McLachlan was in Adelaide on Friday to chair the start of the review, which will see the AFL, Adelaide, Port Adelaide and the SANFL "open up their books and see where they stand".

 

Given how much football's move from West Lakes back into the heart of Adelaide had achieved, McLachlan said it was unfair to criticise the need for a review of the deal.

 

"We've had a whole series of changes go on over the course of a short period of time …Adelaide Oval has been the extraordinary success everyone hoped it would be, it's seen huge financial uplifts for both clubs and the SANFL and for cricket," McLachlan said.

 

"To get both clubs, licenses transferred, moved out of AAMI [Stadium], moved in here and all the success that's flowed – I actually think the deal that was done is a credit to both clubs and to the SANFL and to the SACA (South Australian Cricket Association).

 

"The level of movement that happened, it was appropriate then to review it given all the decisions that were made, to see whether we landed in the right spot … it's good business."

 

With crowds for the Power and Crows at the new stadium outperforming the clubs' initial expectations, both clubs want a larger slice of the revenue.

 

Only Collingwood has attracted more fans to its home games this year than the Crows; the Power are averaging more than 43,000 fans to their home games – up from almost 27,000 last year.

 

Port chairman David Koch is on record claiming the sides wanted 70 cents from every dollar made on match days – the same as clubs made at the MCG.

 

McLachlan refused to speculate as to the appropriate share of revenue at Adelaide Oval.

 

"They certainly believe [they deserve a greater share], I'm not going to comment on that without going through the review, that's the point, to actually understand where everyone is at," he said.

 

"I don't know if it's 70 cents [in the dollar] or it might be 75, it might be 68 – my view is it has to be the right share, the right share for the two clubs and the right share for the SANFL."

 

An answer isn't expected any time soon – McLachlan said the "notional timeframe" was three months.

 

Friday's meeting was merely about setting the agenda of the review.

 

"[The initial meeting] is about setting up the next few months, it's about establishing the frameworks, the principles and ultimately what we're trying to get done in the review," he said.