Power players leaving SANFL clubs to Magpies

[Dogwatcher]

Any other embarrassing Port posts you want highlighted Booney?

This one remains a firm favourite for its complete no idea grasp on things.

No I'm actually saying that since 1991, 80% of the revenue generated by both the AFC and PAFC has been diverted into SANFL coffers.
It's pretty common knowledge.

Please let it be noted in the minutes that I did not support, comment on nor endorse these statements.

Sorry, mate. As beenreal has appointed himself the Port's spokesman on this issue, any of his comments are reflective of the beliefs of Port Adelaide and its supporter base.

[kickinit]

nope, the saca did, and now the stadium management authority do. get paid out for the licences, still make money on the afl games there (as the landlord) and have less costs (no more port bailouts). the power never gave a dividend back to the sanfl anyway, so i really dont see how the sanfl will have less money under the new arrangement.

develop the land at west lakes on top of all that and maybe in a few years the sanfl can buy the afl after it all falls into a heap

they never gave a dividend but they have made money of the power and still under the current arrangement at AAMI stadium.

The land won't be worth that much due to it being right next to a giant football stadium. The smart thing for the SANFL to do is to get rid off AAMI stadium all together. If they are getting money from Adelaide oval there is no need to keep it.

I think you will find the Adelaide city council own Adelaide oval and lease it out to SMA. If the SMA do know own it then where in the heck did the SANFL get the millions of dollars from to buy half of the oval then?

[tipper]

nope, the saca did, and now the stadium management authority do. get paid out for the licences, still make money on the afl games there (as the landlord) and have less costs (no more port bailouts). the power never gave a dividend back to the sanfl anyway, so i really dont see how the sanfl will have less money under the new arrangement.

develop the land at west lakes on top of all that and maybe in a few years the sanfl can buy the afl after it all falls into a heap

they never gave a dividend but they have made money of the power and still under the current arrangement at AAMI stadium.

The land won't be worth that much due to it being right next to a giant football stadium. The smart thing for the SANFL to do is to get rid off AAMI stadium all together. If they are getting money from Adelaide oval there is no need to keep it.

I think you will find the Adelaide city council own Adelaide oval and lease it out to SMA. If the SMA do know own it then where in the heck did the SANFL get the millions of dollars from to buy half of the oval then?

they have made money off the power as the landlord of the stadium that they use every second week. or do you think that they should get the stadium hire free? they will continue to make money off the power at the new stadium, still as the landlord.

as far as i am aware the stadium at footy park is being partially dismantled. it will no longer be a 60000 (or whatever) seat stadium, that will reduce maintenance costs, and increase the attractiveness to prospective neighbours. personally i think the smart thing is to keep it, develop the land themselves and be the landlord there too. one off cash injection or long term income stream? i know which i would choose.

meh, long term lease, owners, either way the stadium management authority, and therefore the sanfl, will continue to make money by renting the stadium to events (i have had a quick google and cant see anything to confirm or deny ownership or lease arrangement, so it could be either). those events being mostly afl games in the winter, and cricket games in the summer.

the sanfl got the money to "buy" in to the arrangement (whether that is ownership or partners in the long term lease) from the state government. the saca had large debts. the state government paid the debts on the basis that the saca and the sanfl got together, upgraded the stadium (with more government money) and came up with a share arrangement for the stadium to see both cricket and afl footy back there. hence the whole move.

what rock have you been living under to not know all this already??

edit: found it, seems it is an 80 year lease http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/deve ... velopment/

[kickinit]

they have made money off the power as the landlord of the stadium that they use every second week. or do you think that they should get the stadium hire free? they will continue to make money off the power at the new stadium, still as the landlord.

as far as i am aware the stadium at footy park is being partially dismantled. it will no longer be a 60000 (or whatever) seat stadium, that will reduce maintenance costs, and increase the attractiveness to prospective neighbours. personally i think the smart thing is to keep it, develop the land themselves and be the landlord there too. one off cash injection or long term income stream? i know which i would choose.

meh, long term lease, owners, either way the stadium management authority, and therefore the sanfl, will continue to make money by renting the stadium to events (i have had a quick google and cant see anything to confirm or deny ownership or lease arrangement, so it could be either). those events being mostly afl games in the winter, and cricket games in the summer.

the sanfl got the money to "buy" in to the arrangement (whether that is ownership or partners in the long term lease) from the state government. the saca had large debts. the state government paid the debts on the basis that the saca and the sanfl got together, upgraded the stadium (with more government money) and came up with a share arrangement for the stadium to see both cricket and afl footy back there. hence the whole move.

what rock have you been living under to not know all this already??

edit: found it, seems it is an 80 year lease http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/deve ... velopment/

I understand everything you have said, but to me if the sanfl no onger have any involvement in the afl sides then why do they get the opportunity to make money off them. Like a few people on here have said about getting rid off afl players altogether in the SANFL. They should do the same and get out of our AFL.

[tipper]

you obviously dont understand. if the sanfl (through the stadium management authority) have the rights to adelaide oval, they are entitled to make money on the hiring of that oval. if the afl sides dont want the sanfl to make money from them, build their own stadium. its quite simple. however the afl only seem to be interested in tipping money into queensland and new south wales lately so i guess the power and crows are stuck hiring the grounds that are already here.

every person or business is entitled to make money form their assets. do you own your house or are you renting? if you are renting, is the landlord making money form you using that house? if you hava a mortgage does the bank make money off you? how is that any different to the sanfl making money when the afl sides use their asset? (either footy park or aami stadium) they get to make money form them cos they own the rights the stadium.

basically if the power dont want the sanfl making any money off them, dont play your games at an sanfl owned (or controlled) stadium. seeing as the only stadium in adelaide that is of afl standard is owned by the sanfl, and the one being upgraded is controlled by the sanfl you are shit out of luck.

[Wedgie]

I'll let Port play in my backyard, plenty of room for its supporters and I'll even give them signage rights. I'll only charge half of what the SANFL will charge too!
Beer money goes to me though.

[Mark Dreher]

I'll let Port play in my backyard, plenty of room for its supporters and I'll even give them signage rights. I'll only charge half of what the SANFL will charge too!
Beer money goes to me though.

Any room for a couple of bay covers?

[topsywaldron]

Any other embarrassing Port posts you want highlighted Booney?

This one remains a firm favourite for its complete no idea grasp on things.

No I'm actually saying that since 1991, 80% of the revenue generated by both the AFC and PAFC has been diverted into SANFL coffers.
It's pretty common knowledge.

Please let it be noted in the minutes that I did not support, comment on nor endorse these statements.

Duly noted although it's the committees view that you didn't need to point it out.

[Brodlach]

I'll let Port play in my backyard, plenty of room for its supporters and I'll even give them signage rights. I'll only charge half of what the SANFL will charge too!
Beer money goes to me though.

Any room for a couple of bay covers?

Part of Wedgies grandstand

[tipper]

I'll let Port play in my backyard, plenty of room for its supporters and I'll even give them signage rights. I'll only charge half of what the SANFL will charge too!
Beer money goes to me though.

Any room for a couple of bay covers?

Part of Wedgies grandstand

needs a maccas logo or something on the cover...

[kickinit]

you obviously dont understand. if the sanfl (through the stadium management authority) have the rights to adelaide oval, they are entitled to make money on the hiring of that oval. if the afl sides dont want the sanfl to make money from them, build their own stadium. its quite simple. however the afl only seem to be interested in tipping money into queensland and new south wales lately so i guess the power and crows are stuck hiring the grounds that are already here.

every person or business is entitled to make money form their assets. do you own your house or are you renting? if you are renting, is the landlord making money form you using that house? if you hava a mortgage does the bank make money off you? how is that any different to the sanfl making money when the afl sides use their asset? (either footy park or aami stadium) they get to make money form them cos they own the rights the stadium.

basically if the power dont want the sanfl making any money off them, dont play your games at an sanfl owned (or controlled) stadium. seeing as the only stadium in adelaide that is of afl standard is owned by the sanfl, and the one being upgraded is controlled by the sanfl you are shit out of luck.

the thing that you obviously don't understand is the SANFL do not own Adelaide Oval. The second thing is the SMA was formed so both parties SACA and Port/Crows had equal representation on the board. Now that the license are being sold back to the AFL neither the crows or power have that. The SMA also report to Infrastructure Minister Tom Koutsantonis, who is currently investigating the make up of the board and to make sure the crows and powers best interest are in place. The sanfl where only there because they owned the power and crows license at the time of the make up of the board, once the licenses are sold I'd be very surprised if the SANFL are still sitting on that board.

[heater31]

you obviously dont understand. if the sanfl (through the stadium management authority) have the rights to adelaide oval, they are entitled to make money on the hiring of that oval. if the afl sides dont want the sanfl to make money from them, build their own stadium. its quite simple. however the afl only seem to be interested in tipping money into queensland and new south wales lately so i guess the power and crows are stuck hiring the grounds that are already here.

every person or business is entitled to make money form their assets. do you own your house or are you renting? if you are renting, is the landlord making money form you using that house? if you hava a mortgage does the bank make money off you? how is that any different to the sanfl making money when the afl sides use their asset? (either footy park or aami stadium) they get to make money form them cos they own the rights the stadium.

basically if the power dont want the sanfl making any money off them, dont play your games at an sanfl owned (or controlled) stadium. seeing as the only stadium in adelaide that is of afl standard is owned by the sanfl, and the one being upgraded is controlled by the sanfl you are shit out of luck.

the thing that you obviously don't understand is the SANFL do not own Adelaide Oval. The second thing is the SMA was formed so both parties SACA and Port/Crows had equal representation on the board. Now that the license are being sold back to the AFL neither the crows or power have that. The SMA also report to Infrastructure Minister Tom Koutsantonis, who is currently investigating the make up of the board and to make sure the crows and powers best interest are in place. The sanfl where only there because they owned the power and crows license at the time of the make up of the board, once the licenses are sold I'd be very surprised if the SANFL are still sitting on that board.

The way I interpret the make up of the SMA board from their website it is made up of both SACA and SANFL board members. The 2 AFL clubs have no say in SMA board matters.

[kickinit]

The way I interpret the make up of the SMA board from their website it is made up of both SACA and SANFL board members. The 2 AFL clubs have no say in SMA board matters.

yes that's correct, but the reason why the sanfl is on the board in the first place was because they owned the afl licenses, they where the ones that where there on behalf of the crows and port. And if they sell the licenses then they have no right of being there or getting any money from it.

[therisingblues]

What's the big deal about paying rent to the SANFL anyway? If the stadium was owned by McDonalds or Wallmart or Starbucks coffees you'd still have to pay rent to them, no matter who it is. Yet, because it's the SANFL there seems to be a bit of grumbling about it.
Upset not to be holding all the cards?

[heater31]

The way I interpret the make up of the SMA board from their website it is made up of both SACA and SANFL board members. The 2 AFL clubs have no say in SMA board matters.

yes that's correct, but the reason why the sanfl is on the board in the first place was because they owned the afl licenses, they where the ones that where there on behalf of the crows and port. And if they sell the licenses then they have no right of being there or getting any money from it.

This organisational chart says otherwise, http://www.sanfl.com.au/sma/org%20chart2010-06-17%20-%20revision%20A.pdf

You have made an assumption that since the AFL team's licence will not owned by the SANFL then they would have no say in the running of the new Stadium. The AFL Teams will be leasing the ground from the SMA which the SANFL are a 50% stakeholder with the SACA.

[whufc]

The way I interpret the make up of the SMA board from their website it is made up of both SACA and SANFL board members. The 2 AFL clubs have no say in SMA board matters.

yes that's correct, but the reason why the sanfl is on the board in the first place was because they owned the afl licenses, they where the ones that where there on behalf of the crows and port. And if they sell the licenses then they have no right of being there or getting any money from it.

This organisational chart says otherwise, http://www.sanfl.com.au/sma/org%20chart2010-06-17%20-%20revision%20A.pdf

You have made an assumption that since the AFL team's licence will not owned by the SANFL then they would have no say in the running of the new Stadium. The AFL Teams will be leasing the ground from the SMA which the SANFL are a 50% stakeholder with the SACA.

That's as simple as u can explain it.

The SANFL are a 50% stakeholder with or without the AFL licensces

[Jim05]

It doesnt matter who owns the stadium both clubs have to pay rent.
Kickinit are you upset that the SANFL and not some private consortium is getting the rent or do you just want to be freeloaders at AO.
Doesnt matter anyway, Port WILL be paying rent to the SMA, the other option is you build your own stadium

[kickinit]

This organisational chart says otherwise, http://www.sanfl.com.au/sma/org%20chart2010-06-17%20-%20revision%20A.pdf

You have made an assumption that since the AFL team's licence will not owned by the SANFL then they would have no say in the running of the new Stadium. The AFL Teams will be leasing the ground from the SMA which the SANFL are a 50% stakeholder with the SACA.

That's as simple as u can explain it.

The SANFL are a 50% stakeholder with or without the AFL licensces

yes the sanfl are 50% stakeholders, but how did they become that? they came to the party and where allowed to by holding the current afl licenses. And is also the reason why there is a current investigation into the make up of the SMA which could possibly lead to a change. And the only thing the sanfl is going to care about is how much money is going into their pockets, as we have already seen to admin cost have gone from a 2million budget to a 9million budget.

[heater31]

If the SANFL were not part of the SMA then they would not be selling the licences

[kickinit]

but the whole point of the adlaide oval deal was for a lean management to allow both the crows and port to make more revenue. Now you have a party that is there with no purpose but to make money. taking away from that revenue that is suppose to go the 2 clubs.