SA Footy

TimmiesChin wrote:

JK wrote:Now that the AFL clubs own their own licenses, I would like to hear someone in official capacity within the SANFL come out and state that the $$ from the sale of West Lakes will be held in trust purely for the 8 foundation SANFL clubs, with none of it going toward the AFL ventures.

I think that's entirely fair.

So do I, and in fact think it would create the "perfect world". The AFC and PAFC assume the sole responsibility for their P&L which they want, and the opportunity exists with the move away from Football Park for that to improve. The SANFL clubs, whilst still needing to accept responsibility for their own financial performance, have an injection of revenue to help them remain viable. Win-win I would have thought. (apologies for going slightly off topic)

Well done boys, 50 up. Take guard again, adjust the box and kick on to the ton.

A couple of times' this thread had floundered but we've gone back to the basics and what we know works and forged on...

am Bays wrote:Well done boys, 50 up. Take guard again, adjust the box and kick on to the ton.

A couple of times' this thread had floundered but we've gone back to the basics and what we know works and forged on...

It's not often I got to 50 and felt as though 100 was not there for the taking.

Booney wrote:

am Bays wrote:Well done boys, 50 up. Take guard again, adjust the box and kick on to the ton.

A couple of times' this thread had floundered but we've gone back to the basics and what we know works and forged on...

It's not often I got to 50 and felt as though 100 was not there for the taking.

Should have stopped bowling after 5 overs perhaps mate?

therisingblues wrote:

Maddawg wrote: In fact the AFL needs the SANFL far more than they need a team like the crows or the power as they are all but franchises that can be replaced. A little bit of short term pain but definetly replaceable.

Very good point.
The success of the Crows proves that a side can be created from nothing with no supporters, to a state phenomenon with a membership of 50,000 plus. Had those 50,000 turn coats simply refused to follow the AFL and stayed with their SANFL side, as we did, we wouldn't be in this mess. They preferred to follow a side made from nothing over teams they'd followed their whole lives.

I have never been able to get my head around that!

So much lol.

First things first, people under about 30 have never known anything different to the crows being in the AFL.

Secondly not all people followed the vfl as well as the sanfl. Or they may not have followed or closely.

Wouldn't it follow then that if there was a brand new south Aussie team that they could get behind, in a comp that is better than the sanfl, that they would do that, as well as they continue to follow their sanfl team in a LOWER comp?

Your statement is so ridiculous that it hardly deserved comment but I had to...

And well done timmy for bringing some sense back to this conversation.

bennymacca wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Maddawg wrote: In fact the AFL needs the SANFL far more than they need a team like the crows or the power as they are all but franchises that can be replaced. A little bit of short term pain but definetly replaceable.

Very good point.
The success of the Crows proves that a side can be created from nothing with no supporters, to a state phenomenon with a membership of 50,000 plus. Had those 50,000 turn coats simply refused to follow the AFL and stayed with their SANFL side, as we did, we wouldn't be in this mess. They preferred to follow a side made from nothing over teams they'd followed their whole lives.

I have never been able to get my head around that!

So much lol.

First things first, people under about 30 have never known anything different to the crows being in the AFL.

Secondly not all people followed the vfl as well as the sanfl. Or they may not have followed or closely.

Wouldn't it follow then that if there was a brand new south Aussie team that they could get behind, in a comp that is better than the sanfl, that they would do that, as well as they continue to follow their sanfl team in a LOWER comp?

Your statement is so ridiculous that it hardly deserved comment but I had to...

And well done timmy for bringing some sense back to this conversation.

Also wonder (if he didn't want an SA based AFL side) if he tohught the SANFL could have somehow blocked the player drain to AFL sides interstate. Bring back the player retention scheme I say.....

bennymacca wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Maddawg wrote: In fact the AFL needs the SANFL far more than they need a team like the crows or the power as they are all but franchises that can be replaced. A little bit of short term pain but definetly replaceable.

