Can Adelaide justify two clubs in the AFL?

Columnist

By Adrian Musolino, 19 Mar 2009 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: AFL, Port Adelaide Power

Related coverage

Port Power is a club in crisis. Its bailout plea to the AFL may have fallen on deaf ears for the moment as the SANFL is told in no uncertain terms to sort out its own mess, but this crisis was always on the cards.

At stake is the question: can Adelaide support two clubs in the AFL?

Putting aside its deal with the SANFL and the need to renegotiate its stadium arrangement, crucial to the Power’s ability to recover from this financial malaise is expanding its supporter base.

A crowd average of 23,842, 12,000 less than their first year in the competition, highlights the slow decline of a club that despite on field success, winning a flag in only its eighth season, has been unable to substantially breakout from its Port Magpies supporter base and expand.

The Adelaide Crows dominate the South Australian market, with a 70-30 split in their favour relative to the Power.

The problem with this is the mighty Catch 22 at the heart of Port Power’s very existence.

If the Power didn’t have the association, link, name and heritage of the Port Magpies, it would not have had the core group of supporters from day one, let alone the football expertise and distinction from the Crows.

The second Adelaide AFL franchise needed a distinctive feature.

The popularity of the showdown would not have been possible without this and supporters would not have abandoned the Crows for a second team that like them didn’t rely on a supporter base from a particular SANFL team or a specific geographical base.

Such a club would have been unsustainable in such a small market.

Yet, on the flipside, the Power needs the support of the wider South Australian market. Clearly its current supporter base isn’t big enough to sustain an AFL franchise.

The Power, despite the attempted distinction from the Magpies, will forever be Port.

But how can the Power expect to significantly expand its market share in a state in which Port is either loved or loathed?

The other SANFL clubs are represented by the Crows, and despite Port’s remarkable heritage and history in the South Australian game, they still only represent one ninth of the states’ football community if we use the SANFL as our base.

There is a deeper issue here, too, regarding Adelaide’s sporting crowds: put simply, they can be fickle. Winning is a necessity, but even then crowd figures can be unpredictable.

Adelaide is not growing at any significant rate, the population isn’t booming and the sporting landscape has faced a new challenger from Adelaide United, a franchise that has made significant progress in such a short space of time and, like the Crows, has galvanised the state.

Aside from Geelong, Adelaide is the smallest market, by population at least, currently in the AFL.

It is why the Power is struggling despite on field success while Fremantle, starved of success, can at least lay claim to healthy crowds thanks to the bigger market it resides in.

Considering the Crows had unrivalled support from the city and the humble market share of Port supporters, the Power should not be cast as a failing franchise.

Rather, this stalling should have been expected.

Surely the Power is deserving of support from the AFL through the special assistance funds, which Melbourne, North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs all receive.

As for the rest of South Australia, they really need to get behind their second franchise.

The reality is, however, that some Crows fans would rather see the Power die a slow and painful death than even consider assisting them, such is the polarized nature of South Australian football that has led us to this crisis.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (43) | Page 1 of Comments

Michael C said | March 19th 2009 @ 5:42am | Report comment

It’s a timely warning to the HAL for example who are rushing headlong towards a 2nd Melbourne team.

There’s no easy answers – - the main short term requirement is better utilisation of the venue (AAMI stadium). Perhaps, Port desperately need to be playing out of a boutique 25K stadium. Heck, perhaps they should be playing out of the Adelaide oval….but, the SANFL probably wouldn’t go down that path.

You’ve mentioned Geelong – and they are proof that the stadium deal is the key divider between those clubs struggling and those going pretty good. Geelong has that ’boutique’ 25K stadium. They also have a perfect ‘deal’, and they clear $600K per match, that compared to clubs losing money on a 28K crowd at Docklands. This is the most compelling issue for the AFL, especially with respect to the capacity to expand the league and maintain financial stability.

Again though, it’s an issue partly of the AFL’s making in Melbourne at very least. There’s probably more hope for Port to sort out something in Adelaide to tidy up the stadium ‘deal’. In Melbourne, the ‘struggling’ clubs are being screwed over by a privately operated stadium, and the AFL had offered zero ‘brokering’ support near enough to 10 years ago. The AFL had left clubs to sink or swim despite giving them no real options.

Reply
Dave said | March 19th 2009 @ 5:50am | Report comment

Thats why using South Melb as the 2nd team in Melb would never work…the new team needs to appeal to as broad a cross section of Melb as possible…if the old SM supporters want to come on board with the new team fine but it wont be South Melb or a team trying to reach only one group of people.

Reply
Craig said | March 19th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment

“a new challenger from Adelaide United, a franchise that has made significant progress in such a short space of time and, like the Crows, has galvanised the state.”… Nows thats funny! Stick to writing the soccer stories Adrian. Look at the last Red’s home game, did that look like a galvanised crowd…… The Crows are the biggest team in town by a fair way. Adelaide can sustain 2 AFL teams, just not 1 AFL team and one team trying to be an AFL team but still say they are the greatest because they used to win the SANFL with another team. They will be better off shedding the Port Adelaide rubbish all together. The creed the 1890 on the back etc is all a joke. How can you expect to draw a crowd when you can’t let go of those tenuous (look it up Port fans) links.

Reply
Justin said | March 19th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment

Michael C – I think you hit the nail on the head with the line “it’s an issue partly of the AFL’s making in Melbourne at very least. “.

I wonder if clubs who used to have decent suburban grounds like Geelong are wishing they could wind back the clock? Not only do they get a true home advantage but potentially big cash not reliant on a stadium deal.

Reply
Michael C said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment

Justin -

unfortunately it wasn’t a simple situation in Melbourne, and still isn’t.

All the politics around the State Govt over the decades effectively siding with the MCG/MCC against the VFL (and VFL Park).
The allure of Docklands stadium (along with probably a percieved need to ensure that, if it were to go ahead, then, make sure the AFL was key part of it, such that, by not committing when they did, the project might well have been dead and buried……..for a time……..but might have resurfaced again as a dedicated rectangle venue)
The equation of broadcast rights, and this was an issue with Princes Park. The capacity for the AFL to assume control of all of it’s venues, so to speak – and to bundle the broadcast rights.

Along the way, only so many of those suburban grounds could have with any level of sustainable economics, been upgrade to sufficient capacity, with sufficient access. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton especially have all out grown their suburban homes. Even North Melb, averaged over 30K attendances, just not getting a terribly decent pay off for it, but, there’s no way Arden St could’ve supported a 30K stadium or access for such crowds.

I’ve said before though – Geelong has by far the greatest set up and home ground advantage of any AFL club. In that,

-they don’t have the same ‘away’ travel issues of for example a West Coast or Brisbane, i.e. they get to play against 9 Melb based teams just up the road.

-They don’t actually share the ground with anyone else (on a par with Sydney and BRissie).

-they have a super little financial package at the venue and so make a ‘killing’ on modest home crowds (capacity) – but, it does mean that selling memberships is a restricted exercise

-they have a stand alone VFL side very much like the old reserves, and have a very definable tiered club in that respect. This is something relatively available to other Melb based teams to play the ‘ressies’ in the VFL. However, interstate clubs, like the Lions with the Suncoast Lions ‘ressies’ team in the AFLQ or the Swans with the ‘ressies’ in the Canberra comp – suffer for the lack of a VFL quality 2nd tier.

Geelong – - – as a benchmark – - – is territory most clubs have precious little chance of getting close to.

Reply
Kazama said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment

Craig, you assume Port fans can afford computers!

Michael C, I can pretty much guarantee you the SANFL will not let Port play at Adelaide Oval after SACA decided to break the agreement between the two parties and try to bid for AFL matches. There’s been a lot of bad blood since then and that’s why the SANFL started bidding for concerts and other sporting events that normally would have gone unopposed to Adelaide Oval. At one point SANFL CEO Leigh Whicker was on the radio saying they were looking at taking the SANFL finals away from Adelaide Oval and playing them at the clubs’ suburban grounds. That never eventuated, though ties remain strained. So unless SACA gave the SANFL a load of cash, or the SANFL see no other option, Port are stuck at AAMI. Port themselves can do nothing about it, because the SANFL own their license. If Port try to go behind the SANFL’s back the SANFL can pull them out of the competition.

I am a Crows fan, but I realise that having Port around is good for Aussie Rules Football in this state. Without a second Adelaide team suddenly the future of the SANFL becomes a bit more shaky because they aren’t getting as much money, and maybe it also raises big questions on whether we will see AAMI Stadium upgraded or a new stadium built.

I think that the Power would have been better off as presenting themselves like the Crows as being representative of the entire state rather than one small part of metropolitan Adelaide. And I think that a lot of Port supporters would have ‘jumped ship’ regardless of whether they were Port or not, because if the club is funded by an entity they have supported their whole lives surely they will support it.

I do honestly believe that SA, with all of our glorious Aussie Rules history, could support two teams – it’s just that the Power might not be one of them. Let’s be honest with ourselves – say Port had managed to pip the Crows in 1990 and join the AFL. Do you think they would be having these problems if they were the only SA AFL side? I do. I grew up hating Port and there’s no way I’d support them. I would have stuck with my VFL side, Essendon. I guarantee you that at least 80% of Crows fans would never have supported Port if they went in first. So maybe it isn’t a question of whether or not we can have two teams, maybe it is a question whether one suburb of Adelaide can make a team viable.

Reply
Michael C said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment

Kazama -

Is there a way you could see Port ‘re-invent’ themselves, somehow to redefine.

Given the colours are far removed, and the inaugral side made up of lots of players ‘hidden’ away at Port Adelaide in preparation – that side is now mostly a thing of the past (Brendon Lade??).

WOuld dropping the ‘Port’ and just being ‘Southern Power’ or something perhaps a little less generic and banal!!!

Could Port perhaps work a community segment? Really push a multi-cultural angle or an indigenous angle?

Reply
Kazama said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment

Honestly, I think it is too late – everyone who has been here before 1997 more knows they are Port so changing the name won’t accomplish anything in the short term.

Port have tried to push both the multicultural and indigenous angles at times since their inception – has it worked? Perhaps, but clearly not to an extent to put them anywhere near level billing with the Crows. Certainly not in terms of crowd numbers or memberships anyway. Obviously, they would appeal to new migrants to Australia because they wouldn’t see them as evil old Port like the rest of us do, but the Crows are still equally as appealing, so maybe in that respect they are on a level playing field with the Crows, but they really need an advantage and the truth is new migrants and temporary residents (i.e. students), or at least the ones I know, are lucky to attend one AFL game a season.

Port simply have to find some new members, but from where?

Reply
Pippinu said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment

Let’s assume the split is 80/20 in favour of the Crows (in terms of the loyalties of the residents of Adelaide) – is that definitely too little to support an AFL side? (considering a lot of the 80% are supporters in name only)

Kaz
I need to ask you an urgent question unrelated to this thread (sorry everyone).

When I went looking up the Jobs centre – there were no jobs to speak of except two assistant managers jobs for A-League clubs that have been up there for 4 seasons!

Also, visiting a range of clubs and NTs, I saw no facility to seek interest in their coaching jobs.

Then I had a terrible thought – it’s possible that I started this particular game by ticking a box saying that I only wanted to coach A-League clubs. Is that possible? And most likely, I am going to have to start a new game if I want access to positions around the world??!! (I can’t see anthing in the preferences that allows me to turn it on now)

Tell me it isn’t so!!!

Reply
Kazama said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment

Should be “Honestly, I think it is too late – everyone who has been here before 1997 knows they are Port, so changing the name won’t accomplish anything in the short term.”

How’s the development of post editing coming along Zac?

Reply