Power players leaving SANFL clubs to Magpies

[kickinit]

no the whole reason for the move to adelaide oval was so the power would draw a bigger crowd, and get a "clean" stadium to make a profit. the sanfl arent stealing anything. needs to be a bit of actual evidence for them to be done for that, not just cos you dont want them making money out of the deal.

and why would the government do it? to put it bluntly, they are dumb. since when have the government actually fixed anything? they are building the south road superway, on only part of south road that didnt actually have traffic problems, they are building a brand new hospital, with less capacity than the one they are going to bulldoze, all the while our population is increasing... etc.

at the time of the election, there was supposed popular support for a "new" stadium. the libs had a plan for a brand new stadium, the labs had this plan. once the election was over they went ahead with their plan, regardless if it was best for all concerned or not. it was a political point scoring exercise, nothing more. at the time it was said to be helpful for the power, as it would increase crowds. if it does, you win. if it doesnt, you will be in the same predicament you are now. either way, the power will still be (rightfully) charged rent for the stadium they use. the only way out of that is if the power own the stadium. even if the "adelaide council sold adelaide oval to the afl" as you suggested earlier, the afl would still charge the power rent, so you wouldnt be in any better position.

is your problem paying rent, or who the landlord is??

so you saying both the crows and power are lying then?

Power chief executive Keith Thomas said yesterday: "The original Adelaide Oval model put to us in 2009 was for a lean SMA to maximise the returns to the sports playing on the new Oval, in particular footy. We're asking why has that changed?"

Crows chairman Rob Chapman added: "The original intent was for a lean SMA that managed the Oval and its precinct - and maximised the return to football and cricket. That was always the intention.

[JK]

no the whole reason for the move to adelaide oval was so the power would draw a bigger crowd, and get a "clean" stadium to make a profit. the sanfl arent stealing anything. needs to be a bit of actual evidence for them to be done for that, not just cos you dont want them making money out of the deal.

and why would the government do it? to put it bluntly, they are dumb. since when have the government actually fixed anything? they are building the south road superway, on only part of south road that didnt actually have traffic problems, they are building a brand new hospital, with less capacity than the one they are going to bulldoze, all the while our population is increasing... etc.

at the time of the election, there was supposed popular support for a "new" stadium. the libs had a plan for a brand new stadium, the labs had this plan. once the election was over they went ahead with their plan, regardless if it was best for all concerned or not. it was a political point scoring exercise, nothing more. at the time it was said to be helpful for the power, as it would increase crowds. if it does, you win. if it doesnt, you will be in the same predicament you are now. either way, the power will still be (rightfully) charged rent for the stadium they use. the only way out of that is if the power own the stadium. even if the "adelaide council sold adelaide oval to the afl" as you suggested earlier, the afl would still charge the power rent, so you wouldnt be in any better position.

is your problem paying rent, or who the landlord is??

so you saying both the crows and power are lying then?

Power chief executive Keith Thomas said yesterday: "The original Adelaide Oval model put to us in 2009 was for a lean SMA to maximise the returns to the sports playing on the new Oval, in particular footy. We're asking why has that changed?"

Crows chairman Rob Chapman added: "The original intent was for a lean SMA that managed the Oval and its precinct - and maximised the return to football and cricket. That was always the intention.

The reason for the move to Adelaide Oval was because the projected returns to clubs were greater, based on current attendances (lower break oval at Adelaide Oval). It was also believed in some circles that a central location would/could provide a more convenient location which hopefully will lead to greater attendance levels.

It sounds as though the SMA has altered their level of take/return to the clubs, and I'm not sure why. Think they would want to have a pretty good reason otherwise Port and the Crows would justifiably feel somewhat shafted.

