by stan » Mon May 22, 2017 1:03 pm
by Rising Power » Mon May 22, 2017 1:16 pm
stan wrote:The stupid thing about the Summerton situation is that Port were weaker for having more AFL listed players.
Summerton is a 200 game veteran and been going pretty well lately. Replace his skill and experience with a couple of unco 19 year olds.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
by robranisgod » Mon May 22, 2017 3:55 pm
Rising Power wrote:stan wrote:The stupid thing about the Summerton situation is that Port were weaker for having more AFL listed players.
Summerton is a 200 game veteran and been going pretty well lately. Replace his skill and experience with a couple of unco 19 year olds.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Yep, bring on that cap come finals time.
by therisingblues » Mon May 22, 2017 4:49 pm
by PhilH » Tue May 23, 2017 8:31 pm
by heater31 » Tue May 23, 2017 8:52 pm
PhilH wrote:It's weird out West,,,, East Perth told by WAFC (not the Bloods) they have to be Eagles aligned club for 2019 whether they wish to or not
https://thewest.com.au/sport/the-tuesday-wafl---east-perths-afl-alignment-stitch-up-by-wa-football-commission-ng-b88484485z
by UK Fan » Wed May 24, 2017 10:53 am
morell wrote:Yes, sorry I did miss it. My bad.UK Fan wrote:Actually I did answer above. You probably just skim read past it. Like everything else.
Slow down take it in and see if you understand it this time.
You've spent the last 8-10 pages laying the boot into sa football at every opportunity u can.
But you're not bitter or resentful towards sa football ??
Really port fan.
Not resentful towards whicker and the sanfl at all. Surely not even you are stupid enough to believe that...
So we've now confirmed by your admission that indeed the 16M (its closer to 14M but whatevs) consisted of mostly AFL money that was loaned to the SANFL. We're getting there UK Fan good stuff.
Since the AFL *loaned* the money, how do we think the SANFL are paying back the AFL, as in, where are they getting this money from? That's a lot of coin at a time where SANFL revenue was already pretty low. The AFL are pretty savvy operators, I don't think they'd just give it away...
Of course you and I know - the SANFL sold the license back and got in on the deal with the SMA to get Adelaide Oval gameday revenue.
Which goes ALLLLLLLL the way back to these couple of posts:morell wrote:Just so I am clear, when Port got bailed out, do we subtract that from the 6.9 million we paid the SANFL over 15 years for our license or nah?
andmorell wrote:... and the gameday revenue from Adelaide Oval the SANFL get as part of the SMA? Do we calculate that too or nah?
You blokes all focus on one line item rather than the bottom of the balance sheet.
Which boils down to:.
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
by morell » Wed May 24, 2017 11:14 am
Ah yes, the good old "cost to sa football" line. Love it. The truth of course was a whole bunch of that money, indeed the majority of it, was lent by the AFL with the agreement that the SANFL, through the sale of their AFL licenses and Adelaide Oval game day revenue, would pay it back.UK Fan wrote:The total cost to sa football was $16 million.
by UK Fan » Wed May 24, 2017 5:36 pm
morell wrote:Ah yes, the good old "cost to sa football" line. Love it. The truth of course was a whole bunch of that money, indeed the majority of it, was lent by the AFL with the agreement that the SANFL, through the sale of their AFL licenses and Adelaide Oval game day revenue, would pay it back.UK Fan wrote:The total cost to sa football was $16 million.
Its like a bank trying to claim a completed mortgage term as "total cost to the bank". It's an absurd argument that only a vehement anti-Port zealot would propagate.
Considering Port have contributed that and more back to "sa football" (remember to look at the bottom of the balance sheet, not line items) I might start rolling out the...
"Total cost to Port Adelaide FC" that the SANFL have hampered us with in regards to shitty stadium deals, absurd restrictions on operations, constant undermining and enforced limitations on business development that Port have had to endure since, really, 1990.
Wonder what that would add up to so then we can quote it in an Advertiser article and post it all over safooty in some sort of anti-SANFL crusade...
