catering costs, staff costs, security costs etc. As a result of that they don't get to collect the returns. By all means both can push for a clean stadium deal, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee huge profits especially for port who have smaller crowds, as the gameday lease price should be the same for both clubs. A stadium is a stadium is a stadium.

[TimmiesChin]

Correct me if I'm wrong but both clubs aren't charged to play at FP, for the catering costs, staff costs, security costs etc. As a result of that they don't get to collect the returns.

Thats not my understanding ..... the weay I have read all the information on this, both clubs pay significant amounts for wages etc on game day. There was discussion only last season about how the larger than budgetted amount of Sunday games meant Port had a much higher labour bill for AAMI staff on matchday because of award wages being higher on Sundays.


The underlying problem, is that football clubs are generally not very good 'income streams' yet that show they have to be treated in SA as the SANFL needs revenue to fund the SANFL comp. I still think the SANFL is better of being funded directly by the AFL, so that the burden was not just on Port and the Crows.

Indirectly Port and the Crows fund the TAC cup, and other state leagues, but are also solely funding the SANFL (in terms of AFL input). This is the major reason for their reduced stadium deal.

[CUTTERMAN]

Correct me if I'm wrong but both clubs aren't charged to play at FP, for the catering costs, staff costs, security costs etc. As a result of that they don't get to collect the returns.

Thats not my understanding ..... the weay I have read all the information on this, both clubs pay significant amounts for wages etc on game day. There was discussion only last season about how the larger than budgetted amount of Sunday games meant Port had a much higher labour bill for AAMI staff on matchday because of award wages being higher on Sundays.


The underlying problem, is that football clubs are generally not very good 'income streams' yet that show they have to be treated in SA as the SANFL needs revenue to fund the SANFL comp. I still think the SANFL is better of being funded directly by the AFL, so that the burden was not just on Port and the Crows.

Indirectly Port and the Crows fund the TAC cup, and other state leagues, but are also solely funding the SANFL (in terms of AFL input). This is the major reason for their reduced stadium deal.[/

And this goes back to the largest issue of all.
Because the WAFL broke ranks and then Port broke ranks it spelt the end of any chance of a truely national comp, instead we've got a mongrel comp based in Victoria, by Victorians, for Victorians. So anytime you think it's unfair, unjust or unbalanced just remember that your club helped make it that way.
This has been by far the biggest disappointment for me in football.

[am Bays]

TC and Macca thanks for that info.

[TimmiesChin]

And this goes back to the largest issue of all.
Because the WAFL broke ranks and then Port broke ranks it spelt the end of any chance of a truely national comp, instead we've got a mongrel comp based in Victoria, by Victorians, for Victorians. So anytime you think it's unfair, unjust or unbalanced just remember that your club helped make it that way.
This has been by far the biggest disappointment for me in football

I dont know that I agree. The AFL has offered to fund the SANFL league as well, yet the SANFL head honchos rejected it...

[Macca19]

Correct me if I'm wrong but both clubs aren't charged to play at FP, for the catering costs, staff costs, security costs etc. As a result of that they don't get to collect the returns.

I dont think that is correct, though im not 100% sure myself. How is the club meant to earn money if they arent allowed any of the returns for the event that they themselves provide?

By all means both can push for a clean stadium deal, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee huge profits especially for port who have smaller crowds, as the gameday lease price should be the same for both clubs. A stadium is a stadium is a stadium.

Both West Coast and Freo make multi million dollars from their stadium deals. The Crows make a bit on theirs, Port losses money. You shouldnt lose money on match day. I recognise that our crowds must improve to help close the gap on its own, but Whicker & co must come to the party on this. They want to know what Plan B is, well Port has given them plan A, B & C and they dont want a bar of it. So where do you draw the line?

If Port are earning 12 million in revenue from match day, then the Crows would be earning 16-18 million as well. Whats the end of year dividend for the SANFL clubs? 350k? Wheres the other $26 million going?

[Voice]

Correct me if I have the wrong take on this. I know for a fact that Carlton need 30,000 + at Etihad to break even. Port only need 22,000 at AAMI. Doesn't this mean that Carlton have a worse stadium deal then Port. I remember hearing in the press and from the AFL itself that Carlton has the worst stadium deal in the country.

