Port tell league: we'll go broke without assistance

[FOOOOTY]

Says he that is "going back to Melbourne" to the man living and working in a city of 13 million people you would have never heard of in China!

Can you get me a moon bear?

 

[captain ebert]

carn port

 

[Goat 53]

Cant we just throw this basket case out of the league? All they do is whine about the shitty deal they have instead of getting on with the task of promoting their club and getting bums on seats. There'd be no whining at all if they were profitable.

 

[captain ebert]

great post there, sac.

 

[captain ebert]

Cant we just throw this basket case out of the league? All they do is whine about the shitty deal they have instead of getting on with the task of promoting their club and getting bums on seats. There'd be no whining at all if they were profitable.

just wanted to quote that for all to see before you go & change it.

 

[Chops_a_must]

It's not like there is anything else to do in SA.

Come on you bums, sign up.

 

[Jonny27]

Cant we just throw this basket case out of the league? All they do is whine about the shitty deal they have instead of getting on with the task of promoting their club and getting bums on seats. There'd be no whining at all if they were profitable.

 

[Demonheart]

just wanted to quote that for all to see before you go & change it.

The sad thing is over the last couple of years there's been a bucket load of posts by port supporters aimed at Melbourne clubs very similiar to that one you just quoted.

Me personally, I don't want to see any club die, the Swans and your mob included.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Well the 2nd team would have none of those advantages: no 'state team' vibe / 'state team' players kept in SA by a player retention scheme / no colours of any 'meaning' to anyone and a 6yr head start, and then 2 flags just to cement things at the time of the 2nd team coming in.

And there's no geographic hook for supporters to hang onto. Fremantle is an identifiable geographic region with a rich football tradition. And even not so long ago as 2001, Freo were still averaging only 21,000 per game. They've taken off since then, which would be roughly in line with the WA mining/wealth/population boom - the Perth housing boom is reported to have driven up prices by 146 percent between 2002 and December 2007. (http://www.bloomberg.com.au/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aO0E.3GUh1Ng&refer=exclusive).

Even in the AFL's latest expansion plans, they turn to regions with identifiable growth geographic areas such as Gold Coast, Western Sydney.

I don't know what geographic hook there would be in Adelaide. During the crows to Port interim there was discussion on basing clubs on a north of the Torrens/south of the Torrens split. But that would have been incredibly artificial. I've lived in Adelaide most of my life, and I don't recall that ever being some sort of natural divide. And how do you convince supporters of the self-styled team for all South Australians that might live in the 'other' geographic region that they should change allegiance. It wouldn't have happened.

Certainly there's an identity in the outer northern and southern suburbs. But the allegiance to Centrals (outer northern) is seen to begin north of Grand Junction Road, which is a long way from the banks of the Torrens. And the crows have a strong support base out there. It's funny, because I lived out that way for a long time and Port were always strongly supported.

In the deep south, there's a stronger Port Adelaide connection. Going on anecdotal evidence from people I know that live down that way, there's not a strong connection to the local SANFL team, South Adelaide, despite them locating in the outer south. There's plenty of stories of good players happy to stay at their local club rather than hook up with South.

Port Adelaide had the clear point of differentiation that the AFL likes to see. But we're not the more broad-based, amorphous geographic location that can attract more universal support. Of course there are always plenty of rumours that Port were going to get the second licence as the AFL's leverage point for getting SA into the AFL sooner rather than later. Port Adelaide also put forward the most comprehensive business plan for its promotion to the AFL and was selected by a SANFL sub-committee over a host of SANFL conglomerates. There was even a SANFL Strategy Paper during the selection process that recommended handing the second licence to Port and letting Norwood adopt the crows (that went over like a lead balloon).

There's no doubt our crowds have gone backward then stagnated and last year was plain embarrassing. I don't know that Port have much chance to make any great inroads into the existing football supporting public. As a single club entity we are an easy target for the non-Port supporters in this state. And it's hard to win them over. There's a certain parochialism in South Australia and it has a long memory. An Advertiser poll a few years back pegged Port's support base as being 85% Port supporters from the Magpies days. Again anecdotally, guys I know that supported other SANFL clubs came over to Port on the basis of them viewing us as a 'real, traditional club'. I know crows don't like hearing that (and after 20 years in the comp I can understand their angst about that). But that's what I've heard from people. Also in our first couple of years we would've been a good chance to get a hold on those crows supporters who would have been vacillating by what they saw as under-achievement by the crows. But the two flags killed that avenue of support.

Probably our best chance for growth is in targeting and attracting migrants, a group with no pre-conceptions about football support. The SA government in South Australia's Strategic Plan has set a target of a 2 million population for South Australia by 2050. The Economic Development Board in a just released paper recommended this target be brought forward to 2027. How realistic this is terms of supporting infrastructure and services (not to mention water) remains to be seen. But this will only be achieved through a significant migrant intake, and this is the group we have to home in on, while continuing to work away at those South Australians without a strong football commitment from their past.

 

[Natman]

And there's no geographic hook for supporters to hang onto. Fremantle is an identifiable geographic region with a rich football tradition. And even not so long ago as 2001, Freo were still averaging only 21,000 per game. They've taken off since then, which would be roughly in line with the WA mining/wealth/population boom - the Perth housing boom is reported to have driven up prices by 146 percent between 2002 and December 2007. (http://www.bloomberg.com.au/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aO0E.3GUh1Ng&refer=exclusive).

Even in the AFL's latest expansion plans, they turn to regions with identifiable growth geographic areas such as Gold Coast, Western Sydney.

I don't know what geographic hook there would be in Adelaide. During the crows to Port interim there was discussion on basing clubs on a north of the Torrens/south of the Torrens split. But that would have been incredibly artificial. I've lived in Adelaide most of my life, and I don't recall that ever being some sort of natural divide. And how do you convince supporters of the self-styled team for all South Australians that might live in the 'other' geographic region that they should change allegiance. It wouldn't have happened.

Certainly there's an identity in the outer northern and southern suburbs. But the allegiance to Centrals (outer northern) is seen to begin north of Grand Junction Road, which is a long way from the banks of the Torrens. And the crows have a strong support base out there. It's funny, because I lived out that way for a long time and Port were always strongly supported.

In the deep south, there's a stronger Port Adelaide connection. Going on anecdotal evidence from people I know that live down that way, there's not a strong connection to the local SANFL team, South Adelaide, despite them locating in the outer south. There's plenty of stories of good players happy to stay at their local club rather than hook up with South.

Port Adelaide had the clear point of differentiation that the AFL likes to see. But we're not the more broad-based, amorphous geographic location that can attract more universal support. Of course there are always plenty of rumours that Port were going to get the second licence as the AFL's leverage point for getting SA into the AFL sooner rather than later. Port Adelaide also put forward the most comprehensive business plan for its promotion to the AFL and was selected by a SANFL sub-committee over a host of SANFL conglomerates. There was even a SANFL Strategy Paper during the selection process that recommended handing the second licence to Port and letting Norwood adopt the crows (that went over like a lead balloon).

There's no doubt our crowds have gone backward then stagnated and last year was plain embarrassing. I don't know that Port have much chance to make any great inroads into the existing football supporting public. As a single club entity we are an easy target for the non-Port supporters in this state. And it's hard to win them over. There's a certain parochialism in South Australia and it has a long memory. An Advertiser poll a few years back pegged Port's support base as being 85% Port supporters from the Magpies days. Again anecdotally, guys I know that supported other SANFL clubs came over to Port on the basis of them viewing us as a 'real, traditional club'. I know crows don't like hearing that (and after 20 years in the comp I can understand their angst about that). But that's what I've heard from people. Also in our first couple of years we would've been a good chance to get a hold on those crows supporters who would have been vacillating by what they saw as under-achievement by the crows. But the two flags killed that avenue of support.

Probably our best chance for growth is in targeting and attracting migrants, a group with no pre-conceptions about football support. The SA government in South Australia's Strategic Plan has set a target of a 2 million population for South Australia by 2050. The Economic Development Board in a just released paper recommended this target be brought forward to 2027. How realistic this is terms of supporting infrastructure and services (not to mention water) remains to be seen. But this will only be achieved through a significant migrant intake, and this is the group we have to home in on, while continuing to work away at those South Australians without a strong football commitment from their past.

There would be a few posters in this thread embarrassed to read the above post that has logical reasoning and quality information - when comparing it to the tripe that they write.

 

[sworc36]

Do you know why the same Crows fans renew their membership every year? Because Crows fans know that if they don't renew, they face a long stint on the waiting list to become a member if they ever want to join again.

It is a numbers game. There are more Crows fans, which means that there is more demand for memberships, which means that transient Crows members can't afford to let their membership lapse. Thus, the Crows don't lose their transient fans year on year like Port does.

It has nothing to do with "passion" or "loyalty" or any other bullshite buzzword that you want to use. It is self-interest, pure and simple. Crows fans have a lot to lose if they don't renew their membership.

If Port fans had the same gross numbers of fans as the Crows, the situation would be exactly the same. However, they know that they have the option of joining in 2010 even if they don't renew in 2009. Therefore the transient Port fans have nothing to lose by not re-joining in 2009.

Port's problem isn't the "passion" of their fans, its just that there aren't
enough of them.

I totally disagree. There are plenty of Port Supporters but they dont go to games. You know I know a heap of "so called" Port supporters that are lucky to have attended 2 AFL games in their lifetime. The sprout their mouths about all this tradition and premerships but when you ask them why they dont attend games, the excuses come rolling out "I have to work, "I have kids sport to go to etc. etc but come finals time, they amazingly have the time then. Whether they have the option to renew or not they dont attend games fullstop. Passion is about supporting your club, financially and by presence at their games. We have both. Our supporters travel in numbers to see their team interstate so yeah, Im very confident in saying that our supporter base is more passionate than Ports.

 

[sworc36]

Firstly, you have no idea about how many Crows fans I know.

You have made the classic human error - you have taken your own personal feelings and experiences about a situation and then assumed that every single person who is in the same situation as you has the same feelings and experiences.

This is the leap that you are making:
- I am a Crows fan, I go to watch the Crows because I love going
- therefore the fact that I would lose my spot if I gave up my mebership is irrelevant to me
- therefore every other Crows fan must love their club as much as me and the fact that they would lose their membership if they don't re-join is irrelevant to all Crows fans as well.

To go along with this classic human error, your dislike of the Power is clouding your judgement. And your dislike of Port leads you to making this huge leap:

- Ports attendances are decreasing
- therefore Port fans must lack the passion that I and all Crows fans have for the mighty Crows.

