Primus gone.

[Swallow9]

Hartlett, Pittard, Moore, Butcher, Jacobs, Newton from the past three drafts alone.

Still though, alot of that comes down to our fitness guy Cam Falloon.

He will be gone.

I think you drafting over the past few years has been good Hartlett and Butcher look like they could be absolute stars. They just cant seem to stay on the park. I feel sorry for the kids, something has to change at the club.

 

[Oneiros]

Even if they could get Malthouse, they shouldn't. The man has openly bagged the club and playing group in the media and I just don't see how he could possibly gel at the club if they get him. They need a different option.

But they definitely need to clear out the front office dead wood (a process which seems to have started with the President) as well as running a buzz saw through the football department.

 

[Chief]

http://www.bigfootynews.com/2012/08/memo-port-get-adam-simpson/

If Port were a Melbourne club, they’d have been relocated by now. And nobody would bat an eyelid.

Thus said a friend who works in the footy industry to me over a beer on Saturday arvo.

And looking at the events of the last few days, it is hard to disagree. The loss to Greater Western Sydney was shattering, and enough to see club legend Matthew Primus effectively sacked and Garry Hocking named as caretaker coach while the search for a senior coach for 2013 is launched.

 

[MaccasNeighbour]

Even if they could get Malthouse, they shouldn't. The man has openly bagged the club and playing group in the media and I just don't see how he could possibly gel at the club if they get him. They need a different option.

With respect, I think that is the wrong attitude. Malthouse is the best available coach (possibly the best coach, period) and it's clear he's still got passion for the job. Port are not in a situation where they can risk another inexperienced coach, they need someone with cred who can demand change.

Whatever Malthouse said about Port in the past (it was most likely 100% accurate) is completely irrelevant now.

 

[kaiserchief13]

RIP Primus

 

[Farang83150]

That would be a massive step backwards. Primus is twice the coach Harvey is.

How did you come to that?

 

[relapse]

I think the problem the club has, but automatically removing the option to re-brand you are effectively limiting what can be done.

sure, re-branding might not be the best option, but surely it has to be an option that is assessed?

from the outside, limiting a review to the parts you want to address really isn't going to help

Gillon McLaughlin once dropped it by accident a few years ago that within the higher ups of the AFL there is a belief that for Port to grow their brand that they will need to remove the Port name, but it was later awkardly retracted.

 

[relapse]

With respect, I think that is the wrong attitude. Malthouse is the best available coach (possibly the best coach, period) and it's clear he's still got passion for the job. Port are not in a situation where they can risk another inexperienced coach, they need someone with cred who can demand change.

Whatever Malthouse said about Port in the past (it was most likely 100% accurate) is completely irrelevant now.

Malthouse will never go to Port. I agree that he is the best option available by a mile, but unless he is given to keys to a plum job at a rich club with a massive war chest at his disposal he wont take on another role.

Honestly I could only see Mick at coaching at Carlton, Essendon or Richmond

 

[Geoffa32]

Gillon McLaughlin once dropped it by accident a few years ago that within the higher ups of the AFL there is a belief that for Port to grow their brand that they will need to remove the Port name, but it was later awkardly retracted.

Rooch said this morning that was an issue to be sorted out amongst the AFL and SANFL as licence holder. Not really part of any solution to current problems of Board/Coaching/Player issues.

 

[Geoffa32]

Malthouse will never go to Port. I agree that he is the best option available by a mile, but unless he is given to keys to a plum job at a rich club with a massive war chest at his disposal he wont take on another role.

Honestly I could only see Mick at coaching at Carlton, Essendon or Richmond

He said in his 3AW speil on Saturday that the only clubs that will have success are those that can spend big in Football Department. He said that at Footscray they did "Moneyball" and it does not work, you get around the mark but don't win a flag. Looking at the clubs he has won flags it appears that for him to have success he needs the backing of a strong Football Department.


North in the 90s were an exception, but they had the games best player in Carey.

 

[PowerKat]

I think the problem the club has, but automatically removing the option to re-brand you are effectively limiting what can be done.

sure, re-branding might not be the best option, but surely it has to be an option that is assessed?

from the outside, limiting a review to the parts you want to address really isn't going to help

Sorry to break it you, and the rest of the Adelaide fans who seem obsessed by a re-branding idea, but this review of branding has already been done which is why we are still Port Adelaide. Suck it up.

Also - the review has encompassed both on-field and off-field - what else is there that makes you think it has been 'limited' other than unfounded assumption?

 

[fushy]

He said in his 3AW speil on Saturday that the only clubs that will have success are those that can spend big in Football Department. He said that at Footscray they did "Moneyball" and it does not work, you get around the mark but don't win a flag. Looking at the clubs he has won flags it appears that for him to have success he needs the backing of a strong Football Department.


