Wedgie wrote:MW wrote:Comparing local footy to WW2...I rest my case your honour.
I didn't compare local footy to WW2.
More like occupied France than the entire war, I would have thought...
Vive la résistance.
by Pseudo » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:30 pm
Wedgie wrote:MW wrote:Comparing local footy to WW2...I rest my case your honour.
I didn't compare local footy to WW2.
by Magellan » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:31 pm
MW wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:MW wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:I hate the fact we're playing Adelaide this weekend.
Bloody hate it.
Fancy being upset your playing finals. You tragics take this 'issue' way too seriously
Read again. I hate the fact we're playing Adelaide. Not the fact we're playing. These are not the same things.
I understood what you meant. Just be happy you scraped in to the finals mate and enjoy the day rather than the political stuff.
by Magellan » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:35 pm
MW wrote:Comparing local footy to WW2...I rest my case your honour.
George Orwell wrote:Sports are war minus the shooting.
by MW » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:56 pm
therisingblues wrote:MW wrote:lol yep it was all the crows supporters fault!
And if a newer, stronger, entity were to treat the AFL and the Crows the same way you have treated this league, you would see things differently.
But history tells us that 85% of you would actually jump on board the new entity. That would happen after 90% of you oppose the formation new entity.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're either under the age of 35 or have a very bad memory. I just described SA football culture prior to and after the formation of the Crows in the early 90s.
by therisingblues » Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:26 pm
MW wrote:therisingblues wrote:MW wrote:lol yep it was all the crows supporters fault!
And if a newer, stronger, entity were to treat the AFL and the Crows the same way you have treated this league, you would see things differently.
But history tells us that 85% of you would actually jump on board the new entity. That would happen after 90% of you oppose the formation new entity.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're either under the age of 35 or have a very bad memory. I just described SA football culture prior to and after the formation of the Crows in the early 90s.
If I am reading between your lines correctly, are you saying that us Crows supporters jumped to the Crows from our previous SANFL clubs and abandoned them and we Crows supporters were opposed to Port entering the AFL. Correct?
I was 13 at the time so my memory is not 100% of the workings of 1990 but I still am a West Adelaide supporter, but I also support the Crows in the AFL as I previously didn't have a team. Not allowed to support both?
For the record, I support West over the Crows ressies also. Hope that passes the grade.
by MW » Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:37 pm
by Wedgie » Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:39 pm
MW wrote:I get what you are saying and understand the concern of the fickle supporter moving to the bigger shinier toy.
Do you think SANFL footy would be just as strong today as it was pre 1991 if no AFL sides played out of Adelaide?
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Booney » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:00 pm
therisingblues wrote:SANFL fans were opposed to any club from SA joining the AFL. The old Adelaide Daily News and the Advertiser used to run surveys and they usually came back 90% opposed, this was in spite of various media trying to tell us how great it would be.
When Port threw their hat in the ring there was a majority shift in opinion towards any side but Port entering, and many fans saw the writing on the wall. A composite entry gained momentum then.
The AFL and Ravens do what they want because their market is only interested in the best outcome for themselves. There are only about 8,000 fans that attend 4 matches in a SANFL round (that figure was about 12,000 just 4 seasons ago), and probably 75% of them (at least) hate the reserves entries. It is so easy to ignore the feelings of so few when you're not in that boat, but 90% of Crows fans felt the same way we do now according to those media surveys conducted prior to Port's bid.
Part of what I am trying to say is that the way footy is packaged now makes it ephemeral. If a bigger, more sparkly, entity came along Crows and Power fans would jump on that, but only after voicing their opposition to the new, bigger, more sparkly thing.
To me, and I reckon many others on here feel the same, that makes the sport meaningless. It's ephemeral, with one strong breeze it is all blown away, and the fickle masses switch onto whatever it is the corporations feed us.
by therisingblues » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:13 pm
MW wrote:I get what you are saying and understand the concern of the fickle supporter moving to the bigger shinier toy.
Do you think SANFL footy would be just as strong today as it was pre 1991 if no AFL sides played out of Adelaide?
by therisingblues » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:14 pm
Booney wrote:therisingblues wrote:SANFL fans were opposed to any club from SA joining the AFL. The old Adelaide Daily News and the Advertiser used to run surveys and they usually came back 90% opposed, this was in spite of various media trying to tell us how great it would be.
When Port threw their hat in the ring there was a majority shift in opinion towards any side but Port entering, and many fans saw the writing on the wall. A composite entry gained momentum then.
The AFL and Ravens do what they want because their market is only interested in the best outcome for themselves. There are only about 8,000 fans that attend 4 matches in a SANFL round (that figure was about 12,000 just 4 seasons ago), and probably 75% of them (at least) hate the reserves entries. It is so easy to ignore the feelings of so few when you're not in that boat, but 90% of Crows fans felt the same way we do now according to those media surveys conducted prior to Port's bid.
