SA Footy

tipper wrote:

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.

Same with a few clubs.

I don't mind the tough stance taken with clubs if they're managed poorly, it stops laziness in the attitude that someone will bail us out. I understand that there's a reasonable return for the SANFL from AFL games but it's a totally different stance when it comes to an AFL club that is poorly managed consistently yet they pump $14m into it. Again it's different rules for SANFL clubs and AFL franchises.

tipper wrote:

TimmiesChin wrote:

tipper wrote:

TimmiesChin wrote:notice you also ignored my other points.....

You're other point didn't warrant a response as they were plain stupid.

The model uplift was based upon an average home crowd figure - ie what our uplift would be given we maintained that crowd level. If the clubs go over and above that figure and make more ... good for them, but it doesn't change the modelled figured for the target crowd figure. Port for instance is currently running close to 25% above that figure, however that doesn't change the underlying model.

the model they agreed to, yet are now saying is not fair? once again, back to not doing their due diligence......

I think the point is that the model they agreed to and the returns they have recieved are far apart. GIven both Adelaide and Port after only a couple of home games each have come out with alarm bells saying its nowhere near the level they expected - whilst both clubs are miles ahead of projected figures.....questions deserve to be asked. The figures projected a $8.1m uplift in revenue for the AFL clubs and this was based on:

Port season ticket sales going from 13,600 to 23,000. We currently have over 29,000 season ticket holders so 26% above projections.
Adelaide season ticket sales going from 24,700 to 27,000. They currently have (apparently) 37,000 season ticket holders so 37% above projections.
Port attendances averages 31,000. Currently averaging 43,000 so 38% above projections.
Adelaide attendances averages 42,000. Currently averaging 46,600 so 11% above projections.

How can revenue be lower than expected when all figures are currently well above projections, without the SMA changing the goal posts?

As Whicker used to say "grow the pie, grow the pie". Well both Adelaide and Port have grown the pie significantly....no point growing the pie if Whicker and Olsens shit stained fingers are gonna keep taking a bigger slice.

Ronnie wrote:

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.

I'm interested as to whether you can point to an example of where the crows have played someone out of position. I have only seen two of their games this year, one live and one on tv, but the only thing I have noticed about their structure is if anything, they are forced to play people out of position.

Porps and Lyons in particular played midfield almost all game, which is something they wouldn't do in the afl, because they lack the depth to have significant rotations through the midfield.

I also can't think of too many players that plays in a very different position now than last year. Possibly johnston because he used to ruck a lot more at north. Any others?

Not saying their priorities aren't slightly different, they are, just think that the notion that players are played significantly out of position is false.

Macca19 wrote:stuff about attendances

It's a great point you make. Interesting to see how it plays out.

Macca19 wrote:I think the point is that the model they agreed to and the returns they have recieved are far apart. GIven both Adelaide and Port after only a couple of home games each have come out with alarm bells saying its nowhere near the level they expected - whilst both clubs are miles ahead of projected figures.....questions deserve to be asked. The figures projected a $8.1m uplift in revenue for the AFL clubs and this was based on:

Port season ticket sales going from 13,600 to 23,000. We currently have over 29,000 season ticket holders so 26% above projections.
Adelaide season ticket sales going from 24,700 to 27,000. They currently have (apparently) 37,000 season ticket holders so 37% above projections.
Port attendances averages 31,000. Currently averaging 43,000 so 38% above projections.
Adelaide attendances averages 42,000. Currently averaging 46,600 so 11% above projections.

How can revenue be lower than expected when all figures are currently well above projections, without the SMA changing the goal posts?

As Whicker used to say "grow the pie, grow the pie". Well both Adelaide and Port have grown the pie significantly....no point growing the pie if Whicker and Olsens shit stained fingers are gonna keep taking a bigger slice.

i will be interested to see where the "extra" money has gone, but after seeing rucci's article in todays paper pointing out some of the higher costs associated with adelaide oval, someone here at work asked the question about some of the non-essential costs that have occurred so far this season for both clubs.

the concert put on after the first game of the season, was that paid for by the power? and was that included when arriving at the statement that the first power game made less than a six figure sum? i believe there were lots of giveaways too, that would eat into any profits too.

the crows also put on a concert before their last game, and im sure it wasnt free either. now im not saying any of that shouldnt have been done, but if there are costs such as those that are "eating in" to game day profits for the clubs, can they really blame the sma?

i have no idea if that is a contributing factor either, but im just asking the question, and i thought it was a fair point. if the clubs are spending more to make it a "bigger" event, they may not be seeing a return on that outlay as yet.

i did lol at Ruccis point about the traffic management costs at adelaide oval. i dare say that is out of the SMA's hands too, and i think that would be the local council and the state government dipping their hands in for a piece (i assume it is the government and council that would be in charge of traffic management? happy to be corrected)

bennymacca wrote:

Ronnie wrote:

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.

I'm interested as to whether you can point to an example of where the crows have played someone out of position. I have only seen two of their games this year, one live and one on tv, but the only thing I have noticed about their structure is if anything, they are forced to play people out of position.

Porps and Lyons in particular played midfield almost all game, which is something they wouldn't do in the afl, because they lack the depth to have significant rotations through the midfield.

I also can't think of too many players that plays in a very different position now than last year. Possibly johnston because he used to ruck a lot more at north. Any others?

Not saying their priorities aren't slightly different, they are, just think that the notion that players are played significantly out of position is false.

Also have to take into account playing time.
Tex was taken off early and rested which left them down a rotation, havnt seen many of their games but id imagine most of the players returning from injury are eased back into it. We have also had plenty of instances in the past where the AFL coach has told the SANFL coach the player x is only allowed to play a certain ammount of minutes, im sure this would be the same still

That would have happened if he played at Norwood too. Though his first game may have been in the reserves...

bennymacca wrote:That would have happened if he played at Norwood too. Though his first game may have been in the reserves...

Have also seen a crows player tell a development coach to go jump because he wanted to play the last quarter of a reserves game that was in the balance....the club he was playing for wasn't his allocated SANFL club as they had the bye.

Who was it? Shows pride in his performance.

Why interests me is how these so called professional clubs finds these kinds of costs a mystery.

Lots of complaining afterwards, big surprise there, but what's the use of all the fancy MBAs in the world if you don't bother to look at the costs borne in concert with the revenue.

It would come as no surprise to the club that traffic management expenses would be incurred, why are they complaining now? It implies they didn't know what they were actually going to be before the first invoice turned up.

As always with the AFL clubs they like to barrel on about best practice but when reality hits you realise they've not got a clue.

bennymacca wrote:

Ronnie wrote:

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.

I'm interested as to whether you can point to an example of where the crows have played someone out of position. I have only seen two of their games this year, one live and one on tv, but the only thing I have noticed about their structure is if anything, they are forced to play people out of position.

Porps and Lyons in particular played midfield almost all game, which is something they wouldn't do in the afl, because they lack the depth to have significant rotations through the midfield.

I also can't think of too many players that plays in a very different position now than last year. Possibly johnston because he used to ruck a lot more at north. Any others?

Not saying their priorities aren't slightly different, they are, just think that the notion that players are played significantly out of position is false.

No I cant , perhaps they haven't been any yet but that isn't the point ! The point is that they have admitted their priority is to "develop players" and as such this and other things may happen at any time they consider it expedient. If you cant understand this and continue to have blind faith I honestly feel sorry for you.

Go and ask Norwood or the eagles and how proud they are at having produced so many afl players in recent times. Maybe their priorities haven't been as opposed as you think...

Macca19 wrote:
I think the point is that the model they agreed to and the returns they have recieved are far apart. GIven both Adelaide and Port after only a couple of home games each have come out with alarm bells saying its nowhere near the level they expected - whilst both clubs are miles ahead of projected figures.....questions deserve to be asked. The figures projected a $8.1m uplift in revenue for the AFL clubs and this was based on:

Port season ticket sales going from 13,600 to 23,000. We currently have over 29,000 season ticket holders so 26% above projections.
Adelaide season ticket sales going from 24,700 to 27,000. They currently have (apparently) 37,000 season ticket holders so 37% above projections.
Port attendances averages 31,000. Currently averaging 43,000 so 38% above projections.
Adelaide attendances averages 42,000. Currently averaging 46,600 so 11% above projections.

How can revenue be lower than expected when all figures are currently well above projections, without the SMA changing the goal posts?

As Whicker used to say "grow the pie, grow the pie". Well both Adelaide and Port have grown the pie significantly....no point growing the pie if Whicker and Olsens shit stained fingers are gonna keep taking a bigger slice.

And here we go again, Port Adelaide pushing the blame elsewhere, just like previous issues like -

"SANFL forced us to keep the Magpies and move them to Ethelton"
"SANFL screwed us on the Footy Park stadium deal"

You agreed to it FFS!!!! You signed on the bottom line!!!!

Projections are exactly that, projections, no guarantees. If you wanted guarantees on what you would get from the new stadium then negotiate a fixed return.

Its like signing a contract to a variable rate loan and whinging when the rates go up.

Port Adelaide = world champion whingers...always some one else fault

bennymacca wrote:Go and ask Norwood or the eagles and how proud they are at having produced so many afl players in recent times. Maybe their priorities haven't been as opposed as you think...

lol, once you have that answer then go back and ask them how proud they are of their recent premierships, and which ones they hold in higher regard. i doubt you will find a trophy cabinet detailing the players that have been drafted at either of those two clubs......

Never said they didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. Just making the point that the sanfl has has a development element to the league since probably 1991, just more explicit now.


And once again, if you read the thread you will find that I still on the fence as to the effect of the reserves teams. But the sky is not falling in...

bennymacca wrote: But the sky is not falling in...

Ask the clubs, even yours, what they believe their long term future is....

Like the GFC, it will take time to really hurt but the signs emerging are not trending upwards.

bennymacca wrote:Never said they didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. Just making the point that the sanfl has has a development element to the league since probably 1991, just more explicit now.


And once again, if you read the thread you will find that I still on the fence as to the effect of the reserves teams. But the sky is not falling in...

For a fence sitter, you seem to argue every single point from a pro-viewpoint. How about you argue with the Port fans when they raise a pro-AFL argument?

Lets see where the league is in 5 years. Nobody thought the sky would collapse within 8 rounds.

Great response to a PAFC suppporters comment on Wazza Partlands article on Adelaide Now

Grant 17 hours ago
So the Centrals' victories of 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 don't count because professional AFL players, including those from the Port Adelaide Football Club, were part of those teams?


I think you and some other posters are using flawed logic in singling out Central District for their success.

As a SANFL supporter of forty five years i will enlighten you with some facts.

With the invent of the Crows in 1990 and later the Power in 1997 all the nine SANFL teams were allocated AFL players.

So in this period from 1990 to 2013 all clubs benefitted and the following clubs had the good fortune and know how to win premierships

Central District 9
PAFC MAGPIES 7
Norwood 3
Eagles 3
Sturt 1
North Adelaide

So correct me if i am wrong it used to be a LEVEL playing field with all the nine SANFL clubs playing under the same rules and regulations.

However here we are in 2014 where we have a compromised SANFL competition where two teams are operating under different guidelines and rules a total farce.

Two multi million dollar franchises with million dollar salary caps with RESERVES teams full of AFL registered players.

Eight SANFL clubs each with a $300,000 salary cap and NO AFL players.

Oops missed out the last bit

So who has the distinct advantage its the Power RESERVES with all the concessions granted to them by the SANFL Commission.

There no longer is any sportmanship or integrity in this compromised SANFL competition.