SA Footy

Booney wrote:CGAF > immediately asked pertinent question.

Is there a bigger spanner on this site? I'll wait.

Didn't think so.

CGAF about China and what appear to be figures that could only be considered “ball park” at best.

I would of thought reconnecting with members who have walked away in droves would be priority number one for the club atm.

UK Fan wrote:

Booney wrote:CGAF > immediately asked pertinent question.

Is there a bigger spanner on this site? I'll wait.

Didn't think so.

CGAF about China and what appear to be figures that could only be considered “ball park” at best.

I would of thought reconnecting with members who have walked away in droves would be priority number one for the club atm.

I'd consider securing the financial future for any football club priority number one. 10K fans (although hypothetical) leaving doesn't even come close to the potential millions to be made from the China relationship.
On a side note: Fans who 'walk away' from any club are not fans, they're spectators.

Spangas wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

Booney wrote:CGAF > immediately asked pertinent question.

Is there a bigger spanner on this site? I'll wait.

Didn't think so.

CGAF about China and what appear to be figures that could only be considered “ball park” at best.

I would of thought reconnecting with members who have walked away in droves would be priority number one for the club atm.

I'd consider securing the financial future for any football club priority number one. 10K fans (although hypothetical) leaving doesn't even come close to the potential millions to be made from the China relationship.
On a side note: Fans who 'walk away' from any club are not fans, they're spectators.

Good darts, especially when talking to him.

Booney wrote:CGAF > immediately asked pertinent question.

Is there a bigger spanner on this site? I'll wait.

Didn't think so.

Can I guess you’ll deflect with more pot shots as oppose to answering the pertinent questions ??

Playing the man not the ball is so unlike PAFC supporters.

I guess it’s easy to understand why PAFC is such an unattractive commodity atm.

You know in diving when you work out the score, you take away the best score and worst score...that's how I feel with this argument.
think both of you are at the extremes.

MW wrote:You know in diving when you work out the score, you take away the best score and worst score...that's how I feel with this argument.
think both of you are at the extremes.

1 ) I'm not aware that Koch is stepping down
2 ) I doubt the China Strategy will come to an end if/when Koch steps down
3 ) I don't typically converse with that twat ( not Koch )

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:You know in diving when you work out the score, you take away the best score and worst score...that's how I feel with this argument.
think both of you are at the extremes.

1 ) I'm not aware that Koch is stepping down
2 ) I doubt the China Strategy will come to an end if/when Koch steps down
3 ) I don't typically converse with that twat ( not Koch )

UK Fan wrote:

Booney wrote:CGAF > immediately asked pertinent question.

Is there a bigger spanner on this site? I'll wait.

Didn't think so.

Can I guess you’ll deflect with more pot shots as oppose to answering the pertinent questions ??

Playing the man not the ball is so unlike PAFC supporters.

I guess it’s easy to understand why PAFC is such an unattractive commodity atm.

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:You know in diving when you work out the score, you take away the best score and worst score...that's how I feel with this argument.
think both of you are at the extremes.

1 ) I'm not aware that Koch is stepping down
2 ) I doubt the China Strategy will come to an end if/when Koch steps down
3 ) I don't typically converse with that twat ( not Koch )

The defence rests.

Playing the man not the ball again.

No wonder 1 in 4 supporters have walked away from PAFC.

Always Happy to ask questions about NMFC or AFC but when Mr Boon is asked questions about his club. His true nature gets revealed.

Happy to give it but.....

UK Fan wrote:

Booney wrote:CGAF > immediately asked pertinent question.

Is there a bigger spanner on this site? I'll wait.

Didn't think so.

CGAF about China and what appear to be figures that could only be considered “ball park” at best.

I would of thought reconnecting with members who have walked away in droves would be priority number one for the club atm.

Your 2nd sentence says it all. CGAF because its not relative to your Port crowd agenda.

Spangas wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

Booney wrote:CGAF > immediately asked pertinent question.

Is there a bigger spanner on this site? I'll wait.

Didn't think so.

