Rebrand should not be AFL’s first Port of call
By Vince Rugari, 21 Aug 2012 Vince Rugari is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, Port Adelaide
Danyle Pearce in the NAB Cup (Slattery Images)
Related coverage
Forget tanking, forget the growing pains of the expansion sides, forget the tribunal and the umpires. Port Adelaide is the AFL’s biggest problem.
Just 13,683 fans – the lowest crowd ever at AAMI Stadium – saw the Power get pumped by 48 points at the hands of West Coast on Sunday.
Port’s predicament needs no further exposition – except to say that the club needs urgent mending, or its very future will be in jeopardy, we’re told.
So what are the options for the AFL, as it stands?
There is a CEO in place, Keith Thomas, who has the backing of Andrew Demetriou and a mandate for sweeping change.
Disturbingly, though, the push for a complete Port Adelaide rebrand is said to be gathering steam.
The new fix being bandied around is to rename the club – make them the Southern Power, perhaps, or give them some other neutral, cotton candy, non-Port Adelaide name – to widen their supporter base.
Change is indeed needed, but not like this.
Presumably this mind-numbingly ridiculous idea comes from the same marketing geniuses who waved their magic wand and cured the Bulldogs and the Kangaroos with name changes.
Oh, wait – that’s right. That never happened.
Both clubs – who, just like Port, are blue collar to the bone – are currently backing away from these disastrous decisions at a rate of knots.
Let’s start with the Doggies. The ‘Western Bulldogs’ name is an abomination. They are Footscray, and no amount of spin doctoring or Roy Morgan research will change that.
How can they not be? Just look at their jumper. This year, they did away with the cartoon dog’s head and they now wear almost exactly the design that has been synonymous with the club since 1936.
It doesn’t just ooze Footscray… it is Footscray. And for a club that was trying to be all things to all people, it is clearly an admission that they cannot change who they are.
You get the feeling it’s only a matter of time until that ‘FFC’ on the back of their jumpers becomes a reality once again.
Give them time, because North Melbourne have shown what is possible when a former weakling club returns to their roots – and then combines it with good, honest, winning football.
In 1999, they became known solely as the ‘Kangaroos’. What a brilliant move that wasn’t.
It was just one of a series of dominos that toppled in a tumultuous period for the Shinboners, who could so easily have relocated to the Gold Coast, or Canberra, or anywhere but Arden Street.
How did they pull themselves from the brink of collapse? The day after saying they would not be moved to the tourist strip, they became the North Melbourne Football Club once again.
They stood up for themselves. And then they got back to business. Fast forward nearly five years, and they are now one of the form teams in the AFL – one that people want to watch.
So entertaining and fashionable have they become that according to The Age, Channel 7 are prepared to hand them more primetime football. That brings sponsorship and exposure. The Roo renaissance continues.
People tend to forget what winning can do to a fanbase. It wasn’t so long ago that Hawthorn, Collingwood and Fremantle were problem teams. Not to mention the NRL’s South Sydney.
In this light, we turn back to Port Adelaide. Perhaps the solution for this club is to finally live up to their name, rather than change it or pretend to be something else.
Instead of fooling people into thinking they are another club, how about trying to solve the identity crisis and convince the 300,000 or so people who think themselves as supporters to come back to the games?
“Less Port and more Power”, in failed presidential bidder Kevin Foley’s words, would serve only to destroy the soul of the club – and further confuse the kind of hardy fans like the near-14,000 who actually turned up on a freezing Sunday, to the worst stadium in the AFL, to watch their horribly out-of-form football team get belted.
The fact is there is nobody in SA who is looking for a new generic team to follow. This supposed market is a myth.
If a rebrand is needed at all, it would be only to finally unite and engage all the scattered and divided supporters across South Australia under the one banner.
The best way to do that? Ignore the unbalanced debate and the detractors who don’t understand. Just get back to winning.
Appoint the right board members, make the right decisions for the right reasons – and leave the name alone.
Then get the Power playing well again, and this might not be the armageddon that it is made out to be.
Vince Rugari is an Adelaide-born journalist who cut his teeth on the sporting graveyard that is the Gold Coast. He fancies the round ball and the Sherrin, and used to be a handy leg-spin bowler before injury curtailed a baggy green push. He is a Port Adelaide fan by birth, as painful as that has been recently. He's now sports editor of The Area News in Griffith, NSW.
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, Port Adelaide

August 21st 2012 @ 8:54am
Football United said | August 21st 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
I hate generic ‘broad-reaching’ team names like Western Bulldogs, Western Force, New Zealand Warriors just as equally as when teams are solely referred to by nicknames anywhere outside casual conversation with a passion. It serves to kill a fans local attachment to his team by making it all about the ‘everyones included’ nonsense because we can just call our team some tacky nickname. If anything they should becoming more Port Adelaide FC and less Power. Port are a shadow of their past and the ridiculous and petty conditions from the AFL and Collingwood for their entry have played a part in their slow painful decline. A Renaisance of Port heritage is needed to make fans proud of their club again, the black and white colours, a new badge with a magpie and the year 1870 on it , their classic club song. The PAFC used to be a proud club in Australia, ‘The Power’ is a sick joke.
