Port Magpies

[Booney]

Option C for me. The sooner the better. Would probably help the FlowerPower too as the magpies few remaining fans will probably drift to them.

We have the second biggest average away crowds.

[beenreal]

Option C for me. The sooner the better. Would probably help the FlowerPower too as the magpies few remaining fans will probably drift to them.

We have the second biggest average away crowds.

... and the most members!

[sjt]

Option C for me. The sooner the better. Would probably help the FlowerPower too as the magpies few remaining fans will probably drift to them.

We have the second biggest average away crowds.

... and the most members!

So let them rally, work through it and continue on. Other clubs have managed to do it in the past (including Port), so why not Port again? They have the advantage of a large current and also a "dormant" supporter base. Now's the time if they do have the character we always hear about to stand up and display it. If the SANFL/AFL has to contribute then they should.
The true history, premierships in my opinion is with the Magpies.
This time of adversity and lack of success, for one of the few times in their history is not a signal to jump ship but to get on board.
I think those "supporters" through the eighties and nineties that accepted Port's success as their own should be ashamed if they can't back the club now. This is reference to half my "front running" mates not those that post on this site.

[Psyber]

Option C for me. The sooner the better. Would probably help the FlowerPower too as the magpies few remaining fans will probably drift to them.

We have the second biggest average away crowds.

... and the most members!

But will they be able to muster a team?

[fish]

Option C for me. The sooner the better. Would probably help the FlowerPower too as the magpies few remaining fans will probably drift to them.

We have the second biggest average away crowds.

As I said on another thread: "The attendance is probably mostly opposition fans flocking to see their team flog the magpies. Heck I even paid to see Sturt flog the magpies at Alberton earlier this year".

[Pseudo]

Option C for me. The sooner the better. Would probably help the FlowerPower too as the magpies few remaining fans will probably drift to them.

We have the second biggest average away crowds.

Only because you can get cheaper snags at away grounds....

[MightyEagles]

If Only Port didn't get into the AFL, the Magpies wouldn't be in this mess.

[csbowes]

they are probably suffering because the POwer dont make much of a contribution to the SANFL

i must have missed something because i didn't think they had made any contributions at all

We keep getting these silly comments... come on, lets think about it, you have 12 AFL games at AAMI every year that involve the Power, the money the SANFL generates from those games is a financial contribution to the league in its own right.

[james07]

If Only Port didn't get into the AFL, the Magpies wouldn't be in this mess.

Youre right and port didnt want a SANFL side the league made them put a team in. So you want someone to blame then its the SANFL, they should fix the mess.

[Hondo]

If Only Port didn't get into the AFL, the Magpies wouldn't be in this mess.

If they had been allowed to go into the AFL the way the club and its's members wanted to/voted to there wouldn't even be a PAMFC to get into a mess

As has been reported, it was the SANFL Commission (and/or the other 8 clubs?) who changed plans late and decided there had to be a Magpies team in the SANFL still.

That one decision is obviously a key factor behind the financial troubles both PAFC and PAMFC are in now. There's 2 teams out there fighting over the same supporter base. 2 teams fighting over who's history is who.

As I said over on the AFL Board, we can't go back to 1996 and change that decision so I don't know what the right answer is now in 2009.

[csbowes]

I think if the SANFL loses the Magpies it is a tragedy...

... plain and simple.

The Magpies have been without doubt the greatest club in this state. For them to fold and leave the league, I think, relegates the SANFL unquestionably to a shadow of its former self.

You might as well re-launch the league as the SAFA a la 1877 and have a completely new competition with a team from the Barossa and who knows where else. People already criticise the Bulldogs as having won flags in a second rate SANFL, it was something people could debate, folding the Magpies now would put that argument to bed.

Even I, as a Sturt fan, would say winning a flag in a non-Magpies SANFL, would be akin to winning the A1 flag or similar, it wouldn't be the same. Anyone born in the 1990's onwards, I admit, wouldn't see things my way, but I would have thought anyone in their late 30's or older would prefer to see Port in the competition.

This doesn't get Port fans off the hook, if they don't step up to save the club a la Sturt in the 1990's, then that too is a tragedy and ridicule as front-running fans etc will stick.

[sjt]

If Only Port didn't get into the AFL, the Magpies wouldn't be in this mess.

If they had been allowed to go into the AFL the way the club and its's members wanted to/voted to there wouldn't even be a PAMFC to get into a mess

As has been reported, it was the SANFL Commission (and/or the other 8 clubs?) who changed plans late and decided there had to be a Magpies team in the SANFL still.

That one decision is obviously a key factor behind the financial troubles both PAFC and PAMFC are in now. There's 2 teams out there fighting over the same supporter base. 2 teams fighting over who's history is who.

As I said over on the AFL Board, we can't go back to 1996 and change that decision so I don't know what the right answer is now in 2009.

True, but their current supporter base, membership is up there with the best in the SANFL. If this is correct, then this isn't where the problem lies. Greg Edwards said all tiers of club sponsors are on board for next year also. Thus it's not lack of supporters or sponsors.
It may be they're not seeing the full revenue from those supporters at home games that needs to be rectified.

[drifter]

What some people seem to forget is that when the Port came into the AFL, they themselves wanted the doors closed on the Maggies. They were told no way by the SANFL, as they were worried the effect of a magpieless competition on the SANFL. Well guess what, after propping other teams up with attendances with 34% of the supporter base, Port did their bit, the SANFL need to take some responsibility and lend some support, or they are a bunch of hypocrites. 2nd highest away crowds, largest membership, they need to help out.
If Port are serious, this is what they should do.

1. strip back to bear bones by not signing any interstate recruits to new contracts and only honour the existing ones such as Miekejohn and Clayton. Noone else gets one unless its a standard one. A culture has slipped in where some play for the love of money, instead of love of the club, as they have tried to keep up with 10 GRAND a week CENTRAL in pokie heaven in the North. THis should save some money straight away.

2. Play the kids ( which is a cheaer option), the under 18's are strong, and accept that they will finish bottom 2 for a couple of years, while they put some pennies in the bank.

3. At least half of these pennies should go to developing the Prince of Wales to increase its revenue in the long term. After a couple of years the other half should go into some selective recruiting of quality people as well as footballers.

4. If they lose some academy kids to the draft, they receive a drip feed income from the AFL for them the more games that they play.

5. Let Port and South share the first 5 picks of the mini - draft. Port the first 3 and South the next 2 for being bottom, only for this year, under the proviso that they dont pay new players from interstate ( Port only ). These players wont come under the magpies pay structure, so more money saved.

6. being facetious here, maybe the SANFL should pay 34% of their dividend to Port commensurate with their percentage of members in the league.

at the end of the day, you cant compare their plight with Sturt, North, South in the past as no other teams support base is asked to support 2 teams, the Maggies and the Power. The Sanfl have made their bed, now they have to lie in it and give Port some assistance to get a workable model together.

Any thoughts ?

[Pseudo]

As has been reported, it was the SANFL Commission (and/or the other 8 clubs?) who changed plans late and decided there had to be a Magpies team in the SANFL still.

Not strictly correct. When the SANFL canvassed for bids for the second AFL team it stipulated a list of conditions which ought to be met by the successful bid. One of those conditions was that the successful bid retain a presence in the SANFL. IIRC only the Eagles bid ignored this criterion and advocated a complete secession to the AFL. Therefore the plan was always to retain Port in the SANFL. Heck, Brian Cunningham is on record saying that he hoped some way could be found to keep Port in the SANFL, well before the winner was decided - I have a copy of this interview buried somewhere in my footy paraphernalia.

The claim that Port was forced to remain in the SANFL against its wishes is a myth, perpetuated mostly by those PAP DHs who simply do not want to follow a SANFL team anymore and need a vague reason to justify their abandonment of the Magpies.

That one decision is obviously a key factor behind the financial troubles both PAFC and PAMFC are in now. There's 2 teams out there fighting over the same supporter base. 2 teams fighting over who's history is who.

Frankly I doubt that the PAM's issues have any significant effect on the PAP. Consider the relative scale of the two organisations. Without looking at balance sheets, I would suggest that more zeroes are used on the PAP's sheet than on that of the PAMs; they would have to be at least an order of magnitude higher. Should the PAM cease to exist, and its assets & supporters be subsumed entirely by the PAP, little difference would be made to PAP's bottom line. Indeed the only salient difference at all would be that the PAP whingers would have to stick their heads in a different sandpit since they could no longer ascribe their own club's shortcomings on the existence of a minor SANFL team.

[fish]

The Magpies have been without doubt the greatest club in this state. For them to fold and leave the league, I think, relegates the SANFL unquestionably to a shadow of its former self.

The Magpies were the greatest club in the state last century, agreed.

But these days they are a mess both on and off the field so I fail to see the logic that with them gone the standard or status of the SANFL will be diminished. Surely spreading the talent over eight teams instead of nine will result in a higher overall standard?

[Hondo]

Not strictly correct. When the SANFL canvassed for bids for the second AFL team it stipulated a list of conditions which ought to be met by the successful bid. One of those conditions was that the successful bid retain a presence in the SANFL. IIRC only the Eagles bid ignored this criterion and advocated a complete secession to the AFL. Therefore the plan was always to retain Port in the SANFL. Heck, Brian Cunningham is on record saying that he hoped some way could be found to keep Port in the SANFL, well before the winner was decided - I have a copy of this interview buried somewhere in my footy paraphernalia.

I don't think that's right. But, even it was, you said it yourself - the SANFL stipulated a presence be retained in the SANFL. If they did it pre-bid or at the last minute, it's the same thing. Do you know what Port's true plans were if they had their way? They would have been to leave the SANFL and go to the AFL. Hell, that's what 1990's debacle was all about. Why else is Bucky using the word "hope" if it was never in doubt?

On top of that stipulation, out of fear of a super club being created, the SANFL also forced the artificial separation of PAMFC out to Ethelton with split revenue streams which no doubt have harmed PAMFCs financial situation and PAP's. 1 pool of supporters with $$/2 = 0.5. 1 could have = 1. I think it's fair to say that history has shown that the fears of the SANFL at the time had no basis and forcing Port people to choose clubs has harmed both of them.

EDIT: Cornsey on 5AA claims to have documents that support what you were telling me Rowey claims the opposite based on what a former Port director told Rucci

[Magpiespower]

By my reckoning, this is the fourth time in 26 years death has come knocking...

[Booney]

True MP, I also believe North's early 00's plight along with Sturt's of the 90's were both much worse than what we currently face.

[csbowes]

The Magpies have been without doubt the greatest club in this state. For them to fold and leave the league, I think, relegates the SANFL unquestionably to a shadow of its former self.

The Magpies were the greatest club in the state last century, agreed.

But these days they are a mess both on and off the field so I fail to see the logic that with them gone the standard or status of the SANFL will be diminished. Surely spreading the talent over eight teams instead of nine will result in a higher overall standard?

Its not so much standard as it is who the opposition is... you could desolve the league as it is now and have 8 teams called TTG, Smithfield, Hackham West and so on, with the only team from the current SANFL being, lets say, Centrals, winning the flag then would hardly be all that interesting to anyone compared to the prestige of winning one in an earlier era.

That's just how I would feel... beating Hackham West by 6 goals in a grannie just doesn't have the same ring to it as beating Port Adelaide or Norwood for example.

[Booney]

The Magpies have been without doubt the greatest club in this state. For them to fold and leave the league, I think, relegates the SANFL unquestionably to a shadow of its former self.

The Magpies were the greatest club in the state last century, agreed.

But these days they are a mess both on and off the field so I fail to see the logic that with them gone the standard or status of the SANFL will be diminished. Surely spreading the talent over eight teams instead of nine will result in a higher overall standard?

You Johnny-Come lately's should show some more respect. I would think your narrow minded views do not reflect that of the bulk of your supporter group and I apologise to those whom I may have offended.

Perhaps the SANFL began for you in 2000 fish but the rest of us acknowledge the history that is assosciated with the competition.