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
by morell » Wed May 24, 2017 5:52 pm
Because most reasonable people understand that in the wash Port have given as much back as they've taken - if not more, and thus couldn't be bothered.UK Fan wrote:morell wrote:Ah yes, the good old "cost to sa football" line. Love it. The truth of course was a whole bunch of that money, indeed the majority of it, was lent by the AFL with the agreement that the SANFL, through the sale of their AFL licenses and Adelaide Oval game day revenue, would pay it back.UK Fan wrote:The total cost to sa football was $16 million.
Its like a bank trying to claim a completed mortgage term as "total cost to the bank". It's an absurd argument that only a vehement anti-Port zealot would propagate.
Considering Port have contributed that and more back to "sa football" (remember to look at the bottom of the balance sheet, not line items) I might start rolling out the...
"Total cost to Port Adelaide FC" that the SANFL have hampered us with in regards to shitty stadium deals, absurd restrictions on operations, constant undermining and enforced limitations on business development that Port have had to endure since, really, 1990.
Wonder what that would add up to so then we can quote it in an Advertiser article and post it all over safooty in some sort of anti-SANFL crusade...
Go for it mate.I wonder why nobody has ever done that before. I wonder.....
No. And the SANFL have already sold it back to the AFL for 11M.UK Fan wrote:So when we sell the crows licence that comes off Ports debt sa football underwrote ???
Because no one really cares about tinpot state leagues anymore. The game has moved on. Clearly you haven't.UK Fan wrote:If afl game day revenue is so good why is sa football in its worst financial position since 1990 ?? So bad in fact it had to sell its number one assett to pay off its GROWING debt ??? Greedy sanfl clubs ???
It was 2 million in 2012 and 4 million in 2011.UK Fan wrote:According to PAFCs financials in 2011 the SANFL grant received was $4 million not $2 mill as per your calculations ??
Why would that be ??
by UK Fan » Thu May 25, 2017 9:21 am
morell wrote:Because most reasonable people understand that in the wash Port have given as much back as they've taken - if not more, and thus couldn't be bothered.UK Fan wrote:morell wrote:Ah yes, the good old "cost to sa football" line. Love it. The truth of course was a whole bunch of that money, indeed the majority of it, was lent by the AFL with the agreement that the SANFL, through the sale of their AFL licenses and Adelaide Oval game day revenue, would pay it back.UK Fan wrote:The total cost to sa football was $16 million.
Its like a bank trying to claim a completed mortgage term as "total cost to the bank". It's an absurd argument that only a vehement anti-Port zealot would propagate.
Considering Port have contributed that and more back to "sa football" (remember to look at the bottom of the balance sheet, not line items) I might start rolling out the...
"Total cost to Port Adelaide FC" that the SANFL have hampered us with in regards to shitty stadium deals, absurd restrictions on operations, constant undermining and enforced limitations on business development that Port have had to endure since, really, 1990.
Wonder what that would add up to so then we can quote it in an Advertiser article and post it all over safooty in some sort of anti-SANFL crusade...
Go for it mate.I wonder why nobody has ever done that before. I wonder.....
How many people would go along and watch the South Coast Sharks in the AFL? Thus how much game day revenue would the SANFL get through their SMA deal? The reason why the second AFL license worked is because it was Port Adelaide.No. And the SANFL have already sold it back to the AFL for 11M.UK Fan wrote:So when we sell the crows licence that comes off Ports debt sa football underwrote ???Because no one really cares about tinpot state leagues anymore. The game has moved on. Clearly you haven't.UK Fan wrote:If afl game day revenue is so good why is sa football in its worst financial position since 1990 ?? So bad in fact it had to sell its number one assett to pay off its GROWING debt ??? Greedy sanfl clubs ???
And last time I checked both Port and Adelaide were incredibly healthy and Auskick was booming. The AdFL is going gangbusters.
That's the thing, you keep conflating "SA Football" with the SANFL when they're mutually exclusive.It was 2 million in 2012 and 4 million in 2011.UK Fan wrote:According to PAFCs financials in 2011 the SANFL grant received was $4 million not $2 mill as per your calculations ??
