View Full Version : Sponsorship
SpringChoke
6 Nov 2004, 11:11
From todays Advertiser
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.a...5E25397,00.html
Showdown brewing
06nov04
ADELAIDE may be compelled to boycott the off-field marketing of "Showdowns" - the twice-yearly derbies with Port Adelaide - from next season.
Victorian brewer and AFL major sponsor Carlton and United Breweries (CUB) is courting the Crows and is expected to become an Adelaide sponsor within the next two weeks.
If so, CUB will demand the Crows not acknowledge the "Showdown" brand developed by rival brewer, South Australian Brewing Company (SAB), since the derbies began in 1997.
Rather, CUB may dictate the Crows market their derby on April 10 as the "Carlton Southern Derby" at AAMI Stadium where SAB has exclusive rights on beer sales at the bars.
By contrast, Port's home derby on August 13 would remain a "Showdown" because the Power's sponsorship with SAB will continue until the end of the 2007 season.
But the Crows would boycott all SAB events marketing Port's home Showdown. It could reach the point that the Crows may win the Showdown with an Adelaide player rated best-on-ground and both club and player would be compelled by CUB to not accept the Showdown Trophy nor the West End Showdown Medal.
Adelaide chief executive Steven Trigg last night said his club was involved in "sensitive" negotiations with SAB and CUB and did not want to take such confidential talks into the public arena.
"This is quite significant and we are working through it," Trigg said.
"Significant because SAB's deal is up for renewal and we recognise the brewery has been with us since we began in 1991."
The significance goes beyond Adelaide's sponsorship arrangements. If the Crows sign up with CUB, "Showdowns" will become as bitter off the field between rival sponsors as they are on the field between the two vastly contrasting AFL clubs. Inevitably, SAB will promote Port along South Australian lines and question why the Crows are sipping Victorian beer.
Also, CUB may find that "Showdown" has become so much part of the South Australian language that it has gone beyond commercial sponsorship deals. CUB's attempts to usurp "Showdowns" with the "Carlton Southern Derby" brand in the Adelaide marketplace - to match the Perth equivalent of a "Western Derby" between West Coast and Fremantle - may be near impossible.
It seems Triggy and Co. are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to get the best deal possible for the AFC. If we can get a better deal from CUB then let's go for it, regardless of who we offend. Let's face it, if the Power had the opportunity they would jump at the chance.
Good one AFC.
In purely beer terms stuff CUB and West End can't we arrange a coopers sponsorship? :D
Markthirtytwo
6 Nov 2004, 11:46
In purely beer terms stuff CUB and West End can't we arrange a coopers sponsorship? :D
My thoughts exactly :cool:
dyertribe
6 Nov 2004, 13:10
In purely beer terms stuff CUB and West End can't we arrange a coopers sponsorship? :D
:D
From todays Advertiser
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.a...5E25397,00.html
Showdown brewing
06nov04
ADELAIDE may be compelled to boycott the off-field marketing of "Showdowns" - the twice-yearly derbies with Port Adelaide - from next season.
Victorian brewer and AFL major sponsor Carlton and United Breweries (CUB) is courting the Crows and is expected to become an Adelaide sponsor within the next two weeks.
If so, CUB will demand the Crows not acknowledge the "Showdown" brand developed by rival brewer, South Australian Brewing Company (SAB), since the derbies began in 1997.
Rather, CUB may dictate the Crows market their derby on April 10 as the "Carlton Southern Derby" at AAMI Stadium where SAB has exclusive rights on beer sales at the bars.
By contrast, Port's home derby on August 13 would remain a "Showdown" because the Power's sponsorship with SAB will continue until the end of the 2007 season.
But the Crows would boycott all SAB events marketing Port's home Showdown. It could reach the point that the Crows may win the Showdown with an Adelaide player rated best-on-ground and both club and player would be compelled by CUB to not accept the Showdown Trophy nor the West End Showdown Medal.
Adelaide chief executive Steven Trigg last night said his club was involved in "sensitive" negotiations with SAB and CUB and did not want to take such confidential talks into the public arena.
"This is quite significant and we are working through it," Trigg said.
"Significant because SAB's deal is up for renewal and we recognise the brewery has been with us since we began in 1991."
The significance goes beyond Adelaide's sponsorship arrangements. If the Crows sign up with CUB, "Showdowns" will become as bitter off the field between rival sponsors as they are on the field between the two vastly contrasting AFL clubs. Inevitably, SAB will promote Port along South Australian lines and question why the Crows are sipping Victorian beer.