North in the 90s were an exception, but they had the games best player in Carey.

then what happened in 04?

 

[Parquet Court]

The footy department thing has only come in vogue in the last 5-7 years or so.

Before that it was train twice a week and try avoid getting pissed mid week

 

[Geoffa32]

then what happened in 04?

Port were well resourced back then.

Drop off in attendances and sponsorship is what has killed the club financially since then.

 

[Geoffa32]

The footy department thing has only come in vogue in the last 5-7 years or so.

Before that it was train twice a week and try avoid getting pissed mid week

Not really. Just that the costs have escalated as more science has come into the game.

Look at the Premiers in the 90s early 2000s. All, bar North, were big clubs who were well resourced for that era. WCE, Hawthorn (suffered in mid late 90s due to spend in 80s early 90s) Carlton, Adelaide, Essendon..

These clubs had the best coaches and retained the players because they had more money.

 

[Cap]

Sorry to break it you, and the rest of the Adelaide fans who seem obsessed by a re-branding idea, but this review of branding has already been done which is why we are still Port Adelaide. Suck it up.

Also - the review has encompassed both on-field and off-field - what else is there that makes you think it has been 'limited' other than unfounded assumption?

I didn't say it was or wasn't.

Have you read the report? can you provide a copy of it?

No need to try and divert a fairly civil conversation with trolling

 

[Geoffa32]

Sorry to break it you, and the rest of the Adelaide fans who seem obsessed by a re-branding idea, but this review of branding has already been done which is why we are still Port Adelaide. Suck it up.

Also - the review has encompassed both on-field and off-field - what else is there that makes you think it has been 'limited' other than unfounded assumption?

The "support' is there.

You have 37,000 members, around 32,000 ticketed. Get 78% of these members (as we do) to games and you probably make money.

After 15 years in the AFL the PAFC brand should have evolved past the SANFL playing days and be a brand that is appealling to more than just "Port Supporters". To include greater numbers of people who did not follow the club in the SANFL, but reach a broader market. But it hasn't. That is a massive failure in the AFL era.


In a "two club market" the split should be more than 70/30. And the reality is that the Crows are not the club's only competitors for market share. All AFL clubs are.


All AFL clubs have had to grow their brand. Port hasn't. I tend to agree that rebranding the club wont work, but can see there could be justification to do so.

 

[PTizzle]

Hartlett, Pittard, Moore, Butcher, Jacobs, Newton from the past three drafts alone.

Still though, alot of that comes down to our fitness guy Cam Falloon.

He will be gone.

Falloon has to go. Too many injuries and the Port players all look far too weedy for their size. Not acceptable and it must piss you guys off to no end.

Replace him and Rhode and it's a big start.

 

[Cap]

see that is the problem Geoff, we don't have a 2 club market just like Victoria doesn't have a 10 club market.

SA has an 18 club market, yes it is dominated by the Crows and to the lesser extent Port but the average kid growing up in SA you don't either go for the Crows or go for Port, Port have it even harder because even if it is a small number, some kids will be influenced by a family affiliation to an SANFL team - so would be more likely to either go for the Crows, or a team that looks like their family members favorite SANFL team (or a favourite player)

I went out before the game yesterday, the number of SA kids in Bombers jumpers was phenomenal, the Hawks are the same

The Power are competing against the Crows AND the other 16 clubs (the reverse for the Crows), apart from that the rest of your email is spot on and something I think Keith Thomas is keenly aware of.

 

[relapse]

Sorry to break it you, and the rest of the Adelaide fans who seem obsessed by a re-branding idea, but this review of branding has already been done which is why we are still Port Adelaide. Suck it up.

The club is financially bereft and is only drawing 14,000 supporters to the games, it's disingenuous to think that there arent any branding issues with the club. The club has now been in the competition long enough to grow a market, but have failed to do so. It would be horribly negligent by both the SANFL and AFL if they put their heads in the sand in regards to the bigger issues of why Port Adelaide have not been able to grow their market over the 15 years that Port have been in the AFL. As I said before Gillon McLaughlin let it slip that the AFL believes that Port need to be rebranded so it's not a Crows supporter fallacy that has no basis.

The club has previously gone to their core supporters to find out what the problem was and the club was told that they wanted the club to focus it's marketing on the Port Adelaide name. We have now see some very Port Adelaide based marketing attempts for the club yet despite doing so the crowds and financials are worse than before. Port Adelaide centric marketing like "live the creed" and trying to reunite with the magpies have not worked financially which now means that club either tries to forge on ahead or need to go back to square one from a marketing perspective. To me the Port Adelaide name is an albatross for the club, they need it to keep the diehard supporters, but on the other hand the last fifteen years has shown it to also be a burden as it appears that it's unattractive to non-Port supporters.

