Booney wrote:So, in essence, the SANFL is giving the AFC ( at an estimate ) $2m per year of free rent.
I look forward to the constant references to these monies.
Wow...... i am honestly not sure what else can be said.
how in christs name could anyone at the SANFl agree to such a shit deal?? someone needs to be lined up and shot. that money could go a hell of a long way to improving the situation of all of the sanfl clubs. and if that is the deal they have had all along makes the "bailouts" the power have had over the years pale into insignificance.....
Interesting observation.
how many multi million dollar organisations have $0 on the balance sheet for rent?? i am completely oblivious to whatever the powers deal is down at alberton (as i was to the crows deal till Booney's links), but a $2 million per year deal (at current rates) is a massive leg up to the crows. how long till Eddie and collingwood complain about the unfair advantage they have over the other clubs?
Thanks for the links Booney. Having read them I am trying to understand them in a commercial sense.
I assume (perhaps wrongly) that the SANFL people who negotiated this were commercially astute to understand that the Crows were gaining a substantial benefit. I further assume that they would have used this as part of their arguement to get a better deal out of the move to AO. Therefore it would appear that the parties involved wanted the Crows to come out of the deal in a good position. So it would appear that taxpayer money was put into the AO deal in large enough quantities to give the SANFL a financial benefit large enough to overlook a mere $2M benefit to the Crows. The Westlakes oval was a 40 year investment by the SANFL which was effectively financed by the SANFL clubs (after all until the Crows that was where all SANFL revenue came from. It is now time for the SANFL to pay back some of this investment to the clubs as I believe that their need is now greater than that of the SANFL.
LPH wrote:To be fair, I think smac WOULD know, Booney. I don't think he's likely to provide "evidence" - confidentiality & all that
He may have been given information to that effect, for sure.
I'm interested to know how accurate this is though, the club are doing alot of things right on and off field at the moment and I find it hard to believe that such a thing could happen.
Did Kochy shut up? [emoji2]
And not sold by pafc doesn't mean unoccupied on match day. SMA can flog* them off at any price they want if unsold by tenant.
It'd be interesting if this was always the case re Adelaide not paying any lease hold and due to that, how much the SANFL has worn over the years. What I will say is that "facts" via an article or opinion piece in the Advertiser is hardly fact, further to that, an opinion piece by Rucci is definitely something to be suspicious about. I note that he has, to my knowledge, never written about what PAFC pay for their foothold at Alberton. Which you think he would considering that the "article" that Booney posted was about lease payments or lack thereof. I'm sure if Port were paying a substantial amount he would've included it into his agenda...sorry "article". With Gary Johansen being a staunch Port man and mayor of the PAEC it would be interesting just what the deal has been.
'PAFC don't want any advantages in the SANFL. It would only take away from any achievements we earned.'
Keith Thomas ABC 891 Radio, 21/6/14.
Anyone else hear former Port player and now commentator Dwayne Russell last night? Said that Box Hill should play whoever they like in the VFL and cant believe that Williamstown are upset over McEvoy playing. Said the VFL is there to prepare AFL players and that the VFL, SANFL and WAFL need to realise they are a feeder comp for the AFL and do whats best for them. Then said if it wasnt for the AFL reserves sides in these comps they wouldnt attract decent players or attention. WADH!
CUTTERMAN wrote:It'd be interesting if this was always the case re Adelaide not paying any lease hold and due to that, how much the SANFL has worn over the years. What I will say is that "facts" via an article or opinion piece in the Advertiser is hardly fact, further to that, an opinion piece by Rucci is definitely something to be suspicious about. I note that he has, to my knowledge, never written about what PAFC pay for their foothold at Alberton. Which you think he would considering that the "article" that Booney posted was about lease payments or lack thereof. I'm sure if Port were paying a substantial amount he would've included it into his agenda...sorry "article". With Gary Johansen being a staunch Port man and mayor of the PAEC it would be interesting just what the deal has been.
The SANFL and it's commission are all about money .. I'm sure there would have been a rub somewhere along the way
Jim05 wrote:Anyone else hear former Port player and now commentator Dwayne Russell last night? Said that Box Hill should play whoever they like in the VFL and cant believe that Williamstown are upset over McEvoy playing. Said the VFL is there to prepare AFL players and that the VFL, SANFL and WAFL need to realise they are a feeder comp for the AFL and do whats best for them. Then said if it wasnt for the AFL reserves sides in these comps they wouldnt attract decent players or attention. WADH!
Sums up what's wrong with the attitude of the AFL, AFL clubs, media, AFL-only fans, league directors etc. to a once-great competition.
Jim05 wrote:Anyone else hear former Port player and now commentator Dwayne Russell last night? Said that Box Hill should play whoever they like in the VFL and cant believe that Williamstown are upset over McEvoy playing. Said the VFL is there to prepare AFL players and that the VFL, SANFL and WAFL need to realise they are a feeder comp for the AFL and do whats best for them. Then said if it wasnt for the AFL reserves sides in these comps they wouldnt attract decent players or attention. WADH!
Sums up what's wrong with the attitude of the AFL, AFL clubs, media, AFL-only fans, league directors etc. to a once-great competition.
Would like to see any stand alone state league side present a defence to any future salary cap breaches by say we are just trying to compete on an even playing field with AFL reserve teams....
