The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

by the sarge on Thu 12 Aug 2010, 4:37 pm

The Port Adelaide Magpies face extinction, again, if they cannot find $230,000 by the end of October
www.adelaidenow.com.au

by oldfella on Thu 12 Aug 2010, 5:03 pm

Lets get ready for it --------- Its the SANFL fault - Its the other clubs fault - its because they were not allowed to amalgamate with the Power so the SANFL could pay all their debts via the Power. Its the SANFL fault that we had to create the club in 1990 when they back-doored the SANFL aided by the AFL.

Fact is that port have already got this years payments in advance same as has happened to other clubs but as with all other previous clubs no further advance.

The future of this club is with themselves or more accurately their members - record member numbers at start of year but must continue -- if those members do not re-sign then the end is near.

Would not be surprised if as with previous cries of doom from port management having had option one rejected (give us what we want SANFL as our right) they find a second option not previously raised.

by Chambo Off To Work We Go on Thu 12 Aug 2010, 5:08 pm

And their silence over the last 4 months will not help either.

by howthewestwaswon on Thu 12 Aug 2010, 7:20 pm

Bring back Timmy G with his rattling can...

by howthewestwaswon on Thu 12 Aug 2010, 7:23 pm

...but jokes aside, surely the writing was on the wall with this club a decade ago with the initial 'Save the Magpies' campaign. Something has gone wrong, horribly wrong in the last decade. The fall from grace as the powerhouse club of South Australia to 2 basketcases (Power and Pies) is bedazzling. Perhaps a little bit of KARMA working its magic (in reference to the 1990 debacle)??

by oldfella on Thu 12 Aug 2010, 8:24 pm

The facts are simple --- everybody knew that the original Power proposal in terms of membership was at best optimistic (stated in press at time) and those concerns in reference to membership have now proved to be correct. ---- Keeping a Port team in the SANFL (Commission of the time stuff up) was always going to be in strife, split supporter base and limited opportunities to develop e new supporter base given the lessening interest in the SANFL.

The only time the Power started to go ahead was when they moved away from the tradition etc and started to market under the Power logo with minimum reference to thier history --- this opened the membership base, however the CEO was removed and they went back to the approach that time has proved to be unsuccessful.

IMO it is now time for the Power to live within their budgets and for those budgets to be cast not in the RED --- they now have adequate training facilities (based on other AFL clubs) and need to cost cut where ever excess exists (be it the number of coaches - Directors expenses - freebies).

Final point - Adelaide Oval move as it is more suited to their average crowd size ------ AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THAT IF THEY DO NOT INCREASE THEIR ATTENDING SUPPORTER BASE THEN THEY WILL STAY IN THE RED

The Adelaide Oval proposal does not include enough seats for the Crows to grow and be financial in future years and the Power requires major growth to reach the equal level of present Crows membership.

by oldfella on Thu 12 Aug 2010, 8:33 pm

FOR THE RECORD!

I do have confidence that the Port Magpies will trade out of their present difficulties and would welcome that outcome.

by burgerking on Thu 12 Aug 2010, 8:37 pm

to be honest its very hard to fully understand this situation.....the reports and mis-reports by the media, club/s etc are mind boggling, some say Port are given hand-outs some say Port are ripped off.....honestly im no accountant and i wouldnt have a clue but either way both the Power and maggies are in deep financial crisis, im sick of hearing about the past, the facts are both clubs exist, both are licensed etc etc...its time to move on and decide what is best for the club..........but not being a marketing or financial guru i have no answers the only thing i hope both clubs do is seek quality independant advice and do something about it thats long term and sustainable not only for their future but the future of the leagues they are part of....

by beenreal on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 11:20 am

oldfella wrote:The facts are simple --- everybody knew that the original Power proposal in terms of membership was at best optimistic (stated in press at time) and those concerns in reference to membership have now proved to be correct. ---- Keeping a Port team in the SANFL (Commission of the time stuff up) was always going to be in strife, split supporter base and limited opportunities to develop e new supporter base given the lessening interest in the SANFL.

