Financial Plight Of The SANFL

[Barto]

Who would have followed a 'Crows MkII' side though? Once they'd admitted what was essentially a state side, I would have thought the only supporters you could attract to a second side would be those with a loyalty to an existing club.

You'd be surprised. Look at Freo (forget about the fact they've done f*** all etc), they're basically a composite club but have much better levels of support than Port Adelaide and the split in the support for the two teams locally is much closer than Crows/Port.

Even if Port Adelaide had triple the level of support of any other club, that's still only 30%.

Freo supporters would initially have been made up of supporters of East Fremantle and South Fremantle, i.e. existing clubs.

You'd think so looking from the outside. A lot of die-hards Souths and Sharks fans weren't impressed at all from the early days. Neesham was a Claremont bloke, many of the initial squad were Claremont players.

It's too simplistic to say "Dockers supporters were originally Souths and East Freo". Those two groups of supporters hated each other with a passion and their criticism of the Dockers is that there wasn't much "Freo" in Freo.

Believe me when I tell you that the Dockers were more and anti-Eagles than anything.

I go back to my point that SA football would have been better served by a strong single club. Than one profitable composite team and one loss making traditional club.

[cd]

Personal Post Only - very much personal thoughts only

I have always believed that the 2 licenses for the AFL in SA should have been shared by the clubs. 5 clubs have one and 4 clubs and the affliated leagues have the other.

Each club elects 2 to the board of the AFL club and the SANFL appoint the chair independently so each club has 11 board members.

The 5 clubs share the profits - so your SANFL club will get 20% of the profit of the AFL club directly paid to them.

You can only be a member of the AFL club by joining your SANFL club ie you get dual membership.

All SANFL folk would then have direct ownership into an AFL club based in SA plus a reason to support them and make them successful as the SANFL club would need their AFL team to be successful.

Further it would mean the SANFL coach only dealing with one AFL team system for draft folk.

I would thus have had the Crows owned by 5 Sanfl Clubs and the 'Southern Sharks' owned by the 4 other clubs plus the affliated leagues which would see 20% of their profits going directly to Ameteur clubs - city and country.

As I said my thoughts only and only as discussion points

Col D

[Barto]

You can only be a member of the AFL club by joining your SANFL club ie you get dual membership.

I really liked this. I always thought in the early days that when you joined up with the Crows, there could be an option to select a SANFL team you supported and a small portion of the membership would go to that club.

[JK]

You can only be a member of the AFL club by joining your SANFL club ie you get dual membership.

I really liked this. I always thought in the early days that when you joined up with the Crows, there could be an option to select a SANFL team you supported and a small portion of the membership would go to that club.

Same ... And something I floated in many circles (including on here and with my own club) as far back as 5 years ago.

[nickname]

Freo supporters would initially have been made up of supporters of East Fremantle and South Fremantle, i.e. existing clubs.

You'd think so looking from the outside. A lot of die-hards Souths and Sharks fans weren't impressed at all from the early days. Neesham was a Claremont bloke, many of the initial squad were Claremont players.

It's too simplistic to say "Dockers supporters were originally Souths and East Freo". Those two groups of supporters hated each other with a passion and their criticism of the Dockers is that there wasn't much "Freo" in Freo.

Believe me when I tell you that the Dockers were more and anti-Eagles than anything.

I go back to my point that SA football would have been better served by a strong single club. Than one profitable composite team and one loss making traditional club.[/quote]

Yeah, good points. Unfortunately the loss-making traditional club forced the SANFL's hand.

[Barto]

Yeah, good points. Unfortunately the loss-making traditional club forced the SANFL's hand.

Are we talking the formation of the Crows? That was fine, after the debacle of 1990 there was time to settle and have a decent look at a second licence.

FWIW: I hear WWT actually presented a very professional bid.

[oldfella]

I understood that the second license was always going to be Port as the AFL commission made it very clear that it was the only application suitable to them - reward for undercutting all other SANFL clubs by back door negotiation.

[Jimmy_041]

despite being A Collingwood supporter, I may have ended up suoporting Adel Crows V2.0
The excessive Glenelg flavour of the Crows turned me off- & I was enthusiastic about the Crows until they appointed the staff...

Re: Financial Plight Of The SANFL
nickname wrote:
Who would have followed a 'Crows MkII' side though? Once they'd admitted what was essentially a state side, I would have thought the only supporters you could attract to a second side would be those with a loyalty to an existing club.


In the first few years, every supporter from every club other than Glenelg
_________________
GO PIES!

Agreed