Why would that be ??
Page 11:
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Te ... Report.pdf
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
by morell » Thu May 25, 2017 10:54 am
I freely admitted Port received that money UK Fan. I was questioning where it came from, how it was paid back and the structure of the deals that enabled it.UK Fan wrote:The question was Why did you get $4 million not $2 million like you said ???? Not to prove my point again.
See, you're doing it again - conflating this mythical "SA Football" with the SANFL.UK Fan wrote:But sa football is worse off now than before we invented afl clubs. How is that possible when we are swimming in bucketloads of game day REVENUE as you claim ??
The SANFL (no, not SA football) got into 45m worth of debt because no one cares about tinpot state leagues, yes.UK Fan wrote:Your straw man arguments simply don't add up Mate. Sa football got $45 mill in debt due to no one care about a tinpot league ?? You do know how dumb that is ???
Freely admit I dislike the SANFL. I don't hate, that's too strong a word in these dark times. I *love* SA Football though. It's my passion, actually.UK Fan wrote:Why don't you simply come out and say you hate sa football. That's what this really is about at the end of the day.
K.UK Fan wrote:Man up and get it off your chest Franky and save the rest of us your dumb ass bullshit .
by jo172 » Thu May 25, 2017 11:11 am
by morell » Thu May 25, 2017 11:28 am
by Wedgie » Thu May 25, 2017 12:13 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by morell » Thu May 25, 2017 12:28 pm
by human_torpedo » Thu May 25, 2017 12:53 pm
morell wrote:I freely admitted Port received that money UK Fan. I was questioning where it came from, how it was paid back and the structure of the deals that enabled it.UK Fan wrote:The question was Why did you get $4 million not $2 million like you said ???? Not to prove my point again.
You've so blatantly changed your argument. But at least we've manged to get you to shift your thoughts.
Keep in mind you originally claimed Port just received 16m dollars from the SANFL like they walked up and withdrew it from the ATM.See, you're doing it again - conflating this mythical "SA Football" with the SANFL.UK Fan wrote:But sa football is worse off now than before we invented afl clubs. How is that possible when we are swimming in bucketloads of game day REVENUE as you claim ??
The SANFL is a league, it doesn't represent the entire interest of football in this state, heck, it doesn't even represent a majority. It is now a minority stakeholder. And a diminishing one at that.
Football (not the SANFL league, but the sport) in this state is healthy because smart people have been able to lift their eyes out of the petty state oriented bullshit you're stuck in.
Use some strategic thought, come along and stand on the hill at the amazing Adelaide Oval next Thursday with me when Port play Hawthorn with 50k "SA football" supporters, I'll buy you a beer, you'll have a great time! Then Saturday come alone to Para Hills for the top of the table clash of Para Hills vs Mitchell Park and see the ammos run around for a dose of local footy. Then on Sunday come help me goal umpire and we can watch the juniors strut their stuff to see the next generation.
It'll be awesome mate, PM your mobile #, I promise you it'll lift your spirits.
The SANFL (no, not SA football) got into 45m worth of debt because no one cares about tinpot state leagues, yes.UK Fan wrote:Your straw man arguments simply don't add up Mate. Sa football got $45 mill in debt due to no one care about a tinpot league ?? You do know how dumb that is ???Freely admit I dislike the SANFL. I don't hate, that's too strong a word in these dark times. I *love* SA Football though. It's my passion, actually.UK Fan wrote:Why don't you simply come out and say you hate sa football. That's what this really is about at the end of the day.K.UK Fan wrote:Man up and get it off your chest Franky and save the rest of us your dumb ass bullshit .
by bennymacca » Thu May 25, 2017 2:25 pm
morell wrote:Port are the only pre-existing club to successfully move from a state league to the national league
by Booney » Thu May 25, 2017 2:27 pm
bennymacca wrote:morell wrote:Port are the only pre-existing club to successfully move from a state league to the national league
arent they the ONLY club to do it, successful or not?
hardly something to hang your hat on really.
by oldfella » Thu May 25, 2017 2:28 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |