We exist to win premierships

[Porthos]

...so why did I read in the paper this morning (Rucci's bit) that our board are instructing Choco to keep playing for finals every year, even at the cost of delaying being a premiership chance again?

I don't think anyone signed on for `We exist to make the finals'.

[crazy_big_al]

...so why did I read in the paper this morning (Rucci's bit) that our board are instructing Choco to keep playing for finals every year, even at the cost of delaying being a premiership chance again?

I don't think anyone signed on for `We exist to make the finals'.

I know what you mean. I want a rebuild for premiership glory

[The Mighty Port Power]

I know what you mean. I want a rebuild for premiership glory
The closes examination we get from Rucci at the tiser makes it hard to rebuild properly. We either go the whole hog, and get ridiculed in the Crow friendly media here; and take all the membership damage that can cause; or try to do it the much harder way, without bottoming out, and try to slowly regain momentum towards a premiership; thus minimising the Media and supporter base damage.

On the bright side, at least we have no fans as pathetic as the Carlton uni student (who isnt even a full club member !! ) starting petitions and websites to sack the coach.

[Porthos]

The closes examination we get from Rucci at the tiser makes it hard to rebuild properly. We either go the whole hog, and get ridiculed in the Crow friendly media here; and take all the membership damage that can cause;But if we're up and actually challenging sooner, its only short-term damage. Considering this is the last year we need to pay off our establishment debts, we can theoretically take a minor hit - particularly if the AFL distribution from the new TV rights is improved.

or try to do it the much harder way, without bottoming out, and try to slowly regain momentum towards a premiership; thus minimising the Media and supporter base damage.I think that Port continuing along that route is going to do much more harm than good. We're putting in half-arsed, probably won't win the spoon efforts now, but there's no optimism for the fans to grab onto. How can anyone be optimistic about being destined to finish mid-table for seven or eight years?

I think the club really underrates our understanding of how the AFL works.

[shaz63]

After a lengthy chat with Tredders last night at the Hyde Park Tavern, he has reassured us that we are rebuilding the team and that the season isnt over for us yet.

He asked that we all hang in there and even though we have had some rather embarrasing games, the players are out there to win and show their loyal supporters that they have dedication and want nothing more than to get out there and play hard.

Wont go into the whole convo that we had at the table with him last night but, some may say its just an excuse, but he was explaining that at this time of year the ball would usually skid along the ground but it didnt. It bounced just straight back up and over his shoulder. This enabled his opponent to get the ball and run it down their end of the oval.

Look, I know that we all would love to see our team win but from the words of our captain "its just like having a puncture on a bike, you cant just expect to have the air put back in and be on your way, there is a process that you need to follow".

We exist to wins premierships yes, but we need to get the team and the coaching stafff that will take us to the last Saturday in September.

[Porthos]

You didn't get my point.

My point is that yes, we need the team and coaches that will get us there. Given that, why does the board want us to :D:D:D:D around with mid-table finishes that will ultimately delay our real premiership opportunities?

To use the bike tire metaphor, we are being directed to use a whole bunch of patches and short term fixes, when what we really need is a new tire.

[Andre]

You didn't get my point.

My point is that yes, we need the team and coaches that will get us there. Given that, why does the board want to us to :D:D:D:D around with mid-table finishes that will ultimately delay our real premiership opportunities?

To use the bike tire metaphor, we are being directed to use a whole bunch of patches and short term fixes, when what we really need is a new tire.
That article annoyed me for numerous reasons. The whole 'we are doing badly now, because of earlier success' bit, completely side-stepping that our successes from 2001 onwards would have been just as much if not more if we'd dropped out of form or fringe senior players, like Cochrane, Bishop (2005 onwards), Primus (2005), Francou (2005) whilst we were still finals playing sides.

I'll scream if we get yet another 'success or youngsters' article. The two are not the complete mutually exclusive thing every bloody Rucci or Choco article/interview tries to portray.

As for existing to win premierships, this is the year to play more younger players. If ever it's a two for one, of both experience into them, plus good picks for next year, this is the draft to get them in.

I'm going to be a nervous wreck during trade week, hoping Choco doesn't sell our picks in the most likely best draft ever, in order to plug holes caused by his gold passes over the years. The board should be saying for this trade week - sell, sell, sell! ( And no buying allowed with any picks under 40 ).

[Mad Dog]

...so why did I read in the paper this morning (Rucci's bit) that our board are instructing Choco to keep playing for finals every year, even at the cost of delaying being a premiership chance again?

I don't think anyone signed on for `We exist to make the finals'.
but wouldn't the alternative be......"we exist to rebuild - and have a crack every now and then at the premiership "...?

