Crows in the SANFL - Q & A with the AFC

[UK Fan]

Further to UkFans points

Have the Crows thought that the bigger bodies of the amatuer league may actually not come into effect when they don't have the fitness levels, pace or ability to chase or catch the Crows listed players.

That's not relevant to you. Our proposal is to join the SANFL league comp. If we don't get Club approval, we need to play our reserves somewhere and it won't be kicking the dew off the ground against SANFL reserves teams with the bye. David

David you still haven't explained why you won't be kicking the dew off with the reserves as opposed to knocking stubbies off at Ammos ????

The "bigger bodies" argument isnt stacking up. Considering the warm up/warm down areas,lap pools and ice baths on offer via sanfl clubs to assist younger bodies recuperate . Are we missing something re other advantages you entering Ammos you would like to share ??? Or are you just going to constantly repeat the clubs stance without communicating what basis the stance was formed.

You sound like a club that's trying to bluff but not answering thats all.

Have the AFL players association expressed any concerns regarding young professional footballers playing at amatuer venues ???

[Jim05]

Further to UkFans points

Have the Crows thought that the bigger bodies of the amatuer league may actually not come into effect when they don't have the fitness levels, pace or ability to chase or catch the Crows listed players.

That's not relevant to you. Our proposal is to join the SANFL league comp. If we don't get Club approval, we need to play our reserves somewhere and it won't be kicking the dew off the ground against SANFL reserves teams with the bye. David

David you still haven't explained why you won't be kicking the dew off with the reserves as opposed to knocking stubbies off at Ammos ????

The "bigger bodies" argument isnt stacking up. Considering the warm up/warm down areas,lap pools and ice baths on offer via sanfl clubs to assist younger bodies recuperate . Are we missing something re other advantages you entering Ammos you would like to share ??? Or are you just going to constantly repeat the clubs stance without communicating what basis the stance was formed.

You sound like a club that's trying to bluff but not answering thats all.

Have the AFL players association expressed any concerns regarding young professional footballers playing at amatuer venues ???

They intend playing all their games at Thebarton

[adelaidefc]

Further to UkFans points

Have the Crows thought that the bigger bodies of the amatuer league may actually not come into effect when they don't have the fitness levels, pace or ability to chase or catch the Crows listed players.

That's not relevant to you. Our proposal is to join the SANFL league comp. If we don't get Club approval, we need to play our reserves somewhere and it won't be kicking the dew off the ground against SANFL reserves teams with the bye. David

David you still haven't explained why you won't be kicking the dew off with the reserves as opposed to knocking stubbies off at Ammos ????

The "bigger bodies" argument isnt stacking up. Considering the warm up/warm down areas,lap pools and ice baths on offer via sanfl clubs to assist younger bodies recuperate . Are we missing something re other advantages you entering Ammos you would like to share ??? Or are you just going to constantly repeat the clubs stance without communicating what basis the stance was formed.

You sound like a club that's trying to bluff but not answering thats all.




Have the AFL players association expressed any concerns regarding young professional footballers playing at amatuer venues ???

They intend playing all their games at Thebarton

Correct.

[Ecky]

This question has been asked four times on the other forum without a response so I thought it may have a better chance of being answered on here...

Have done a survey at a leading all BOYS school in the western suburbs for primary aged kids aged 8-13.  I polled those who go to SANFL games from once a year to more than 12 games a year.

From my results, 54% of these kids will change their choice of SANFL team FOR the new crows team.  The Port supporters didnt have this problem as they keep their club.  

In 20 years time, SANFL clubs lose potential members owing to the inclusion of the crows.
If kids are willing to give up their SANFL club to follow their AFL team in the SANFL comp, how is this beneficial longer term to SANFL clubs and their future members, volunteers?

[smac]

One of the purported benefits is Crows players assisting in game development activities.

I would like to understand the benefit to Centrals of Patrick Dangerfield turning up to a school with Luke Habel to run a clinic in Centrals zone. Surely this would see Luke fade into the background whilst Patrick is the centre of attention?

