Magpies and Power merger to be announced in a fortnight.

[Barto]

And off topic, did I read somewhere that Port were broke in the early 80's and NOrwood actually loaned them money ?

Dunno about Norwood lending them Money but Port were definitely in the financial muck around 83-84. I remember thinking that it was odd that such a heavily supported club could be in trouble at all. Funny thing is we're constantly reminded that Port have given so much financially to the league by having the largest supporter base.

[nickname]

Its not that hard to figure out is it? Port only made what...90% of finals series up until 1997 and played on average in every 2nd grand final and had the biggest supporter base in the state. If you make the (fair) assumption that the SANFL take/took the revenue from finals/grand finals, then I think it doesnt take a genius to work out that Port have given back more to the SANFL than the likes of South or Woodville or West Torrens or Centrals who had next to no success to speak of for 20-30 years up to 1997.

When you put that point about Port's SANFL dominance together with your suggestion that poor form is behind the drop off in Power crowds, we should be grateful that the supporters of the other SANFL clubs were made of sterner stuff, and didn't just drop off their teams which went decades between premierships, or we would never have been able to afford AAMI at all.

[beenreal]

And off topic, did I read somewhere that Port were broke in the early 80's and NOrwood actually loaned them money ?

Dunno about Norwood lending them Money but Port were definitely in the financial muck around 83-84. I remember thinking that it was odd that such a heavily supported club could be in trouble at all. Funny thing is we're constantly reminded that Port have given so much financially to the league by having the largest supporter base.

Not sure of the actual year but I do believe there was a $30K cheque lobbed from out East.

But there's a BIG difference between club finances and a huge supporter base constantly pumping $$ into the SANFL coffers by attending games.

[X Runna]

Seriously... you'd think it was Port Adelaide that had won 9 of the last 11 flags...

First and foremost, (because people continually seem to want to overlook this point) the SANFL was forced into joining the expanded VFL not by Port Adelaide alone, it was inevitable from 1987 when the WAFL joined. There was no way the SANFL was going to be able to hold out against a national league, so seriously, get over it, we were joining it whether we liked it or not. Secondly, when the second license was going to be handed out, lets remember that every single club just about, tried to get their dirty little paws on that second license, oh we're great, pick us, blah blah blah, crap crap crap, I wonder how different people's opinion would be had the Norwood-Sturt or some other dumb ass combination bid won the second license, Port clearly deserved that license.

Thirdly, no one can tell me that 25,000 plus fans going every fortnight to AAMI to watch the Power doesn't in some way generate revenue for the SANFL. You can whine all you like about Port Power not paying a dividend back, that whine is warranted, but don't imply that the SANFL is not generating $$$ from Port Power through other avenues, it is without doubt. Again, to be clear, I don't support the merge of the two clubs if it results in a Power Reserves side or in some way results in the other 8 clubs guaranteeing the existance of the Magpies... that would just be unfair and not a level playing field for the other clubs.

... but that said, lets get over this, "oh they stabbed us in the back", "they don't give us any money" type of rubbish. No one asked me whether I wanted the Crows in. They don't represent me or South Australia despite their arrogant assumption that they do. Their crowds are rubbish when they play rubbish, they are no different to any other club in that respect. In fact, on support base, I'd suggest that the Crows easily obtain FAR worse crowds than Port Adelaide does. If twice as many people follow the Crows, then they should be getting twice as many people to their games and they don't. They don't pay the league as much $$$ now as they did before. They act in their own self interest, not the SANFLs.

Both clubs are the same on that last point.

Lets stop running around acting like Port Adelaide was the death of the SANFL.

It wasn't.

It was the VFL expanding and the WAFL succumbing. Had the WAFL held out, the SANFL wouldn't have joined.

Probably the all-time best post on SA Footy. Unbiased, factual, balanced & logical. Nice work.......

[Royal City]

What have you offered, a few membership figures? Big deal.

As for abuse? I'd say there was a fair bit flying around, but most of it seems to be emanating from your end.

And Ports financial input? For over 100 years we had the biggest supporter base in SA and the most success, of course that translates into pumping more $$ into the SANFL. It doesn't mean they should have got more than a 1/10 share of Footy Park though.

Using that as a segue, why don't you tell us how much Port generated into the SANFL coffers last year?

Yep that is all I have offered is simply membership figures. Do you even know how to research.

As predicted 2 pages back the old revenue argument. Yet again is that the revenue the SANFL makes out of owning/building/paying for AAMI stadium that Port/Adelaide chooses to use as its AFL venue.

Any chance you could tell me how much money the entertainment centre generated out of all the PINK concerts this year ??? And how much she can claim on that revenue ????? Its about as relevant as how much revenue Port makes for the SANFL.

