SA Footy

Being reported that the sanfl and crows are within days of finalising a price for the sale of it's afl licence.

Which means what?

I would assume once they own the licence they won't have to pay a dividend back to the sanfl

Have nothing to do with the sanfl, and stand on their own 2 feet.

mickey wrote:I would assume once they own the licence they won't have to pay a dividend back to the sanfl

No but money will come back to the SANFL through the SMA as joint managers of Adelaide oval (sale of SMA corporate areas, food and beverage sales etc) and it won't be used to prop up one of the clubs. Certainly not as much money as used to get out of footy park but the outgoings will be lower!

Is it correct that if the Crows and Power buy their SANFL licences then they will not have any link to the SANFL? If so, then what does the SANFL have to gain by allowing the Power/Crows to have a reserves side running around in the SANFL? Sure, I can see plenty of benefits for the AFL sides (their squad gets to play together against good quality opposition) but absolutely zero benefits for the SANFL. At best, there is a neutral outcome but at worst (and the likely scenario) is that it severely impacts the competition.

Why does the SANFL now tell the AFL sides to nick off?

Mr Fuller wrote:Is it correct that if the Crows and Power buy their SANFL licences then they will not have any link to the SANFL? If so, then what does the SANFL have to gain by allowing the Power/Crows to have a reserves side running around in the SANFL? Sure, I can see plenty of benefits for the AFL sides (their squad gets to play together against good quality opposition) but absolutely zero benefits for the SANFL. At best, there is a neutral outcome but at worst (and the likely scenario) is that it severely impacts the competition.

Why does the SANFL now tell the AFL sides to nick off?

Won't happen, as the SANFL will still be receiving money from the afl teams on top of the money the SMA for the next 15 years as a part of the deal

Once (if) the SANFL offloads their AFL licences then intuitively you would think they could then thumb their noses at the AFL, but I very much doubt it.

The AFL doesn't have to play ball with the SANFL any more (as if they have done in the past anyway), and they can make it very hard for the SANFL if they want to. There is also the need for the SANFL via the SMA to have AFL teams as tenants of Adelaide Oval.

So whilst it would feel good to tell them to go get, I doubt that will occur.

What it will do is give the SANFL some sort of independence as described by am Bays, but unfortunately the SANFL will forever be under the shadow of the financial might of the AFL.

Also, the SANFL don't have a lot of bargaining power at the moment and the AFL (if it wanted to) could let the SANFL bleed a bit more propping up Port. In fact it has already.

Consider how much (or little) money the AFL have invested in Port (and the Crows), the SANFL and the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, especially when you consider the truck loads they have wasted on the non football states.

Who will hold the upper hand in debates between the AFL sides and SMA with regards to the cost of using the stadium? What happens if the AFL sides don't like the deal in the future and with the help of the AFL decide to build their own stadium? i.e. what happened between the SANFL and SACA back in the 70's. Not necessarily talking now, but in 10-20 years? The SANFL would then get nothing from the AFL via SMA. Surely, unless desperate, the SANFL should keep the Crows licence. Can get rid of the 2nd one.

pafc1870 wrote:

Mr Fuller wrote:Is it correct that if the Crows and Power buy their SANFL licences then they will not have any link to the SANFL? If so, then what does the SANFL have to gain by allowing the Power/Crows to have a reserves side running around in the SANFL? Sure, I can see plenty of benefits for the AFL sides (their squad gets to play together against good quality opposition) but absolutely zero benefits for the SANFL. At best, there is a neutral outcome but at worst (and the likely scenario) is that it severely impacts the competition.

Why does the SANFL now tell the AFL sides to nick off?

Won't happen, as the SANFL will still be receiving money from the afl teams on top of the money the SMA for the next 15 years as a part of the deal

We receive money from SMA because we have 4 reps on the board (Not port or crows). So That has nothing to do with you.

We have allowed you to pay off your licence for 15 years. If you dont like what the SANFL does from here on in what you gonna do.

Stop paying ????

Do you really want independence ???

UK Fan wrote:

pafc1870 wrote:

Mr Fuller wrote:Is it correct that if the Crows and Power buy their SANFL licences then they will not have any link to the SANFL? If so, then what does the SANFL have to gain by allowing the Power/Crows to have a reserves side running around in the SANFL? Sure, I can see plenty of benefits for the AFL sides (their squad gets to play together against good quality opposition) but absolutely zero benefits for the SANFL. At best, there is a neutral outcome but at worst (and the likely scenario) is that it severely impacts the competition.

Why does the SANFL now tell the AFL sides to nick off?

Won't happen, as the SANFL will still be receiving money from the afl teams on top of the money the SMA for the next 15 years as a part of the deal

We receive money from SMA because we have 4 reps on the board (Not port or crows). So That has nothing to do with you.

We have allowed you to pay off your licence for 15 years. If you dont like what the SANFL does from here on in what you gonna do.

Stop paying ????