[TimmiesChin]

Correct me if I have the wrong take on this. I know for a fact that Carlton need 30,000 + at Etihad to break even. Port only need 22,000 at AAMI. Doesn't this mean that Carlton have a worse stadium deal then Port. I remember hearing in the press and from the AFL itself that Carlton has the worst stadium deal in the country.

Port needs a hell of a lot more than 22,000 to break even. First game of last year they had 28,000 or so and lost money.

[Macca19]

Correct me if I have the wrong take on this. I know for a fact that Carlton need 30,000 + at Etihad to break even. Port only need 22,000 at AAMI. Doesn't this mean that Carlton have a worse stadium deal then Port. I remember hearing in the press and from the AFL itself that Carlton has the worst stadium deal in the country.

Port need a bucketload more than 22,000 to break even at AAMI. Try about 28-29k. If it was 22,000, their wouldnt be any talk of poor stadium deals, Port wouldnt lose $1 million a year on matchdays and they'd be making profits.

[Voice]

So i'm wrong in one way but right in that Carlton have a worse stadium deal?

[Mr Beefy]

Correct me if I have the wrong take on this. I know for a fact that Carlton need 30,000 + at Etihad to break even. Port only need 22,000 at AAMI. Doesn't this mean that Carlton have a worse stadium deal then Port. I remember hearing in the press and from the AFL itself that Carlton has the worst stadium deal in the country.

Was that deal done when Collo was in charge at Carlton while knowing he was going to go to docklands?

[TimmiesChin]

So i'm wrong in one way but right in that Carlton have a worse stadium deal?

Not even close.

Port and Adelaide have the worst two deals in the country.
Port is $1.8 million behind the 15th placed club, and 4.6 million behind the average.
The Crows are $2.4 million behind the average - so $900K ahead of average.

[Wedgie]

When the figures were shown last year there was at least 3 or 4 teams (possibly more) with worse deals than the Powers. Things may have changed for 2010.

[TimmiesChin]

When the figures were shown last year there was at least 3 or 4 teams (possibly more) with worse deals than the Powers. Things may have changed for 2010.

The Ethihad clubs got better deals negotiated last year - in prep. for next season .... sides like Kangas have had multiple million increases. (I mention Kangas as our crowds are comparable)

[Voice]

When the figures were shown last year there was at least 3 or 4 teams (possibly more) with worse deals than the Powers. Things may have changed for 2010.

The Ethihad clubs got better deals negotiated last year - in prep. for next season .... sides like Kangas have had multiple million increases. (I mention Kangas as our crowds are comparable)

What Wedgie said is what I was going by. Of course your going to get less money then Carlton because we don't get less then 30,000 so your figures in the previous aren't really an argument to what I was saying. The fact is that if we had the same amount of supporters show up to games as you, we'd make less money then you.

[TimmiesChin]

When the figures were shown last year there was at least 3 or 4 teams (possibly more) with worse deals than the Powers. Things may have changed for 2010.

The Ethihad clubs got better deals negotiated last year - in prep. for next season .... sides like Kangas have had multiple million increases. (I mention Kangas as our crowds are comparable)

What Wedgie said is what I was going by. Of course your going to get less money then Carlton because we don't get less then 30,000 so your figures in the previous aren't really an argument to what I was saying. The fact is that if we had the same amount of supporters show up to games as you, we'd make less money then you, therefore our deal is worse but your return is worse.

Granted that it is the case, that with less at games the return is less, but remember the Crows are also $2.4 million behind average (now).

The question you are really asking, is how does the aFL make the stadium deal comparisons given every club has a different averagehome attendance.

[Voice]

It's a hard one and I wasn't having a crack as I think all teams are dudded compared to what the AFL makes as a whole. I guess the question is, as you say, 'how do you make a comparison' due to so many factors involved in it. I just saw the 'we've got the worst deal in the country thing' as another way of shifting blame. You'd be fine if you were getting the 40,000 you projected at the beginning.