Surely no-one could argue that the club in it's present state is unsustainable. People want to play the blame game and blame Port's problems on everyone else, but the simple truth is that the club cannot be sustainable if they continue to pull 14,000 to games and post million dollar losses every year, there eventually has to be a tipping point.

It's a very similar issue to what the AFL faces with North Melbourne. The AFL can keep trying to prop clubs up forever, but eventually there comes a time when those clubs have a responsiblity to the AFL and the other teams that are in effect providing the handouts to grow their market and become financially self sustainable.

 

[dagriggstar]

I strongly suspect they will pick Scott Burns. I believe the reason the crows did not pick Burns was because he wanted to rebuild Adelaide's list. That's a non-issue for Port though.

In 2014, they will be playing at Adelaide oval. Schulz, Butcher, Stewart, Westhoff are all currently fairly mobile KPF's. Potential to be a lot like WCE (Kennedy, Darling, Lynch, Cox/NicNat) + playing at a large ground. Be interesting to see if Burns would "export" the WCE system if appointed (see Roos/Ross)

 

[BornPort]

The club is financially bereft and is only drawing 14,000 supporters to the games, it's disingenuous to think that there arent any branding issues with the club. The club has now been in the competition long enough to grow a market, but have failed to do so. It would be horribly negligent by both the SANFL and AFL if they put their heads in the sand in regards to the bigger issues of why Port Adelaide have not been able to grow their market over the 15 years that Port have been in the AFL. As I said before Gillon McLaughlin let it slip that the AFL believes that Port need to be rebranded so it's not a Crows supporter fallacy that has no basis.

The club has previously gone to their core supporters to find out what the problem was and the club was told that they wanted the club to focus it's marketing on the Port Adelaide name. We have now see some very Port Adelaide based marketing attempts for the club yet despite doing so the crowds and financials are worse than before. Port Adelaide centric marketing like "live the creed" and trying to reunite with the magpies have not worked financially which now means that club either tries to forge on ahead or need to go back to square one from a marketing perspective. To me the Port Adelaide name is an albatross for the club, they need it to keep the diehard supporters, but on the other hand the last fifteen years has shown it to also be a burden as it appears that it's unattractive to non-Port supporters.

Surely no-one could argue that the club in it's present state is unsustainable. People want to play the blame game and blame Port's problems on everyone else, but the simple truth is that the club cannot be sustainable if they continue to pull 14,000 to games and post million dollar losses every year, there eventually has to be a tipping point.

It's a very similar issue to what the AFL faces with North Melbourne. You can prop clubs up forever, but there comes a time when those clubs have a responsiblity to grow their market and become financially self sustainable.

The AFL has 4 options.

1. Rebrand port and alientate the Port Adelaide fan base. I know very few port supporters who would support a rebranded side. So who would follow this team? Crows fans always harp on about rebranding port, but are the crows fans going to be the ones to follow this new team?

2. Rebrand the crows so they are no longer considered the state team or the "team for all South Australians". <-- My Favourite.

3. Leave port as is and accept that introducing the crows as the state team was a huge mistake when it seemed obvious there was going to be a second club at some point..

4. Have SA as a one team town.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

AFL.com.au threw Bickley up. After I stopped laughing at AFL.com.au, I started laughing at how awesome/hilarious that would be.

Burns would have to be favourite, although this is probably Hinkley's last hurrah. Goodwin probably needs another year under the belt.

 

[Jumbo]

The AFL has 4 options.

1. Rebrand port and alientate the Port Adelaide fan base. I know very few port supporters who would support a rebranded side. So who would follow this team? Crows fans always harp on about rebranding port, but are the crows fans going to be the ones to follow this new team?

2. Rebrand the crows so they are no longer considered the state team or the "team for all South Australians". <-- My Favourite.

3. Leave port as is and accept that introducing the crows as the state team was a huge mistake when it seemed obvious there was going to be a second club at some point..

4. Have SA as a one team town.

But dumb and dumber (cornes & rowe) want option 1 so the crows lemmings must follow!

 

[Papa G]

The biggest mistake Port have made is playing shit football that nobody wants to watch. That is the biggest reason 14,000 people are rocking up. It's not the brand, the name, the colours, it's the shit house, non sensical, clueless and heartless football the actual team is playing. Fix that and the crowds will come. Do Crow supporters actually think they'd be getting 35-40,000 people at their games if they'd had been playing like us for the last 5 years? we're never going to be as big as the Crows in SA, but to say that anyone else would have been is just plain untrue.