AFL Reserves. The Pros and Cons:

[StrayDog]

I was talking about print media as well, which I think would almost be more significant for a jumper sponsor

I realise that, it just doesn't seem to have changed much either way. In any case doesn't have anywhere near the same impact as TV or ground exposure in my view.

[johntheclaret]

So the gist of this in your view is that the SANFL losses it's identity as an independent league which in turn drives non AFL interested a fans away

Correct, although IMO it loses more than its identity. My overriding point is that removal of the AFL component will not cause the destruction of, or a major setback for, the SANFL. Surely it is strong enough...

Do I make it onto John's Pros List™?

From an SANFL perspective you are on the cons list,

The question isn't "what are the pros and cons of the AfL Reserves leaving the SANFL?" That's another thread in the waiting

[StrayDog]

So the gist of this in your view is that the SANFL losses it's identity as an independent league which in turn drives non AFL interested a fans away

Correct, although IMO it loses more than its identity. My overriding point is that removal of the AFL component will not cause the destruction of, or a major setback for, the SANFL. Surely it is strong enough...

Do I make it onto John's Pros List™?

From an SANFL perspective you are on the cons list,

The question isn't "what are the pros and cons of the AfL Reserves leaving the SANFL?" That's another thread in the waiting

Just play the existing threads in reverse.

[Booney]

So the gist of this in your view is that the SANFL losses it's identity as an independent league which in turn drives non AFL interested a fans away

Correct, although IMO it loses more than its identity. My overriding point is that removal of the AFL component will not cause the destruction of, or a major setback for, the SANFL. Surely it is strong enough...

Do I make it onto John's Pros List™?

That's a risk you would want to take?

Not for one minute saying the SANFL would die, but would the likes of Sturt, West and Glenelg be able to financially thrive? Guess you have to consider why they, the ones with the most information put to them, voted yes.

[mickey]

-promoted as grass roots footy
.

SANFL is not, never has and never will be grass roots

[RB]

So the gist of this in your view is that the SANFL losses it's identity as an independent league which in turn drives non AFL interested a fans away

Correct, although IMO it loses more than its identity. My overriding point is that removal of the AFL component will not cause the destruction of, or a major setback for, the SANFL. Surely it is strong enough...

Do I make it onto John's Pros List™?

That's a risk you would want to take?

Not for one minute saying the SANFL would die, but would the likes of Sturt, West and Glenelg be able to financially thrive? Guess you have to consider why they, the ones with the most information put to them, voted yes.

I thought you meant being on Con's list or whatever it is for a sec!

In all seriousness, I am sure that the SANFL is strong enough to survive without the AFL involvement - didn't it go OK for the last 136 years?

I realise that you're talking about the longer term, but if the clubs are looking like going bust the $50k from the Crows won't help much. I think hard work on the part of the clubs will sustain them. The AFL involvement will be no silver bullet, and, as I have said, will do more harm than good to the eight sovereign clubs.

[daysofourlives]

Now that the SANFL no longer hold the licenses of the two SA based AFL clubs what is the extent of the SANFL's obligation to these two clubs?
Is it the same obligation the SANFL has to Collingwood or Gold Coast? i.e None.

I am sure the SANFL would survive without the AFL teams, without the media, without any exposure, the clubs would simply adjust to live within their means.
For most people on here it wouldnt matter about the standard of the competition as long as it was still Centrals playing North or Glenelg playing South.
and there was the same rules for all and there was still a premiership at the end of the season.
It could be equivalent of Div 5 ammos for all i care i just want to see the dogs be given the same chance of winning the flag as the other 7 teams. The standard wouldnt fall away much as you must still play SANFL to be eligible for the draft thus keeping the comp strong.

[holden78]

Now that the SANFL no longer hold the licenses of the two SA based AFL clubs what is the extent of the SANFL's obligation to these two clubs?
Is it the same obligation the SANFL has to Collingwood or Gold Coast? i.e None.

I am sure the SANFL would survive without the AFL teams, without the media, without any exposure, the clubs would simply adjust to live within their means.
For most people on here it wouldnt matter about the standard of the competition as long as it was still Centrals playing North or Glenelg playing South.
and there was the same rules for all and there was still a premiership at the end of the season.
It could be equivalent of Div 5 ammos for all i care i just want to see the dogs be given the same chance of winning the flag as the other 7 teams. The standard wouldnt fall away much as you must still play SANFL to be eligible for the draft thus keeping the comp strong.

Excellent post, it's all about making sure ALL eight clubs are run intelligently and within tight guide lines.
Really the league would have to step up and takeover some admin duties etc. to cut costs and sell the league to sponsors, tv etc as one.
It's obvious already that no $ increase will ever occur, it's only a win for the two cancers!
Thanks John, Leigh, Chris and Boardheads with AFL car-stickers, you boc's!

[LPH]

At this stage it appears the BIGGEST beneficiary of the AFL Reserves has been "Port Adelaide".

Regardless of the debate about AFL in the SANFL being right or wrong, they (the former Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club) were on the brink of insolvency, debt ridden & non-performing on the ground. Their 'deal' appears to have been most beneficial for them - in fact they are now 2/1 favorite for the Flag.

I agree that Sturt, West & Glenelg too were almost insolvent - in fact I would assume most Clubs were running @ a loss.

The major "Con" for me (& it really is a 'con' in the true sense of the word) is the so called $50K being paid to the Clubs.
Wasn't that money related to added attendances & greater sponsorship exposure?
All I have noticed in the TV coverage is a few 'Erics' around the fences promoting IGA & a couple of others.

[kickinit]

At this stage it appears the BIGGEST beneficiary of the AFL Reserves has been "Port Adelaide".

Regardless of the debate about AFL in the SANFL being right or wrong, they (the former Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club) were on the brink of insolvency, debt ridden & non-performing on the ground. Their 'deal' appears to have been most beneficial for them - in fact they are now 2/1 favorite for the Flag.

I agree that Sturt, West & Glenelg too were almost insolvent - in fact I would assume most Clubs were running @ a loss.

The major "Con" for me (& it really is a 'con' in the true sense of the word) is the so called $50K being paid to the Clubs.
Wasn't that money related to added attendances & greater sponsorship exposure?
All I have noticed in the TV coverage is a few 'Erics' around the fences promoting IGA & a couple of others.

So you want port and the crows to go out and find you sponsorship deals?

[dedja]

I'd say no TV coverage at all ( the SANFL couldn't afford to pay someone to do it as they would get reduced revenue ) and reduced ( which is minimal now ) print media coverage. As a result, less sponsorship.

Less sponsorship, less monies in the clubs.....you do the maths.

The result would be catastrophic.

I'd have to say I'd disagree with that.

I might be wrong, but I don't believe the major sponsors at Glenelg base their sponsorship dollars on TV or print media exposure ... most are there because they are led by loyal Glenelg supporters who pay relatively modest amounts to sponsor the club.

Ground signage, website advertising, match day or other events (lunches/dinners) provide the modest returns as benefits of their sponsorship dollars.

Any TV or print media exposure is a bonus. What may happen though is that prolonged media exposure if say, channel 7 coverage takes off, may encourage new sponsorship interest.

But my point is that this has insignificant impact on current sponsorship.

Glenelg's financial issues aren't sponsorship (yes, more would be nice), it's the lack of patronage at the Bar and Bistro and Function Centre, which has a direct relationship to on field success.

[Pseudo]

Glenelg's financial issues aren't sponsorship (yes, more would be nice), it's the lack of patronage at the Bar and Bistro and Function Centre, which has a direct relationship to on field success.

All the more reason to spend Saturday afternoon in the GFC clubrooms, in the absence of a real game this weekend.

[RB]

At this stage it appears the BIGGEST beneficiary of the AFL Reserves has been "Port Adelaide".

Regardless of the debate about AFL in the SANFL being right or wrong, they (the former Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club) were on the brink of insolvency, debt ridden & non-performing on the ground. Their 'deal' appears to have been most beneficial for them - in fact they are now 2/1 favorite for the Flag.

I agree that Sturt, West & Glenelg too were almost insolvent - in fact I would assume most Clubs were running @ a loss.

The major "Con" for me (& it really is a 'con' in the true sense of the word) is the so called $50K being paid to the Clubs.
Wasn't that money related to added attendances & greater sponsorship exposure?
All I have noticed in the TV coverage is a few 'Erics' around the fences promoting IGA & a couple of others.

So you want port and the crows to go out and find you sponsorship deals?

No, we want them to **** off.

[dedja]

Correct.

Hooray, Pseudo is single handedly significantly increasing alcohol takings on certain nominated match days.

[Bounce of the ball]

I'd say no TV coverage at all ( the SANFL couldn't afford to pay someone to do it as they would get reduced revenue ) and reduced ( which is minimal now ) print media coverage. As a result, less sponsorship.

Less sponsorship, less monies in the clubs.....you do the maths.

The result would be catastrophic.

I'd have to say I'd disagree with that.

I might be wrong, but I don't believe the major sponsors at Glenelg base their sponsorship dollars on TV or print media exposure ... most are there because they are led by loyal Glenelg supporters who pay relatively modest amounts to sponsor the club.

Ground signage, website advertising, match day or other events (lunches/dinners) provide the modest returns as benefits of their sponsorship dollars.

Any TV or print media exposure is a bonus. What may happen though is that prolonged media exposure if say, channel 7 coverage takes off, may encourage new sponsorship interest.

But my point is that this has insignificant impact on current sponsorship.

Glenelg's financial issues aren't sponsorship (yes, more would be nice), it's the lack of patronage at the Bar and Bistro and Function Centre, which has a direct relationship to on field success.

Why sponsor then ? Sponsorship equals exposure which potentially means business. Go and take away Glenelg's sponsors and see if you survive. These sponsors aren't dumb or charities.

[dedja]

you didn't read it properly ...

false premise = false conclusion

[kickinit]

Serious question, IF the AFL ends up with a ressies comp will Port supporters be happy with no Port side in the SANFL?

Put it to you this way Jim Brisbane have a greater chance of winning a flag this year then a AFL ressie comp.

[Jim05]

Serious question, IF the AFL ends up with a ressies comp will Port supporters be happy with no Port side in the SANFL?

Put it to you this way Jim Brisbane have a greater chance of winning a flag this year then a AFL ressie comp.

I agree its a long time away but it will eventually happen.

[Bounce of the ball]

you didn't read it properly ...

false premise = false conclusion

Hilarious.

[dedja]

you didn't read it properly ...

false premise = false conclusion

Hilarious.