Tasmania or NT side to be 10th team in SANFL?

[pipers]

Before the Crows joined the AFL the SANFL got at least 30,000 to every round gauranteed. A good round got in excess of 40,000 and on rare occassions I think there were rounds in excess of 50,000.
Nowadays to get more than 20,000 to a single round is almost unheard of (though circumstances are almost perfect for that to happen this round). Our Grand Final and Finals attendances are steadily declining.
What's even more disturbing is that the SANFL's attendances are far in excess of what a second string competition usually draws anywhere in the world. The decline we are experiencing will eventually level off somewhere around the usual mark for a second string competition (probably around 3,000 to 6,000 a round of footy) as those that remember the "good old days" start dropping off, or get too old to go the footy.
IT'S BROKE BABY! IT'S BROKE!

And a 10th team is going to help that how???

Don't forget the AFL is about to drain the talent pool of the 2nd-tier leagues even further soon with the introduction of two more teams. Gold Coast and West Sydney will presumably get priority picks from QLD, NSW and very possibly NT, so the kids with talent who would have filled that NTFL team will be drafted to AFL lists.

The other factor to think about here is that 10 teams would make an 18-game season the logical answer (remember that with 18 clubs the AFL could potentially move to a 17 week season, and will no doubt put pressure on 2nd-tier leagues to fall in line.)

So with a reduction from 11 home games to 9 you reduce home game income by approx 18%, and with one of the away games being 3,000kms away you will add significant cost.

It doesn't even make sense from a business perspective!

Extension of the SANFL to 10 teams is exactly the opposite of what should be being considered now. I like 9 teams personally as I think the bye works well for a number of reasons. 9 teams could be maintained, but the standard (and perhaps the crowds) will drop further when those two new AFL teams come in.

I think the time is right to make the tough calls and reduce the SANFL to 8 clubs somehow.

An 8 team league would allow a 21 week season and the reduction in overall standard of play would be minimal, possibly even prevented.

Consideration of a 10th team now is just stupidity.

[pipers]

Unfortunately we can stay the same and slowly become irrelevant or become a national league and fight for exposure.

FFS! There is no point even considering "fighting for exposure" on the national stage. As you suggest yourself the AFL will squash that sooner than you can say "Demetriou is a ****".

Hang on to what we've got. Make sure it is strong, healthy and viable, and look to maximise the opportunities that do exist to make small increases to crowds, media coverage etc with REALISTIC strategies.

[pipers]

Well Port at least is broke - you can't deny that

Could be better, but we are moving in the right direction there lately...

To be honest pretty much every club is travelling in the right direction again now after some shaky years for a few...

SO WHY WOULD WE WANT TO JEOPARDISE THAT BY INTRODUCING A NEW TEAM!!!

[am Bays]

Unfortunately we can stay the same and slowly become irrelevant or become a national league and fight for exposure.

FFS! There is no point even considering "fighting for exposure" on the national stage. As you suggest yourself the AFL will squash that sooner than you can say "Demetriou is a ****".

Hang on to what we've got. Make sure it is strong, healthy and viable, and look to maximise the opportunities that do exist to make small increases to crowds, media coverage etc with REALISTIC strategies.

[pipers]

Oh, and if the SA Footy Commission is doing it's job properly they should ensure that neither Crows or Powder vote in favour of admitting the two new AFL clubs - unless that is done with the 16 team format being retained.

[doggies4eva]

Ok fatal you have raised some serious points so I will give you a serious reply.

1. Forget about trying to stop another 2 AFL teams - it will happen. It has to. Grow or die is the basic rule of any business including sporting business.

2. Your point about 2 less home games meaning the clubs will lose revenue - wrong! Take a look at any clubs accounts. They don't make money from games - they lose it. They make money from sponsors and pokies. Do you really think a crowd of 3,000 pays enough to pay staffing, cleaning, players match fees etc? I don't think so.

So the name of the game is to have an enhanced product - ie cover a wider region. The AFL knows this hence the strategy to move teams into the areas that are largely unserviced. I would like them to go further - think about a second division or manage a regional set of leagues but that is hoping for too much. Unfortunately their structure means that the decision making around the borad room table is very much focussed on the needs of the Melbourne based clubs as they have the votes. This leaves the SANFL alone and needing to come up with innovative ideas to grow support in the game.

[pipers]

Ok fatal you have raised some serious points so I will give you a serious reply.

1. Forget about trying to stop another 2 AFL teams - it will happen. It has to. Grow or die is the basic rule of any business including sporting business.

2. Your point about 2 less home games meaning the clubs will lose revenue - wrong! Take a look at any clubs accounts. They don't make money from games - they lose it. They make money from sponsors and pokies. Do you really think a crowd of 3,000 pays enough to pay staffing, cleaning, players match fees etc? I don't think so.

So the name of the game is to have an enhanced product - ie cover a wider region. The AFL knows this hence the strategy to move teams into the areas that are largely unserviced. I would like them to go further - think about a second division or manage a regional set of leagues but that is hoping for too much. Unfortunately their structure means that the decision making around the borad room table is very much focussed on the needs of the Melbourne based clubs as they have the votes. This leaves the SANFL alone and needing to come up with innovative ideas to grow support in the game.

1. Agree - but just shows how weak the SA Footy Commision actually is due to significant conflict of interest.

2. Agree with basic match revenue, but two more games means two more opportunities for exposure of sponsors and two more opportunities for fans to return to the club/pub and use the pokies, buy meals/drinks.

Think about it some more and then come back to me...

[pipers]

Think about it some more and then come back to me...

sorry - that was harsh...

[doggies4eva]

Think about it some more and then come back to me...

sorry - that was harsh...

You are quite a gentleman for a Port supporter.

The point with the AFL is despite the heavy parocialism of the AFL towards looking after the interests of the Melbourne clubs they are still are developing plans to grow another 2 teams in QLD/NSW. This is quite vsionary and in the long term interests of the game. I don't see much visionary stuff at SANFL - even the idea of having an NT side is regularly criticised by posters on this site who are not able to accept change.

[Pseudo]

I don't see much visionary stuff at SANFL - even the idea of having an NT side is regularly criticised by posters on this site who are not able to accept change.

There is a fine line between "visionary" and "stupid". Usually one can only see the boundary in retrospect. While I personally am ambivalent about the introduction of a tenth team, I do see that a number of issues must be resolved for it to happen. Monsieur Fatal has touched on a few of these issues. Should the league blindly forge ahead and admit new clubs without concern for the league as a whole, then I suspect in 20 years the move would be described as "stupid" rather than "visionary".

(addendum) I suspect that the AFL's current expansionist policy will come to be viewed as "stupid" in 20 years time...

[doggies4eva]

Pseudo, we have different opinions here. What I regard as stupid was the NRL's slowness in realising that the footy codes have to forget their traditional boundaries and go national - the result - a huge increase in $s from TV and sponsors for AFL. It is now time for this successful move to be followed up with a further expansion. This isn't a sudden out there idea - the AFL has been putting considerable resources into developing grass roots interest in NSW and QLD for years - with junior footy clinics and the like. There are gradually more players playing AFL from outside the traditional states of Vic, SA, Wa and Tassie. Better rethink your idea of stupid

[pipers]

Pseudo, we have different opinions here. What I regard as stupid was the NRL's slowness in realising that the footy codes have to forget their traditional boundaries and go national

To some extent the NRL proves Psuedo and I right though.

Yes, their "slowness" saw SuperLeague come into existence, but in pretty much every respect that was an abject failure.

Remember the Rams? I know I don't.

Since this hiccup the NRL has attempted to recover with knee-jerk strategies which have seen many of its member clubs take part in mergers and name changes and relocations. These activities have not been well-managed and have only achieved a dilution or complete destruction of any "tribal" affiliation that anyone feels for any of the surviving clubs.

The NRL has suffered from the delusion that they have a marketable commodity that can be packed up and sold to new markets. What they fail to realise is that essentially it is a shit product that even those reared on the game are abandoning in droves due to the "business" focus of those who run the game.

AFL is potentially heading that way, but they ARE smarter and will avoid some of the pitfalls that befell the NRL. However their keen-ness for a second Sydney team (at this stage) is bizarre in my opinion.

Having said all that, I see no need at all for the SANFL to do anything similar.

[pipers]

Ok fatal you have raised some serious points so I will give you a serious reply.

1. Forget about trying to stop another 2 AFL teams - it will happen. It has to. Grow or die is the basic rule of any business including sporting business.

Grow or Die. Surely it's about margins rather than just market share - especially when the competition for the disposable $ is about to get tighter than we've seen for the past 20 years...

I think of the AFL as a large corporate entity with 16 core businesses and a significant marketing arm that serves all those businesses.

Currently, 1, 2, maybe 3 of their businesses are running at a loss. Now, you can run low-level losses for a while if you believe those markets will return profit over the longer term.

But tell me how North, Melbourne or St Kilda will run a profit.

I agree, the need is there to grow business in new markets, subject to them being likely to turn a profit in the longer term. Gold Coast does appear to have potential. West Sydney is a less convincing case. Surely there should be a divestment of a couple of their loss-making activities before they gamble on another emerging market.

[am Bays]

- even the idea of having an NT side is regularly criticised by posters on this site who are not able to accept change.

As someone who has debated the NT option with you ad nauseum Doggies4eva, I resent that comment.

