amber_fluid wrote:Don’t use the grown up term otherwise you’ll get demoted to the A team.
Only where I see fit mate.
by Booney » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:03 pm
amber_fluid wrote:Don’t use the grown up term otherwise you’ll get demoted to the A team.
by Lightning McQueen » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:04 pm
amber_fluid wrote:Don’t use the grown up term otherwise you’ll get demoted to the A team.
by stan » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:08 pm
I think the key is the stadium deal to this point. Problem is for Port the SANFL were able to get in the SMA enough. Good for the SANFL but bad for Port, I can't see it changing and for Port it won't get any better.mots02 wrote:Booney wrote:Trader wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Everyone is missing UK’s point about this...it hasn’t been the saviour either on field or off field that the footy club thought it would be.
Is that his point though?
For mine, he's complaining about state government expenditure, not the onfield success of Port Adelaide:UK Fan wrote:5 years after spending $600 mill of tax payers money on Adelaide Oval we are back to where we started with a broke PAFC.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love the PAFC to be doing better than it currently is, but if his point is that the move to the oval was meant to improve the club, I don't understand why he keeps including the price of the oval redevelopment in his comments.
He's complaining about the state government expenditure coupled with the on going plight of the PAFC's finances because he thinks one was spent to fix the other. He actually thinks the AO Redevelopment was initiated and completed to save the PAFC.
Surely that was a major objective though (at least from PAFC's perspective).
If not, why were they pushing so hard to get there, set up a better stadium deal etc.
According to some nuffties it wouldn't have even happened if PAFC hadnt been driving the change?!
So if its not delivering the right numbers on the balance sheet after such a short time (particularly when it seemed to for the first couple of years), surely thats a legitimate cause for concern and not just deflection
It's going to become pretty expensive if the novelty keeps wearing off new things for the Power fans this quickly
by whufc » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:08 pm
Booney wrote:mots02 wrote:Surely that was a major objective though (at least from PAFC's perspective).
If not, why were they pushing so hard to get there, set up a better stadium deal etc.
According to some nuffties it wouldn't have even happened if PAFC hadnt been driving the change?!
So if its not delivering the right numbers on the balance sheet after such a short time (particularly when it seemed to for the first couple of years), surely thats a legitimate cause for concern and not just deflection
It's going to become pretty expensive if the novelty keeps wearing off new things for the Power fans this quickly
You know what nuffies are like, all happy clapping and writing reviews, I wouldn't believe them or what they say.
I'll happily discuss the issue with the grown ups in the room.
As Dutchy noted, the club invested into the football department spend to turn around the results on field, you could say that has occurred.
In the 5 years before AO we won 12,5,3,10 and 9 games in the 5 seasons since the move and investment 14,12,10,14,12,10* (2019). While that's lobbed us in the middle of table it sure beats winning 3 or 5 games per year. It hasn't delivered a premiership, it's only delivered 2 finals series and no finals win since 2014. Not good enough. Most football fans would agree Port's list has been better than that and the frustration within the supporter group hasn't been this high since the end of Primus.
The cost of going to the footy, the cost of living, I maintain this is impacting upon the 11 game season ticket holders, the ones who underpin the revenue, the walk ups add to it.
We still smell, on a corporate level, we haven't been able to secure a big name major sponsor post Renault, thus China > additional revenue streams. There's no Ford, Toyota, Hungry Jacks, Emirates ( to name a few ) big ticket sponsors around the competition knocking on our door.
Super frustrating for the rusted on like me, rock up rain (6 games this year and again Sunday!), hail or shine, win, lose or draw.
It's not just Port noting the drop in attendance, Adelaide in 2014 were 48,000, 3 years in the 46's, last year 45's, this year 44,514.
by amber_fluid » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:13 pm
by mots02 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:16 pm
amber_fluid wrote:Maybe they can redevelop footy park?
Oh wait, too late.
by LMA » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:19 pm
UK Fan wrote:LMA wrote:UK Fan wrote:Dutchy wrote:Its no great secret and even Port people understand their position, rightly or wrongly they decided to use surplus funds to beef up their footy department which would in turn increase performance which would increase attendence/memberships/sponsorships and THEN they would be able to reduce debt.
However there was a cliff coming if the above didn't succeed and that is where they are now, poor performance on and off field and large debt.
Im just very surprised that the footy media have allowed them to get away with it, with very little reporting about their financial situation, perhaps presuming wrongly it was all ok. Even stranger when you have a so called financial wizz as your President.
KT must be drafting his resignation letter surely, they need new direction IMO.
But I thought Adelaide Oval and China were a goldmine LMA ???
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tzuJXqgsiSM
Never said that once and never professed to knowing the inner financial going ons unlike you it seems.LMA wrote:Your hatred of PAFC has clouded your judgement. AO investment has paid back in spades. Sport, entertainment, tourism and businesses have all benefited. You'd realise this if you weren't so salty
by amber_fluid » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:22 pm
mots02 wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Maybe they can redevelop footy park?
