SA Footy

therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.

I think Port have them 5-1.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.

I think Port have them 5-1.

regards,

REB

Those 5 came in a 15 year span too

mickey wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.

I think Port have them 5-1.

regards,

REB

Those 5 came in a 15 year span too

Hmmm, interesting.
Sturt's plundering of Glenelg happened between 1969 - 1974, a period of 6 years.
I think the Norwood era of pillaging the Bays began the following year, in 1975, then I think Port's 1977 flag came with kind proceeds from Glenelg.
You'd have to say Sturt softened them up for Port and Norwood to continually ransack flags from the Tigers over the following decades.

therisingblues wrote:

mickey wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.

I think Port have them 5-1.

regards,

REB

Those 5 came in a 15 year span too

Hmmm, interesting.
Sturt's plundering of Glenelg happened between 1969 - 1974, a period of 6 years.
I think the Norwood era of pillaging the Bays began the following year, in 1975, then I think Port's 1977 flag came with kind proceeds from Glenelg.
You'd have to say Sturt softened them up for Port and Norwood to continually ransack flags from the Tigers over the following decades.

We were beating the Yabs in Grand Finals before it was cool, way back in 1950. Cornesy was in his first season and Clark Gable was the talk of Hollywood. That was so long ago everyone ran out in Black and White so the umpires got really confused, didn't know who to give the free kicks to. We could also bring up Sturt's wins against Norwood in Grand Finals...it would be one of the thinnest books in Football.

regards,

REB

All this talk isn't helping chaps...

I've thrown in some coin and I quite like the discussion too.

MatteeG wrote:All this talk isn't helping chaps...

I think we've covered many reasons why we'd like the Tigers to survive.

Booney wrote:I've thrown in some coin and I quite like the discussion too.

Yep I have quite happily donated to that charity over the years as well

BY ANDREW CAPEL

GLENELG Football Club — on its knees and fighting for its SANFL survival two years ago — has taken a major step towards securing its financial future by recording a massive operating profit for 2017.

The Tigers’ surplus of $681,739 smashed their 2016 profit of $14,278.

Prior to that Glenelg had endured four consecutive operating losses totalling more than $1 million.

The result is a tremendous boost to the club, which in 2016 launched a debt demolition campaign, titled “Save The Tigers’’, after revealing it was $3.4 million in debt.

Much of this was due to borrowing $2.4 million from the council in 2002 to build a function centre at its Brighton Road headquarters.

Members and supporters rallied behind the stricken club and last year the Tigers — in the SANFL since 1921 — struck a significant deal with Holdfast Bay Council to have some of the interest on its council loan written off or waived with plans to turn the ground into a major sporting and community hub.

This included knocking down the H.Y. Sparks grandstand, which had its roof blown off in a storm in December, 2016, and having a grass mound with seating on the western side of the ground.

This is due for completion next month.

As part of a financial restructuring at Glenelg, 50 per cent of the function centre floor space has been leased to the ACH Group.

President Nick Chigwidden hailed the Tigers’ strong financial result but warned there was still plenty of hard work ahead for the club, putting the extraordinary financial turnaround down to some one-off payments.

These included an interest saving of $188,685 from council, a $163,025 payroll tax refund and $412,000 from the SANFL Land Investment Fund while the club reduced its expenditure by $166,650.

“From where the club has been this is an outstanding result,’’ Chigwidden said.

“In 12 months we have been able to reduce our liabilities a lot, whether it’s loans to council, the bank or our trading creditors, to get back to a very manageable stage where we can now run the business strategically more than reactionary.

“However we understand that without the continued support of the council and the one-off payments the long term sustainability of the club would be jeopardised so we have to continue to work diligently in all areas of the club to make sure we continue to move forward.’’

Now if they could just find a way to learn how to win and make finals they'll be almost there as a footy club!

Those one off payments total about $80k more than the recorded profit so looks tough to repeat. Also, how'd they manage the Payroll Tax refund?

Regardless, excellent news, need the Bays (like all clubs) to hang around and be healthy.

I’m skeptical of some of these financial reports released so far

West after continued losses made a Statuary profit of $122k

I know that some belt tightning and hard work has been done by the financial committee but it is an enormous 12 month turnaround

They are learning form Port to hide the truth of your financial position

surely that is all bollocks???

I have an idea to help all clubs finances.
We only play 18 games in 23 weeks.
Increase the number of games played in these 5 weeks,
more home games for every club should result in increased profit for very club.
Obvious to me,
or am I missing something?

Clubs and/or SANFL probably don't feel they could attract the additional $$ in sponsorship to cover the additional wages of players and staff, as well as additional costs for umpiring and statistics which definitely add up.

22 games over 23 weeks would be fantastic with a mid-season bye, but can't help but feel the 18 games is here to stay for financial reasons.

Same as why we only get 18 Seven Network games per season when there's far more weeks of footy than that. All about the $$.

I’ve got Peter Johnston’s 60th at the bay disco on Saturday night
No presents / only donations to the club
I’d pay more if Phil Carmen came and sorted out Cornes again
BTW, a GFC lunch on Friday as the prelude with Sheeds and WOW Jones speaking

scott wrote:Clubs and/or SANFL probably don't feel they could attract the additional $$ in sponsorship to cover the additional wages of players and staff, as well as additional costs for umpiring and statistics which definitely add up.

22 games over 23 weeks would be fantastic with a mid-season bye, but can't help but feel the 18 games is here to stay for financial reasons.

Same as why we only get 18 Seven Network games per season when there's far more weeks of footy than that. All about the $$.

... only about 3/4 of that exposure to the actual SANFL clubs each year.

scott wrote:Clubs and/or SANFL probably don't feel they could attract the additional $$ in sponsorship to cover the additional wages of players and staff, as well as additional costs for umpiring and statistics which definitely add up.

22 games over 23 weeks would be fantastic with a mid-season bye, but can't help but feel the 18 games is here to stay for financial reasons.

Same as why we only get 18 Seven Network games per season when there's far more weeks of footy than that. All about the $$.

Realistically how much income is derived from home games? Given the downward trend of crowds I highly doubt more games is going to boost the bottom line by much.

JK wrote: Also, how'd they manage the Payroll Tax refund?

Can only think they submitted payroll numbers way and above what they actually were in a recent financial year. Hard to fathom on both fronts though.