Power players leaving SANFL clubs to Magpies

[kickinit]

where does everyone think the money will come from for the sanfl to survive if
1- the afl license is handed back
2- the crows and power have nothing to do with the sanfl.

Doesn't the SANFL get $350,000 for the next 15 years for the licenses and also get some of the revenue from the Adelaide Oval? Also plenty of land to make money from around Footy Park

they would get the money from what the licenses are worth, but I would of thought if they had sold the licenses then they wouldn't get any revenue from adelaide oval. The land they would have to wait a few years before they sold any money from it. Then you have to add to the fact i'm sure AAMI isn't going to be sponsoring the oval when it's hardly being used. so add in the cost of running the stadium. Then you have to look at once the money is gone from the licenses and the land where does the sanfl get any income from.

[therisingblues]

I think I'm mostly enjoying the fact that Power fans are bragging about beating GWS by 56 points when the Northern Bullants beat GWS by 89 points in a shortened version of the game.

Like to see this bragging "quoted".

Beenreal did talk about how great it was that the Power were top of the ladder - after round two.

Actually he revised it to "equal" top after it was pointed out that it wasn't even true! (silly percentage system)
Any other embarrassing Port posts you want highlighted Booney?

[kickinit]

For starters:

1. the AFL as the nine SANFL clubs are funded in the same way (not to the same extent though) as the TAC cup clubs in Victoria. This money is given to the SANFL and then distributed to the nine clubs.
2. SMA revenue from playing games at Adelaide oval.
3. Returns on the redevelopment of Football Park

Do you think the SANFL has agreed to move from footy park without guaranteed income streams from Adelaide Oval??

but does this all change once they sell the licenses? after all they won't have anything to do with the afl. And could pig face demitriou (how ever you spell it) get his nose in a twist and force the sanfl hand to allow the crows and power to have reserves sides in the sanfl at league level just to have some revenue coming in?

[Brodlach]

where does everyone think the money will come from for the sanfl to survive if
1- the afl license is handed back
2- the crows and power have nothing to do with the sanfl.

Doesn't the SANFL get $350,000 for the next 15 years for the licenses and also get some of the revenue from the Adelaide Oval? Also plenty of land to make money from around Footy Park

they would get the money from what the licenses are worth, but I would of thought if they had sold the licenses then they wouldn't get any revenue from adelaide oval. The land they would have to wait a few years before they sold any money from it. Then you have to add to the fact i'm sure AAMI isn't going to be sponsoring the oval when it's hardly being used. so add in the cost of running the stadium. Then you have to look at once the money is gone from the licenses and the land where does the sanfl get any income from.

Crows will still use it as a training base so they would be required to pay some of the up keep

[am Bays]

For starters:

1. the AFL as the nine SANFL clubs are funded in the same way (not to the same extent though) as the TAC cup clubs in Victoria. This money is given to the SANFL and then distributed to the nine clubs.
2. SMA revenue from playing games at Adelaide oval.
3. Returns on the redevelopment of Football Park

Do you think the SANFL has agreed to move from footy park without guaranteed income streams from Adelaide Oval??

but does this all change once they sell the licenses? after all they won't have anything to do with the afl. And could pig face demitriou (how ever you spell it) get his nose in a twist and force the sanfl hand to allow the crows and power to have reserves sides in the sanfl at league level just to have some revenue coming in?

No the licences change hands not the SANFL interest in the SMA. The SMA will run Adelaide oval, revenue generated from that will go back to the SANFL and SACA. Now if certain crowd targets are reached money will also go back to the two AFl clubs.

Now there maybe some changes to the current stadium agreements with the move to Adelaide Oval but to make money out of the move both AFL clubs are going to need the fans to come.

[Booney]

I think I'm mostly enjoying the fact that Power fans are bragging about beating GWS by 56 points when the Northern Bullants beat GWS by 89 points in a shortened version of the game.

Like to see this bragging "quoted".

Beenreal did talk about how great it was that the Power were top of the ladder - after round two.

Actually he revised it to "equal" top after it was pointed out that it wasn't even true! (silly percentage system)
Any other embarrassing Port posts you want highlighted Booney?

So he noted we were top/equal top, no specific mention or "boasting" of the win over GWS?

(And lets be straight, if you are going to use kickinit's posts as ammunition against me you aren't really fighting fair, are you? )

[kickinit]

So he noted we were top/equal top, no specific mention or "boasting" of the win over GWS?

(And lets be straight, if you are going to use kickinit's posts as ammunition against me you aren't really fighting fair, are you? )

i never went on about us beating gas so you can keep me out of it.

[kickinit]

No the licences change hands not the SANFL interest in the SMA. The SMA will run Adelaide oval, revenue generated from that will go back to the SANFL and SACA. Now if certain crowd targets are reached money will also go back to the two AFl clubs.

Now there maybe some changes to the current stadium agreements with the move to Adelaide Oval but to make money out of the move both AFL clubs are going to need the fans to come.

so in other words the revenue port make will go to the sanfl.

[Wedgie]

i never went on about us beating gas so you can keep me out of it.

Try chewing on a Quickeze.

[Booney]

No the licences change hands not the SANFL interest in the SMA. The SMA will run Adelaide oval, revenue generated from that will go back to the SANFL and SACA. Now if certain crowd targets are reached money will also go back to the two AFl clubs.
Now there maybe some changes to the current stadium agreements with the move to Adelaide Oval but to make money out of the move both AFL clubs are going to need the fans to come.

Well, lets hope so.

[Jim05]

The SANFL has a guaranteed income stream from the 2 AFL sides for the duration of their tenure at AO, just think of it as rent. If either club doesnt like it they could always build their own stadium

[kickinit]

i never went on about us beating gas so you can keep me out of it.

Try chewing on a Quickeze.

wow auto correct fail there

[topsywaldron]

Any other embarrassing Port posts you want highlighted Booney?

This one remains a firm favourite for its complete no idea grasp on things.

No I'm actually saying that since 1991, 80% of the revenue generated by both the AFC and PAFC has been diverted into SANFL coffers.

It's pretty common knowledge.

[tipper]

No the licences change hands not the SANFL interest in the SMA. The SMA will run Adelaide oval, revenue generated from that will go back to the SANFL and SACA. Now if certain crowd targets are reached money will also go back to the two AFl clubs.

Now there maybe some changes to the current stadium agreements with the move to Adelaide Oval but to make money out of the move both AFL clubs are going to need the fans to come.

so in other words the revenue port make will go to the sanfl.

as the landlord for adelaide oval, the stadium management authority (which is comprised of the sanfl and the saca) will charge the afl sides money for use of the stadium. it isnt that hard to understand. it is the same way the sanfl make money from footy park. they are the landlord. it has nothing to do with owning the licences or not. its the same way that they made money when there was a concert or something held there. you own the venue, you get to charge others for its use.

[kickinit]

No the licences change hands not the SANFL interest in the SMA. The SMA will run Adelaide oval, revenue generated from that will go back to the SANFL and SACA. Now if certain crowd targets are reached money will also go back to the two AFl clubs.

Now there maybe some changes to the current stadium agreements with the move to Adelaide Oval but to make money out of the move both AFL clubs are going to need the fans to come.

so in other words the revenue port make will go to the sanfl.

as the landlord for adelaide oval, the stadium management authority (which is comprised of the sanfl and the saca) will charge the afl sides money for use of the stadium. it isnt that hard to understand. it is the same way the sanfl make money from footy park. they are the landlord. it has nothing to do with owning the licences or not. its the same way that they made money when there was a concert or something held there. you own the venue, you get to charge others for its use.

doesn't the adelaide city council own adelaide oval?

[Booney]

Any other embarrassing Port posts you want highlighted Booney?

This one remains a firm favourite for its complete no idea grasp on things.

No I'm actually saying that since 1991, 80% of the revenue generated by both the AFC and PAFC has been diverted into SANFL coffers.
It's pretty common knowledge.

Please let it be noted in the minutes that I did not support, comment on nor endorse these statements.

[tipper]

No the licences change hands not the SANFL interest in the SMA. The SMA will run Adelaide oval, revenue generated from that will go back to the SANFL and SACA. Now if certain crowd targets are reached money will also go back to the two AFl clubs.

Now there maybe some changes to the current stadium agreements with the move to Adelaide Oval but to make money out of the move both AFL clubs are going to need the fans to come.

so in other words the revenue port make will go to the sanfl.

as the landlord for adelaide oval, the stadium management authority (which is comprised of the sanfl and the saca) will charge the afl sides money for use of the stadium. it isnt that hard to understand. it is the same way the sanfl make money from footy park. they are the landlord. it has nothing to do with owning the licences or not. its the same way that they made money when there was a concert or something held there. you own the venue, you get to charge others for its use.

doesn't the adelaide city council own adelaide oval?

nope, the saca did, and now the stadium management authority do. get paid out for the licences, still make money on the afl games there (as the landlord) and have less costs (no more port bailouts). the power never gave a dividend back to the sanfl anyway, so i really dont see how the sanfl will have less money under the new arrangement.

develop the land at west lakes on top of all that and maybe in a few years the sanfl can buy the afl after it all falls into a heap

[heater31]

No the licences change hands not the SANFL interest in the SMA. The SMA will run Adelaide oval, revenue generated from that will go back to the SANFL and SACA. Now if certain crowd targets are reached money will also go back to the two AFl clubs.

Now there maybe some changes to the current stadium agreements with the move to Adelaide Oval but to make money out of the move both AFL clubs are going to need the fans to come.

so in other words the revenue port make will go to the sanfl.

as the landlord for adelaide oval, the stadium management authority (which is comprised of the sanfl and the saca) will charge the afl sides money for use of the stadium. it isnt that hard to understand. it is the same way the sanfl make money from footy park. they are the landlord. it has nothing to do with owning the licences or not. its the same way that they made money when there was a concert or something held there. you own the venue, you get to charge others for its use.

doesn't the adelaide city council own adelaide oval?

SACA had a long term lease on the site from memory. Now the lease is with the SMA.

[Scrapboy]

Any other embarrassing Port posts you want highlighted Booney?

This one remains a firm favourite for its complete no idea grasp on things.

No I'm actually saying that since 1991, 80% of the revenue generated by both the AFC and PAFC has been diverted into SANFL coffers.
It's pretty common knowledge.

Please let it be noted in the minutes that I did not support, comment on nor endorse these statements.

I do feel sorry for you sometimes Booney, you're a hell of a lot more rational on these pages than some of those that you get grouped with.

[Jim05]

Correct Tipper the SACA owned AO, now the SMA does.
The AFL sides will always be paying rent so we have a guaranteed income.