By Adrian Musolino
March 19th 2009 @ 1:58am
Related coverage
Can Adelaide justify two clubs in the AFL?
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.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(40)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!!!
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?
Gaz said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Wouldn’t it have made sense to have a picture from a Power v Crows match?
oikee said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Tassie need a team.
Kazama said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Pippinu
Ok, lucky I am home at the moment! When you click on Jobs it will automatically take you to Job Centre, which will display stuff like assistant manager vacancies, which is what you described above. Check the menu where you clicked Jobs. Underneath Job Centre there should be a second tab called Job Security, which will bring up a list of all the clubs and nations you can manage in the game. You can sort this list to see which managers are under fire by clicking on “Job Status.” If a team is not on this list you can’t manage it. If only A-League clubs are displayed here, then that’s all you have to choose from I’m afraid, but I’m pretty sure NTs are always available so they should all be on this list.
As for national teams, or any club, you have to wait until the manager drops below “Stable,” so they have to be listed as “Insecure,” “Very Insecure” or “Under Review” before you can declare interest in the job. So if the option isn’t coming up, it is probably because the manager is “Stable” or better.
Michael C said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Tassie has half a team and a premiership winning one at that!
True though – they need a team, and perhaps need a time frame to build towards.
Kazama said | March 19th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
I agree, Tasmania absolutely deserve an AFL team and to be doing more than just living off a stake in Hawthorn.
Pippinu said | March 19th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Kaz
yeh I saw the Job Security screen, and only A-League clubs show up, and about a dozen countries as well (not all) – so it looks like if I want access to the whole world I might have to start again??
Oh well, the good news is I can hit the ground running from day one.
I’ll start with the Nix – no youth team – ok squad to begin with – very challenging – and I have access to some decent youth team squad members!
Redb said | March 19th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Kazama,
“I would have stuck with my VFL side, Essendon”
I knew were a good bloke, there’s still time to join us at Bomberland.
Redb
Savvas Tzionis said | March 19th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
No one in this whole saga has hit on one of the major reason’s Port supporters do not go.
They are the POOREST supporters in the league!!!!!
Australian’s up to the early 1990’s lived a relatively frugal existence. Its the main reason football crowds were smaller than they are now.
But with an expanding economy and credit card debt running rampant, EVERY supporter can go to the football on a regular basis.
But it appears Port Adelaide supporters have not reached this threshold of ‘affluence’.
My advice to everyone is, watch when the economy goes down the gurlger and you will see that all the other clubs attendacnes will drop significantly, EXCEPT Port Adelaide’s!!!
Michael C said | March 19th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Savvas -
perpetuating blog hear say, I thought someone had disputed that stereotype.
but I like your final point.
Redb said | March 19th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Savvas,
I diasgree on footy crowds, i think they’ll soften in 2009, in fact for some clubs they were already down in 2008, but a significant drop is unlikely.
Here’s a few reasons to ponder:
1. Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond (3 of the big 4 Vic clubs) are top 8 contenders with Hawthorn matching those big clubs in terms of membership and support. West Coast, Adelaide and Brisbane are likely to have buoyant years, Swans will do Ok at the redeveloped SCG if Barry Hall fires up. Therefore most of the big clubs are in for a good season.
2. Club membership is actually higher this year than last, in some cases substantially up not down.
3. In hard times, the footy is still a relatively cheap entertainment option especially as a club member.
Redb
Michael C said | March 19th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
AFL crowds are hard to match up year on year,
mostly because,
A. we don’t have a regular evenly balanced home and away fixture, so, playing Collingwood at home is a major benefit, especially in Melbourne.
B. clubs can move around venues which has included ’selling’ games interstate for better financial returns for far lesser crowds. Alternatively, the Swans average can be varied drastically depending on games a Homebush.
C. some clubs when doing well, have the major issue of limited capacity, obvious examples include in Perth and Geelong.
It’s not like measuring the HAL for example where the main variation is 11 or 10 home games.
At any rate, the clubs that fell away last year mainly did so after ‘pulling the pin’ earlier than normal. Port was an obvious example, they had a very unlucky start, kept losing, got injuries and progressively ‘retired’ players for the season – - no surprise their crowds fell away and even only had a so-so ’showdown’ crowd.
