Port Adelaide is a failed concept.

[kaltmeibel]

The answer to this pathetic sentence is in the part of the quote you deleted.

What's pathetic is you ain't going to convince me and by the sounds of it you don't even believe this yourself

SIGH

 

[Mungo Sugars]

are you a port alias in disguise. Jesus, people from Adelaide in general are so dumb, what does this have to do with criminals? the bottom line is Port can NOT provide a fan base that is able to sustain an AFL club. Their attendances are poor, no one wants to play for them, and no one wants to support them.

Someone said earlier it would be like collingwood joining a national league without the other victorian teams, and expecting us all to support them. They were the collingwood of the SANFL, and getting "new" supporters is near impossible for them. Kick them out of the league and let the Gold Coast take their place.

This is not true. I'll say it one more time. Port's 2009 revenue was just under $32 million, but the SANFL grabbed around $11 million through sub-licence fees and the stadium deal. We then had a deficit of $2.9 million so they sent some of our money back to cover it.

We're not unsustainable, we (and the camrys) just have a different set-up, which results in our licence owner having millions to spend on their own league. St.Kilda's licence isn't held by the VFL, so they don't have another corporate body pinching a third of their revenue and redistributing it to Sandringham, Casey, Box Hill etc.

Put simply, as long as the SANFL exists, Port Adelaide exists.

 

[afc9798]

Where's Toots Hibbert?

Another self imposed hibernation period?

Bigger downhill skiier than Danyle Pearce is our Toots. He occasionally slaloms and then gives up in favour of the quickest and easiest exit.

 

[Mungo Sugars]

What's pathetic is you ain't going to convince me and by the sounds of it you don't even believe this yourself

SIGH

You deleted parts of the quote because you don't like the sound of the facts. You're like a christian that goes around claiming that the old testament is irrelevant to their religion because it doesn't fit in with what they want to believe.

That's pathetic.

 

[lemons123]

if thats the case then MS, whats the difference between the port setup and the adelaide setup?

 

[Mungo Sugars]

Considering 25 of them were won before the AFL was formed, its quite irrelevant. When we won the spoon in 2000 we got 26,000 through the gates on average. Port are mid-table this year and are getting 24,000.

I don't really see how spoons are relevant at all anyway, port aren't doing terribly this year, they've been mediocre yes, but how can that be used as an excuse for such poor support?

You got 26,000 per game because supporters from other melbourne clubs knew they were going to see a guaranteed win! Your supporters were porbably no-where to be seen! Port started that year 1-1-10. It's still our worst start ever and we finished 14th (hardly "mid-table").

But you're right spoons aren't particularly relevant. The point is that every club's crowds go down with performance. Port have lost their last 5 games. We are doing terrible. The standard for "terrible" might be lower at St.Kilda, but at Port Adelaide anything below finals contention is classed as "terrible". The last 3 years have been terrible for our club, both on and off the field.

But as I said we will bounce back.

 

[lemons123]

I think you misunderstood me.

St.Kilda's average attendance in 2000, its spoon year, was 26,000.

Port Adelaide's average attendance THIS YEAR, a mid table year, is 24,000.
This is especially alarming due to the increase in crowds over the whole of the AFL during the past 10 years.

 

[Mungo Sugars]

if thats the case then MS, whats the difference between the port setup and the adelaide setup?

There is no difference. Adelaide have weathered this arrangment better because they have more members than any AFL club bar the Hawks (which is bogus anyway), but even they are going to be in the red this year!

How ridiculous is that. The club with the effectively the most members of any club in the league will not return a profit. They will be ranked 15th in terms of stadium yield like last year and they will make a loss.

So if the AFC can't record a profit, how on earth is the PAFC (with 15,000 less members) expected to do so under the same conditions?

 

[Mungo Sugars]

I think you misunderstood me.

St.Kilda's average attendance in 2000, its spoon year, was 26,000.

Port Adelaide's average attendance THIS YEAR, a mid table year, is 24,000.
This is especially alarming due to the increase in crowds over the whole of the AFL during the past 10 years.

I apologise, I misread what you posted.

As I said before Port Adelaide don't have the luxury of having other "Adelaide-based" clubs pump up its numbers every second week, so it's not really fair to compare Port with a Melbourne-based club.

Of course the club would like to do better but as I've said it's not an unstainable number. The money just goes to our licence owner instead of us, and they will keep us going until infinity and beyond because of the millions we make for them.

And our numbers will increase once our "3 years and counting jekyll and hyde act" has finished and we start playing like men.

 

[kaltmeibel]

There is no difference. Adelaide have weathered this arrangment better because they have more members than any AFL club bar the Hawks (which is bogus anyway), but even they are going to be in the red this year!

How ridiculous is that. The club with the effectively the most members of any club in the league will not return a profit. They will be ranked 15th in terms of stadium yield like last year and they will make a loss.

So if the AFC can't record a profit, how on earth is the PAFC (with 15,000 less members) expected to do so under the same conditions?

So what you are saying is after nearly 14 years you are still some 15000 members less than us cause you aint getting new supporters

Hence the thread title
Port Adelaide is a failed concept.

 

[kaltmeibel]

I apologise, I misread what you posted.

As I said before Port Adelaide don't have the luxury of having other "Adelaide-based" clubs pump up its numbers every second week, so it's not really fair to compare Port with a Melbourne-based club.

Of course the club would like to do better but as I've said it's not an unstainable number. The money just goes to our licence owner instead of us, and they will keep us going until infinity and beyond because of the millions we make for them.

And our numbers will increase once our "3 years and counting jekyll and hyde act" has finished and we start playing like men.

So the SACA will let you play there for free ??? They will slug you just as much maybe more

 

[lemons123]

Even though you said the Adelaide member numbers are bogus (to some degree I agree with), it remains that in a year in which the crows have been terrible as a football club, they have been able to draw an average of 11,000 more fans at their home games then Port. Thats a huge discrepancy considering they have been so much worse than Port this year.

 

[Mungo Sugars]

So what you are saying is after nearly 14 years you are still some 15000 members less than us cause you aint getting new supporters

Hence the thread title
Port Adelaide is a failed concept.

You can put your hands over your ears, jump up and down and shout it all day, but it still doesn't make it true.

Your additional 15,000 members will not save you from making a loss. You see how it's more complicated than how many members you have? With a clean deal both Port and the Crows would be profitable every year and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[Mungo Sugars]

Even though you said the Adelaide member numbers are bogus (to some degree I agree with), it remains that in a year in which the crows have been terrible as a football club, they have been able to draw an average of 11,000 more fans at their home games then Port. Thats a huge discrepancy considering they have been so much worse than Port this year.

I said that Hawthorn's membership numbers are bogus (because you can buy one for your dog!), which effectively means that Adelaide have the most members of any club in the AFL.

But despite this they will not return a profit this year because of the set-up that they (and Port) have with the SANFL.

Last year they were getting well over 40,000 to games and now they are averaging 34,000 including a showdown? Pretty much in line with the whole performance vs. crowds thing I've been saying.

They will probably always have more members than us because Port is one club and the crows are a composition of the rest, and that's fine. With a clean deal Port's current member base is more than enough to be more than profitable every year.

 

[Mungo Sugars]

So the SACA will let you play there for free ??? They will slug you just as much maybe more

The stadium deal that is currently being drawn up by the SMA (the SANFL/SACA love-in) will be designed to deliver an extra $8 million dollars to both Port and the Crows.

For Port Adelaide this is the difference between posting a loss of $4 million this year and a profit of $4 million.

For the Crows it's the difference between red and black this year.

 

[kaltmeibel]

You can put your hands over your ears, jump up and down and shout it all day, but it still doesn't make it true.

Your additional 15,000 members will not save you from making a loss. You see how it's more complicated than how many members you have? With a clean deal both Port and the Crows would be profitable every year and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

So how much do you think the SACA will slug you ???

 

[Mungo Sugars]

So how much do you think the SACA will slug you ???

Read above your last post.

 

[treager]

So what you are saying is after nearly 14 years you are still some 15000 members less than us cause you aint getting new supporters

Hence the thread title
Port Adelaide is a failed concept.

So that is your conclusion?

If the gap between the teams still hasn't changed then it might suggest that our growth (or lack of) is the same as yours, does that mean the Cows are a failed concept aswell?

 

[The Karma Bus]

I said that Hawthorn's membership numbers are bogus (because you can buy one for your dog!), which effectively means that Adelaide have the most members of any club in the AFL.

But despite this they will not return a profit this year because of the set-up that they (and Port) have with the SANFL.

Last year they were getting well over 40,000 to games and now they are averaging 34,000 including a showdown? Pretty much in line with the whole performance vs. crowds thing I've been saying.

They will probably always have more members than us because Port is one club and the crows are a composition of the rest, and that's fine. With a clean deal Port's current member base is more than enough to be more than profitable every year.

Adelaide home game average 2009 : 38801
Adelaide home game average 2010 : 35508

Wheres the MASSIVE drop off as we keep hearing from port people?

In 2010 so far we have mainly played poor teams in terms of drawing a crowd : Sydney, Richmond, Brisbane, Fremantle. When we play collingwood type teams theres a bigger crowd.

We have also had 3 saturday afternoon games this year already, usually we get maybe 2 maximum in a year. Its a fact the crows have a lot of country people that dont make it to saturday arvo games and too many people have sport themselves or their kids. Saturday arvo is always the worst attended game.

Then our Sydney sunday afternoon game was programmed on easter and the richmond sunday game was put on mothers day. Yet the afl programmed the saints vs carlton game on the monday night that weekend to "allow more victorians to be able to celebrate mothers day" as i heard demetriou say. Thanks afl.

Considering this and our form this year, our crowds arent doing too bad

 

[kaltmeibel]

So that is your conclusion?

If the gap between the teams still hasn't changed then it might suggest that our growth (or lack of) is the same as yours, does that mean the Crows are a failed concept aswell?

How the hell can we grow we were 2-8 and got 35000 you rarley get 20000 and not quite 17000 to a birthday party game

 

[treager]

How the hell can we grow we were 2-8 and got 35000 you rarley get 20000 and not quite 17000 to a birthday party game

I thought you were talking the last 14 years? You should have stated the last few weeks instead.

You missed the point completely, no we haven't caught up to you in the last 14 years but you haven't pulled away either. We're pretty much even on the pulling of new supporters so by your logic if we fail then guess what?

 

[Mungo Sugars]

Adelaide home game average 2009 : 38801
Adelaide home game average 2010 : 35508

Wheres the MASSIVE drop off as we keep hearing from port people?

In 2010 so far we have mainly played poor teams in terms of drawing a crowd : Sydney, Richmond, Brisbane, Fremantle. When we play collingwood type teams theres a bigger crowd.

We have also had 3 saturday afternoon games this year already, usually we get maybe 2 maximum in a year. Its a fact the crows have a lot of country people that dont make it to saturday arvo games and too many people have sport themselves or their kids. Saturday arvo is always the worst attended game.

Then our Sydney sunday afternoon game was programmed on easter and the richmond sunday game was put on mothers day. Yet the afl programmed the saints vs carlton game on the monday night that weekend to "allow more victorians to be able to celebrate mothers day" as i heard demetriou say. Thanks afl.

Considering this and our form this year, our crowds arent doing too bad

This was my overall point, crowds drop with performance. I didn't go and google the exact crowd figures for both years but from memory your crowds are looking a lot thinner than they were at the tail end of last year when you were flying.

The relevance of this is that Port's average of 24,000 or whatever is hardly surprising considering the size of our supporter base and the form we have displayed over the past three years. And it will get back over 30,000 when we start playing good footy again.

No need for alarm. That's all I'm saying people!

P.S. I had to laugh at your sig!

 

[Mungo Sugars]

I thought you were talking the last 14 years? You should have stated the last few weeks instead.

You missed the point completely, no we haven't caught up to you in the last 14 years but you haven't pulled away either. We're pretty much even on the pulling of new supporters so by your logic if we fail then guess what?

10% of their membership base also consists of "concessions" (compared to 5% at Port), so If anything they're gonna go backwards when all the oldies start dying off!

 

[kaltmeibel]

I thought you were talking the last 14 years? You should have stated the last few weeks instead.

You missed the point completely, no we haven't caught up to you in the last 14 years but you haven't pulled away either. We're pretty much even on the pulling of new supporters so by your logic if we fail then guess what?

We have a waiting list do you ???We cant go no higher you can but you wont and quite rightly so

 

[Mungo Sugars]

How the hell can we grow we were 2-8 and got 35000 you rarley get 20000 and not quite 17000 to a birthday party game

Rarely get 20,000?

We have got over 20,000 to every game this year except the one that was played in torrential rain.

Nice try though.