stan wrote:I think this is more so on the money.Pseudo wrote:cracka wrote:Its laughable people think Port weren't pushing hard for it too. They had their hands in the middle of the crows back pushing them to the front to cop the flack.
Port had been angling for a reserves team in the SANFL from as early as Mark Williams' tenure as coach. The simple fact is that Port didn't have the clout to force the issue. Adelaide is clearly the favoured big brother; as soon as the Crows started murmuring about a reserves team the SANFL couldn't drop its trousers quickly enough. Port had no need to push the Crows to the front. All the smears had to do was to climb onto the Crows' coat-tails and wait.
Yep.
This is what North had to say about it back in 2010.
PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Taken straight from - http://nafc.com.au/news/2010/p3233.aspx
POWERFUL MAGPIES COMING TO THE SANFL
If the jungle drums are correct, and they are becoming very loud, the concept of the Port Adelaide Football Club (POWER) and Port Adelaide Magpies establishing some form of unified entity is emerging. At this stage our Club is only aware of the ongoing media reports of the matter and cannot provide members with any official information. It appears that every time this issue is promoted in the local media, North Adelaide Football Club is promoted as being against the concept. For the record, we would like to advise members of the Club�s position, a position which is not open to journalistic licence. This position has also been conveyed to the SANFL, SANFL Clubs, Power and Crows.
North Adelaide Football Club does not support the merger or direct association of any SANFL Club with an AFL Club
This position should not be difficult for any in the football world to comprehend. There are many variables in terms of how each SANFL Club conducts its� business, however the sanctioning of a merger/business arrangement for any Club has the potential to create an uneven SANFL playing field. Some of the concerns behind this position, but not limited to same, are as follows:
Direct reduction in administration costs, not available to all SANFL Clubs
Access to AFL Club membership data bases , within Adelaide that is 30,000 plus
Access to potential sponsors, direct, linked or perceived. This is particularly relevant when one considers the lesser commercial appeal of a standalone SANFL Club
Access to a wide range of football operation services
We well understand that assurances shall be offered, however history shows that assurances are always diluted over time.
All Clubs face challenges
North Adelaide Football Club has the deepest respect for the heritage of each SANFL Club and respects the right of each to fight for survival. In our case of course, we faced extinction in the face in 2002/2003. We tire of consistent references to our healthy financial status as if it �just happened�. The Board adopted the strategy of �thrive or perish�, we simply never wanted to become a voluntary euthanasia case. So don�t talk to North Adelaide about struggle, we lived it.
It took Board courage and vision, member dedication and support and a steadfast refusal to submit to overwhelming pressures that allowed the Club to survive.
2002/2003 tested every North persons resolve:
We won a solitary match, and that by 1 point.
Staff numbers were the lowest of any Club in the SANFL
We couldn�t meet our financial commitments, despite slashing overheads.
The Balance Sheet was arguably the worst in the SANFL and we operated on less income than any other Club
Players donated match payments so the Club could purchase some new footballs for training.
The Club, members, players, officials and sponsors marched down Main North Road in a display of unity
Board members attended Parliament House at 2am in the morning for critical Government decisions.
North people were heard, because we had to be as no one else was interested.
The chilling memory of 2003 was how little our Club�s rich heritage meant to the football world and the media outside our own people. There was no concerted support, in fact a quick look over our shoulder at the time only showed those with a red and white bent. Our history would have perished without a whimper or barely a mention in the classified columns of the local paper.
During this time the SANFL provided common support to all SANFL Clubs in terms of security, security which has allowed asset poor Clubs to negotiate financial facilities. Without this security, SANFL Football would be in a poor state.
Today our Club still has debt of $1.7m and will continue to pursue our strategies of debt reduction and football success.
Power /Port Magpies Issue
North Adelaide Football Club has no issue with the Power and Port Magpies pursuing whatever means are available to them to secure their respective futures. It is their good fortune to have significant support in Adelaide�s media circles
North Adelaide Football Club rejects representations of its official position other than that highlighted above
It is important for members to understand North Adelaide�s role in the process. The Club nominates a person to the role of Director at the SANFL. It is our understanding that the Director must then act in the best interests of football and the SANFL as nominated under the League Constitution, not their nominating Club. As such in our case, Bohdan Jaworskyj, must consider an issue in light of what is best for football rather than North Adelaide�s position. If a Club view is sought on any matter, the matter must be referred to the Board for consideration.
Under the SANFL Constitution, Directors only have specific matters upon which they can vote.
We believe this does not extend to matters such as the Power/Port Magpie business arrangement.
1. Technically, the Directors can have an indirect impact by not allowing a change to the SANFL Constitution, if that was required.
2. However if this change was not approved, and is not critical to an overall decision, the issue can be determined by the Commission.
3. The Commission has the power to alter the AFL sub licence to allow the matter to proceed.
This matter has already been considered once by the Commission Directors forum. In a strictly hypothetical scenario, is it possible that the Power presented a sound financial case to the AFL, the AFL advised the SANFL and the matter is again up for consideration?
It is highly unlikely that any impact study will be conducted in terms of effect on the SANFL. This competition is not part of the bigger picture.
We concede that it all makes sense from a One Port Adelaide perspective, why wouldn�t it? It is ironic that the Port Adelaide machine rode off into the sunset in pursuit of the big League with the granting of the AFL Licence to the distain of the remaining SANFL Clubs. It is a strange twist of fate that they now return seeking the support of those whose future they danced on � it is indeed a long road which does not turn!
Summary
It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on.
Back to top
ironic you post that in this thread...