Very good point.
The success of the Crows proves that a side can be created from nothing with no supporters, to a state phenomenon with a membership of 50,000 plus. Had those 50,000 turn coats simply refused to follow the AFL and stayed with their SANFL side, as we did, we wouldn't be in this mess. They preferred to follow a side made from nothing over teams they'd followed their whole lives.

I have never been able to get my head around that!

So much lol.

First things first, people under about 30 have never known anything different to the crows being in the AFL.

Secondly not all people followed the vfl as well as the sanfl. Or they may not have followed or closely.

Wouldn't it follow then that if there was a brand new south Aussie team that they could get behind, in a comp that is better than the sanfl, that they would do that, as well as they continue to follow their sanfl team in a LOWER comp?

Your statement is so ridiculous that it hardly deserved comment but I had to...

And well done timmy for bringing some sense back to this conversation.

Would it not be true that the majority of Crows supporters simply abandoned their loyalties to SANFL club's when the AFL circus came to town?

Sure i can accept that they brought new people to the game as well, people who, for whatever reason, weren't engaged with football before.

But i think it's fair to state that the majority came from SANFL football, and decided, to abandon their loyalties.
Some maybe can combine passion for both a SANFL club and the Crows, the two aren't always mutually exclusive, but it's a hard gig to give both justice.
It's the act of abandonment, of giving up on so called support for your team, that many of us found truly appalling.

Ronnie wrote:Would it not be true that the majority of Crows supporters simply abandoned their loyalties to SANFL club's when the AFL circus came to town?

Sure i can accept that they brought new people to the game as well, people who, for whatever reason, weren't engaged with football before.

But i think it's fair to state that the majority came from SANFL football, and decided, to abandon their loyalties.
Some maybe can combine passion for both a SANFL club and the Crows, the two aren't always mutually exclusive, but it's a hard gig to give both justice.
It's the act of abandonment, of giving up on so called support for your team, that many of us found truly appalling.

I don't know a single Crows supporter of my generation (who was in school when the Crows came in) that abandoned their SANFL sides. (obviously there are always exceptions to the rules)..... the Norwood/Crows combinationform my arch rival duo-nemisis

I'd hazard a guess that 75% plus of SANFL crowds are filled by people that also follow an AFL side.

TimmiesChin wrote:

Ronnie wrote:Would it not be true that the majority of Crows supporters simply abandoned their loyalties to SANFL club's when the AFL circus came to town?

Sure i can accept that they brought new people to the game as well, people who, for whatever reason, weren't engaged with football before.

But i think it's fair to state that the majority came from SANFL football, and decided, to abandon their loyalties.
Some maybe can combine passion for both a SANFL club and the Crows, the two aren't always mutually exclusive, but it's a hard gig to give both justice.
It's the act of abandonment, of giving up on so called support for your team, that many of us found truly appalling.

I don't know a single Crows supporter of my generation (who was in school when the Crows came in) that abandoned their SANFL sides. (obviously there are always exceptions to the rules)..... the Norwood/Crows combinationform my arch rival duo-nemisis

I'd hazard a guess that 75% plus of SANFL crowds are filled by people that also follow an AFL side.

If that were true then crowds wouldn't have fallen the way they did back in 1991. I'm not talking about armchair supporters here but genuine people who care enough about their club to go to games and have an active involvement and passion.

I know of numerous people personally who admit that they stopped attending SANFL football and opted to go the Crows way.
These people often say they still support say a Glenelg but it's meaningless, almost a way of saying they have a football heritage but apparently it's a heritage not worth the effort anymore. That's fine if that's what they want to do but don't pretend these people displayed a sense of loyalty that was admirable, it wasn't. They were off as soon as they thought a better offer had come along. Well guess what, a bit like marriage, you're meant to stick with your team!

bennymacca wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Maddawg wrote: In fact the AFL needs the SANFL far more than they need a team like the crows or the power as they are all but franchises that can be replaced. A little bit of short term pain but definetly replaceable.

Very good point.
The success of the Crows proves that a side can be created from nothing with no supporters, to a state phenomenon with a membership of 50,000 plus. Had those 50,000 turn coats simply refused to follow the AFL and stayed with their SANFL side, as we did, we wouldn't be in this mess. They preferred to follow a side made from nothing over teams they'd followed their whole lives.

I have never been able to get my head around that!

So much lol.

First things first, people under about 30 have never known anything different to the crows being in the AFL.

Secondly not all people followed the vfl as well as the sanfl. Or they may not have followed or closely.

Wouldn't it follow then that if there was a brand new south Aussie team that they could get behind, in a comp that is better than the sanfl, that they would do that, as well as they continue to follow their sanfl team in a LOWER comp?

Your statement is so ridiculous that it hardly deserved comment but I had to...

And well done timmy for bringing some sense back to this conversation.

Yeah, we know you did...................

Or you could look at the decline in average attendances from 1990 to 1991. What do you think caused that?

bennymacca wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Maddawg wrote: In fact the AFL needs the SANFL far more than they need a team like the crows or the power as they are all but franchises that can be replaced. A little bit of short term pain but definetly replaceable.

Very good point.
The success of the Crows proves that a side can be created from nothing with no supporters, to a state phenomenon with a membership of 50,000 plus. Had those 50,000 turn coats simply refused to follow the AFL and stayed with their SANFL side, as we did, we wouldn't be in this mess. They preferred to follow a side made from nothing over teams they'd followed their whole lives.

I have never been able to get my head around that!

So much lol.

First things first, people under about 30 have never known anything different to the crows being in the AFL.

Secondly not all people followed the vfl as well as the sanfl. Or they may not have followed or closely.

Wouldn't it follow then that if there was a brand new south Aussie team that they could get behind, in a comp that is better than the sanfl, that they would do that, as well as they continue to follow their sanfl team in a LOWER comp?

Your statement is so ridiculous that it hardly deserved comment but I had to...

And well done timmy for bringing some sense back to this conversation.

For some, many in fact, 1990 is really like it was only days ago.

Nearly 25 years on and people are still struggling to get their head around it? 25 years!

Booney wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Maddawg wrote: In fact the AFL needs the SANFL far more than they need a team like the crows or the power as they are all but franchises that can be replaced. A little bit of short term pain but definetly replaceable.

Very good point.
The success of the Crows proves that a side can be created from nothing with no supporters, to a state phenomenon with a membership of 50,000 plus. Had those 50,000 turn coats simply refused to follow the AFL and stayed with their SANFL side, as we did, we wouldn't be in this mess. They preferred to follow a side made from nothing over teams they'd followed their whole lives.

I have never been able to get my head around that!

So much lol.

First things first, people under about 30 have never known anything different to the crows being in the AFL.

Secondly not all people followed the vfl as well as the sanfl. Or they may not have followed or closely.

Wouldn't it follow then that if there was a brand new south Aussie team that they could get behind, in a comp that is better than the sanfl, that they would do that, as well as they continue to follow their sanfl team in a LOWER comp?

Your statement is so ridiculous that it hardly deserved comment but I had to...

And well done timmy for bringing some sense back to this conversation.

For some, many in fact, 1990 is really like it was only days ago.

Nearly 25 years on and people are still struggling to get their head around it? 25 years!

I think SANFL fans adjusted remarkably well. Most were quite happy with the way things were until last year.

Last year Booney...............................

Ronnie wrote:If that were true then crowds wouldn't have fallen the way they did back in 1991. I'm not talking about armchair supporters here but genuine people who care enough about their club to go to games and have an active involvement and passion.

Probably because your definition of support requires one to attend games. I grew up in the country, so my form of support was listening to games on the radio and barracking as loud as I could.

Got no problem with some of you having issues from last year. Some pretty valid points raised.

Just think the assertion that being a crows supporter (or a power supporter for that matter) is somehow not a true football supporter is one of the most retarded things I have ever heard in my life.

JK wrote:Now that the AFL clubs own their own licenses, I would like to hear someone in official capacity within the SANFL come out and state that the $$ from the sale of West Lakes will be held in trust purely for the 8 foundation SANFL clubs, with none of it going toward the AFL ventures.

Excellent point. Would like to hear the same.

I would also like to know what measurements the SANFL use to determine the success, or otherwise, of the AFL Reserves teams in the competition.

For all we know, Port Reserves (acting as Port Magpies) being on top could be seen as a success from league headquarters and they could be more worried with the lack of success of the Crows.

TimmiesChin wrote:

Ronnie wrote:If that were true then crowds wouldn't have fallen the way they did back in 1991. I'm not talking about armchair supporters here but genuine people who care enough about their club to go to games and have an active involvement and passion.

Probably because your definition of support requires one to attend games. I grew up in the country, so my form of support was listening to games on the radio and barracking as loud as I could.

Not always, lots of older and sick people and people in remote locations can't get to games, that's a given. Family life etc, all impacts.

in your case i take that if you had the opportunity to go to games you would've done so. You would've chosen to attend.

My previous comments are aimed at the crows supporters who did attend SANFL games but chose not to after 1991, but still went to the football. In other words they transferred their allegiance. What do you say about those people?

Ronnie wrote:

TimmiesChin wrote:

Ronnie wrote:If that were true then crowds wouldn't have fallen the way they did back in 1991. I'm not talking about armchair supporters here but genuine people who care enough about their club to go to games and have an active involvement and passion.

Probably because your definition of support requires one to attend games. I grew up in the country, so my form of support was listening to games on the radio and barracking as loud as I could.

Not always, lots of older and sick people and people in remote locations can't get to games, that's a given. Family life etc, all impacts.

in your case i take that if you had the opportunity to go to games you would've done so. You would've chosen to attend.

My previous comments are aimed at the crows supporters who did attend SANFL games but chose not to after 1991, but still went to the football. In other words they transferred their allegiance. What do you say about those people?

nothing. they can do what they want...

Interesting points.

I would think the crowds being lower than marketed for the crows games would be cause for concern. Similarly for port given they are up and about.

But internally at afl level what constitutes a success? Interesting question. For the crows, success of the afl side would probably constitute success. So to that end I see people's points about the differing goals.

But success of the main team is helped by success of the reserves team anyway, they are not mutually exclusive things and would be highly correlated given it means pressure on the main team etc.

Ronnie wrote:

TimmiesChin wrote:

Ronnie wrote:If that were true then crowds wouldn't have fallen the way they did back in 1991. I'm not talking about armchair supporters here but genuine people who care enough about their club to go to games and have an active involvement and passion.

Probably because your definition of support requires one to attend games. I grew up in the country, so my form of support was listening to games on the radio and barracking as loud as I could.

Not always, lots of older and sick people and people in remote locations can't get to games, that's a given. Family life etc, all impacts.

in your case i take that if you had the opportunity to go to games you would've done so. You would've chosen to attend.

My previous comments are aimed at the crows supporters who did attend SANFL games but chose not to after 1991, but still went to the football. In other words they transferred their allegiance. What do you say about those people?

Are you talking about transferring allegiances from a vfl club to an afl club? Totally understandable.

Choosing to spend dollars at afl level rather than sanfl - also totally understandable. Doesn't necessarily mean they changed allegiances, but I think in general it is possible to support more than one club because they are in different comps. And which one you choose to support the most could easily change from local to state to national and back again.

Ronnie wrote:in your case i take that if you had the opportunity to go to games you would've done so. You would've chosen to attend.

Not always. I also had local club I supported etc. but it would have been in the mix.

These days, I have 2 country clubs I follow (current and ex club in different associations) plus the Port AFL and SANFL sides.

Obviously priority one is games I'm selected to play in, and if that's not the case, the three other options are there for me.
In my case I'll watch a power game over magpies (if they clash ... generally they don't), but also look to get to some of the other games over the course of the season. Its probably just my age, but there seems to be a shit load more to get done in any given weekend these days. This year I haven't been to the magpies get because they have either clashed with my local comp, or family engagement (ie previous Sunday).

I've missed one Power game - saturday afternoon that clashed with local footy. to be honest, AFL games are generally scheduled at times that have less clashes as well. The times of Saturday afternoon being free for everyone are long gone and thats one (small) reason less people get to SANFL games these days.