Port Adelaide Magpie$$$$$$$$

[TimmiesChin]

Wedgie - The$28k profits over the last 2 years is after all payments to players, admin and running costs etc
They don't have $28k to pay the costs. In 2004 they had $1.404m and that amount increased in 2005 to $1.572m
The $28k is what was left over

I know what the 28k is, its the total profit they've made in the last 2 years.
I have no idea what the deposit for the pub is but even not taking that into account they'd need a profit of a few hundred thousand to pay what some of the players contracts that theyve signed in the last few months, hence (again) my question.

Whatever ..... you go on and on about the new players but seem to disregard any players tha have left. People go on and on about "Supposed" payments and come up with numbers..... but cant back it up - only mentioning what a player "reportedly" offered himself for to other clubs. Wedgie for someone who suggests upon starting this thread that its not about salary cap you seem to be mentioning it a fair bit.

No doubt Cahill back last year - and new generally well spending sponsors like Crazy Daves I dont see what uour driving at.

How about we all sit back and wait for the SANFL to investigate all clubs salary cap expenditure and stop talking as if we know stuff we dont.

[Wedgie]

Whatever ..... you go on and on about the new players but seem to disregard any players tha have left. People go on and on about "Supposed" payments and come up with numbers..... but cant back it up - only mentioning what a player "reportedly" offered himself for to other clubs. Wedgie for someone who suggests upon starting this thread that its not about salary cap you seem to be mentioning it a fair bit.

No doubt Cahill back last year - and new generally well spending sponsors like Crazy Daves I dont see what uour driving at.

How about we all sit back and wait for the SANFL to investigate all clubs salary cap expenditure and stop talking as if we know stuff we dont.

I honestly don't know how to explain it any simpler, non Port fans seem to understand it.

The club was virtually broke a few years ago, virtually no profits have been made since.
Even completely discounting the amount new players are getting signed up for at Alberton (and its pretty common knowledge around the traps) and only taking into account the amount of money they'd need for a deposit for buying outright a pub where has the money come from?

Perhaps is simpler terms for a couple of the Port fans, if you have no money in your pocket, you only put a couple of 5 cent pieces into it each year, how could you afford a new hourse after 3 or 4 years and a fleet of cars while you're at it.

You say Im mentioning the salary cap a fair bit, the only time I mentioned it was in my initial post when I stressed this post had nothing to do with the salary cap. You mentioned "salary cap" more times in your one post than I had in my previous 4!

Can people that only understand the question please answer from now on? Please.

This topic is in no way meant to be disparaging to the PAMFC, if anything I'll be very complimentary of them for turning around things, read the topic slower.

[TimmiesChin]

Whatever ..... you go on and on about the new players but seem to disregard any players tha have left. People go on and on about "Supposed" payments and come up with numbers..... but cant back it up - only mentioning what a player "reportedly" offered himself for to other clubs. Wedgie for someone who suggests upon starting this thread that its not about salary cap you seem to be mentioning it a fair bit.

No doubt Cahill back last year - and new generally well spending sponsors like Crazy Daves I dont see what uour driving at.

How about we all sit back and wait for the SANFL to investigate all clubs salary cap expenditure and stop talking as if we know stuff we dont.

I honestly don't know how to explain it any simpler, non Port fans seem to understand it.

The club was virtually broke a few years ago, virtually no profits have been made since.
Even completely discounting the amount new players are getting signed up for at Alberton (and its pretty common knowledge around the traps) and only taking into account the amount of money they'd need for a deposit for buying outright a pub where has the money come from?

Perhaps is simpler terms for a couple of the Port fans, if you have no money in your pocket, you only put a couple of 5 cent pieces into it each year, how could you afford a new hourse after 3 or 4 years and a fleet of cars while you're at it.

You say Im mentioning the salary cap a fair bit, the only time I mentioned it was in my initial post when I stressed this post had nothing to do with the salary cap. You mentioned "salary cap" more times in your one post than I had in my previous 4!

Can people that only understand the question please answer from now on? Please.

This topic is in no way meant to be disparaging to the PAMFC, if anything I'll be very complimentary of them for turning around things, read the topic slower.

I have a simple explanation. Historically Port has never been ahuge profit club in the SANFL - even in past premiership years at time they were close to even or under. There again making profits isnt the main goal of footy clubs - winning flags is.

So if we assume Port is a club tha spends most of what they have, and lets say they have an additional 100K of income - they are not going to have an extra 100K of profit - more likely they are going to spend a lot more.

So to me the most obvious reason why Port would be spending more without increased profits is that they identified a need for more football soending (or club spending on hotels etc) went out and sourced additonal income via sponsorship etc .... and right away they have started spending it.

As for you not mentioning salary cap - in the post I initially replied to you were talking about the club needing to find an extra couple hundred thousand for new players .... if thats not talking salary cap I'll go heave.


I mean look at North - several years ago they also were in trouble if my memory serves me well ... but guys like Robran etc did lots of work behind the scenes.

But ultimately my point is that increased income without increasing spending leads to increasedprofits and a sense that the club is going well .... increased income coupled with increased spending doesnt give the same impression.

[Wedgie]

I have a simple explanation. Historically Port has never been ahuge profit club in the SANFL - even in past premiership years at time they were close to even or under. There again making profits isnt the main goal of footy clubs - winning flags is.

So if we assume Port is a club tha spends most of what they have, and lets say they have an additional 100K of income - they are not going to have an extra 100K of profit - more likely they are going to spend a lot more.

So to me the most obvious reason why Port would be spending more without increased profits is that they identified a need for more football soending (or club spending on hotels etc) went out and sourced additonal income via sponsorship etc .... and right away they have started spending it.

As for you not mentioning salary cap - in the post I initially replied to you were talking about the club needing to find an extra couple hundred thousand for new players .... if thats not talking salary cap I'll go heave.


I mean look at North - several years ago they also were in trouble if my memory serves me well ... but guys like Robran etc did lots of work behind the scenes.

But ultimately my point is that increased income without increasing spending leads to increasedprofits and a sense that the club is going well .... increased income coupled with increased spending doesnt give the same impression.

Thanks for trying but you still don't understand, and are on completely the wrong tanget, also if I want to discuss the salary cap, I'll mention the words "salary cap", its been done to death and is not the reason for my question, I'm personally sick of salary cap talk too.
Thanks again for trying though, I do appreciate it.
As yet my question is still unanswered and if anyone else knows what is going on I'd be appreciative.
And just for some of those out there that are a bit slow or want to read into something that's not there: This question has nothing to do with the salary cap, it is one of genuine curiousity.

[TimmiesChin]

Wedgie - The$28k profits over the last 2 years is after all payments to players, admin and running costs etc
They don't have $28k to pay the costs. In 2004 they had $1.404m and that amount increased in 2005 to $1.572m
The $28k is what was left over

I know what the 28k is, its the total profit they've made in the last 2 years.
I have no idea what the deposit for the pub is but even not taking that into account they'd need a profit of a few hundred thousand to pay what some of the players contracts that theyve signed in the last few months, hence (again) my question.

Wedgie this is the post referring to salary cap/player payments I referred to. And frankly "common knowledge" (read - speculation and rumour) doesnt cut it with me - hence I wait to see SANFL findings for all clubs.

[TimmiesChin]

I have a simple explanation. Historically Port has never been ahuge profit club in the SANFL - even in past premiership years at time they were close to even or under. There again making profits isnt the main goal of footy clubs - winning flags is.

So if we assume Port is a club tha spends most of what they have, and lets say they have an additional 100K of income - they are not going to have an extra 100K of profit - more likely they are going to spend a lot more.

So to me the most obvious reason why Port would be spending more without increased profits is that they identified a need for more football soending (or club spending on hotels etc) went out and sourced additonal income via sponsorship etc .... and right away they have started spending it.

As for you not mentioning salary cap - in the post I initially replied to you were talking about the club needing to find an extra couple hundred thousand for new players .... if thats not talking salary cap I'll go heave.


I mean look at North - several years ago they also were in trouble if my memory serves me well ... but guys like Robran etc did lots of work behind the scenes.

But ultimately my point is that increased income without increasing spending leads to increasedprofits and a sense that the club is going well .... increased income coupled with increased spending doesnt give the same impression.

Thanks for trying but you still don't understand, and are on completely the wrong tanget, also if I want to discuss the salary cap, I'll mention the words "salary cap", its been done to death and is not the reason for my question, I'm personally sick of salary cap talk too.
Thanks again for trying though, I do appreciate it.
As yet my question is still unanswered and if anyone else knows what is going on I'd be appreciative.
And just for some of those out there that are a bit slow or want to read into something that's not there: This question has nothing to do with the salary cap, it is one of genuine curiousity.

In that cas I dont know what you are asking. Theres already a post a page back showing that Ports income increased by over 100K last year - and straight away expenditure went up .... with at least one new sponsor of note this year I imagine that income has increased once again .... and probably spent straight away.

Have I missed something.

EDIT - maybe Im confusing player payments and salary cap, but intimating that a few new signing eats up several hundred K, seems to suggest you think we're over - if Im wrong I apologize.

[Wedgie]

In that cas I dont know what you are asking. Theres already a post a page back showing that Ports income increased by over 100K last year - and straight away expenditure went up .... with at least one new sponsor of note this year I imagine that income has increased once again .... and probably spent straight away.

Have I missed something.

EDIT - maybe Im confusing player payments and salary cap, but intimating that a few new signing eats up several hundred K, seems to suggest you think we're over - if Im wrong I apologize.

Thanks gain for trying but income has nothing to do with my question, it doesn't matter if the Magpies income is 200 billion, if they're not making money they don't have money to spend, simple.

I did however think of a reasonable (the only reasonable) explanation while having a shower to freshen up.
Perhaps Port through a high profile supporter got a very good loan with minimal outlay needed to buy their pub. Since purchasing the pub it might be making huge amounts of money and this wouldn't be beyond expectatin as despite most hoteliers not giving up profitable business it is well documented that the pub that Port bought was owned by Port fan and I think he even stayed on in a consultancy role.
This money since the purchase of the pub 8 odd months ago is what is being spent on the large amounts of money Port have been outlaying for various things since.
It doesn't answer the amounts of money they threw around before 8 months ago but it does explain what's happened recently.
Not sure if its right or wrong as I have no idea what the pubs profit is like but that would be a reasonable explanation but it'd require the answer of someone in the know, not just a guess by a supporter.

[TimmiesChin]

Thanks gain for trying but income has nothing to do with my question, it doesn't matter if the Magpies income is 200 billion, if they're not making money they don't have money to spend, simple.

I did however think of a reasonable (the only reasonable) explanation while having a shower to freshen up.
Perhaps Port through a high profile supporter got a very good loan with minimal outlay needed to buy their pub. Since purchasing the pub it might be making huge amounts of money and this wouldn't be beyond expectatin as despite most hoteliers not giving up profitable business it is well documented that the pub that Port bought was owned by Port fan and I think he even stayed on in a consultancy role.
This money since the purchase of the pub 8 odd months ago is what is being spent on the large amounts of money Port have been outlaying for various things since.
It doesn't answer the amounts of money they threw around before 8 months ago but it does explain what's happened recently.
Not sure if its right or wrong as I have no idea what the pubs profit is like but that would be a reasonable explanation but it'd require the answer of someone in the know, not just a guess by a supporter.

But income is money. If they have more money then their income is greater. I dont see the difference between income and money that your getting at

[Wedgie]

But income is money. If they have more money then their income is greater. I dont see the difference between income and money that your getting at

OK, I'll try one last time.
If Im on a salary of 100k a year and have no wife, no children and no house to pay off I have lots of money to spend on various things.
If my neighbour is also on a salary of 100k a year, is married, is paying off a mortgage, has 5 kids, 2 dogs and a white ant infestation that's eating his house away he's not going to have lots of money to spend on various things.

Both people have the same income but it has nothing to do with their spending capacity.
Income is irrelevent when discussing the spending capacity, it doesn't how much you're income is, you'd be better off with income of 10k a year with no expenditure as opposed to 1million a year with 999,999 expenditure.

[TimmiesChin]

But income is money. If they have more money then their income is greater. I dont see the difference between income and money that your getting at

OK, I'll try one last time.
If Im on a salary of 100k a year and have no wife, no children and no house to pay off I have lots of money to spend on various things.
If my neighbour is also on a salary of 100k a year, is married, is paying off a mortgage, has 5 kids, 2 dogs and a white ant infestation that's eating his house away he's not going to have lots of money to spend on various things.

Both people have the same income but it has nothing to do with their spending capacity.
Income is irrelevent when discussing the spending capacity, it doesn't how much you're income is, you'd be better off with income of 10k a year with no expenditure as opposed to 1million a year with 999,999 expenditure.

But that wife, (and mistress no doubt) equate to the players port are paying, the mortgage to the pub they are paying off etc. Basically the reason port has income is to service their expenses. No doubt the income has to increase to service more expenses such as players.... but it has - as stated earlier by over 100K lasy year, and will proably increase again due to new sponsorship.

I'm current treasurer of a small country sporting club - our expenses are currently in the order of 25 thousand a year, our income is marginally more than that - several years ago our expenses were probably 15 thousand a year, but we identified we needed to increase spending to grow - so we went out, signed up sponsors, implemented a few handy fundraisers and we are ok. Point being we needed to increase our income to cater for it, so we wen out and worked on it. Rather than remain with the same income and save and cut costs for years to get where we wanted to be, we went out and chased more income.

[Wedgie]

But that wife, (and mistress no doubt) equate to the players port are paying, the mortgage to the pub they are paying off etc. Basically the reason port has income is to service their expenses. No doubt the income has to increase to service more expenses such as players.... but it has - as stated earlier by over 100K lasy year, and will proably increase again due to new sponsorship.

I'm current treasurer of a small country sporting club - our expenses are currently in the order of 25 thousand a year, our income is marginally more than that - several years ago our expenses were probably 15 thousand a year, but we identified we needed to increase spending to grow - so we went out, signed up sponsors, implemented a few handy fundraisers and we are ok. Point being we needed to increase our income to cater for it, so we wen out and worked on it. Rather than remain with the same income and save and cut costs for years to get where we wanted to be, we went out and chased more income.

As I said, thanks for trying but you're off track again and it would take someone in the know to actually answer my question.
I'm not blaming you either, its probably my fault for not explaining myself properly but a few did understand.
Cheers.

[Gravel]

OK - Hope this helps Wedgie.
Firstly Port put in $700k cash into the pub and borrowed the rest. The pub is paying back the loan. Port have net assets of over $1.0m and have had since 1997 as far as I know. The $2- campaign was about identifying future cash flow shortages and doing something about it early - Port had approx $1.0m in the bank at the time the campaign started.
I would say that quite a few players would have footy/job packages so the pub pays the salaries of the ones that work there. I would be surprised if all clubs did not do this. Port couldn't do this before the pub was bought.
I think the cost issue that has been underestimated is the players from 2005 that have left, 15/16 on the payroll and some likely to have been in the final year of a big contracts (some overpaid recruits as well no doubt). A bit like Motlop and Heuskes, not playing at the end of the season and forgotten, throw in Roe and you have a lot of room in your wage budget. Chad Davis possibly taken a pay cut !

[Wedgie]

Cheers mate, that does help.
I forgot that Port's whole $2 campaign was about raising revenue but that the club wasn't actually close to broke.
Good stuff.

[dinglinga]

can i say when port magpies moved admin offices to port road that they didnt have to pay rent fees due to a sponser owning the premises.

but it is almost insulting that the club goes to its major sponser SCREAMING for money cos there broke and then buys a pub.

[drebin]

Well put gravel - but do the PAFC own all the pub or is it not an under lease deal of the exisiting lease? Exactly like Sturt's deal with the Castle Tavern.

[Macca19]

I honestly don't know how to explain it any simpler, non Port fans seem to understand it.

The club was virtually broke a few years ago, virtually no profits have been made since.

We were never nearly broke a few years ago. The $2 campaign was not put into action because we were broke then. It was because the club foresaw that we may be in trouble in 3-4 years time if we didnt find another source of income. We did and we arent in trouble.

[Gravel]

Drebin - my understanding is that the club has purchased the leasehold of the hotel. I would anticipate similar to North with the Northern Tavern, albeit without the objections from greedy pokie barrons that North had to face.

[JK]

Wedgie - The$28k profits over the last 2 years is after all payments to players, admin and running costs etc
They don't have $28k to pay the costs. In 2004 they had $1.404m and that amount increased in 2005 to $1.572m
The $28k is what was left over

I know what the 28k is, its the total profit they've made in the last 2 years.
I have no idea what the deposit for the pub is but even not taking that into account they'd need a profit of a few hundred thousand to pay what some of the players contracts that theyve signed in the last few months, hence (again) my question.

Depends on their net worth ... As for costs, including player salaries etc, as Gravel said they would form part of the expenses of the clubs P&L so it is certainly do-able ... I'm not suggesting anything sus has or hasn't gone on behind the scenes (however, the amount they must be spending on players does seem unusually high to a simpleton such as myself) ... If they raise the spendable amount in the budget, then whatever profit they they show is irrelevant in terms of player payments

[drebin]

Drebin - my understanding is that the club has purchased the leasehold of the hotel. I would anticipate similar to North with the Northern Tavern, albeit without the objections from greedy pokie barrons that North had to face.

We own (paying off as we borrowed to obtain) the whole lease: lock, stock and barrel. My understanding is that Port's deal was a sub-lease of a whole lease - the same as Sturts - a mangement/profit sharing arrangement with the existing owners. This would explain why your CEO (as per your website) has stated you get no significant income from the venture until after 3 years. By the way I am not knocking either Port or Sturt as they have been proactive in improving their cash flow and look what Sturt are doing with the move to Unley Road.
P.S. We brought the Northern Tavern only because it was their owners at the time that objected to our Rooster Club venture at Sefton Park forcing us to move. If you can't beat them - buy them! It turned out to be a great financial move as the Sefton Park pokies are at Grand North now - 80 machines is better than 40!

[sturt1]

Every clubs' had issues where they have said one thing and did another. If were talking standards in morals no club is exempt. No point trying to justify what a club has done or attacking an opposition club on what it has done as all clubs have dirty laundry. What I would like to see is all 9 clubs be financially viable and I believe that is or will be happening soon. Then the SANFL will be back to one of the greatest competitive sporting comps in the world.

I just couldnt keep out of this people.