Ofcourse you generate revenue for the SANFL, thats what an AFL club job is to do. Or simply we wouldnt of given you the licence which you begged for . Dont act like its a burden 13 years later cos youve realised your terrible at making money. And simply if an AFL club cant make money for the SANFL . What is the point of you ???????.

BTW have you forgotten about the $4 mill the SANFL vipers gave you 3-4 months ago with no strings attached that you chose not to use to pay off your debt. Plus all the money the SANFL has advanced you for the last 4 years ???????? Why would they do all of this if all they want you to do is fail.

Simply put iMHO you are not as big as you thought you were. And you have no plan B but to stamp your feet and blame others for your predicament. But I know who to blame and so does Mr haysman.

[Royal City]

11500 members in 1996
13500 season ticket holders on 2010

I may have missed it, but where did this 2010 figure get reported?

ANy chance you could (for the 100th time) give us some proof of this "huge" amount of revenue you raised for the SANFL above all other SANFL Clubs.

Its not that hard to figure out is it? Port only made what...90% of finals series up until 1997 and played on average in every 2nd grand final and had the biggest supporter base in the state. If you make the (fair) assumption that the SANFL take/took the revenue from finals/grand finals, then I think it doesnt take a genius to work out that Port have given back more to the SANFL than the likes of South or Woodville or West Torrens or Centrals who had next to no success to speak of for 20-30 years up to 1997.

So its more of an assumption amongst Port fans you made extra profit. YOu dont have any figures or proof at all. Why Am I not surprised.

And your proof you made a "huge" amount of money that went into the construction of Football Park you have used apparent figures up until 1997 in your argument.

When Football park began construction in 1973. Good to see your not just making it up as you go along Port fans.

Im happy to quote CEOS if you want Macca. Mr Haysman ""Right here, right now, we need 2010 to work for us - and that means the fans not only joining up (as members) but turning up at our games."

So your theory that people have stopped going to the AFL/AAMI stadium. Is because they have been to nicer venues around Australia. My dear lord. Any chance you could explain why in the last 4 years SANFL crowds have increased whilst AFL crowds have decreased then. Please tell me its not becuase you think our venues are superior.

Any chance you could tell me how much revenue Liverpool has made for English football over the last 100 years. And how much of that revenue is considered when/if the clubs goes into Administration. How much money did Fitzroy make for the VFL ???? And they were shut down due to $2.5 mill debt.

FYI The 13600 season ticket figure was produced in an article "the numbers add up" which is on adelaidenow.

Big differences at AAMI stadium for Port. YOu now have to block off bays with sponsor signs where you fans use to once sit. You now have the SHED.

[Royal City]

1. Before Port pushed the buttons that lead to the formation of the Crows, SA was sensibly holding out for a truly national league not run by the VFL - a worthy objective.
2. Another composite side was always a better bet to get [and keep] the numbers attending, rather than handing the second licence to Port, or any single side.
3. Wasn't the Crows "loss" in 2010 due to one off asset write downs rather than an actual operating loss?

1. CORRECT - if the national league was "inevitable" we would of joined in 1987. Why would we not join and then increase our player retention scheme(costing the SANFL $$$$$) if joining was so "inevitable".

[beenreal]

1. Before Port pushed the buttons that lead to the formation of the Crows, SA was sensibly holding out for a truly national league not run by the VFL - a worthy objective.
2. Another composite side was always a better bet to get [and keep] the numbers attending, rather than handing the second licence to Port, or any single side.
3. Wasn't the Crows "loss" in 2010 due to one off asset write downs rather than an actual operating loss?

1. CORRECT - if the national league was "inevitable" we would of joined in 1987. Why would we not join and then increase our player retention scheme(costing the SANFL $$$$$) if joining was so "inevitable".

I asked you a simple question, to provide me with last years figure, generated into the SANFL coffers by Port Adelaide. Pretty simple task for someone with so much time on his hands to do his research.

You chose not to do that task, instead taking yet another opportunity to run your keyboard with more unsubstantiated, anti-Port Adelaide CR@P.

Since that's obviously your sole agenda, you'll get no more attention from me!

[topsywaldron]

You can use this to translate Royal City's posts Beenreal, it might help having his argument explained in English.

[Booney]

1. Before Port pushed the buttons that lead to the formation of the Crows, SA was sensibly holding out for a truly national league not run by the VFL - a worthy objective.

Even with the benefit of hindsight we all know this was never ever going to happen. If a "truly national comp" had been organised and the SANFL chose not to be a part of it, who would have governed it? Perhaps the league with the most power ( read $$ ) so the VFL would have been the power broker, yes? What then actually happened? The VFL became the AFL.

Any national comp, "truly" or otherwise would always have been run by the VFL, make no mistake, it was always going to be that way.

[Psyber]

1. Before Port pushed the buttons that lead to the formation of the Crows, SA was sensibly holding out for a truly national league not run by the VFL - a worthy objective.

Even with the benefit of hindsight we all know this was never ever going to happen. If a "truly national comp" had been organised and the SANFL chose not to be a part of it, who would have governed it? Perhaps the league with the most power ( read $$ ) so the VFL would have been the power broker, yes? What then actually happened? The VFL became the AFL.

Any national comp, "truly" or otherwise would always have been run by the VFL, make no mistake, it was always going to be that way.

With all respect Bonney, a Port supporter would have to see it that way to retain any respect for their own club.
I was around at the time and it didn't look that inevitable until Port made their move and the SANFL went weak at the knees, folded, and joined.
The VFL had kept courting SA teams to achieve this result and finally found one disloyal enough to precipitate the crisis.

At the time I felt Port's bluff should have been called and they should have been left to join the VFL on their own without any SANFL support, and their area redistributed to the other SANFL clubs in the western suburbs.
And I still do.

Nevertheless, I did put this issue aside enough to supported the Power against all but the Crows while I was in Victoria, and I still do that, too.
Their disloyalty can be put aside to support them against the common enemy, but rewriting the history cannot be supported.

[Booney]

Retain respect for their own club? Mate, my club had the bollocks to do what it felt was best for it, cant respect that anymore than I already do.

Hindsight suggests it has not been the best thing for football in SA, but who knew......?

I was around at the time too so dont think I have no recollection of what took place.

[beenreal]

1. Before Port pushed the buttons that lead to the formation of the Crows, SA was sensibly holding out for a truly national league not run by the VFL - a worthy objective.

Even with the benefit of hindsight we all know this was never ever going to happen. If a "truly national comp" had been organised and the SANFL chose not to be a part of it, who would have governed it? Perhaps the league with the most power ( read $$ ) so the VFL would have been the power broker, yes? What then actually happened? The VFL became the AFL.

Any national comp, "truly" or otherwise would always have been run by the VFL, make no mistake, it was always going to be that way.

With all respect Bonney, a Port supporter would have to see it that way to retain any respect for their own club.
I was around at the time and it didn't look that inevitable until Port made their move and the SANFL went weak at the knees, folded, and joined.
The VFL had kept courting SA teams to achieve this result and finally found one disloyal enough to precipitate the crisis.

At the time I felt Port's bluff should have been called and they should have been left to join the VFL on their own without any SANFL support, and their area redistributed to the other SANFL clubs in the western suburbs.
And I still do.

Nevertheless, I did put this issue aside enough to supported the Power against all but the Crows while I was in Victoria, and I still do that, too.
Their disloyalty can be put aside to support them against the common enemy, but rewriting the history cannot be supported.

I just love reading about "disloyalty" from Redlegs supporters when it is well documented that the AFL approached both Port and Norwood to join.

"Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your own hands are clean."

[JK]

I just love reading about "disloyalty" from Redlegs supporters when it is well documented that the AFL approached both Port and Norwood to join.

"Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your own hands are clean."

Dont wish to buy into this debate which seems well and truly to have gone off the rails, but how do you insinuate disloyalty from Norwood after just acknowledging that they along with Port were approached by the VFL/AFL .. Yet only one of them jumped ship, and it wasn't Norwood?

[Macca19]

So its more of an assumption amongst Port fans you made extra profit. YOu dont have any figures or proof at all. Why Am I not surprised.

Correct, it is an assumption. And why is it an assumption? Because im not going to spend weeks/months at the state library, talking to historians, talking to the SANFL, ringing up Max Basheer to ask him about all the financials of the SANFL and Footy Park throughout the last 50 years just to satisfy some bloke on an internet forum.

As I said, I think its a fair assumption to make that the SANFL take most/all of the revenue from finals/grand finals. Do you disagree that this would be the case?

And your proof you made a "huge" amount of money that went into the construction of Football Park you have used apparent figures up until 1997 in your argument.

When Football park began construction in 1973. Good to see your not just making it up as you go along Port fans.

When did I mention anything about the construction of Football Park?

So your theory that people have stopped going to the AFL/AAMI stadium. Is because they have been to nicer venues around Australia. My dear lord. Any chance you could explain why in the last 4 years SANFL crowds have increased whilst AFL crowds have decreased then. Please tell me its not becuase you think our venues are superior.

You seem to think you are intelligent. Not that hard to work out why the SANFL may have increased whilst the AFL have decreased. Mind you, the SA crowds on a constant decline is bucking the trend of the rest of the AFL states. It costs significantly less to go to the SANFL, the standard of football is old school - more attacking, bigger bumps, you can essentially murder someone and get off, its less adjudicated, you can stand, have a beer, involve yourself in banter without a redcoat telling you to sit down and shut up, include some good marketing of the SANFL (compared to say 97-03 when there was very little) and it all helps the SANFL improve its attendances.

Compare that to the AFL, and you can mock the stadium comment all you like, but it doesnt change the fact that every other AFL state except WA have had significantly upgraded stadiums over the past 10 years. Adelaide hasnt. And you can mock it all you like but creature comforts do play a large part in a decrease in SA AFL attendances in an era where everyone has a movie screen sized LCD/Plasma and live against the gate football for just about every match played in this state for the past 3-4 years.

What is your theory on why people are staying away from AAMI for both Adelaide and Port matches?

Any chance you could tell me how much revenue Liverpool has made for English football over the last 100 years. And how much of that revenue is considered when/if the clubs goes into Administration. How much money did Fitzroy make for the VFL ???? And they were shut down due to $2.5 mill debt.

Last time I checked, the FA dont own Liverpool and nor did the AFL own Fitzroy. The SANFL own Adelaide and Port Adelaide. Its up to them to ensure that both clubs can compete in the AFL market against those that dont have to subsidise a league.

FYI The 13600 season ticket figure was produced in an article "the numbers add up" which is on adelaidenow.

Post the link. Im not going to do your research for you.

[beenreal]

I just love reading about "disloyalty" from Redlegs supporters when it is well documented that the AFL approached both Port and Norwood to join.

"Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your own hands are clean."

Dont wish to buy into this debate which seems well and truly to have gone off the rails, but how do you insinuate disloyalty from Norwood after just acknowledging that they along with Port were approached by the VFL/AFL .. Yet only one of them jumped ship, and it wasn't Norwood?

I say it because the Port Adelaide Hierarchy said YES and Jumped, while the Norwood Hierarchy said YES and.... Paused

[Wedgie]

At least this thread gives people something to do for the entire off season. I'm guessing 27 pages.
It's the 2010 running sheet!

[JK]

I just love reading about "disloyalty" from Redlegs supporters when it is well documented that the AFL approached both Port and Norwood to join.

"Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your own hands are clean."

Dont wish to buy into this debate which seems well and truly to have gone off the rails, but how do you insinuate disloyalty from Norwood after just acknowledging that they along with Port were approached by the VFL/AFL .. Yet only one of them jumped ship, and it wasn't Norwood?

I say it because the Port Adelaide Hierarchy said YES and Jumped, while the Norwood Hierarchy said YES and.... Paused

Oh I see, so it's ok to have a go at other people for not dealing with facts?

Rucci has regularly had a crack at Norwood over this matter too, yet he's always failed to "put up" by using factual evidence.

FWIW, I've always believed Port had a responsibility to Port first and foremost and acted accordingly, and I wish my club had done the same, so I've never had a problem with Port's actions .. I just can't see how they can be justified on occasion by trying to implicate a club that didn't elect to take the same course of action.

[Royal City]

I just love reading about "disloyalty" from Redlegs supporters when it is well documented that the AFL approached both Port and Norwood to join.

"Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your own hands are clean."

Dont wish to buy into this debate which seems well and truly to have gone off the rails, but how do you insinuate disloyalty from Norwood after just acknowledging that they along with Port were approached by the VFL/AFL .. Yet only one of them jumped ship, and it wasn't Norwood?

I say it because the Port Adelaide Hierarchy said YES and Jumped, while the Norwood Hierarchy said YES and.... Paused

Oh I see, so it's ok to have a go at other people for not dealing with facts?

Rucci has regularly had a crack at Norwood over this matter too, yet he's always failed to "put up" by using factual evidence.

FWIW, I've always believed Port had a responsibility to Port first and foremost and acted accordingly, and I wish my club had done the same, so I've never had a problem with Port's actions .. I just can't see how they can be justified on occasion by trying to implicate a club that didn't elect to take the same course of action.

One thing I have learnt CP is Been Real and facts dont exactly get along .

But Been Real and contradictions seem to be a matched made in heaven.

[sjt]

I just love reading about "disloyalty" from Redlegs supporters when it is well documented that the AFL approached both Port and Norwood to join.

"Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your own hands are clean."

Dont wish to buy into this debate which seems well and truly to have gone off the rails, but how do you insinuate disloyalty from Norwood after just acknowledging that they along with Port were approached by the VFL/AFL .. Yet only one of them jumped ship, and it wasn't Norwood?

I say it because the Port Adelaide Hierarchy said YES and Jumped, while the Norwood Hierarchy said YES and.... Paused

Oh I see, so it's ok to have a go at other people for not dealing with facts?

Rucci has regularly had a crack at Norwood over this matter too, yet he's always failed to "put up" by using factual evidence.

FWIW, I've always believed Port had a responsibility to Port first and foremost and acted accordingly, and I wish my club had done the same, so I've never had a problem with Port's actions .. I just can't see how they can be justified on occasion by trying to implicate a club that didn't elect to take the same course of action.

"Rucci...factual evidence" in the same sentence.