Part of what I am trying to say is that the way footy is packaged now makes it ephemeral. If a bigger, more sparkly, entity came along Crows and Power fans would jump on that, but only after voicing their opposition to the new, bigger, more sparkly thing.
To me, and I reckon many others on here feel the same, that makes the sport meaningless. It's ephemeral, with one strong breeze it is all blown away, and the fickle masses switch onto whatever it is the corporations feed us.
So you're saying the majority took on the new shiny toy, the minority stayed true, that fair?
by Spangas » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:14 pm
Booney wrote:therisingblues wrote:SANFL fans were opposed to any club from SA joining the AFL. The old Adelaide Daily News and the Advertiser used to run surveys and they usually came back 90% opposed, this was in spite of various media trying to tell us how great it would be.
When Port threw their hat in the ring there was a majority shift in opinion towards any side but Port entering, and many fans saw the writing on the wall. A composite entry gained momentum then.
The AFL and Ravens do what they want because their market is only interested in the best outcome for themselves. There are only about 8,000 fans that attend 4 matches in a SANFL round (that figure was about 12,000 just 4 seasons ago), and probably 75% of them (at least) hate the reserves entries. It is so easy to ignore the feelings of so few when you're not in that boat, but 90% of Crows fans felt the same way we do now according to those media surveys conducted prior to Port's bid.
Part of what I am trying to say is that the way footy is packaged now makes it ephemeral. If a bigger, more sparkly, entity came along Crows and Power fans would jump on that, but only after voicing their opposition to the new, bigger, more sparkly thing.
To me, and I reckon many others on here feel the same, that makes the sport meaningless. It's ephemeral, with one strong breeze it is all blown away, and the fickle masses switch onto whatever it is the corporations feed us.
So you're saying the majority took on the new shiny toy, the minority stayed true, that fair?
by therisingblues » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:27 pm
by matt35 » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:30 pm
by matt35 » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:37 pm
by Booney » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:40 pm
therisingblues wrote:Booney wrote:therisingblues wrote:SANFL fans were opposed to any club from SA joining the AFL. The old Adelaide Daily News and the Advertiser used to run surveys and they usually came back 90% opposed, this was in spite of various media trying to tell us how great it would be.
When Port threw their hat in the ring there was a majority shift in opinion towards any side but Port entering, and many fans saw the writing on the wall. A composite entry gained momentum then.
The AFL and Ravens do what they want because their market is only interested in the best outcome for themselves. There are only about 8,000 fans that attend 4 matches in a SANFL round (that figure was about 12,000 just 4 seasons ago), and probably 75% of them (at least) hate the reserves entries. It is so easy to ignore the feelings of so few when you're not in that boat, but 90% of Crows fans felt the same way we do now according to those media surveys conducted prior to Port's bid.
Part of what I am trying to say is that the way footy is packaged now makes it ephemeral. If a bigger, more sparkly, entity came along Crows and Power fans would jump on that, but only after voicing their opposition to the new, bigger, more sparkly thing.
To me, and I reckon many others on here feel the same, that makes the sport meaningless. It's ephemeral, with one strong breeze it is all blown away, and the fickle masses switch onto whatever it is the corporations feed us.
So you're saying the majority took on the new shiny toy, the minority stayed true, that fair?
Yes.
by JK » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:42 pm
matt35 wrote:A fair bit of rewriting of history going on around here imho!
To suggest that by 1990 everything was all roses with the SANFL just isn't how it was. The trend of players leaving was accelerating fast, and would only have continued as in spite of the best efforts of the player retention scheme, we simply were not able to compete with the money available in the AFL. We had at least four clubs that I can think of in serious financial trouble; how exactly does anyone think that situation would have been corrected? More mergers? By 1990 as I remember it the prevailing mood was, albeit I'll grant reluctantly, an acceptance that we would eventually enter a team in to the AFL, but that we were holding out for better terms to do so.
by therisingblues » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:45 pm
by Booney » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:46 pm
matt35 wrote:A fair bit of rewriting of history going on around here imho!
To suggest that by 1990 everything was all roses with the SANFL just isn't how it was. The trend of players leaving was accelerating fast, and would only have continued as in spite of the best efforts of the player retention scheme, we simply were not able to compete with the money available in the AFL. We had at least four clubs that I can think of in serious financial trouble; how exactly does anyone think that situation would have been corrected? More mergers? By 1990 as I remember it the prevailing mood was, albeit I'll grant reluctantly, an acceptance that we would eventually enter a team in to the AFL, but that we were holding out for better terms to do so. That Port's bid sped this process up and weakened our bargaining position is beyond doubt. But I strongly suspect that if it had not been Port, it may well have been another club. To think that we could have just pushed on alone indefinitely as we were, bleeding players and money, is pure dreaming.
by Wedgie » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:46 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by therisingblues » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:47 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |