Pseudo wrote:sjt wrote:Why don't one of the "local" SANFL Advertiser writers put something together?
It wouldn't get past the editor.
That's what I mean by this post I made:
spell_check wrote:Well csbowes, there will never been a return to the pre AFL days. Sure, we could at least see an increase of the attendances to about 3500 per match, but that's all.
Lets see why. With the crowds compared from 2004-05 to what they are now, you may have expected an increase of coverage in the fish wrap, or on TV. But you don't. It's actually gone backwards in the aforementioned Advertiser; the Football Budget is crap; we have less radio stations covering the matches (not taking away from the fantastic job the two we have now do, a positive there); the ABC don't show the late night replays.
Instead we seem to have more ex-AFL stars on the big radio stations; more AFL coverage in the newspapers; more AFL themed shows and more AFL clout regarding the running of this heritage enriched competition. And when the SANFL seems to forge ahead in terms of popularity, we get the AFL lovers such as Rucci and Fjelstad try to run down our competition by focussing on the negatives - the losses made in 2008 financially; the alleged racial taunts;and now these larger threats that have come up. That's how you get the SANFL into the mainstream media! The negatives.
So, it is high time the SANFL got into the mainstream media for the right reasons, if something like the ideas about a rally/protest could be effected, it may just happen. Someone needs to stand up and promote our league, because as I have outlined, no-one else who is in the big media players such Channel 9/7/Advertiser/5AA/Triple M will.
The clout the AFL have behind anything means there is little pro-SANFL articles. There are journalists that are definitely passionate about the SANFL, but the editors have the final say on how much makes it into the newspaper.