SANFL Clubs - not the bad guys

[aneale]

What is it with this guy, btw? I keep hearing this guy's name over and over and over. Is he some South Australian footballing journo messiah or something?

He's a one time Port cheersquad member and Club historian, started off as a nobody journo and has ended up Chief football writer fr the Advertiser.

He has this habit of talking them up and shooting them down on any given day.

 

[Cap]

Utter garbage. Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it true.

The Port Adelaide AFL presidents and CEOs have all done extraordinary work for the club despite the unique and debilitating challenges that exist in South Australia.

If you're going to drag their names through the dirt you should at the very least enilighten us to a few specifics of this 10 years of poor management and more importantly how it is exclusive of any influence from the SANFL.

I'm not talking about everyone there, and I'm not talking about the good ones you have had (Bucky et al)

but frankly mate, I don't care if you believe me or not, but I will stop harping on because it really isn't going to be of benefit anyone.

 

[PrideOf]

Dear Port Power fans who want independence,

Bid away.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190540089005#description

 

[Pedro59]

well ...the wheel turns in life...

to the crows d%#*wads who revel in our fight for our licence and for the right to not have to subsidize the debt ridden SANFL ... enjoy our bad times ....

As some one else posted collingwood nearly went broke in their history and Hawthorn, melbourne and north Melbourne have all felt the blowtorch too..

a new generation will come and old man SANFL graham cornes will be long gone and a new era will begin

Karma is ever present amongst the footy gods.

and the Crows will have their turn...

 

[P.A.F.C]

I couldn't give a toss about that happened pre 2010 let alone what happened last century

it isn't 100% Port fans fault either - there is surely a small amount of blame (Iguess for just not rocking up) but a vast majority is at the fee of the Port Management

and a fair bit to do with your number 1 supporter in Rucci

So what have Haysman and co done wrong? I think they've done a good job considering the challenges they face.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

• All nine SANFL clubs recorded a profit for the 2010
financial year.

At whose expense? How many of them would have made a profit without the $$ they ripped out of the Power and the Crows?

 

[saintal]

Port:

- stop making excuses and blaming all and sundry. You're not completely blameless in all this.
- get some bums on seats. Where have all the supporters gone? Oh, that's right, it's Footy Park's fault. Or the scheduling doesn't suit.
- Stop trying to ram the "Creed" and 1870 heritage etc down our throats. If you want to attract new supporters who this is not the way to go about. The club was very good in this department when it was first established, in trying to attract non Port people.
- find a president who can make a hard decision (case in point the Chocco fiasco that is still costing the club $$$$$$$$$$$$. A joke that he was reappointed)

With all this rubbish lately about both SA clubs "desperately needing" reserve teams to keep up the Magpies, and now this Port mess, I fear for the longevity and integrity of the SANFL competition.

Just my 2c worth!

 

[The_Wookie]

You deadset tool, for starters I'd know more about Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon than you'd ever know about Adelaide, West Coast, Norwood, East Fremantle and so on.

But knowing the Clubs is irrlevant to my 'vanilla' comment, what the SANFL and WAFL are resistant to is this rubbish;

AFL Victoria is the governing body in Victoria. The VFL is still the name of the state league. Much the same as the other bodies which all take AFL funding. Then same appears to apply to many overseas leagues that recieve development funding from the AFL.

The SANFL wants to go it alone sure, and I respect that, but when you are stripping your national clubs of any ability to make ends meet, first through stadium rental and matchday returns and then double dipping by ripping into the end of year profit, thats undoubtedly where the AFL concern comes in.

Its worth noting that in every case outside of Victoria (within Australia) that uses the AFL logo, at some point went broke or had massive fragmentation within the board level that resulted in much needed AFL intervention just to keep going.

Someone else wrote that the AFL wanted to use the SAAFL name - that would seem to be at odds with the national branding they use elsewhere.

Its my understanding that the AFLs concern was primarily the salary cap of the SANFL clubs being too high, and now with the issue of management integrity when it comes to the AFL clubs.

Others have mentioned the VFL clubs being broke in the 80s, and this was in large resepct true, but most clubs were well and truly on the up and up by the time the Crows were added.www.fullpointsfooty.net (a keen supporter of all things non victorian), report that Port had originally negotiated its license entry fee down to a 1/4 of what the Crows would eventually pay, indicating that by 1990 it wasnt all about money any more. In essence, the WAFL coughing up its 4 million instantly, and private owners paying for brisbane in 1987 were the saviours of the VFL. Not the SANFL.

And lets not go getting our skirts blown up by the $1.125B, the NRL are just about to sign a $1B deal too, and the vast majority of AFL fans reckon they're run by idiot muppets too. A trained chimp could have got that deal.