Oh wait, too late.
Home games at Alberton?
chuck open a few more gates, add an eftpos machine and few more pies.
Job done!
by JK » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:59 pm
by Jim05 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:10 pm
I think the key is the stadium deal to this point. Problem is for Port the SANFL were able to get in the SMA enough. Good for the SANFL but bad for Port, I can't see it changing and for Port it won't get any better.stan wrote:mots02 wrote:Booney wrote:Trader wrote:amber_fluid"]Everyone is missing UK’s point about this...it hasn’t been the saviour either on field or off field that the footy club thought it would be.
Is that his point though?
For mine, he's complaining about state government expenditure, not the onfield success of Port Adelaide:
[quote="UK Fan wrote:5 years after spending $600 mill of tax payers money on Adelaide Oval we are back to where we started with a broke PAFC.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love the PAFC to be doing better than it currently is, but if his point is that the move to the oval was meant to improve the club, I don't understand why he keeps including the price of the oval redevelopment in his comments.
He's complaining about the state government expenditure coupled with the on going plight of the PAFC's finances because he thinks one was spent to fix the other. He actually thinks the AO Redevelopment was initiated and completed to save the PAFC.
Surely that was a major objective though (at least from PAFC's perspective).
If not, why were they pushing so hard to get there, set up a better stadium deal etc.
According to some nuffties it wouldn't have even happened if PAFC hadnt been driving the change?!
So if its not delivering the right numbers on the balance sheet after such a short time (particularly when it seemed to for the first couple of years), surely thats a legitimate cause for concern and not just deflection
It's going to become pretty expensive if the novelty keeps wearing off new things for the Power fans this quickly
by LMA » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:48 pm
Booney wrote:LMA wrote:Booney wrote:Suck shit, he's stalking you now.
give me brett anyday, rather crazy than obsessed.
Letting UK off pretty light there.....
by Dutchy » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:55 pm
Booney wrote:Dutchy wrote:Is leadership the issue at Alberton?
A senior assistant who was looking at another job.
I thought about this yesterday, do you really think an assistant interviewing for a senior job elsewhere is something to be worried about?
Please Dutchy.....
by stan » Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:08 pm
I think the key is the stadium deal to this point. Problem is for Port the SANFL were able to get in the SMA enough. Good for the SANFL but bad for Port, I can't see it changing and for Port it won't get any better.Jim05 wrote:stan wrote:mots02 wrote:Booney wrote:Trader"][quote="amber_fluid"]Everyone is missing UK’s point about this...it hasn’t been the saviour either on field or off field that the footy club thought it would be.
Is that his point though?
For mine, he's complaining about state government expenditure, not the onfield success of Port Adelaide:
[quote="UK Fan wrote:5 years after spending $600 mill of tax payers money on Adelaide Oval we are back to where we started with a broke PAFC.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love the PAFC to be doing better than it currently is, but if his point is that the move to the oval was meant to improve the club, I don't understand why he keeps including the price of the oval redevelopment in his comments.
He's complaining about the state government expenditure coupled with the on going plight of the PAFC's finances because he thinks one was spent to fix the other. He actually thinks the AO Redevelopment was initiated and completed to save the PAFC.
Surely that was a major objective though (at least from PAFC's perspective).
If not, why were they pushing so hard to get there, set up a better stadium deal etc.
According to some nuffties it wouldn't have even happened if PAFC hadnt been driving the change?!
So if its not delivering the right numbers on the balance sheet after such a short time (particularly when it seemed to for the first couple of years), surely thats a legitimate cause for concern and not just deflection
It's going to become pretty expensive if the novelty keeps wearing off new things for the Power fans this quickly
by Booney » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:09 am
Dutchy wrote:Booney wrote:Dutchy wrote:Is leadership the issue at Alberton?
A senior assistant who was looking at another job.
I thought about this yesterday, do you really think an assistant interviewing for a senior job elsewhere is something to be worried about?
Please Dutchy.....
In isolation no, but add it in with everything else happening the players could rightly think its a rudderless ship.
by Lightning McQueen » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:45 am
amber_fluid wrote:Maybe they can redevelop footy park?
Oh wait, too late.
by Jim05 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:53 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Maybe they can redevelop footy park?
Oh wait, too late.
Just bump the food and beverage prices up a bit at AO, they practically give their food away.
by Lightning McQueen » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:57 am
Jim05 wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Maybe they can redevelop footy park?
Oh wait, too late.
Just bump the food and beverage prices up a bit at AO, they practically give their food away.
Even the yummy dim sims?
by amber_fluid » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:18 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Maybe they can redevelop footy park?
Oh wait, too late.
Just bump the food and beverage prices up a bit at AO, they practically give their food away.
by Lightning McQueen » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:23 am
amber_fluid wrote:
They normally give me a dozen free beers each time I go.
I just have to swipe this card thing after each one though.
Not sure what that’s about, but the missus normally finds out.
by Jim05 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:36 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |