AFL Reserves. The Pros and Cons:

[Booney]

Agree with jo172 that now the box has been opened, some of those who were and are dead against this intervention, would not be in favour of the consequences to the SANFL (and footy in SA generally) if Port and Crows' 2nds sides were to run off to the VFL or similar comp.

What consequences?

So, 2015 Port and Adelaide move their unselected AFL players into teams playing in an AFL reserves comp, or elsewhere.

In your view, that would have zero impact on the SANFL?

[RB]

If the AFL created a reserves comp, and Adelaide & Port obviously joined, then what would the SANFL do to deal with the loss of two sides?

Nothing...What would it have an impact on?

An 8 team comp, what move to top 3 or 4 finals series? Shorten the season? Bit lame

You know there was a time when there were eight teams; generally they played each other three times a season. At any rate, this season is shorter than last season, but with one more team. Top four finals series - why reward mediocrity?

[RB]

Agree with jo172 that now the box has been opened, some of those who were and are dead against this intervention, would not be in favour of the consequences to the SANFL (and footy in SA generally) if Port and Crows' 2nds sides were to run off to the VFL or similar comp.

What consequences?

So, 2015 Port and Adelaide move their unselected AFL players into teams playing in an AFL reserves comp, or elsewhere.

In your view, that would have zero impact on the SANFL?

Correct. I think it would be a shame if there were no proper Port team, but that's already happened this year.

I'll admit it might be harder to get TV coverage, but I think that is a negligible consideration compared with the benefits of the AFL reserves teams pissing off.

[Booney]

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.

[Apachebulldog]

Well tbh I have always thought actively hating another team was pretty stupid. Especially when a player switches clubs and now all of a sudden they are a top bloke again.

And particularly when people attach their own self esteem to the successes of a team and somehow think they are better than everyone because their team is up and about. It's pretty childish if you ask me.

Lastly, I am a crows/centrals supporter, and maybe it's weird but I would rather beat port in a grand final than have them bottom and getting smashed by 100 points. I don't really derive and pleasure out of that, and beating port in a grand final would be that much sweeter.

Not a rant at you smac but just my thoughts

But Bennymacca the Magpies do not exist anymore so how can we beat them ????????? they are now a AFL Power RESERVES side do ya get it ?????

Yes Stan am a Central member have a home match package will be going this Saturday with mates to watch TWO SANFL teams play.

However i had a bye last week and have another three left to pursue other interests.

Bennymacca can believe what he wants to. If that makes him happy great, but Bulldog perhaps you should relax and get out there and watch centrals play. They have played some good football already this year in the win over my legs. Yes you were beaten by Adelaide, but its not all doom and gloom. Just remember something, its not even the cold depths of winter yet.

[whufc]

If the AFL created a reserves comp, and Adelaide & Port obviously joined, then what would the SANFL do to deal with the loss of two sides?

Cant go and re-instate the Magpies, and an 8 team comp is fairly ordinary..

I could handle an 8 team SANFL comp.

The way I would structure it would be

-promoted as grass roots footy
-AFL rule changes would be looked at but not automatically adopted in the SANFL
-would probably lose channel 7 coverage but go for ABC coverage again, if not would look at using a high quality free live internet stream for games
-continue to promote through local radio stations such as 5rph, life fm, and would look for big coverage through the messenger group
-season would be played over 21 games each team playing 10 home, 10 away, 1 neutral
-as much as some people don't like them I think Sunday afternoon would become a key timeslot to avoid amateur/country football, netball etc
-the neutral game would be the season opener at AO which would be a quadruple header, 4 games 1 day FREE ENTRY for everyone, as big a crowds as possible with each clubs selling memberships on the day at special rates etc etc, in an essence a kind of carnival of grass roots football day.
-4 teams play finals.
-finals played at highest ranked sides home ground except for GF which would be at AO

That's just a quick thought anyway.

[RB]

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.

