SA Footy

TimmiesChin wrote:

smac wrote:Why should the 2 AFL clubs have a say on SMA? I wouldn't appoint a tenant in my rental property as my agent to manage the property.

Because like it or lump it, the two AFL sides are the biggest party involved in Adelaide Oval and should at least have a voice.

Wky was it again that the SANFL originally left Adelaide Oval and set up footy park. Wasn't it because they were the biggest source of revenue of Adelaide Oval but where getting no input ? (or something like that).

That's totally irrelevant.
If the two AFL clubs want control, then go and buy a plot of land and build your own stadium.

LOL TC, the SANFL did buy some land a build a stadium as JTC has indicated.

TimmiesChin wrote:

tipper wrote:the model they agreed to, yet are now saying is not fair? once again, back to not doing their due diligence......

Replans occur on a daily basis across industry, its a fact of life. Models are built on assumptions and contingencies.

Do you know for a fact the agreement does not have the ability to revisit the model ... given you seem to know the contents of whats been signed ?

Yep. Ask the French Railways. Someone mismeasured how fat their trains were . So whose fault is that? The builders or the bloke with the ruler. Both AFL clubs had a bloke with a ruler when they negotiated their deal.

kickinit wrote:

Jim05 wrote:The thing you are forgetting Timmy is that the SANFL are part owners of AO and without them the move to AO would never of been made possible. The SANFL is entitled to claim rent off the AFL sides as long as they are tennants. The two AFL sides dont even get a say on the SMA. Id be more than happy for the SANFL to just collect rent of them for eternity, at a decent rate of course

Incorrect, the SANFL hold a lease to AO, at no stage have the SANFL bought AO. The government own AO and at any time can take that lease away from the SANFL.

I doubt that.
The whole point of a lease is that it protects both parties, giving a fixed and stable future. If the SANFL have an 80 year lease (or however long it's for), then that's what they have. Like it or not.

Macca19 wrote:I think its fair to call it a mystery how a club cant make any money on a sell out, 50k crowd. If you cant make any money with almost every single seat taken, how do you make money on game days?

They're making NO money with a sell out?

Perhaps not as much as they like but it's certainly more than break even!!

Anyone give links to references for the statements made that they are getting NO money?

Sounds like exaggeration to me

johntheclaret wrote:That's totally irrelevant.
If the two AFL clubs want control, then go and buy a plot of land and build your own stadium.

The plot of land at Adelaide Oval was NOT bought by the SANFL. The Government has developed it - so that AFL can be played there.

kickinit wrote:

tipper wrote:

TimmiesChin wrote:(uplift was based on an expected crowd figure)

so whats wrong? was the crowd figure off? i thought pretty much every game so far had been a sellout? cant possibly get more of a crowd than that. if the income generated by those crowds isnt as high as expected, then someone at the club didnt do their due diligence on the numbers provided to them surely? and if it is because the games are a sellout but members arent turning up to watch, isnt that the clubs problem? and hasnt that problem existed here in adelaide since the crows inception nearly 25 years ago?

TimmiesChin wrote:In which case this thread should be closed and everyone should just shut up and deal with it.

difference is the sanfl has the power to correct the situation. they can vote the afl reserves sides out for the beginning of the 2016 season (not that i think they will, but hey, i can dream)

wish i could complain to my landlord "i am not earning as much as i expected i would this year, lower my rent please...." and expect it to actually work

The AFL clubs could only do calculations on costs that where given to them. The big issue especially for port was their figures where generated on a lot lower crowd figures then what we have gotten so far, so they should be generating more income then projected but they aren't. It's like your landlord saying you have to pay for this and that which totals $1,000 but then when it actually happens he hits you with $5,000.

Now I get it. So it's a bit like the AFL promising 5,000 fans but when it happens they hit you with less than 1,000 fans.

TimmiesChin wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:That's totally irrelevant.
If the two AFL clubs want control, then go and buy a plot of land and build your own stadium.

The plot of land at Adelaide Oval was NOT bought by the SANFL. The Government has developed it - so that AFL can be played there.

SANFL sub lease to the AFL franchises. Again don't like the deal put in front of you then go and do what the SANFL did in the 70's when Bradman was being a prick.....Build your bloody own stadium!

bennymacca wrote:I'm sorry I just don't believe that they aren't trying. Possibly being played out of position or something, but you tell me that Jarryd Lyons or Andy otten aren't trying their guts out, their place in the senior team and possibly their career depends on it.

So tell me why they wouldn't try?

Spot on Benny
I think the problem lies with the percentage of top players and that AFC doesn't have the quality in depth.
I also don't believe that their core players aren't trying.

TimmiesChin wrote:You never received a quote which ended up being different to final cost ?

That being said, there's a lot we don't know. Ie - what is included in match day revenue....

In relation to getting a quote, the process that would have been used is a tender. I have put a tender out on many occasions and if the invoice comes in for more than what was tendered I simply did not pay it. With a Tender the contractor won the business on his quote and may have knocked out 8 other contractors. I have never been taken to court for not paying the inflated invoice as a court would through it out. Im sure the majority of the work undertaken at AO was tendered out with the prices fixed with evryone being totally aware of the costs.

TimmiesChin wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:That's totally irrelevant.
If the two AFL clubs want control, then go and buy a plot of land and build your own stadium.

The plot of land at Adelaide Oval was NOT bought by the SANFL. The Government has developed it - so that AFL can be played there.

Only with SANFL approval. If the SANFL said no to the move it wouldnt of gone ahead.
No coincidence the SANFL held up the selling of the licenses until the move to AO was complete? Olsen and co are not complete fools especially when it comes to getting their snouts in the trough

kickinit wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

whufc wrote:"The SANFL (South Australian National Football League) is the premier League and governing body for Australian Rules Football in South Australia.

The SANFL grows and promotes football throughout South Australia from indigenous communities, school and club footy right through to League level.

We are the custodians for footy in South Australia and as such, we are the organisation that works in the best interests of football to realise its full potential at all levels.

It is a significant responsibility, as football is an industry that generates half a billion dollars to the state's economy annually and employs 1500 people - and it's a game that is played and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands more.

The SANFL's key objective is to build and protect the long-term future of the game at all levels - the ten SANFL clubs, and the game at community level throughout South Australia"

See if you can get an adult to explain the above to you kickinit. The answers to all your questions are above. A big hint the first sentence. You'll note it doesn't state (accept AFL) anywhere.

I fully understand what was posted. As you said the big hint in the first sentence. Did you notice that the last 3 words? IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Meaning they are the governing body for all competitions in South Australia. The AFL is a Australia wide competition. Just so you understand.

ACT and NSW governing body is AFL NSW/ACT
NT governing body is AFL NT
Queensland Governing body is AFL Queensland
SA governing body South Australian Football Commission
Tasmania governing body is AFL Victoria
Victoria governing body is AFL Victoria
WA governing body is WA football commission

The SANFL only have a say on the leagues that based in SA, anything outside of this is out of their control e.g. the AFL. The AFL is the governing body for Australia Football and that is why all of the governing body listed above follow the laws of the game, which are set out by the governing body the AFL.

******* Hell. That's unbelievable. You are now rewriting history. I think Australian Rules Football existed just a tad before the AFL caramel into being. I think that is a big issue in Australia these days. Too many people confuse the AFL with Australian Rules Football.
By the way kick unit, there is a hint in the name of the game that suggests where the laws if the game came from.

Can everyone please stop posting until I catch up. I've been away for a week.
I've been on this thread for over an hour now and I'm still 8 pages behind.

Geez what an interesting and exciting life I live

bennymacca wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Maddawg wrote: In fact the AFL needs the SANFL far more than they need a team like the crows or the power as they are all but franchises that can be replaced. A little bit of short term pain but definetly replaceable.

Very good point.
The success of the Crows proves that a side can be created from nothing with no supporters, to a state phenomenon with a membership of 50,000 plus. Had those 50,000 turn coats simply refused to follow the AFL and stayed with their SANFL side, as we did, we wouldn't be in this mess. They preferred to follow a side made from nothing over teams they'd followed their whole lives.

I have never been able to get my head around that!

So much lol.

First things first, people under about 30 have never known anything different to the crows being in the AFL.

Secondly not all people followed the vfl as well as the sanfl. Or they may not have followed or closely.

Wouldn't it follow then that if there was a brand new south Aussie team that they could get behind, in a comp that is better than the sanfl, that they would do that, as well as they continue to follow their sanfl team in a LOWER comp?

Your statement is so ridiculous that it hardly deserved comment but I had to...

And well done timmy for bringing some sense back to this conversation.

Claiming that the AFL is a better comp than the SANFL is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact Benny

No it's a fact. In crowds, money, tv, standard, etc ect.

In saying that there is nothing wrong with deciding you prefer a "lower" comp. many people do because it is easier to feel a closer connection to that club. Nothing wrong with that.

That's what I meant by better. Not that it is automatically more enjoyable for any particular person

Better crowds etc. is a fact. Better competition is an opinion.

Ronnie wrote:

twosheds wrote:

bennymacca wrote:I'm sorry I just don't believe that they aren't trying. Possibly being played out of position or something, but you tell me that Jarryd Lyons or Andy otten aren't trying their guts out, their place in the senior team and possibly their career depends on it.

So tell me why they wouldn't try?

Jesus H ! How can you be so obtuse, no-one is saying or has said that each individual player is "not trying" (as you say their career depends on it) but the coaches have admitted their priority is to "develop the players" which means the positions they play, the minutes they play and if they play depending on timing of games and needs of the AFL club. So they (the club)are not trying to win, pure an simple, Its not that hard a concept to grasp .
Forget all the other wah wah this is why the AFL Reserves teams should not be in the SANFL League competition. It is purely self interest on their behalf and they DGAF how that occurs.

Bennymacca please grasp this!!! the players are trying every time they cross the line, but the club itself is hardly too concerned with win loss ratio, and is structuring the side with the view of possible AFL action for those involved. It's what you would expect from an AFL reserves side. It's been pointed out to tedium but the finer points of AFL involvement in the SANFL you either choose to gloss over or don't grasp.

You are both being unfair. Benny's post was in reply to another, which neither of you have included in the your thread. Do what I do and try reading the whole thread before making comment.

If Port don't like the deal to play @ Adelaide Oval (which astounds me somewhat, considering THEY were the one's driving the whole thing, due to a supposed "poor Stadium deal at Footy Park"), why not get Koch to start developing Alberton?

Make it a Stadium like Geelong have.
Borrow some money from a BANK (like the rest of us have to do if we want to 'invest' in Home/Site improvements) & develop your OWN Stadium.
That way you can charge your supporters $2.50 for a Pie instead of the $5.50 @ AO.
Of course, that's going to make it difficult to REPAY your debt - unlike the debt that's been 'written off' for the 'Magpies' & the borrowings from the SANFL for the years of shite attendances @ AFL Games.

Sheesh... Port's constant moan about 'Stadium Deals' is becoming tiresome - it's always everybody else's fault but your own FFS!
You supposedly have 50,000 f**king members - how can you NOT be making money?

johntheclaret wrote:

Ronnie wrote:

twosheds wrote:

bennymacca wrote:I'm sorry I just don't believe that they aren't trying. Possibly being played out of position or something, but you tell me that Jarryd Lyons or Andy otten aren't trying their guts out, their place in the senior team and possibly their career depends on it.

So tell me why they wouldn't try?

Jesus H ! How can you be so obtuse, no-one is saying or has said that each individual player is "not trying" (as you say their career depends on it) but the coaches have admitted their priority is to "develop the players" which means the positions they play, the minutes they play and if they play depending on timing of games and needs of the AFL club. So they (the club)are not trying to win, pure an simple, Its not that hard a concept to grasp .
Forget all the other wah wah this is why the AFL Reserves teams should not be in the SANFL League competition. It is purely self interest on their behalf and they DGAF how that occurs.

Bennymacca please grasp this!!! the players are trying every time they cross the line, but the club itself is hardly too concerned with win loss ratio, and is structuring the side with the view of possible AFL action for those involved. It's what you would expect from an AFL reserves side. It's been pointed out to tedium but the finer points of AFL involvement in the SANFL you either choose to gloss over or don't grasp.

You are both being unfair. Benny's post was in reply to another, which neither of you have included in the your thread. Do what I do and try reading the whole thread before making comment.

Not unfair at all, benny has plenty of form in being so concrete its a wonder he's not part of Adelaide Oval. he likes to try and be "Mr Reasonable " when in fact he himself is "Captain Selective Comment". Forgot everything else he asked why wouldn't the players try, for the umpteenth time I tried to explain that the players would be trying HOWEVER they have no control over the priorities of the club which (again) is to develop players therefore they do not belong in the League competition. I don't give a toss for all the other crap that's on here about who is a real supporter, who has their head in the sand, who is being naive etc but I can't believe some people don't get the trying to win/developing players dichotomy. John I usually agree with all you say but when I see BS I'll call it BS and comment on it.