I'm not against change and would be more than happy to accept change with a Sydney or Brisbane reserves side coming in or even a Tassie side. I just don't want change for change sake and I certainly don't want change that will ahve a negative effect on our competition which is what IMO an NT side would be or an expansion within the state.

Yes good organisations change and expand but they change and expand into viable markets (where teh population is to market their brand) and they certainly don't dilute it (expanding to a 10 team competition with the confines of a state border.


My thoughts on the NT concept are well known

[smac]

Some interesting observations fatal.

But for the AFL, their biggest single revenue stream is the TV rights. If they can pump them up above a billion bucks with 18 teams, what difference does a $10m loss amongst the clubs make?

The numbers used are rudimentary, I know - but the point remains the same as if they were more accurate.

[doggies4eva]

Grow or Die. Surely it's about margins rather than just market share - especially when the competition for the disposable $ is about to get tighter than we've seen for the past 20 years...

I think of the AFL as a large corporate entity with 16 core businesses and a significant marketing arm that serves all those businesses.

But tell me how North, Melbourne or St Kilda will run a profit.

I agree, the need is there to grow business in new markets, subject to them being likely to turn a profit in the longer term. Gold Coast does appear to have potential. West Sydney is a less convincing case. Surely there should be a divestment of a couple of their loss-making activities before they gamble on another emerging market.

Its about both margins and market share. If the NRL had a couple of years jump on the AFL it may have been a different story - maybe the Crows would have struggled and the Rams would be memorable!

I sort of agree that the AFL is the business but it is a strange business where your core businesses produce the same product, compete for resources (players and $s) and outcomes (flags and wins). A regular business would not accept unprofitable regions - ie multiple Melbourne teams and would rationalise - that has happened to a degree with Sth Melb and Fitzroy but the determination to survive has forced them to create the new teams - they have been offering deals to Melbourne clubs to move for years. Of course you know all of this so I will come to the point.

The point is the AFL is slowly evolvong to be a true National comp. This has caused a major problem for the State leagues that have gone from being the biggest game in town to ?? what - I don't really know! and neither does the general public. I would say that most people that post here are remnants from the pre-Crows era. What happens as we all get old and die?

The SANFL needs to reinvent itself (and justify the "N" in its name).

It IS broken at the moment.

[doggies4eva]

As someone who has debated the NT option with you ad nauseum Doggies4eva, I resent that comment.

You are being a bit sensitive Tassie. That comment was not intentionally aimed at you as you can usually justify your comments with a reasoned arguement. Not that I always agree mind you.

I was more thinking of the people who think that Elizabeth is too far to drive to see their team and that it their reason for not wanting a geographical expansion.

Am mystified how a Sydney team would be OK with you but not an NT one. What's your reasoning there?

[am Bays]

My basis about a Sydney or Brisbane team is purely the market opportunities a market of potentially 4 million provides compared to 200 000.

Now not all Sydney-siders are going to be interested in a Sydeny Swans reserves team playing in the SANFL but my point is the marketing opportunities in Sydney and to a lesser extent QLD are far greater than the NT.

Put this way if I was CEO of a SANFL club I would get more attention from potential sponsors offering them the ability to pitch to the Sydney market than the NT market...

[doggies4eva]

My basis about a Sydney or Brisbane team is purely the market opportunities a market of potentially 4 million provides compared to 200 000.

Now not all Sydney-siders are going to be interested in a Sydeny Swans reserves team playing in the SANFL but my point is the marketing opportunities in Sydney and to a lesser extent QLD are far greater than the NT.

Put this way if I was CEO of a SANFL club I would get more attention from potential sponsors offering them the ability to pitch to the Sydney market than the NT market...

OK - not bad thinking but I would suggest that if you did market research into those 4 million you would find that those that you could market to would rapidly decline - they may follow Rugby (but not go), or another sport or hate sport or....
While in the NT you start with only 200,000 people but a high % are interested in footy and would follow an NT team in a semi-national comp. The fact is I beleve that you would get bigger crowds at an SANFL game in Darwin than in Sydney - after all if they are interested they can see the Swans and will soon have another choice. Same story for Brisbane.

Plus if an NT side was in the SANFL it would get media coverage. Doubt that a Sydeny based SANFL side could acheive that - hence more sponsorship clout for the existing 9 SA clubs.

[Hondo]

But for the AFL, their biggest single revenue stream is the TV rights. If they can pump them up above a billion bucks with 18 teams, what difference does a $10m loss amongst the clubs make?

The numbers used are rudimentary, I know - but the point remains the same as if they were more accurate.

Spot on smac - after the next TV rights deal with 18 teams the AFL could keep propping up Melbourne teams and still be in front

TV $$$ > prop up $$$

Individual club's trading results outside TV rights $$$ are going to become irrelevant