SA Footy

Junk article, although at least the situation is getting some press. (there is no such thing as bad publicity..right?)

Mentions some stats and then reminisces about the old times. Makes no attempt to delve deeper into why crowds are down. Some vague comments about clubs needing to change and find new ways of engaging the masses.

I too recall his argument when the debate was on in earnest. Bigger crowds. More media. Standard will suffer if the AFL listed players go elsewhere. But most of all, Sando and his Crows need a reserves team to keep pace with the likes of Hawthorn and Geelong. It just has to happen.

I notice in the article he states the standard of the league is dropping. That is up for debate, but regardless my assumption is that Bone could count on one hand the number of SANFL games he's attended in the past 5-10 years.

He finishes with this peculiar pearl of wisdom:

The AFL is a monster and it is getting bigger by the day. It cannot and will not be stopped. If you can’t beat it, join it.

saintal wrote:Junk article, although at least the situation is getting some press. (there is no such thing as bad publicity..right?)

Mentions some stats and then reminisces about the old times. Makes no attempt to delve deeper into why crowds are down. Some vague comments about clubs needing to change and find new ways of engaging the masses.

I too recall his argument when the debate was on in earnest. Bigger crowds. More media. Standard will suffer if the AFL listed players go elsewhere. But most of all, Sando and his Crows need a reserves team to keep pace with the likes of Hawthorn and Geelong. It just has to happen.

I notice in the article he states the standard of the league is dropping. That is up for debate, but regardless my assumption is that Bone could count on one hand the number of SANFL games he's attended in the past 5-10 years.

He finishes with this peculiar pearl of wisdom:

The AFL is a monster and it is getting bigger by the day. It cannot and will not be stopped. If you can’t beat it, join it.

Agree saintal, what a bizarre way to end the article, what's that meant to mean? Funny thing is it's not necessarily getting "bigger by the day" Crowds are down, Collingwood just had their worst crowd since 1940.
SA crowds are down due to the inequity now in our competition and the resultant discontent, compounded by the most idiotic programming in living memory.

Wedgie wrote:Centrals crowd is only up because they had a good Friday home game. Take away the extra 2-3000 they got for that than normal and you'll have a more accurate figure. I took a full car of people that don't normally attend games to that who wouldn't have even considered going if it was on any other day of the year.

Agree. Last year it was depressing with such low crowds. I couldn't get to the Good Friday game and refuse to attend the reserves games, but the crowds at home games I have been to have at least been on par to last year. This year the last home game I attended was April 30. With this years draw which includes the Byes and games against Adelaide and Port Power Reserves, the next home game I attend is July 16.

It was so disappointing having SANFL legends advocate for the AFL reserves inclusion. Guys like McDermott advocated to experiment with the league that made him, at a time when it was not required. At least now there is some public debate. The ridicule from Riccuito et al when anyone dares suggest that its no good for the comp has resulted in a complicit silence.

saintal wrote:
He finishes with this peculiar pearl of wisdom:

The AFL is a monster and it is getting bigger by the day. It cannot and will not be stopped. If you can’t beat it, join it.

He is right with the above, thats why the clubs needed to stand up to the SANFL/AFL when they had the opportunity, they had the opportunity to create a genuine 2nd tier competition with little AFL influence that could appeal to those players and supporters who have little interest in the AFL.

Sadly it was a fork in the road moment and the clubs took the easy option to side with the AFL, the competition wasn't in decline as many have said, in 2011 the average crowd was 3,400, a mere 5 years later that is considered an "excellent" crowd.

It would have been bloody hard work to go it alone, but it could have been so rewarding.

Well I see Sturt FC was on CH7 espousing how great it is to have the AFL reserves teams in the league.

The GM commented that people should watch they wish for with regards the AFL teams going, as it would hurt the league significantly.

Marty Mattner was also on saying how it makes the teams better etc.

So clear that Sturt's position has not changed since voting yes. They are obviously a massive supporter of their presence and also commented on the $100K they are getting each year for their presence. I didn't think they got $100K, but that's what the GM said.

Yep it hurt the league considerably without having so many unnecessary rules and having to obey the AFLSA in regards to breaks between matches etc.

csbowes wrote: the $100K they are getting each year for their presence. I didn't think they got $100K, but that's what the GM said.

I asked that question too and it was explained to me as $50k from the Crows and $50k from redistributed development money - that every club gets - that would normally have gone from the SANFL to Port. I had not heard that before

csbowes wrote:Well I see Sturt FC was on CH7 espousing how great it is to have the AFL reserves teams in the league.

The GM commented that people should watch they wish for with regards the AFL teams going, as it would hurt the league significantly.

Marty Mattner was also on saying how it makes the teams better etc.

So clear that Sturt's position has not changed since voting yes. They are obviously a massive supporter of their presence and also commented on the $100K they are getting each year for their presence. I didn't think they got $100K, but that's what the GM said.

Well Sturt is the only club that has their debt guaranteed by the SANFL so they need to stay in their good books

wild dog wrote:It was so disappointing having SANFL legends advocate for the AFL reserves inclusion. Guys like McDermott advocated to experiment with the league that made him, at a time when it was not required. At least now there is some public debate. The ridicule from Riccuito et al when anyone dares suggest that its no good for the comp has resulted in a complicit silence.

Yes, agreed.

Wasn't John Halbert spruiking at the time that the reserves proposal was put forth that Sturt should becomes the Crows reserves? For me, that was even more disappointing.

Heard discussion on 5AA this morning and disappointing they were comparing stats to the year before the AFL sides came in. This was the worst year of crowds up to that point and many SANFL fans were disrupted that year by all the discussion - which probably contributed in some way to the poor turn outs that year as well.

Sturt are a positive club at the moment. Good on them, it is working on and off the field. But trying to say anything positive about the inclusion of AFL teams to the competition and the positive impact of the AFL to anything to do with the league is pulling the other one. Especially with the benefit of hindsight, which we now have.

For those who don't understand, you only have to think about how you'd feel if the AFL competition was compromised to the extent the SANFL has been. Then understand that there are/were people who prioritised their SANFL clubs over anything else. These people were treated like a joke. Hence the drop off.

Aerie wrote:Heard discussion on 5AA this morning and disappointing they were comparing stats to the year before the AFL sides came in. This was the worst year of crowds up to that point and many SANFL fans were disrupted that year by all the discussion - which probably contributed in some way to the poor turn outs that year as well.

Sturt are a positive club at the moment. Good on them, it is working on and off the field. But trying to say anything positive about the inclusion of AFL teams to the competition and the positive impact of the AFL to anything to do with the league is pulling the other one. Especially with the benefit of hindsight, which we now have.

For those who don't understand, you only have to think about how you'd feel if the AFL competition was compromised to the extent the SANFL has been. Then understand that there are/were people who prioritised their SANFL clubs over anything else. These people were treated like a joke. Hence the drop off.

Morons, it's quite well known that crowds/interest dropped off from the moment the decision was made.

And in 2013 the SANFL did everything they possibly could to bring crowds down that year. An example that comes to mind is that the biggest Saturday crowd in 2012 was North vs Norwood at Prospect. Over 4,000 people attended a televised game.

So what did the league do in 2013? They scheduled North vs Norwood at Prospect as the televised game again but played it in direct competition with the Crows playing at Footy Park! They then had the audacity to claim that interest in the competition was waning and needed the AFL reserves to boost interest. The year was riddled with such programming.

Wedgie wrote:Centrals crowd is only up because they had a good Friday home game. Take away the extra 2-3000 they got for that than normal and you'll have a more accurate figure. I took a full car of people that don't normally attend games to that who wouldn't have even considered going if it was on any other day of the year.

Yep the Central figures are inflated and misleading because of that good Friday game and that's also despite Centrals having a better and more promising season this year

2013 was also the wettest Winter for football in recent times. It might not have been a particular wet year but it rained on a lot of Saturday afternoons in Adelaide.