Jim05 wrote:Anyone else hear former Port player and now commentator Dwayne Russell last night? Said that Box Hill should play whoever they like in the VFL and cant believe that Williamstown are upset over McEvoy playing. Said the VFL is there to prepare AFL players and that the VFL, SANFL and WAFL need to realise they are a feeder comp for the AFL and do whats best for them. Then said if it wasnt for the AFL reserves sides in these comps they wouldnt attract decent players or attention. WADH!
Isn't this basically what SANFL clubs have admitted by bringing in AFL Reserves teams. The SANFL is a feeder comp now.
Jim05 wrote:Anyone else hear former Port player and now commentator Dwayne Russell last night? Said that Box Hill should play whoever they like in the VFL and cant believe that Williamstown are upset over McEvoy playing. Said the VFL is there to prepare AFL players and that the VFL, SANFL and WAFL need to realise they are a feeder comp for the AFL and do whats best for them. Then said if it wasnt for the AFL reserves sides in these comps they wouldnt attract decent players or attention. WADH!
Sums up what's wrong with the attitude of the AFL, AFL clubs, media, AFL-only fans, league directors etc. to a once-great competition.
Would like to see any stand alone state league side present a defence to any future salary cap breaches by say we are just trying to compete on an even playing field with AFL reserve teams....
Interesting point in the case of the VFL, given that the reduced caps for alignment arrangements are meant to reflect the full-time player involvement and are presumably based on set and validated qualification standards.
In other words it could be argued that Box Hill are, indirectly and in effect, adding to their salary expenditure.
"— here I opened wide the door; —
Darkness there, and nothing more."
The VFL must have some pretty stupid qualification rules if a player for a club who is still involved in the afl finals can't play at the club they are aligned to.
RustyCage wrote:How do SANFL clubs turn it around? Aren't the SANFL selling off the land around Footy Park? That's a huge gold mine for the league.
Problem is now there is a stand off between the league and the clubs as the league would like to service their own debts first.....something to do with bailing out an AFL club numerous times, maybe they could ask the AFL for some free cash to blow on some lunches for the league directors
The value of the land being sold off is MANY MANY times more than the money that the SANFL was legally required to give Port.
Ummm legally required. ??
So port would of taking SANFL to court if not bailed out ???
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
Jim05 wrote:Would be interesting to see how much the Crows are charged to train at AAMI and have their offices/gym etc based there. One would think now they are no longer incorporated with the SANFL they should be paying top dollar. Something that size should attract a fair ammount of coin id think.
Zero. It is absolutely zero.
lets see, it seems to be the day for regurgitating the "oppositions" catch cry today so Booney if you please...
"I'd like to see evidence of this. Thanks in advance"....
The football oval has been promised to the Adelaide Football Club for the next 15 years for training and practice matches, although the stadium will be dismantled over the next decade.
The SANFL has been part of the West Lakes precinct since 1974.
The Adelaide Football Club will remain as a tenant with its current lease agreement keeping the club on the site until 2048.
ADELAIDE was the last signatory for football’s return to the redeveloped Adelaide Oval. The Crows invested heavily in new facilities at West Lakes, spending as much as $22 million to build the “New Shed” that expanded the club’s training and social facilities.
While Port Adelaide eagerly — and loudly — pushed for AFL games to be played at the Oval, the Crows stood firm in demanding they see the real benefits — such as at least $3 million in extra profit from moving games from West Lakes to the city.
More difficult than dealing with the big money invested in their palace at West Lakes was the “rusted on” Crows fans who refused to be budged from their seats at Football Park. Some have refused to be part of the move to Adelaide Oval despite the glowing reviews of the new ground.
Adelaide has a rent-free long-term lease — with benefits worth $2 million a year — to remain at West Lakes, but the reality is sinking in that the Crows must move closer to the city, perhaps Thebarton.
CURSE? No, just a poor reading of the tea leaves on football’s return to the city.
@tipper
And they still complain about stadium returns FFS???
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
RustyCage wrote:The VFL must have some pretty stupid qualification rules if a player for a club who is still involved in the afl finals can't play at the club they are aligned to.
In your ever humble view. Not the VFL clubs that have worked with these things for several years.
Nor, it seems, the AFL clubs involved until it suits one of them to go whining like spoiled brats, successfully, to the school Deputy Principal for a revision of the playground rules. All this despite existing arrangements being clarified and endorsed at the last school assembly.
"— here I opened wide the door; —
Darkness there, and nothing more."
LPH wrote:To be fair, I think smac WOULD know, Booney. I don't think he's likely to provide "evidence" - confidentiality & all that
He may have been given information to that effect, for sure.
I'm interested to know how accurate this is though, the club are doing alot of things right on and off field at the moment and I find it hard to believe that such a thing could happen.
Maybe you should go and ask them.
I plan to, but I'm not going to go off half cocked with only second/third/fourth hand information.
Thanks for the support John!
Here to help bud. You know I'm right behind ya all the way.
Booney wrote:So, in essence, the SANFL is giving the AFC ( at an estimate ) $2m per year of free rent.
I look forward to the constant references to these monies.
Might have been a $ component in the sale of license? (Can you ring Leigh and check for me, thanks mate )
That was my thoughts. A rent free deal worth $2m a year sounds a poor decision based on its own. But it means nothing if it is wrapped up in a bigger deal. I guess it depends on who wanted the licences more, or perhaps who wanted the licences less.
If the crows are noy going to be charged rent now then you can put it down as a bad business decision. Crap on as much as you want but thats the hars truth.
Also considering back now over he years when the crows were making less than a 2mil profit.......turns out we have two dud AFL teams in this state from a financial point of view.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
Here to help bud. You know I'm right behind ya all the way.
