SA Footy

This isn't having a go at anyone, but the current plight of Sturt and West and maybe Port got me thinking that every team has been on the brink at some stage over the last 40 years.

I stand corrected but I reckon that the following is true :

Central close to the brink in the late 1980s
Glenelg 1990 and again about 1994
North late 1970s and also 2003
Norwood mid 2000s
Port 1983 and perhaps 2013
South 1990
Sturt 1994, 2013
West Adelaide early 1970s, 2013
West Torrens 1975, 1990
Woodville as far as I can ascertain were always financially sound. Why then did they merge? They had become more competitive on field in the five years leading up to the merge. Of course the Eagles have achieved success that Woodville could have only dreamed of, but given the financial stability, who is to say it wouldn't have happened anyway.

Glenelg have never come close to being were Sturt currently are now (and in 1994-5), Torrens were in 1989-90, North in 2003 and West are now. Yes in 1989-90 we had a loss and our debt was an issue but that was largely due to the units we had built not getting the return we had expected and to interest rates hitting 17%. However we were solvent and could trade our way out of any difficulty. I know from personal experience thart we cut costs dramatically at the end of 1990. I still have my letter saying 1990 Honouriums will not be met. IIRC correctly in 1990 our T/O was over 1.1 Million and we didn't hit that mark again until the late 90s. Certainly we were a mile off the issues West Torrens were facing at the same time which forced them to merge.

It was 1997-98, not 1994 when Hoody was president that we went to the SANFL and said look at our books, look at how we are run and give us advice on how we can do it better. At no stage did we have debts out of control and we could trade our way, it was simply us trying to be proactive and saying lets review how we are run by an external body and make improvements based on their report. The Advertiser made a song dance about it - hello former Glenelg U/19 player Paul Kermode - I think it made the back page but it was another case of journalistic licence with only half truths told.

Certainly one of the smartest decisions we made was that in 1995 we appointed a full time financial officer so we could track our income and expenditure much more closely. That person has only just retired. Not sure what is happening in regards to that position but I hope we remain just as vigilent with our financial management as we have over the last 17 years.

Did Woodville merge or did West Torrens.



Maybe it was both 50/50....

A very good Trivia Question.

I think West Torrens lost their home.

Not meaning to upset anyone here.

If there was winner & a loser.

Who won & who lost.

Dog_ger wrote:I think West Torrens lost their home.

In the end they did, but that wasn't the plan. They didn't play at Woodville until the third season. It would however be nice to play one game a season at Thebby.

They were cashed up but they had no relevance or cred. Torrens were cash strapped and would not have been able to function without a merger. I lost interest and never renewed my membership after '93 and have only been to a few games since.

West Torrens only got back what the sanfl raped them of in 64. Torrens wouldn't been in that situation if it wasn't for the morons from the sanfl and other clubs who voted to bring woodville in to the competition. Woodville was only West Torrens second teamk

holden78 wrote:West Torrens only got back what the sanfl raped them of in 64. Torrens wouldn't been in that situation if it wasn't for the morons from the sanfl and other clubs who voted to bring woodville in to the competition. Woodville was only West Torrens second teamk

Yeah I'm sure you are right

robranisgod wrote:Woodville as far as I can ascertain were always financially sound. Why then did they merge? They had become more competitive on field in the five years leading up to the merge. Of course the Eagles have achieved success that Woodville could have only dreamed of, but given the financial stability, who is to say it wouldn't have happened anyway.

Merger or takeover?

Either way the least successful SANFL team from 1964 to 1990 with the lowest supporter base shored up their future (a merged future) without trying to continue stand alone with such a low supporter base in the post-Crows environment.

I think most if not all clubs went through a major financial shock post 1991 so who's to say Woodville's financial stability was sustainable into the 90s?

These are just speculations for the sake of the discussion.

Very financially viable pre 1990.

Post 1990 probably would of struggled , but who knows.

WWTFC has been a great success.

Just wish the old torrens fans would stop bitching about 1964 because that's what obvioulsy caused the WTFC do go into financial meltdown.

Woodville was brought in to the competition to try and blunt the might of Port Adelaide but it never worked. SA was never big enough for 10 teams.
West Torrens were the unfortunate fall guy for this misadventure. The Eagles never had the same success again in the period 1964-90.
Finals appearances in 69, 74, 78 & 80 and not a single win amongst them 4 losses and 1 draw.
Only 1 finals win since their last premiership in 1953 being the 54 First Semi final followed by finals losses in the following years

1954 1-1
1955 0-1
1957 0-1
1961 0-1
1962 0-1
1963 0-2
1969 0-1-1
1974 0-1
1978 0-1
1980 0-1

What the league should have done was widened West Torrens area in Ports area to blunt them and moved North Adelaide further North to encompass the Northern Areas and left it as a 8 team comp.

Wishful thinking in hindsight I suppose but what a mess it is now.

what about Central ... surely that has been a success?

On took them 36 years to get success even Glenelg did it in less time.

FOURTH ESTATE wrote:Woodville was brought in to the competition to try and blunt the might of Port Adelaide but it never worked. SA was never big enough for 10 teams.
West Torrens were the unfortunate fall guy for this misadventure. The Eagles never had the same success again in the period 1964-90.
Finals appearances in 69, 74, 78 & 80 and not a single win amongst them 4 losses and 1 draw.
Only 1 finals win since their last premiership in 1953 being the 54 First Semi final followed by finals losses in the following years

1954 1-1
1955 0-1
1957 0-1
1961 0-1
1962 0-1
1963 0-2
1969 0-1-1
1974 0-1
1978 0-1
1980 0-1

What the league should have done was widened West Torrens area in Ports area to blunt them and moved North Adelaide further North to encompass the Northern Areas and left it as a 8 team comp.

Wishful thinking in hindsight I suppose but what a mess it is now.

You can make what you like out of stats, but to me your stats suggest that Torrens were on the slide prior to Woodville coming in to the comp. They never won a finals match for 10 years prior to Woodville joining and given the resources and players they had up to the early 1960s that suggested that there were already problems with the club.

As I have often mentioned before there was a strong push to move South Adelaide out to Elizabeth in the early 1960s, thus keeping an 8 team comp but virtually having South lose their identity. It came down to a vote where 4 teams voted for this concept, 4 against and the casting vote of the president of the league coming up in favour of the 10 team comp.

FOURTH ESTATE wrote:On took them 36 years to get success even Glenelg did it in less time.

While we may have been a finals failure up until recent times, it's not fair to suggest that we were a failure. Finals failure, maybe, but we were a strong club prior to the premiership wins.
You wouldn't say Freo, as an AFL expansion example, are a failure just because they haven't won a flag yet.

Weren't Torrens minor premiers in 63? Doesn't sound like they were on the slide at that point.

Correctomundo, McAlmanac. Torrens had a good team into the 60s - several players played in the win in Victoria in 1963 - they just couldn't win finals.

Lost both finals in 63 by the barest of margins.

dedja wrote:what about Central ... surely that has been a success?

FOURTH ESTATE wrote:On took them 36 years to get success even Glenelg did it in less time.

"It" as in "a" flag inside 15 seasons, granted, but strictly speaking I'm pretty certain these two quotes aren't relating to the same concept.

FOURTH ESTATE wrote:Lost both finals in 63 by the barest of margins.

They lost the preliminary final by 2 points and were very unlucky but I don't think they ever looked like winning the second semi final.

You are right, they actually were still a good side in the early 1960s but also were one of the richest clubs in Australia. Perhaps a bit like the Bays in the Kerley era.

I think that Woodville coming into the league has been a bit of a convenient scapegoat. As I have said before the collapse of Reid Murray had a lot more to do with the eventual demise of Torrens.

I've always thought Woodville letting John Todd out of his contract so he could coach West Coast was the start of the demise, and it was a mistake then replacing him with Ebert given the saga of his sacking. It felt like any on and off field respectability we had started to earn was slowly eroded to nothing by the end of 1990 through some of our performances in the last 2/3 of that year.

Obviously a very small following even at the SANFL's height, crowds and image were a concern given it was only 4 seasons since what the WAFL had gone through. Wonder if there was any subtle push from the SANFL to get it started, as didn't they remove Torrens debt as part of the merger (or am I mistaken?).