The AFL are smart with their fixturing to get in all the Coll vs Carl vs Ess vs Rich and even Haw vs Geel in the GF replay – early in the season, it gives a major boost to the crowds.
North won’t be playing 3 games at Cararra this year – that’ll help the North crowd average, but, not the financial bottom line!!! It’s madness that!
At any rate – it could even be another record year? It all depends how long until the bottom 6 teams have really fallen away and who is in that group. If there’s still 8 teams battling for 5th to 12th around round 20, then all the better.
oikee said | March 19th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
At any rate, taking about having 2 teams, i dont think Aderlaide is big enough for 2 plus Soccer plus any other code who might want to venture there, has Perth got 2 teams, this makes more sense as perth is expanding in size. To be honest with you all, i thought Power was a Perth team. The funniest post i heard was A-league taking over Aderlaide. The shine quickly wore off their effort. But what would you expect, after having the luxury of watching a game like AFL.
I am not shit-stirring i am just being honest.
M.C just have to mention the storm game the other nite, nice crowd and they went home happy. They must all be looking forward to get into the new stadium, they will think all their X.Masses have come at once.
Pippinu said | March 19th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
Oikee
I reckon the new stadium will certainly do a lot to increase the Storm’s support, especially when it first opens (remember the huge numbers that went to games at the newly opened Olympic stadium? a bit different, but it’s a similar effect)
Two teams must remain in Adelaide – the AFL has to avoid a situation similar to what has arisen with the Brisbane Broncos (basically outstripping every other club in terms of size).
oikee said | March 19th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Yes, i know what your saying Pip,,, you have to remember that brisbane is a league town yet even with their support it still dont sell out every week. We have simalar crowds for AFL up here and i just think Aderlaide being a smaller city could benifit from only having one team. Never did brisbane any harm. Aderlaide is sitting right between the other 2 states so you wont ever lose that rivalry. Mind you Logan and Ipswich could have their own league teams here in sth east QLD and they would be very happy. Its a bit like the rivalry between the Cowboys and Tiatans with the Broncos, they all love to beat the big city team. And do on accasions. Just a thought, but its hard to make a team reduntant in these times, the 1st team to move or fold will be looked at being a failure amounst the codes.
oikee said | March 19th 2009 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
The a-league are in a good position. Growing the code with no one city problems.
Tifosi FC said | March 19th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
The idea of having two teams in Adelaide and perth and sydney and brisbane /Gold Coast is to ensure that every week game can be seen on TV in these cities, thus creating the opportunity for the AFL to ask for more revenue from the TV stations.
Does anyone really believe a team in tasmania should wait for an AFL team whilst a team in West sydney gets one first?
Its all about TV revenue people. Fox Sports even mentioned that the reason the AFL gets more money than the NRL is because it has the potential to be seen by more people.
PS maybe the Tasmania AFL bid team can get the phone number of the saudi sheikh who is supposedly bankrolling the Tasmania A-league bid.
Michael C said | March 19th 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
Tifosi FC -
the West Sydney is a double pronged thing. TV plus grass roots growth.
If it was all about TV, the AFL wouldn’t have been investing so much money, time and effort at the grass roots level.
The results remain to be seen in absolute terms. Alot of the more tangible results (i.e. recruits/draftees) are still in the nurturing stage.
It’s a long term thing. It’s easy to talk about TV money in the short term, but, we know that that money would simply be absorbed back into the NSW grass roots development. It’s not as if the money goes to line the pockets of private citizens (i.e. club/league owners). And, the AFL players are actually paid less in relative terms than are the NRL players. So much more of AFL revenue is ploughed back into the game beyond the elite level. That isn’t likely to change in the short/medium term.
Foxtel – the main problem for NRL is that Foxtel kicked off with the RL (C7 was going the footy path). The pay tv market in the RL heartlands is the most mature pay tv market in the country. Fox aren’t too fussed about ‘ratings’ (i.e. advertising revenue), they are fussed about new business – and the AFL states promise the most new business as well as AFL followers in the RL states. How long that level of ‘potential’ lasts such that it dictates such a spend? Who knows.
matta said | March 19th 2009 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
Port have a few major issues (I am from Adelaide..well from the first 30 years of my 33 years anyway).
1) their coach has about as much public appeal as Adolf Hitler.
2) in the early days they had several off field issues that didnt help them.
3) the bond with the old skool Alberton crew isnt as strong as most people think. Sure there is something there but many of our family friends, who have been to every Port game since they were 5 years old, have stopped going to the AFL becuase they say the AFL section (players, coaches etc) really want nothing to do with the traditions of the club.
The ground thing isnt or shouldnt be an issue as Footy Park is a few k’s from the Port heart land.
Soccer taking over in Adelaide? you are kidding me arent ya?
matta said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
oh sorry, two more points.
4) the actions of many Port supporters keep fringe fans and family groups away.
5) the Port Adelaide supporter base isnt like it use to be and I dont think the club gets that. 30 years ago Port Magpies fans genreally all lived near Alberton and worked on the docks or in plants down that way. A big portion of the gen x and y fans are professionals who live in areas all over the city – these types (I know many) may go to the Showdown but thats really it.
ren said | March 19th 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
i hope you didn’t come up with the title adrian. It really is a stupid question. Of course Adelaide can! the problem is as pretty much anyone has pointed out is that the 2nd club is port. I liked the idea of port playing out of the adelaide oval. I think (SAians correct me if i’m wrong) a number of SANFL games are currently played there, (can you imagine the best game at the best looking ground).
It is interesting to look at freo as an example of a 2nd team, It has taken a long time for freo to be comparable to the weagles, and really they are still behind everywhere but onfield fro the coming season. A lot of support for freo stems from a percieved arrogance of WC (i see strong parallels between WC and Adelaide). But , for me most interestingly, freo combines two of the fiercest rivals in Australian Football, old easts and south freo. Additionally freo seemingly represents SoR and WC NoR. (Is there a similar clear geographical distinct areas, perhaps that concrete pond). I think the AFL is starting to follow this method with WS as distinct from Sydney and GC17 compared to brisbane. The danger is in creating a situation like that of the NRL and the Broncos.
Adam Pearce said | March 20th 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Well i believe Adelaide can support two teams i mean we aren’t the first club to ask for financial assistance and got it too to keep it afloat until it can get to steady position again. Port Adelaide is apart of the fabric of SA footy we aren’t moving we aren’t changing names and we sure as hell aren’t folding.
C’mon the Power.
David said | March 21st 2009 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
I think Adelaide will struggle to keep two teams for the simple reason we are not a growing State. Where are these new supporters going to come from? Also where are the sponsors in SA going to come from – Alan Scott Port’s biggest sponsor to date passed away last year and is no longer sponsoring the club, Bianco (major sponsor) is according to rumors in trouble and unlike to renew its sponsorship (2 years left I think) and Vodafone will not be renewing thier sponsorship. The old time Port fan is getting older and it appears alot of the kids do not share the same passion. Also the Crows are the number 1 team in town but if they have a lean year watch the crowds drop off. At least when they are successful the crowds come back but Port has been successful and still they are going backwards. So it does not look good. The AFL should not be wasting money expanding I mean Sydney cannot even make a profit and they have the whole state to themselves and ensure the AFL heartland such as Port Adelaide remains viable first.
The 1 and Only Master said | March 21st 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
David,
In my living memory I have NEVER seen the Crows crowd drop off.
Please support your statement with some sort of evidence, eg. which year
Michael C said | March 23rd 2009 @ 5:10am | Report comment
David -
if making a profit were the requisite, then the Hyundai A-League would not be in existence……..and they are all privately owned franchises!!!
AFL clubs aren’t in it for making profits.
Reality is in a 16 team competition in a single division, you will always have clubs that with a down year and for whatever reasons, find balancing the books difficult. The capacity to pull out of that within 12 months or 24 months in this case is severely dented by a GFC. The AFL must be willing to support such clubs if required – - but, the AFL has generally ensured that clubs have decent business plans and aren’t just throwing good money after bad.
