South Australian football - where is it at?

Remove this Banner Ad

GG said:
Why shouldn't the AFL prop them up? They prop up the Swans, Lions, Giants, Suns, and other Melbourne teams.
Click to expand...

The league props these teams up for the greater good of the league (generally to maximise TV money and exposure over the long term). At times that may include support for teams in SA too. Remember that the money the AFL has comes from the clubs in the first place, no clubs, no fans, no AFL!

That said, the SA situation is not working as well as it should. The SANFL and the clubs really do need to structure themselves in a sustainable way. Find a way to make the two club structure work better.
 
The SANFL have sub-license terms and conditions which Port accepted. The SANFL isn't like ambivalent or destructively-minded towards the Power franchise, but the purpose of that second license, like the first, is to be a cash-cow for the SANFL. The AFL signed off on it. It's the AFL's responsibility to prop up the Power, especially as the ailments of that organization are borne within the Power's sphere of control, not the SANFLs per se. This is why the AFL has and should be propping up the Power while they sort out their internal problems. The SANFL continue to appoint execs into the Power to find ways to get it to function more successfully FOR THE POWER side of things.

But, like i said before, the whole SA'n entry into the AFL was a mess from the beginning and it set up the two team thing to fail. The first team as for all SA, and ordained to prosper for 8 or whatever years before the 2nd team were allowed to enter....first huge mistake. Second big mistake, choosing to sub-license (but they had to as part of the outcome of the court fallout from 1990). And that 2nd team, whether Norwood or Port, was always set up to fail being a marginalized entity/identity, and then when that franchise spent the next 10 years flip-flopping identity trying to find the answer, it only further hurt the brand. It's inevitable, unfortunately, that this 2nd license only has a few viable options in store for it.
 
GG said:
Why shouldn't the AFL prop them up? They prop up the Swans, Lions, Giants, Suns, and other Melbourne teams.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rob said:
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.
Click to expand...

It does through the ownership of the two licences and the stadium.
 
Rob said:
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.
Click to expand...

The SANFL isn't draining them. The Power aren't operating at maximum or optimal levels to sustain its own side of things. Crowds and memberships for instance. They find the answer to that and they sustain themselves and then some even despite the pound of flesh owed to the SANFL each year. And then we come back again to the 'set up to fail' points I made before. Marginalized entity, too few support, declining state, identity flip-flopping, 7 years before it could enter after a 'team for all SA' which proceeded to win back-to-back flags no less. That's why it's inevitable what needs to occur with that 2nd brand, if the Power doesn't find the answer and the state support sooner than later. (And watch the stone-throwers and hypocrites become turncoats themselves).

The Power failure is in its own side of the ledger, not the SANFLs, and thus the AFL is responsible to prop and aid the Power.
 
3289611.jpg
 
<-----
 
Seems the SANFL doesnt realise 1 basic thing...

If both SA teams are not turning a profit... They cant use the Powers or Crows profits to spend on development. Since Port are losing money how are the SANFL going to help them if they run out of cash?
 
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.

The inevitable is coming, i forecast it way way back, around 2002 or so. If your club doesn't get its act together, and fix its side of the ledger, the fixing is in your own sphere of control (crowds/memberships), then you're looking at something like South End Sharks or whatever, and around the merry go around again. Or something unimaginable might happen like just one SA team, just because SA is SA.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GG said:
I've been posting it repeatedly the last bunch of posts. Like the one just before yours, and the couple others in reply to Perry Pie and Rob.
Click to expand...

Yeah but its good to have it all in the one post so in the future its easier to find and have a good laugh.
 
GG said:
The SANFL isn't draining them. The Power aren't operating at maximum or optimal levels to sustain its own side of things. Crowds and memberships for instance. They find the answer to that and they sustain themselves and then some even despite the pound of flesh owed to the SANFL each year. And then we come back again to the 'set up to fail' points I made before. Marginalized entity, too few support, declining state, identity flip-flopping, 7 years before it could enter after a 'team for all SA' which proceeded to win back-to-back flags no less. That's why it's inevitable what needs to occur with that 2nd brand, if the Power doesn't find the answer and the state support sooner than later. (And watch the stone-throwers and hypocrites become turncoats themselves).

The Power failure is in its own side of the ledger, not the SANFLs, and thus the AFL is responsible to prop and aid the Power.
Click to expand...

LOL. The SANFL takes nearly $5 million a year from the money generated almost entirely from AFL games and distributes it back to SANFL clubs. That's fine if the AFL clubs are generating the income, but when they aren't, it's not sustainable to be dragging that much out. And if the SANFL continue to do so, then the AFL should in no way provide the money to make up that shortfall because it is pure and simple bad management by the SANFL, and the AFL should not be encouraging that by acting as a safety net.