August 21st 2012 @ 9:30am
aflhype said | August 21st 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
It was not freezing on Sunday it was actually a great afternoon that I spent outside with the kids. This is what happens 20 years after expansion in a AFL state good luck to GWS and GCS. The power are gone no one can afford to keep them afloat, no real sponsors to take them on, too many teams and lack of quality players to be successful in the ST. I know many Port supporters who have no passion left for the club.They may again if successful in the future, the question is when will that be and can they survive until then. They made a profit last year of $800k because it included $5 million in AFL and SANFL extra grants, the SANFL is heavy in debt and will the AFL continue to pump money in?
August 21st 2012 @ 10:13am
AGO74 said | August 21st 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Spot on Vince. I experienced this with my team in the NRL Canterbury. We morphed from Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs to Sydney Bulldogs to Bulldogs before finally reverting to Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs. We went through more changed logos than you can imagine to now where we have one which not quite the same as our historical logo is very true and respectful to it.
If Port Adelaide are considering this, then don’t do it. Stupid marketing mumbo-jumbo that doesn’t work.
August 21st 2012 @ 10:25am
Pope Paul VII said | August 21st 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Having followed North since the early seventies, I hated the Kangaroo period, though the GF was quite nice. I notice they have fazed out the awful Kangaroo themed away guernseys which is a great thing.
You are dead right about the ridiculous Western Bulldogs. Love the return to the old guernsey.
And Port should drop the Power crap. Further they should don their traditional colours and just go for it.
August 21st 2012 @ 10:36am
checkside said | August 21st 2012 @ 10:36am | Report comment
What would be Collingwoods and Eddies reaction be if Port don the traditional black and white?
August 21st 2012 @ 10:59am
Lucan said | August 21st 2012 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Plenty happy for them to wear the prison bars at home, and away when there’s no clash.
Eddie cries about his club propping up the poor ones financially. Let Port have at go being sustainable without the dreadful restrictions forced on them, then the Melbourne powerhouses won’t have to dig as deep into their pockets. Win-win.
August 21st 2012 @ 11:44am
Vince Rugari said | August 21st 2012 @ 11:44am | Report comment
They should never have had a say in the first place. Their view, quite frankly, is irrelevant.
August 21st 2012 @ 7:12pm
Football United said | August 21st 2012 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
not their thing to have a say in. there are plenty of competitions in the world (amateur afl included) where teams have similar jerseys or names. Stoke, Sunderland and Southampton (except this year) all traditionally being clubs with red and white stripes and all playing in the EPL for example.
August 21st 2012 @ 11:07am
brendan said | August 21st 2012 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Im with Pope Paul VI on this one Vince drop the power and be known as Port.Good article mate it is so hard for sides not doing well on thefield to make money.Port should get access to more SA players to help them re-build .
August 21st 2012 @ 11:34am
Pope Paul VII said | August 21st 2012 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Apoplexy hopefully Checkside. In the pre national comp days lots have Port supporters would have had the Collies as their VFL team so he’s insulting his own sympathisers as well.
August 21st 2012 @ 11:50am
Me too said | August 21st 2012 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Part of Port’s problem was moving away from it’s brand and attaching the ‘power’ nick, as well as it’s famous jumper. It weakened it’s identity. Creating a replacement magpies to play in the sanfl lessened it’s chances to grow support from new generations. It may be too late, but they need to revert back, not move further away. They have a lot of support in country SA and as more of these people resettle in Adelaide they bring new support.
Very shortsighted of the sanfl to insist on an’adelaide team first, then bringing port in when allegiance to the new team meant a tiny support base for when port arrived.
August 21st 2012 @ 12:09pm
Vince Rugari said | August 21st 2012 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Precisely, me too.
The birth of the Crows – as the team for all South Australians, wearing the SA colours and sporting the SA emblem of the Crow – essentially made it near-impossible for any other team to come in.
In fact, when you have a side like the Crows, the only other option is Port Adelaide. That is the only part of the Adelaide football market that could stand as a counterpoint to such a behemoth.
The Norwood-Sturt partnership or the Cartel wouldn’t have stood a chance, and that goes for any mythical second composite side as well.
August 21st 2012 @ 12:17pm
Adrian said | August 21st 2012 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Good article Vince – you are 100% right.
The song, and the “Power” nickname need to go. Port Adelaide need to assert their traditional identity and rediscover the fire that gave the club so much pride and success in earlier times.
(btw – I am a paid up Port Adelaide member and if I didn’t live in Melbourne I’d be going to a lot more games than I can currently)
August 21st 2012 @ 12:27pm
damo said | August 21st 2012 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
In my mind, the only other option for a successful SA team other than Power is the Centrel Districts Bulldogs. Fanatical support, clearly defined and isolated home base, constantly turning a proffit and premiereship.
Should power fold, the AFL would BEG them to sign up. Mind you they’d have as much success as the power over ten twenty years, if not worse, as the Bulldogs/Crows supporter base blurs too much.
