SA Footy

Booney wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I'm a tad baffled that Booney has started up a thread without getting the thesaurus out for the title

You think I use a thesaurus?

Yes

Dutchy wrote:Yet Hawks have increased their membership by going to Tassie?

Difference between membership and season tickets though. Despite them having nearly 20,000 members more than us they made $2m less revenue from membership last season. They have got a lot more general memberships and 3 game memberships but lost plenty of top end ones.
Once again the ones getting hurt the most are the ones who rock up each and every week rain, hail or shine. Wouldn't have an issue with the Dogs going to Ballarat if it held 25-30k but 11k is a joke.
If the Crows or Port were offered $1m a game to play at Norwood oval do you think they would?

Jim05 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Yet Hawks have increased their membership by going to Tassie?

Difference between membership and season tickets though. Despite them having nearly 20,000 members more than us they made $2m less revenue from membership last season. They have got a lot more general memberships and 3 game memberships but lost plenty of top end ones.
Once again the ones getting hurt the most are the ones who rock up each and every week rain, hail or shine. Wouldn't have an issue with the Dogs going to Ballarat if it held 25-30k but 11k is a joke.
If the Crows or Port were offered $1m a game to play at Norwood oval do you think they would?

Port would in a heartbeat. Why do they play in Alice?

Booney wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Yet Hawks have increased their membership by going to Tassie?

I think 3 premierships in a row might have something to do with that.

So they play 4 in Tassie, but only leave Melbourne 5 times ( in 2016, anyway ) so it's not like supporters / members are missing out.

And Im sure the Bullies will negotiate something similar.

"The Hawks have also grown their Tasmanian membership figure year-on-year since 2007, reaching a record number of 8948 members in 2015."

Dutchy wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Yet Hawks have increased their membership by going to Tassie?

Difference between membership and season tickets though. Despite them having nearly 20,000 members more than us they made $2m less revenue from membership last season. They have got a lot more general memberships and 3 game memberships but lost plenty of top end ones.
Once again the ones getting hurt the most are the ones who rock up each and every week rain, hail or shine. Wouldn't have an issue with the Dogs going to Ballarat if it held 25-30k but 11k is a joke.
If the Crows or Port were offered $1m a game to play at Norwood oval do you think they would?

Port would in a heartbeat. Why do they play in Alice?

Do they give up a home game for that or is it like the China game where the opposition gives up a home game?

Dutchy wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Yet Hawks have increased their membership by going to Tassie?

Difference between membership and season tickets though. Despite them having nearly 20,000 members more than us they made $2m less revenue from membership last season. They have got a lot more general memberships and 3 game memberships but lost plenty of top end ones.
Once again the ones getting hurt the most are the ones who rock up each and every week rain, hail or shine. Wouldn't have an issue with the Dogs going to Ballarat if it held 25-30k but 11k is a joke.
If the Crows or Port were offered $1m a game to play at Norwood oval do you think they would?

Port would in a heartbeat. Why do they play in Alice?

They dont give up a home game to play in alice, they just choose to be the away team

Dutchy wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Yet Hawks have increased their membership by going to Tassie?

Difference between membership and season tickets though. Despite them having nearly 20,000 members more than us they made $2m less revenue from membership last season. They have got a lot more general memberships and 3 game memberships but lost plenty of top end ones.
Once again the ones getting hurt the most are the ones who rock up each and every week rain, hail or shine. Wouldn't have an issue with the Dogs going to Ballarat if it held 25-30k but 11k is a joke.
If the Crows or Port were offered $1m a game to play at Norwood oval do you think they would?

Port would in a heartbeat. Why do they play in Alice?

Melbournes home games.

For no financial benefit?

Dutchy wrote:For no financial benefit?

Excellent opportunity to expand on our indigenous programs. Not sure what the financial benefit from the game is but I'd imagine it would be cost neutral or cost negative with the cultural program leaders there for some days before and after the match.

Booney wrote:

Dutchy wrote:For no financial benefit?

Excellent opportunity to expand on our indigenous programs. Not sure what the financial benefit from the game is but I'd imagine it would be cost neutral or cost negative with the cultural program leaders there for some days before and after the match.

I think the cultural program stuff would come out of the port community ltd wages rather than the Port club or football department

bennymacca wrote:I know they won it, but think automatically installing the dogs as favourites again is a bit short. They only finished seventh in the regular season. Of course they had a massive finals. Then again, they did overcome some huge injuries, so some better luck next year should see them top 4.

I reckon GWS and Sydney are the ones to beat.

The next few years has "crows losing prelims" written all over it

You wish.

regards,

REB

GWS loom large. They will only improve and will be hard to beat next season.

Sydney will be around the mark with there young players like Mills and Heeney getting games into them. Both are very good players and will start to get midfield time.

WB will be up there. Again some older players on the list but there core grunt of players are on the younger side. If Tom Boyd can take the next step from the GF then that forward line will be interesting.

The Crows in my opinion will be up there, not alot of turn over from that list and we havent seen much from there young drsfties yet like Milera.

I think the Hawks, Geelong and my Eagles will make the 8 but maybe not top 4. I thinkit will be very competitive with teams like St.kilda and Melbourne showing alot of improvement.

North are an interesting one, possibly missing the 8 or battling for a 7th or 8th spot maybe.

stan wrote:North are an interesting one, possibly missing the 8 or battling for a 17th or 18th spot maybe.

Fixed that for you

Mr Beefy wrote:

stan wrote:North are an interesting one, possibly missing the 8 or battling for a 17th or 18th spot maybe.

Fixed that for you

Oh I see.

stan wrote:GWS loom large. They will only improve and will be hard to beat next season.

Sydney will be around the mark with there young players like Mills and Heeney getting games into them. Both are very good players and will start to get midfield time.

WB will be up there. Again some older players on the list but there core grunt of players are on the younger side. If Tom Boyd can take the next step from the GF then that forward line will be interesting.

The Crows in my opinion will be up there, not alot of turn over from that list and we havent seen much from there young drsfties yet like Milera.

I think the Hawks, Geelong and my Eagles will make the 8 but maybe not top 4. I thinkit will be very competitive with teams like St.kilda and Melbourne showing alot of improvement.

North are an interesting one, possibly missing the 8 or battling for a 7th or 8th spot maybe.

Interesting one, Adelaide. If they don't add something to the midfield pace wise and get more out of Mackay, Douglas, Cameron, Brown, McGovern on a regular basis ( all had good games this year, but too few ) they might not make their way any further in September.

Then the coaches need to work out if they continue to grind Jacobs into the ground or give Jenkins more time rucking and unravel the forward structure they have in place. They also need to see what "other" plans they have as the good sides, the smart sides, worked them out late in the year.

They also need to find Jenkins a mirror, some scales and a tape measure. Then explain to him that 200cm and 100kg you can impact games with your physical presence.

AFL has purchased Etihad Stadium, there goes our cushy deal lol

Jim05 wrote:AFL has purchased Etihad Stadium, there goes our cushy deal lol

Was always going to happen. Sorry Jimbo but your cushy deal is done now. Looks like the Dogs and WB will get better deals and yours might be a bit more smelly.

stan wrote:

Jim05 wrote:AFL has purchased Etihad Stadium, there goes our cushy deal lol

Was always going to happen. Sorry Jimbo but your cushy deal is done now. Looks like the Dogs and WB will get better deals and yours might be a bit more smelly.

Much better for North & St.Kilda also.

stan wrote:

Jim05 wrote:AFL has purchased Etihad Stadium, there goes our cushy deal lol

Was always going to happen. Sorry Jimbo but your cushy deal is done now. Looks like the Dogs and WB will get better deals and yours might be a bit more smelly.

Doubt it, we are still the biggest and most profitable tenant there and with talks we are going back to the MCG by 2018 I think they will offer up a new deal, I do agree that it won't be anywhere near our last one though which was amazing

Spargo wrote:

stan wrote:

Jim05 wrote:AFL has purchased Etihad Stadium, there goes our cushy deal lol

Was always going to happen. Sorry Jimbo but your cushy deal is done now. Looks like the Dogs and WB will get better deals and yours might be a bit more smelly.

Much better for North & St.Kilda also.

Geez I think I meant to right North and not refer to the dogs twice. Not overly switched on today.