The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[tipper]

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.

the model they agreed to, yet are now saying is not fair? once again, back to not doing their due diligence......

[TimmiesChin]

the model they agreed to, yet are now saying is not fair? once again, back to not doing their due diligence......

Replans occur on a daily basis across industry, its a fact of life. Models are built on assumptions and contingencies.

Do you know for a fact the agreement does not have the ability to revisit the model ... given you seem to know the contents of whats been signed ?

[tipper]

the model they agreed to, yet are now saying is not fair? once again, back to not doing their due diligence......

Replans occur on a daily basis across industry, its a fact of life. Models are built on assumptions and contingencies.

Do you know for a fact the agreement does not have the ability to revisit the model ... given you seem to know the contents of whats been signed ?

where have i suggested i know what the contents of the agreement are? ask the power about it, they signed it, i would hope they would have an intimate knowledge of its terms and conditions. it seems however that instead of revisiting the agreement, as you suggest they might be able to do (do you know for a fact they can revisit it??), they are more content whingeing to the media about how hard done by they are.... again.... after being provided the $500 million stadium they wanted. not sure that will work as a negotiation tactic, but they can go their hardest i guess

[TimmiesChin]

the model they agreed to, yet are now saying is not fair? once again, back to not doing their due diligence......

Replans occur on a daily basis across industry, its a fact of life. Models are built on assumptions and contingencies.

Do you know for a fact the agreement does not have the ability to revisit the model ... given you seem to know the contents of whats been signed ?

where have i suggested i know what the contents of the agreement are? ask the power about it, they signed it, i would hope they would have an intimate knowledge of its terms and conditions. it seems however that instead of revisiting the agreement, as you suggest they might be able to do (do you know for a fact they can revisit it??), they are more content whingeing to the media about how hard done by they are.... again.... after being provided the $500 million stadium they wanted. not sure that will work as a negotiation tactic, but they can go their hardest i guess

Well you're the one getting upset because the afl clubs are revisiting the plan in july.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

[smac]

Replans occur on a daily basis across industry, its a fact of life. Models are built on assumptions and contingencies.

Do you know for a fact the agreement does not have the ability to revisit the model ... given you seem to know the contents of whats been signed ?

I'd imagine Koch wouldn't publicly bleat if there were a mechanism in place for review.

And replans do occur, most definitely. But it's not often that the terms of a contract are changed so early in their life.

[Apachebulldog]

Read Wazza's article pretty good however the best part is all the comments from SOME of the one eyed PAFC supporters who still do not realise there is a AFL RESERVES team competing in the SANFL yep the POWER RESERVES LOL LOL LOL.

[tipper]

the model they agreed to, yet are now saying is not fair? once again, back to not doing their due diligence......

Replans occur on a daily basis across industry, its a fact of life. Models are built on assumptions and contingencies.

Do you know for a fact the agreement does not have the ability to revisit the model ... given you seem to know the contents of whats been signed ?

where have i suggested i know what the contents of the agreement are? ask the power about it, they signed it, i would hope they would have an intimate knowledge of its terms and conditions. it seems however that instead of revisiting the agreement, as you suggest they might be able to do (do you know for a fact they can revisit it??), they are more content whingeing to the media about how hard done by they are.... again.... after being provided the $500 million stadium they wanted. not sure that will work as a negotiation tactic, but they can go their hardest i guess

Well you're the one getting upset because the afl clubs are revisiting the plan in july.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

lol, getting upset. you seem to have more posts on that particular part of this thread than i do.........

[CUTTERMAN]

Interesting that Port were revisiting the terms even before the season started concerning Summertons contract and that of another ex AFL player.

[kickinit]

The thing you are forgetting Timmy is that the SANFL are part owners of AO and without them the move to AO would never of been made possible. The SANFL is entitled to claim rent off the AFL sides as long as they are tennants. The two AFL sides dont even get a say on the SMA. Id be more than happy for the SANFL to just collect rent of them for eternity, at a decent rate of course

Incorrect, the SANFL hold a lease to AO, at no stage have the SANFL bought AO. The government own AO and at any time can take that lease away from the SANFL.

[kickinit]

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?

What they are complaining about is the increase in "costs", which has been blown out to what the SANFL originally quoted. The reason why we have the SMA is to run the stadium and keep stadium costs down, so the AFL clubs could get a healthy piece of revenue unlike AAMI.