[tipper]

no the whole reason for the move to adelaide oval was so the power would draw a bigger crowd, and get a "clean" stadium to make a profit. the sanfl arent stealing anything. needs to be a bit of actual evidence for them to be done for that, not just cos you dont want them making money out of the deal.

and why would the government do it? to put it bluntly, they are dumb. since when have the government actually fixed anything? they are building the south road superway, on only part of south road that didnt actually have traffic problems, they are building a brand new hospital, with less capacity than the one they are going to bulldoze, all the while our population is increasing... etc.

at the time of the election, there was supposed popular support for a "new" stadium. the libs had a plan for a brand new stadium, the labs had this plan. once the election was over they went ahead with their plan, regardless if it was best for all concerned or not. it was a political point scoring exercise, nothing more. at the time it was said to be helpful for the power, as it would increase crowds. if it does, you win. if it doesnt, you will be in the same predicament you are now. either way, the power will still be (rightfully) charged rent for the stadium they use. the only way out of that is if the power own the stadium. even if the "adelaide council sold adelaide oval to the afl" as you suggested earlier, the afl would still charge the power rent, so you wouldnt be in any better position.

is your problem paying rent, or who the landlord is??

so you saying both the crows and power are lying then?

Power chief executive Keith Thomas said yesterday: "The original Adelaide Oval model put to us in 2009 was for a lean SMA to maximise the returns to the sports playing on the new Oval, in particular footy. We're asking why has that changed?"

Crows chairman Rob Chapman added: "The original intent was for a lean SMA that managed the Oval and its precinct - and maximised the return to football and cricket. That was always the intention.

is your problem paying rent, or who the landlord is??

[kickinit]

is your problem paying rent, or who the landlord is??

I don't have a problem with the crows or power having to pay rent, I don't have a problem with the government being the landlord. The problem I have is the sanfl where only every on the SMA so BOTH the crows and port (not just Port) have a say. Now that the sanfl is selling those licenses both clubs now have no say in what happens at Adelaide oval. And because of that we have already seen the SMA blow out from a promised 2million cost to 9million, seeing them take another 400 ultimate memberships (1.8million) and taking tax payers money that is not theirs.

[whufc]

is your problem paying rent, or who the landlord is??

I don't have a problem with the crows or power having to pay rent, I don't have a problem with the government being the landlord. The problem I have is the sanfl where only every on the SMA so BOTH the crows and port (not just Port) have a say. Now that the sanfl is selling those licenses both clubs now have no say in what happens at Adelaide oval. And because of that we have already seen the SMA blow out from a promised 2million cost to 9million, seeing them take another 400 ultimate memberships (1.8million) and taking tax payers money that is not theirs.

Why are the AFL clubs happy to by the licenses off the SANFL if its going to be a bad deal for them!

[tipper]

is your problem paying rent, or who the landlord is??

I don't have a problem with the crows or power having to pay rent, I don't have a problem with the government being the landlord. The problem I have is the sanfl where only every on the SMA so BOTH the crows and port (not just Port) have a say. Now that the sanfl is selling those licenses both clubs now have no say in what happens at Adelaide oval. And because of that we have already seen the SMA blow out from a promised 2million cost to 9million, seeing them take another 400 ultimate memberships (1.8million) and taking tax payers money that is not theirs.

sanfl are part of the sma so they would move away from footy park, and so FOOTBALL would be represented, and despite what the power may believe, football in this state consists of more than the afl sides. the government wanted a single "city" stadium, hence the adelaide oval redevelopment. the government is not currently the landlord of adelaide oval, the sma have an 80 year lease, so the sma is, even without a lease, the state government wouldnt be the landlord, its council land. if costs have gone up for the stadium, then the rent goes up, it isnt hard to understand. and the government freely gave the money away, who would turn down a free $500 million plus??

if you dont have a problem paying rent, then i am not sure what your argument is. the sma is the landlord, the sanfl have a share in the sma. therefore the sanfl will be making money on their asset. its simple business. the afl however, and the crowns and power, dont have a share in the sma. if they arent happy about that maybe they should have read the fine print before pushing for the move?

once again, if the power arent happy with the rental agreement, build their own stadium and problem solved

[hereselmo1]

No problem with paying rent but I would prefer it if my rental negotiator wasn't picked (and able to be removed) by my landlord.

[kickinit]

sanfl are part of the sma so they would move away from footy park, and so FOOTBALL would be represented, and despite what the power may believe, football in this state consists of more than the afl sides. the government wanted a single "city" stadium, hence the adelaide oval redevelopment. the government is not currently the landlord of adelaide oval, the sma have an 80 year lease, so the sma is, even without a lease, the state government wouldnt be the landlord, its council land. if costs have gone up for the stadium, then the rent goes up, it isnt hard to understand. and the government freely gave the money away, who would turn down a free $500 million plus??

if you dont have a problem paying rent, then i am not sure what your argument is. the sma is the landlord, the sanfl have a share in the sma. therefore the sanfl will be making money on their asset. its simple business. the afl however, and the crowns and power, dont have a share in the sma. if they arent happy about that maybe they should have read the fine print before pushing for the move?

once again, if the power arent happy with the rental agreement, build their own stadium and problem solved

seriously I never knew someone could be this dumb. For starters if you rent a house do you become the landlord? no the person that owns the property is the landlord, hence not the SMA. Secondly it's not just the power, so stop saying it's all about the power, the crows have also voiced their concern with the new cost. If you actually think it's not a issue then you clearly have no idea. maybe you should ask yourself if it wasn't a problem why the government are now trying to find out where all this money is going. why both the CROWS and power are both now crunching numbers to see if it is even going to be viable to go to adelaide oval.

[whufc]

Do you really think if the SANFL was at risk of losing their role in the SMA if they sell the AFL licences they would be going ahead with a deal.

Do you not also think the SMA are getting legal advice on what they can and cant do as the SMA.

[kickinit]

Do you really think if the SANFL was at risk of losing their role in the SMA if they sell the AFL licences they would be going ahead with a deal.

Do you not also think the SMA are getting legal advice on what they can and cant do as the SMA.

they should lose their role in the sma, give me one good reason why they should be there.

well seeing they have been found of taking money which was intended on paying for construction the of the stadium (tax payers money) and using it for themselves, do you think they have?

[whufc]

Do you really think if the SANFL was at risk of losing their role in the SMA if they sell the AFL licences they would be going ahead with a deal.

Do you not also think the SMA are getting legal advice on what they can and cant do as the SMA.

they should lose their role in the sma, give me one good reason why they should be there.

well seeing they have been found of taking money which was intended on paying for construction the of the stadium (tax payers money) and using it for themselves, do you think they have?

Answer this!!

If the SANFL knew they would lose their role in the SMA if they sold the licences do you think they would sell?

I don't want to hear what you 'think' should happen I want u to answer that question

[kickinit]

Do you really think if the SANFL was at risk of losing their role in the SMA if they sell the AFL licences they would be going ahead with a deal.

Do you not also think the SMA are getting legal advice on what they can and cant do as the SMA.

they should lose their role in the sma, give me one good reason why they should be there.

well seeing they have been found of taking money which was intended on paying for construction the of the stadium (tax payers money) and using it for themselves, do you think they have?

Answer this!!

If the SANFL knew they would lose their role in the SMA if they sold the licences do you think they would sell?

I don't want to hear what you 'think' should happen I want u to answer that question

yes seeing how dumb the sanfl and they worry about is how $$$ they are making. The reason why they have already shown they can not be in charge of the SMA.

Now answer mine give me one good reason why once the afl license are sold the sanfl should be on the SMA.

[whufc]

Do you really think if the SANFL was at risk of losing their role in the SMA if they sell the AFL licences they would be going ahead with a deal.

Do you not also think the SMA are getting legal advice on what they can and cant do as the SMA.

they should lose their role in the sma, give me one good reason why they should be there.

well seeing they have been found of taking money which was intended on paying for construction the of the stadium (tax payers money) and using it for themselves, do you think they have?

Answer this!!

If the SANFL knew they would lose their role in the SMA if they sold the licences do you think they would sell?

I don't want to hear what you 'think' should happen I want u to answer that question

yes seeing how dumb the sanfl and they worry about is how $$$ they are making. The reason why they have already shown they can not be in charge of the SMA.

Now answer mine give me one good reason why once the afl license are sold the sanfl should be on the SMA.

Simple because they are 50% stakeholders of the sma, they didn't get the lease soley beaded on having to hold the licences.

[kickinit]

Simple because they are 50% stakeholders of the sma, they didn't get the lease soley beaded on having to hold the licences.

why did they get the license then? Do you know if they had nothing to do with the crows or power that they wouldn't even been spoken to about adelaide oval. Do you also know there was no talk on the afl licenses being sold when the saca voted on the deal? So know that the sanfl are selling the licenses and have nothing to do with adelaide oval except to recieve money why should they be there? Seeing that I know you aint going to answer it or make up some crap they don't, it actually defeats the purpose of adelaide oval having them there.

[Ian]

It's not Rocket Science @kickinit, whufc is spot on, there was a lot more than being the owner of the AFL licences that gave the SANFL the right to be a partner in SMA, being owner of the premier footy stadium that had to make way for a Adelaide Oval upgrade would have had a much larger part in it

[am Bays]

Now answer mine give me one good reason why once the afl license are sold the sanfl should be on the SMA.

Easy, they are the Governing Sporting Organisation for Australian Football in this state, in the same way the SACA is the state goverening body for cricket in this state. They are the two bodies registered with the state governement (Office of Recreation and Sport) to manage the sports in this state.

The two governing bodies of the sporting codes that are the major users of the sporting facility are going to manage it.

As I was told when I first stared working in a state government. That's the way it is. If you don't like it stand for Parliament, get elected and then change it.

[TimmiesChin]

I seriously don't get people in this state anymore.

Surely it's in everyone's interest to have strong AFL and sanfl clubs, yet it seems some would rather see the other party fold, even if it means they miss out on revenue themselves and are worse for it.
The AFL sides are What they are because of the sa Footy heritage, while the sanfl is the second best comp in the country.in part because of the AFL generated revenues that are the biggest revenue stream in sa Footy.

I just don't get it anymore. Perhaps our energies would be better spent building another one way freeway.

[am Bays]

I seriously don't get people in this state anymore.

Surely it's in everyone's interest to have strong AFL and sanfl clubs, yet it seems some would rather see the other party fold, even if it means they miss out on revenue themselves and are worse for it.
The AFL sides are What they are because of the sa Footy heritage, while the sanfl is the second best comp in the country.in part because of the AFL generated revenues that are the biggest revenue stream in sa Footy.

I just don't get it anymore. Perhaps our energies would be better spent building another one way freeway.

Yup, agreed. bottom line we need people to get behind footy in this state and become members and/or attend games, whether it is SANFL level or AFL level, or local club level.

[kickinit]

It's not Rocket Science @kickinit, whufc is spot on, there was a lot more than being the owner of the AFL licences that gave the SANFL the right to be a partner in SMA, being owner of the premier footy stadium that had to make way for a Adelaide Oval upgrade would have had a much larger part in it

thats business, companies lose contract all the time to other companies that offer better deals. If the SANFL didn't own the license they would of had nothing to do with Adelaide oval or the SMA. why do you rekon everyone kept quiet when the SACA vote was going through? why because SACA would of said no due to them not having anything to do with it.

[Ian]

It's not Rocket Science @kickinit, whufc is spot on, there was a lot more than being the owner of the AFL licences that gave the SANFL the right to be a partner in SMA, being owner of the premier footy stadium that had to make way for a Adelaide Oval upgrade would have had a much larger part in it

thats business, companies lose contract all the time to other companies that offer better deals. If the SANFL didn't own the license they would of had nothing to do with Adelaide oval or the SMA. why do you rekon everyone kept quiet when the SACA vote was going through? why because SACA would of said no due to them not having anything to do with it.

If you really believe that, perhaps you are what you accused the SANFL of being