Also, CUB may find that "Showdown" has become so much part of the South Australian language that it has gone beyond commercial sponsorship deals. CUB's attempts to usurp "Showdowns" with the "Carlton Southern Derby" brand in the Adelaide marketplace - to match the Perth equivalent of a "Western Derby" between West Coast and Fremantle - may be near impossible.
It seems Triggy and Co. are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to get the best deal possible for the AFC. If we can get a better deal from CUB then let's go for it, regardless of who we offend. Let's face it, if the Power had the opportunity they would jump at the chance.
Good one AFC.
No problems with the AFC going for the best marketing deal available...but it hurts me to see football move so far away from ''when I was a boy'' (long live Ted Bullpit) ..when a player cant/wont accept a trophy/medallion for playing his guts out yet will drink a product where his guts will end up on the floor anyway..its a bit offensive to me.. leave the football to the footballers and the marketing to the marketeers..
Excuse my sad old tirade
I agree with the change of sponsorship so long as it doesn't affect the team at all.
I'm thinking of what Carlton did with M&M's sponsorship that year when they wore those sky blue unforms. :eek:
Long as that doesn't happen I'm all for it.
dyertribe
6 Nov 2004, 14:02
(long live Ted Bullpit)
Will Ricciuto and Cassisi have to put their "money on the fridge"?
In purely beer terms stuff CUB and West End can't we arrange a coopers sponsorship? :D
Now that's a great idea!
Actually come to think of it Coopers doesnt really advertise or sponsor that much. I guess they don't need to.
maccas_no1
6 Nov 2004, 17:04
This is a good deal for the AFC but it could get nasty and complicated.
Coopers do the rally, and don't they also have a SANFL team? How big is the turnover at Coopers, and how big are they interstate?
Coopers do the rally, and don't they also have a SANFL team? How big is the turnover at Coopers, and how big are they interstate?
Coopers market is like 96 % South Australia and 4 % the rest of Australia
Kane McGoodwin
6 Nov 2004, 18:18
Coopers market is like 96 % South Australia and 4 % the rest of Australia
But the Coopers market is growing interstate, so sponsoring an AFL team would be a good idea... as well as getting a decent beer at the footy!!!
Stiffy_18
6 Nov 2004, 18:42
Don't know about this issue.
West End has been there since day one and is SA company. I would definetly give them the first consideration. Also we need to consider how long is the CUB deal. Do we know that CUB won't ******** off after 3 years and leave us without a sponsor. I know its not a huge problem for us but in West End we have a sponsor who has been there from day one and are likely to be there for longer period of time than CUB.
The bit about the trophy and medals really ********es me off. Once marketing gets in the way of sportsmanship then it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Surely if we win the showdown and/or our player is voted BOG we can accepet the throphy and/or West End Medal.
Don't know about you guys but for me it will always be a showdown regardless what its officially called.
Am I the only one that thinks it would be a bit of a contradiction if the club that calls itself a team for all south australians, accepts the sponsorship of CUB (Victorian company) in place of West End (SA company)???????
Kane McGoodwin
6 Nov 2004, 18:48
Don't know about this issue.
West End has been there since day one and is SA company. I would definetly give them the first consideration. Also we need to consider how long is the CUB deal. Do we know that CUB won't ******** off after 3 years and leave us without a sponsor. I know its not a huge problem for us but in West End we have a sponsor who has been there from day one and are likely to be there for longer period of time than CUB.
The bit about the trophy and medals really ********es me off. Once marketing gets in the way of sportsmanship then it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Surely if we win the showdown and/or our player is voted BOG we can accepet the throphy and/or West End Medal.
Don't know about you guys but for me it will always be a showdown regardless what its officially called.
Am I the only one that thinks it would be a bit of a contradiction if the club that calls itself a team for all south australians, accepts the sponsorship of CUB (Victorian company) in place of West End (SA company)???????
West End is a New Zealand company Stiffy. ;)
If we want a SA-owned beer company, it's got to be Coopers!
Stiffy_18
6 Nov 2004, 19:48
West End is a New Zealand company Stiffy. ;)
If we want a SA-owned beer company, it's got to be Coopers!
I understand that its a NZ company but the its produced in Adelaide. West End has been fatastic to SA sport in general and has been with us since day one. I just don't think it would be wise to turn our backs on West End just because CUB might come up with a slightly better deal. IMHO, it would have to be a SERIOUSLY better offer for me to turn my back on West End. West End is there for the long run where I am not as certain that CUB is.
But the Coopers market is growing interstate, so sponsoring an AFL team would be a good idea... as well as getting a decent beer at the footy!!!
They did win the Ralph magazine beer of the year award, that's gotta count for something!
Leigh Roy
7 Nov 2004, 00:58
Like I said on the main board, I'm glad to see the club branching out of SA a bit.
'West End' Medal has always been a pet peeve of mine. Call it the Knuckles Medal maybe I dunno.
LiaLovesRoo32
7 Nov 2004, 01:04
I'm all for the Coopers beer sponsorship.....a beer that you enjoy drinking is a great thing and Coopers has to be the best Australian beer you can get....
Just for the record it is getting more popular in Melbourne and there are quite a few places with it on tap now.....this makes me very happy :D
Crow-mosone
7 Nov 2004, 01:56
In purely beer terms stuff CUB and West End can't we arrange a coopers sponsorship? :D
if you've ever had dealings with glen cooper, you wouldn't ask that!
meh was going to happen since CUB is a sponsor of the AFL is it not?
also we dont want a coopers sponsorship we want a CUB sponsorship! because VB and Carlton Draught are better than anything brewed in SA :D i hate coopers beer with a passion... paleys are gross... darks are average.... :o
I couldn't care less !
the whole "Showdown" concept is myopic and tired in my book anyway and symptomatic of the whole "Adelaide town" mind set
It's a 16 club comp
both sides have bigger fish to fry
lets move on
SpringChoke
7 Nov 2004, 10:55
I see McDermott had his two bobs worth in todays Sunday Mail. He really does find it hard to say anything complementary about the AFC doesn't he?
Markthirtytwo
7 Nov 2004, 11:01
meh was going to happen since CUB is a sponsor of the AFL is it not?
also we dont want a coopers sponsorship we want a CUB sponsorship! because VB and Carlton Draught are better than anything brewed in SA :D i hate coopers beer with a passion... paleys are gross... darks are average.... :o
Taste is in your mouth RD. Coopers is the best by far.
Dont mind a carlton coldy though.
if you've ever had dealings with glen cooper, you wouldn't ask that!
Explain?
meh was going to happen since CUB is a sponsor of the AFL is it not?
also we dont want a coopers sponsorship we want a CUB sponsorship! because VB and Carlton Draught are better than anything brewed in SA :D i hate coopers beer with a passion... paleys are gross... darks are average....
Have to agree. :)
Not really keen on Coopers & will only drink the stuff if there is not anything else around.
Carlton is a nice drop & very partial to a Crown Larger or 3 :D
Stiffy_18
7 Nov 2004, 19:33
I see McDermott had his two bobs worth in todays Sunday Mail. He really does find it hard to say anything complementary about the AFC doesn't he?
Lucky I didn't read it then.
Seriously what did you expect considering that West End sponsors the slowdown and other charity events that McGuiness and McDermott foundation organises.
Capitalist
7 Nov 2004, 19:44
isnt West End eing scaled down by lion nathan anyway ?
I know they are ridding themselves of that camels ******** they call draught
Kane McGoodwin
7 Nov 2004, 21:48
isnt West End eing scaled down by lion nathan anyway ?
I know they are ridding themselves of that camels ******** they call draught
If they stopped selling draught, they would lose a little money I would have thought (not that I really care for the stuff).
Blue Red and Gold
7 Nov 2004, 23:00
Well said Stiffy, as always :D
I agree, I would not like to shaft West End for a slightly better deal by CUB.
IMO a sponsership has to work both ways, and West End have stuck by us in difficult times IE the Shaw era, now I think its time we stick with them.
Obviously if the deal CUB are offering is alot better we have no option but to jump ship.
No 1 Draft Pick
8 Nov 2004, 08:42
For the club to swap sponsors you would hope it is a clearly better deal - and also a long termish deal with CUB as they probably wouldnt be as loyal as West End
I dont think the whole SA V Vic thing here is all that relevant - we are sponsored by Toyota (one of the longest, most successful sponsorships in Aussie sport) and not by one of the local SA car manufacturers
AND West End isnt exactly the worlds best beer - it must be about the only beer you cant buy out of its home state as there is virtually no demand for it
For the club to swap sponsors you would hope it is a clearly better deal - and also a long termish deal with CUB as they probably wouldnt be as loyal as West End
I dont think the whole SA V Vic thing here is all that relevant - we are sponsored by Toyota (one of the longest, most successful sponsorships in Aussie sport) and not by one of the local SA car manufacturers
AND West End isnt exactly the worlds best beer - it must be about the only beer you cant buy out of its home state as there is virtually no demand for it
Cant buy it in WA ..i am now a Hahn Light drinker
Damien_R1
8 Nov 2004, 14:00
West End has been a good sponsor of SA footy and I think a certain amount of loyalty should be shown. Should the new offer be way too good to refuse, then obviously you'd have to consider it.
Lucky I didn't read it then.
Seriously what did you expect considering that West End sponsors the slowdown and other charity events that McGuiness and McDermott foundation organises.
I read that article too and thought that his article was a little bias. Like you mention above Stiffy, he probably has his reasonas though. Having said that, I did think that he brought up a few valid points.
... VB and Carlton Draught are better than anything brewed in SA :D i hate coopers beer with a passion...
Damn, are you serious ? VB is the worst tasting beer ever to enter SA!
I couldn't care less !
the whole "Showdown" concept is myopic and tired in my book anyway and symptomatic of the whole "Adelaide town" mind set
It's a 16 club comp
both sides have bigger fish to fry
lets move on
well said.
I see McDermott had his two bobs worth in todays Sunday Mail. He really does find it hard to say anything complementary about the AFC doesn't he?
How did he work his little mate into the article this week?
'The only beer company that should sponsor the Showdown is (Mc)Guinness'
How did he work his little mate into the article this week?
'The only beer company that should sponsor the Showdown is (Mc)Guinness'
:eek: sssssh! he might be reading this. :p
brucetiki
8 Nov 2004, 21:35
All this proves is that the AFC has no soul.
An organisation has supported a club for 14 years, and helped it out in troubled times (such as the I see Red petition for the MCG finals) and what does it get in return - nothing!
It's interesting that the AFC have decided to deal with an organisation with even less soul than itself, now that's saying something!
SpringChoke
9 Nov 2004, 07:46
All this proves is that the AFC has no soul.
An organisation has supported a club for 14 years, and helped it out in troubled times (such as the I see Red petition for the MCG finals) and what does it get in return - nothing!
It's interesting that the AFC have decided to deal with an organisation with even less soul than itself, now that's saying something!
Get a grip mate. So you don't think SAB has profited from the relationship over the past 14 years?? Surely it's a p*ss take your club being listed as "Adelaide". If not, you really are a sad pr*ck.
captain ebert
9 Nov 2004, 07:48
Don't know about this issue.
West End has been there since day one and is SA company. I would definetly give them the first consideration. Also we need to consider how long is the CUB deal. Do we know that CUB won't ******** off after 3 years and leave us without a sponsor. I know its not a huge problem for us but in West End we have a sponsor who has been there from day one and are likely to be there for longer period of time than CUB.
The bit about the trophy and medals really ********es me off. Once marketing gets in the way of sportsmanship then it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Surely if we win the showdown and/or our player is voted BOG we can accepet the throphy and/or West End Medal.
Don't know about you guys but for me it will always be a showdown regardless what its officially called.
Am I the only one that thinks it would be a bit of a contradiction if the club that calls itself a team for all south australians, accepts the sponsorship of CUB (Victorian company) in place of West End (SA company)???????
i agree with everything you say here stiff - i cannot believe it really.
"carlton southern derbies at aami stadium" is almost too much & the situation where players may not accept medals is bordering on ridiculous.
its always been the west end showdown & should stay that way. if the crows wish to seek "foreign" sponsorship, thats their decision - but to complicate the local footy landscape like this isnt a good thing. for mine the crows should tell the vics to **** off!
almost a sell out - but then, this is the crows isnt it? ;)
almost a sell out - but then, this is the crows isnt it? ;)
When was the last time Port made a decision for the greater good of football in South Australia?
1990?
If its good for the AFC, thats all the AFC should be concerned with.
When was the last time Port made a decision for the greater good of football in South Australia?
Port Foundation anyone?
All this proves is that the AFC has no soul.
An organisation has supported a club for 14 years, and helped it out in troubled times (such as the I see Red petition for the MCG finals) and what does it get in return - nothing!
It's interesting that the AFC have decided to deal with an organisation with even less soul than itself, now that's saying something!
so you'll be handing in your beenie then ???
******** !!!....if sponsorship issues lead you to infer that the AFC has no soul....I certainly hope the rest of our membership base has a little more faith during these tough times
All this proves is that the AFC has no soul.
An organisation has supported a club for 14 years, and helped it out in troubled times (such as the I see Red petition for the MCG finals) and what does it get in return - nothing!
It's interesting that the AFC have decided to deal with an organisation with even less soul than itself, now that's saying something!
You clown.
Stupid post of the year.
Sponsorship is a purely commercial decision.
Do you thinkWest End sponsor the AFC out of the kindness of their New Zealand owners' hearts?
They have got plenty out of the AFC I can assure you.
Not the least making me having to drink their crap at footy park.
Wood_Duck
9 Nov 2004, 09:20
I'm with Stiffy on this one. West End is an S.A icon and SAB has been a fantastic sponsor of footy and many other sports in S.A. I am very dissappointed that the AFC would dump them for a better deal from CUB. A bit of loyalty to a sponsor that has been very loyal wouldnt go astray. This is just the sort of issue that leads to all of the criticism of the AFC having no culture. As a long term and proud supporter of the AFC I have to admit that I am very envious of the culture of the PAFC (not all aspects though). I would really like to have seen the AFC put a peg in the sand and stand up for a company that has been such a fantastic supporter for many years and say its not all about money. I thought SAB was part of the AFC family.
As for which beer tastes best. I live in Vic and every time I come home to SA I always fill the boot with West End Draught at Naracoorte on the way back to Vic. I'm sure they make VB with reclaimed water.
Obviously a post based purely on emotion.
captain ebert
9 Nov 2004, 10:37
When was the last time Port made a decision for the greater good of football in South Australia?
1990?
yes, or have you conveniently forgotten how your club came into being in the first place? im sure many (if not all) of you guys here would happily agree that the creation of the crows has been for the greater good of SA football.
captain ebert
9 Nov 2004, 10:38
As for which beer tastes best. I live in Vic and every time I come home to SA I always fill the boot with West End Draught at Naracoorte on the way back to Vic. I'm sure they make VB with reclaimed water.
that port 2004 premiership west end draught was the nicest beer ive tasted in a long time!
Wood_Duck
9 Nov 2004, 11:02
that port 2004 premiership west end draught was the nicest beer ive tasted in a long time!
Bastard
that port 2004 premiership west end draught was the nicest beer ive tasted in a long time!
still tasted like crappy west end to me. :p
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 11:16
Not the least making me having to drink their crap at footy park.
Actually you can blame that on the SANFL who own both clubs licences but the relationship with the SANFL and West End/SA Brewing has been around a lot longer than probably half the posters on this board and has benefited SA footy, it's clubs and the SANFL in a very big way.
Make the finals next year and you'll get the change we saw this year with Carlton being the drink on tap and even being able to take it back to your seat.
yes, or have you conveniently forgotten how your club came into being in the first place? im sure many (if not all) of you guys here would happily agree that the creation of the crows has been for the greater good of SA football.
You seem to have this mistaken belief that without Port, the Crows never would have happened.
Without you trying to shaft the SANFL, we still would have made it into the AFL - just a few years later than we did.
Actually you can blame that on the SANFL who own both clubs licences but the relationship with the SANFL and West End/SA Brewing has been around a lot longer than probably half the posters on this board and has benefited SA footy, it's clubs and the SANFL in a very big way.
Make the finals next year and you'll get the change we saw this year with Carlton being the drink on tap and even being able to take it back to your seat.
I realise this. However my point is still that they wouldn't do it if it wasn't mutually beneficial for them.
I don't have much time for the SANFL administration as well for many reasons.
Nothing can change the fact that West End is goats p iss and that Carlton Draught although not Coopers, is much much better.
Also, people are being very insular. We are all Australians and making a big dal that CUB is Victorian is a little silly.
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 11:24
Without you trying to shaft the SANFL, we still would have made it into the AFL - just a few years later than we did.
If it wasn't us it would have been Norwood and I know out of the position of the two clubs now which one made the right move.
Who cares? Toyota aren't South Australian. Vodafone aren't either. They aren't even Australian.
I also seem to recall the SANFL purchasing the big screen from an overseas company rather than from SA owned Clipsal.
Mong
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 11:35
I realise this. However my point is still that they wouldn't do it if it wasn't mutually beneficial for them.
I don't have much time for the SANFL administration as well for many reasons.
Nothing can change the fact that West End is goats p iss and that Carlton Draught although not Coopers, is much much better.
Also, people are being very insular. We are all Australians and making a big dal that CUB is Victorian is a little silly.
Of course - it's a business decision all round and unfortunately that means loyalty plays second fiddle unless the deals are extremely close.
I'll say the same in regard to the SANFL admin as I believe they have been letting down SA footy supporters for a very long time and well before either club joined the AFL.
I haven't touched West End draught in ages, the usual up here is either Melbourne Bitter (which would almost be the Top End's most popular beer) or a Coopers (Sparkling not the filtered yuppie version with the green label....;) ) and I put up with Carlton Draught at the MCG for the GF.
If the CUB being Victorian was such a big deal up here people would be up in arms about the 'Darwin stubbies' produced these days as they have been filling them with Carlton Draught for many years now.
yes, or have you conveniently forgotten how your club came into being in the first place? im sure many (if not all) of you guys here would happily agree that the creation of the crows has been for the greater good of SA football.
We will never forget.
The actions of your club were never intended for the greater good of SA footy, just pure selfishness and greed. The greater good was the reaction from the rest of the SANFL.
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 12:18
The greater good was the reaction from the rest of the SANFL.Does that include Norwood given they were also up to the same thing but got left behind at the starting blocks..............;)
In some ways the arguments presented here backing the Crows having a deal with CUB is very similar to what both Port and Norwood were doing in ensuring their own club got the best deal possible for themselves.........;)
SpringChoke
9 Nov 2004, 12:22
yes, or have you conveniently forgotten how your club came into being in the first place? im sure many (if not all) of you guys here would happily agree that the creation of the crows has been for the greater good of SA football.
Yeah we all know how the Crows came to be, what the hell has that go to do with anything. But it still doesn't excuse your actions in 1990.
Does that include Norwood given they were also up to the same thing but got left behind at the starting blocks.........;)
If Norwood did what Port did, they are the same, selfish and greedy.
In some ways the arguments presented here backing the Crows having a deal with CUB is very similar to what both Port and Norwood were doing in ensuring their own club got the best deal possible for themselves.........;)
This is happening in the open, not behind closed doors, or should I say backs. It will have no impact on the ability of rival clubs to survive and go about their business. We arent sacrificing anyones elses future.
If it wasn't us it would have been Norwood and I know out of the position of the two clubs now which one made the right move.
Different argument. I agree with you that Port positioned itself nicely for the SECOND licence by doing what it did in 1990.
But I totally disagree with this idea that without Port we wouldn't be around.
Does that include Norwood given they were also up to the same thing but got left behind at the starting blocks..............;)
In some ways the arguments presented here backing the Crows having a deal with CUB is very similar to what both Port and Norwood were doing in ensuring their own club got the best deal possible for themselves.........;)
I'm no lover of Norwood & all this talk about them doing the dirty deeds like what Port Adelaide done in 89/90 is in my opinion just hearsay & Mr Rucci has been spreading that line for years without coming up with any facts.
As for the Crows looking at the bigger picture in regards to sponsorship well i say get the best deal possible & if that means treading on some toes then so be it, maybe a bit of mongrel being shown by the club might install the same in those players that are in need of a bit of it.
Different argument. I agree with you that Port positioned itself nicely for the SECOND licence by doing what it did in 1990.
But I totally disagree with this idea that without Port we wouldn't be around.
The SANFL was forced by the AFL due to the treachery shown by the PAFC to take conditions that were not suitable & if events were left to the SANFLs reckoning then who knows how strong the Crows or which ever club it would have been, still 2 premierships in our short history is a terrific achievement considering how slap happy the AFC was set up to begin with.
The SANFL was forced by the AFL due to the treachery shown by the PAFC to take conditions that were not suitable & if events were left to the SANFLs reckoning then who knows how strong the Crows or which ever club it would have been, still 2 premierships in our short history is a terrific achievement considering how slap happy the AFC was set up to begin with.
That's my point. Without Port (or Norwood or the Peckers or whoever) going behind the SANFL's back, we would have come into the comp a few years later than 91, with far better concessions and potentially a better share of ownership of the AFL. Instead, it all happened quickly.
It does mean though, that the PAPs can't complain about a Victorian-centric AFL too much. If they'd presented a united front with the rest of the SANFL, then there would have been a better chance of a lesser-biased comp towards Victoria.
Considering we had a team on the paddock four months after being born, we did incredibly well. We didn't have the luxury of knowing a full 15-18 months before entering the comp that we'd be in, meaning we could go around and pay talented kids to stand out of the draft.
Who knows how strong we would have been? Hypothetical really. But the VFL had already asked that question - that's why they nudged Port along.
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 13:35
If Norwood did what Port did, they are the same, selfish and greedy.
In 1990 both Port Adelaide and Norwood had dealings with Ian Collins and John Adams from the VFL/AFL with the view to joining the competition. Both clubs had actually got together back in 1986 for secret talks with the AFL and John Brown (Frederal Sports Minister) to discuss a plan to merge the 2 clubs and enter a team in the then VFL.
This is happening in the open, not behind closed doors, or should I say backs. It will have no impact on the ability of rival clubs to survive and go about their business. We arent sacrificing anyones elses future.
Well it may be in the open now but talks have been progressing behind closed doors since before it was leaked to the media - there's been no official press release from the AFC or mention of it on the clubs website about the dealings only replies to questions in the media asked once the negotiations were leaked from somewhere.
Sure it won't have an impact on rival AFL clubs but who knows the effect it possibly could have on the SANFL and it's clubs who own the 2 AFL licences our own clubs have. Probably none but we won't know until further down the track.
I've got no problems with it at all but was merely stating it is a deal where one club is looking after itself - just as Port and Norwood were doing in the late 80's and again in 1990 with their VFL/AFL bids - as we all know footy is big business these days and clubs are after the best deals to look after themselves first and foremost.
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 13:38
Different argument. I agree with you that Port positioned itself nicely for the SECOND licence by doing what it did in 1990.
But I totally disagree with this idea that without Port we wouldn't be around.
Who knows what hould have happened if Port didn't go ahead with it's initial bid.........no matter what we say it's pure speculation except to say there always was going to be 2 Adelaide based clubs playing in the AFL as we know now.
Who knows what hould have happened if Port didn't go ahead with it's initial bid.........no matter what we say it's pure speculation except to say there always was going to be 2 Adelaide based clubs playing in the AFL as we know now.
I know we're arguing hypotheticals here, but I believe that if Norwood wanted to be in the AFL, they should have backed Port and positioned themselves to be next. But they didn't. And I'm glad they didn't.
In 1990 both Port Adelaide and Norwood had dealings with Ian Collins and John Adams from the VFL/AFL with the view to joining the competition. Both clubs had actually got together back in 1986 for secret talks with the AFL and John Brown (Frederal Sports Minister) to discuss a plan to merge the 2 clubs and enter a team in the then VFL.
As I said, selfish & gready
Well it may be in the open now but talks have been progressing behind closed doors since before it was leaked to the media - there's been no official press release from the AFC or mention of it on the clubs website about the dealings only replies to questions in the media asked once the negotiations were leaked from somewhere.
Sure it won't have an impact on rival AFL clubs but who knows the effect it possibly could have on the SANFL and it's clubs who own the 2 AFL licences our own clubs have. Probably none but we won't know until further down the track.
I've got no problems with it at all but was merely stating it is a deal where one club is looking after itself - just as Port and Norwood were doing in the late 80's and again in 1990 with their VFL/AFL bids - as we all know footy is big business these days and clubs are after the best deals to look after themselves first and foremost.
Your grasping at straws, trying to play down the actions of the PAFC in 1990. It is something Port will live with for ever, nothing will ever change what happened no matter how dirty you try to make the water. What we are talking about here is changing sponsors, not steeling other clubs futures.
as we all know footy is big business these days
Now who's a corporation? ;) :p
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 13:56
I'm no lover of Norwood & all this talk about them doing the dirty deeds like what Port Adelaide done in 89/90 is in my opinion just hearsay & Mr Rucci has been spreading that line for years without coming up with any facts.I'm not basing anything I say on what Rucci has written but from a book already out there called 'Football Ltd - The Inside Story of the AFL' by Garry Linnell that clearly states what I have posted above and has never been refuted by the Norwood Football Club. A chapter in the book that is titled 'The End of the Cold War' goes through from early discussions between the AFL and SANFL in the late 1970's to the entry of Freo and how their initial concessions were erdoed away by Victorian clubs that were fearful of creating yet anothe powerful interstate club.
Whilst the book is out of print these days it is still available to purchase at places like biblioz.com who specialize in selling out of print books.
The book covers the transformation of the VFL/AFL from the 70's through to the mid 90's - so it actually doesn't cover Port's successful bid but is very interesting to see the changes that have been made behind closed doors throughout this period where footy has grown from a local state based competition to the to be the biggest sporting competition in this country.
As for the Crows looking at the bigger picture in regards to sponsorship well i say get the best deal possible & if that means treading on some toes then so be it, maybe a bit of mongrel being shown by the club might install the same in those players that are in need of a bit of it.Sounds just like what Port Adelaide did back in 1990 Noddy......not that you'd ever show signs of supporting that......;)
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 13:58
I know we're arguing hypotheticals here, but I believe that if Norwood wanted to be in the AFL, they should have backed Port and positioned themselves to be next. But they didn't. And I'm glad they didn't.
As always egos get in the way of smart business decisions........
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 14:05
Your grasping at straws, trying to play down the actions of the PAFC in 1990. It is something Port will live with for ever, nothing will ever change what happened no matter how dirty you try to make the water. What we are talking about here is changing sponsors, not steeling other clubs futures.Not at all just showing it's a business world where clubs main focus is to look afterthemselves - which both Adelaide based clubs do quite well at. As for the actual effect on the SANFL and it's clubs who are the ones that have the most to lose - time will tell.
SpringChoke
9 Nov 2004, 14:06
In 1990 both Port Adelaide and Norwood had dealings with Ian Collins and John Adams from the VFL/AFL with the view to joining the competition. Both clubs had actually got together back in 1986 for secret talks with the AFL and John Brown (Frederal Sports Minister) to discuss a plan to merge the 2 clubs and enter a team in the then VFL.
Well it may be in the open now but talks have been progressing behind closed doors since before it was leaked to the media - there's been no official press release from the AFC or mention of it on the clubs website about the dealings only replies to questions in the media asked once the negotiations were leaked from somewhere.
Sure it won't have an impact on rival AFL clubs but who knows the effect it possibly could have on the SANFL and it's clubs who own the 2 AFL licences our own clubs have. Probably none but we won't know until further down the track.
I've got no problems with it at all but was merely stating it is a deal where one club is looking after itself - just as Port and Norwood were doing in the late 80's and again in 1990 with their VFL/AFL bids - as we all know footy is big business these days and clubs are after the best deals to look after themselves first and foremost.
I find it laughable that a Port supporter should try to take the moral high ground on this issue. I love the story Maxie Basheer tells about Ports treachery in 1990, it's a classic. Needless to say he verbally gave Weber and Co. the big V.
How do you know what discussions went on at the AFC behind closed doors?? You must be Ruccis Canary??
Sounds just like what Port Adelaide did back in 1990 Noddy......not that you'd ever show signs of supporting that......;)
Not quite the same dk.
As for the book in regards to Norwood well i'm willing to take your word for it.
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 14:13
Now who's a corporation? ;) :p
Not sure if that's supposed to be directed at me as I've never argued that path......
As for the actual effect on the SANFL and it's clubs who are the ones that have the most to lose - time will tell.
Mate the SANFL clubs are on easy street, the Crows will continue to feather their nests regardless of the sponsorship deals.
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 14:21
I find it laughable that a Port supporter should try to take the moral high ground on this issue. I love the story Maxie Basheer tells about Ports treachery in 1990, it's a classic. Needless to say he verbally gave Weber and Co. the big V.
I'm just pointing out that both clubs are about looking after no.1 - if you believe that's taking the high moral ground good luck to you but's it's merely pointing out what happens day in and day out in the business world all around the country.
How do you know what discussions went on at the AFC behind closed doors?? You must be Ruccis Canary??
Are you saying there have been no negotiations going on between the AFC and CUB that have been in private - there's been nothing in the media about the actual deals which tends to show it's being sone behind closed doors.
As for Rucci I let him write his own bull******** like most journalists around the country do as they have their own media/career driven agendas. Living in Darwin it's pretty easy to avoid the bull******** printed in the Advertiser on most days..........;)
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 14:36
Not quite the same dk.
It is if you look at it from the point of view clubs are looking at looking after themselves first and foremost - something I don't have a problem with.
As for the book in regards to Norwood well i'm willing to take your word for it.
It's a great read on many issues other than just that one and clearly shows how the game has grown despite many setbacks into what it is today. It's very amusing at the end of the book reading about the dis-satisfaction that Carlton and Collingwood had about the AFL comission. That eventually led to the Crawford report which in the end further strengthened the power the AFL comssion and weakened the influence the VFL clubs had over the way things were run.
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 14:40
Mate the SANFL clubs are on easy street, the Crows will continue to feather their nests regardless of the sponsorship deals.I'm not sure half the clubs would agree with you there given a few are struggling.
Don't forget the licence payments now in place mean both AFL clubs have financial input input into the SANFL at a level similar to their market share - with Port's to rise again as of the end of next year when the licence fee and initial start up cost loans will have been paid out in full.
portentous
9 Nov 2004, 15:52
The sponsorship saga is much ado about nothing methinks. For those interested, I've been reliably informed that Port actually gets more $'s from sponsorship than the crows. NFI why. Might change when Allan Scott fulfills his obligations though I guess.
Crow-mosone
9 Nov 2004, 23:07
All this proves is that the AFC has no soul.
An organisation has supported a club for 14 years, and helped it out in troubled times (such as the I see Red petition for the MCG finals) and what does it get in return - nothing!
It's interesting that the AFC have decided to deal with an organisation with even less soul than itself, now that's saying something!
if all it got was nothing, there would have been no sponsor agreement in the first place.
this is about business, not about football. West end didn't support the AFC through hard times, they honoured their existing contracts, and they entered into new ones fully conversant in what the benefits were.
West end have no us no favours: if they had, the shareholders should sue the board.
AFC have done West End no favours: if they had they have breached their corporate responsibilities, and they should be sacked.
CUB are not proposing to do the AFC any favours, they are no doubt offering an aggressive package as part of an overall market penetration strategy.
dreamkillers
9 Nov 2004, 23:37
Without trying to state the obvious I would see this as a method CUB are using to get their product sold at Footy Park on match days given the SANFL has an exclusive contract with West End.
Be interesting to see if this does go ahead what products are used at Footy Park for official Adelaide functions.
When we were organising the President's dinner for the Bulldogs game up here in Darwin this year we had to get special dispensation from CUB to allow Hahn products to be the only products on offer given the venue had a contract with CUB.