Magpies and Power merger to be announced in a fortnight.

[hereselmo1]

You beauty. A great result for the Port Adelaide football community. We now have one club with two great teams.

[Go Legs]

You beauty indeed, when the Port Power fail and the SANFL final bites the inevitable bullit and sells off the licence to whoever is stupid enough to buy it then, we will have 8 teams in the SANFL without any byes and only 1 team in the AFL

Sooner the better in my book.

Cheers,

[zipzap]

Any support I've had for the Power (and AFL for that matter) has been at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly not financial, so I don't suppose this will cause anyone at Alberton to lose any sleep. But if 'support' meant watched their games, followed Sturt-related recruits in particular with interest, and casually barracked for the team, then support them I did.

But in this formal link with the Magpies they have lost me and I suspect lots of other fairweather footy fans. Like I said, the care-factor at Alberton will be zero and it won't make a short-term difference to their coffers but I can't see how narrowing their supporter base and alienating aspects of it so dramatically can have anything other than a detrimental effect long-term.

They are once again the enemy - which will no doubt please a couple of thousand die-hards still living off the crumbs of the past - but surely it's no way to turn around a struggling, dead-in-the-water business?

[Jim05]

Glad its finally done. Now no more excuses from port. Be funny in 5 years time when port is still playing infront of 20,000 people at adelaide oval and losing more money than the greek economy. Maybe the sanfl will sell the license off, the Tassie Power has a good ring to it

[Ronnie]

I give the Magpies five years at most in this guise. In that time they will either be turned into a Power Reserves side or they will be killed off as the Power battle with their finances.
Either way i don't really see this as the solution.

[beenreal]

Glad its finally done. Now no more excuses from port. Be funny in 5 years time when port is still playing infront of 20,000 people at adelaide oval and losing more money than the greek economy. Maybe the sanfl will sell the license off, the Tassie Power has a good ring to it

Even on the back of an ordinary season Port Adelaide averaged 25,000 to their games, But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Even with that number at Kardinia Park, Geelong make $500K profit, while under the current deal Port would lose $150K. The stadium deal at Adelaide Oval will no doubt be much more favourable.

[nickname]

Glad its finally done. Now no more excuses from port. Be funny in 5 years time when port is still playing infront of 20,000 people at adelaide oval and losing more money than the greek economy. Maybe the sanfl will sell the license off, the Tassie Power has a good ring to it

Even on the back of an ordinary season Port Adelaide averaged 25,000 to their games, But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Even with that number at Kardinia Park, Geelong make $500K profit, while under the current deal Port would lose $150K. The stadium deal at Adelaide Oval will no doubt be much more favourable.

Port averaged 23,000 to their home games. Geelong averaged 39,000 to their home games, because some of their home games are played at the MCG and Etihad.

[Macca19]

Any support I've had for the Power (and AFL for that matter) has been at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly not financial, so I don't suppose this will cause anyone at Alberton to lose any sleep. But if 'support' meant watched their games, followed Sturt-related recruits in particular with interest, and casually barracked for the team, then support them I did.

But in this formal link with the Magpies they have lost me and I suspect lots of other fairweather footy fans. Like I said, the care-factor at Alberton will be zero and it won't make a short-term difference to their coffers but I can't see how narrowing their supporter base and alienating aspects of it so dramatically can have anything other than a detrimental effect long-term.

Well, Id say that support generally means buying a membership and going to games. You say your support has not been financial, well would you have ever bought a membership or a season ticket?

Personally Id say for every fairweather fan that is negatively effected by this there will be 5 times as many who couldnt care less.

And in the end, we are Port Adelaide. Its who we are, its what the club is. There is no shying away from it. Moving away from those roots full time to please a couple of hundred fairweather fans who dont buy memberships/go to games anyway whilst alienating 3/4 of the people that actually do go to games is no way to do business either.

[sjt]

I think Warren Partland's article on page 86 today, provides a pretty good summary.
Magpies "screwed" by Port Power (again), and the SANFL held to ransom by the AFL (again).

[Hondo]

Any support I've had for the Power (and AFL for that matter) has been at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly not financial, so I don't suppose this will cause anyone at Alberton to lose any sleep. But if 'support' meant watched their games, followed Sturt-related recruits in particular with interest, and casually barracked for the team, then support them I did.

But in this formal link with the Magpies they have lost me and I suspect lots of other fairweather footy fans. Like I said, the care-factor at Alberton will be zero and it won't make a short-term difference to their coffers but I can't see how narrowing their supporter base and alienating aspects of it so dramatically can have anything other than a detrimental effect long-term.

They are once again the enemy - which will no doubt please a couple of thousand die-hards still living off the crumbs of the past - but surely it's no way to turn around a struggling, dead-in-the-water business?

