18,000 at AAMI - Time for Port to goto the Gold Coast

[Chapter 11]

Adeliade is in a strange situation where they have 2 teams, but 80% of the footy supporting public support one, and only 20% support the other.

Adelaide definetly deserve 2 teams, but the current distribution of support is not healthy. But too early to call. Give Port another 20 years in the AFL.

Laughable that 18,000 outside in a blizzard is even compared to 15 or 14,000 in the airconditioned comfort of Docklands. In those conditions there would be 3 Melbourne teams who wouldnt have got above 10,000

 

[magic_johnson!]

"port gold coast"?

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The fish are definitely biting nicely on this thread, no doubt about it! Beautifully done Chadwiko

 

[greenred]

It's obvious isn't it? There are too many teams in Adelaide! The competition simply cannot afford to prop up weak clubs like this anymore! Especially when the AFL is only making about 20 gajillion dollars per Broadcast deal.

On a cold and wet Saturday night, on a long weekend, against such a high-drawing club as Fremantle, for Port to be able to only attract 18,000 to the game is a disgrace. BigFooty will no doubt be up in arms over this! Such a travesty! Such an embarrassment! What a basket-case of a club!

There is one area of the country that has a proud heritage of being an Aussie Rules footy stronghold, and it is the future of the competition. I refer of course to the Gold Coast.

Clearly the AFL doesn't want to have a 17 team competition complete with bye's each round. Therefore, I am sure we can all get behind the proposed relocation of Port Adelaide to the Gold Coast.

So I assume I have unanimous support for this proposal?



Apologies to Port fans. I actually love your club, as I reckon North and Port are the two most 'fair-dinkum, working class' clubs in the league. Of course I don't want you to relocate. I don't want any club to. This post is meant to be an example of the sheer amount of crap North gets on the main board. It's irony, bitches!

Your thread might have a point, but the bolded sentence is the reason there are zero threads about Port. Port have gone to the AFL and stuck their hand out, just like the Roos, the Dogs and the Demons and the AFL sent them back to the SANFL to ask for money. When Port are surviving on handouts from the AFL, I would expect the threads calling for their removal from the competition to outnumber the North threads.

 

[Richo83]

Read the damn post fools! He's being IRONIC. It's a fair point made and quite a humerous point too.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Having read your post Chadwiko (even the fine print) I have to stick out my hand, say show me the money, and head on up to the footy heartland that is the Gold Coast. The coincidences are too many to ignore.

It's a little known fact that Port Adelaide is often referred to as the Gold Coast of the Le Fevre Peninsula. Former Port Adelaide premiership ruckman and captain Russell Johnston played and coached at Caloundra which, ok is probably closer to Noosa than the GC, but when you're talking the distance from Adelaide to GC, near enough is good enough.

Look at that mascot. Dean Brogan, come on down. He can ruck, do shopping centre appearances, and airport security. Even Port's current mascot, ThunderPower has that chinny look - when the cold of Footy Park wears off and the tan returns to his face, he's a ringer.

The GC white shoe shufflers gives Port the chance to crack the pensioner market that is sewn up by the crows in Adelaide. And if we wear those GC colours for a few TV games we'll make inroads into that crowd too. Has Adelaide in the name, wears the colours of the camry crows, sign them up before the caffeine in the hot chocolate kicks in.

We can even invite the Roos up there for games again. Of course, they might be what is commonly known as 'internal trials'.

 

[Chadwiko]

I believe that the Gold Coast would accept Port with open arms. Ron Clarke is a man of honour, integrity, and above all, an ethos.

Port fans are just in denial if they think that they can survive in a town that is so crowded with AFL teams. There are simply too many teams in Adelaide for a viable and sustainable competition.

Oh, and I expect the mods to card anyone who disagrees with me. Thanks.

 

[tandino]

Port have gone to the AFL and stuck their hand out, just like the Roos, the Dogs and the Demons and the AFL sent them back to the SANFL to ask for money.

So they should. It's the SANFL's license, after all.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Not sure why a north supporter would even start a thread on this topic - even with the fine print comment.

The reality is - North's history and heritage can't be that important when the supporters don't turn up to games. If it was so great - and so many passionate supporters - where are they?

Fitzroy had equally a stong history and they went - If north had crowds of 30k every week but struggled due to poor stadiums or some other outside influence - then they'd have a case

however the numbers don't lie - if the roos supporters are so passionate and the club worth keeping - let's see the numbers through the gate

 

[hcd199]

Not sure why a north supporter would even start a thread on this topic - even with the fine print comment.

The reality is - North's history and heritage can't be that important when the supporters don't turn up to games. If it was so great - and so many passionate supporters - where are they?

Not all supporters reside in the same state as their club - perhaps North have a more widespread supporter base? (No facts here, just speculation).

Fitzroy had equally a stong history and they went

Again, my facts are a little awry, so correct them if they're wrong, but I think Fitzroy had just 6K in memberships when they departed the scene in 1996. North are, according to the official website, just 42 short of 30K.

- If north had crowds of 30k every week but struggled due to poor stadiums or some other outside influence - then they'd have a case

Crowds of the size we are getting should not be losing a club money. No club should have to pay for the privilege of using a stadium for a home game.

however the numbers don't lie - if the roos supporters are so passionate and the club worth keeping - let's see the numbers through the gate

Comments like this offend greatly, and, to be quite frank, disgust me. Every club is "worth keeping", no matter how few dollars go into the AFL's pocket from their matches. No-one should have the right to throw years of history and tradition in the faces of dedicated supporters. If you can honestly tell me any club is not worth keeping, that the dedications and passions of thousands upon thousands of supporters don't matter because the AFL wants a couple more dollars, then I can honestly tell you that are not worthy of the designation "human".

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Not all supporters reside in the same state as their club - perhaps North have a more widespread supporter base? (No facts here, just speculation).

Again, my facts are a little awry, so correct them if they're wrong, but I think Fitzroy had just 6K in memberships when they departed the scene in 1996. North are, according to the official website, just 42 short of 30K.

Crowds of the size we are getting should not be losing a club money. No club should have to pay for the privilege of using a stadium for a home game.

Nice to see us on the same side of an argument here HCD! I've been saying that - about the stadium deals - almost since I joined BF as well

Yes, I think the Roys did have about that number of memberships, but you have to consider the war of attrition directed at Fitzroy by the AFL in the years that led up to 1996 as a factor in this. Also you have to compare like with like - in other words, compare Fitzroy with clubs as they were at that time.

And as I've said on other topics, Fitzroy could indeed have returned to financial viability if Oakley's deliberate obstruction had not been going on, coupled with continual AFL rubbishing of the club to talk down sponsors etc.

The Canberra move in '95 which had proven crowd backing in the ACT, and proven money backing which would have netted the Roys $1,000,000 per year, is just one example of many things the club sought to do which were capriciously blocked, often in highly controversial fashion, mainly because Oakley and co wanted Port Adelaide in at any cost.

Comments like this offend greatly, and, to be quite frank, disgust me. Every club is "worth keeping", no matter how few dollars go into the AFL's pocket from their matches. No-one should have the right to throw years of history and tradition in the faces of dedicated supporters. If you can honestly tell me any club is not worth keeping, that the dedications and passions of thousands upon thousands of supporters don't matter because the AFL wants a couple more dollars, then I can honestly tell you that are not worthy of the designation "human".

Well said mate.

 

[Beckers]

It's obvious isn't it? There are too many teams in Adelaide! The competition simply cannot afford to prop up weak clubs like this anymore! Especially when the AFL is only making about 20 gajillion dollars per Broadcast deal.

