The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[Aerie]

That's the NRL model.

I meant U21 State Comp as in SA / VIC Metro / Vic Country / WA etc like the current U18 National Carnival. I believe this may be the result of that meeting Big Phil was talking about. I hope not.

[TimmiesChin]

Determined by the AFL clubs?
Yeah, thats fair. They have proven themselves to be totally selfless in all things.

Where have I wsaid AFL clubs should determine their rent. I've mentioned 'fair rent', but haven't suggested the AFL decide what fair is.

Once again just like AAMI, you signed the agreement and are unhappy about it within a season. Forgive me for thinking that your clubs are worse negotiators than Neville Chamberlain.

I'm not sure iuf you're getting two themes mixed up here. My posts have all been about 'if AFL sides were to pull out of SANFL' that Adelaide Oval deal should be revisited, I would think thats logical as the AFL clubs are being provided somewhere to play by the SANFL club and should be paying for it, if the SANFL no longer provided this then the landscape would have changed.

As for the clubs complaining currently, I think they have just raised some concerns that the models provided aren't holding true..... but I get the impression it something that will be monitored and reviewed. Obviously the clubs are expecting certain uplifts based on certain conditions, and if that isn't the case would have every right to work out why.

[Aerie]

Great article from Warren Partland in today's paper...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6922482960

Quit the charade, Magpies are dead...

THE Port Adelaide Magpies are in name only and are not the true Magpies.

Port Adelaide and the SANFL can voice their disapproval as much as they want but the charade is already over after just eight rounds.

They ceased to be the Magpies when they were given a licence to include Eagles, Roosters, Bulldogs and Tigers in the side.

Paul Stewart is a Woodville-West Torrens product, last year Cameron Hitchcock was in the Glenelg jumper and Sam Colquhoun learned his football at Central District. State league clubs are now playing against players they developed who signed with the Power for the AFL.

The Power, just like the Crows, wanted teams in the state league so they could keep their players together. Any club with a second side calls it their reserves under the same label.

The Crows didn’t come up with the Galahs or Pigeons for their second side. They stuck with the Crows and while they prefer the team be tagged its state league side, it is still acknowledged as their reserves.

So why is the Power reserves called the Magpies, especially when products of other state league programs are involved? And don’t they want to be known as the one club?

The difference between the Crows and Power reserves is the more favourable conditions offered to Port Adelaide, which was allowed to retain key personnel from last year’s Magpies outfit.

Next year, Port Adelaide will lose its zones and under age teams. However, the damage is already being done on the evidence of the past six weeks.

The Power reserves have won their past six games by a combined 423 points at an average of more than 70. Their past two wins were by 50 and 60 points against Sturt and South Adelaide respectively. Those two teams sat second on the ladder underneath the Power reserves going into those battles.

The Power reserves have also beaten the Eagles by 58 points. It is the Eagles’ only loss.

When the Crows were given the green light to field a team in the state league and Port Adelaide was allowed to keep its reserves at Alberton and not spread throughout the competition, there were plenty of nerves of an AFL team domination.

Already clubs are relying on Power injuries to bring it back to the pack.

No doubt if the Power reserves win the grand final the club will claim it as an extension of the Magpies’ proud history. Yeah, right.

True article. Good to see some mainstream media bringing this to question. The AFL clubs obviously missed getting Partland involved as an Ambassador.

[smac]

Why should the 2 AFL clubs have a say on SMA? I wouldn't appoint a tenant in my rental property as my agent to manage the property.

Because like it or lump it, the two AFL sides are the biggest party involved in Adelaide Oval and should at least have a voice.

Wky was it again that the SANFL originally left Adelaide Oval and set up footy park. Wasn't it because they were the biggest source of revenue of Adelaide Oval but where getting no input ? (or something like that).

They got a seat at the negotiating table for their lease. If they ****** that up, whose fault is it?

[Booney]

And here I was thinking there were no more revelations to unearth!

[TimmiesChin]

Why should the 2 AFL clubs have a say on SMA? I wouldn't appoint a tenant in my rental property as my agent to manage the property.

Because like it or lump it, the two AFL sides are the biggest party involved in Adelaide Oval and should at least have a voice.

Wky was it again that the SANFL originally left Adelaide Oval and set up footy park. Wasn't it because they were the biggest source of revenue of Adelaide Oval but where getting no input ? (or something like that).

They got a seat at the negotiating table for their lease. If they ****** that up, whose fault is it?

Firstly, who said they ****** things up. Situations change over time, which is why they should have a voice.

Surely these organisations are big enough to work cooperatively, in the best interests of all parties rather than treating the two biggest revenue raisers as the enemy with a big stick, because that sort of arrangement only leads to bad times.

[dedja]

So you were on the bones of your arse a couple of years ago happy to use everyone else's money to stay afloat and have now seemingly won the lottery, and you're still not satisfied?

It's still the honeymoon period at Adelaide Oval, those tarps are still ready to be hauled out if things turn to shit sometime down the track.

[smac]

Why should the 2 AFL clubs have a say on SMA? I wouldn't appoint a tenant in my rental property as my agent to manage the property.

Because like it or lump it, the two AFL sides are the biggest party involved in Adelaide Oval and should at least have a voice.

Wky was it again that the SANFL originally left Adelaide Oval and set up footy park. Wasn't it because they were the biggest source of revenue of Adelaide Oval but where getting no input ? (or something like that).

They got a seat at the negotiating table for their lease. If they ****** that up, whose fault is it?

Firstly, who said they ****** things up. Situations change over time, which is why they should have a voice.

Surely these organisations are big enough to work cooperatively, in the best interests of all parties rather than treating the two biggest revenue raisers as the enemy with a big stick, because that sort of arrangement only leads to bad times.

What could have changed in the first couple of months of the deal?

Given crowds are up and cash is supposedly down, the only thing I can see is that they didn't do their sums properly. They can't blame AFL, SANFL, SMA or anyone else for that. They should have done those sums for themselves, shouldn't they?

[dedja]

And here I was thinking there were no more revelations to unearth!

More conspiracy theories than flight MH370!

[TimmiesChin]

Given crowds are up and cash is supposedly down, the only thing I can see is that they didn't do their sums properly. They can't blame AFL, SANFL, SMA or anyone else for that. They should have done those sums for themselves, shouldn't they?

Not everyone has Maths & Computer Science degrees hey smac.

But if the assumptions and parameters they are given to work on are incorrect .... (uplift was based on an expected crowd figure)

Using your argument that if the clubs have agreed to a deal, they should suck it up ... should the same argument be made to the SANFL clubs regarding the Crows/Port reserves ? I mean, we are what - 8 weeks in ?
The SANFL clubs should have done their due diligence. (or does this argument only work one way)

In which case this thread should be closed and everyone should just shut up and deal with it.

[dedja]

Given crowds are up and cash is supposedly down, the only thing I can see is that they didn't do their sums properly. They can't blame AFL, SANFL, SMA or anyone else for that. They should have done those sums for themselves, shouldn't they?

Not everyone has Maths & Computer Science degrees hey smac.

Hey, I've got one of them, does that mean I'm smart?

[TimmiesChin]

Given crowds are up and cash is supposedly down, the only thing I can see is that they didn't do their sums properly. They can't blame AFL, SANFL, SMA or anyone else for that. They should have done those sums for themselves, shouldn't they?

Not everyone has Maths & Computer Science degrees hey smac.

Hey, I've got one of them, does that mean I'm smart?

Dunno about smart, but you should be able to do your sums using imaginary and complex number algebra.

[smac]

Given crowds are up and cash is supposedly down, the only thing I can see is that they didn't do their sums properly. They can't blame AFL, SANFL, SMA or anyone else for that. They should have done those sums for themselves, shouldn't they?

Not everyone has Maths & Computer Science degrees hey smac.

But if the assumptions and parameters they are given to work on are incorrect .... (uplift was based on an expected crowd figure)

Using your argument that if the clubs have agreed to a deal, they should suck it up ... should the same argument be made to the SANFL clubs regarding the Crows/Port reserves ? I mean, we are what - 8 weeks in ?
The SANFL clubs should have done their due diligence. (or does this argument only work one way)

In which case this thread should be closed and everyone should just shut up and deal with it.