You can't expect the SANFL directors and the Port directors to put their signatures to a plan that is based on appealling to "fairwearther footy fans" who support "at the lower end of the spectrum" and will never financially support the club. All at the risk of further alienating traditional Port fans. Unless you have ever financially supported the club then you are a neutral with a bit of an interest. Neutrals with a casual interest won't save Port IMO.

[am Bays]

Well, Id say that support generally means buying a membership and going to games. You say your support has not been financial, well would you have ever bought a membership or a season ticket?

Personally Id say for every fairweather fan that is negatively effected by this there will be 5 times as many who couldnt care less.

And in the end, we are Port Adelaide. Its who we are, its what the club is. There is no shying away from it. Moving away from those roots full time to please a couple of hundred fairweather fans who dont buy memberships/go to games anyway whilst alienating 3/4 of the people that actually do go to games is no way to do business either.

*In an attempt to have a rational conversation/debate*

I ceede that point macca, but if we look at the AFL model all the other clubs who have been in trouble financially in the last 10-15 years have looked beyond their traditional fan base to grow their membership/supporter abse and financial stability (i.e. broader sponsorship appeal). Footscray became teh western Bulldogs, Hawthorn went to Tassie. Crikey, 30 eyars ago Sheedy started taking Essendon all over the country to play games to broaden his clubs appeal. Now ti is an Australia wide brand not just a pocket of support around North West Melbourne.

North Melbourne became the Kanegroos and now as Nth Melbourne again are looking to cash in on Tasmania - because they know they can't just be North Melbourne shinboners to survive.

This merger is a short term fix and doesn't cater for Port Powers future finacial growth bar the hope for a better stadium deal which liek the current one will be dependant on bums on seats.

If Port are dinkum about their financial security they will market themselves to a wider market this merger doesn't do that. Yes alienating some of their traditional supporters will lead to short term pain but it provides a far great chance for long term security. Based on comments on Adelaide mow 2/71 posters (3%) of Power supporters expressed dismay at close ties to Port Power lets say 1.5% of Port Power members drop off can the Power afford that? Also not all magpies supporters like the Power will they be disenfranchised - will they put their hard earned into the merged entity? In reality this merger could well shrink the total supporter/membership base of the Power/Magpies

AS a SA Footy follwer I would be happy for them to to offered greater support by the SANFL if they were trying to broaden their marketability and membership and supporter appeal, as per what ahs been demosntrated to work by other AFL clubs.

[Hondo]

If Port are dinkum about their financial security they will market themselves to a wider market this merger doesn't do that. Yes alienating some of their traditional supporters will lead to short term pain but it provides a far great chance for long term security. Based on comments on Adelaide mow 2/71 posters (3%) of Power supporters expressed dismay at close ties to Port Power lets say 3% of Port Power members drop off can the Power afford that? Also not all magpies supporters like the Power will they be disenfranchised. In reality this merger could well shrink the total supporter/memebrship base of the Power/Magpies

Have you got any figures, research or facts to back this theory up? Have you polled PAM or PAP people to see what numbers are lurking out there un-tapped? Have you researched non-Port people to see if they would come over to the Adelaide Power. You repeat this theory over and over but, like my theories, it's just speculation. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating when we come back to this debate in 5 years' time.

If only 3% drop off because of the merger then I would speculate that > 3% would drop off if you dropped the link to PAM and re-named them the Adelaide Power. Again, this is personal speculation only. No-one has a crystal ball.

[Macca19]

You raise a good argument re: looking outside the state for opportunities (which the club is doing with Darwin), but in reality, has changing name to the Western Bulldogs or Kangaroos helped those clubs? 10 years on they are still in trouble and both still struggle for members. Its not like either club has any sot of financial security. And in the end, both clubs still stayed true to their roots, still talked up their history and tradition....maybe more so, whereas the general opinion from non-Port fans seems to always be that Port need to completely disassociate themselves from Port Adelaide, drop the history and tradition all together and start fresh. The Kangaroos still talked up the shinboner spirit and history of North Melbourne...and ended up going back to North Melbourne anyway. Western Bulldogs still talk up Footscray history...initials on the back of the jumper (first to do that) etc. This isnt what people want Port to do. No history, no tradition, no black and white, no magpies, no premierships...nothing. How would that work and why on earth would Port supporters stay supporting a club that suddenly changes to recognise absolutely zero links to their past?

So whilst yes, winning new members is the key to survival, I dont think that completely turning the back on the fact we still are Port Adelaide will solve that and in fact would make it much worse.