The only time the Power started to go ahead was when they moved away from the tradition etc and started to market under the Power logo with minimum reference to thier history --- this opened the membership base, however the CEO was removed and they went back to the approach that time has proved to be unsuccessful.

IMO it is now time for the Power to live within their budgets and for those budgets to be cast not in the RED --- they now have adequate training facilities (based on other AFL clubs) and need to cost cut where ever excess exists (be it the number of coaches - Directors expenses - freebies).

Final point - Adelaide Oval move as it is more suited to their average crowd size ------ AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THAT IF THEY DO NOT INCREASE THEIR ATTENDING SUPPORTER BASE THEN THEY WILL STAY IN THE RED

The Adelaide Oval proposal does not include enough seats for the Crows to grow and be financial in future years and the Power requires major growth to reach the equal level of present Crows membership.

What a post pockmarked with a load of mistruths, ASSumptions and just plain old stereotyping.

The move away from the History did NOT grow the supporter base, all it did was upset the core supporters.

John James was NOT removed, he left to pursue Business interests in the US.

Port Adelaide consistently pumps $11M into the coffers of the SANFL each year. Yet under the rubbish stadium deal has to go cap in hand to get some of that money back as a "handout".

This is the same deal that sees the AFC post a meagre $90K profit last year while a similar club like WCE posted $4M. The same deal that sees North Melb, Bulldogs and Geelong draw under 25,000 to their games, yet make $500K out of it while Port Adelaide lose $150K.

And finally the Magpies would be just fine except they only received 25% of the revenue generated through their own venue at Alberton. South Adelaide with no supporter base made $50K profit last year through their fine function centre. Why? Because they keep all the cash.

by MATT IN WA on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 12:05 pm

SEE YA PORT!

X 8

by Lynwood on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 12:40 pm

Oh well maybe if the club start using the POW more instead of it just sitting there they would make some money. I see only one way forward which is new admin.

by Ben W on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 2:30 pm

More junk media from the Advertiser - like the PAFC really cant make $230 000 and would go broke over an amount like that. They really must have invested some time and effort to research that story!

by Lynwood on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 3:56 pm

When I think about it we had that amount of debt hanging over us at the start of 2008. to get our debt down to that level again should mean that we can go on next year. The question that has to be asked is what makes up tyhe current debt and what dates do we have to pay it off by?

by Lynwood on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 4:21 pm

Here is what I have been able to find out. All players have been told they are required for 2011 and the clubs debt is low enough for us to go for a loan we just thought we would go to the SANFL first. the advertiser are making to much out of it.

by burgerking on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 5:23 pm

Lynwood wrote:Here is what I have been able to find out. All players have been told they are required for 2011 and the clubs debt is low enough for us to go for a loan we just thought we would go to the SANFL first. the advertiser are making to much out of it.

not surprised lynny it would seem crazy to close the door for what seems a small amount........anyway play on !!!.. Smile

by Sturt2 on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 7:27 pm

beenreal wrote:
oldfella wrote:The facts are simple --- everybody knew that the original Power proposal in terms of membership was at best optimistic (stated in press at time) and those concerns in reference to membership have now proved to be correct. ---- Keeping a Port team in the SANFL (Commission of the time stuff up) was always going to be in strife, split supporter base and limited opportunities to develop e new supporter base given the lessening interest in the SANFL.

The only time the Power started to go ahead was when they moved away from the tradition etc and started to market under the Power logo with minimum reference to thier history --- this opened the membership base, however the CEO was removed and they went back to the approach that time has proved to be unsuccessful.

IMO it is now time for the Power to live within their budgets and for those budgets to be cast not in the RED --- they now have adequate training facilities (based on other AFL clubs) and need to cost cut where ever excess exists (be it the number of coaches - Directors expenses - freebies).

Final point - Adelaide Oval move as it is more suited to their average crowd size ------ AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THAT IF THEY DO NOT INCREASE THEIR ATTENDING SUPPORTER BASE THEN THEY WILL STAY IN THE RED

The Adelaide Oval proposal does not include enough seats for the Crows to grow and be financial in future years and the Power requires major growth to reach the equal level of present Crows membership.

