Hondo wrote:sjt wrote:We keep hearing one of the major reasons clubs should participate is for the "exposure". What's so positive about the extra exposure, to make the risks and cost of competing worthwhile? It's not like Australian Rules is being exposed to a new market.
I don't think a Glenelg major sponsor for example will jump ship to Westies just because they're competing in this comp.
Five of the nine clubs disagree with him.
Your "risks and costs" are equally vague as my "exposure". Tell me specifically about them.
If the details aren't finalised as is the clubs' complaint (one of them) how can you or them be certain what it will cost
Each side has their generalised statements to support their argument
Risks are to the team preparation for SANFL finals and the ultimate GF. Vague to the extent that as you said, the details aren't finalised as yet, so total cost is still unknown. Clubs made a decision by the deadline on info they were actually given. Five of the clubs determined with that info. "in our view that the cost of participating would not be fully covered by the prize money on offer, and would therefore ultimately represent a new cost to our Clubs." Some clubs have determined adding an extra cost to the club isn't justified for the kudos and exposure they may receive if they were to win it. For others, the financial cost has been deemed worth absorbing for the experience and exposure and chance of winning. I've no problem with that, a club has to allocate funds where they deem the return will be best.
My point was personally, I don't see a major benefit to the club of the exposure they may gain by participating. If North for example compete and get a major sponsor from this competition, or a few hundred more members or recruit some quality players, that they otherwise would not have got, then I will definitely have been proven wrong.
Still a bit surprising that as of December the 20th they still don't know who almost half the teams competing will be.