Don't worry, you are not alone. A lot of simple people make these classic human mistakes. You have created a very simple explanation for something that is complex. Simple folk often do this to allow their brain to process a complex problem.

It is only the enlightened among us who can see the wood from the trees and understand that not all people experience things in the same way.

Ahh now your assuming that he dislikes the Power; a classic human error as you so put it. So let me get this right, we (Crows supporters) buy our season ticket because we have to, not because we enjoy going to support our club, not that we are passionate about our club but because if we dont we cant attend any games? Is that your argument? You do realise that we have about 5000 match day tickets on sale. Maybe not as many as Port but we can get a ticket, at a higher single game price than a season ticket mind you but we could still get a ticket. Therefore if we werent very passionate about our club we would probably not bother with a season ticket and opt for the match day one. Makes sense to me. You see, now maybe Im going to make a human error hear by saying that I think that you are the simpleton and have a dislike for the Crows.

 

[greennick]

2 points.

Most clubs outside of Collingwood, Essendon, Adelaide, West Coast and of recent times for some unexplainable reason (more money than sense) have significant drop offs in crowd numbers when they are going badly. Apart from the perennial strugglers this also includes the likes of Carlton, Hawthorn, Sydney, Richmond and Geelong. All of these clubs have had more than 3 sub 20k crowds over the last decade. All of these clubs have had financial difficulty over the last decade. People are making it sound like Port's situation is unique. It is not.

Secondly, those who are arguing that Port should not have been the second AFL club in Adelaide are seriously deluding themselves. To a man, every Power supporter that I have ever met that barracked for another team in the SANFL has told me that the reason they barrack for Port is: They feel like a "real" football club as opposed to the corporatised AFC. They like the history and culture of success, despite their own SANFL club suffering at the hands of it, is what has drawn them to Port over the Crows. Now I'm not saying anything here about the AFC, I'm just saying that those who have turned their allegiance to Port, despite even hating them in the SANFL was actual respect for history, tradition and culture. Those arguing that this is some kind of poison chalice are way off the mark.

To be fair, West Coast's crowd figures fell away last year. The club still made a bucket load of cash as they were always "sold-out". A lot of members just stayed home, but they would never give up their memberships as they would not be able to get in again when we are any good.

I believe a similar phenomenon happens with the Crows.

 

[greennick]

Scales of ecnomy may come into it, but as pointed out, Perth has grown in the last 15 years and at the time wouldnt have been that much different to Adelaide back then. Adelaide's size has remained relatively stagnant in the meantime.

But regardless, WA went the way of two clubs with no prior identity, it may be argued freo drew off two clubs using the freo name, but many here tell me it didnt exactly work out that way. So in essence two clubs, no history, no percieved dislikes, no prejudices. it seems to have worked.

SA did that woith the crows, it has worked. It went the way of an established club, changed a few things that had to be changed and they are not performing to the same degree as the other three clubs mentioned. It may warrant some thinking in future.

That could be a deciding factor in any relocations in future too. look at sydneys tenuous history. They are only ever a few bad years away from a real disaster as we have experienced a number of times, even after 28 years up there, they are still the out of towners in some peoples eyes. maybe Nth to the GC may have suffered the same fate.

This is the reason I think it is good they will have their own team with their own identity. At first, I thought it would be good if North moved up there, as they will have an instant supporter base (even if many or even most of the North supporters don't stay on board). However, in the long run, the team will be more successful if they have their own identity.

This is also why the Western Sydney team could end up being surprisingly successful. A lot of people that like footy up there, but never got on the Swans for various reasons, could take to a new team. At least they are more likely to than if it was another imported team.

 

[greennick]

Ahh now your assuming that he dislikes the Power; a classic human error as you so put it. So let me get this right, we (Crows supporters) buy our season ticket because we have to, not because we enjoy going to support our club, not that we are passionate about our club but because if we dont we cant attend any games? Is that your argument? You do realise that we have about 5000 match day tickets on sale. Maybe not as many as Port but we can get a ticket, at a higher single game price than a season ticket mind you but we could still get a ticket. Therefore if we werent very passionate about our club we would probably not bother with a season ticket and opt for the match day one. Makes sense to me. You see, now maybe Im going to make a human error hear by saying that I think that you are the simpleton and have a dislike for the Crows.

His point is most certainly correct, however you have misrepresented what he means. You can't jump on and off the Crows from a membership perspective. If you don't renew, by the time they are good again, you won't be able to get a membership again for a number of years.

The same thing happens for the Eagles.

 

[aneale]

There's no doubt our crowds have gone backward then stagnated and last year was plain embarrassing. I don't know that Port have much chance to make any great inroads into the existing football supporting public. As a single club entity we are an easy target for the non-Port supporters in this state. And it's hard to win them over. There's a certain parochialism in South Australia and it has a long memory. An Advertiser poll a few years back pegged Port's support base as being 85% Port supporters from the Magpies days. Again anecdotally, guys I know that supported other SANFL clubs came over to Port on the basis of them viewing us as a 'real, traditional club'. I know crows don't like hearing that (and after 20 years in the comp I can understand their angst about that). But that's what I've heard from people. Also in our first couple of years we would've been a good chance to get a hold on those crows supporters who would have been vacillating by what they saw as under-achievement by the crows. But the two flags killed that avenue of support.

And this is pretty much everyone's point. You have essentially hit your peak. You aren't going to get the neutrals in any great number, you can't win over all the Port Magpies supporters and along with the Crows you will be hoping that Adelaide Utd fail in their bid to snag the migrant market particularly in the Nth African communities with their enormous growth. This of course is what the AFL are hoping for in West Sydney as well. You may break even on the migrant population, as the AFC have recognised this market as well, as I imagine most AFL Clubs have.

The obvious Geographical hook here is Elizabeth, or since the merging what we now know as Playford. There are 3 times the population there as Fremantle. Yes, it's not one of the more affluent areas in the City but there is real growth going on out there and there is a lot of development going on as well, a lot of money is being diverted out there. It's also a bit of a gateway to Gawler and the Barossa region. And as we know and much to everyone's chagrin a football team that has won 7 of the last 9 SANFL flags. Not anywhere near the same level as Sth & East Freo but it's a real area to target. Would have been an interesting meeting if CD won the 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995 flags (R/U 1992) rather than in the new century. Success + Massive growth = 2nd license?

 

[Hinkley29]

Ahh now your assuming that he dislikes the Power; a classic human error as you so put it. So let me get this right, we (Crows supporters) buy our season ticket because we have to, not because we enjoy going to support our club, not that we are passionate about our club but because if we dont we cant attend any games? Is that your argument? You do realise that we have about 5000 match day tickets on sale. Maybe not as many as Port but we can get a ticket, at a higher single game price than a season ticket mind you but we could still get a ticket. Therefore if we werent very passionate about our club we would probably not bother with a season ticket and opt for the match day one. Makes sense to me. You see, now maybe Im going to make a human error hear by saying that I think that you are the simpleton and have a dislike for the Crows.

You have missed the point, please see Greennick's post for an explanation.

I didn't think it was that difficult to understand so perhaps you should think twice about calling someone a simpleton. Glass houses and all that....

 

[aneale]

His point is most certainly correct, however you have misrepresented what he means. You can't jump on and off the Crows from a membership perspective. If you don't renew, by the time they are good again, you won't be able to get a membership again for a number of years.

The same thing happens for the Eagles.

yes but in a discussion about attendance not membership it's totally irrelevant. Adelaide crowds aren't better for fear of loss, they just go to games. Port crowds don't. I could just not show up for 5 years but pay my renewal every January. And, Crows crowds could plummet. That has never happened tho', so even tho' the Crows supporters could all just not show up and be safe in the knowledge they don't have to relinquish their seats, they still average 40K a season over 18 seasons of football. There has never been a -12,000 difference between membership & attendance figures, now Port had a bad year in 2008. However, in our three worst seasons; 1996 (12th) Membership: 42,283 Attendance: 39,428. 1999 (13th) Membership: 42,120 Attendance: 39,386. 2004 (12th) Membership: 45,642 Attendance: 39,879.

Given that Crows supporters don't have to show if they don't want to, even with a membership - our supporters still appear to stick to the team more than Ports do.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Why are you even bothering trying to compare memberships to crowds.

You well know they are bogus. Port's membership since 1997 has been consistently overstated by about 7,000 SANFL category 1 members who are really crows supporters and Adelaide's membership has been consistently overstated by about 4,000 SANFL category 1 members who are really port supporters.

It's the SANFL wanting to show they control both teams. Mind you both clubs have benefited from this double counting with getting greater grand final tickets because of the system of allocating the available tickets to the 2 competing clubs based on the 2 GF teams adult members.

This appears to be finished with last years GF teams getting 11,500 tickets each. Maybe its time to cut back on cat 1 memberships and increase the cat 2 and cat 3 membership numbers.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

And this is pretty much everyone's point. You have essentially hit your peak. You aren't going to get the neutrals in any great number, you can't win over all the Port Magpies supporters and along with the Crows you will be hoping that Adelaide Utd fail in their bid to snag the migrant market particularly in the Nth African communities with their enormous growth. This of course is what the AFL are hoping for in West Sydney as well. You may break even on the migrant population, as the AFC have recognised this market as well, as I imagine most AFL Clubs have.

Sorry, but this is just a nonsense. South Australia's current population is around 1.6M, and is ahead of the SA Government target of 2M by 2050. So how can you possibly say we've hit our peak? And the advantage we have is that with the lack of access to Adelaide season tickets, Port have an open market for people to get to games. We have to hit that critical mass to get them, but in an ever growing population that can be achieved. WA fans can confirm or deny, but certainly we're told in SA that one of the reasons for Freo's growth was the unavailability of West Coast tickets, especially once the boom kicked in.

Adelaide now-not-so United have an 18,000 seat stadium that they're struggling to get close to filling lately. Soccer in SA has a great capacity to self-destruct along factional cultural lines.

The Northern African community may be the most visible to you, but the biggest migrant intake in SA comes from the UK (by streets), India, China, even Afghanistan and New Zealand (but we're dealing with small annual numbers after China). There's a wide scope for access there, especially among the UK group, with whom we (as in Australians) share a strong cultural link.

The obvious Geographical hook here is Elizabeth, or since the merging what we now know as Playford. There are 3 times the population there as Fremantle. Yes, it's not one of the more affluent areas in the City but there is real growth going on out there and there is a lot of development going on as well, a lot of money is being diverted out there. It's also a bit of a gateway to Gawler and the Barossa region. And as we know and much to everyone's chagrin a football team that has won 7 of the last 9 SANFL flags. Not anywhere near the same level as Sth & East Freo but it's a real area to target. Would have been an interesting meeting if CD won the 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995 flags (R/U 1992) rather than in the new century. Success + Massive growth = 2nd license?

No offence meant to the good people north of Grand Junction Road (remember I used to live up that way), but going by SEIFA quintiles of socio-economic disadvantage , the northern area is the worst performing area in metropolitan SA. It's not just 'not affluent' it's defined as disadvantaged (although obviously this is not a universal label throughout the region). It may be a geographic hook, but it's a disadvantaged area, and it is viewed as very insular from outside of the region.

Now of course you can say similar things about the western suburbs of metro Adelaide, but Port's supporter base - and I think you can say comparable to Collingwood's in a South Australian context - transcended socio-geo-political boundaries. You can find Port supporters everywhere. I'm not sure of the universal appeal of Centrals or a generic northern suburbs brand, if that's what you're proposing.

Also, Footy Park is on the nose for the football attending public. We know Port can't get fans there. As I mentioned in an earlier post, six out of twelve crows games last year (including a final and not including Port's home showdown) couldn't draw 40,000 fans. I read the other day that Adelaide haven't drawn 50,000 to a minor round game at Footy Park since 2003. Now you can caper around membership figures and supporter passion all you like, but I call that pretty weak, given the size of your support base.

Anyway, editorial comment aside, are you trying to say that a team based in outer northern area of Adelaide would outdraw Port Adelaide at Footy Park? What's the average SANFL attendance these days? Around 3,700 I think last year, in its best performing year for some time. That's not a big football attending base to draw from, and you expect to add to that around 30,000 from up to a 60-90 minute drive away when not even the crows can get let's generously say 10% of their support base to make a 10-20 minute trip to FP? Or do you think the SANFL will spring the $1bn to convert Elizabeth Oval or the Gawler Racetrack into an AFL standard stadium so it's a shorter trip for these fans?

Your agenda throughout this thread has been painfully obvious. As a rock-solid crows supporter, you must have posted more than any individual in this thread that is ostensibly about Port Adelaide. A peruse of your recent posting history shows a significant proportion of threads containing 'Port' in the title. It seems you far prefer to talk about Port (for 'talk' read 'run down') than your own team. You want to have a crack at us, I get that, that's footy. I don't know that non-SA footy supporters quite get the degree of rivalry between Port and the crows (although threads like this and Bay 13 give some insight) and how this can contribute to Port's difficulty in cracking the established football market in SA. I do note however that occasionally you do appear to try to offer some supportive advice.

But sadly (or maybe happily, I'm not sure) for you, I think you're stuck with us for some time yet. Maybe your crusading talents would be better spent on a topic of more value to the western world, like converting the Middle East exclusively to Christianity.

 

[aneale]

Why are you even bothering trying to compare memberships to crowds.

You well know they are bogus. Port's membership since 1997 has been consistently overstated by about 7,000 SANFL category 1 members who are really crows supporters and Adelaide's membership has been consistently overstated by about 4,000 SANFL category 1 members who are really port supporters.

It's the SANFL wanting to show they control both teams. Mind you both clubs have benefited from this double counting with getting greater grand final tickets because of the system of allocating the available tickets to the 2 competing clubs based on the 2 GF teams adult members.

This appears to be finished with last years GF teams getting 11,500 tickets each. Maybe its time to cut back on cat 1 memberships and increase the cat 2 and cat 3 membership numbers.

Those membership #'s have always been bogus, including Port's early years. That didn't stop 30,000+ crowds from attending your home games. I guess it possible, but I doubt the difference in attendance these days has anything to do with 7000 Cat 1's. I agree with reducing the numbers of them tho'.

 

[aneale]

Sorry, but this is just a nonsense. South Australia's current population is around 1.6M, and is ahead of the SA Government target of 2M by 2050. So how can you possibly say we've hit our peak? And the advantage we have is that with the lack of access to Adelaide season tickets, Port have an open market for people to get to games. We have to hit that critical mass to get them, but in an ever growing population that can be achieved. WA fans can confirm or deny, but certainly we're told in SA that one of the reasons for Freo's growth was the unavailability of West Coast tickets, especially once the boom kicked in. And it doesn't fix your problem right now.

Adelaide now-not-so United have an 18,000 seat stadium that they're struggling to get close to filling lately. Soccer in SA has a great capacity to self-destruct along factional cultural lines.

The Northern African community may be the most visible to you, but the biggest migrant intake in SA comes from the UK (by streets), India, China, even Afghanistan and New Zealand (but we're dealing with small annual numbers after China). There's a wide scope for access there, especially among the UK group, with whom we (as in Australians) share a strong cultural link.



No offence meant to the good people north of Grand Junction Road (remember I used to live up that way), but going by SEIFA quintiles of socio-economic disadvantage , the northern area is the worst performing area in metropolitan SA. It's not just 'not affluent' it's defined as disadvantaged (although obviously this is not a universal label throughout the region). It may be a geographic hook, but it's a disadvantaged area, and it is viewed as very insular from outside of the region.

