Business or Football

Given the precarious financial position of several clubs, if your Club had to choose between cutting harder into its administration costs or cutting hard into its salary cap spend, what would you prefer?

Why wont a black dot go into both spaces?

It's a choice between the two.

I'll put you down for both, TP.   

surely football clubs are there to win games of football & in turn when teams are winning more money comes into a club over the bar, merchandise & so forth

Salary cap spend doesn't necessarily provide you premierships.
Developing a positive and sound club culture will get you on the right road.
And that is a combination of both.

Sturt have had to cut back hard in both areas in recent years.

So I'm sitting on the fence on this one.

Interesting topic...

My thoughts on this topic are that Football Clubs are just that -Football clubs, Any administration or indeed licensed facility is there to support that Football Club, and therefore is only in existence because of the Football Club. If cuts have to be made, Id suggest they come from the administration... The Football Club needs to survive to keep the admin going; you cant have an administration that doesnt administer anything..

How much do football clubs make financially out of winning a Premiership? for obvious reasons I personally wouldnt know...!Everyone says increased membership...but Id be pretty sure that clubs dont actually make a lot of money from membership on its own..

Most money is made from the post match function / increased turn up at best & fairest and especially premiership merchandise sale.

About 10 years back a CEO said you made about $60K from a flag and actually lose $20K if you get to a GF and don't win. (A lot of that is booking things for a win that never happens).

Interesting topic this one...I was at a function last night, and heard that perhaps 4-5 SANFL clubs are right on the edge..financially speaking. The notion that there was to be some fiinancial benefit to the 8 SANFL clubs from the introduction of 2 AFL reserves sides, is a complete fallacy.
The coming change of leadership at the sanfl, and the imminent sale of Football Park/AAMI stadium are issues that are going to have an enormous effect on some of these clubs, and the future of the League.

That is exactly right, B & W.

North, Norwood and the Eagles are probably tracking OK, but the other 5 clubs are stretched, ranging from fixable to serious, at a guess.

The promised large increase in crowds with the AFL teams has actually turned out to be a drop, adding to the financial difficulties of clubs.

How the SANFL uses the funds from the sale of AAMI will, IMO, define the role the SANFL has decided to take. They have a large debt and it's reasonable to expect the bulk of the funds will go to that debt. If all goes that way, then the SANFL will look very isolated from its clubs who they know are facing massive pressure also. It will create a perceived 'them and us' relationship.

It would be a much better and more co-operative look for a portion, say 10% or 20%, to go to the clubs.

If that isn't done, then the clubs should be given the interest saving on the debt reduction at the very least.

I hope the SANFL and the clubs can use this opportunity to forge a closer partnership for the good of the competition.

There are a lot of good people running the SANFL, despite them being an easy target for whatever grievances are being discussed, so I'd like to see them taking an active role for the benefit of the competition as a whole.

In return, the clubs need to live within their means and demonstrate good governance.

redandblack wrote:That is exactly right, B & W.

North, Norwood and the Eagles are probably tracking OK, but the other 5 clubs are stretched, ranging from fixable to serious, at a guess.

The promised large increase in crowds with the AFL teams has actually turned out to be a drop, adding to the financial difficulties of clubs.

How the SANFL uses the funds from the sale of AAMI will, IMO, define the role the SANFL has decided to take.  They have a large debt and it's reasonable to expect the bulk of the funds will go to that debt.  If all goes that way, then the SANFL will look very isolated from its clubs who they know are facing massive pressure also.  It will create a perceived 'them and us' relationship.

It would be a much better and more co-operative look for a portion, say 10% or 20%, to go to the clubs.

If that isn't done, then the clubs should be given the interest saving on the debt reduction at the very least.

I hope the SANFL and the clubs can use this opportunity to forge a closer partnership for the good of the competition.  

There are a lot of good people running the SANFL, despite them being an easy target for whatever grievances are being discussed, so I'd like to see them taking an active role for the benefit of the competition as a whole.

In return, the clubs need to live within their means and demonstrate good governance.

Exactly R&B..

heres one from left field...

Now that the SANFL no longer owns the AFL licenses.... why do we need an SANFL Commission..?
Also why do they also need to receive renumeration?, which recently they apparently granted themselves....???

when it all boils down isn't the clubs, the SANFL ? & the clubs actually own footy park & the surrounds ?...this was always what i was told ? so while it wouldn't happen couldn't a club sell their portion of the property ?

Don't think so, Bayman.

Usually with incorporated bodies, something like thst could only happen if the incorporated body was wound up entirely.

redandblack wrote:Don't think so, Bayman.

Usually with incorporated bodies, something like thst could only happen if the incorporated body was wound up entirely.

fair enough, I'm sure i've read/heard that the league clubs all have a share in footy park, but i'll just say this, NO clubs = NO SANFL