
by Booney » Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:30 pm
by LPH » Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:43 pm
by JK » Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:47 pm
LEH wrote:No...
Just thinking about footy in this state, 20 - 30 years from now.
The problem doesn't appear to be going away.
We need 8 teams in local league.
The 2nd AFL Club is on it's knees - their solution is 700 million + on an upgrade of Adelaide Oval & to move there.
Not sure that's what SA FOOTY needs.
Why has there been no PUBLIC debate on the problems with footy in this state?
by Booney » Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:47 pm
by Sojourner » Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:13 pm
by Wedgie » Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:31 pm
Sojourner wrote:One way that the SANFL could retain the N in their name and get rid of the bye in the competition could be to invite Port Melbourne to participate in the SANFL.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Barto » Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:34 pm
Wedgie wrote:Sojourner wrote:One way that the SANFL could retain the N in their name and get rid of the bye in the competition could be to invite Port Melbourne to participate in the SANFL.
Not required, the "N" represents the word National as Australian Rules Football is the national football of Australia. Its not saying the competition is a national one, its saying the sport is our national football which is correct.
by Barto » Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:37 pm
by LBJ8 » Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:38 pm
LEH wrote:Suggestions;
1. End the SANFL @ the end of the 2010 Season - removing 'National' from the title, Sth. Aust. Football League
(afterall, a name change has been done before) - all records (Premierships, Medals, etc. stand upto 2010)
- PAFC & PAMFC keep their 30+ Flags & 140 years of tradition
Don't mind the idea of changing the name and definitely updating the logo/emblem of the league dunno about the rest of it.
2. Port Magpies fold (again, has been done before, 'Adelaide FC')
- 8 team SAFL competition begins in 2011; with Final 4, 21 Rounds (each club plays each other 3 times)
- Leaving the AFL team as the sole PAFC
I think this is in the best interest of the Power imho, not sure it's a great result for our league as they have the largest amount of supporters but an eight team comp is a must, as you say play each other three times a year one home one away one neutral, double header at Adelaide oval or as a curtain raiser.
3. SAFL competiton concludes BEFORE the AFL (afterall the AFL GF is the showcase game of Australian Rules, nationally)
No thanks i think there is more to be gained from playing it after the AFL GF then the week before.
4. Remove 'West Torrens' from WWTFC - to become the "Woodville FC"... WTFC & WWTFC go the same way as PAMFC, consigned to history of SANFL
Totally agree seems stupid to be still called WWTFC
5. Removing the 'Thomas Seymor Hill Trophy' & having a new one - again, confined to the history of SANFL
Not an issue but i see where you're coming from
6. A new Medal - for fairest & most brilliant, again Magarey confined to the history books of SANFL
- dare I say it, The Russell Ebert Medal or the like?
As above
What do you think?
by Aerie » Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:39 pm
by Sojourner » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:11 am
am Bays wrote:Sojourner wrote:To remain relevant the SANFL needs to expand the number of teams in it or relocate existing sides so that all suburban areas are represented. Interest in the SANFL will continue to diminish as whole suburban areas are set up such as Mt Barker that have no local representation in the SANFL, those growing areas are where the bulk of young families are, whose children are the potential Footballers in the not to distant future. If the SANFL are hell bent on retaining the SANFL footprint of the 1960's with the exception of South, its very likely to fall over.
Given that the Advertiser Survey has seen a rise in the "strong interest in SANFL" for the past two suverys (33% increase) and a comensurate decrease in the "no interest in the SANFL I am not sure how people can say that is happening - unless maybe they are South supporters.
Seriously with the club metro and country zone boundaries covering all the growth suburban areas it is up to the clubs to make sure with their resources from the SANFL they "Capture the market" Personally i don't see the need to relocate teams.
Given suburbs like Golden Grove and Blakeview which didn't exist in the 60s are now captured by the SANFL metro footprint I reckon the SANFL has done very well incapturing the growth areas of metroplitan Adelaide.
I mean FFS a 20 min drive from 'Dingy (country zone) to Noarlunga (SANFL club base) - how hard is that??
by doggies4eva » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:31 am
by ca » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:22 pm
PhilH wrote:Finally for mine the move of the SANFL GF to before the AFL GF would be a MAJOR step back.
Competiting with AFL prelim finals (especial if Crows or Power get in) would see a massive drop in media coverage and interest in the game.
That week is the one time the SANFL gets some oxygen away from AFL saturation coverage, there is no advantage to the SANFL in going two weeks earlier.
by gossipgirl » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:36 pm
by doggies4eva » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:43 pm
gossipgirl wrote:sounds like a good idea but just wonder about the costs involved in the travelling side
by Bluedemon » Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:40 pm
by devilsadvocate » Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:47 pm
Royal City wrote:Pseudo wrote:PhilH wrote:In essence the Magpies want a further advance of SANFL income due. If I was them I would start selling 2011 Memberships now... firstly it's a symbolic statement thet "we will be here next year"... and if the club needs an advance why not get it from the people who have the most to lose from their demise ... their owners, the members.
Make the membership $60 ... if 4,000 of the 7,000+ current members sign up then that's the cash flow in ($240,000) they need to stay afloat. Now there are costs on that and other issues but it buys them the time they need.
Very well thought out post Phil, but the above two paragraphs elevate your post from simply "good" into "completely effing genius". Makes one wonder why Port didn't think of that in the first place.
Absolute quality idea Phil.
But its much easier to just ask for money, and mobilise your media cronies if you don't get what you want.
by Barto » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:15 pm
ca wrote:PhilH wrote:Finally for mine the move of the SANFL GF to before the AFL GF would be a MAJOR step back.
Competiting with AFL prelim finals (especial if Crows or Power get in) would see a massive drop in media coverage and interest in the game.
That week is the one time the SANFL gets some oxygen away from AFL saturation coverage, there is no advantage to the SANFL in going two weeks earlier.
I agree, I think it's great we finish a week later. The focus really grows on the SANFL during that week.
by Benchwarmer » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:34 pm
by am Bays » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:34 pm
Sojourner wrote:Attendance at Prospect on Saturday - 1,122 there, the record re-set for a second time for the lowest crowd ever at Prospect, I would suggest that this is an example of interest that is diminishing in the SANFL considering also the population increase in SA since the start of the Crows. Mainitaining the Status Quo and resisting change will only see more games getting crowds like this. Doing something different like putting lights up at Richmond clearly has the opposite effect. Clubs need to step up to the plate and be prepared to change if they plan to be around for the longer term, North are in a situation where they can wear low attendances due to good cash flow from Poker machines, yet not too many other sides enjoy the same luck!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |