What needs to happen at Port Adelaide

Nick Salter and Matthew Broadbent of Port celebrate victory after the AFL Round 16 match between Port Adelaide Power and the West Coast Eagles at AAMI Stadium. The Slattery Media Group

Whenever a 60-point loss is considered to take the pressure off a club, as has seemingly happened this week with Port Adelaide, it’s fair to say that club isn’t in a great position. The losing margin may have reduced, but the Power remain in trouble. Big trouble.

Although, that’s stating the obvious, isn’t it?

Surely even primary school kids could join those dots?

What’s been lacking in the analysis of Port Adelaide’s position – by those outside of South Australia, anyway – is a willingness to explore the deeper issues at play here. Which means many commentators have resorted to cop-out solutions.

Sack Matthew Primus? That would be a kneejerk reaction.

Just wait it out until Adelaide Oval? That would inexcusably lazy.

Hire better administrators, coaches and footy department staff? That would be great – but those all come at a cost!

Boot Port out of the AFL? That would leave a gaping hole in the market of an AFL heartland. The league needs to two teams in Adelaide, and Port is by far the most viable option for a second team out there.

It all leaves you feeling a bit pessimistic, honestly. As if there’s no way Port can dig themselves out of this terrible, dreadful mess they find themselves in.

Structurally speaking, though, Port Adelaide are not like other clubs. There are a number of issues – issues that are really crucial to the club’s survival – that we’re simply not hearing about outside of South Australia.

Here are three of the most critical.

The SANFL

Along with the Crows, the Power’s license is owned and controlled by the SANFL – which raises a whole number of issues, both in a financial and non-financial sense.

The stadium deal is one area it hurts. The two Adelaide clubs have the two lowest stadium returns in the AFL. In 2009, Port’s return was $4.6 million less than their nearest non-SA rival.

Meanwhile, the SANFL (who control AAMI Stadium as well) happily generate revenue from corporate boxes, SANFL memberships, catering, ground signage and car parking at Crows and Power home games.

The move to Adelaide Oval will help, but it’s merely a step in the right direction rather than a complete solution.

After all, it was reported in the previously linked article that “the SANFL has projected each AFL club will bank $3.5 million in a new stadium deal” – if that’s true, Port would still have the league’s worst venue deal going off the 2009 figures.

Now obviously, stadium returns are complicated beasts. But it must be remembered that the SANFL, with a 50 per cent share of the newly-created Stadium Management Authority, won’t be completely out of the stadium picture from 2014 onwards.

Something tells me they’ll still get a sizeable chunk of the pie – especially with obligations such as a massive debt (currently at $27 million) and dividends to its nine clubs (currently $570,000 to each club, each year).

Number-crunching aside, the other aspect in which SANFL control affects Port is that the league is not an independent body designed to look after the best interest of South Australian footy, it is controlled by the votes of the clubs and thus, the clubs’ interests.

When you factor in the ability of the SANFL to interfere with the Power’s operations, it’s obvious that Port Adelaide have to contend with a situation that interstate clubs are unfamiliar with (and are lucky to not have to deal with themselves).

The sale of the Crows and Power licenses would go a long way to removing the barriers to growth the Adelaide clubs face and thus make it easier to realise their proper potential.

If it happened, the Adelaide clubs would at least be on more of a level playing field to the rest of the competition.

The identity crisis

When the Port Adelaide Football Club were competing in the SANFL, they divided support much the same way Collingwood do in Victoria. They had the most fans but those that weren’t fans were taught growing up to hate them.

It meant when Port entered the AFL, they did so having the support of roughly 20 per cent of the total South Australian football supporter base, and a distinct lack of support among the remaining 80 per cent.

It’s led to a tough dilemma: to differentiate themselves from the club that competed in the SANFL, and risk alienating their most passionate supporters, or stay true to their rich heritage, and risk being unable to expand their fan base beyond that 20 per cent mark.

Finding a balance has proved an impossible task. The recent union between the Power and Magpies has complicated things further.

Here’s what one former board member told the Adelaide Advertiser: “They’re becoming Magpie-centric instead of providing a real alternative. All the Central District supporters, Glenelg or Norwood supporters are now saying, ‘Well hang on, you are the Magpies, you are that’. It’s alienated everybody who wanted an alternative to the Crows, and they’re now catering to a diminishing market.”

Others say the opposite has occurred, that it was the attempt to appeal to the masses from 2005 onwards that turned traditional supporters away and that it’s these supporters the club must win back.

Simply put, Port need to develop a plan for their supporter base to grow that doesn’t alienate what fans they do have, or at least minimises the impact on current supporter levels. Once they have established which direction they are taking the brand, they can’t go back.

The young talent

Without a doubt, Port must avoid a mass exodus of its young players. A concerning article in The Australian last week highlighted how bad things could become this off-season.

“Others out of contract next month include key defenders Alipate Carlile, who is contemplating a move to a Melbourne-based club, and Jackson Trengove, who is also considering his future,” it was reported. “Promising ruckman Matthew Lobbe and key forward John Butcher, who made his senior debut last weekend, are also believed to be coming out of contract.”

Imagine, after a season likely to end with a mere two wins, Port losing Butcher. Or losing two key defenders you could build a backline around over the next ten years. It would set back the rebuilding process even further.

And this is on top of the extreme likelihood of a number of senior players leaving the club.

The worst case scenario for Port this off-season could be an absolute disaster for the club. They can’t afford to lose several of their young stars – it’s a situation that simply has to be avoided.