Do you really want independence ???

no, if you read what I said, the $15m is completely separate to the money the SMA are getting, it's a condition of the sale of the licence. And as for your "allowed us to pay off the licence fee over 15 years" comment, i'll just Our licence was paid off at the end of 2006. The SANFL paid the $4m licence fee to the AFL in October 1996, and they gave us 10 years to pay it back. Our last payment for the licence was $371,6000 and was paid on October 31 2006.

Get rid of the Power licence and keep the Cash Crows to generate some monies for the SANFL local comp to keep it alive.

Yah i like !!

pafc1870 wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

pafc1870 wrote:

Mr Fuller wrote:Is it correct that if the Crows and Power buy their SANFL licences then they will not have any link to the SANFL? If so, then what does the SANFL have to gain by allowing the Power/Crows to have a reserves side running around in the SANFL? Sure, I can see plenty of benefits for the AFL sides (their squad gets to play together against good quality opposition) but absolutely zero benefits for the SANFL. At best, there is a neutral outcome but at worst (and the likely scenario) is that it severely impacts the competition.

Why does the SANFL now tell the AFL sides to nick off?

Won't happen, as the SANFL will still be receiving money from the afl teams on top of the money the SMA for the next 15 years as a part of the deal

We receive money from SMA because we have 4 reps on the board (Not port or crows). So That has nothing to do with you.

We have allowed you to pay off your licence for 15 years. If you dont like what the SANFL does from here on in what you gonna do.

Stop paying ????

Do you really want independence ???

no, if you read what I said, the $15m is completely separate to the money the SMA are getting, it's a condition of the sale of the licence. And as for your "allowed us to pay off the licence fee over 15 years" comment, i'll just Our licence was paid off at the end of 2006. The SANFL paid the $4m licence fee to the AFL in October 1996, and they gave us 10 years to pay it back. Our last payment for the licence was $371,6000 and was paid on October 31 2006.

I never said it was the same. The $15 mill is our payment from you to have your independence. Ie. Its a debt you have to pay it back.

As I say if we dont give you afl reserves. What are you/afl gonna do ????? Not pay it back.

The SMA revenue we receive is because we have reps on SMA and own Footy park. Yet again if we dont grant you afl reserves .

What you/afl gonna do to stop us receiving revenue ???


Thus the two points you made are null and void IMHO

the points you make don't mean anything. I know how the SMA works (and in the near future, won't work), I don't dispute that.

re:the reserves, in the end I don't think it will be up to Port, Adelaide or the SANFL to decide that issue, I think the AFL will be pricks and use their power over funding for the SANFL to make things happen, which I don't agree should happen.

The $15m, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), is the payment for the licences, the Crows paying more of the $1m a year than Port will be, it's not a case of "deciding not to pay it". Not sure if this is in addition to the annual dividend the Power and Crows pay to the SANFL as a part of the current licencing agreement. (and before people say anything, yes, the Power have returned a dividend to the SANFL every year they've been in the AFL, just recently we've received a lot more back in return in bail outs).

In regards to your previous question about if we really want independence, yes we do. As bad as our board has been in the last 5 or so years, half of them have been appointed by the SANFL. Both the Power and the Crows are strongly in favour in actually being able to appoint our own boards. Port Adelaide is in much better shape now than it was 12 months ago, both in the board room, financially, and in brand reputation. 12 months ago the idea of so called going it alone gave me concerns, not so much now.

One thing I strongly agree with you on UK Fan, is that the SANFL should sell off AFL licences, sell land at west lakes (or at least build on it and make money from the rent) and make a sanfl future fund whilst living off SMA revenue. I'm not sure why AAMI Stadium should have to be held on to as long as it will be.

How are Port going to afford the licence?

Dutchy wrote:How are Port going to afford the licence?

pretty sure the AFL are sorting that part out, Port will pay it off from them.

eye owe you, now please can we have?

pafc1870 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:How are Port going to afford the licence?

pretty sure the AFL are sorting that part out, Port will pay it off from them.

Hardly surprising Port would need another handout. 17th season and the same issues plague them, in fact they get worse. Can't imagine why in their 25th, 30th or 40th there would be anything different happening. Coupled with the inevitable destruction of their SANFL presence, Port Adelaide joining the AFL may end up being the very thing that kills them.

Grahaml wrote:

pafc1870 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:How are Port going to afford the licence?

pretty sure the AFL are sorting that part out, Port will pay it off from them.

Hardly surprising Port would need another handout. 17th season and the same issues plague them, in fact they get worse. Can't imagine why in their 25th, 30th or 40th there would be anything different happening. Coupled with the inevitable destruction of their SANFL presence, Port Adelaide joining the AFL may end up being the very thing that kills them.

getting worse? I'm not sure how much you've actually been following what's happened in the last 12 months

Grahaml wrote:

pafc1870 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:How are Port going to afford the licence?

pretty sure the AFL are sorting that part out, Port will pay it off from them.

Hardly surprising Port would need another handout. 17th season and the same issues plague them, in fact they get worse. Can't imagine why in their 25th, 30th or 40th there would be anything different happening. Coupled with the inevitable destruction of their SANFL presence, Port Adelaide joining the AFL may end up being the very thing that kills them.

2 years ago. id say noooooo. now .**** off u dole bludgers