Saints In Talks To Move A Home Game To AAMI?

sax · Post: # 720972Post **sax** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 10:41am

"SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker said he was prepared to offer as much as $700,000 to any AFL club wanting to switch a home game to AAMI Stadium. He said the SANFL had already opened talks with St Kilda."

This is a quote from an article in today's Adelaide Advertiser. Very interesting, doesn't give many more points. Must be in VERY early stages.
Here's a link to the whole article if anyone's interested.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 12,00.html

Personally, if we are going to move a game to Adelaide, I'd much rather it be Adelaide Oval.

Milne · Post: # 720993Post **Milne** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 12:23pm

If we want money we should be trying to get success. Giving up our home ground advantage, reduces our chance for success. I'm pretty sure having games in Tassie cost us a top 4 spot one year.

Solar · Post: # 720994Post **Solar** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 12:25pm

I think this could be a clever way to put pressure on the AFL and ES re: the stadium deals, not that the AFL really need any help in finding revenue streams that the docklands are selling off for their own profit.

Legendary · Post: # 720998Post **Legendary** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 12:31pm

For $750,000 a year?

Bloody oath.

We play AAMI really well ... the ground suits us, we have a strong core of supporters in SA ..... and wow that's a lot of money.

Go for it Saints.

saintbrat · Post: # 721005Post **saintbrat** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 12:39pm

Legendary wrote:For $750,000 a year?

Bloody oath.

We play AAMI really well ... the ground suits us, we have a strong core of supporters in SA ..... and wow that's a lot of money.

Go for it Saints.

as long as we play the crows .....

skeptic · Post: # 721013Post **skeptic** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 12:53pm

i could dig it

Eastern · Post: # 721022Post **Eastern** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 1:22pm

If we are to go down that path it should be on the middle weekend of one of the Victorian School Holiday Breaks !!

Spinner · Post: # 721027Post **Spinner** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 1:32pm

Yep for 700k odd I'd take it.....Play there against Melbourne or something.

Eastern · Post: # 721031Post **Eastern** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 1:37pm

Spinner wrote:Yep for 700k odd I'd take it.....Play there against Melbourne or something.

I'm thinking they would demand it be against Crows or Power for that ammount !!

VietNam_Saint · Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:03pm

One home game for $750.000 to play at Moron Park.

Sounds like a pretty good deal.

you would think with Carlton pleading about the fact it cannot repay its $1.5m debt to the AFL (debt caused by salary cap debarcle) that they'd be going for it. Or at the very least the AFL should be saying ,, righto Scum , you don't have money to repay us but you can build these new facilities ,,,, were changing one of your home games to Adelaide !!! That'll be some of your debt repaid.

I realise the below has been previously posted , but its worth putting up again for those that missed it.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews ... 06856.html

THE Carlton Football Club has pleaded for â€” and looks likely to receive â€” financial mercy from the AFL over a five-year-old $1.5 million debt.

The Blues have told the AFL they are unable to repay the seven-figure sum, a legacy of the club's financial crisis that haunted the Ian Collins regime after the bitter political fallout that followed John Elliott's exit from Princes Park.

The AFL, having fined Carlton close to $1 million at the end of 2002 for systematic salary cap cheating, loaned the club $1.5 million shortly afterwards in a bid to ease the cashflow crisis that threatened to derail the Blues in the early years of Collins' board.

The loan was interest-free for one year but the Blues have been servicing the interest on the debt ever since and received official notification from the league in February reminding them of the impending October deadline at which time the debt had to be repaid.

Carlton chief executive Greg Swann wrote back to the AFL informing the league the Blues had no hope of repaying the debt on time. Swann asked the AFL for a one-year extension, reminding the competition's governing body of the Blues' significant financial commitments to the redevelopment of Princes Park.

Although the request has yet to be put before the commission, the next official board meeting of the AFL is expected to approve the Blues' request with CEO Andrew Demetriou telling The Age late yesterday: "I imagine the commission would look favourably on their request. If we can help a club through these troubled times we will do so."

Not only is the AFL expected to grant the Blues a 12-month extension, it has also halved the 6 per cent interest it was charging and at last month's commission talks, officially moved to reduce the interest charged to clubs to one per cent below the current bank rates at any given time.

sax · Post: # 721046Post **sax** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:04pm

Eastern wrote:
Spinner wrote:Yep for 700k odd I'd take it.....Play there against Melbourne or something.
I'm thinking they would demand it be against Crows or Power for that ammount !!