Does AFC actually believe promotion by association will be good in the long term for SANFL clubs?

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

[adelaidefc]

David wrote:

1-4: The WA model is completely different. Freo are aligned to Peel Thunder and West Coast are aligned with East Perth but AFL-listed players are still spread across all the WAFL clubs, so there is not much relevance to us at this stage. The financial model in WA footy is also completely different to here. But for the right to align with clubs, I believe the total package is worth about $75k from each AFL club. The AFC has been asked to keep our figures confidential at this stage but it will not be too far off this and it is addition to any payments for the transfer of our AFL licence and the Adelaide Oval agreement.
5): We don’t pay a dividend to the SANFL any more, as we did for about 20 years. We pay a set licence fee, which is $525,000 this year. The financial cost of a reserve side will be a cost for the AFC, no-one else.

David

Sjt wrote;

Hi David

To help clarify the above am I right in interpreting it as, at the moment you pay a license fee of $525,000 or $58,333 per club (as stated). Or do the Magpies not receive this so it's closer to $65,000 per club? Under the proposal to be able to use the SANFL with a reserves team, clubs would receive approximately $75,000 equating to an increase of $16,000 (or $10,000) more than current situation or "not too far off this"? Despite Olsen saying $80,000 sounded like a to generous a figure on what's expected.
Obviously this excludes the payments for the licence transfer and the Adelaide Oval agreement as these are happening anyway.
$10,000 (pittance) doesn't sound too attractive to me, though it would look very attractive to the Crows.

So currently the Crows pay each Club about $65k as a license fee? Potentially going forward the Crows may pay the clubs $10,000 more? Time to rush in and change the fabric of SA football given that offer!!

David wrote

Is it an integrity issue or a financial issue, you're confusing me? I've sent some answers to more of your earlier questions to Dutchy to post in a separate thread but you are clearly underestimating the impact on SANFL revenue that the AFL and the AFL clubs have and will continue to have even when the AFL clubs are playing at Adelaide Oval. David

SJT wrote;
David, I'll have a clearer understanding if you answer the simple question above. It shouldn't be confusing and there's no point answering a question with a question. As to whether it's an integrity or financial issue - obviously both are issues that raise questions. I wouldn't have thought it was too confusing. P.S apologise for the formatting I had to cut and paste as the question wasn't answered in the previous thread

I should have explained that better. I responded with the question because it seems to me the biggest issue for some SANFL fans is the integrity of the comp and yet some of these same fans want some extra $$$$ to seal the deal. Whatever the playing licence fee and package is, it would be on top of the top of the AFL licence transfer fees and the Adeliade Oval package. Yes, these will exist whether the Crows are in the reserves or not. But the playing licence fee/marketing dollars and any match revenue is on top of this and will not exist if we are not in the SANFL. David

[saintal]

On the weekend just gone you had (by my count) 10 guys playing SANFL League footy, with another in Hartigan missing out due the bye. Another 4 or 5 weren't deemed good enough to be playing at this level, hence were playing ressies. So an AFC team would have been a mix of:
11 guys up to league standard
4 or 5 guys who currently aren't (youngsters/rookies etc),
1 bloke over the age of 28 with bung knees,
and 5 or 6 rings in from wherever you can find them.
In other words close to half the team would be getting a league game who aren't up to the current standard.

So anyway, to my question..Trigg has mentioned that one of the benefits of your proposal is that it "adds to the status of the competition". Perhaps you could explain his statement a little more clearly for me?

Sorry to clog the thread up by rehashing previous posts, but I'm genuinely curious as to what Trigg had in mind when he mentioned that an AFC reserves team will "add to the status of the comp", especially when on average half the team wont be up to league standard and it is very debatable as to whether or not people will turn up to watch these players.

Can you please shed some light on Trigg's comment David?

[UK Fan]

David you still haven't explained why you won't be kicking the dew off with the reserves as opposed to knocking stubbies off at Ammos ????