A lot of people mention all these people that seem to be itching to go to AFL footy in Adelaide but who dont want to follow Adelaide or Port....well is there any actual factual basis to these comments. Some people on here have even said there are even 30,000 of these people just waiting in the wings to go to AFL games. Well sorry, I just dont think they exist.

[am Bays]

can yo provide proof that it will not happen?

proof 1 is Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood and to a lesser extent Western Bulldogs who have all over the last 1-20 years looked to grow their membership/supporter base in different markets not appeal to the same market. Essendon, Collingwood and Hawthorn have all thrived and improved their financial health. Western Bulldogs have been able to stave off financial extiction - what Port need to do.

I provided figures in my original post and I halved the disatisfaction to who may actually walk. Yes the drop off will be small and some say it may not even be noticed with the Power getting their hands on the Pokie licences from teh POW.

Bottom line is that in 10 years time the Power are going to have to increase their turnover by at least 50% to be competetive in eeh AFL (to over 30 mil) will they be able to do this based on their current business plan to creat one Port Adelaide (having to give 1.34 mill of that turnover to the magpies. Will the Magpies be able to function as a division of PAFC in 2020 on 1.34 Mill in the SANFL??

AFL is is business (one reason why I do not like it, and whilst the romantic notion to combine the clubs is appealling can it be the driver for the future financial security - I doubt it.

[am Bays]

You raise a good argument re: looking outside the state for opportunities (which the club is doing with Darwin)

The population of the NT is less than that of the Southern Suburbs of Adelaide (City of Onkaparinga). IS that a good market to target? Also Micheal Long in the 80s and 90s saw the majority of teh NT market captured by Essendon

Which would be easier to serve??

yes The Dogs and North anren't the best examples but my point is it has helped them survive whenr ealistically tehy should've been dead 10 years ago.

[Hondo]

proof 1 is Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood and to a lesser extent Western Bulldogs who have all over the last 1-20 years looked to grow their membership/supporter base in different markets not appeal to the same market. Essendon, Collingwood and Hawthorn have all thrived and improved their financial health. Western Bulldogs have been able to stave off financial extiction - what Port need to do.

The AFL have committed to 18 teams and abandoned previous policy of letting teams die. I think this is as much to do with the Bulldogs survival as anything else. I read a report 2 years ago that the NMFC were close to being technically insolvent but they continue, as do the Bulldogs, supported by the AFL's equalisation payments. The Brisbane Lions have clocked up over $5m of losses over the last 3 years apparently. They will be continue in the 18 team competition regardless as the overall pool of profit across all 18 teams is there.

Some clubs in any competition will always have the advantage of historical popularity. I would argue that Hawthorn still don't have the supporter base that their prolonged success in the 70s and 80s could have generated in the kids at the time. Why? who knows.

Essendon under Sheedy growing their popularity is an good case study I agree. But did Sheedy's strategy involve promoting the Essendon FC with all it's heritage or trying to hide who they were under a banner of the Northern Bombers? I think you can promote yourself to a wider audience whilst still retaining your identity. Having a PA heritage doesn't necessarially have to be the death knock of the PAP. Just IMO.

[am Bays]

If only 3% drop off because of the merger then I would speculate that > 3% would drop off if you dropped the link to PAM and re-named them the Adelaide Power. Again, this is personal speculation only. No-one has a crystal ball.

I agree they would lose in teh short term if that went for a broader appeal supporter base - but long term I bet they have a better chance for survival and I mean it would take time 10 years at least. As a SA Football supporter I would be happy for them to supporterd by the SANFL to help them broaden their support rather than appeal to a membership supporter base concentrated around the Le Fevre pensinsula

[smac]

The AFL have committed to 18 teams and abandoned previous policy of letting teams die.

They are only committed to the number of teams, not the existing ones. Just as they were happy to relocate Fitzroy to Brisbane, expansion to Tasmania may be easier with an existing licence. I wouldn't want to be the club in strife when the AFL decide a move to Tasmania is a good idea.

[Hondo]

The AFL have committed to 18 teams and abandoned previous policy of letting teams die.

They are only committed to the number of teams, not the existing ones. Just as they were happy to relocate Fitzroy to Brisbane, expansion to Tasmania may be easier with an existing licence. I wouldn't want to be the club in strife when the AFL decide a move to Tasmania is a good idea.

That would only be a team from Melbourne and based on what the AFL have previously said I don't think we'll see a team in Tasmania in the next 20 years unfortunately.

They tried as hard as they could to get NM to move to the Gold Coast and they couldn't get it done.

The AFL made $213m in 2009 apparently. I think things are going OK despite there being a mismatch between the rich and the poor.

[westcoastpanther]

Biggest load of crap ever this thread, announced in a fortnight my arse.....took six weeks!!