You guys are sure quick to sink the boots in. While i agree that Port crowds are a concern, there are 3 major differences with North:

1. Port are vital to the National competition.

2. Port are in a 2 team town.

3. Port can be profitable if managed correctly.

 

[greenred]

Not all supporters reside in the same state as their club - perhaps North have a more widespread supporter base? (No facts here, just speculation).

Add to that how many Melbourne based members have multiple memberships? The membership figures may look good on the surface, but they clearly misrepresent the club's support in it's home town, which is what it needs to survive.

Again, my facts are a little awry, so correct them if they're wrong, but I think Fitzroy had just 6K in memberships when they departed the scene in 1996. North are, according to the official website, just 42 short of 30K.



Crowds of the size we are getting should not be losing a club money. No club should have to pay for the privilege of using a stadium for a home game.

Even West Coast and Fremantle have to pay to use a stadium for their home games. And which crowds are you talking about? The Port and Fremantle crowds? Even West Coast and Fremantle would lose money on crowds that low.

Comments like this offend greatly, and, to be quite frank, disgust me. Every club is "worth keeping", no matter how few dollars go into the AFL's pocket from their matches. No-one should have the right to throw years of history and tradition in the faces of dedicated supporters. If you can honestly tell me any club is not worth keeping, that the dedications and passions of thousands upon thousands of supporters don't matter because the AFL wants a couple more dollars, then I can honestly tell you that are not worthy of the designation "human".

How much is North contributing though? It would seem they are drawing more money from the competition than they generate. Every club is worth keeping, but the reality is, their supporters and sponsors should be responsible for it, not the competition.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You guys are sure quick to sink the boots in. While i agree that Port crowds are a concern, there are 3 major differences with North:

1. Port are vital to the National competition (implying that North aren't). WRONG

2. Port are in a 2 team town. (RIGHT)

3. Port can be profitable if managed correctly (implying that North aren't already going to make a profit. According to the latest information, North certainly ARE going to make a profit this year). WRONG

Well, one out of three ain't bad...

 

[whatwhatsaywhat]

there was a post on page 3, i think, that said port had about 20% of adelaide's population as a support base.

i think that's a gross overestimation. that would give the power about 200,000 supporters. no way.

i still believe that unless you went for port adelaide in the sanfl, you simply wouldn't go for port power in the afl. this won't change for perhaps several generations, which puts port power's short-term financial stability in a difficult position.

i know for a fact that they believe they have excellent support in the 8-14 age group, but that there have been difficulties in attracting other supporters to the club.

as much as i admire the club - they're brilliant with the media, they work hard at grass roots level, and they're better run that my club was before jimmy took over - i still wonder...did the afl make a massive blunder accepting port into the competition rather than a hybrid team, such as norwood-sturt?

given that it was probably a fait accompli that it was always going to be port in as the second club after they were the bridesmaid in 1990, the afl probably didn't look too seriously at the sheer dislike of anything port-related by anyone who didn't got for the sanfl magpies.

i still think the over-emphasis on their sanfl past and history - which is truly incredible - and the attempt to associate the magpies with the power has been a massive tactical blunder as it simply reinforces the notion that port power is port adelaide.

if they moved away from that generalisation, perhaps the generation gap required to attract neutral / fair-weather supporters would be an easier transition, and help alleviate the power's current financial problems.

as someone who lives in adelaide but supports neither club, i must admit i have a soft spot for port as there's something about their underdog status that is similar to a melbourne, a north melbourne, a footscray - they're a side you're happy to see do well (except against your side!) and want to be safe.

the truth is they probably are safe; the afl needs adelaide as a two-team town. but was port power the wrong choice for the second team?

 

[relapse]

If we had the luxury of playing another South Australian team every second week I'm sure we'd manage to sneak in 30 each week

Yeah but this isnt fantasy world, we all knew upon joining the AFL that teams from outside melbourne have to rely on their own supporter base to fill their home games and financially support the club.