What a post pockmarked with a load of mistruths, ASSumptions and just plain old stereotyping.

The move away from the History did NOT grow the supporter base, all it did was upset the core supporters.

John James was NOT removed, he left to pursue Business interests in the US.

Port Adelaide consistently pumps $11M into the coffers of the SANFL each year. Yet under the rubbish stadium deal has to go cap in hand to get some of that money back as a "handout".

This is the same deal that sees the AFC post a meagre $90K profit last year while a similar club like WCE posted $4M. The same deal that sees North Melb, Bulldogs and Geelong draw under 25,000 to their games, yet make $500K out of it while Port Adelaide lose $150K.

And finally the Magpies would be just fine except they only received 25% of the revenue generated through their own venue at Alberton. South Adelaide with no supporter base made $50K profit last year through their fine function centre. Why? Because they keep all the cash.

Seems to be lots of mistruths. Firstly lets not drag Port Power into this as this is about the Magpies not them. They got involved too much to start with trying to get their dirty hands on a hotel and stadium deals are stadium deals. You cant have everything , when Port berayed the SANFL and its clubs they prommised certain theings and haven't delivered. Move on from the stadium debate as that is how it is for now.

The other fact out of this is that the SANFL has done MMORE for Port than any other club including recently writing off an $86000 debt. I want Port in the SANFL but they must learn a lesson from other clubs and manage themselves out of the mess. Dont blame anybody else and stop acting like spoilt brats , the comp has moved on . Port had it too good too long and expect it all on a silver platter.

Good luck with the fight , I sincerely hope you survive as it wont be long Port will be right up there again .

by Ben W on Fri 13 Aug 2010, 11:13 pm

I was chatting with a work mate who barracks for the Power, he grew up barracking for the Magpies, yet said to me that as far as he is concerned Port Power are the original Port Magpies and the plan always was for the Port Magpies to drop out of the SANFL and move into the AFL which they did, the SANFL required them to retain a side in the SANFL which according to my friend is not what he and a % of other members want.

I think this is where the heart of the trouble lies for the Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL. Some see the Magpies as they always were and others see them as a distraction to the Power club and the house is divided so to speak.

I also have a suspicion on two things both of which are what Andrew Demetriou may have said to Leigh Whicker, 1 is that the SANFL are going to accept and like the move to Adleiade Oval and promote it so in order to continue to receive funding. Second the SANFL are to deal with the issue of Port Power not making a high enough profit by getting rid of or facilitating the end of the Magpies team in the SANFL. All speculation of course, yet its not the first time this has been suggested. - Fitzroy found out the hard way what happens when the AFL decide you are gone!

by beenreal on Sat 14 Aug 2010, 8:38 am

Seems to be lots of mistruths. Firstly lets not drag Port Power into this as this is about the Magpies not them. They got involved too much to start with trying to get their dirty hands on a hotel and stadium deals are stadium deals. You cant have everything , when Port berayed the SANFL and its clubs they prommised certain theings and haven't delivered. Move on from the stadium debate as that is how it is for now.

The other fact out of this is that the SANFL has done MMORE for Port than any other club including recently writing off an $86000 debt. I want Port in the SANFL but they must learn a lesson from other clubs and manage themselves out of the mess. Dont blame anybody else and stop acting like spoilt brats , the comp has moved on . Port had it too good too long and expect it all on a silver platter.

Good luck with the fight , I sincerely hope you survive as it wont be long Port will be right up there again .[/quote]

Sorry but the Powers' cr@ppy stadium deal is part of the problem because it forces them to wring every cent (75% in the $) out of the Port Club. This is to the detriment of the Magpies.

I said before, Sth Adelaide have a great function Centre, so do Westies, Centrals and Glenelg. Why, because they had their own asset base to finance against to build them, and they keep ALL the revenue generated.

The Magpies have exactly the same facility at Alberton but they only received 25% of the income.

The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze

Re: The Port Adelaide Magpies face new squeeze