South Australia's AFL teams say they deserve a seat on Adelaide Oval's board as a controversial hotel development exposes disharmony between the clubs, the stadium's management and the SANFL.

Key points: The Crows and Power are frustrated about the Adelaide Oval hotel project

The Crows and Power are frustrated about the Adelaide Oval hotel project The AFL clubs say stadium's management has kept them in the dark

The AFL clubs say stadium's management has kept them in the dark But the authority has defended its handling of the $42 million proposal

In separate submissions to a parliamentary inquiry, the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs said they only learned about the $42 million hotel after it was announced late last year.

The Power harshly criticised the oval's Stadium Management Authority (SMA) for its lack of transparency.

"In good faith, we have asked the [SMA chief executive] to provide more specific information," Power chief executive Keith Thomas wrote to the parliamentary committee.

"[The SMA] has declined the opportunity to provide this information.

"The lack of visibility … renders it impossible to assess the likely future exposure we gave as a user of the oval facility."

Adelaide Oval's board is comprised of nominees of its two shareholders, the SANFL and SACA, designed to represent the interests of both football and cricket.

Keith Thomas accused the project proposal of lacking transparency. ( ABC News )

But the Power said the SANFL does not consult with the state's two national teams.

"The SANFL does not engage in regular dialogue with the AFL clubs to ensure our interests are represented to the [SMA] board," Mr Thomas wrote.

"The most frustrating, contentious, and business critical issue we face is the lack of transparency around, and input into, how this valuable asset will be used and developed."

Both the Crows and Power asked the parliamentary committee to consider if the AFL clubs should each be allocated a seat on the SMA board, replacing two of the SANFL board members.

In his submission, Crows chief executive Andrew Fagan wrote the club has only been given "very limited information" and said the development could "potentially impact our existing amenity at the stadium".

"We were only made aware of the proposal via the media," he said.

"We remain unaware of the potential financial upside nor the financial and operational risk that might accompany this significant undertaking."

'Always a lot of politics in sport'

SANFL chief executive Jake Parkinson said AFL clubs have received better revenue than was initially forecast from the oval.

"When we look at the risk which SACA and SANFL carry as shareholders, that is why they're at the board table," he said.

"[The SMA] is a private organisation, it's a corporation, and the shareholders of that organisation put the board in place."

The SMA has rejected suggestions it has not been forthcoming with the clubs. ( ABC News: Malcolm Sutton )

The SMA's chief executive Andrew Daniels rejected claims of a lack of transparency.

"I think it's all part of a normal ongoing negotiation you get between sporting bodies," Mr Daniels said.

"There is always a lot of politics in sport, there will always be a lot of politics in sport.

"At an operational level we have an excellent and ongoing working relationship with Port and the Crows."

Premier Steven Marshall said the governance questions are a matter for the SMA and football clubs to sort out.

"We don't propose any changes whatsoever to the governance arrangements," Mr Marshall said.

"We have got to get on with the important jobs in this state … not sorting out football's squabbles."