Ronnie from Hobart said | March 31st 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Ummhh, it may not only be Port Adelaide that is in trouble. Adrian, have you heard anything more substantial about this story regarding Adelaide United? The story certainly is short on detail.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25250878-5000940,00.html
“Football Federation Australia may be forced to take control of the club after their owners admitted they were looking for new investors. It’s understood owners Bianco Constructions are experiencing difficulties and may be forced to hand in their A-League licence.”
AFL attendances may wane a little this season, but it is a far more established competition with greater market clout than the HAL. Start-ups and mid-caps always get crunched the hardest in market downturns – the same goes for the world of sport.
The Victorian clubs will generally still do well, feeding off one-another’s rivalry. And the AFL stands to benefit from a resurgent Carlton – the club that thinks it is born to rule. Gotta hate that.
The AFL’s strategy of spreading into NSW and Qld. is what it needs to do. 2 AFL states – SA and Tas. – are ‘rust belt’ states with anaemic economies and demographics. NSW and Qld. hold 55% of the Oz population with more robust economies. Little wonder Tassie’s AFL bid has all but been laughed off by the AFL.
Redb said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
RFH,
AFL attendances first round 2009 was 349,000 the fifth highest of all time. I would say the Collingwood MCG crowd was a little soft at 41K, they ave about 55K, but it was telecast live.
Overall attendance will be down this year from time to time but not dramaticially. Interestingly with both Adelaide teams winning their rivalry is set to re-ignite.
Redb
Ronnie from Hobart said | March 31st 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Not a bad start, RedB. Perhaps the soft Coll. v. Adel. attendance was evened out by the super-hyped Rich. v. Carl. match. Thankfully they got on and played the match, the hype was bloody irritating.
Even though it’s only round 1, it’d be fascinating to see a St. Kil. v. Footscray(WB) GF.
With each having a history of chronic underperformance , you’d have to ask “Who the bloody hell could win it?”
Adelaide United may be saved afterall … http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25260547-5006373,00.html
Despite the perilous financial times we live in, the AFL and it’s clubs – even Port – appear to have planned wisely and largely protected themselves with their membership bases – a luxury NRL and HAL clubs would love to have. The AFL clubs have worked hard when times were good and mitigated government risk to revenue (eg. NRL clubs and pokies revenue) and private ownership risk to revenue (eg. Adelaide United). If AFL clubs can clear more at the gate they’ll be laughing.
Say, I wonder whatever happened to that Sheikh who was going to plough money into a Tasmanian HAL team.
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Redb and RfromH,
not bad given head to head in town with the F1 GP. Also, on Saturday, a lot of local footy was kicking off with practice matches, along with being such balmy autumn weather (mid/high 20s). No shortage of things to do, so, basking in the sun at the ‘G was only so high on the priority list!!
RfromH -
very true re the AFL not getting too carried away during the good times. Part of that evidenced in the ratio of game revenue paid to players being less than that of the NRL. (smaller pool of money in NRL too). The AFL has invested HEAPS in grass roots, and also put away a future fund (which they also pulled out into cash before the ‘GFC’ hit, and so, in real terms, the AFL is in a super strong position on that front).
Ronnie from Hobart said | March 31st 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
MC
Fine weather and a fresh start probably always helps draw out the punters too for R1.
“The AFL has invested HEAPS in grass roots”
Yep, when some people say GC and WS will fall over they might be forgetful of the fact that the AFL is willing to plough loads of cash into these markets, specifically into junior development – a long term approach to effectively creating a market.
It’s that old Jesuit saying, “Give me the child until he is seven …”
With so much cash in reserve, it can afford to go the distance – a war of attrition, so to speak. It’s not distracted like the NRL, which is fighting on 3 fronts – the AFL for national dominance, football/soccaaaaa for Sydney, and Continental Union for players.
There’s always so much talk from sports commentators and the media about drinking culture threatening code and club viability. As if. People will always excuse any rudeness that comes from their sports idols.
The true barometer of health always comes back to financesl. Of all the codes in this country the AFL is top of the heap, with a strong cash position and great cashflow. The likes of the ARU’s JON must be envious.
John said | September 17th 2009 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
We can justify it more than Sydney having 10 NRL clubs