Adelaide: Too Small for Two Teams?

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by FuManchu
the then VFL were lobbying hard for a SA side with use of football Park. But the SANFL kept blocking their every move and wanted to do it on their terms, fearing that they would not be the dominant force in SA football. So the VFL undermined the SANFL by then picking the most widely supported SA side if they couldn;t get an SANFL sanctioned side. They knew they couldn't use Football Park, but were willing to use Adelaide Oval instead. They knew this would force the hand on the SANFL, which it did.

I think that the VFL would still have been happy with Port, but REALLY wanted a more widely accepted team using the best ground to showcase their comp in the 2nd strongest football state

It was quite a gme of chicken Ross Oakley was prepared to play then, because when it went to the vote initially, Port's entry was denied by one vote (despite the AFL being sure they had the numbers). The one vote that made the difference - Collingwood's because of the colours/logo issue. If not for the court injunction Bruce Weber could have negotiated that with Collignwood and probably won their support.

 

[captain ebert]

Originally posted by afc9798
Maybe you should move your home games back to Alberton and allow the cars to park around the boundary.

your training facilities actually are a car park.

 

[Paralowiepower]

Originally posted by captain ebert
your training facilities actually are a car park.

Gold
True too
I wonder why the 50m lines are more like 25m? I wonder if somehow this might be one there problems matchday.

 

[afc9798]

Originally posted by Paralowiepower
Gold
True too
I wonder why the 50m lines are more like 25m? I wonder if somehow this might be one there problems matchday.

Could be the problem!!
Do you have neck high wires strung across Alberton Oval during September? Just wondered if this might explain the annual chokefest.

 

[afc9798]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Ha ha nice effort tryhard. Congratulations on being the most sensitive crowie when it comes to having one of your stereotypes turned back on you.

Sorry I was busy sipping on my chardonnay. Surprised you had time to reply, weren't you due at Centrelink?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by afc9798
Sorry I was busy sipping on my chardonnay. Surprised you had time to reply, weren't you due at Centrelink?

Just had a few minutes to spare after getting my mullet trimmed for Sunday's game. This $45 computer I bought at the pub works real good.... you have some nice brie to go with the chardy?

 

[Fullarton Power]

Re: Re: Adelaide: Too Small for Two Teams?

Originally posted by yob
You are a tool.

You omitted the word misguided, yob.

 

[JF_Bay_22_SCG]

Originally posted by Angry Dragon
So what you're telling us is that Port don't have enough supporters and that they rely on the theatre goers and bored Crows supporters to have decent crowd numbers? Pathetic.

Hey lay off mate. Port are one SANFL club fighting against the other 8. Not only did the Crows have an umpteen year headstart in terms of marketing their brand, with FULL support of the SANFL, it took a huge amount of the corporates with it.

The Power, well it started several years later. And as most people in SA footy know only has its own SANFL supporter base from which it can draw. As nobody in SA who isn't a Port follower will adopt the Power as their team, the odd person aside.

Had Port been the first SA-based team in the AFL, I'm sure you'd have seen things a great deal more different to what they are now.

But having said that, Port's many working class supporter base simply cannot afford tickets in the big new stand. Hence it mainly remains empty at most Power home matches.

JF

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by captain ebert
markt - "mr know-it-all" as far as S.A. football is concerned, if it had been port & norwood, it would not have been port vs the rest.

it would have been port vs norwood & the rest pleasing themselves.

in time sure, there would be band-wagoners for both entities.

port are up against it when they are competing against a team "for all south australians" wearing the state colours.

Port & Norwood isn't what you said and they would only have had a few years start at best anyway.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
At least doctormeow did his/her research, put together a coherent argument to back his/her opinion and stands by it ... as opposed to standing on the sidelines slinging unsubstantiated insults. I know which post smells closer to the ******** to me ...

yes,
I'll bet you do. smell many ******* do you?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
yes,
I'll bet you do. smell many ******* do you?

You don't have to be close to the ******** to know **** stinks. Clearly you think yours doesn't. Thanks for not destroying my perceptions about you with this latest contribution.

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by Rob
Can't argue there, you support a club who plays in front of more empty seats than any other, so you definitely know what you're talking about in that area.

Considering you havent had a year(yet) where your average crowd attendances have been greater than ours, i would have thought you wouldve stayed away from even mentioning crowd numbers .

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by yob
North Melbourne crowds calculator:

Number of opposition supporters + 48.

Number of brain cells used by you to post the above, nil.

 

[Mong]

Originally posted by NorthBoi96
Home Port Adelaide Crowds 2004:

Rd1 Vs Essendon: 28,413

Rd3 Vs Hawthorn: 27,421

Rd5 Vs Bulldogs: 26,839

Rd6 Vs Collingwood: 31,174

Rd7 Vs Adelaide: 43,243 (showdown.... poor turnout)

Rd9 Vs Richmond: 25,761

Rd10 Vs Geelong: 29,177

Total as at Rd 11 2004: 204,201
Average for Season 2004: 29,171

Those crowds are extremely poor IMO... very poor indeed, for a 2 team town......... questions need to be asked...
Crowds and stats provided from PAFC

Those crowds are decent considering the home crowd are contributing virtually 100% of that whole figure in all but the Crows game.

When was the last time the Kangaroos contributed 30 000 of their own fans to a game? They are just lucky that they get a few homes against local big drawing teams to boost their crowds.

Still, Port (and Crows) have among the biggest membership numbers in the comp aswell as being among the biggest profit takers in the comp. They will be around far longer than a few struggling Melbourne teams.

But I guess you have to try and convince yourself that other teams are struggling more than yours.


****

 

[Angry Dragon]

Originally posted by ****
Still, Port (and Crows) have among the biggest membership numbers in the comp aswell as being among the biggest profit takers in the comp. They will be around far longer than a few struggling Melbourne teams.

Don't they include their Football Park members as well? Twice?

Very dodgy practices going on in Adelaide.

 

[Angry Dragon]

Re: Re: Re: Adelaide: Too Small for Two Teams?

Originally posted by Fullarton Power
You omitted the word misguided, yob.

You think Adelaide is a great place to live. If anyone deserves the title 'misguided' it is you.

 

[Still Crowing]

Originally posted by Angry Dragon
Don't they include their Football Park members as well? Twice?

Very dodgy practices going on in Adelaide.

Try doing a little research before sprouting off......

A Footy Pk Category 1 membership allows you to watch both Crows and P*rt games. For this, a person pays the equivalent of two AFL memberships (ie in excess of $250). This is why Catefory one memberships are counted by both P*rt and the Crows. The Member has effectively bought a membership (season ticket) to each club. Kapish?

Cat 2 (AFC Only) are only counted by the Crows, and Cat 3 (P*rt only) are only counted by PA.

 

[kirky]

Ah, 28,306 to watch TWO VICTORIAN SIDES at the home of football - now thats what I call pathetic!!!!

 

[kirky]

But then again, perhaps it wasn't being played in an indoor stadium so all the patrons could be nice and warm. Now who are going soft!!!