If they want to own the licences, they need to take the good with the bad. In the same way a company shareholder shouldn't expect dividends when the company isn't turning a profit, the SANFL shouldn't be dragging as much out of the AFL clubs when times are tough for them. They can't just wash their hands of any problems experienced by Port Adelaide and leave it at the foot of the AFL as you are suggesting because they own the licence.

Of course, it could all be solved by the SANFL halving their salary cap. They would remain more than any state league. You could save $2 million a year right there. But they can't do that, because the SANFL have this belief that for some reason they need to be the best state league in the country (which probably isn't even true anyway). That's why the AFL should be prepared to walk away from Port if it continues. Port go arse up, the SANFL lose the licence, and the AFL simply gives the licence back to Port directly.
 
Rob,

Port are not sustainable even if the AFL gave them a full license. Not with their identity crisis and marginalized entity within SA. Especially if they go the Port Magpies identity way. It's smaller than a united Tassie team. Tasmania could right now show the AFL numbers to prove that.

Again, the SANFL are well within their right to continue being a stand-alone comp, and aim to grow/expand. The Power is there for them, not the other way around, and the Port group that bid for that sub-license agreed to that dynamic.

The failure of the Power is within their own sphere of control -- crowds/memberships. That's why the AFL is beholden to prop them up, not the SANFL. The AFL can endeavor to push the SANFL about it, but the AFL agreed to all that years ago in awarding the licenses. The AFL wants to swallow the SANFL in the meantime, so there's a lot of interesting layers and sub-plots going on. Bottom-line, it's up to people to support the Power, attend games and buy memberships, they have no one to blame but themselves (and again that marginalization at play) failing to attract the numbers needed.

For comparisons sake, look at the NFL, where small market teams under the new CBA now have to seriously consider relocating to bigger markets or markets that will heavily support a team so much it gives them a strong financial foundation. The same thing is only ever-increasing in Australia with the AFL.
 
GG said:
Rob,

Port are not sustainable even if the AFL gave them a full license. Not with their identity crisis and marginalized entity within SA. Especially if they go the Port Magpies identity way. It's smaller than a united Tassie team. Tasmania could right now show the AFL numbers to prove that.

Again, the SANFL are well within their right to continue being a stand-alone comp, and aim to grow/expand. The Power is there for them, not the other way around, and the Port group that bid for that sub-license agreed to that dynamic.

The failure of the Power is within their own sphere of control -- crowds/memberships. That's why the AFL is beholden to prop them up, not the SANFL. The AFL can endeavor to push the SANFL about it, but the AFL agreed to all that years ago in awarding the licenses. The AFL wants to swallow the SANFL in the meantime, so there's a lot of interesting layers and sub-plots going on. Bottom-line, it's up to people to support the Power, attend games and buy memberships, they have no one to blame but themselves (and again that marginalization at play) failing to attract the numbers needed.
Click to expand...

All that is great, but if Port go arse up then the SANFL loses as well because they have 11 less AFL games to generate their income. Whoever is to blame, and whether Port or the AFL agreed to the structure is, quite simply, irrelevant.

And you're dreaming if you think the AFL are going to prop Port up infinitum while so much money is getting dragged out by the SANFL. The AFL aren't stupid, they can see what's going on.
 
In simple terms...

I own a commercial building, a shop. You want to rent a shop to conduct your business. I tell you the rental price is $2,000 a week, you do the math and work out you have to sell x amount of goods per week to pay that rent. You feel you can sell y amount of goods per week to earn yourself $2,000 a week in the pocket. You realize the price is a bit much, but you're keen and believe in your product, your ability to succeed. You understand those terms and agree, and sign for a 5 year lease. So off you go, after one year everything is rosy for you. But then you start running your business poorly, hiring the wrong people, the quality of your product dropping, etc, and you start to struggle to pay the rent. You come to me and say, "can you please renegotiate the rent, I can't afford it." I tell you, "that's not my problem, I've looked into your business anyway and I've seen it's because of you, you're losing customers. if you end up broke, I'll just look for another tenant, there are others out there interested, i dont WANT to replace you, but they're out there if you bust."

That's the Power right now. Obviously that's just a simple analogy without all the layers that takes place between the AFL/SANFL/Power. But it's up to them to fix their product, and get customers, is the dynamic. And if it keeps struggling, yes the AFL will eventually have to mull on some alternative courses of action with that 2nd SA license...be it relocation, re-branding, or giving it to Tassie (for instance) when it's time to renew that license.
 
Rob said:
All that is great, but if Port go arse up then the SANFL loses as well because they have 11 less AFL games to generate their income. Whoever is to blame, and whether Port or the AFL agreed to the structure is, quite simply, irrelevant.

And you're dreaming if you think the AFL are going to prop Port up infinitum while so much money is getting dragged out by the SANFL. The AFL aren't stupid, they can see what's going on.
Click to expand...

Agree the SANFL loses 11 extra games. They'll look to re-brand the team ultimately if all else fails with installing SANFL execs to right the Power with more marketing campaigns and membership drives etc.

The AFL wants two SA teams anyway, so they will continue to prop up the Power because the AFL knows that the SANFL are within their license rights and ARE trying to solve the Power's problems -- which again, is really all within the Powers sphere of control (crowds/memberships). The AFL agreed with the terms of the SANFL/Power sub-license etc. That's why the AFL wants to swallow the SANFL, destroy it, but at the same time are partners with these licenses (hence the interesting sub-plots going on). The AFL can afford to prop up the Power especially if they're willing to throw so much into Giants/Suns/Swans, and continue to prop up the lowest tier Melbourne teams.

But in the harsh realities of business, ultimately there are going to be teams relocating, re-branding, merging.
 
GG said:
In simple terms...

I own a commercial building, a shop. You want to rent a shop to conduct your business. I tell you the rental price is $2,000 a week, you do the math and work out you have to sell x amount of goods per week to pay that rent. You feel you can sell y amount of goods per week to earn yourself $2,000 a week in the pocket. You realize the price is a bit much, but you're keen and believe in your product, your ability to succeed. You understand those terms and agree, and sign for a 5 year lease. So off you go, after one year everything is rosy for you. But then you start running your business poorly, hiring the wrong people, the quality of your product dropping, etc, and you start to struggle to pay the rent. You come to me and say, "can you please renegotiate the rent, I can't afford it." I tell you, "that's not my problem, I've looked into your business anyway and I've seen it's because of you, you're losing customers. if you end up broke, I'll just look for another tenant, there are others out there interested, i dont WANT to replace you, but they're out there if you bust."
Click to expand...

Your analogy needs some tweaking. It would be more appropriate if that tenant is the only possible tenant for your shop, you also own the company that runs the tenant's business and if they leave then your shop will be guaranteed to be empty because there are no other businesses that would rent it out.

I'll tell you right now, you'd have to be a pretty ****ing dumb landlord to keep charging the same in rent, forcing the tenant to the wall and ensuring that your shop remains empty and earning zero in rent for eternity.
 
GG said:
They'll look to re-brand the team ultimately if all else fails with installing SANFL execs to right the Power with more marketing campaigns and membership drives etc.
Click to expand...
That's symptomatic of the trouble with you.

You know nothing of being a real Port supporter.

You think Port Adelaide is just a "brand" which can be changed. It's a damn 140 year old CLUB, it's PEOPLE, it's not just a damn image change.
 
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.
 
Too many people ignore the different economic and demographic fundamentals of WA and SA in these threads.

In June 2011 WA had 50% more 17 year olds than SA - ergo, WA would be expected to more draftees than SA. WA's population is also growing more rapidly, so that gap will continue to widen over time.

WA's economy is in much better shape as well. State per capita incomes are around 25% higher in WA than in SA and the WA economy has grown much faster than the SA economy over the past 10 years.

There is no doubt that SA football is poorly organised and that the stadium deals are terrible. But even if SA football were as well organised as WA football, one would still expect WA to be producing more draftees and for football, in aggregate, to be better funded.
 
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

South Australian football - where is it at?

Similar threads

Lingsface
Alliteration All Australian
Replies
22
Views
476
Lingsface
Lingsface
BigVic
Coach Sam Mitchell - where is the pressure?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
4K
threesixpio
threesixpio
bootrossbootross
Where are the weights?
Replies
16
Views
553
Soggy2112
Soggy2112
Taper
South Melbourne Relocation. Missed Opportunity?
2
Replies
28
Views
919
TRP1996
T
J
Autopsy Collingwood: Where to from here?
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
484
Views
14K
Meteoric Rise
Meteoric Rise
Eastdog
The Victorian suburbs where all 18 AFL clubs have their most members
Replies
9
Views
755
Falchoon
Falchoon
Always Ballin
Where does Jesse Hogan's 2024 season rank compared to other modern era KPFs?
Replies
10
Views
713
Always Ballin
Always Ballin

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top