SA Footy

For years we have been lucky that we have had good leadership and a strong financial base due to the decision that were made.

Now it seems in the matter of a season the SANFL is trying to undo all the good work it has done. Examples;

* Leaving the biggest money maker Football Park, which it owns, for Adelaide Oval
* The AFL's champions league. How many of these comps have failed in the past.... remember the NFL and AFC.
* One Port Adelaide. The 1994 decision stated that two clubs would remain seperate. what has changed between now and when the SANFL said no at the start of the year. Are they blind to the downside to the Power...by merging with the traditional Port club they alienate all other supporters.
* Bringing back AFL curtain raisers - who benefits from this.
* Loss of Under 19 & 17s - verdict may still be out but I dont see any national titles for SA yet.
* Fixturing of night games..... why not reward the clubs that have the facilities as crowds obviously love it


ect.....

JamesH wrote:For years we have been lucky that we have had good leadership and a strong financial base due to the decision that were made.

Now it seems in the matter of a season the SANFL is trying to undo all the good work it has done. Examples;

* Leaving the biggest money maker Football Park, which it owns, for Adelaide Oval
* The AFL's champions league. How many of these comps have failed in the past.... remember the NFL and AFC.
* One Port Adelaide. The 1994 decision stated that two clubs would remain seperate. what has changed between now and when the SANFL said no at the start of the year. Are they blind to the downside to the Power...by merging with the traditional Port club they alienate all other supporters.
* Bringing back AFL curtain raisers - who benefits from this.
* Loss of Under 19 & 17s - verdict may still be out but I dont see any national titles for SA yet.
* Fixturing of night games..... why not reward the clubs that have the facilities as crowds obviously love it


ect.....

Best you hear it from me than others on here James, but the Under 16s won their championship this year. Rather odd way of deciding it as we finished with less percentage than 2nd place (WA I think), but because we beat them is why we gained the cup.

spell_check wrote:

JamesH wrote:For years we have been lucky that we have had good leadership and a strong financial base due to the decision that were made.

Now it seems in the matter of a season the SANFL is trying to undo all the good work it has done. Examples;

* Leaving the biggest money maker Football Park, which it owns, for Adelaide Oval
* The AFL's champions league. How many of these comps have failed in the past.... remember the NFL and AFC.
* One Port Adelaide. The 1994 decision stated that two clubs would remain seperate. what has changed between now and when the SANFL said no at the start of the year. Are they blind to the downside to the Power...by merging with the traditional Port club they alienate all other supporters.
* Bringing back AFL curtain raisers - who benefits from this.
* Loss of Under 19 & 17s - verdict may still be out but I dont see any national titles for SA yet.
* Fixturing of night games..... why not reward the clubs that have the facilities as crowds obviously love it


ect.....

Best you hear it from me than others on here James, but the Under 16s won their championship this year. Rather odd way of deciding it as we finished with less percentage than 2nd place (WA I think), but because we beat them is why we gained the cup.

fair point.

I was mainly referring to the U18 (old teal Cup) which has a bit more prestige. I forgot we had a national U16 championship

The Under 16 championship is being used as another vehicle for the Western Sydney push, anyway. WA had a 2-1 record with 154.3%; SA had a 2-1 record with 121.5%.

Our Under 18's had their best result for years.

As for the rest, the SANFL comp is attracting better crowds each year now.

Would you like to outline why each of those points you mentioned are 'stuffing up' the league and what you would have done differently (with reasons why the outcome would have been better).

redandblack wrote:Our Under 18's had their best result for years.

As for the rest, the SANFL comp is attracting better crowds each year now.

Would you like to outline why each of those points you mentioned are 'stuffing up' the league and what you would have done differently (with reasons why the outcome would have been better).

curtain raisers are a disaster,

play the game at Alberton and attract 7-9k that way.

redandblack wrote:Our Under 18's had their best result for years.

As for the rest, the SANFL comp is attracting better crowds each year now.

Would you like to outline why each of those points you mentioned are 'stuffing up' the league and what you would have done differently (with reasons why the outcome would have been better).

Was Norwood playing finals footy a major part of any crowd increase?

Football Park: It is SANFL owned and generates the majority of its income. How much match day income will be lost with a move. Is this move AFL driven?
One Port Adelaide: The SANFL needs a Port Adelaide that can attract 30,000+ to games. Merging with the Magpies may have some short term gains in terms of the Pub and admin costs but it narrows the supporter base.
Curatin raisers: read the forums its already alienating supporters.
Under 18: Loss of a grade (the under 16 comp isnt a real grade) means a lot of kids are lost to clubs. It also means there are less chances of the late bloomers breaking through. Once again an AFL driven decision.

Decisions made over the next 12 months will change the SANFL for ever.... especially 'One Port Adelaide' and Football Park.

There are a few things which are starting to concern after the SANFL has gradually built back some strength and consistency since a 2nd SA side entered the AFL.

Firstly, this One Port Adelaide, which to me seemed like a good enough idea at the time, but now is starting to look just like a tool to prop up the Power at the Magpies expense.

The fixture - league curtain raisers, and in particular two of the biggest pulling SANFL games being used as curtain raisers together with no Adelaide Oval finals screams of the league not giving a stuff about the SANFL fans.

The Champions League, which the SANFL left to the clubs to shut down for the reasons already given 100 times on this website. You would have hoped the commission could have consulted with clubs and made a united stand.

The entry of two new AFL teams. Now this is out of the SANFL's control, but already we've seen some of the best in the comp be taken to prop up rookie lists etc. (unfortunately for Norwood, they have been hardest hit).

The SANFL has faced many a challenge in the last 25 years and you would hope they will continue to survive and thrive in the current environment, but there are some things starting to get a bit smelly and I hope the clubs and members hold the SANFL to account to make sure they are doing the right thing.

JamesH wrote:For years we have been lucky that we have had good leadership and a strong financial base due to the decision that were made.

Now it seems in the matter of a season the SANFL is trying to undo all the good work it has done. Examples;

* Leaving the biggest money maker Football Park, which it owns, for Adelaide Oval
* The AFL's champions league. How many of these comps have failed in the past.... remember the NFL and AFC.
* One Port Adelaide. The 1994 decision stated that two clubs would remain seperate. what has changed between now and when the SANFL said no at the start of the year. Are they blind to the downside to the Power...by merging with the traditional Port club they alienate all other supporters.
* Bringing back AFL curtain raisers - who benefits from this.
* Loss of Under 19 & 17s - verdict may still be out but I dont see any national titles for SA yet.
* Fixturing of night games..... why not reward the clubs that have the facilities as crowds obviously love it


ect.....

1) The biggest money maker in this state is AFL. They want Football in the city.

2) So what, the past as they say, is History.

3) I didn't realise the Magpies were trying to attract other supporters, so merging with the Traditional Port Adelaide (AFL) shouldn't make any difference.

4) As a Port Adelaide supporter, I do by getting 2 games for the price of 1. Sort of like the SANFL really (Reserves then League)

5) Previously Covered

6) With 22 Night Games, doubling last year, how many do you want? It tends to get a little cold and muddy in June/ July.

One thing I will say is that my kids will be attending a lot less SANFL games this year due to the number of night games Sturt are playing. Is that a good thing?... good for me, not so good for the future of the SANFL.

beenreal wrote: 3) I didn't realise the Magpies were trying to attract other supporters, so merging with the Traditional Port Adelaide (AFL) shouldn't make any difference.

True.
They've already done enough to alienate all the non-Magpies supporters who gave them a try when they pretended to be primarily a team for South Australians in the beginning.
Most of them have already stopped attending so I expect a little surge of attendance this year, then the decline to continue...

we are all doomed. cmon have a bit of positivity for the new year

The strings keep getting pulled by the AFL on our puppet administration, heard a whisper that one SANFL boss is in line for a position in the AFL very shortly due to his compliance with the way things are panning out

locky801 wrote:The strings keep getting pulled by the AFL on our puppet administration, heard a whisper that one SANFL boss is in line for a position in the AFL very shortly due to his compliance with the way things are panning out

Heard that whisper too!!!

locky801 wrote:The strings keep getting pulled by the AFL on our puppet administration, heard a whisper that one SANFL boss is in line for a position in the AFL very shortly due to his compliance with the way things are panning out

C'mon locky.

It wouldn't be unusual for an AFL position to be filled by an SA football administrator. Indeed, if SA people weren't appointed, people would be complaining that SA people were being overlooked.

With respect, do you have any evidence that his appointment would be due to his supposed AFL compliance, or is that just your slant on it to justify your position?

I'll wait with interest for your evidence.

locky801 wrote:The strings keep getting pulled by the AFL on our puppet administration

No disrespect to Locky intended because plenty have made mention to the above, and whilst very likely it's not %100 uncommon opinion - I'm guessing it's also not also %100 incorrect ... R&B??

That's fair comment, CP, but I'd add the following:

In life, business and sport, you can only do what's possible in the circumstances you're faced with. The reality is that the AFL is a multi-million dollar empire and the SANFL, an affiliated, but independent body, has to work with that reality. I have no love of the AFL. I thin it's a Victorian-centric organisation that isn't out to do us any favours. However, the SANFL has to walk a tightrope between maintaining the independence and strength of the league and remaining onside with the AFL.

IMO, to think the SANFL can just tell the AFL to go jump is not realistic. They fund us for a million dollars a year and control so much that they could really hurt us if they wanted to. The SANFL have a balancing act to achieve and I think, albeit with errors along the way, that they do their best for the League.

In your case, CP, Norwood's representative Commissioner is Phil Gallagher. Do you think Phil is just a puppet of the AFL? No, of course you don't.

I suppose I would take more notice if just a shred of actual evidence was put forward to sustain the case that the SANFL were just puppets of the AFL or were stuffing up the league. All I read, though, is gossip, hearsay or opinion. If that is forthcoming, I'm happy to believe and respect it.

In the meantime, I look forward to some actual evidence.

redandblack wrote:I suppose I would take more notice if just a shred of actual evidence was put forward to sustain the case that the SANFL were just puppets of the AFL or were stuffing up the league. All I read, though, is gossip, hearsay or opinion. If that is forthcoming, I'm happy to believe and respect it.

In the meantime, I look forward to some actual evidence.

Norwood versus Port as a curtain raiser to an AFL game.

Case closed.

When the AFL invade Poland , we cannot continue to stand by and think they are a peaceful regime.

We must declare war.

That just fits your prejudices, topsy.

Where is the evidence that was an AFL decision?

Genuine question - is Norwood unhappy with it?

Case still open.