Ports the only logical choice for a second team as (as mentioned above) they represent the antithisis to the crows.
Asfor the rebranding, just do what should have been done from square one- the power and magpies are one club two teams now, make them a club with two IDENTICAL teams.
Success on field will only come when the debt thats crippling the salary cap, coaches box and support staff is solved. Port seem to content to rely on AFL and SANFL handouts and wait for Adelaide oval. Like the debt wont follow then there or something. Melbourne beat their debt with auctions, dinners, old players nights, so did the bulldogs- i have seen the power do NONE OF THESE THINGS.
August 21st 2012 @ 1:16pm
Ian Whitchurch said | August 21st 2012 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Damo,
You have it backwards – Port arent in trouble and relying on SANFL handouts. Port are in trouble *because* the SANFL have sucked so much money out of the club to fund their other operations.
The SANFL are the problem, not the solution.
August 21st 2012 @ 7:14pm
Bayman said | August 21st 2012 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
Ian,
Be that as it may it doesn’t alter the fact that the SANFL has a competition to run. A competition that has been running for over 130 years and one in which countless South Australian football fans have a considerable emotional investment.
Are you suggesting the SANFL should simply disappear in deference to the AFL? And the WAFL?
The two licences were granted under the conditions that so many now find difficult. But they were the conditions under which those licences would be granted – and everybody knew it at the time and accepted it.
Don’t forget the SANFL’s primary responsibility is to its own competition. The SANFL accepted the involvement, and resisted for as long as it did, knowing full well that an VFL/AFL presence in South Australia would sound the death knell of the local competition as one of high standard and high profile. As did the WAFL.
It was probably inevitable and that’s why both state leagues eventually gave way. After joining first, the WAFL made no secret of their situation and told the SANFL to avoid the VFL at all cost. It was already probably too late for that. Indeed, the SANFL had approached the VFL long before 1990 but it wanted inclusion according to its own schedule, not the VFL’s. They were knocked back by the VFL/AFL at the time but the writing was on the wall.
Let’s face it, in the rush to form a national league every state BUT Victoria has suffered. Any wonder why most outside Victoria view the AFL as the VFL renamed. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s just a VFL with more teams.
Why else do premierships won by Collingwood, Carlton or Essendon before 1990, or 1987 if you prefer, still count?
So you can criticise the SANFL all you want but Port Adelaide knew what they were getting into. Be careful what you wish for. No doubt, these days, there are many in Adelaide who think the Crows and the Power more important than the SANFL at least in terms of prestige, money, exposure and standard – and they’re right – but those people, invariably, are the young under 22s who have never known anything but the AFL in Adelaide.
It is just Port’s bad luck that the deal was done twenty years ago when the SANFL was still king. The AFL has robbed us, and the WAFL, of all of our best players for over twenty years and it has destroyed the culture and the atmosphere of the SANFL. It even rebranded Wayne Carey so that he could no longer play for South Australia against Victoria. No wonder so many outside Victoria look at the AFL with a cynical eye. We just don’t trust them and we certainly don’t like them.
Port’s situation is unfortunate – but it’s not all the SANFL’s fault. Port need to take some responsibility, as do the AFL.
Let’s not kid ourselves – the expansion of the AFL, and the licence fees required, were nothing more or less than a grab for additional money to prop up ailing Victorian clubs. The SANFL is surely entitled to its slice of the cake.
August 21st 2012 @ 11:02pm
Adam said | August 21st 2012 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
Absolutely Port is much to blame. Poor decisions and a fickle crowd just like every other club that goes through hard times.
BUT….. The cash cows that are Port and Adelaide wont be there forever, and the SANFL’s pig headedness and greed will cost them the licences.
How are Adelaide not as financial as Collingwood or West Coast ? Whicker and his cronies just continue to line their pockets to run a comp for overpaid imports.
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:23am
Dan said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
I agree that the SANFL has a competition to run and they have clearly demonstrated their incompetence at managing AFL licences, including their apparent mistake of awarding the second licence to the Port tender, rather than a Crows Mk 2 in the Cartel or Norwood-Sturt. So let them concentrate on running their state league and let the AFL control the licences.
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:17pm
AB said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Damo- how many members to CDFC have? 2500 people at a home game and once a year they share about 35000 who attend the GF. Do you really think that Centrals would be able to generate 30000 people at the home games every week (the break even number for Port to make a profit for their home games under the current stadium deal)? I would imagine if the AFL license given its current conditions were waved in front of the CDFC they would run a 100KM an hour in the other direction. Also Melbourne has not beaten their debt nor have the bulldogs and both of those clubs receive more money from the AFL than Port do from the SANFL/AFL,
And back on topic- what would you think the CDFC logo become- cant be a bulldog and then what about their colours? And then of course once you change both those things you will have every man and his dog who despises your club telling you that it is not the same club anyways. And lets not forget that Port Adelaide required no start up dollars from the AFL or SANFL- I imagine the Bulldogs would require millions- just to pay their players and have a 16million dollar Football department, let alone facilities.