And yet they havent, and likely wont given that the AFL received a 30% increase in funding, your expecting a 100% increase in NRL tv rights. Does no one live in a real world there any more?

 

[Cap]

So what have Haysman and co done wrong? I think they've done a good job considering the challenges they face.

in hindsight it isn't so much blokes like Haysman althought the buck stops here

but you have to ask yourself - why do the Power who get a disproportionate amount of media in this state to their size still struggle to get sponsors and the like?

Look I realise I have gone way too far on this - given in reality most people Port fans on this board aren't the ones letting the team down but it still frustrates me when I hear how ridiculous things are at the Port.

enough from me anyway bring on AO.

 

[Pedro59]

in hindsight it isn't so much blokes like Haysman althought the buck stops here

but you have to ask yourself - why do the Power who get a disproportionate amount of media in this state to their size still struggle to get sponsors and the like?

Look I realise I have gone way too far on this - given in reality most people Port fans on this board aren't the ones letting the team down but it still frustrates me when I hear how ridiculous things are at the Port.

enough from me anyway bring on AO.

as far as the media goes "the disproportionate amount of media" is driven by messers Graham Cornes and is all childishly negative

Graham Cornes hates all things AFL and VFL (and Victorian ) and he has a big chip on his shoulder simply because he was bashed in a grand final once by a Port player

I think he has some sort of secret envy that his peanut club Glenelg never made it to the big stage and it is estimated that 75% of all his radio speaking is now hate diatribe about Port. (even though his son's play for Port)

so yeah CAP I don't need to ask myself why our media coverage doen't translate in to more bums on seats

but the wheel turns and we have averaged 30,000 crowds before..this is our lowest ebb....bring on our new stadium...ol man Cornes will pass away ...

we may not have to subsidize the debt ridden SANFL in the future..

we will be fine..don't worry about us

 

[Ants]

Originally Posted by Ants
I'm confused as to why the bush leagues can pinch these players. In Victoria it makes sense - attendances are crap for VFL, there is little sponsorship, all the focus is on the 10 AFL teams and frankly most of the teams have little to no history or real identity per se. So it shouldn't be too hard to pick players off.

But in South Australia the SANFL has a long history and presumably a lot of supporters for each club. With only a single AFL game each week their attendances should be far higher than any bush league, they should be getting significant sponsorship, and its been said some have pokies. They even get a free player or two from the AFL. That's ignoring any other funds they get.

So why aren't they far better off than any bush league and able to keep their best players?

SANFL clubs do keep their best players. Its not the best players that go to country clubs, its the mid range B-grade players who are definitely good enough for SANFL level who get offered $40,000 a year plus a job plus a car etc. compared to $200 a game at SANFL level beacuse, despite what aneale says, a lot of money is offered to ex-AFL players to get them across to improve their list and to improve crowds. In the local league where I am, guys (that will mean nothing to you) like Michael Liebelt, Nick Prokopec, Ryan Darling, Zac Hier, Nick Jackman, Brad Currie, Aaron Spicer were all decent SANFL players but hey, money talks.

Not some have pokies, every club has pokies, and every club relies on pokies to make a profit. The SANFL clubs are just about completely reliant on problem gamblers to make a buck. Thats why all SANFL clubs in the past 6-7 years were falling over themselves trying to find a hotel to buy and its why all SANFL clubs will be staunchly standing up against any proposed pokie regislation changes. Centrals arent the richest club because they have the most supporters (they dont) nor do they have the most members, but theyve had a huge pokie fortress for 10 years which has completely bankrolled the club. Its why the Port Magpies nearly died, due to not having a hotel until a couple of years back. This is why in my opinion, it would be worth dropping the salary cap (if aneale thinks the big names dont come here for money then we wont lose anything) which would put the pressure of the SANFL clubs relying on pokies, and the money can be spent elsewhere.

I've got to admit it, I still don't get it. Each of those kids you named is presumably playing for a different country team, but they would each have, what, a thousand tops attendance a week? No pokies. No major sponsorship. Not on TV.

So even if they're targetting mid-range players, how the hell are they offering $40,000 plus the fringe benefits and the SANFL can't? With thousands of fans for each club they can't get their players a job? With pokies and Port/Crows funds and sponsorship they can't pay anyone in the mid-tier more than $5000 a year? It just does not seem to make sense unless your cap is way too low (but then why the financial problems) or a lot of what is being said is rubbish.

Or you're playing your top few players at each club WAY too much.

 

[zest88]

How much can the SANFL charge for the SA AFL teams to have reserves teams / or just the players in the league if they dont own the licenses. a couple of mil a year to fund the other teams. Dont see why they would let afl player come down if they dont own the license without some form of compensation.

plus if port wanted to make a stand the should sell out amiee and be heard rather than sit at home and complain about the sanfl.

 

[Subprime]

Nope, in fact on the radio this morning the figure of 31,000 was given as the figure that would be needed to be seeing any benefit.

So in other words, higher than at AAMI stadium. Unsurprising if true. The ground has the ability to make the Crows a fortune.

I saw that figure in a letter to the editor by Greg Howe, did you?

For those who don't know he was the guy in charge of the anti-Adelaide Oval redevelopment campaign.

His crusade ended recently with an 80% YES vote for development by his fellow members.

I seem to recall the guy saying that would be the last we hear from him on the matter.

So who knows if the figure means anything or not, my guess is that it indicates that the $3.5m improvement in Port's position will be achieved at that level but they'll be better off at a much lower average crowd.

 

[aneale]

I saw that figure in a letter to the editor by Greg Howe, did you?

For those who don't know he was the guy in charge of the anti-Adelaide Oval redevelopment campaign.

His crusade ended recently with an 80% YES vote for development by his fellow members.

I seem to recall the guy saying that would be the last we hear from him on the matter.

So who knows if the figure means anything or not, my guess is that it indicates that the $3.5m improvement in Port's position will be achieved at that level but they'll be better off at a much lower average crowd.

No i didn't. It wasn't Howe on AA yesterday morning, it was someone they got on, not someone who rang in or anything.

But if that figure is true there has been some fiddling of the projections, but I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe everything we were told was absolute.

 

[Subprime]

No i didn't. It wasn't Howe on AA yesterday morning, it was someone they got on, not someone who rang in or anything.

But if that figure is true there has been some fiddling of the projections, but I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe everything we were told was absolute.

Here's the letter Howe sent to the Advertiser...


THE alleged financial benefit to the city of the proposed redevelopment of Adelaide Oval was based entirely on the report by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies dated April 2011, a report which has never been publicly released by the Centre, the SMA, SANFL or SACA.
And no wonder.
I have a copy of it. It says one of the "key underpinning assumptions, based on advice from the SMA" is that there will be "11 Port Power games with an average attendance of 30,897".

I heard the figure mentioned on 5AA the other morning and that letter sounds similar. I certainly haven't seen any other reference to 31k crowds in the paper this week.

Maybe you can find your link and post it in this thread?

 

[aneale]

Others have mentioned the VFL clubs being broke in the 80s, and this was in large resepct true, but most clubs were well and truly on the up and up by the time the Crows were added.www.fullpointsfooty.net (a keen supporter of all things non victorian), report that Port had originally negotiated its license entry fee down to a 1/4 of what the Crows would eventually pay, indicating that by 1990 it wasnt all about money any more. In essence, the WAFL coughing up its 4 million instantly, and private owners paying for brisbane in 1987 were the saviours of the VFL. Not the SANFL.

Yes I know, but the deeds of 1990 makes no difference on the 2 occassions the VFL approached the SANFL about joining, years before the Crows and before the Eagles and Bears. The SANFL registered the 'Adelaide Football Club' in 1985.

The original expansion of the VFL was purely for survival, the VFL was in financial turmoil, Clubs were broke and the State Leagues were pushing for an independent national comp that sat above them, making the VFL as irrelevant as the others really.

 

[Malibu#27]

When I see 1 port fan admit it isn't just the SANFL faults I'll stop

until then i'm happy to defend the South Australian Football public.

It isn't just the SANFL's fault, Port has issues they need to deal with as well.

However it cannot be denied that the 2 SA based clubs (as said above) are trying to compete on the national stage, while also funding a lower level competition...... as funding across the country has dried up (GFC etc), its harder to source corporate dollars, and match day crowds/memberships, so while their costs increase, so to are the demands for cash back to the SANFL. However the revenue streams are not increasing at the same rate.

what this says is the pie is not big enough in this state to support both AFL clubs and all 9 SANFL clubs to the level required.

Cutting the AFL clubs funds would only disadvantage them further on the national stage and continue the downward spiral, but reducing costs across the SANFL could be achieved while still ensuring a level playing field within the SANFL... as all clubs would be affected evenly.

 

[zest88]

It isn't just the SANFL's fault, Port has issues they need to deal with as well.

However it cannot be denied that the 2 SA based clubs (as said above) are trying to compete on the national stage, while also funding a lower level competition...... as funding across the country has dried up (GFC etc), its harder to source corporate dollars, and match day crowds/memberships, so while their costs increase, so to are the demands for cash back to the SANFL. However the revenue streams are not increasing at the same rate.

what this says is the pie is not big enough in this state to support both AFL clubs and all 9 SANFL clubs to the level required.

