SA Footy

Again there is mounting pressure to reduce the number of SANFL clubs to 8 due to the financial state of some/many clubs and the looming even tougher impact of the world economic crisis.

This said who do you think would go?

My views on each club's chances of survival (albeit controversial) are outlined below:

Centrals - strong on and off the field with unprecedented recent success and with a good youth base even though they do not necessarily foster it well - ODDS of surviving 6/10 on
Eagles - already been merged once so they are quarantined (luckily) - 8/10 on
Glenelg - ok off pretty good on recently - EVENS
North - very good off-field but underachieved onfield and have not promoted juniors to the extent they should have (may have missed that window) - 15/10
Port - strong history and comp could not survive without them (unfortunately) - 15/10
Norwood - average onfield, and improving off field after being diabolical in both - 2/1
West - basket case onfield and appear to have blown its strong off field position - 50/1
Sturt - basket case off-field and appear to have (maybe) blown its strong onfield position - 80/1
South - total basket case onfield but pretty strong off - poor footy management - do not know how to capitilise on the talent in the deep South - 100/1

MagareyLegend wrote:Port - strong history and comp could not survive without them (unfortunately) - 15/10

History? They're only 10 years old aren't they?
Seriously though, regardless of their perceived supporter base if one club needs to go then the Port Adelaide whatevertheyares should have to choose where their collective heart is - AFL or SANFL - once and for all. They stuffed up our great local league once with their treachery, I'll be damned if their ineptitude is going to bring it down again.

hard to argue against that - evey dog (magpie) has their day

West Adelaide would probably have the strongest Balance Sheet of any SANFL club

I would strongly question that. Why are they not paying their bills then? Trust me, they are in diabolicals

MagareyLegend wrote:I would strongly question that. Why are they not paying their bills then? Trust me, they are in diabolicals

I said Balance Sheet, asset rich, cashflow poor

its not hard to find out, just grab their Annual Report

South have 1000000/1 more chance of hanging around than Port.
And no bookies would take odds on North or Central as they're unbackable about hanging around forever.

Something points to the Roosters.....

Sorry Wedgie, my friend....

Move Port to Noarlunga?

Dog_ger wrote:Something points to the Roosters.....

Sorry Wedgie, my friend....

Umm what does mate, we'll probably be richer than your club in 3 or 4 years and we've won more flags.
If we die, 8 other clubs would have gone before us and we would have spent a few years playing with ourselves!*
I can only assume you think we're a chance at the AFL as that's the only possible explanation?
We'd make more money than the Power so not a bad thought though Dogger.

MagareyLegend wrote:Again there is mounting pressure to reduce the number of SANFL clubs to 8 due to the financial state of some/many clubs and the looming even tougher impact of the world economic crisis.

This said who do you think would go?

My views on each club's chances of survival (albeit controversial) are outlined below:

Centrals - strong on and off the field with unprecedented recent success and with a good youth base even though they do not necessarily foster it well - ODDS of surviving 6/10 on
Eagles - already been merged once so they are quarantined (luckily) - 8/10 on
Glenelg - ok off pretty good on recently - EVENS
North - very good off-field but underachieved onfield and have not promoted juniors to the extent they should have (may have missed that window) - 15/10
Port - strong history and comp could not survive without them (unfortunately) - 15/10
Norwood - average onfield, and improving off field after being diabolical in both - 2/1
West - basket case onfield and appear to have blown its strong off field position - 50/1
Sturt - basket case off-field and appear to have blown its strong onfield position - 80/1
South - total basket case onfield but pretty strong off - poor footy management - do not know how to capitilise on the talent in the deep South - 100/1

West - basket case onfield and appear to have blown its strong off field position - 50/1 OK, they are above budget for the first 4 months of this financial year, that revealed Sunday and it was also stated that it is a slow time of year, they this year are running in the black FACT
South - total basket case onfield but pretty strong off - poor footy management - do not know how to capitilise on the talent in the deep South - 100/1[/quote]The league has to have a side down South and u would be foolish to suggest them
Sturt - basket case off-field and appear to have blown its strong onfield position - 80/1 Closer to the moneyPort - strong history and comp could not survive without them (unfortunately) - 15/10 Can Alberton support two sides, there cash situation is close to Sturts
Norwood - average onfield, and improving off field after being diabolical in both - 2/1 Watch This Space For Interesting News To Come, all off-field

As Wedgie said, Centrals & Norths are the only two safe

The Bays & Eagles,sorry what planet are you on, the league could combine west-glenelg, west-eagles souths-Glenelg, who knows what goes through their brains so to say any one is safe than the above two is total nonsense.

South are currently re-paying the 3mil debt for the renovations undertaken at the ground which makes our current figures look ordinary, yet will easilly be one of the top three most wealthy SANFL clubs going forward.

No doubt various people might well wish it was South that merged or was taken over by their own SANFL club, yet bad luck, you have well and truly missed the boat

Enjoy watching your pathetic adminstrations argue over your colours and how the new side is going to look.........

MagareyLegend wrote:Again there is mounting pressure to reduce the number of SANFL clubs to 8 due to the financial state of some/many clubs and the looming even tougher impact of the world economic crisis.

Mounting pressure from where?

I'm intrigued as to how people can categorically state that certain clubs are basket cases, or can be so sure of certain clubs' cash flow situations. If conclusions are reached based on results from last year, then it is pertinent to point out that those results are now almost 5 months old, and a lot can change in 5 months.

Is it not possible that clubs have put steps in place to turn around off field results from last year and improve their financial position?

dash61 wrote:
The Bays & Eagles,sorry what planet are you on, the league could combine west-glenelg, west-eagles souths-Glenelg, who knows what goes through their brains so to say any one is safe than the above two is total nonsense.

Dash ML is on the money with us, Income over an above budget predictionsalready and a seven figure sponsorship to be announced this Saturday night i think we are going to be OK.

If you look at our financials our loss equated to the loss of pokie turnover whilst the club was being rennovated. Now back operating with 40 machines instead of 25 - we're going OK

whilst we are not in teh league of north and Centrals we aren't too bad off field.

zipzap wrote:

MagareyLegend wrote:Port - strong history and comp could not survive without them (unfortunately) - 15/10

History? They're only 10 years old aren't they?
Seriously though, regardless of their perceived supporter base if one club needs to go then the Port Adelaide whatevertheyares should have to choose where their collective heart is - AFL or SANFL - once and for all. They stuffed up our great local league once with their treachery, I'll be damned if their ineptitude is going to bring it down again.

A few things first i know it was a joke but it since 1870, secondly when port first wanted to join the afl in 1990 there were gonna leave the sanfl all the other clubs kick up a stink and the crows where form and thirdly when those teal wearing ...... entered the afl in 1997 there were going to just have the afl port adealide and no sanfl team. The league however made it a condition that they have a sanfl team as well so it seems that Port did make there mind up however the sanfl knew the comp couldn't survive without us....twice.

nickname wrote:

MagareyLegend wrote:Again there is mounting pressure to reduce the number of SANFL clubs to 8 due to the financial state of some/many clubs and the looming even tougher impact of the world economic crisis.

Mounting pressure from where?

Exactly. I'd be interested in the answer to that question.

[quote="dash61"]Norwood - average onfield, and improving off field after being diabolical in both - 2/1 Watch This Space For Interesting News To Come, all off-field

Mate well done, you've been bleating about the cap for years to divert attention from your own clubs issues, and yep - someone's finally been caught, but you're kidding yourself if you think Norwood wont be around in their own right.

wharf side crew wrote:

zipzap wrote:

MagareyLegend wrote:Port - strong history and comp could not survive without them (unfortunately) - 15/10

History? They're only 10 years old aren't they?
Seriously though, regardless of their perceived supporter base if one club needs to go then the Port Adelaide whatevertheyares should have to choose where their collective heart is - AFL or SANFL - once and for all. They stuffed up our great local league once with their treachery, I'll be damned if their ineptitude is going to bring it down again.

A few things first i know it was a joke but it since 1870, secondly when port first wanted to join the afl in 1990 there were gonna leave the sanfl all the other clubs kick up a stink and the crows where form and thirdly when those teal wearing ...... entered the afl in 1997 there were going to just have the afl port adealide and no sanfl team. The league however made it a condition that they have a sanfl team as well so it seems that Port did make there mind up however the sanfl knew the comp couldn't survive without us....twice.

Fair enough. Let's fold the Power then

couldn't agree more