SA Footy

Totally agree. Plenty of competition for both time and dollars.

No way the mrs would let me get away with attending two games a week regularly. And we don't even have kids yet.

bennymacca wrote:Totally agree. Plenty of competition for both time and dollars.

No way the mrs would let me get away with attending two games a week regularly. And we don't even have kids yet.

Tell her you will take her out for lunch....just don't tell her lunch will be a pie and a coke

Haha.

I have more luck saying she can go out with the girls, and leave me in peace to watch the footy

Possibly interesting tidbit.

Looked up how Sydney and Brisbane have done in their reserves comps.

Brisbane have won 3 premierships in AFLQ or NEAFL, 2001, 2012, 2013

Sydney have won 4 - in AFL Canberra 2005-2008 and were runner up in 2013

Both sides seem to have been very competitive in both the NEAFL and their respective comps before the NEAFL was formed, but neither were the most successful over that time (ainsley and southport respectively)

Obviously different setups but a worthwhile comparison

bennymacca wrote:Possibly interesting tidbit.

Looked up how Sydney and Brisbane have done in their reserves comps.

Brisbane have won 3 premierships in AFLQ or NEAFL, 2001, 2012, 2013

Sydney have won 4 - in AFL Canberra 2005-2008 and were runner up in 2013

Both sides seem to have been very competitive in both the NEAFL and their respective comps before the NEAFL was formed, but neither were the most successful over that time (ainskey and southport respectively)

Obviously different setups but a worthwhile comparison

Think you will find that they don't or didn't play with a full 18 on the ground.

bennymacca wrote:Possibly interesting tidbit.

Looked up how Sydney and Brisbane have done in their reserves comps.

Brisbane have won 3 premierships in AFLQ or NEAFL, 2001, 2012, 2013

Sydney have won 4 - in AFL Canberra 2005-2008 and were runner up in 2013

Both sides seem to have been very competitive in both the NEAFL and their respective comps before the NEAFL was formed, but neither were the most successful over that time (ainsley and southport respectively)

Obviously different setups but a worthwhile comparison

Its Seems both Sydney and Brisbane reserves won the premiership last year. However I have read conflicting but these two links suugest they were.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrjorge/s ... 5535201343

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2013 ... s-reserves

Last year they had a conference system which was qld and nt in the northern and Canberra in the eastern. They played people in the other conference less often, and had their own finals, so there was a northern (Brisbane) and eastern (Sydney) premier that then played off in a grand final for the NEAFL premiership, which Brisbane won.

They have moved away from that this year, with some of the qld teams leaving the comp and a couple of Sydney teams added, in a single conference.

Wiki article explains it ok

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ea ... all_League

woodublieve12 wrote:

Ronnie wrote:

TimmiesChin wrote:

Ronnie wrote:If that were true then crowds wouldn't have fallen the way they did back in 1991. I'm not talking about armchair supporters here but genuine people who care enough about their club to go to games and have an active involvement and passion.

Probably because your definition of support requires one to attend games. I grew up in the country, so my form of support was listening to games on the radio and barracking as loud as I could.

Not always, lots of older and sick people and people in remote locations can't get to games, that's a given. Family life etc, all impacts.

in your case i take that if you had the opportunity to go to games you would've done so. You would've chosen to attend.

My previous comments are aimed at the crows supporters who did attend SANFL games but chose not to after 1991, but still went to the football. In other words they transferred their allegiance. What do you say about those people?

nothing. they can do what they want...

His point is that they abandoned their loyalties.

bennymacca wrote:Possibly interesting tidbit.

Looked up how Sydney and Brisbane have done in their reserves comps.

Brisbane have won 3 premierships in AFLQ or NEAFL, 2001, 2012, 2013

Sydney have won 4 - in AFL Canberra 2005-2008 and were runner up in 2013

Both sides seem to have been very competitive in both the NEAFL and their respective comps before the NEAFL was formed, but neither were the most successful over that time (ainsley and southport respectively)

Obviously different setups but a worthwhile comparison

Interesting tidbit - how many premierships have been won in the VFL by non-aligned clubs since their inception?

The owner of Melbourne Tigers (now Melbourne United) made a comment on SEN earlier that resonated with me. He was speaking of the reasons behind the name change and how they have a junior Association that competes against others and it is also named Melbourne Tigers.

I will paraphrase slightly: "It isn't healthy for the sport for us to compete against our fan base."

What he doesn't understand is that it's only his club that matters and it's best for the sport if no one plays for any other Association in Melbourne. He needs to sit down with Triggy and find out this sort of information.

Dogwatcher wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Possibly interesting tidbit.

Looked up how Sydney and Brisbane have done in their reserves comps.

Brisbane have won 3 premierships in AFLQ or NEAFL, 2001, 2012, 2013

Sydney have won 4 - in AFL Canberra 2005-2008 and were runner up in 2013

Both sides seem to have been very competitive in both the NEAFL and their respective comps before the NEAFL was formed, but neither were the most successful over that time (ainsley and southport respectively)

Obviously different setups but a worthwhile comparison

Interesting tidbit - how many premierships have been won in the VFL by non-aligned clubs since their inception?

Pt Melb won in 2011 and I reckon that might be it.

Interesting that despite Port's relative "Success" in the past 18 months they are yet to turn things around financially, where do they stand now (and the future) the SANFL are no longer bank rolling them?

If they can't make a significant profit after averaging 40k+ there is something wrong

Imagine what they would've made if they consistently got 40k-45k to their games at Footy Park.....with a stadium deal which is better than that at Docklands.
:0

Dutchy wrote:Interesting that despite Port's relative "Success" in the past 18 months they are yet to turn things around financially, where do they stand now (and the future) the SANFL are no longer bank rolling them?

Here is a link, even though the 2013 Annual Report doesn't seem to be (easily found) on the PAFC website. Loss of $1.69 million, following on from a loss of $2.1 million in the 2012 Annual Report. That 2012 result was with a special grant from the SANFL of $2 million though, so it was a real trading loss of $4.1 million. (The club has a 'book' asset valuation of $5 million calculated by deducting assets from $17 million, liabilities of $12 million, but that's only 'book value' as a going concern, i.e. if you were to shut the place up and flog its assets on the market, you'd never get near $17 million.)

Financially, the dream is that Port Adelaide FC improves from being a basketcase, to a mere mediocrity (i.e. break-even or smallish losses). Or to put it another way: if it were a for-profit business on the stock exchange, its shares would be trading at about 1 cent and it could be bought for near enough to nothing by anyone willing to take on its debt. (See: the horribly starry-eyed North Melbourne FC stock market float, from the pre-Wall Street days when capitalism was going to save the world.) And yes, there are at least 6 to 8 current AFL clubs (and no doubt at least 4 or 5 SANFL clubs) you could also say that about.

Like most footy clubs forever, Port runs on commitment, belief, momentum and hope. Of course there have been a lot of wonderful things written about Adelaide Oval, and the 2014 Annual Report result should be a lot better than those that preceded it, but I doubt whether the location a club plays home games at, can change the fundamentals of its business.

The most hilarious thing about the 'Crows reserves in the SANFL' argument (among many hilarious things), was the claim, 'without the $50k per club per year fee and all of the lovely extra attention from letting the Crows play, about 5 clubs will pack up and close and the SANFL comp will be basically destroyed anyway, because look at the terrible balance-sheets these clubs have! Newsflash: many or most footy clubs have always had balance-sheets that terrible. Ironically, the AFL was born because too many VFL clubs had sent themselves broke offering silly deals to poach stars (and just administering their business badly) by the mid-1980s, and they felt they desperately needed a cash injection to stay afloat. As the South Australians wouldn't play ball, the cashed-up West Aussies looked like an easy mark...

What is the history of the SANFL giving a grant or loan to an SANFL club as financial relief?

Aerie wrote:What is the history of the SANFL giving a grant or loan to an SANFL club as financial relief?

Not sure they have ever done that, however do guarantee Sturt's debts, I don;t believe they guarantee another others clubs.

bennymacca wrote:I'm sorry I just don't believe that they aren't trying. Possibly being played out of position or something, but you tell me that Jarryd Lyons or Andy otten aren't trying their guts out, their place in the senior team and possibly their career depends on it.

So tell me why they wouldn't try?

Jesus H ! How can you be so obtuse, no-one is saying or has said that each individual player is "not trying" (as you say their career depends on it) but the coaches have admitted their priority is to "develop the players" which means the positions they play, the minutes they play and if they play depending on timing of games and needs of the AFL club. So they (the club)are not trying to win, pure an simple, Its not that hard a concept to grasp .
Forget all the other wah wah this is why the AFL Reserves teams should not be in the SANFL League competition. It is purely self interest on their behalf and they DGAF how that occurs.

twosheds wrote:

bennymacca wrote:I'm sorry I just don't believe that they aren't trying. Possibly being played out of position or something, but you tell me that Jarryd Lyons or Andy otten aren't trying their guts out, their place in the senior team and possibly their career depends on it.

So tell me why they wouldn't try?

Jesus H ! How can you be so obtuse, no-one is saying or has said that each individual player is "not trying" (as you say their career depends on it) but the coaches have admitted their priority is to "develop the players" which means the positions they play, the minutes they play and if they play depending on timing of games and needs of the AFL club. So they (the club)are not trying to win, pure an simple, Its not that hard a concept to grasp .
Forget all the other wah wah this is why the AFL Reserves teams should not be in the SANFL League competition. It is purely self interest on their behalf and they DGAF how that occurs.

Bennymacca please grasp this!!! the players are trying every time they cross the line, but the club itself is hardly too concerned with win loss ratio, and is structuring the side with the view of possible AFL action for those involved. It's what you would expect from an AFL reserves side. It's been pointed out to tedium but the finer points of AFL involvement in the SANFL you either choose to gloss over or don't grasp.

Aerie wrote:What is the history of the SANFL giving a grant or loan to an SANFL club as financial relief?

they certainly told north to take a hike in the early 2000's. it was up to north to fix their own problems and from what i understand they wouldnt lift a finger to help. i believe other clubs got the same reception when they were having problems.

that attitude may have been softened more recently though if they are guaranteeing Sturts loans.