Cutting the AFL clubs funds would only disadvantage them further on the national stage and continue the downward spiral, but reducing costs across the SANFL could be achieved while still ensuring a level playing field within the SANFL... as all clubs would be affected evenly.

crowd numbers are up at SANFL games, even the lower drawing teams are getting good numbers through the gates

 

[Malibu#27]

crowd numbers are up at SANFL games, even the lower drawing teams are getting good numbers through the gates

But at $8 a head or whatever it is these days, I'm betting that this doesn't translate into covering the costs.

 

[jackster83]

IMO it is too hard to pin Port's position on any one party. There are a number of issues at play here including:

• SANFL taking a significant chunk of the pie from gate takings (both clubs)
• The $4m licence fee which has burdened Port ever since they joined the AFL
• Crowds not reaching levels predicted when the agreement was made
• Atrocious fixturing (arguably done to weaken the two clubs and the SANFL)
• Increasing interest in the SANFL/disinterest in the AFL
• Poor performance on-field in recent years (both clubs) as well as poor list/coach management
• Poor marketing (from both clubs)
• Failure to continually upgrade Footy Park
• GFC
• Lack of corporate support - linked to the GFC. Companies in SA are known for being tightwads.
• Disgraceful state government

AO has the potential to help things but it isn't the be all and end all.

 

[King Elvis]

Graham Cornes hates all things AFL and VFL (and Victorian ) and he has a big chip on his shoulder simply because he was bashed in a grand final once by a Port player

He's a tosser, but you're giving him way too much credit.

Do you think most people who follow footy actually listen to 5AA?

I sincerely doubt it, I'd suggest most people that do are either pretty keen supporters (like most of us), or old bastards with nothing better to do.

You also neglect to mention '12th and loving it!' Rucci, who generally gives you guys very positive press.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Williams years, especially the 'Alan Scott... You were wrong!!' bullshit is still hurting Port with relation to sponsors. He was one man who almost single-handedly kept your entire organisation afloat, on what should've been a great day for Port and him, your Coach decides to publically humiliate him.

Still makes me shake my head in disbelief.

 

[Malibu#27]

IMO it is too hard to pin Port's position on any one party. There are a number of issues at play here including:

• SANFL taking a significant chunk of the pie from gate takings (both clubs)
• The $4m licence fee which has burdened Port ever since they joined the AFL
• Crowds not reaching levels predicted when the agreement was made
• Atrocious fixturing (arguably done to weaken the two clubs and the SANFL)
• Increasing interest in the SANFL/disinterest in the AFL
• Poor performance on-field in recent years (both clubs) as well as poor list/coach management
• Poor marketing (from both clubs)
• Failure to continually upgrade Footy Park
• GFC
• Lack of corporate support - linked to the GFC. Companies in SA are known for being tightwads.
• Disgraceful state government

AO has the potential to help things but it isn't the be all and end all.

You could probably add in the general negative impact live or near live against the gate has had on the SA football public. For whatever reason, the SA fans haven't reacted to near live and live like some other states.

Plot average drop in AAMI stadium attendance against how close to live the game is shown on TV and it seems to trend pretty closely.

 

[King Elvis]

Pretty much Mali, between big screen TVs with surround, comfortable seats, cheap food/drinks and the footy on live, there are a hell of a lot of easy excuses not to go.

Adelaide Oval will definitely help with this - hopefully a lot.

 

[Cap]

It isn't just the SANFL's fault, Port has issues they need to deal with as well.

However it cannot be denied that the 2 SA based clubs (as said above) are trying to compete on the national stage, while also funding a lower level competition...... as funding across the country has dried up (GFC etc), its harder to source corporate dollars, and match day crowds/memberships, so while their costs increase, so to are the demands for cash back to the SANFL. However the revenue streams are not increasing at the same rate.

what this says is the pie is not big enough in this state to support both AFL clubs and all 9 SANFL clubs to the level required.

Cutting the AFL clubs funds would only disadvantage them further on the national stage and continue the downward spiral, but reducing costs across the SANFL could be achieved while still ensuring a level playing field within the SANFL... as all clubs would be affected evenly.

It is going to be interesting what impact all of this has on the running of the SANFL clubs

I know for many years the SANFL has been moving them towards self-suffiency and knocking back giving clubs money for the hell if - hence clubs like Norwood, Sturt, North and Port all nearly went the way of the Dodo.

There is a major Pokies issue as well, but that isn' an issue anyone can deal with right now.

I reckon both the AFC and PAFC would be watching closely what goes down in the West in relation to the reserves team - a resultant decision could impact the SANFL even greater should the idea of the two teams going into a national reserves comp be considered (which it isn't at the moment)

I would also be interesting to see if there is a possiblity of a decent 2nd teir competition establishing itself as a niche product (outside the foxtel cup)

 

[The_Reaper]

I think it will be a bad thing for football in SA (and in WA) if the AFL took control over football in the states.

That said, the SA model does seem to have it's faults and I believe that the WAFC model would be the one they should follow.