by dash61 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:40 am
by Dutchy » Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:00 am
dash61 wrote:QUESTION : Should the SANFL start returning more monies back to the local clubs than always doing Footy Park upgrades?
by Sojourner » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:02 am
dash61 wrote:QUESTION : Does the SANFL prop up Port Power in any way who never seems to make any money?
by nickname » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:19 am
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
by Wedgie » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:37 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Barto » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:47 am
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.
by JK » Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:57 am
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.
by Dutchy » Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:59 am
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.
by Adelaide Hawk » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:06 pm
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.
by Jimmy_041 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:09 pm
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.
by Psyber » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:10 pm
by nickname » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:53 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:56 pm
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.
by Barto » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:06 pm
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.
by Hondo » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:12 pm
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.
by Wedgie » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:27 pm
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??
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Hondo » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:36 pm
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.
by Wedgie » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:07 pm
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?
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Punk Rooster » Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:48 pm
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by nickname » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:01 pm
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%.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |