SA Footy

Can some one put up the profit / loss of all clubs to date that have announced them???

QUESTION : Should the SANFL start returning more monies back to the local clubs than always doing Footy Park upgrades?

QUESTION : These heavy losses have occurred really before the current financial plight in the world economy, what for 2009?

QUESTION : Does the SANFL prop up Port Power in any way who never seems to make any money?

dash61 wrote:QUESTION : Should the SANFL start returning more monies back to the local clubs than always doing Footy Park upgrades?

Always?

local clubs should all be able to stand on their own feet without SANFL financial support, if they keep relying on that then we will have more problems

dash61 wrote:QUESTION : Does the SANFL prop up Port Power in any way who never seems to make any money?

This is an issue that the SANFL as owners of this second license need to have a look at IMO. The Port Power FC is not returning to the SANFL anything like what it should be in terms of revenue.

To many SANFL fans are embittered against them which results in a low turnout in the members and the outer at Football Park. I cant see how this can be changed after the way the club was created. Secondly the club is quite clear that they do not want to play at Adelaide Oval which may boost crowds.

If we can fix the above situation we should be able to see a better return to the SANFL which may help the current situation. If SANFL clubs are expected to nuture and develop Port Power players, it isnt unreasonable to expect that the club reinvest in the SANFL by running a profit.

Dutchy wrote:
local clubs should all be able to stand on their own feet without SANFL financial support, if they keep relying on that then we will have more problems

None of the clubs could survive without the financial support they currently receive from the SANFL.

The mistake was made when putting Port Power in, a Crows Mark 2 would have been a lot more profitable and the SANFL clubs would be all sitting pretty.
Unfortunately emotion and not business acumen was used with the introduction of the 2nd side.

Wedgie wrote:The mistake was made when putting Port Power in, a Crows Mark 2 would have been a lot more profitable and the SANFL clubs would be all sitting pretty.
Unfortunately emotion and not business acument was used with the introduction of the 2nd side.

We're on the same page. Although, I'd probably go a step further and say SA was fine with one team.

Port had massive support in the SANFL on a club comparative basis, but this hasn't translated well into a national competition. A very small fish in the big pond.

Sojourner wrote:

dash61 wrote:QUESTION : Does the SANFL prop up Port Power in any way who never seems to make any money?

This is an issue that the SANFL as owners of this second license need to have a look at IMO. The Port Power FC is not returning to the SANFL anything like what it should be in terms of revenue.

Does the SANFL have a conflict of interest here given their attachment to Footy Park?

nickname wrote:

Dutchy wrote:
local clubs should all be able to stand on their own feet without SANFL financial support, if they keep relying on that then we will have more problems

None of the clubs could survive without the financial support they currently receive from the SANFL.

agree, i meant further financial support which the OP was indicating

if the SANFL gave too much $$$ to the clubs the danger is they may rely on it too much

Wedgie wrote:The mistake was made when putting Port Power in, a Crows Mark 2 would have been a lot more profitable and the SANFL clubs would be all sitting pretty.
Unfortunately emotion and not business acumen was used with the introduction of the 2nd side.

Agreed. I think the SANFL over-estimated the drawing power and marketability of the Port Adelaide Football Club. As much as diehard Port fans may not like to hear this, I know of quite a few pre-Crows Port Adelaide people who jumped on board the Crows in 1991 and were lost to Port forever.

I guess the SANFL saw the number of new footy fans jumping in when the Crows inaugurated, and thought they could capture that army of people out there who weren't Port Adelaide members, didn't attend matches, but were always there in the local hotels celebrating a Port win as if they had played in it

Barto wrote:

Wedgie wrote:The mistake was made when putting Port Power in, a Crows Mark 2 would have been a lot more profitable and the SANFL clubs would be all sitting pretty.
Unfortunately emotion and not business acument was used with the introduction of the 2nd side.

We're on the same page. Although, I'd probably go a step further and say SA was fine with one team.

Port had massive support in the SANFL on a club comparative basis, but this hasn't translated well into a national competition. A very small fish in the big pond.

Disband the Power and divert the perpetual support funds to an 8 team SANFL competition!
While that is being planned and acted on, look carefully at whether another composite team in the AFL is warranted and would be supported.

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.

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

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.

You'd be surprised. Look at Freo (forget about the fact they've done **** 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%.

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.

Exactly

By 1997 the only AFL supporters in SA not already attached to either the Crows or any other AFL side were those Port supporters waiting for their turn. It had to be a team with some link to an existing SANFL supporter base. You could argue till the cows come home about whether it could have been another club or a consortium but it doesn't change where we are now.

The irony is the SANFL fans who hate the Crows but claim they would actually support a Crows Mark II. What's the difference?? If not Port, then we would have been better off with no second side.

Freo are a different case to what we had in SA in 1996. I won't try to explain it here but you can refer to several threads on BigFooty about it. It's a different geographic area from Perth contaning 2 popular WAFL teams. It would have been like, say, Port and Centrals joining to form an AFL side.

The SANFL itself is very financial as far as I am aware. I suspect they are trying to avoid a $$ hand-out mentality with the 9 clubs, as several posters have said. It's a mentality that has plagued many Victorian based AFL teams for a long time. They just never get their act together until the gun is put to their head, a la North Melbourne 12 months ago. Now they seem to be on the right track.

hondo71 wrote:The irony is the SANFL fans who hate the Crows but claim they would actually support a Crows Mark II. What's the difference??

Quite simply because they don't have Crows supporters following them.
That's the only thing that puts me off the Crows and stops me going to more AFL games in Adelaide.

Wedgie wrote:

hondo71 wrote:The irony is the SANFL fans who hate the Crows but claim they would actually support a Crows Mark II. What's the difference??

Quite simply because they don't have Crows supporters following them.
That's the only thing that puts me off the Crows and stops me going to more AFL games in Adelaide.

Isn't your wife a Crows supporter?

Would Crows Mark II supporters be any "better" ... why?

Actually, you're a good case study Wedge. You passionately support Geelong. Crows Mark II might be something you go to occasionally out of curiosity. But I am talking about new passionate supporters who follow Crows Mark II as their first side, not SANFL fans who go along every so often to stick it up the Crows. ie, people who ditch their existing AFL team and jump on the Crows Mark II bandwagon. How many would truly have done that? Those SANFL fans who just "like to go to an AFL game" would disappear if the on-field results dropped off. You need hard-core fans.

They'd be struggling for numbers to games more than the Power are currently. The Crows stitched up the market, rightly or wrongly.

hondo71 wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

hondo71 wrote:The irony is the SANFL fans who hate the Crows but claim they would actually support a Crows Mark II. What's the difference??

Quite simply because they don't have Crows supporters following them.
That's the only thing that puts me off the Crows and stops me going to more AFL games in Adelaide.

Isn't your wife a Crows supporter?

Would Crows Mark II supporters be any "better" ... why?

Yes, but Im talking about your typical Footy Park attending Crows supporter, I actually don't mind watching Crows games in Melbourne as they have a better breed of fan go to those games. Plus she's a Geelong member and not a Crows member, that's what really counts.

Crows Mark II supporters would be a hell of a lot better as they'd be there for completely different reasons.
Anyway, it aint going to happen, people are too stubborn to admit their mistakes and turn back the clock, we should move on, I'll just continue to pay for my Melbourne Geelong membership for the family and rack up a few more ks and send my money to Victoria instead of the SANFL.

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...

Barto wrote:

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.

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.