The "bigger bodies" argument isnt stacking up. Considering the warm up/warm down areas,lap pools and ice baths on offer via sanfl clubs to assist younger bodies recuperate . Are we missing something re other advantages you entering Ammos you would like to share ??? Or are you just going to constantly repeat the clubs stance without communicating what basis the stance was formed.

You sound like a club that's trying to bluff but not answering thats all.

Have the AFL players association expressed any concerns regarding young professional footballers playing at amatuer venues ???

They intend playing all their games at Thebarton

Correct.

Well bluffed.

So would I be correct in stating you have confirmed the AFL players association has no concerns about afl players competing in an amatuer comp at all David ????

Also I have read SANFL financials and the reality is our organisation is in a great position re debts/assets despite the cost of an afl club in recent years. Aren't you currently trying to negotiate your licence fee payment over 15 years interest free. Does that sound like something a financially crippled company would even consider David ???

How are AFCs finances ????

How are home match attendances for AFC going this year ???? Showing signs of growth ???

[adelaidefc]

One of the purported benefits is Crows players assisting in game development activities.

I would like to understand the benefit to Centrals of Patrick Dangerfield turning up to a school with Luke Habel to run a clinic in Centrals zone. Surely this would see Luke fade into the background whilst Patrick is the centre of attention?

Does AFC actually believe promotion by association will be good in the long term for SANFL clubs?

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

If it happened that way, the reality is that more kids would turn up. Surely having more kids interested and engaged in the game is better for SA footy.
If they live in the Central zone, their best option for their football career path is to plays through the grades at Central.

Yes.

SANFL club support is not really growing anyway. The majority of kids only follow AFL clubs, most of the interest in an SANFL clubs is passed down from parents. My boys follow the Eagles because I do. We get 1700 kids to a pie night, it would be great for SA footy if more of these kids are exposed to the SANFL, even if it is through the Crows. David

[whufc]

One of the purported benefits is Crows players assisting in game development activities.

I would like to understand the benefit to Centrals of Patrick Dangerfield turning up to a school with Luke Habel to run a clinic in Centrals zone. Surely this would see Luke fade into the background whilst Patrick is the centre of attention?

Does AFC actually believe promotion by association will be good in the long term for SANFL clubs?

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

If it happened that way, the reality is that more kids would turn up. Surely having more kids interested and engaged in the game is better for SA footy.
If they live in the Central zone, their best option for their football career path is to plays through the grades at Central.

Yes.

SANFL club support is not really growing anyway. The majority of kids only follow AFL clubs, most of the interest in an SANFL clubs is passed down from parents. My boys follow the Eagles because I do. We get 1700 kids to a pie night, it would be great for SA footy if more of these kids are exposed to the SANFL, even if it is through the Crows. David

David, you do realise attendances at AFL games in SA are at an all time low, the Crows attendence base is extremely low compared to 10 years ago while the SANFL has remained steady.

Could it be seen AFL clubs support is not really growing

[tipper]

David wrote:

1-4: The WA model is completely different. Freo are aligned to Peel Thunder and West Coast are aligned with East Perth but AFL-listed players are still spread across all the WAFL clubs, so there is not much relevance to us at this stage. The financial model in WA footy is also completely different to here. But for the right to align with clubs, I believe the total package is worth about $75k from each AFL club. The AFC has been asked to keep our figures confidential at this stage but it will not be too far off this and it is addition to any payments for the transfer of our AFL licence and the Adelaide Oval agreement.
5): We don’t pay a dividend to the SANFL any more, as we did for about 20 years. We pay a set licence fee, which is $525,000 this year. The financial cost of a reserve side will be a cost for the AFC, no-one else.

David

Sjt wrote;

Hi David

To help clarify the above am I right in interpreting it as, at the moment you pay a license fee of $525,000 or $58,333 per club (as stated). Or do the Magpies not receive this so it's closer to $65,000 per club? Under the proposal to be able to use the SANFL with a reserves team, clubs would receive approximately $75,000 equating to an increase of $16,000 (or $10,000) more than current situation or "not too far off this"? Despite Olsen saying $80,000 sounded like a to generous a figure on what's expected.
Obviously this excludes the payments for the licence transfer and the Adelaide Oval agreement as these are happening anyway.
$10,000 (pittance) doesn't sound too attractive to me, though it would look very attractive to the Crows.

So currently the Crows pay each Club about $65k as a license fee? Potentially going forward the Crows may pay the clubs $10,000 more? Time to rush in and change the fabric of SA football given that offer!!

David wrote

Is it an integrity issue or a financial issue, you're confusing me? I've sent some answers to more of your earlier questions to Dutchy to post in a separate thread but you are clearly underestimating the impact on SANFL revenue that the AFL and the AFL clubs have and will continue to have even when the AFL clubs are playing at Adelaide Oval. David

SJT wrote;
David, I'll have a clearer understanding if you answer the simple question above. It shouldn't be confusing and there's no point answering a question with a question. As to whether it's an integrity or financial issue - obviously both are issues that raise questions. I wouldn't have thought it was too confusing. P.S apologise for the formatting I had to cut and paste as the question wasn't answered in the previous thread

I should have explained that better. I responded with the question because it seems to me the biggest issue for some SANFL fans is the integrity of the comp and yet some of these same fans want some extra $$$$ to seal the deal. Whatever the playing licence fee and package is, it would be on top of the top of the AFL licence transfer fees and the Adeliade Oval package. Yes, these will exist whether the Crows are in the reserves or not. But the playing licence fee/marketing dollars and any match revenue is on top of this and will not exist if we are not in the SANFL. David

I think you are misinterpreting questions about how much money you are offering, with supporters asking for money.

I for one don't think that money is a good reason to destroy the sanfl. You keep mentioning that "licence fees" or "marketing money" will be a key benefit of a crows reserves team. If it is such a key benefit, I wanted to know how much it was. Let's face it, money is important. However, with the totals that were mentioned at the south Adelaide info night, it reinforces my belief that it isn't a good reason.

$50k is a pittance in the scheme of things, particularly when weighed against the possible loss of members, and match day attendees.

You also mention match day revenue again, which has not been shown that it will increase. Clubs will have the same number of home games, and we find out above that any crows members that might happen to go may get in free of charge!! Unless the 6000 turn up that you are hoping for, and they all get on the gas over the bar there will be significantly less revenue generated by crows reserves games!

This entire thread is only reinforcing my opposition to the proposal, there is no new info here, just the same drivel and avoidance of questions from genuinely concerned sanfl supporters.

I can't believe that am organization that claims to be "for all south Australians" can be so dismissive of genuine footy fans, just because we don't agree with you. I'm out of this argument from now on.

I'll still support the cause, people can pm me with info on any protests or of they want help, but seeing as these threads are going nowhere I've had enough. Hopefully the sanfl directors do the right thing for the league and send you packing to the amateur league. That is the only way ill keep following the sanfl, I've got better things I can spend my time and money on than watching a farce every weekend. Bye all.

[areaman]

David - have the Crows done any market research of their fans to gauge support for their attendance at SANFL matches?

You say that the SANFL support is not growing - this is probably correct. However my fear is that this move will actually slash support for the local clubs not increase it.

Yes we need growth but standing still is better than going backwards. Unless the Crows have good research to suggest it will help growth and attendances I am afraid the line about growth being stagnant is not relevant.

Appears to me there is a lot of hoping rather than solid evidence that attendances and membership will be improved by this proposal.

[whufc]

David

By having a Ravens side in the SANFL it is forcing alot of current Crow/SANFL club supporters to choose one over the other.

Have the Crows done any research (if so what were the results) as to how many people will be either leave the crows or their SANFL club.

Are the Crows in a position they can afford to lose even more supporters with their current dwindling crowds, loss off respect in the football community over the Tippett saga and the likelihood they maybe in the bottom half of the ladder with their loss of draft picks

Can we please see some facts and figures to show how the SANFL crowds will increase rather than the standard 'we believe' line

If you would like I can produce some real life figures of how competitions crowds have dropped once AFL reserves have become involved in their comp

[Ecky]

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

Yes.

So why should the SANFL clubs be admitting a new team to the league which we all acknowledge will take supporters away from the existing clubs?

[smac]

One of the purported benefits is Crows players assisting in game development activities.

I would like to understand the benefit to Centrals of Patrick Dangerfield turning up to a school with Luke Habel to run a clinic in Centrals zone. Surely this would see Luke fade into the background whilst Patrick is the centre of attention?

Does AFC actually believe promotion by association will be good in the long term for SANFL clubs?

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

If it happened that way, the reality is that more kids would turn up. Surely having more kids interested and engaged in the game is better for SA footy.
If they live in the Central zone, their best option for their football career path is to plays through the grades at Central.

Yes.

SANFL club support is not really growing anyway. The majority of kids only follow AFL clubs, most of the interest in an SANFL clubs is passed down from parents. My boys follow the Eagles because I do. We get 1700 kids to a pie night, it would be great for SA footy if more of these kids are exposed to the SANFL, even if it is through the Crows. David

It's not growing, so it's OK for support of existing SANFL clubs to shrink because the Crows will see more support. Is that a fair summation of your post?

Where the pathway runs is not relevant to my question, nor has it been raised as part of this whole discussion. Why would those kids actively support CDFC if they have an option to have one club to support in two competitions? A club that has the majority of the support, sponsors and members of football in this state already. Do you not see the selfishness of your wants, particularly when you put it under the "great for SA footy" banner that we all know is code for "great for Crows"?

[adelaidefc]

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

Yes.

So why should the SANFL clubs be admitting a new team to the league which we all acknowledge will take supporters away from the existing clubs?

There is no growth now. Yes, some SANFL fans may switch to follow the Crows, that's impossible to stop, it;s reality. But we believe the overall numbers of people following the SANFL or being exposed to the SANFL will increase.

[rod_rooster]

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

Yes.

So why should the SANFL clubs be admitting a new team to the league which we all acknowledge will take supporters away from the existing clubs?

There is no growth now. Yes, some SANFL fans may switch to follow the Crows, that's impossible to stop, it;s reality. But we believe the overall numbers of people following the SANFL or being exposed to the SANFL will increase.

Based on what? Seriously, stop ignoring the people asking you to explain what exactly leads you to these assumptions. What actual research or evidence do you have that indicates what you say will happen, actually will?

[smac]

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

Yes.

So why should the SANFL clubs be admitting a new team to the league which we all acknowledge will take supporters away from the existing clubs?

There is no growth now. Yes, some SANFL fans may switch to follow the Crows, that's impossible to stop, it;s reality. But we believe the overall numbers of people following the SANFL or being exposed to the SANFL will increase.

It isn't impossible to stop. If there is no AFL presence in the SANFL then it's stopped. I don't see that as impossible.

[cripple]

Does AFC concede that this may be detrimental to the growth of a SANFL club supporter base?

Yes.

So why should the SANFL clubs be admitting a new team to the league which we all acknowledge will take supporters away from the existing clubs?

But we believe the overall numbers of people following the SANFL or being exposed to the SANFL will increase.

How can you claim that overall numbers of supporters following the sanfl will increase when precedence set by the vfl for over 10 years has shown this to be false. No argument could be made that the likes of pt melbourne, frankston and other stand alone clubs havd garnered more support after the introduction of afl reserves teams.

[CUTTERMAN]

As it hasn't been answered, I'll ask again. If the AFC is so confident of their supposed 4000-6000 supporters to reserves games why did they refuse to cover the gate for host clubs. As has been mentioned each SANFL club has different setup costs and break even costs. Surely if you've done your research thoroughly and are assured of your supporter turnout this would be a non issue and give host clubs certainty.

David, I can't find where you reckon this has been answered. I've asked it numerous times now, it's a simple question and as a Sturt supporter one which is VERY revelent. Please answer.