CGAF about China and what appear to be figures that could only be considered “ball park” at best.

I would of thought reconnecting with members who have walked away in droves would be priority number one for the club atm.

I'd consider securing the financial future for any football club priority number one. 10K fans (although hypothetical) leaving doesn't even come close to the potential millions to be made from the China relationship.
On a side note: Fans who 'walk away' from any club are not fans, they're spectators.

I couldn't care about the Port situation but interested in general what 10K (I don't know how accurate that number is) would mean to a sporting club.

Let say out of those 10k lets say 75% of them were casual ticket purchases not members so we are left with 7500 the average cost of a ticket is $30 and they are guaranteed to play 11 home games a year. 7,500 x 30 x 11- $2,475,000

Let say each of those 82,500 who haven't showed up (7,500 x 11 home games) were going to spend $10 (very conservative) in the café/merch. $825,000 presuming they mark up 100% (its probably more) the loss of income would be around $400,000

A drop of 10,000 attendances could very conservatively be a loss of around 3mil a year on just entrance costs.

Full credit to people who run/manage football clubs having to deal with such fluctuations in numbers/finances based around performance which is so much out of your own control.

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:You know in diving when you work out the score, you take away the best score and worst score...that's how I feel with this argument.
think both of you are at the extremes.

1 ) I'm not aware that Koch is stepping down
2 ) I doubt the China Strategy will come to an end if/when Koch steps down
3 ) I don't typically converse with that twat ( not Koch )

^^^^^^This

The China Strategy is more than just a Kochy investment. A decision of that nature would have had buy in from the board, directors, kochy and multiple other parties. It's not going to fall through or end at the drop of a hat of one person leaving.

Ultimately if they are seeing financial benefits from the strategy and helps them assist with finances during periods the team are not performing on-field than the strategy can only be a positive for the club and help create a sustainable future.

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:You know in diving when you work out the score, you take away the best score and worst score...that's how I feel with this argument.
think both of you are at the extremes.

1 ) I'm not aware that Koch is stepping down
2 ) I doubt the China Strategy will come to an end if/when Koch steps down
3 ) I don't typically converse with that twat ( not Koch )

I think its important to acknowledge that in the back and forth on this, that this is the point you needed to doubly qualify

mots02 wrote:

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:You know in diving when you work out the score, you take away the best score and worst score...that's how I feel with this argument.
think both of you are at the extremes.

1 ) I'm not aware that Koch is stepping down
2 ) I doubt the China Strategy will come to an end if/when Koch steps down
3 ) I don't typically converse with that twat ( not Koch )

I think its important to acknowledge that in the back and forth on this, that this is the point you needed to doubly qualify

I thought I best clarify as many would be unsure as to whom I was referencing.

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:You know in diving when you work out the score, you take away the best score and worst score...that's how I feel with this argument.
think both of you are at the extremes.

1 ) I'm not aware that Koch is stepping down
2 ) I doubt the China Strategy will come to an end if/when Koch steps down
3 ) I don't typically converse with that twat ( not Koch )

^^^^^^This

The China Strategy is more than just a Kochy investment. A decision of that nature would have had buy in from the board, directors, kochy and multiple other parties. It's not going to fall through or end at the drop of a hat of one person leaving.

Ultimately if they are seeing financial benefits from the strategy and helps them assist with finances during periods the team are not performing on-field than the strategy can only be a positive for the club and help create a sustainable future.

When discussing why Port have looked to the Chinese market for revenue this point seemed most pertinent :

What is the benefit for a Gold Coast or a St Kilda in giving up a home fixture… other than, is it a million dollars a year that the club pays?

It’s not. It’s not even close to that…

I think from a St Kilda and Gold Coast perspective, they’re in a similar situation to us, whereby in Australia there are around 100 professional sporting clubs – about the same amount as there are in the United States, which has a much bigger population and much bigger market.

So these hundred sporting clubs in Australia are all on a competitive basis looking for the corporate dollar, looking for relevance…

Port made $500k revenue from China in 2019 if I read that correctly, is that before or after costs?

In an AFL world where clubs turnover $60-$100m even if it is profit its not huge $$$ for the effort, or are they still playing to long game here?

whufc wrote:

Spangas wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

Booney wrote:CGAF > immediately asked pertinent question.

Is there a bigger spanner on this site? I'll wait.

Didn't think so.

CGAF about China and what appear to be figures that could only be considered “ball park” at best.

I would of thought reconnecting with members who have walked away in droves would be priority number one for the club atm.

I'd consider securing the financial future for any football club priority number one. 10K fans (although hypothetical) leaving doesn't even come close to the potential millions to be made from the China relationship.
On a side note: Fans who 'walk away' from any club are not fans, they're spectators.

I couldn't care about the Port situation but interested in general what 10K (I don't know how accurate that number is) would mean to a sporting club.

Let say out of those 10k lets say 75% of them were casual ticket purchases not members so we are left with 7500 the average cost of a ticket is $30 and they are guaranteed to play 11 home games a year. 7,500 x 30 x 11- $2,475,000

Let say each of those 82,500 who haven't showed up (7,500 x 11 home games) were going to spend $10 (very conservative) in the café/merch. $825,000 presuming they mark up 100% (its probably more) the loss of income would be around $400,000

A drop of 10,000 attendances could very conservatively be a loss of around 3mil a year on just entrance costs.

Full credit to people who run/manage football clubs having to deal with such fluctuations in numbers/finances based around performance which is so much out of your own control.

Port Adelaide Average Home Crowd Attendance 2014 = 44364
Port Adelaide Average Home Crowd Attendance 2019 = 33950

https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/padelaide.html


China is a hail mary.

Is the AFL is really interested in capturing the chinese market. Why would you use Port/Gold Coast/St Kilda to sell AFL to the chinese when you have clubs with ten time better brands,supporter bases, international sponsors etc...... Collingwood, West Coast, Crows etc.....

Its like trying to capture interest in the SANFL to potential sponsors on the back of West and South Adelaide.


Im happy to yet again suggest a more successfull strategy would be to re-build the bridge with the supporters who have jumped off.

Dutchy wrote:Port made $500k revenue from China in 2019 if I read that correctly, is that before or after costs?

In an AFL world where clubs turnover $60-$100m even if it is profit its not huge $$$ for the effort, or are they still playing to long game here?

After costs, $500k contributed to the bottom line.

Are they still playing the long game, is that a rhetorical question? Of course it's the long game, you're hardly going to invest that level of resources into the strategy to make $500k in one year then turn your back on it. It has always been about increasing revenue streams from non-traditional revenue streams.

If that $500k can turn into $1m in two years, $2m in the years after and contribute to a positive financial result and paying debt down then the strategy is working. Just 4 years in and I feel as though the club will be more than happy with the results to date, particularly given the infrastructure now in place does not need reinvestment in the short term.

Oh dear, haven't we been through this already. Doesnt take a genius, nor a smart man even, to realise that in the first few years of something new (AO development) you always get interested parties initially until the novelty has waned. How many people are still queuing up at Krispy Kremes at Hindmarsh. Port attendance figures are down but only a fool would compare them now to 2014.

LMA wrote:Oh dear, haven't we been through this already. Doesnt take a genius, nor a smart man even, to realise that in the first few years of something new (AO development) you always get interested parties initially until the novelty has waned. How many people are still queuing up at Krispy Kremes at Hindmarsh. Port attendance figures are down but only a fool would compare them now to 2014.

And he did.

LMA wrote:Oh dear, haven't we been through this already. Doesnt take a genius, nor a smart man even, to realise that in the first few years of something new (AO development) you always get interested parties initially until the novelty has waned. How many people are still queuing up at Krispy Kremes at Hindmarsh. Port attendance figures are down but only a fool would compare them now to 2014.

So the China experiment is currently in it's prime then as it's still relatively new?? Doesn't bode well for the future then.

When did we get a Krispy Kremes in Adelaide?