Sponsorship isn't contingent on TV coverage. Each club gets 1-3 home games a year on TV. Sponsors don't support the club merely for this.

The print media coverage of the Sanfl in no way promotes or even refers to Sanfl club sponsors.

[whufc]

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.

Serious question I don't know the answer to.

Do we know exactly what sponsors have jumped on board at each club this year purely because of the few SANFL games that each club will get on tv.

Also how have tv ratings this year compared to ABC coverage last year (obviously the round 1 pa v nwd was a big winner because of the timeslot)

[Phantom Gossiper]

Wouldn't think too many sponsors would've got on based purely on the TV deal, but I think the move to 7 does creat a greater chance of non-SANFL regulars tuning in and watching, and raising awareness of the comp in general.

[bennymacca]

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.

Sponsorship isn't contingent on TV coverage. Each club gets 1-3 home games a year on TV. Sponsors don't support the club merely for this.

The print media coverage of the Sanfl in no way promotes or even refers to Sanfl club sponsors.

Pretty sure Holden would disagree with this given their name is shown every time a photo is taken of a centrals player.

That's why they do it right?

[Booney]

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.

Sponsorship isn't contingent on TV coverage.

Each club gets 1-3 home games a year on TV. Sponsors don't support the club merely for this.

The print media coverage of the Sanfl in no way promotes or even refers to Sanfl club sponsors.

1-You really think that is the case? So, for instance, Emirates pay the same amount to sponsor Collingwood as Fiat do to sponsor Gold Coast? No, and the reason is television exposure for Collingwood games. Friday night prime-time, Saturday night prime-time.....

Print media....now why does the Advertiser have more articles about Port and Adelaide than they do of Sturt and West, you think? Not because who sponsors them, for sure, but because Port and Adelaide news sells more papers. If the SANFL had reduced TV air time, likely less people through gates, less sponsors, less interest as a whole and there goes the 1/3 page wrap up of the SANFL every Monday.

So back to you, if Port and Adelaide left the SANFL do you think there would be enough support, sponsorship and patronage to games to support a healthy competition?

Bar North, Norwood and Centrals ( even them to an extent ) every SANFL club has had tough financial imes of late. West, Sturt and Glenelg on their knees.

[johntheclaret]

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.

Sponsorship isn't contingent on TV coverage.

Each club gets 1-3 home games a year on TV. Sponsors don't support the club merely for this.

The print media coverage of the Sanfl in no way promotes or even refers to Sanfl club sponsors.

1-You really think that is the case? So, for instance, Emirates pay the same amount to sponsor Collingwood as Fiat do to sponsor Gold Coast? No, and the reason is television exposure for Collingwood games. Friday night prime-time, Saturday night prime-time.....

Print media....now why does the Advertiser have more articles about Port and Adelaide than they do of Sturt and West, you think? Not because who sponsors them, for sure, but because Port and Adelaide news sells more papers. If the SANFL had reduced TV air time, likely less people through gates, less sponsors, less interest as a whole and there goes the 1/3 page wrap up of the SANFL every Monday.

So back to you, if Port and Adelaide left the SANFL do you think there would be enough support, sponsorship and patronage to games to support a healthy competition?

Bar North, Norwood and Centrals ( even them to an extent ) every SANFL club has had tough financial imes of late. West, Sturt and Glenelg on their knees.

Good points. But they are based on there being no Reserve teams in the SANFL.
So flipping that over are you saying?

Pros;
Greater media coverage leading to increased sponsorship revenue for all SANFL clubs.
Commercial TV gives greater exposure to a wider viewing market and exposes SANFL football to viewers who might not normally see it, therefore increasing the possibility of attracting new followers to the league.

I've updated my list

[RB]

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.

Sponsorship isn't contingent on TV coverage.

Each club gets 1-3 home games a year on TV. Sponsors don't support the club merely for this.

The print media coverage of the Sanfl in no way promotes or even refers to Sanfl club sponsors.

1-You really think that is the case? So, for instance, Emirates pay the same amount to sponsor Collingwood as Fiat do to sponsor Gold Coast? No, and the reason is television exposure for Collingwood games. Friday night prime-time, Saturday night prime-time.....

Let me rephrase that: sponsorship of the SANFL clubs isn't contingent on TV coverage. E.g. do Holden sponsor Centrals because twice a year a Holden ad hoarding is on TV for a couple of hours?

Print media....now why does the Advertiser have more articles about Port and Adelaide than they do of Sturt and West, you think? Not because who sponsors them, for sure, but because Port and Adelaide news sells more papers. If the SANFL had reduced TV air time, likely less people through gates, less sponsors, less interest as a whole and there goes the 1/3 page wrap up of the SANFL every Monday.

Reduced TV airtime is IMO unlikely to cause any of those things. The point of sponsoring an SANFL isn't to get your ad hoarding on the screen once or twice a year. In this respect the SANFL is unlike the AFL.

Reduced TV air time is not going to have a substantial effect on interest, in particular in terms of sponsorship, and, just as importantly, the amount of people through the turnstiles.

So back to you, if Port and Adelaide left the SANFL do you think there would be enough support, sponsorship and patronage to games to support a healthy competition?

It would be most worrying if the Power and the Crows were what was keeping the SANFL going. But that's simply not the case. It is fanciful to suggest that support, patronage to games etc. is reliant on the AFL teams' presence. How many Crows fans were at Elizabeth on Saturday again? Maybe 10% of the crowd?

At any rate, if the Power and the Crows were the SANFL, what would be the point of it? If the SANFL ever got to the point of being wholly about the Crows and the Power, then nothing would be lost by their moving elsewhere.

IMO, the SANFL is (or until this year, was) a point of difference from the AFL - that was part of its attraction. The SANFL can subsist without the Crows and Power because of this; IMO it is weaker if it contains two clubs which detract from the other eight clubs, and even worse absorb all the supporters who will grow up with reserves in the SANFL.

There were 36,000 at last year's Grand Final. None of them were there to see anything AFL related.

[johntheclaret]

Wouldn't think too many sponsors would've got on based purely on the TV deal, but I think the move to 7 does creat a greater chance of non-SANFL regulars tuning in and watching, and raising awareness of the comp in general.

Good point PG. I added it to my Pros list

[johntheclaret]

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.

Sponsorship isn't contingent on TV coverage.

Each club gets 1-3 home games a year on TV. Sponsors don't support the club merely for this.

The print media coverage of the Sanfl in no way promotes or even refers to Sanfl club sponsors.

1-You really think that is the case? So, for instance, Emirates pay the same amount to sponsor Collingwood as Fiat do to sponsor Gold Coast? No, and the reason is television exposure for Collingwood games. Friday night prime-time, Saturday night prime-time.....

Let me rephrase that: sponsorship of the SANFL clubs isn't contingent on TV coverage. E.g. do Holden sponsor Centrals because twice a year a Holden ad hoarding is on TV for a couple of hours?

Print media....now why does the Advertiser have more articles about Port and Adelaide than they do of Sturt and West, you think? Not because who sponsors them, for sure, but because Port and Adelaide news sells more papers. If the SANFL had reduced TV air time, likely less people through gates, less sponsors, less interest as a whole and there goes the 1/3 page wrap up of the SANFL every Monday.

Reduced TV airtime is IMO unlikely to cause any of those things. The point of sponsoring an SANFL isn't to get your ad hoarding on the screen once or twice a year. In this respect the SANFL is unlike the AFL.

Reduced TV air time is not going to have a substantial effect on interest, in particular in terms of sponsorship, and, just as importantly, the amount of people through the turnstiles.

So back to you, if Port and Adelaide left the SANFL do you think there would be enough support, sponsorship and patronage to games to support a healthy competition?

It would be most worrying if the Power and the Crows were what was keeping the SANFL going. But that's simply not the case. It is fanciful to suggest that support, patronage to games etc. is reliant on the AFL teams' presence. How many Crows fans were at Elizabeth on Saturday again? Maybe 10% of the crowd?

At any rate, if the Power and the Crows were the SANFL, what would be the point of it? If the SANFL ever got to the point of being wholly about the Crows and the Power, then nothing would be lost by their moving elsewhere.

IMO, the SANFL is (or until this year, was) a point of difference from the AFL - that was part of its attraction. The SANFL can subsist without the Crows and Power because of this; IMO it is weaker if it contains two clubs which detract from the other eight clubs, and even worse absorb all the supporters who will grow up with reserves in the SANFL.

There were 36,000 at last year's Grand Final. None of them were there to see anything AFL related.

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

[StrayDog]

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.

Sponsorship isn't contingent on TV coverage. Each club gets 1-3 home games a year on TV. Sponsors don't support the club merely for this.

The print media coverage of the Sanfl in no way promotes or even refers to Sanfl club sponsors.

Pretty sure Holden would disagree with this given their name is shown every time a photo is taken of a centrals player.

That's why they do it right?

A big reason, for sure. I'm not sure what the TV ratings for the minor round have been over the past 15 years on the ABC but 15k would be a ball park figure during most weeks over the last couple of years. Not that much more than an average weekly SANFL aggregate attendance.

Assuming (realistically or otherwise) even coverage of all teams in that time I'd say that ground exposure and TV exposure would have been pretty comparable for the major sponsors of most clubs in that time. We should probably also keep in mind the 'captive audience' factor of a live crowd regarding the loudspeaker advertising during the breaks, etc, which is every other week.

Yes, this year the ratings have been notably higher to date. Helping that would be the 'stand alone' factor of the games where some / much of the viewing audience haven't been at their own SANFL games.

[RB]

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.

Sponsorship isn't contingent on TV coverage. Each club gets 1-3 home games a year on TV. Sponsors don't support the club merely for this.

The print media coverage of the Sanfl in no way promotes or even refers to Sanfl club sponsors.

Pretty sure Holden would disagree with this given their name is shown every time a photo is taken of a centrals player.

That's why they do it right?

A big reason, for sure. I'm not sure what the TV ratings for the minor round have been over the past 15 years on the ABC but 15k would be a ball park figure during most weeks over the last couple of years. Not that much more than an average weekly SANFL aggregate attendance.

Assuming (realistically or otherwise) even coverage of all teams in that time I'd say that ground exposure and TV exposure would have been pretty comparable for the major sponsors of most clubs in that time. We should probably also keep in mind the 'captive audience' factor of a live crowd regarding the loudspeaker advertising during the breaks, etc, which is every other week.

Yes, this year the ratings have been notably higher to date.

I think ground exposure - i.e. constantly during the match, every second week across the season, would be what Holden is looking for; TV exposure has to be a much smaller factor due to its much lesser frequency.

[bennymacca]

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

[tipper]

for mine JTC, the pro/con list really needs to be divided up. one list from the sanfl perspective, the other from the Afl perspective. what one thinks is a positive could very well end up on the other sides negative list. it all depends on which perspective one is watching from.

if it was done that way i think you would find that the afl list would have more pro's than cons, and (imnsho) the sanfl list would have more cons than pro's. i can actually understand why the afl teams want to play their reserves in our league, the benefits to them are great. however i disagree that they should have been allowed to. the SANFL owe them nothing, and should have stood firm against their push. from where i stand the negatives for the sanfl were too great.

in the end though, the bigger, better resourced afl bullied the sanfl to get what they want. and good luck to them, it is after all in their best interests. it just shits me when people kid themselves that it is in the best interest of the sanfl as well.....

[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™?