SA Footy

Going on from the post in the SANFL section relating to Sturts Financial Situation, does the State Government have a role in giving Sturt assistance to remain viable?

Options open could be,

A grant to assist the club with debt reduction,

A grant to move and to establish the club at Mt Barker or another Zone location, potentially in a stadium set up as it was at Noarlunga done for the South Adelaide FC.

Funding to the Royal Show Comittee to rebuild the Wayville Oval that the Sturt FC and the Royal Show Committee might form a joint venture in having Sturt and a licenced Sturt club at the Wayville site.

It occurs to me that the State Government were proactive in changing laws to allow North Adelaide to have their pokies venue at a Shopping Centre, is there scope for the same to occur on a site at the showgrounds?

Thoughts?

NO.
If they bail out Sturt they'd have to bail out every other failing sporting club in SA.
The state government has too many financial commitments now.
And one of those was excesses was already on behalf of the less than 2% of the SA population than go to the Adelaide Oval.

The same rules apply that should apply to Greece.
If you stuff up your finances, you have to bear the pain, not expect a bail out from someone else.
(I'd pull state funding for the Arts too - not just sport - for the same reason.)

The state government should do for Sturt what they did for Port Adelaide Magpies....sweet FA

SANFL's responsibility.

overloaded wrote:The state government should do for Sturt what they did for Port Adelaide Magpies....sweet FA

Not entirely correct, Adelaide Oval redevelopment assists the "One" Club

As a supporter of SANFL football, I believe it is going to be up to football people to save Sturt if, indeed, they are under threat.
I'm not sure of the financial details and others will argue that the Blues have got themselves into this situation etc, etc.
But...we are in different times now and the departure of one club will put further pressure on our competition and will further disenfranchise a large supporter base from our competition.
The SANFL is under intense pressure to conform to the needs of a greater body - losing one club will loosen the defence of what we now have.
If any club goes to the wall, whether it Sturt or another, football people should look at the bigger picture, as one once falls, who knows what will happen next.

Sojourner wrote:Going on from the post in the SANFL section relating to Sturts Financial Situation, does the State Government have a role in giving Sturt assistance to remain viable?

Options open could be,

A grant to assist the club with debt reduction,

A grant to move and to establish the club at Mt Barker or another Zone location, potentially in a stadium set up as it was at Noarlunga done for the South Adelaide FC.

Funding to the Royal Show Comittee to rebuild the Wayville Oval that the Sturt FC and the Royal Show Committee might form a joint venture in having Sturt and a licenced Sturt club at the Wayville site.

It occurs to me that the State Government were proactive in changing laws to allow North Adelaide to have their pokies venue at a Shopping Centre, is there scope for the same to occur on a site at the showgrounds?

Thoughts?

hang on, when did this happen?? the way i remember it was that North had to close the premises that they had spent a lot of good money on renovating and installing their pokies in because it was considered to be "part of a shopping centre". the only thing the government did was allow us a limited grace period of time to remain operation in breach of the ruling while searching for another venue to install our pokies.

ultimately they still had to move, it wasnt an unlimited period of time that they could remain there, and in the end we only just managed to negotiate for another venue in time. still got stuck with the bill for extensive renovations on 2 venues, 3 if you include the subsequent leasing and renovation of the northern tavern, (which did not require a change in law as the "no pokie venues in shopping centres allowed any existing venues to remain, it only prohibits new venues) also allowing the extension of time didnt cost the government anything, it actually made them money on the tax collected from what was a very successful venture.


back on topic, i will have a lot more sympathy for Sturt than i do for the Magpies, however i do agree with Psyber, i dont think the government can help them out without leaving themselves open to critiscism for allowing any other sporting group to go under, that and they dont seem to have the money. If they need help it will either have to come from within their club or from within the SANFL.

Not for State governments to help SANFL footy clubs outside their current grants through the Office for Recreation and Sport.

tipper wrote:

Sojourner wrote:Going on from the post in the SANFL section relating to Sturts Financial Situation, does the State Government have a role in giving Sturt assistance to remain viable?

Options open could be,

A grant to assist the club with debt reduction,

A grant to move and to establish the club at Mt Barker or another Zone location, potentially in a stadium set up as it was at Noarlunga done for the South Adelaide FC.

Funding to the Royal Show Comittee to rebuild the Wayville Oval that the Sturt FC and the Royal Show Committee might form a joint venture in having Sturt and a licenced Sturt club at the Wayville site.

It occurs to me that the State Government were proactive in changing laws to allow North Adelaide to have their pokies venue at a Shopping Centre, is there scope for the same to occur on a site at the showgrounds?

Thoughts?

hang on, when did this happen?? the way i remember it was that North had to close the premises that they had spent a lot of good money on renovating and installing their pokies in because it was considered to be "part of a shopping centre". the only thing the government did was allow us a limited grace period of time to remain operation in breach of the ruling while searching for another venue to install our pokies.

ultimately they still had to move, it wasnt an unlimited period of time that they could remain there, and in the end we only just managed to negotiate for another venue in time. still got stuck with the bill for extensive renovations on 2 venues, 3 if you include the subsequent leasing and renovation of the northern tavern, (which did not require a change in law as the "no pokie venues in shopping centres allowed any existing venues to remain, it only prohibits new venues) also allowing the extension of time didnt cost the government anything, it actually made them money on the tax collected from what was a very successful venture.


back on topic, i will have a lot more sympathy for Sturt than i do for the Magpies, however i do agree with Psyber, i dont think the government can help them out without leaving themselves open to critiscism for allowing any other sporting group to go under, that and they dont seem to have the money. If they need help it will either have to come from within their club or from within the SANFL.

Great post, I have had various jealous and twisted supporters of the "one club" throw this furphy around for years. I sincerely hope that Sturt can get over their current problems, but unfortunately most of that will be up to members and supporters. I did hear Sturt is again contemplating moving from Unley, this would be a huge mistake and nearly sunk the club one time before. If any teams go under I hope its either the fruit tingles or the tealsters as I'm not a fan of the expanded VFL.

Thanks Mick, i would have been happy to be corrected by someone in the know, i was just going on my recollection of things. i also seem to remember that it was a certain independant polititian that was driving the whole court battle, till he ran out of money and started taking funding from another pokie venue to try to remove our pokies. history shows that he may have won the battle but North won the war

I also seem to remember that basically the rest of the SANFL, both "head office" and the other clubs had a very hands off approach and were happy to let us sink. i dont see why things would be any different for any other club. not saying i would be happy to see sturt go belly up, but i wouldnt be uncomfortable if the SANFL didnt help them. what goes around comes around.

once_were_warriors wrote:

overloaded wrote:The state government should do for Sturt what they did for Port Adelaide Magpies....sweet FA

Not entirely correct, Adelaide Oval redevelopment assists the "One" Club

And the "One" club's roots are in ALP heartland..

Dogwatcher, going beyond 8 teams was a mistake in the first place as the western teams apart from Port were already struggling. 10 teams stretched the supporter base too far.
In hindsight, perhaps one of those western teams should have moved north and become part of the formation of Centrals.

I love our comp and what every club in it to survive.
Since around 1990, at various times Port, South, Sturt, Norwood have all had huge financial issues to overcome.
I'd love the govt to be a bit more supportive of the league.
As for the coin - I'd prefer the govt (through ORS) to make an annual grant to the SANFL for distribution amongst the clubs through a sub-grants program. Say they gave $2m a year - that's $200k per club with $200k contingency. Rather than distribute the money equally, the sub-grant program should assess applications on merit and if they are largely crap, bank the money to the next year. This might then allow for Port magpies to have been given a debt-reduction grant last year of say $500k, or for Glenelg to install lights more cost-effectively; or club costs for the Foxtel Cup to be offset; a whole range of things.
Unfortunately, the Port Power problems have been a huge financial compromise to the SANFL, so much so that finals prizemoney is now negligible and season ticket holders have had to pay nearly 50% in what, 4 years? Oh, and that includes having to compulsorily aquire tickets to 2 AFL games.
At times like these, I wish every other club would also consider a one-off grant to a club in crisis to help them out. Norwood did this for Port years ago. If they all chipped in $20-$30k each, it would make a huge difference as well as saying that the comp is bigger than any individual club.
Lastly - the current govt is investing heavily in "community engagement". If the SANFL was smart, it would take a plan to the govt to enhance community engagement through the SANFL and seek some funding support. After all, the Parks has just got what, $24m? I bet their patronage is much less than the SANFL's patronage and membership.

fatal flaw in your argument re obtaining govt funds ... how many labor voters are in Unley?

dedja wrote:fatal flaw in your argument re obtaining govt funds ... how many labor voters are in Unley?

I saw Unley's controversial (see link) Young Liberal Mayor on TV at Unley Oval the other night talking about all this but had the sound down so didn't hear what was said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6106807903

once_were_warriors wrote:SANFL's responsibility.

X2

dedja wrote:fatal flaw in your argument re obtaining govt funds ... how many labor voters are in Unley?

Not as blue blood as you may think, have lived in the electorate for three years and its far from a safe liberal seat.

The discussion above suggests people are overlooking the fact that people who attend SANFL or AFL football in SA are a tiny minority of the population.
Wouldn't the majority prefer any grants available went to hospitals or schools?

Psyber wrote:The discussion above suggests people are overlooking the fact that people who attend SANFL or AFL football in SA are a tiny minority of the population.
Wouldn't the majority prefer any grants available went to hospitals or schools?

They say they do but then they'll still attend Adelaide Oval when its redeveloped.

Dogwatcher wrote:

Psyber wrote:The discussion above suggests people are overlooking the fact that people who attend SANFL or AFL football in SA are a tiny minority of the population.
Wouldn't the majority prefer any grants available went to hospitals or schools?

They say they do but then they'll still attend Adelaide Oval when its redeveloped.

That only accounts for the less than 2% who attend Adelaide footy matches.
The rest may mean it!

I haven't been to Adelaide Oval since 1968.
I've also declined an invitation to attend a $150 a head Annual Dinner at SACA headquarters coming up soon.
(I may have gone out of curiosity if someone else was paying. )

Psyber wrote:The discussion above suggests people are overlooking the fact that people who attend SANFL or AFL football in SA are a tiny minority of the population.
Wouldn't the majority prefer any grants available went to hospitals or schools?

Your response to the discussion overlooked the benefits of sport to the whole community, including health care expenses.