Peel Thunder going bust, but here's a left field ldea...

[Barto]

the problem with Peel thunder is that they are based so far away from Perth.

Distance isn't even an issue. Mandurah is a pretty big area these days and people commute from there all the time.

Also the New Southern Suburbs Railway (yes, state governments can actually build infrastrucure that isn't more roads!) gets you to and from Mandurah/Perth City in under 40 minutes for about $8 return. Distance is not the issue here. To be honest I'm not sure what is the issue with Peel FC, in theory they should be like the Central Districts of the WAFL...in reality they're more like the Panthers than the Dogs.

It took 35 years for Centrals to win anything. Peel have just come off their most successful season since inception. Their problem was a hostile reception from the traditional clubs who have wanted nothing more than to kill Peel off. They were a year to year proposition for a long time and couldnt even sign players to a significant contract and they've gone through more coaches than South Adelaide.

It'd be a shame to see finances get them when they're just starting to put something together on field.

[therisingblues]

Personal post only

Ingall - my thoughts are based on currently we get approx $500,000 as our distribution from the SANFL each year - or if you like $4.5 million across the 9 clubs.

If goes to 10 then either the SANFL has to find an extra half a million to give out or the 4.5 is divided by 10 meaning we get $450,000 a drop of 50,000 and with less games and the way the 2 AFL teams have been going re crowds etc at AAMI dont think an increase very likely.

I reckon could cost each of the clubs more like $80,000+ in lost revenue.

Col D

Alright so here's one side of the coin. What I want to know is how much revenue is pulled in from staging a match? Reason I am asking is (one, I have no idea, so this question may sound naive...) how will the revenue of playing a match rather than having a bye stack up against the potential $50,000 lost from SANFL allocations?
Another thing to consider is that the 18 rounds everyone keeps bringing up whenever the term 10 team comp is mentioned is not yet set in stone. And for what reasons would anybody wish an 18 round season? Surely the clubs would vote on how many rounds they want and the loss of revenue would be incentive enough to vote for the regular 23 or 22 rounds. That was the system back when Woodville and Torrens were seperate entities, why reduce the rounds if it means less cash to divvy up?

[Sir Red of Norwood]

the problem with Peel thunder is that they are based so far away from Perth.

Distance isn't even an issue. Mandurah is a pretty big area these days and people commute from there all the time.

Also the New Southern Suburbs Railway (yes, state governments can actually build infrastrucure that isn't more roads!) gets you to and from Mandurah/Perth City in under 40 minutes for about $8 return. Distance is not the issue here. To be honest I'm not sure what is the issue with Peel FC, in theory they should be like the Central Districts of the WAFL...in reality they're more like the Panthers than the Dogs.

It took 35 years for Centrals to win anything. Peel have just come off their most successful season since inception. Their problem was a hostile reception from the traditional clubs who have wanted nothing more than to kill Peel off. They were a year to year proposition for a long time and couldnt even sign players to a significant contract and they've gone through more coaches than South Adelaide.

It'd be a shame to see finances get them when they're just starting to put something together on field.

Fair enough, makes a bit more sense. I forget, they were only admitted to the WAFL in 96 or 97, something like that wasn't it? Have they been given a longer term licence by the WAFC?

I've just moved from Perth to Sydney for work, and for those that haven't lived there, in Perth I found the level of media coverage on the WAFL to be quite low, and nowhere near the level of conciousness of the SANFL in Adelaide. Certainly the Weagles and Shockers drown out all but the WAFL Grand Final in most cases, the paper usually has a page in the Friday Main Game section and a small write up in the Monday paper, assuming of course that Cousins/Judd and co didn't kill a US president over the weekend. If "something big" happened, then no local news at all.

Maybe I am just biased, but I feel that it is not quite that bad in Adelaide with the Tiser and the various Messengers, and of course this website still managing to find room for a couple of SANFL stories on a regular basis. I stand to be corrected though.

I lived in Freo first off before moving down to Shockingham, so the nearest club ended up probably as Peel. I went to old Freo oval once to watch a Freo derby* (East v South) in 2007, not too bad a standard, but there was something like 1000 people there. It felt more like country footy than a 2nd tier comp IMO.

*and yes, that's Derrrrr-by in local speak!

[Ingall]

The only way it could be profitable is with AFL support. The AFL would not support an interstate based expansion club in the SANFL.

What about if the expansion was to come from an area that the AFL has frequently indicated they are not interested in (i.e. Tasmania)

[MightyEagles]

Personal post only

Ingall - my thoughts are based on currently we get approx $500,000 as our distribution from the SANFL each year - or if you like $4.5 million across the 9 clubs.

If goes to 10 then either the SANFL has to find an extra half a million to give out or the 4.5 is divided by 10 meaning we get $450,000 a drop of 50,000 and with less games and the way the 2 AFL teams have been going re crowds etc at AAMI dont think an increase very likely.

I reckon could cost each of the clubs more like $80,000+ in lost revenue.

Col D

Alright so here's one side of the coin. What I want to know is how much revenue is pulled in from staging a match? Reason I am asking is (one, I have no idea, so this question may sound naive...) how will the revenue of playing a match rather than having a bye stack up against the potential $50,000 lost from SANFL allocations?
Another thing to consider is that the 18 rounds everyone keeps bringing up whenever the term 10 team comp is mentioned is not yet set in stone. And for what reasons would anybody wish an 18 round season? Surely the clubs would vote on how many rounds they want and the loss of revenue would be incentive enough to vote for the regular 23 or 22 rounds. That was the system back when Woodville and Torrens were seperate entities, why reduce the rounds if it means less cash to divvy up?

The reason people bring up the 18 rounds with the 10 teams is that each team plays each other twice, once at home and once away. At the moment or if there would be more then 18 rounds with 10 teams is that you will play some teams twice and others 3 times in the same year before finals. But I understand your views.

[therisingblues]

The reason people bring up the 18 rounds with the 10 teams is that each team plays each other twice, once at home and once away. At the moment or if there would be more then 18 rounds with 10 teams is that you will play some teams twice and others 3 times in the same year before finals. But I understand your views.

I think you are correct Mighty Eagles. This appears to be the only reason I can come up with also.
The thing is though, is that it doesn't make sense.
In all the time I have followed SANFL, NEVER has my side played all other sides the same number of times. With the 23 rounds and 8 team comp' all teams can only hope to play 4 teams 3 times and the other 4 teams twice, and they'll have the bye 3 times. Eg. In 2007 Sturt played Norwood, Eagles, Central and South twice, and played Port, Glenelg, West and North three times, we had the bye three times.
Same went for the 10 team comp pre-Crows.
So why is it brought up now? What makes our situation so different from every other year of SANFL in my living memory that if we had 10 teams it would only be feasible if all sides played each other twice? Especially when it would impose extra financial hardship on the clubs, and be unwelcomed by the fans.
Either there is another reason, or this is just an extra negative that does not need to be.

[Barto]

The reason people bring up the 18 rounds with the 10 teams is that each team plays each other twice, once at home and once away. At the moment or if there would be more then 18 rounds with 10 teams is that you will play some teams twice and others 3 times in the same year before finals. But I understand your views.

I think you are correct Mighty Eagles. This appears to be the only reason I can come up with also.
The thing is though, is that it doesn't make sense.
In all the time I have followed SANFL, NEVER has my side played all other sides the same number of times. With the 23 rounds and 8 team comp' all teams can only hope to play 4 teams 3 times and the other 4 teams twice, and they'll have the bye 3 times. Eg. In 2007 Sturt played Norwood, Eagles, Central and South twice, and played Port, Glenelg, West and North three times, we had the bye three times.
Same went for the 10 team comp pre-Crows.
So why is it brought up now? What makes our situation so different from every other year of SANFL in my living memory that if we had 10 teams it would only be feasible if all sides played each other twice? Especially when it would impose extra financial hardship on the clubs, and be unwelcomed by the fans.
Either there is another reason, or this is just an extra negative that does not need to be.

I think the only good thing with the 10 team comp was at least you knew that the team you played in round one would the be same team you play in round 10 and 19.

[cd]

Personal post only

The $50,000 loss relates purely to the distribution from the SANFL which is really based on the $ generated by the AFL at AAMI.

We currently play 20 games over 23 rounds - so going to 10 teams means eliminating bye so could be 20 rounds over 20 weeks or balanced as 18 games over 18 weeks a true home and away season or any other combination but each extra game played also increases costs but doesnt necessarily increase SANFL distribution.

Col D

[Benchwarmer]

SMAC: The only way it could be profitable is with AFL support. The AFL would not support an interstate based expansion club in the SANFL.

Unlike the NT team in the QAFL?
Don't double standards sh1t you!

[StrayDog]

In all the time I have followed SANFL, NEVER has my side played all other sides the same number of times.

The last time it was a feature of SAFL / SANFL regular minor round programming was 1975 - the only time it's happened since the mid 1920's.

[therisingblues]

Thank you Stray. I think it follows that there would be little reason to suddenly insist on everyone playing each other the same amount of times now.

CD, firstly thanks for the information realting to gate takings, but it makes me think that if it is true that sometimes SANFL games lose money, then even if the season was reduced by a few games it would be impossible to tell for certain if this would contribute to, or reduce loss of income for clubs.
Also, if the tenth side came from outside SA, they may be self funding and perhaps ruled ineligible for the $500,000 the SANFL currently gives each of its clubs? Thus preserving the grant entirely for the existing 9 clubs.

[cd]

Agreed TRB
A lot of work and sorting out would need to be done - there are times when SANFL games are run at a loss that is why the league distribution of 4.5 million is vital

Col D
Personal Post Only