• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

Port Magpies teetering

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

BomberAce7 said:
Port Adelaide Magpies cant be rescued. No money, players leaving, supporters divided, its a mess! Who is to blame?
Click to expand...

The SANFL and its other member clubs.

They wanted this separation of powers abortion - the maintenance of a Port Adelaide presence to retain the credibility and interest of and in the league, but completely cut off from its financial and spiritual powerbase, residing at Alberton only on matchdays.

Irony of ironies, 'Port Power' [sic] cops the blame.
 
Ah well better give Mannum a call and get your ff back

A SANFL without Port would look so weird, they might have to pay some attention to this instead of Crow/Power rot for 5 mins to fix it
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #34
The Rooch's article today suggests the Port Magpies have one season left in them without SANFL financial assistance. There's a SANFL meeting Monday starting at 5.30pm that could decide their fate. MR seems to think they are more likely to fold, the other clubs won't prop them up and a merger with the Power is too challenging.
 
Its a pity that when pokies were introduced into SA they weren't limited to sporting clubs.

If each SANFL club had less competition in their area for pokies they would be making profits each year. The SANFL would be a stronger league, and we may have a different Premier each year. Centrals facilities rival the Powers, and the Crows old one. Built on the back of Pokies.

The flow on effect would be that the SANFL would not need to take as much as they do from Crows and Power games at Footy Park.

The social aspect is that pokie profits would go back into worthwile causes, not just SANFL clubs but all sporting clubs.

Everyone would be a winner, not just a handfull of pokie barons.
 
Geoffa32 said:
Its a pity that when pokies were introduced into SA they weren't limited to sporting clubs.

If each SANFL club had less competition in their area for pokies they would be making profits each year. The SANFL would be a stronger league, and we may have a different Premier each year. Centrals facilities rival the Powers, and the Crows old one. Built on the back of Pokies.

The flow on effect would be that the SANFL would not need to take as much as they do from Crows and Power games at Footy Park.

The social aspect is that pokie profits would go back into worthwile causes, not just SANFL clubs but all sporting clubs.

Everyone would be a winner, not just a handfull of pokie barons.
Click to expand...

I've been banging out about this one for years. The state government messed it up badly from day one. I never understood why they supported mini-casinos in the neon clad former pubs over wealthier sporting clubs who actually gave something back to the community.

Footy across the country would have been the winner with funds like the NSW leagues clubs had being pumped back into SA football development.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Docker Clint said:
I've been banging out about this one for years. The state government messed it up badly from day one. I never understood why they supported mini-casinos in the neon clad former pubs over wealthier sporting clubs who actually gave something back to the community.

Footy across the country would have been the winner with funds like the NSW leagues clubs had being pumped back into SA football development.
Click to expand...
its illogical what hes saying the world doesnt revolve around footy clubs.
 
SouthAustralia said:
Whilst I can't obviously comment on the SANFLs intentions on Port Adelaide, I can say that although Port is in alot of trouble, so is Wests and Sturt.

So I reckon when some of these clubs come to deciede whether to let Port live or die, it may infact be a choice of, in the long term, which club/s should be deemed viable to exist or not.


If that makes sense.


And I my opinion is that Port should still exist, but perhaps even as a Port Adelaide reserves side im not sure. You also have to remember that the SANFL is transfixed on making the comp more youth friendly U18's, youth academys & team testings). And Port has done that better then any other team in the comp in the last 5 years or so.
Click to expand...

I have first hand knowledge that Sturt are also in massive financial trouble.

IMO it would be a sad day for football if the Magpies werent in the SANFL anymore, this would be when the rot would really start to come for the SANFL.

Put the Crows in the SANFL as well, play their games and Port games as curtain raisers to AFL fixtures. At the end of the day, unless the SANFL are prepared to bail out the magpies which wont ever happen I think state football is about to undergo a massive change.
 
Docker Clint said:
Yep that's right, it's everyone else's fault.
Click to expand...

So the SANFL didn't push to retain a Port Adelaide presence in the SANFL after the initial invitation to tender gave preference to bids which resulted in the downsizing of the league to 8 teams?

So the other SANFL clubs didn't demand the PAMFC be moved away from Alberton (to Ethelton) and have no financial ties to the Port Adelaide Football Club (and therefore the existing club facilities, infrastructure and revenue streams)?

This is news to all of us! But don't let reality get in the way of another anti-Port Adelaide jibe - unless you were being literal, in which case, yes, it was everyone else's fault. :thumbsu:
 
Funny the SANFL forced made or what ever West Torrens to merge when the money was running out .So why not do something with Port Adelaide .
Or just let them die no more byes then.
 
mickyj said:
Funny the SANFL forced made or what ever West Torrens to merge when the money was running out .So why not do something with Port Adelaide .
Or just let them die no more byes then.
Click to expand...

The PAMFC shouldn't have been formed in the first place. As soon as the belated greenlight was given to the PAFC to join the AFL, that should've been it. Pull up stumps, complete move.

But no, the SANFL needed a Port Adelaide presence in the local league to retain its credibility as superhappybestfriendsbesteverstateleagueever!!!1111111 with an expected further drop in crowds coming and a recent humiliating state game loss to the TFL raw in the memory.

Only problem is, the SANFL's other member clubs fear a superforce off the back of sharing the Power's expected revenue and AFL-standard facilities to come, so shove the Magpies off to Ethelton and demand that there be no joint-fundraising or revenue-sharing beyond a very small slice of the profit from The Port Club (something like 15-20% which was recently raised to 20-25%).

So what we have for the PAMFC, is a situation where there is resentment among both supporter groups (PAFC and PAMFC) for a whole range of issues from the perceived history thieving (thrown from both sides) to the misconception that 'Port Power r*ped the Magpies'.

For instance, it's not the Port Adelaide Football Club's fault that the PAMFC only receive 25% of the profit from The Port Club on PAMFC home matchdays. The SANFL decreed it so.

How would Glenelg or Centrals go if they only received 25% revenue from their clubrooms on home matchdays?

The SANFL and its other member clubs wanted to have their cake and eat it too and now there's a severe case of diabetes everyone's surprised.
 
relapse said:
I think state football is about to undergo a massive change.
Click to expand...

The question has to be asked however, are we overdruw for a change?

Don't get me wrong I would hate to see Norwood fold or anything the like but given the change in demographics, population sizes is the current SANFL structure obsolete?

by that I mean like the AFL there is no way for a new club to enter the competition by being the best in its league or just exist like Centrals and the Bays.
 
Punchy Bassett said:
DT are you a financial member of the PAMFC?
Click to expand...

No. Any sympathy I had for the PAMFC was obliterated in an email exchange with the former CEO.

I do however empathise with their situation. They were cut off at the knees from the start.
 
DT part of the tender process involved maintaining a presence in the SANFL. Norwood and Sturt would have mergered, but still have been required to retain a SANFL presence just the same as if Port won the bid Port needed to mantain a SANFL presence.

I am sick of hearing the SANFL is against us rah rah rah, the SANFL set out clear guidelines that whoever won the bid for the second license would also need to maintain a seperate entity in the SANFL, so the whole "well they were worried about Port" is rubbish they were concerned about which ever team won the license.

Port knew all of this long before lodging their tender, just the same as the other applicants did. So while you try and make a point that other tenders involved the league going to 8 teams you conveniently leave out that Norwood and Sturt would merge and that would have been the 8th team which satisfied the requirement for a Norwood and Sturt presence in the SANFL.
 
relapse said:
DT part of the tender process involved maintaining a presence in the SANFL. Norwood and Sturt would have mergered, but still have been required to retain a SANFL presence just the same as if Port won the bid Port needed to mantain a SANFL presence.
Click to expand...

The primary tender declared preference for bids that saw the reduction of the league to 8 teams, thus eradicating the bye. No other stipulation than that was made.

Norwood and Sturt would have mergered, but still have been required to retain a SANFL presence just the same as if Port won the bid Port needed to mantain a SANFL presence ... the SANFL set out clear guidelines that whoever won the bid for the second license would also need to maintain a seperate entity in the SANFL, so the whole "well they were worried about Port" is rubbish they were concerned about which ever team won the license.

Port knew all of this long before lodging their tender, just the same as the other applicants did. So while you try and make a point that other tenders involved the league going to 8 teams you conveniently leave out that Norwood and Sturt would merge and that would have been the 8th team which satisfied the requirement for a Norwood and Sturt presence in the SANFL.
Click to expand...

That's in Norwood/Sturt's case. Merge = 9 to 8. Simple. Best of both worlds. As part of the Cartel bid it was either Centrals or WWT's plan (I can't remember which) to wind its SANFL operation up entirely.

Port's original plan was to leave wholesale, given who was there to merge with a la Norwood/Sturt? But with a 31% marketshare and the prospect of losing a Port Adelaide presence at local level the goalposts were shifted. In Abernethy's book written in 1996, he believed that this situation could serve a purpose for the PAFC whereby there was a readymade AFL reserves side to be had, given there was talk at the time that the Crows could either takeover Norwood or put their own side in.

I am sick of hearing the SANFL is against us rah rah rah
Click to expand...

Sure, they only created a situation whereby one SANFL club took 15-25% of an AFL club's homebase profits and whereby one SANFL club could only take 15-25% of its matchday revenue from its home ground. That's all above board and fair in anyone's language. :thumbsu:
 
Have the Port Adelaide Magpies Folded?
Was down at Prospect Oval today and had a look at the SANFL Fixture Draft and the Roosters have no byes and dont play Port Magpies.
Whats Going On?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Port Magpies teetering

Similar threads

Tigerlaird
Expansion of the SANFL post Port & Crows
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Howard Littlejohn
Howard Littlejohn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top