This season has been pretty good weather wise.

Dutchy wrote:

csbowes wrote:Well I see Sturt FC was on CH7 espousing how great it is to have the AFL reserves teams in the league.

The GM commented that people should watch they wish for with regards the AFL teams going, as it would hurt the league significantly.

Marty Mattner was also on saying how it makes the teams better etc.

So clear that Sturt's position has not changed since voting yes. They are obviously a massive supporter of their presence and also commented on the $100K they are getting each year for their presence. I didn't think they got $100K, but that's what the GM said.

Well Sturt is the only club that has their debt guaranteed by the SANFL so they need to stay in their good books

Absolutely not true that Sturt had their debt guaranteed by SANFL. They traded out of their financial woes through the debt demolition campaign, benefactors and hard work by board and management. The only thing the SANFL did was advance their distribution for two months so as they could pay long term creditors. SANFL categorically did not or have not provided the club with an extra cent period.

Sadismo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

csbowes wrote:Well I see Sturt FC was on CH7 espousing how great it is to have the AFL reserves teams in the league.

The GM commented that people should watch they wish for with regards the AFL teams going, as it would hurt the league significantly.

Marty Mattner was also on saying how it makes the teams better etc.

So clear that Sturt's position has not changed since voting yes. They are obviously a massive supporter of their presence and also commented on the $100K they are getting each year for their presence. I didn't think they got $100K, but that's what the GM said.

Well Sturt is the only club that has their debt guaranteed by the SANFL so they need to stay in their good books

Absolutely not true that Sturt had their debt guaranteed by SANFL. They traded out of their financial woes through the debt demolition campaign, benefactors and hard work by board and management. The only thing the SANFL did was advance their distribution for two months so as they could pay long term creditors. SANFL categorically did not or have not provided the club with an extra cent period.

2012 mate. Sturts own financials said their loans were guaranteed by the SANFL. Feel free to apologise to Dutchy.

Sadismo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

csbowes wrote:Well I see Sturt FC was on CH7 espousing how great it is to have the AFL reserves teams in the league.

The GM commented that people should watch they wish for with regards the AFL teams going, as it would hurt the league significantly.

Marty Mattner was also on saying how it makes the teams better etc.

So clear that Sturt's position has not changed since voting yes. They are obviously a massive supporter of their presence and also commented on the $100K they are getting each year for their presence. I didn't think they got $100K, but that's what the GM said.

Well Sturt is the only club that has their debt guaranteed by the SANFL so they need to stay in their good books

Absolutely not true that Sturt had their debt guaranteed by SANFL. They traded out of their financial woes through the debt demolition campaign, benefactors and hard work by board and management. The only thing the SANFL did was advance their distribution for two months so as they could pay long term creditors. SANFL categorically did not or have not provided the club with an extra cent period.

I can categorically guarantee they did.

Dutchy wrote:

Sadismo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

csbowes wrote:Well I see Sturt FC was on CH7 espousing how great it is to have the AFL reserves teams in the league.

The GM commented that people should watch they wish for with regards the AFL teams going, as it would hurt the league significantly.

Marty Mattner was also on saying how it makes the teams better etc.

So clear that Sturt's position has not changed since voting yes. They are obviously a massive supporter of their presence and also commented on the $100K they are getting each year for their presence. I didn't think they got $100K, but that's what the GM said.

Well Sturt is the only club that has their debt guaranteed by the SANFL so they need to stay in their good books

Absolutely not true that Sturt had their debt guaranteed by SANFL. They traded out of their financial woes through the debt demolition campaign, benefactors and hard work by board and management. The only thing the SANFL did was advance their distribution for two months so as they could pay long term creditors. SANFL categorically did not or have not provided the club with an extra cent period.

I can categorically guarantee they did, do I need to prove it?

that and the sanfl acting as a guarantor for the club, and the sanfl giving the club money are two different things. acting as a guarantor only means they pay the money if the club eventually folds completely, which they havent, yet