SANFL West Lakes Deal Announced

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2774/

all we need now is for port to pay back 17.5 million $

blacky wrote:all we need now is for port to pay back 17.5 million $

you & i have more chances of winning the major prize in cross lotto & oz lotto together in the same week

Recent facts and figures relaesed by the SANFL should put the lie to the notion that it's the SANFL who are being 'greedy' in the stadium deal negotiations.

TheSANFL lent Port another $1.5 million this year, bringing the total assistance to over $16 million. That meant Port started with a 'clean slate'.

Despite getting $4 million more revenue fromAdelaide Oval than last year, they will still lose about $2 million.

Perhaps it's time to investigate where Port is spending the money?

Dubai?

Fire Sale, forced by the AFL and Westpac. I fear for the future of traditional club footy in South Australia.

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/2775/

I don't think it was a fire sale, cc.

I think there would have been several bids (not totally sure, but I think so) and $70 million would seem OK.

It will retire debt and give the SANFl a continuing income over the next 12 or so years, along with the stadium return each year.

More likely is that the AFL clubs now have to look at their spending.

I think the SANFL and clubs will be OK.

You may be right Lee. I'm probably getting old and grumpy. But when I see Gillon McLachlan over here, pressuring the SANFL over its share of the AO revenues, my hackles automatically rise.

Along with mine, cc.

You've nailed it.

This can only be a positive move by the SANFL and should remove all debt.

Paying of the money owed to the AFL is a bonus, and no more bail outs for the power from the state league ($16 million in the last 5 years)
With the SANFL's dividend from the Adelaide Oval things are looking good.

Lee wrote:Recent facts and figures relaesed by the SANFL should put the lie to the notion that it's the SANFL who are being 'greedy' in the stadium deal negotiations.

TheSANFL lent Port another $1.5 million this year, bringing the total assistance to over $16 million.  That meant Port started with a 'clean slate'.

Despite getting $4 million more revenue fromAdelaide Oval than last year, they will still lose about $2 million.

Perhaps it's time to investigate where Port is spending the money?

Dubai?

Lee, to put your comments in some context (I know you wouldn't want to be seen as promoting a biased opinion) do you know how much Port games raised for the SANFL at AAMI Stadium over the time that the SANFL gave the $16 million worth of assistance?

Oh, my opinion IS biased, sanflman.

Like all of us

I'd say Port didn't raise anywhere near enough to sustain itself or the SANFL, thus requiring $16 million in bail out funding.

Lee wrote:Oh, my opinion IS biased, sanflman.

Like all of us

I'd say Port didn't raise anywhere near enough to sustain itself or the SANFL, thus requiring $16 million in bail out funding.

If you don't know, you'll at least agree the $16m was given at a time where the SANFL benefitted in Port matches being played at AAMI Stadium (through catering and ticketing) and at a time where the SANFL owned the Port license, meaning as the 'parent company', it was responsible for Port debts?

It annoys me when people's bias stops them from apportioning responsibility onto those who deserve it. The SANFL board members should have ultimately been the ones preventing the $16m debt from happening. That's why I can only surmise that they benefitted by more than $16m over the period of ownership.

As for Port making a loss now, that's their responsibility. No one to fall back on now that they own their license.

The only people responsible for how Port Adelaide spent its money, and for its inability to attract sufficient corporate sponsorship was Port Adelaide.

Flag No.9 wrote:The only people responsible for how Port Adelaide spent its money, and for its inability to attract sufficient corporate sponsorship was Port Adelaide.

off course it is, spot on Flag No.9..............i don't know the answer to this so i'll ask, over the years how many ''coaches'' in the coaching box etc have they had compared to the other franchises in the AFL ?

Sanflman, refer to Flag No 9's post.

It's equally annoying when people look to shift blame.

thought of the day.......let's go to the bank, get a $16 million loan & hope they'll say don't worry about paying it back

Lee wrote:Sanflman, refer to Flag No 9's post.

It's equally annoying when people look to shift blame.

No blame shifting here Lee.

Absolutely it was Ports responsibility where they spent their money and where they werent able to generate corporate funds. But it was the SANFL Boards responsibility to make the decision to keep funding them to the tune of $16m.

There's no use whinging about it now, the SANFL Board made the decision to fund it and to not ask for it to be repaid when they sold Ports license back to them. Clearly Port had a responsibility to live within their means but my question remains (and maybe it's obvious to you as a Board member of an SANFL Club - it's not to me as a lay man) why did the SANFL Board continue to fund them if it wasn't ultimately in their and the SANFL Clubs interests?

Well, I'm not an SANFL Board Member, so I can only guess.

My guess is that without that $16 million, Port would have had to fold, or shift interstate at best.

I doubt it would have occurred to them to seriously contemplate letting them fold. In any event, they would have wanted to protrct their original investment.

Even with an extra $4 million this year, Port will post a $2 million loss. It's an open question as to how they budget, but I note they're off to Dubai.

There are probably no absolute rights or wrongs here, but my feeling is that Port have reason to be grateful to the SANFL.

They're certainly not in a position to lecture the SANFL about anything, IMO.

sanflman wrote:

Lee wrote:Recent facts and figures relaesed by the SANFL should put the lie to the notion that it's the SANFL who are being 'greedy' in the stadium deal negotiations.

TheSANFL lent Port another $1.5 million this year, bringing the total assistance to over $16 million.  That meant Port started with a 'clean slate'.

Despite getting $4 million more revenue fromAdelaide Oval than last year, they will still lose about $2 million.

Perhaps it's time to investigate where Port is spending the money?

Dubai?

Lee, to put your comments in some context (I know you wouldn't want to be seen as promoting a biased opinion) do you know how much Port games raised for the SANFL at AAMI Stadium over the time that the SANFL gave the $16 million worth of assistance?

And you do know that was always in the agreement that Port entered into? I fail to see the relevance of that line each time it get's trotted out.

Lee wrote:They're certainly not in a position to lecture the SANFL about anything, IMO.

It is an interesting comparison though. The SANFL similarly seems to have many clubs over extending themselves with the $$ in the belief/hope that the best way of reversing their fortunes is by being competitive on the field. Im not sure they have the same safety net though?

Fair point, Scrunch.

Clubs see the necessity to be competitive, otherwise people stop turning up, bar and gaming income drops and they're in trouble.

I think we'll see several clubs spending less on recruiting and transfer fees and rely on interstate country recruiting and local juniors.

It's a difficult time for many clubs. There are a few with strong backers or a strong balance sheet, but most are struggling.

The upshot of recent events is that the SANFL no longer hold AFL licences or run a stadium. That means grassroots football and the SANFL in particular is their focus now.

I applaud them to try to get the best deal possible, as this is the lifeblood for the future of the SANFL. I think the SANFL and the clubs will be closer in future.

As for the stadium deal, before we work out who is the villain and who is pure, I'd wait for the final result.

The SANFL did own the licence no qualms with that but it would seem that port took advantage of there 'parent company' paying of THERE debts on a regular occasion.

Just as a hypothecal, I buy a house and borrow $500,000 from the bank (so they really own it until the loan is paid) and in the time I am paying the loan of I buy a new car, go on a holiday, do renovations to the house, who pays for all of these debts, not the bank (the parent company) I do. Just another angle of looking at it.

I really don't give a toss what happens from now on as we are done with them, but apparently they will lose $2,000,000 this year and that is with a financial guru as there president.

That's a very good post Lee. A view from the inside. Hopefully you're right, when you say that the SANFL and it's constituent clubs should be closer in future, than has been the case over the past decade or so, with the distraction of trying to keep the two AFL licenses viable. I was a bit grumpy about the West Lakes deal the other day. A knee jerk reaction, but I guess that given all the circumstances, particularly their debt level, they would have made the best deal they could get.

Anyone care to calculate how much rent would be at Footy Park for the AFC per year?

As they pay nothing, and haven't for 25 years, I wonder what sort of figure could be arrived at?

It also has come to light the SANFL foot a $1.3m bill to keep Footy Park up to standard for Adelaide to train on. That's generous seeing the AFC is no longer owned by the SANFL.

Didn't the SANFL also appoint a member to Port's board to monitor things, from the "inside"? If so, who was that and what was their report?

Well unfortunately the AFC didn't evolve from a club with existing infrastructure.

I think it's fair that there's some sort of managed cutover process for these things now that the AFC is no longer aligned to the SANFL.

The SANFL can't just cut the AFC loose and then start posting bills to them.