SANFL Club Finances

[johntheclaret]

But I reckon $600k in the red like Glenelg is not a great place to be.

Im sure the GFC would love to only be in $600k in debt. According to the 2013 Annual Report it is $3.5m, and that would have been before we got the council to loan us another $500k.

With the disaster of the AFL teams coming into the league and low crowds due to on field performances, Glenelg are in a world of hurt.

But we got $50k from the Crows

And $50k off Port too apparently

[tipper]

Sure does. For the afl clubs to claim they want more money when they have had record crowds staggers me. They should be rolling in it shouldn't they?

but the afl clubs signed up to the deal, they agreed to it. sure it hasnt been great for them, but it has been an improvement, and as they agreed to the terms before the move how can they now be putting the blame on the sanfl/sma for their returns being poorer than they expected. surely it was up to them to do their due diligence before commiting to such a huge change.......

[bennymacca]

What's your point? Just means both of them may not have been that competent. Or the goalposts have moved. I don't know specifically what they are complaining about in the stadium deal however so I can't really comment.

[Dogwatcher]

[stan]

Trigg is as good as a used car salesmen, and really when it comes down to it our clubs didnt get an RAA check. So whos fault is it, the dealer or the clubs buying the car.

Look I'm not saying Trigg isnt a bit of the dodgy side, because I think there is enough evidence in regards to that, but our clubs needed to do there own research and it sounds like this wasnt done and the lemon was purchased.

[bennymacca]

Trigg is as good as a used car salesmen, and really when it comes down to it our clubs didnt get an RAA check. So whos fault is it, the dealer or the clubs buying the car.

Look I'm not saying Trigg isnt a bit of the dodgy side, because I think there is enough evidence in regards to that, but our clubs needed to do there own research and it sounds like this wasnt done and the lemon was purchased.

Yep I think that sums it up nicely.

[SANFLnut]

Could say the same about SANFL and clubs taking on AFL clubs in a deal based on misinformation and rapidly shifting goalposts too

[UK Fan]

Trigg is as good as a used car salesmen, and really when it comes down to it our clubs didnt get an RAA check. So whos fault is it, the dealer or the clubs buying the car.

Look I'm not saying Trigg isnt a bit of the dodgy side, because I think there is enough evidence in regards to that, but our clubs needed to do there own research and it sounds like this wasnt done and the lemon was purchased.

Certainly not saying you are wrong Stan.

With the above analogy is it isn't as simple as the Directors were stupid and lazy not to do their checks. So hard luck them.

They were pressured, influenced, offered negotiated concession to not do The correct checks. and told forcefully just buy the car and get your mates to or else by those with vested interests.

[wild dog]

a lie is different to saying you think something might happen when you know for sure it plainly wont

Is it. When does that "something" turn into a lie. Or is it when you've convinced yourself that "something" is going to happen that it isn't a lie. Ethical business does not work your way.

i believe it was always 4000 total supporters, if you can show me a quote otherwise im happy to be corrected. now obviously that was wildly optimistic, but trigg doesnt make these figures out of thin air. obviously someone did some estimates and attempted to work it out, but i honestly believe they thought they would get 4k per game.

making wrong predictions does not mean you lied. it could mean you did. or you could just be wrong.

4000 number has been discussed a number of times. If not 4000 Crows supporters, how many actual Crows supporters did he mean? Academic, its now turned out to be a couple of hundred max. Who don't pay to get in and add nothing to the atmosphere of a game. Worse than that, particularly for Centrals who has a fair dual allegiance, its created a supporter split and has lead to long term, rusted on loyal supporters who added to the atmosphere of games, leave for good.

Over estimated with some basis of the estimate you say. If you can show me the basis of the estimate and subsequent legitimacy then I'm happy to be corrected.

Shucks, Wide eyed honest to goodness it was over optimistic. Your belief is touching, but its us paying for such incompetence. Too big a mistake to brush off.

The threat to enter the Ammos; a lie?
The unanimous decision required by the SANFL clubs; a lie?

both leverage to get what he wanted. he was acting in the best interests of his club, which is what i want him to do.

dont forget it was up to the SANFL clubs to let the crows into the comp.

Leverage is a funny word/term that has been so nicely manipulated. Its now up there with derivatives. Do you know what it means? The thing is with leveraging in the business sense, is normally you have to pay back on the gamble. In the world of the SANFL unfortunately that does not happen.

So you say he leveraged, but then you say that after all, the Clubs let the C***s in. So if some clubs were saying no and the leveraging convinced them, is there culpability on the part of the leverager, or is it the sucker leveragees fault for being taken in.

Anyway the above statement is probably mute because your belief is he was acting in the best interest of your club (I notice that does not mean Centrals) so the end justified the means. The relationship between the Crows and the SANFL has been reduced to that; a great pity and a lack of historical understanding by supporters such as yourself.

now im the first to admit that i dont think it has worked out that well. it definitely hasnt been a disaster, but you can pretty certainly say it hasnt been a positive for the league. and im sure it is below their expectations. it is in the crows interest for the sanfl to be going well too.

so i would conclude part salesmanship, part bad estimates. can you blame trigg for that? certainly. it seems like the crowd numbers of 4k (let alone an extra 4k) have been wildly inaccurate. but i dont think he would deliberately lie.

Would someone who was in a weak position, had made some bad decisions and support from staff and board was not looking rosy, was able to force a deeply unpopular proposition through its shareholders thus gaining needed credibility, not able to lie? If that proposition is a dud, based on flimsy or even made up data, and the technique used to sell the proposition unethical all to gain much need credibility, all combined not make a lie?

The logic of the SA AFL clubs acting in their best interest should be countered by the SANFL clubs. In the best interest of my club, as of next year charge the Crows and Port each a game day figure that compensates for the disastrous financial mess that we are finding ourselves in.

[LPH]

Great post/response Wild Dog.

The figures were always 'rubbery' @ best - we all knew that but sadly the CEOs 'bought the sell', blinded by hypothetical potential $$$.
My understanding is that there are a number of Clubs in REAL financial strife @ the present time - in fact, 2 in particular are 'on the brink' of collapse.

The SANFL will need to off load much of their assets @ West Lakes (at vastly under priced sale - in the current market) to once again 'bail out' the Clubs.

Worrying times indeed for OUR competition. Not that it would concern Trigg or Thomas.

[tipper]

Great post/response Wild Dog.

The figures were always 'rubbery' @ best - we all knew that but sadly the CEOs 'bought the sell', blinded by hypothetical potential $$$.
My understanding is that there are a number of Clubs in REAL financial strife @ the present time - in fact, 2 in particular are 'on the brink' of collapse.

The SANFL will need to off load much of their assets @ West Lakes (at vastly under priced sale - in the current market) to once again 'bail out' the Clubs.

Worrying times indeed for OUR competition. Not that it would concern Trigg or Thomas.

just a correction, there is no "once again". the SANFL has never "bailed out" any sanfl club. it did so a failing afl club, several times, but it has a long history of telling SANFL clubs to go jump when they have been in financial strife in the past.

more recently it has seemed to turn around though, with i believe them going guarantor for Sturts loans?? still a long way from a bail out though, and they may need to do it in future, but as far as i am aware they are yet to do it even a single time for an sanfl club.

[areaman]

just a correction, there is no "once again". the SANFL has never "bailed out" any sanfl club. it did so a failing afl club, several times, but it has a long history of telling SANFL clubs to go jump when they have been in financial strife in the past.

Ask old West Torrens fans about this. Torrens stuffed up and faced the consequences.

Shame the same rules don't apply to AFL franchises who stuff up.

[bennymacca]

Firstly, great response wild dog. You construct a good argument and I can't disagree with anything you say.

In general I'm probably willing to take the more optimistic side of almost any argument and give people the benefit of the doubt for either making a mistake or just being incompetent rather than outright malice/lying. Maybe that's all that is going on here. I mean trigg sure does have form given the Tippett saga, and I'll be happy when he leaves, but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Probably my fault haha.

When you say "my" club I really meant triggs club. Can't blame him for that really.

Also great point about centrals having a split supporter base. I don't go to that many centrals games now, used to as a kid, but I did go to the centrals crows game and it was the weirdest football experience of my life, it made me feel like I wasn't comfortable supporting either team. That, imo, is the worst part about all this. Add to that, young supporters won't even bother trying to find an sanfl team to support. That would increase the number of crows going to the game but will be a significant detriment to the rest of the comp

[areaman]

Also great point about centrals having a split supporter base. I don't go to that many centrals games now, used to as a kid, but I did go to the centrals crows game and it was the weirdest football experience of my life, it made me feel like I wasn't comfortable supporting either team. That, imo, is the worst part about all this. Add to that, young supporters won't even bother trying to find an sanfl team to support. That would increase the number of crows going to the game but will be a significant detriment to the rest of the comp

Forget everything else in this debate.

This point is the biggest issue.

Future generations will grow up having no allegiance to any SANFL club.

Is that what is really best for SA football?

[Dogwatcher]

My main argument, all along.

[bennymacca]

seems like the coercion might have been a two way street.

dont forget the SANFL had a large financial interest in the move to adelaide oval too

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/i ... zt3a3.html

this is why i find it hard to come out and blatantly blame one party or the other, we really dont know what goes on behind closed doors

[Dogwatcher]

If Trigg didn't lie, which is an understandable claim to make, then he was provided with some very bad advice on which he based his argument/proposal.
Where does that leave his decision-making? His credibility? Those who provided that advice?
The means justified the end, I guess.

[RB]

In my opinion re Trigg, whether or not it was all an outright lie, he allowed the league directors to rely on a figure he ought reasonably to have known was not going to be even nearly achieved.

I really can't see how Trigg, or anyone else, thought they'd get even close to 4,000 - no one g.a.f. about reserves footy. Frankly I'm surprised as many as 200 or whatever are going.

[LPH]

I think his credibility was 'shot' long ago - does the name Kurt Tippett mean anything?
As for lying?
The 4000 extra supporters was peddled by all of them; Trigg, Chapman, Burtenshaw - the lot (including those pathetic pundits on Commercial Radio)

[bennymacca]

In my opinion re Trigg, whether or not it was all an outright lie, he allowed the league directors to rely on a figure he ought reasonably to have known was not going to be even nearly achieved.

I really can't see how Trigg, or anyone else, thought they'd get even close to 4,000 - no one g.a.f. about reserves footy. Frankly I'm surprised as many as 200 or whatever are going.

but if the 4000 figure was so clearly bogus, then why didnt the SANFL directors also pick this up? cant say yes and then complain about it after

thats kinda my point. maybe everyone was hoodwinked or at least seduced by the idea of the extra crowds