Magellan wrote:80% of those disgruntled fans will continue to follow the league and support their clubs regardless.
I think csbowes makes an excellent point here. The SANFL clubs know that dyed-in-the-wool SANFL supporters are, in the main, going to persevere despite severe modifications to the structure and integrity of the game. This is because their passion for their club runs deep, irrespective of what happens around it.
I think you see a comparable situation in English football (and I'll stand to be corrected by those who know more about the EPL than me). Fans of the 'less wealthy' teams (for want of a better term) will support their side year in year out even though they have no realistic chance of competing with the resource rich power sides who continually dominate the top of the table. Their only genuine opportunity to wrestle the title away from these power teams is to be bought out by a wealthy benefactor who is willing to splash the cash. Despite this, supporters can't and won't countenance the idea of ditching their team. It'd be a crime to do so. They may not even see the inequity as an issue. At any rate, they keep on supporting and hope in their heart of hearts their team will one day win the title.My 2 boys used to love wearing their Bays jumpers...now have no interest. They have not only killed off their core supporter basis they have hurt future generations.
This is the bit I don't get. Irrespective of whether current fans drop off or continue to support, they're not going to be around forever.
Where will the next generation of SANFL supporters who will become paying members and active club participants come from? Surely relying on $50,000 a year from the Crows is not a sustainable solution.
Your pretty spot on, only point I would add in the EPL despite not winning the title fans see joy in other prizes like Europe, the cups etc but your are exactly right there is a massive element of tribal, blind loyalty
): if you have a group of clubs that are disproportionately resourced such that the they keep finishing at the top of the ladder every season, then isn't that to an extent compromised? They may be all 'league' sides playing for the same purposes, unlike the inclusion of a reserves sides as you say, but the evidence suggests that if you're not a power club with stacks of money you're pretty much making up the numbers. My understanding is that since the start of the EPL only one club since its inception in 1992 has won the title that's not one of the cashed-up super clubs like Arsenal, Man United, Liverpool, or Chelsea. In fact, Man City are only up there now because they've were bought out by wealthy benefactors who have since spent up on talent.