Now of course you can say similar things about the western suburbs of metro Adelaide, but Port's supporter base - and I think you can say comparable to Collingwood's in a South Australian context - transcended socio-geo-political boundaries. You can find Port supporters everywhere. I'm not sure of the universal appeal of Centrals or a generic northern suburbs brand, if that's what you're proposing.

Also, Footy Park is on the nose for the football attending public. We know Port can't get fans there. As I mentioned in an earlier post, six out of twelve crows games last year (including a final and not including Port's home showdown) couldn't draw 40,000 fans. I read the other day that Adelaide haven't drawn 50,000 to a minor round game at Footy Park since 2003. Now you can caper around membership figures and supporter passion all you like, but I call that pretty weak, given the size of your support base.

Anyway, editorial comment aside, are you trying to say that a team based in outer northern area of Adelaide would outdraw Port Adelaide at Footy Park? What's the average SANFL attendance these days? Around 3,700 I think last year, in its best performing year for some time. That's not a big football attending base to draw from, and you expect to add to that around 30,000 from up to a 60-90 minute drive away when not even the crows can get let's generously say 10% of their support base to make a 10-20 minute trip to FP? Or do you think the SANFL will spring the $1bn to convert Elizabeth Oval or the Gawler Racetrack into an AFL standard stadium so it's a shorter trip for these fans?

Your agenda throughout this thread has been painfully obvious. As a rock-solid crows supporter, you must have posted more than any individual in this thread that is ostensibly about Port Adelaide. A peruse of your recent posting history shows a significant proportion of threads containing 'Port' in the title. It seems you far prefer to talk about Port (for 'talk' read 'run down') than your own team. You want to have a crack at us, I get that, that's footy. I don't know that non-SA footy supporters quite get the degree of rivalry between Port and the crows (although threads like this and Bay 13 give some insight) and how this can contribute to Port's difficulty in cracking the established football market in SA. I do note however that occasionally you do appear to try to offer some supportive advice.

But sadly (or maybe happily, I'm not sure) for you, I think you're stuck with us for some time yet. Maybe your crusading talents would be better spent on a topic of more value to the western world, like converting the Middle East exclusively to Christianity.

You've hit in your peak in respect to 'what we have, is what we have'. Yes, the plan is to increase the population over the next few decades. But you can't hang your hat on people who don't even live here yet. You have peaked in respect to the current population beyond the normal increases that you'd expect, but that won't be some boom in supporters as we now.

It's safe to say you won't convert all new Australians to Port, nor the Crows. Nor do Utd have to get them through the door to grab their interest. Utd will once again being playing in Asia, that gives them enormous exposure (notwithstanding your comment they could fracture at any moment - which I agree with) and the A-League will continue to take strides into AFL, moreso with the AFL slowoly becoming a s*** spectacle for the most part. The migrants population growth here will naturally move towards soccer, bar the Kiwis who will go watch the Black Falcons, that will be be the biggest hurdle to getting them to AFL beyond the curiosity factor. Australia is a Multicultural society but apart from the Italian/Greek communities most are underepresented in the footy world, particularly the Asian communities. Port have always had a migrant market to attract and have always had a locked out Crows market to chip away. The waiting list has been around for the entire 12 years of Port's life and about 4 years before that from memory.

You can't un-Port, Port. If that happens it's the death of the Club. You're right,your supporter base is spread and not confined to Alberton, a couple of judges I appear before are staunch Port supporters for example, you even have to put up with framed guernseys in their chambers. Port can't leave the Port, but maybe they can allign themselves with a massive area, that in my experience is a good ground for Port suppporters. Port have a great community attachment to the Alberton/Port Adelaide area if the Club can try and build that into say the Port Adelaide/Enfield, City of Salisbury, City of Playford area then they should benefit. Port sponsor the Thunderbirds, the amount I don't know, but how many Amateur league footy and netball clubs are out that way? could they spread that sponsorship dollar out amoung them, get in the kids faces, provide equipment? I may be a Crows supporter but if I was an 8yo kid playing out at the Eagles in Elizabeth and Alipate Carlisle came out to give us some footys i'd be pretty impressed. I may even go home and nag my dad into taking me to a game. Both clubs go out to schools and do a great job, but if I were Port I wouldn't rest until every school and junior footy club in the Northern Suburbs had 90% of its kids running around in Port guernseys. There is fair chance that a good percentage of the migrant population will be between Port/Enfield and Gawler anyway.

People from those areas will go to FP, you hear Port supporters on the radio after games that have driven from Whyalla and the South East. It's not impossible. You don't have to increase your attendance by 20,000 (altho' it would be nice) you just have to make sure you aren't writing out more cheques to the SANFL. Once the Stadium deal is tweaked for both Clubs, you will get the added benefit, of a better deal plus a bigger crowd hopefully.

Do I think that a second composite side may have been another Freo situation? Yes ... well maybe. I certainly don't dismiss it like Port supporters.

Would it have created the best rivalry in the league (by a mile) - No. The best thing about Port is the rivalry. Anything else would have been a manufactured rivalry.

We would all rather have Port viable, no one wants anoth North Melbourne situation. Our paper is full of crap journalism as it is without annual 'Port Die/Survive' columns.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

You've hit in your peak in respect to 'what we have, is what we have'. Yes, the plan is to increase the population over the next few decades. But you can't hang your hat on people who don't even live here yet. You have peaked in respect to the current population beyond the normal increases that you'd expect, but that won't be some boom in supporters as we know.

But you have to project into the future, to strategically plan, and well out from your current start point. This is a long haul plan. It's too easy for people to want to pack up something they see these days as not working right away and move onto the next shiny new thing. Obviously I have a vested interest in seeing Port survive, but I don't see thirteen years as much of a time investment yet, it's just a part generational shift.

It's safe to say you won't convert all new Australians to Port, nor the Crows. Nor do Utd have to get them through the door to grab their interest. Utd will once again being playing in Asia, that gives them enormous exposure (notwithstanding your comment they could fracture at any moment - which I agree with) and the A-League will continue to take strides into AFL, moreso with the AFL slowoly becoming a s*** spectacle for the most part. The migrants population growth here will naturally move towards soccer, bar the Kiwis who will go watch the Black Falcons, that will be be the biggest hurdle to getting them to AFL beyond the curiosity factor. Australia is a Multicultural society but apart from the Italian/Greek communities most are underepresented in the footy world, particularly the Asian communities. Port have always had a migrant market to attract and have always had a locked out Crows market to chip away. The waiting list has been around for the entire 12 years of Port's life and about 4 years before that from memory.

And yes, it's hitting some sort of critical mass in that regard. It may not be the first generation of migrants, it may be the kids of those migrants. That's how it worked for me, and even today I see it with other second gen's as well. And there are the kids of parents who may have had limited interest in football who for whatever reason take an interest. Again, it's a time based strategy and finding the markets to tap into.

You can't un-Port, Port. If that happens it's the death of the Club. You're right,your supporter base is spread and not confined to Alberton, a couple of judges I appear before are staunch Port supporters for example, you even have to put up with framed guernseys in their chambers. Port can't leave the Port, but maybe they can allign themselves with a massive area, that in my experience is a good ground for Port suppporters. Port have a great community attachment to the Alberton/Port Adelaide area if the Club can try and build that into say the Port Adelaide/Enfield, City of Salisbury, City of Playford area then they should benefit. Port sponsor the Thunderbirds, the amount I don't know, but how many Amateur league footy and netball clubs are out that way? could they spread that sponsorship dollar out amoung them, get in the kids faces, provide equipment? I may be a Crows supporter but if I was an 8yo kid playing out at the Eagles in Elizabeth and Alipate Carlisle came out to give us some footys i'd be pretty impressed. I may even go home and nag my dad into taking me to a game. Both clubs go out to schools and do a great job, but if I were Port I wouldn't rest until every school and junior footy club in the Northern Suburbs had 90% of its kids running around in Port guernseys. There is fair chance that a good percentage of the migrant population will be between Port/Enfield and Gawler anyway.

All Port supporters would hate to see Port un-Ported. Port meandered away from their roots to some extent in recent years but have made a conscious effort to get back there this season. As far as the Live the Creed marketing campaign goes, my honest view of it is that is was something we needed to do to re-establish our identity, which we diluted over the past few years. But I wouldn't want to see us bang on about it endlessly either, I'm happy for us just to be comfortable with that identity, just as we were as the Magpies for so many years. As the Boss sang, it's a sad man my friend who's livin' in his own skin and can't stand the company. We need to be comfortable in our own skin.

Port established a program with the City Of Salisbury last year. This has included initiatives such as a family day and linking it into its schools program - last Thursday alone Port visited 17 schools in the Gawler area. The outer southern suburbs have also been targeted.

The Thunderbirds sponsorship does provide Port with valuable marketing opportunities outside of football and into international markets. Even watching 10HD ads for the sports channel lately, there's Mo'onia Gerrard with the Power logo on her netball uniform extolling the new channel. Everything helps, and I'm sure Port would not have gone into such a sponsorship deal without investigating the benefits fully.

People from those areas will go to FP, you hear Port supporters on the radio after games that have driven from Whyalla and the South East. It's not impossible. You don't have to increase your attendance by 20,000 (altho' it would be nice) you just have to make sure you aren't writing out more cheques to the SANFL. Once the Stadium deal is tweaked for both Clubs, you will get the added benefit, of a better deal plus a bigger crowd hopefully.

Do I think that a second composite side may have been another Freo situation? Yes ... well maybe. I certainly don't dismiss it like Port supporters.

Would it have created the best rivalry in the league (by a mile) - No. The best thing about Port is the rivalry. Anything else would have been a manufactured rivalry.

We would all rather have Port viable, no one wants anoth North Melbourne situation. Our paper is full of crap journalism as it is without annual 'Port Die/Survive' columns.

Annual columns? Daily at the moment.

But a revised stadium deal is important. I think there's a bit of uninformed faffing about this. Port need to be sustainable and successful. To do that, they need to wipe debt, be able to invest in the football department to keep pace with the successful clubs (as has been mentioned no AFL club invests less $/win than Port - but financial investment in football departments is becoming more and more an indicator of on-field success), and to keep searching for and entering into markets that will build our support and attendance base. It's not as if Port want to keep all the money out of Football Park or want an indefinite deal, just to make sure the keel is upright, and build strength from there. Of course the AFL could come to the party, but there's some political leveraging going on there that is out of our control.

And it's not as if Port sit back wringing their hands about crowds while doing nothing. We have community programs, schools programs, targeted migrant groups, etc.

Port supporters love a crisis, so I expect 30,000+ to turn up for the Essendon game. It's unfortunate that this is what it takes to get them out of the lounge room en masse, but I would be genuinely disappointed if we didn't get a substantial crowd. And if we can get some wins on the board early and attract the theatre-goers we should be able to maintain crowds for the year that turn a profit.

I think the coach has the message to - as Michelangelo put it yesterday - stop trying to reinvent Australian football, and play a brand of football that Port supporters recognise and neutrals will want to come and watch. I'd be the first to admit our recent run down the flanks, attack the pockets gameplan has been at best let's say unattractive. Still, nothing beats winning and it hides a multitude of sins.

 

[DJ75]

A

Port Adelaide had the clear point of differentiation that the AFL likes to see. But we're not the more broad-based, amorphous geographic location that can attract more universal support. Of course there are always plenty of rumours that Port were going to get the second licence as the AFL's leverage point for getting SA into the AFL sooner rather than later. Port Adelaide also put forward the most comprehensive business plan for its promotion to the AFL and was selected by a SANFL sub-committee over a host of SANFL conglomerates. There was even a SANFL Strategy Paper during the selection process that recommended handing the second licence to Port and letting Norwood adopt the crows (that went over like a lead balloon).

On this point I'm more than happy to tell you that this is not rumour, but fact. The reality is that Port had already signed to join the AFL. Once the SANFL found out about it at an official level, they convinced the AFL it would be best to admit an SANFL run team instead. After negotiations were complete it was agreed that an SANFL team would enter the competition and that Port would be given the second licence. The sub-committees, strategy papers, bidding process etc... for the second licence was nothing more than a ruse. The deal had already been done.
How do I know this? Well unlike most, I was actually sitting in Bruce Webber's house at West Lakes (yes he lived at West Lakes) talking to him about it on the day the news broke.
QUOTE]

Hi Ford Fairlane (I loved that movie by the way, it pre-dated an obviously copied Ace Ventura!)
I agree with most of what you have written. It's well thought out and well put. I thought I might mention the information regarding the actual process by which Port became part of the AFL. I know that Rooch is well aware this happened but is yet to fully spill the beans (perhaps waiting to release a book?)

Anyway, in reading todays information I am unclear as to what it is Port wants.
From what I read, both the Crows and Port pay a fixed annual fee to the SANFL. The Crows pay $583,000, while Port pay $335,000. But Port get $250,000 back in a deal done with the SANFL. Effectively then, Port pay $85,000!
This means that the Crows in fact pay 685% more than Port. Assuming both teams have the same deal in terms of income generated from food and beverage sales at the ground, to justify this the Crows must have 685% greater attendance at games or 685% more members. Well let's see,
If the Port was to have an average crowd of 27,000, then the Crows average crowd must be 185,118. Mmmm, seems a bit unfair to me......

I can see why the SANFL are telling Port it is not about a better deal from the SANFL (do they want the SANFL to pay them for the right to the sub-licence?)

I'm sorry but it seems more to me that Port have over extended themselves on their borrowing. They have obviously tried to keep up with the Jones's (Crows) in terms of facilities without considering if they can actually pay back the money they borrowed. I'm sorry but you shouldn't get even more special assistance because of your own incompetence. How about cutting back your costs so you can actually meet your obligations? Mark Williams is one of the AFL's highest paid coaches. There is a reducation you make straight away. You also don't have to fill all of your rookie spots.

It seems that there is a lot of politicing going on over this and Port is trying to use their debt to screw over everyone else. Is it a coincidence this news broke just before the season launch. Or that their TV adds started the next day?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Rucci as much said that about the second licence in one of his columns this week (although if you're going to drop Bruce's name, you should at least spell it correctly - Weber, one 'b'. ).

I'm not sure why you want to turn this into a pissing contest - I've tried to keep this about Port Adelaide - but let's try not to pick a number out of the air that indicates the crows are getting terribly hard done by. Port for example spent around $21M on football club operating expenses in 2008. That includes Football expenses (at $13M the biggest proportion of the spend), Admin costs, marketing, finance and licenced club.

$250K represents 1.2% of that spend - it would represent the cost of the annual salary of an assistant coach, give or take. I suspect it would be an even smaller percentage of the crows spend on football club operations.

It's also worth noting from that article - an item you chose to overlook - that Port Adelaide want to work with Adelaide for a stadium deal that is the best one for both clubs, and therefore football in this state. The better the AFL clubs become, the more there will be for the SANFL, and by extension, its clubs.

Port aren't trying to keep up with the crows, we're trying to keep pace with all clubs that can invest significantly in off-field football improvement. To be able to do that means you have a better chance of keeping pace with your opposition's on-field performance. Given the salary cap and draft, of course this is the area that allows clubs to find a competitive advantage, and isn't regulated by the AFL. If the SANFL wants a strong and sustainable second AFL club to provide it with the money to keep its competition strong and independent (and the AFL club dividends represent a very small percentage of that profit margin) of course they need Port to have access to the funding that will contribute to that outcome.

Was the timing of the announcement a coincidence? Seriously, did you start following football this week? Of course it was designed to maximise the impact of the membership campaign. And it worked - $100,000 of memberships the next day, and they were still coming through the door on Friday.

Really if you want to have a Bay 13 argument, stay on Bay 13.