[Jim05]

The thing you are forgetting Timmy is that the SANFL are part owners of AO and without them the move to AO would never of been made possible. The SANFL is entitled to claim rent off the AFL sides as long as they are tennants. The two AFL sides dont even get a say on the SMA. Id be more than happy for the SANFL to just collect rent of them for eternity, at a decent rate of course

Incorrect, the SANFL hold a lease to AO, at no stage have the SANFL bought AO. The government own AO and at any time can take that lease away from the SANFL.

80 year lease though so they are in effect the landlord. Do you really think the SANFL would move away from AAMI without having a guarantee at AO?
The move to AO was dependant on the SANFL agreeing to move if they had said no you would still be stuck at AAMI so you actually should be thanking the SANFL

[kickinit]

(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

The AFL clubs could only do calculations on costs that where given to them. The big issue especially for port was their figures where generated on a lot lower crowd figures then what we have gotten so far, so they should be generating more income then projected but they aren't. It's like your landlord saying you have to pay for this and that which totals $1,000 but then when it actually happens he hits you with $5,000.

[mal]

Funnily enough, the ladder positions reflect the two concerns that people had about the inclusion of the AFL reserves sides to the competition:

1) They'd be too strong,

or

2) They don't give a stuff about results and are there for development.

The models by which both sides have gained entry to the competition seem to have brought both scenarios into effect.

At least when Port was belting the bejaysus out of everyone in the old days, they were doing it under the same rules as the rest of us.

The thing is though, if port were also down the bottom there would be no whinging in this thread whatsoever. It would be "sucked in, this what you wanted." People worried about two (or three) sets of rules wouldn't say a word

Smells of a little sour grapes at this point in time. But also shows that it doesn't take much to turn a really bad side into a really good one. Bottom end depth vitally important.

Benny
Been told by several people that Adelaide Crows reserves are not trying 100%
If thats the case I consider that much worse than Port Reserves dominance so far this season

I feared 2 things from the B Grade teams in 2014
A: If they tried they would be too good
B : If they didn't try that they would 'mock the comp'

Both are happening [from what Im being told]
I respect PPR more than ACR so far

[dedja]

Adelaide Oval is managed by the SMA with an 8 member board with 4 members each from the SANFL and SACA.

Neither the SANFL or SACA have any direct arrangements, leases or ownership of Adelaide Oval.

The SMA independently manages and operates Adelaide Oval on behalf of owner, the State Government, under a long term agreement.

Kickinit, you have got so many fundamental facts wrong it's bordering on embarrassing.

[bennymacca]

I'm sorry I just don't believe that they aren't trying. Possibly being played out of position or something, but you tell me that Jarryd Lyons or Andy otten aren't trying their guts out, their place in the senior team and possibly their career depends on it.

So tell me why they wouldn't try?

[kickinit]

The thing you are forgetting Timmy is that the SANFL are part owners of AO and without them the move to AO would never of been made possible. The SANFL is entitled to claim rent off the AFL sides as long as they are tennants. The two AFL sides dont even get a say on the SMA. Id be more than happy for the SANFL to just collect rent of them for eternity, at a decent rate of course

Incorrect, the SANFL hold a lease to AO, at no stage have the SANFL bought AO. The government own AO and at any time can take that lease away from the SANFL.

80 year lease though so they are in effect the landlord. Do you really think the SANFL would move away from AAMI without having a guarantee at AO?
The move to AO was dependant on the SANFL agreeing to move if they had said no you would still be stuck at AAMI so you actually should be thanking the SANFL

Yes they are the landlord, but as I said you are incorrect in saying they are part owner. The SANFL can't go out and sell AO can they? You do realise it was in the SANFL best interest to allow the move to AO. If the SANFL had said no the AFL license would of been removed from the SANFL and AO would of still gone a head. Imagine were the SANFL would be now if that had happened.

[dedja]

And still making things up.

[kickinit]

Adelaide Oval is managed by the SMA with an 8 member board with 4 members each from the SANFL and SACA.

Neither the SANFL or SACA have any direct arrangements, leases or ownership of Adelaide Oval.

The SMA independently manages and operates Adelaide Oval on behalf of owner, the State Government, under a long term agreement.

Kickinit, you have got so many fundamental facts wrong it's bordering on embarrassing.

I'm glad i'm wrong, means the Government can kick the SANFL off the board tomorrow.

[kickinit]

And still making things up.

which part would that be?

[dedja]

Nope, wrong again.