South Australian football - where is it at?

[MaddAdam]

Adelaide has a population of 1.2 million so there's 600k people per team, more than the ~450k per team in Melbourne. Given it's an AFL state there's easily enough. The main problem is that the 2nd team is named "Port Adelaide", so naturally everyone hates them.

Yes but the problem is that the support, both in terms of bums on seats and corporate, isn't divided evenly.

It is basically Port vs the rest of the state.

 

[Papa G]

Yes but the problem is that the support, both in terms of bums on seats and corporate, isn't divided evenly.

A problem that 3 or 4 legacy VFL era teams know all too well.

 

[MaddAdam]

From what? The thread is about the state of South Australian football.

 

[MaddAdam]

A problem that 3 or 4 legacy VFL era teams know all too well.

Indeed. Luckily Melbourne is a far far bigger market, especially in corporate terms.

For example, even lowly North have been able to hold onto a blue chip corporate sponsor in Mazda for many years where Port goes through rinky dink sponsors at the rate of about one a year.

The reality is that a Melbourne team, even a small one, is a far more attractive sponsorship proposition than a deeply parochial team in a small city.

This the point.

Port are the least attractive corporate sponsorship prospect in the comp. The continual turnover of sponsors reflects this.

Thus the question: are two teams in their current format sustainable?

 

[Papa G]

From what? The thread is about the state of South Australian football.

Just so everyone is clear, it is subtle attempt by you to move the focus off your perrenially in the gun club to someone else. That is fine, I'm just pointing out to those who what not aware of this, that indeed this is your intention, under the guise of What is wrong with South Australian football? You have subtly shifted the focus to SA can't support 2 teams to Port should get the arse, not North, conveniently side stepping the actual arguement which most of the thread has focussed on, which is the actual structural problems of football in SA.

 

[MaddAdam]

Just so everyone is clear, it is subtle attempt by you to move the focus off your perrenially in the gun club to someone else. That is fine, I'm just pointing out to those who what not aware of this, that indeed this is your intention, under the guise of What is wrong with South Australian football? You have subtly shifted the focus to SA can't support 2 teams to Port should get the arse, not North, conveniently side stepping the actual arguement which most of the thread has focussed on, which is the actual structural problems of football in SA.

Where have I said Port should get the arse?

 

[Papa G]

Where have I said Port should get the arse?

Ah silly me, you meant we should turf the Crows as our backward little state can only support 1 AFL club, no worries, carry on.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Yes but the problem is that the support, both in terms of bums on seats and corporate, isn't divided evenly.

It is basically Port vs the rest of the state.

Isn't that exactly what I said in the very next sentence?

 

[JonoNash]

Would this subtle troll have lasted on the MB for more than a day if it was about North Melbourne?

 

[Jose Cruzeiro]

Indeed. Luckily Melbourne is a far far bigger market, especially in corporate terms.

For example, even lowly North have been able to hold onto a blue chip corporate sponsor in Mazda for many years where Port goes through rinky dink sponsors at the rate of about one a year.

The reality is that a Melbourne team, even a small one, is a far more attractive sponsorship proposition than a deeply parochial team in a small city.

This the point.

Port are the least attractive corporate sponsorship prospect in the comp. The continual turnover of sponsors reflects this.

Thus the question: are two teams in their current format sustainable?

'Continual turnover of sponsors' is a bit rich because it's a trend that's only been evident over the past couple of seasons. Up until 2007 we had Scott's and Vodafone on board since our inaugural AFL season (1997). Vodafone stayed on until 2009 but decided to withdraw from all AFL sponsorships and focus on V8 Supercars instead (I think Telstra's arrangement with the AFL also had something to do with it). Bit of bad luck but we move on.

Anyway my point is that although we've hit a rough patch on the sponsors front it's hardly reflective of our track record, and I think the club is quietly confident of securing a couple of long-term major partners in the next couple of weeks.

Swings and roundabouts my friend. NMFC should know that better than most.

 

[MaddAdam]

Ah silly me, you meant we should turf the Crows as our backward little state can only support 1 AFL club, no worries, carry on.

I haven't said any team should be turfed. And I haven't said SA can't support 2 clubs.

In fact, until the SNAFL situation is resolved there's no way we can know.

Port are hamstrung by a shitty stadium deal and the SNAFL not having the best interest of the AFL clubs at hand.

I do maintain that SA is not as corporate friendly an environment as Victoria for footy clubs but sponsorship isn't the only way to raise revenue.

You shouldn't be so paranoid mate.

Just because you - hanging like a vulture over a starving kid - couldn't wait to kick a team when they were down, doesn't mean we're all lining to knife Port now you're in the crap.

I've always liked Port. They are a real club. Much prefer the likes of Port to plastic manufactured AFL run franchises.

North and Port have a lot more in common than either of us do with say Gold Coast.

 

[MaddAdam]

Would this subtle troll have lasted on the MB for more than a day if it was about North Melbourne?

Mate, it would have had mods on it calling for us to be "killed off".

 

[MaddAdam]

'Continual turnover of sponsors' is a bit rich because it's a trend that's only been evident over the past couple of seasons. Up until 2007 we had Scott's and Vodafone on board since our inaugural AFL season (1997). Vodafone stayed on until 2009 but decided to withdraw from all AFL sponsorships and focus on V8 Supercars instead (I think Telstra's arrangement with the AFL also had something to do with it). Bit of bad luck but we move on.

Anyway my point is that although we've hit a rough patch on the sponsors front it's hardly reflective of our track record, and I think the club is quietly confident of securing a couple of long-term major partners in the next couple of weeks.

Swings and roundabouts my friend. NMFC should know that better than most.

True enough at one level. And there's Melbourne teams that seem to be trumpeting a new sponsor every time you look up.

 

[Portsmeff]

True enough at one level. And there's Melbourne teams that seem to be trumpeting a new sponsor every time you look up.

Wookies data on our marketing and sponsorship income relative to other clubs in the Financial thread provides some very interesting reading about our club that apparently attracts the least corporate sponsorship in the comp.

very interesting indeed, go and have a look

 

[MarkT2]

The AFL were happy for us to be in the AFL before the AFC was even a concept, so I disagree with the reasoning you have given for us to be in the AFL.

If that were true you would have been. Port were leverage and it worked as planed. Had Port been the first SANFL franchise then things would probably be different now.

 

[PAUR]

I can't tell if you are being serious or not?
SANFL stopped us from going and made up a club to enter. The club was/is the AFC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_A...31996:_SANFL_domination_and_AFL_establishment

The SANFL had been unwilling to field a South Australian side in the VFL until it could be done without negatively affecting football within the state. In 1990, the Port Adelaide Football Club, frustrated at the SANFL's lack of action and looking to secure its own future, accepted an invitation from the VFL to join the VFL, which had now become the AFL. The AFL signed a Heads of Agreement with the club in expectation that Port would enter the competition in 1991, making that there would be two "Port Adelaide Football Clubs," one in the AFL and one in the SANFL. What ensued was one of the most bitter episodes in South Australian football history that split the state, the fault lines of which are still evident today.[6] Furious at what it perceived to be treacherous behaviour by Port Adelaide, the SANFL told Port Adelaide to decline the invitation and if they didn't, the SANFL would take legal action. The AFL suggested to the SANFL that if they didn't want Port Adelaide to join the AFL, then they can put forward a counter bid to enter a composite South Australian side into the AFL. After legal action from all parties, the AFL finally agreed to accept the SANFL's bid and the Adelaide Football Club was born.[

 

[Papa G]

I can't tell if you are being serious or not?
SANFL stopped us from going and made up a club to enter. The club was/is the AFC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_A...31996:_SANFL_domination_and_AFL_establishment

The SANFL had been unwilling to field a South Australian side in the VFL until it could be done without negatively affecting football within the state. In 1990, the Port Adelaide Football Club, frustrated at the SANFL's lack of action and looking to secure its own future, accepted an invitation from the VFL to join the VFL, which had now become the AFL. The AFL signed a Heads of Agreement with the club in expectation that Port would enter the competition in 1991, making that there would be two "Port Adelaide Football Clubs," one in the AFL and one in the SANFL. What ensued was one of the most bitter episodes in South Australian football history that split the state, the fault lines of which are still evident today.[6] Furious at what it perceived to be treacherous behaviour by Port Adelaide, the SANFL told Port Adelaide to decline the invitation and if they didn't, the SANFL would take legal action. The AFL suggested to the SANFL that if they didn't want Port Adelaide to join the AFL, then they can put forward a counter bid to enter a composite South Australian side into the AFL. After legal action from all parties, the AFL finally agreed to accept the SANFL's bid and the Adelaide Football Club was born.[

Not sure if you've done anything to discredit what MarkT said there Paur, but any rate....

Going by Wookie's Thread, Port, even at our nadir, are still miles ahead of many other clubs yet we are still in a financial shit heap. If this doesn't scream Port are getting screwed by you know who, I'm not sure what does?

 

[MarkT2]

I am serious. The SANFL said no so the AFL invited Port to join to force the SANFL's hand - which worked as planned. If the AFL wanted Port they would have had Port. Port were used.

 

[Papa G]

I am serious. The SANFL said no so the AFL invited Port to join to force the SANFL's hand - which worked as planned. If the AFL wanted Port they would have had Port. Port were used.

Port = Scotchtoberfest.

Actually the irony is that if the AFL had actually backed Port in more (instead of the using them to force the SANFL's hand) we probably wouldn't have this licence debacle and possibly have 2 teams closer in size than what we have now where the Crows highjacked the whole state colours, kick a Vic and 7 year head start advantage.

 

[PAUR]

Oh I get your point now. Still it is conjecture isn't it?

 

[MarkT2]

Actually the irony is that if the AFL had actually backed Port in more (instead of the using them to force the SANFL's hand) we probably wouldn't have this licence debacle and possibly have 2 teams closer in size than what we have now where the Crows highjacked the whole state colours, kick a Vic and 7 year head start advantage.

I have always said that if Port had the head start things would be a lot more evenly balanced in SA but given they didn't they never will balance out.

 

[MarkT2]

Oh I get your point now. Still it is conjecture isn't it?

I guess so. You won't find documets as such but it seems pretty clear IMO.

 

[Macca19]

Does South Australia have the population and economic heft to support two teams? Especially in their current format.

Serious question.

I think SA has the populous & economy to support 2 AFL sides. I think that has been proven previously. For whatever reason, AFL support has declined in SA over the past 5 years. Both clubs have seen steady decrease in crowds (over 7000 on average from 5 years ago). Now it could be a simple thing that both clubs havent really been a premiership threat in that time and its been shown that SA supporters are quite fickle, but maybe it goes a bit deeper. Maybe people in our state have fallen out of love with the AFL. The Crows waiting list is a thing of the past and they failed to sell all their season tickets for the first time this year. Ports crowds have reached critical levels.

As I said earlier in this thread, its a bit ridiculous that WA has two very strong, financially healthy AFL sides that can spend to their hearts content in terms of Football Dept with a WAFC that earns equally as much money with excellent player development in terms of draft quality players, whilst the SANFL is plenty in debt, Port Adelaide is on essential life support and the Crows tread water when they should be near or at the top of the financial tree.

I think the SANFL needs to seriously look at how the money they make is distributed whilst supporters in our state need to harden up a bit and get back to games.

 

[jackster83]

It doesn't help that our economy is largely made up of mining/resources, defence and agriculture. Not going to get a lot of sponsorship from these industries.

 

[Jose Cruzeiro]

I think the SANFL needs to seriously look at how the money they make is distributed whilst supporters in our state need to harden up a bit and get back to games.

I don't see crowd figures improving much until the move to AO is made. AAMI has been dragged through the PR mud (rightly IMO) and I can't see it recovering anytime soon.

The only thing that will significantly improve crowds for either club is finals contention and that seems somewhat unlikely next year (and maybe even 2013).

The AFL have basically admitted this with their funding allocations. The next two seasons in SA will be viewed as a 'cost of development' more than anything else.