Actually you'd be surprised!
Our understanding here in SA, is that the SANFL are still going to DEMAND 22 games at AAMI, but NOT 2 on one weekend!
Therefore, they're trying to lure Vic teams to play at AAMI the weeks that the Crows are away so Port can play home games at Adelaide Oval so they don't go broke.
I actually think it'd be against an interstate team, either West Coast, Freo, Sydney, Brisbane or Gold Coast.
They still expect 20-25k at the games, therefore Saints get $700k, SANFL get everything else! (gate, bar, food etc)

saintbrat · Post: # 721049Post **saintbrat** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:06pm

so play eagles or Freo- rather than another trip west???

matrix · Post: # 721050Post **matrix** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:06pm

<<doesnt mind this idea
for obvious reasons

Port are friggin broke huh...and i mean BROKE

iwantmeseats · Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:12pm

Nup, dont like it. One game less for us to go to in Melbourne...Where will it end? First its one game, then two, then three, then.....bad idea.

Mr Magic · Post: # 721055Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:12pm

saintbrat wrote:so play eagles or Freo- rather than another trip west???

No, I think it would be our home game vs Freo and/or WCE.
So we'd play them in Perth and then in Adelaide.

matrix · Post: # 721058Post **matrix** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:16pm

does this mean sants members would get to sit in THE members area at aami...... i wonder

iwantmeseats · Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:17pm

matrixcutter wrote:does this mean sants members would get to sit in THE members area at aami...... i wonder

Moot point when the games is bloody 800km's away anyway !!!

Im totally against selling games off interstate no matter how much cash is on offer. Its just wrong.

matrix · Post: # 721062Post **matrix** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:22pm

iwantmeseats wrote:
matrixcutter wrote:does this mean sants members would get to sit in THE members area at aami...... i wonder

Moot point when the games is bloody 800km's away anyway !!!

Im totally against selling games off interstate no matter how much cash is on offer. Its just wrong.

valid point when the games and hour and half away for me

saintsrus · Post: # 721063Post **saintsrus** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:23pm

If we agreed we would look like the biggest hypocrites in light of the tassie experiment

Munga · Post: # 721076Post **Munga** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 3:02pm

I like

Winmarvellous · Fri 10 Apr 2009 4:14pm

so play eagles or Freo- rather than another trip west???

And watch me not renew my entire family's memberships. It's bad enough we get 2 games MAX a year. Take them away and I'm not paying a cent. Move a Vic game if need be, yu've got the most to sell off. Personally, I'd reject the offer. A home game's worth keeping these days.

kosifantutti23 · Fri 10 Apr 2009 4:57pm

sax wrote: They still expect 20-25k at the games, therefore Saints get $700k, SANFL get everything else! (gate, bar, food etc)

If they think the Saints could get 20 - 25k playing a non SA side, they're dreaming.

Port averaged 23k against non-SA teams last year including just over 20k against us.

saintdooley · Fri 10 Apr 2009 5:51pm

from memory the Dees used to play a home game at the Gabba against the Lions every year?

Buckets · Post: # 721156Post **Buckets** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 7:56pm

To be honest i would suggest that this is yet another ploy by the AFL and the clubs to try and force the G and Etihad Stadium to give the Melbourne clubs a better deal that they are quite deserving of!
Would find it quite amazing for the club to put itself into a position of playing another home game outside of the stadium considering that we already do that with the deal with playing at Carrara. But at the same time $750,000 is a hell of an amount especially in these hard financial times.

To the top · Post: # 721185Post **To the top** » Fri 10 Apr 2009 9:31pm

As I read the article (and I have not re-read it) the AFL has brokered talks between the SACA and the SANFL.

West Lakes was built so the SANFL had ownership of its own venue back in the early 1970's, with the first SANFL Grand Final played at West Lakes being in 1974.

The Liberal Party in SA are putting that they will build a combination of Southbank and Docklands (both financial disasters) adjacent to the Torrens and a short distance from Adelaide Oval.

The brokered talks have usurped that proposal. So the AFL will not be popular with Liberal voters in SA!

As I understood it, the SANFL have said that they will support AFL (and SANFL?) games at Adelaide Oval subject to certain works, including seating for 50,000 and a couple of other conditions I can not immediately recall but mainly operational.

There appeared to be some inference that West Lakes would be sold (eg Waverly) if SANFL and AFL football returned to Adelaide Oval - which is a premier venue including because of its location.

No doubt West Lakes has the same problem most sporting venues have in that they have "seasonal" usage - and during that season variable attendances - particularly with Port Adelaide at West Lakes because they just do not attract.

$750,000- sounds a lot of money.

So you would be looking at giving away a fair bit such that the SANFL (or SACA?) could generate positive cash flows - because the offer would be predicated on positive cash flows for the stadium operators.

Otherwise why would they do it?