It's Commerce and Computer Science, but let's not be picky. I would have thought the accountant at PAFC was involved in crunching the numbers? I imagine they have a qualification of some sort.

Your last point is well made, particularly if the SMA lied to the 2 franchises, just like the 2 franchises lied to the SANFL clubs.

[bennymacca]

Given crowds are up and cash is supposedly down, the only thing I can see is that they didn't do their sums properly. They can't blame AFL, SANFL, SMA or anyone else for that. They should have done those sums for themselves, shouldn't they?

Not everyone has Maths & Computer Science degrees hey smac.

Hey, I've got one of them, does that mean I'm smart?

Nope, means you weren't smart enough to be an engineer

[dedja]

Given crowds are up and cash is supposedly down, the only thing I can see is that they didn't do their sums properly. They can't blame AFL, SANFL, SMA or anyone else for that. They should have done those sums for themselves, shouldn't they?

Not everyone has Maths & Computer Science degrees hey smac.

Hey, I've got one of them, does that mean I'm smart?

Dunno about smart, but you should be able to do your sums using imaginary and complex number algebra.

i agree

[tipper]

(uplift was based on an expected crowd figure)

so whats wrong? was the crowd figure off? i thought pretty much every game so far had been a sellout? cant possibly get more of a crowd than that. if the income generated by those crowds isnt as high as expected, then someone at the club didnt do their due diligence on the numbers provided to them surely? and if it is because the games are a sellout but members arent turning up to watch, isnt that the clubs problem? and hasnt that problem existed here in adelaide since the crows inception nearly 25 years ago?

In which case this thread should be closed and everyone should just shut up and deal with it.

difference is the sanfl has the power to correct the situation. they can vote the afl reserves sides out for the beginning of the 2016 season (not that i think they will, but hey, i can dream)

wish i could complain to my landlord "i am not earning as much as i expected i would this year, lower my rent please...." and expect it to actually work

[TimmiesChin]

wish i could complain to my landlord "i am not earning as much as i expected i would this year, lower my rent please...." and expect it to actually work

http://www.adelaideoval.com.au/faq/117/faqs.aspx
Who owns Adelaide Oval?
Adelaide Oval is owned by the State Government and leased to the Adelaide Oval SMA Ltd for a period of 80 years. The Adelaide Oval SMA Ltd is responsible for the management of Adelaide Oval.

[tipper]

wish i could complain to my landlord "i am not earning as much as i expected i would this year, lower my rent please...." and expect it to actually work

http://www.adelaideoval.com.au/faq/117/faqs.aspx
Who owns Adelaide Oval?
Adelaide Oval is owned by the State Government and leased to the Adelaide Oval SMA Ltd for a period of 80 years. The Adelaide Oval SMA Ltd is responsible for the management of Adelaide Oval.

your point? looks like the two afl clubs are stuck dealing with the SMA (and therefore the SANFL) for the next 8 decades. looks like a lot of revenue the SANFL can get in that time. good news

notice you also ignored my other points.....

[UK Fan]

wish i could complain to my landlord "i am not earning as much as i expected i would this year, lower my rent please...." and expect it to actually work

http://www.adelaideoval.com.au/faq/117/faqs.aspx
Who owns Adelaide Oval?
Adelaide Oval is owned by the State Government and leased to the Adelaide Oval SMA Ltd for a period of 80 years. The Adelaide Oval SMA Ltd is responsible for the management of Adelaide Oval.

Yes, its called sub-leasing. The SMA are still your landlords.

[TimmiesChin]

notice you also ignored my other points.....

You're other point didn't warrant a response as they were plain stupid.

The model uplift was based upon an average home crowd figure - ie what our uplift would be given we maintained that crowd level. If the clubs go over and above that figure and make more ... good for them, but it doesn't change the modelled figured for the target crowd figure. Port for instance is currently running close to 25% above that figure, however that doesn't change the underlying model.