The vic clubs have low attendances against Port, Freo etc, but make it up when they play the bigger vic clubs that is why they can be viable even though they get 18k to some of their games because they have the bigger matches to profit from.

Port do that have that luxury they only have 1 game a year where they can make money from opposition supporters, this is why trying to justify Port attendances against Vic clubs is just illogical. For an interstate side Port's attendances are not financially sustainable even with a reworked stadium deal if you think you will start to make profits from pulling 18-20k to games you must be delusional.

 

[relapse]

You guys are sure quick to sink the boots in. While i agree that Port crowds are a concern, there are 3 major differences with North:

1. Port are vital to the National competition.

2. Port are in a 2 team town.

3. Port can be profitable if managed correctly.

2 and 3 are right, but 1 isnt a second SA side might be vital to the national comp, but that side being Port in retrospect was an error based by the SANFL's continued lack of long term foresight. More interested in the short term payday rather than the longterm viability.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

On the subject of profitability- the information I have tells me that North Melbourne are still likely to make a small profit over the course of the season.

 

[speedpeck23]

Gotta question the timing of this match by the AFL. Long weekend...surely would have got a bigger crowd played at 2.10....allowed families to go...build up future support for PA. Guess TV scheduling rules again. Crowd figures for both Power and Crows are a concern though. No match ever appears to be a sellout cf. to Subiaco where most matches are full house even though Freo and West Coast are struggling.

 

[Beckers]

On the subject of profitability- the information I have tells me that North Melbourne are still likely to make a small profit over the course of the season.

That is with the AFL funding them to the tune of $1.5mil (might be more).

Also, that is an early forecast....we need to wait until the final results come out!

Good luck to North if they do but i just don't see how they can sustain the club with such low crowds and being so far down the Victorian pecking order!

 

[Pride of SA]

i know for a fact that they believe they have excellent support in the 8-14 age group, but that there have been difficulties in attracting other supporters to the club.

the truth is they probably are safe; the afl needs adelaide as a two-team town. but was port power the wrong choice for the second team?

Actually as someone related to a guy who does work in the schools for the AFC, I can tell you if anything the Crows have a larger percentage of kids supporting them then the general public, if only because of the sheer amount of money being thrown at the kids in schools by the club. something like 7-8 to 1 are nominating themselves as Crows fans over Power. sometimes in a squad of 20 kids there might be only 1 or 2 who are Power fans.
The notion that as soon as the next generation who dont have such a SANFL hatred of the SANFL Port Adelaide comes of age then Port Power will attract a strong following is pure wishful thinking.
Kids in the main support the team their family supports which means roughly the same ratio of support as now, and for those that dont, well the AFC spends 4 times as much as the PAFC does to keep them.

As for whether the AFL needs them, the AFL needs nothing but to make a lot of money apparently, which is why we are going to the Gold Coast instead of football-mad Tasmania. SA is a small state and the vast majority of the supporter and corporate base in that small state has already been captured by one of the teams. They may be safe, but if they keep asking for handouts from both the AFL and SANFL, it may well come to the point where any benefit from keeping alive a historic but poorly supported team isnt justified by the outlay especially when that teams spot could be better served in other growing areas of the country.

 

[Chadwiko]

So many fish. This thread delivers.

 

[whatwhatsaywhat]

good point, 'pride of sa' re the kids support.

but as i said, 'they believe'. i think they're wrong.

the afl / sanfl expectation of support was definitely skewed, which is why i still think the likes of a norwood-sturt could've worked better in the long-term off the field.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

So many fish. This thread delivers.

 

[rb214]

You guys are sure quick to sink the boots in. While i agree that Port crowds are a concern, there are 3 major differences with North:

1. Port are vital to the National competition.

2. Port are in a 2 team town.

3. Port can be profitable if managed correctly.

You relly need to start reading more of the Posts and Thread if you are continue to Post on Big Footy.

You seem to get the context or the information in a thread wrong everytime. Remember read carefully before posting Beckers.