Adelaide AFL fans = SOFT

[Macca19]

I really dont understand the pissing contest that is memberships/supporter base in the AFL. It makes me laugh.

Collingwood have the most supporters plus probably the most passionate supporters, and that has inspired the mighty Magpies to completely dominate the AFL with 1 flag in the last 50 years. People act like crowd figures are the be all and end all.

In the end 44,000 people had tickets to yesterdays game. The vast majority of those would have been paid for (as opposed to some giveaways). Whether 44k show up, or 31k, or 10 people, its still 44,000 tickets that the club will get money from.

I think you will find the gate receipts go straight to the AFL, not the home club...except for Memberships which go direct to the club....

I dint know that. Are you sure about that? If the only way the club makes money on actual games is by memberships then why the continual big fuss over Ports attendances?

[Dutchy]

My understanding is it is capped, the AFL hire the stadium out from the Venue Owner and give it to the clubs, the clubs pay the hire fee and need a certain number to break even, Port I think is around 27k, for TD tennants its around 23k etc...so while they might get some good revenue for some games they have to pay it back for poorly attended games...thats why memberships are promoted so heavily as they get nearly 100% of the $ upfront.

Someone might be able to confirm or correct me...

[Hondo]

I think that people are losing sight of the actual reason that Crows fans dont go to Port Adelaide home games and that is the simple fact that Crows fans dont want to put their hard earned coin into the Port Adelaide Football Club.

hence the reason they are labelled soft.
You don't hear of Colingwood/Carlton/Essendon fans doing that do you? (or in fact any non-SA teams...)

I think Sojourner is talking about a bitter & twisted minority, if they in fact exist at all.

Not one Crows supporter I know thinks like that

As has been said before - like for ANY game EVER: weather conditions, respective ladder positions, close to live telecasts and family budget constrains will all impact attendences before you can look the "soft" or "spiteful" reasons. At the end of the day 44,000 tickets out of 50,000 were taken before the first bounce.

Show me a team that maintains its max attendences in all weather conditions regardless of where they are on the ladder then I will Otherwise, call all supporters 'soft' ...

AND forget the idea of this being the biggest game of the year at AAMI - I'd say the Crows v Geelong and Crows v Hawthorn were bigger - as the sell-out attendances prove.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

For the record here Skilled Stadium's capacity is only 28,000

I was just trying to put today's crowd in the rain in some sort of perspective for Dutchy

Ive been there once when there was less than 24k and I can tell you its extremely uncomfortable, me and my mates ended up leaving at quarter time despite flogging the Roos that day.

There was 24k in the general admittance area that day, & that was just in our square metre.

[Barto]

Wasnt it a Port home game. If so my case concluded. Didnt they struggle to get 15,000 to their last home match

Yep, it was a Port home game, they're the soft ones. Can't blame the Crows fans for not wanting to sit amongst 20,000 Port fans.

This is what it boils down to. Why the hell would you bother?

[Rotter]

Maybe just maybe the product is no good. Give me the SANFL any day

[Sojourner]

Maybe just maybe the product is no good. Give me the SANFL any day

Agree with you there Rotter!

[Psyber]

The Sturt/Norwood consortium would never have worked, way too close to what the Crows already are. It had to be a club with tradition and, quite frankfully, Sturt's record from the 15 years leading up to 1997 quite frankly was quite poor, and not deserving of a place in the AFL.

Yeah.. I was stirring, with the Norwood/Sturt one from my position as a Norwood supporter.
But I'd rather have seen another composite side, which may have had a wider appeal and bigger membership, or even see it go to North Adelaide or Glenelg rather than reward the behaviour of Port Adelaide that forced the formation of the Crows.

Port pulled a con with "Tradition". Any other team's claim was as good. Tradition isn't just how many premierships you had won recently.

[Psyber]

I really dont understand the pissing contest that is memberships/supporter base in the AFL. It makes me laugh.

Collingwood have the most supporters plus probably the most passionate supporters, and that has inspired the mighty Magpies to completely dominate the AFL with 1 flag in the last 50 years. People act like crowd figures are the be all and end all.

In the end 44,000 people had tickets to yesterdays game. The vast majority of those would have been paid for (as opposed to some giveaways). Whether 44k show up, or 31k, or 10 people, its still 44,000 tickets that the club will get money from.

I think you will find the gate receipts go straight to the AFL, not the home club...except for Memberships which go direct to the club....

I guess at the end of the day it comes down to passion, Port and the Crows only have half their membership which are passionate and there for the good times and the bad, the other half just want the good....

I suspect that if you analysed the figures carefully you may be able to say that about any club in any sport.

[GWW]

.

Yeah.. I was stirring, with the Norwood/Sturt one from my position as a Norwood supporter.
But I'd rather have seen another composite side, which may have had a wider appeal and bigger membership, or even see it go to North Adelaide or Glenelg rather than reward the behaviour of Port Adelaide that forced the formation of the Crows.

Port pulled a con with "Tradition". Any other team's claim was as good. Tradition isn't just how many premierships you had won recently.[/quote]

But there was the contrast with the Adelaide Football Club with Port. Any other club there just wouldn't have been that rivalry, and more than likely the supporters would have just stayed with the AFC. There wouldn't be any passion in SA footy, it would virtually be Crows1 and Crows2.

[Psyber]

.Yeah.. I was stirring, with the Norwood/Sturt one from my position as a Norwood supporter.
But I'd rather have seen another composite side, which may have had a wider appeal and bigger membership, or even see it go to North Adelaide or Glenelg rather than reward the behaviour of Port Adelaide that forced the formation of the Crows.

Port pulled a con with "Tradition". Any other team's claim was as good. Tradition isn't just how many premierships you had won recently.

But there was the contrast with the Adelaide Football Club with Port. Any other club there just wouldn't have been that rivalry, and more than likely the supporters would have just stayed with the AFC. There wouldn't be any passion in SA footy, it would virtually be Crows1 and Crows2.

Let's face it, it was mostly only Port Magpies supporters wanted to sign up with the Power. They may have picked up a bit of support from adjacent areas hostile to the misperceived "Glenelg dominance" in the Crows, but that's about it, and that is why they still have a problem with numbers. I think another composite may have had broader appeal to the SA Public and the corporate sector. Some people may have joined both clubs, particularly the corporations, who often donate to both major political parties too because they want everyone onside.

If rivalry were a positive, the Sturt/Norwood option would have offered an east-west rivalry, and perhaps, if the Crows were the "Chardonnay set", the "reds" in the east may have been the "Cab.Sav. set".

We may have been better off without the present "rivalry" - read "class hostility" which was something Port always used to stir up its supporters - and then you wouldn't need to wonder whether it was wise to expose the kids to the example of crowd agression and incivility at the "Showdowns". Football has been politicised by this structure, that's why it gets nasty sometimes, especially when the media stir it up.

[Macca19]

I suspect that if you analysed the figures carefully you may be able to say that about any club in any sport.

Not wrong. Like where all these Kangaroos members suddenly came from this year.


As for who should have gone in....Port was the only logical choice. Could go into more detail but its as simple as that really.

[the joker]

dutchy why would you bring up this thread when you support the team that has the smallest crowds in victoria.
the crows have more members then most of norths crowds

[heater31]

I suspect that if you analysed the figures carefully you may be able to say that about any club in any sport.

Not wrong. Like where all these Kangaroos members suddenly came from this year.


As for who should have gone in....Port was the only logical choice. Could go into more detail but its as simple as that really.

I know for a fact that the immediate family of the playing group were signed up............... possibly a few pet Kangaroos too

[Leaping Lindner]

I suspect that if you analysed the figures carefully you may be able to say that about any club in any sport.

Not wrong. Like where all these Kangaroos members suddenly came from this year.


As for who should have gone in....Port was the only logical choice. Could go into more detail but its as simple as that really.

I know for a fact that the immediate family of the playing group were signed up............... possibly a few pet Kangaroos too

They wouldn't be the only club to do that *COUGH* Hawthorn *COUGH*
The biggest problem is you can add dead grandparents and family pets to membership numbers but not the actual attendance at the gate.
Mind you at least they do that. Melbourne "supporters" don't even sign themselves up.

[Dutchy]

dutchy why would you bring up this thread when you support the team that has the smallest crowds in victoria.
the crows have more members then most of norths crowds

last nights post got deleted in the server crash..but Ill summarise -

1/ Whats North go to do with this arguement, they seem to be brought up everytime you cant win..
2/ If you have to have a go at North what you have said it completely incorrect, get your facts right first

WADH

[Blue Boy]

Biggest game of the year and they draw 31k?

WTF?

I agree with Rucci, time for there to be only 1 showdown each year, why would the AFL persist with 2 when the fans just dont show up?

Disgraceful and embaressing to SA..

This coming from you - pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft !!!!!

Every home game this year has been a sell out or very close to it !!!!!

I rekon in the conditions it wasnt to bad and imagine if more crows fans rocked up to see what was dished up theyd be real happy !!!

Lets not start havin a crack at the crowds for the crows Dutch as im sure they will always out draw your Kangaroos !!!

[rogernumber10]

- The home club keeps the gate for all home and away matches. Hence why all the Victorian clubs list a home game against Collingwood as request number one, followed usually by Essendon as request number two. Membership money is chased so hard by clubs because you get it in advance of the year, and can more confidently set budgets, plus the fact it's guaranteed and not dependent on whether you turn up on match day, and pay in or not.

- The AFL keeps the gate for all finals matches, and that is split 16 ways as per the AFL's sponsorships and tv rights. The judgement the AFL makes on that is that all clubs contribute to the competition so therefore all deserve a share of finals money, whether you make it in a particular year or not.

[Dutchy]

- The home club keeps the gate for all home and away matches. Hence why all the Victorian clubs list a home game against Collingwood as request number one, followed usually by Essendon as request number two. Membership money is chased so hard by clubs because you get it in advance of the year, and can more confidently set budgets, plus the fact it's guaranteed and not dependent on whether you turn up on match day, and pay in or not.

- The AFL keeps the gate for all finals matches, and that is split 16 ways as per the AFL's sponsorships and tv rights. The judgement the AFL makes on that is that all clubs contribute to the competition so therefore all deserve a share of finals money, whether you make it in a particular year or not.

thanks Rog, that sounds right, I was getting confused with the Finals...

but on top of that there is the equalisation fund (not sure of its offical name) which shares revenue around the clubs who dont have the blockbuster games...

so essentially a Crows fan paying to get into a Port Home Showdown is contributing to the coffers at Alberton...

[stan]

Biggest game of the year and they draw 31k?

WTF?

I agree with Rucci, time for there to be only 1 showdown each year, why would the AFL persist with 2 when the fans just dont show up?

Disgraceful and embaressing to SA..

Yeah your right, but shite happens.