SANFL West Lakes Deal Announced

Why not?

The club lives and trains rent free at a facility the SANFL clubs own.

Kind of agree with Booney. Would think that some form of value was added to the sale of license to offset the costs though?

Booney wrote:Why not?

The club lives and trains rent free at a facility the SANFL clubs own.

agreed

the circumstances have now changed, the AFL clubs have got what they want and now they need to pay up

Scrunch wrote:Kind of agree with Booney. Would think that some form of value was added to the sale of license to offset the costs though?

This is what I would suggest has happened. It would have been part of negotiations around the sale of the license.

It's not as black and white as it is portrayed IMO.

I think you'll find that Adelaide would be actively seeking a city base anyway. My guess is that they will only be at West Lakes for 10 more years max.

Also - it should be pointed out that the AFC has contributed a health amount to the SANFL coffers and by default the maintenance of Football Park since their inception.

Adelaide want to merge with the University in both forming teams and a training base, however it looks like the Adelaide City Council will stop anymore developments, if Ann Moran has anything to do with it.

Gingernuts wrote:Also - it should be pointed out that the AFC has contributed a health amount to the SANFL coffers and by default the maintenance of Football Park since their inception.

No doubt, as long as Port's contribution to crowds and revenue pre- AFL gets considered when talking about SANFL monies handed over.

Booney wrote:

Gingernuts wrote:Also - it should be pointed out that the AFC has contributed a health amount to the SANFL coffers and by default the maintenance of Football Park since their inception.

No doubt, as long as Port's contribution to crowds and revenue pre- AFL gets considered when talking about SANFL monies handed over.

Did they make one?

I don't mean that to sound derogatory, but I highly doubt they were a profitable entity for the SANFL over the journey, certainly not of the scale that Adelaide was.

Happy to be proven wrong on that count though, I'm just speculating.

I suppose the problem is if a stadium costs $1 million to open and run for an event and the crowd is small, it's not a valid claim to say the gate takings of $1,100,000 were a contribution to be taken into account, especially when a fair proportion of the $1,100,000 is paid back as a share of gate takings.

Ignore the figures, but you get my drift?

Yes, that's my point. AFC games would have been turning over a profit almost every game, whereas I would take a stab in the dark and say that PAFC games would have been lucky to break even most of the time.

No, I was referencing "pre-AFL" days where for many years the PAFC would have drawn the highest average crowds, with all due respect to the other SANFL clubs, it would have been Port's "pulling power" ( no jokes, please ) that helped support the Woodville/Centrals addition to the league and many other initiatives.

It's not like we are some Johnny come lately who has been given the financial assistance over the last decade. A long standing power house who was a major contributor to the leagues coffers.

Urgh. I'm not even going there.

Oh...come on.

Port certainly did have their money issues back in the SANFL days, as Im sure all clubs have had over the journey. In the early 80's Port were in strife financially.

Not that it's relevant to the discussion. There's no question Port have been the most dominant and thus well supported club in the state, and their reward for that was the AFL license they wanted, so any deflection to their pre-AFL days is somewhat meaningless.

Scrunch wrote:Port certainly did have their money issues back in the SANFL days, as Im sure all clubs have had over the journey. In the early 80's Port were in strife financially.

i wish i didn't give them $50.00 back in the 1980's & i wouldn't mind it back either, although they don't pay their debts so no point me asking for it

what happened to the yearly sponsorship from the Government through various names as the replacement for cigarette sponsorships ? that money would help the 8 real SANFL clubs on a yearly basis these days

bayman wrote:what happened to the yearly sponsorship from the Government through various names as the replacement for cigarette sponsorships ? that money would help the 8 real SANFL clubs on a yearly basis these days

I think the 'government ' will say they forked out enough for the Adelaide Oval upgrade Bayman: ($600 million) and the SANFL gets a dividend from that, not to mention the $80 million bailout of SACA's debt.

Did SACA ever thank the SA taxpayers from getting them out of the shite they were in, not that I can remember, wouldn't it be great to have a debt of such proportions to just vanish like there's was.

Previous chairman of the Crows, Mr Hurley, of Hotels Association fame, appointed to the Stadium Management Authority as an SANFL representative.

gotta get sorted soon for the clubs sake, cant have clubs strugglin each year like some are