South Australian football - where is it at?

Remove this Banner Ad

GG = Geoffa32 = the Today Tonight Crowd. I'm still unsure what his point is

There is money to be made in South Australian Football. Currently ONLY the SANFL is doing that - both the Crows & Port are losing money & match day attendances - things in our 'sphere of control' (we SA-AFL clubs asked for live against the gate on our own and asked to play only at AAMI stadium)

Without the AFL clubs do even the SANFL make a profit?
 
Uh that's the Magpies. The Power is a club that continues to re-brand itself, flip-flopping, and will be in the firing line of more re-branding if it continues to fail to increase crowds/memberships for itself DUE TO its marginalized identity/branding trying to seek a 50:50 pie in SA. The very reasons for the Power franchise failing and falling ever-behind in the SA'n AFL marketplace is due to identity, branding, and the reason for the Crows franchise being stronger in that regard is due to identity/branding. That's why you have marketing campaigns and guernsey changing so often. Whereas the Magpies, long-established identity and symbolism, sells itself within the SANFL pre-AFL.
Seriously, this is the last time I shall ever bother replying to you, but you don't seem to understand the difference between teams and clubs. A mess was made by the SANFL in 97, trying to splinter things, but it's ONE CLUB again now, with 2 teams. This is evidenced for example, by the event at the pub the other day, where old PAFC stars such as Ginever and Hodges, joined new PAFC stars such as Trengrove and Butcher, for a drink and a catchup.

Spin it any way you like, IDGAF and I'm done here.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Seriously, this is the last time I shall ever bother replying to you, but you don't seem to understand the difference between teams and clubs. A mess was made by the SANFL in 97, trying to splinter things, but it's ONE CLUB again now, with 2 teams. This is evidenced for example, by the event at the pub the other day, where old PAFC stars such as Ginever and Hodges, joined new PAFC stars such as Trengrove and Butcher, for a drink and a catchup.

Spin it any way you like, IDGAF and I'm done here.

Ha ha, so yeah, the two sides had a drink together and that means it's all hunky dory now! :rolleyes: They will always remain 2 clubs, it's as simple as that.
 
GG = Geoffa32 = the Today Tonight Crowd. I'm still unsure what his point is

There is money to be made in South Australian Football. Currently ONLY the SANFL is doing that - both the Crows & Port are losing money & match day attendances - things in our 'sphere of control' (we SA-AFL clubs asked for live against the gate on our own and asked to play only at AAMI stadium)

Without the AFL clubs do even the SANFL make a profit?
??????


I for one would love to see a strong PAFC. Purely because the way the club is at the moment is an absolute disgrace to not only SA football, but to the club it was (or born from depends which fable you believe and is irrelevant now with the Power taking over the Magpies) when the name Port Adelaide meant respect from opposition supporters/players. The club has been a bakset case over the past four years, and I doubt any Port supporter could say any different if they were honest.

A strong AFC and PAFC would be great for our State. I firmly believe it is one of the strongest rivalries in the league (WCE/FREO being the other). Imagine how good it would be if our clubs regularly contested finals against each other, or even a Grand Final.


We should be adpoting the WA model when we move to AO. Where we pay a flat rent to the SMA and get a clean stadium. If the SANFL still hold our licences we then pay them a dividend ONLY if we make a profit. As the WCE and Freo do. The amount WCE and Freo pay to use Subiaco is about par with what the SANFL take from our clubs to use Footy Park. The key difference is that WCE/Freo pay it as one sum, and have good cashflow to increase their business over the year. Instead of the State league limiting their cashflow.

WCE/Freo operate under a similar structure to us, but are better managed by their owners, and thus are financially better off than us.
 
I read GGs posts as that he used to be a Port Magpies supporter pre-97. And he has some historical recreations that remind me of your bay13 posts. That’s all I dragged your name through the mud for.
 
I read GGs posts as that he used to be a Port Magpies supporter pre-97. And he has some historical recreations that remind me of your bay13 posts. That’s all I dragged your name through the mud for.


LOL, I do enough of that myself.

Bear in mind not all Magpies supporters followed the Power. For us who regularly went to Magpies games and were members the club remained the same from 1996-97.

I once asked Timmy how many SANFL clubs he played for, he said one.


I do wonder if it would be different had the Power went into the AFL as it is now, with the Magpies attached. I would probably would be a "Tealster", although I do really like the Crows, and did back then as well.
 
??????


I for one would love to see a strong PAFC. Purely because the way the club is at the moment is an absolute disgrace to not only SA football, but to the club it was (or born from depends which fable you believe and is irrelevant now with the Power taking over the Magpies) when the name Port Adelaide meant respect from opposition supporters/players. The club has been a bakset case over the past four years, and I doubt any Port supporter could say any different if they were honest.

A strong AFC and PAFC would be great for our State. I firmly believe it is one of the strongest rivalries in the league (WCE/FREO being the other). Imagine how good it would be if our clubs regularly contested finals against each other, or even a Grand Final.


We should be adpoting the WA model when we move to AO. Where we pay a flat rent to the SMA and get a clean stadium. If the SANFL still hold our licences we then pay them a dividend ONLY if we make a profit. As the WCE and Freo do. The amount WCE and Freo pay to use Subiaco is about par with what the SANFL take from our clubs to use Footy Park. The key difference is that WCE/Freo pay it as one sum, and have good cashflow to increase their business over the year. Instead of the State league limiting their cashflow.

WCE/Freo operate under a similar structure to us, but are better managed by their owners, and thus are financially better off than us.

SANFL own Footy Park whereas the WAFC dont own Subi SO i'd think SA footy are in a better position, but ...

The major difference to me seems to be the SANFL competing for members with its AFL clubs where you've got to join the AFL clubs in Perth, making the SANFL stronger at the expense of the clubs.
Is the SANFL package better value for money?
 
Because the reason they need propping up is because the SANFL is draining them in order to fund the SANFL clubs' absurdly high salary caps.

Essentially the AFL would be paying for the salaries of 2nd rate hacks. That is not the AFL's role, nor should it be, and they don't do it for any other state league. State league player salaries should be funded by the income generated by the state leagues. Not by the AFL.




that sounds about right.

I remember going to Perth reading an Article in the Adelaide Advertiser of how the WAFL runs its league. Each WAFL club is run by a points system to make all clubs stable. Each club is given 100 points.

You lose 10 points for every delisted AFL player you have in your club.

You lose 5 points if you poach a player from another WAFL club...

Its a good example. I wouldnt mind SANFL follows that rule as well.
 
Btw, you Power fans just don't get it. Look at your very board. Every second thread is about a new logo, emblem, guernsey, colors, slogans, identity campaigns (steeler nation, btw should be raider nation, the rest are imitators), new monickers, etc etc. You just don't get it because you guys are all too caught up in your own mythologizing, too close to see the forest from the trees. The club itself doesn't even know what it is, or how it wants to brand itself, actually wants to brand and market itself in two diametrically opposed ways. And you wonder how anyone wants to identify with the club when it has no viable identity.

Jeez this would have been an excellent post in 2007 GG.

The new guernsey and OnePort have solved the identity issues.
 
that sounds about right.

I remember going to Perth reading an Article in the Adelaide Advertiser of how the WAFL runs its league. Each WAFL club is run by a points system to make all clubs stable. Each club is given 100 points.

You lose 10 points for every delisted AFL player you have in your club.

You lose 5 points if you poach a player from another WAFL club...

Its a good example. I wouldnt mind SANFL follows that rule as well.

Might need some tweaking, but its a reasonable enough idea.
 
This is why it's very hairy for whichever AFL club is struggling in SA. Why there's no certainty of the future appearance or fate of that 2nd license. Power fans will take it like I'm just hateful or trolling etc, and thus their knee-jerk stance will be to defend and attack back. But I've engaged in genuine discussion of this topic, articulately detailing the 'whys and hows', same now as I did a few years ago....and only because it's a valid concern and a hairy future/fate. And it's the same concern for the lower tier Melbourne clubs. It's just the landscape of a national comp, increased focus on markets and market shares, too many teams in the AFL, long-term expansion etc.

I suspect the AFL would more quickly drop the second club in NSW/QLD than the second in SA.

Vic clubs are, theoretically, vulnerable because the AFL can drop them and still have 'enough' teams to cover the region, but as they clearly feel that 2 per state is the minimum, it would take severe hardship at the league level before any non-Vic club was dropped.
 
I suspect the AFL would more quickly drop the second club in NSW/QLD than the second in SA.

Vic clubs are, theoretically, vulnerable because the AFL can drop them and still have 'enough' teams to cover the region, but as they clearly feel that 2 per state is the minimum, it would take severe hardship at the league level before any non-Vic club was dropped.

Ideal world, 2nd club in SA and NSW/QLD. But it's still based on the pragmatics of population, population growth, TV markets. There just aren't enough big enough regions in Australia yet to sustain national teams. Places like ACT, Newcastle, Wollongong, Cairns, Darwin, otherwise would be hot spots, and you'd see Vic teams relocated there.

Of course, NSW/QLD folk are going to be much harder to make fans of the AFL, that's another issue which can be debated endlessly. Problem being multi-football-codes here. Whereas in the US, just plonk a team anywhere as there is already a 100 yr history of gridiron and no competing codes.

The whole national comp idea for Rugby/League/AR is fragile in Australia, as too many states don't share equal interest, competing codes. Whereas Soccer, cricket, even basketball, they actually resemble national comps with an equal spread of teams (even tho they cannot generate money like any of the football codes). SA is a historical football state, yet it's going backwards. Tasmania another historical football state, but capped potential. That's a catch-22 for a national comp. WA and VIC are pretty much the economic powerhouses of football. WA could probably sustain 4 AFL teams, where the 4th is about where the Power is. It's 30 odd years since the Swans relocated and they're still not viable to stand alone without the AFL. It is a war for the AFL. They are not only needing to expand into NSW and QLD but also needing them to abandon RL and embrace AFL. The amount of money the AFL is investing so heavily into QLD and NSW is proof where the AFL thinks the butter is. They'll want them there as long as they can use them, but if/when NSW/QLD explodes with interest you would see SA with one license for the same argument Tasmania would only have one license.

Even before NSW/QLD explode, right now it's arguable that the 2nd SA license given to Tasmania would be about the same or more generated turnover but Tasmania not needing hand-outs to survive, self-sustainable.

Put it this way...

If a new AFL was formed today, where clubs had to apply for entry based on economic viability, self-sustainability, disallowed any assistance from the AFL, most of the clubs would be Vic and WA, with 1 in SA, 1 in Tassie. That's about how strong a national AFL concept truly is in Australia. And likewise with Union, 1 in ACT, 2 in QLD, 2 in NSW, 1 Vic, 1 WA. Likewise RL, majority in NSW, 1 in WA, about 4 in QLD.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SANFL own Footy Park whereas the WAFC dont own Subi SO i'd think SA footy are in a better position, but ...

The major difference to me seems to be the SANFL competing for members with its AFL clubs where you've got to join the AFL clubs in Perth, making the SANFL stronger at the expense of the clubs.
Is the SANFL package better value for money?

It may have changed but it was a 50/50 split. I just checked and its $335 for a Crows Only or Port Only SANFL/AAMI Stadium membership. So half of that went to the SANFL and the other half to the club.

$455 to go to all 22 games which would then be split 3 ways between Port, Crows and SANFL.
 
It may have changed but it was a 50/50 split. I just checked and its $335 for a Crows Only or Port Only SANFL/AAMI Stadium membership. So half of that went to the SANFL and the other half to the club.

$455 to go to all 22 games which would then be split 3 ways between Port, Crows and SANFL.
Cat 1/Ultimate (all 22 games) members are also counted to both Port and Adelaide Membership tallies. So the clubs are not really competing with the SANFL for members.
 
It may have changed but it was a 50/50 split. I just checked and its $335 for a Crows Only or Port Only SANFL/AAMI Stadium membership. So half of that went to the SANFL and the other half to the club.

$455 to go to all 22 games which would then be split 3 ways between Port, Crows and SANFL.

Big money not going to the Crows & Port compared to their WA counterparts.

Why would a Crows/Port fan reject their club & go with the SANFL ? :confused:
 
Cat 1/Ultimate (all 22 games) members are also counted to both Port and Adelaide Membership tallies. So the clubs are not really competing with the SANFL for members.

Yeah the numbers help inflate the membership numbers but the $$ return to both AFL clubs doesn't even equate to a base grade season ticket for either club. Just more cream to the SANFL I guess.

Kwality, I guess the only reason people go for it is location (no sun in eyes in day games) and prestige of being in the members reserve away from the riff raff I can only guess.
 
And what you don't realize is it's just like France bending over for Germany, letting them march thru Paris during WWII. It's like you've all been turned into Victorians (body snatchers), whenever you all advocate the death of the SANFL for the superficial beauty of owning an AFL license to benefit only yourselves. Not realizing either that this franchise license can always end up relocated, sold off, broke, altered or distancing itself from "Port Adelaide", and thus all that true Port Adelaide history, flags, icons, disappearing forever. The continuation of the Magpies in the SANFL represents a heritage protection. The Power represents a candy bar product.

In short, you all sold out, and deep down you know it.

I've always seen it like that, the SANFL were allowed the have the licences and in a further extension of that analogy, allowed the invaders in with the proviso that the SANFL are still allowed to run the local businesses and speak French. Now these days we've got the neighbours who want to burn down the local shops and force people to speak German. They'll probably win in the end and I'll be too old to care by the time they do. It's just a shame that the footy heritage of the state will be replaced with a Victorian one.

It's great being involved with the WAFL because, although it's lost it's prestige, at the least the Eagles and Dockers fans aren't screaming for it to be killed off. They're pretty indifferent towards the local product.
 
Uh that's the Magpies. The Power is a club that continues to re-brand itself, flip-flopping, and will be in the firing line of more re-branding if it continues to fail to increase crowds/memberships for itself DUE TO its marginalized identity/branding trying to seek a 50:50 pie in SA. The very reasons for the Power franchise failing and falling ever-behind in the SA'n AFL marketplace is due to identity, branding, and the reason for the Crows franchise being stronger in that regard is due to identity/branding. That's why you have marketing campaigns and guernsey changing so often. Whereas the Magpies, long-established identity and symbolism, sells itself within the SANFL pre-AFL.

hey Mr selfish traitor. Can you again answer me as to what SANFL club won the 2nd AFL license, and why that SANFL club could not wear its colours, emblem and guensey and thus had to add a third colour, when it formed the AFL side of things? I believe that club would have wanted to enter the AFL with its same colours, nickname and guernsey, but they couldn't. Whhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Who was it, was it Norwood, hmmm, no, maybe was it Glenelg, gosh maybe, maybe not. Ah yes it must have been South Adelaide:rolleyes::rolleyes:

god this is getting so boring
 
hey Mr selfish traitor. Can you again answer me as to what SANFL club won the 2nd AFL license, and why that SANFL club could not wear its colours, emblem and guensey and thus had to add a third colour, when it formed the AFL side of things? I believe that club would have wanted to enter the AFL with its same colours, nickname and guernsey, but they couldn't. Whhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Who was it, was it Norwood, hmmm, no, maybe was it Glenelg, gosh maybe, maybe not. Ah yes it must have been South Adelaide:rolleyes::rolleyes:

god this is getting so boring

My understanding was that Collingwood would have vetoed any use of black and white, in any jumper colour combination. Although, I may be wrong.
 
My understanding was that Collingwood would have vetoed any use of black and white, in any jumper colour combination. Although, I may be wrong.

You know when a club gets touchy about having to wear a clash strip (to the point that North, the home team, has to change theirs) you know that they would have cried all the way to high heaven about Port having anything that resembled a magpie or black and white.

I can't actually believe Collingwood had a problem about Port using the prison bar top for heritage round. They are too precious -
 
Portsmeff....

Uh, no one's even talking about that topic. We're talking about the viability of the Power in the AFL, and why it's struggling to sustain itself.

Gross Revenue

Collingwood - $75,232,702
Essendon - $51,416,731
Hawthorn - $49,151,009
Geelong - $48,438,196
Brisbane - $42,297,354
Carlton - $39,950,000
Port Adelaide - $37,017,885
Melbourne - $33,514,371
Richmond - $33,403,202
Western Bulldogs - $32,453,030
Adelaide - $30,546,426
North Melbourne - $26,017,066

Take away the $4mil in grants and we still stack up. 36,000 members after our 2 worst seasons on record.

You're a bitter turncoat GG and your comments are uneducated, outdated and reek of a someone who is trying to justify their decision of changing teams when there is never justification for doing that unless your 11 years old or spineless.
 
Why would I be bitter about openly and happily changing from the Power to the Gold Coast Football Club?

No sleepless nights, unlike the fans on your board, forever scarred, and still eating each other alive.

Unlike you, and most on your board, I do not wish the demise of the Port Adelaide FC (Magpies), and will forever be a truer Magpies fan than most of you Power fans. That truth must really sting :D
 

Remove this Banner Ad

South Australian football - where is it at?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top