[Total Power]

but wouldn't the alternative be......"we exist to rebuild - and have a crack every now and then at the premiership "...?
Every team has to be rebuild some time or the other Einstein :rolleyes:

[Powerstufff]

but wouldn't the alternative be......"we exist to rebuild - and have a crack every now and then at the premiership "...?Frankly that is the universal aproach for even the most successful AFL teams. We had the money and the clout to continually chase premierships in the SANFL. We didn't have the draft and I can't remember a salary cap. Those days are gone my friend (cue music).

[Mad Dog]

Every team has to be rebuild some time or the other Einstein :rolleyes:
daahhhhh thats right TP....my point is....if the Port Power faithful find just making the finals offensive....and instead favour a bottom out...even if it is quick......would that not mean that...."we exist to rebuild"...is more appropriate in the short term than.."we exist to make the finals"...?

[Mad Dog]

Frankly that is the universal aproach for even the most successful AFL teams. We had the money and the clout to continually chase premierships in the SANFL. We didn't have the draft and I can't remember a salary cap. Those days are gone my friend (cue music).
exactly Powerstufff.....in the SANFL, Port Adelaide not only developed great players in their zone - but also attracted great players from other clubs to be involved in a winning team because they were not comprimised by the draft or a salary cap.......ie success breeds success.

But out there in the BIG world.......every policy and parameter placed on clubs by the AFL is aimed at competition equalisation. It doesn't matter your background, ethos, or success in other competitions - the worm turns for everyone....it's what the AFL want....;)

[dyertribe]

See, this is why I hate the quasi-Communist AFL system as it now stands.

That it is now accepted you have to suffer years of sh#t for a crack at one year of sweet sugar.

I look at the NRL-ad which says "SEVEN DIFFERENT PREMIERS IN EIGHT YEARS!! ANYONE CAN WIN IT!!" and I cringe because a) it's pathetic and b) it's what the AFL will eventually become.

Premierships won't be won so much as a result of a club's overall acumen or ethos, but as a result of club waiting its turn.

The result? Powerhouses like Brisbane, Essendon, Carlton and Port are languishing at the bottom of the heap thanks to the deliberate retardation forced upon them.

And what are we left with? A p#ssweak competition where comedy clubs like St. Kilda and Footstern Bulldogs can jag a flag purely as a result of bottoming out for half a decade (some would argue, century) or more.

[deeps]

Wont go into the whole convo that we had at the table with him last night but, some may say its just an excuse, but he was explaining that at this time of year the ball would usually skid along the ground but it didnt. It bounced just straight back up and over his shoulder. This enabled his opponent to get the ball and run it down their end of the oval.


I remember that happening on the wing somewhere in the 3rd quarter i believe. The thing i noticed, and ive NEVER seen this before, was Harris BUMPED tredrea off the ball. It's very rare to see someone manage to knock tredrea off the ball,pick up the ball and kick it long.

[ebo337]

See, this is why I hate the quasi-Communist AFL system as it now stands.

That it is now accepted you have to suffer years of sh#t for a crack at one year of sweet sugar.

I look at the NRL-ad which says "SEVEN DIFFERENT PREMIERS IN EIGHT YEARS!! ANYONE CAN WIN IT!!" and I cringe because a) it's pathetic and b) it's what the AFL will eventually become.

Premierships won't be won so much as a result of a club's overall acumen or ethos, but as a result of club waiting its turn.

The result? Powerhouses like Brisbane, Essendon, Carlton and Port are languishing at the bottom of the heap thanks to the deliberate retardation forced upon them.

And what are we left with? A p#ssweak competition where comedy clubs like St. Kilda and Footstern Bulldogs can jag a flag purely as a result of bottoming out for half a decade (some would argue, century) or more.

Spot on

[Pinepower]

See, this is why I hate the quasi-Communist AFL system as it now stands.

That it is now accepted you have to suffer years of sh#t for a crack at one year of sweet sugar.

I look at the NRL-ad which says "SEVEN DIFFERENT PREMIERS IN EIGHT YEARS!! ANYONE CAN WIN IT!!" and I cringe because a) it's pathetic and b) it's what the AFL will eventually become.

Premierships won't be won so much as a result of a club's overall acumen or ethos, but as a result of club waiting its turn.

The result? Powerhouses like Brisbane, Essendon, Carlton and Port are languishing at the bottom of the heap thanks to the deliberate retardation forced upon them.

And what are we left with? A p#ssweak competition where comedy clubs like St. Kilda and Footstern Bulldogs can jag a flag purely as a result of bottoming out for half a decade (some would argue, century) or more.


Agreed. Yet clubs can still spend lots of money if they have it on coaches.

[Pinepower]

daahhhhh thats right TP....my point is....if the Port Power faithful find just making the finals offensive....and instead favour a bottom out...even if it is quick......would that not mean that...."we exist to rebuild"...is more appropriate in the short term than.."we exist to make the finals"...?

Huh ?

[Powerstufff]

I remember that happening on the wing somewhere in the 3rd quarter i believe. The thing i noticed, and ive NEVER seen this before, was Harris BUMPED tredrea off the ball......This is not the sort of thing you say to someone in their pub while you are waiting for your meal. They could run out to the kitchen and spit in your soup or something.

[ExpectToWin]

See, this is why I hate the quasi-Communist AFL system as it now stands.

That it is now accepted you have to suffer years of sh#t for a crack at one year of sweet sugar.

I look at the NRL-ad which says "SEVEN DIFFERENT PREMIERS IN EIGHT YEARS!! ANYONE CAN WIN IT!!" and I cringe because a) it's pathetic and b) it's what the AFL will eventually become.

Premierships won't be won so much as a result of a club's overall acumen or ethos, but as a result of club waiting its turn.

The result? Powerhouses like Brisbane, Essendon, Carlton and Port are languishing at the bottom of the heap thanks to the deliberate retardation forced upon them.

And what are we left with? A p#ssweak competition where comedy clubs like St. Kilda and Footstern Bulldogs can jag a flag purely as a result of bottoming out for half a decade (some would argue, century) or more.

The system itself does not allow for each club to have their time in the sun. You only have to look at Richmond (no offence Richmond Supporters) to see this.

You also have to factor in things like "The Go Home" factor and forced retirements due to injury both of which Port Adelaide have suffered the most out of all clubs.

Lets face it, we dominated the competion from 2002 - 2004 and still would be if Stevens, Carr, James and Primus were still playing for us. You can add to that Josh Francou to a certain degree.

[Andre]

Lets face it, we dominated the competion from 2002 - 2004 and still would be if Stevens, Carr, James and Primus were still playing for us. You can add to that Josh Francou to a certain degree.
I don't think it fair to put Stevens and Carr in with James and Primus. More accurately we'd still be a finals contender if we had Stevens, Carr and the suspension of Pickett last year for things previously within the rules meant we still had him playing without fear.

[Porthos]

but wouldn't the alternative be......"we exist to rebuild - and have a crack every now and then at the premiership "...?No...that would be the route currently being pursued; rebuilding by hitting 9th place every year. Maybe if you're lucky one year you'll get a crack, but that'll be about it.

While `you've got to be in it to win it', the `it' you need to be in is the top four, not 5th-8th.

You don't get a squad to a series of top four finishes by :D:D:D:Ding around playing players past their use-by date for sentimental reasons.

[Toots Hibbert]

I don't mind aiming to do as well as possible each year provided it does not detract from developing our young players for the future. There has to be a balance, always.

As far as spectators and supporters go, yes success on the field breeds increased support but I think a team's style of play also is a factor in determining it's level of support. I enjoyed the extended run of success we had and my son went for three years without seeing Port lose a match. But the really satisfying games were the close ones where we won through grit and determination rather than champagne football.

For me one of the most satifying things as a spectator is to watch a passage of play where the ball is being fought for. Both teams are throwing themselves in hard going for the ball or making tackles, the advantage goes one way then the other till finally one side breaks clear with the ball streams into attack. It's scrappy but intriguing to true followers. During the last season and a bit our side has not come away with the ball as often as previously.

I'd just like to see our team play a style of football that is much more about getting into the trenches and a bit less about pretty tactics. I think if we played hard in and under football and went through the centre corridor a bit more there'd be plenty of people at our games even while the side was being rebuilt because it would inspire hope. I'm just so over the chipping around in the back lines, continuously coming backwards out of packs and having to go the long way round while the opposition has time to get back into defence and that sort of thing.

What fascinates me about Choco is that as a player he was not the prettiest, and was in and under yet as a coach he favours a style of play based on silky skills and clever strategies.

[Mad Dog]

No...that would be the route currently being pursued; rebuilding by hitting 9th place every year. Maybe if you're lucky one year you'll get a crack, but that'll be about it.

While `you've got to be in it to win it', the `it' you need to be in is the top four, not 5th-8th.

You don't get a squad to a series of top four finishes by :D:D:D:Ding around playing players past their use-by date for sentimental reasons.
my rule of thumb is that selection should be based on whether or not the player in all likeliness will participate in the club's next premiership. I think all clubs owe it to the supporters to ask this question. Realistically there is no reason why Port Power cannot challenge in 2007....and I cite the AFC as an example of how quickly things can be turned around.....notwithstanding that I do believe that our youngsters were more advanced when Craigy took over in 2004 than yours are at the moment - so maybe 2008 is more realistic. Either way....using this criteria there are probably 8 to 12 players on your list who you would not think would be part of future premiership success and so for the sake and development of the club should be consigned to "depth only"

[PJ Power]

my rule of thumb is that selection should be based on whether or not the player in all likeliness will participate in the club's next premiership. I think all clubs owe it to the supporters to ask this question. Realistically there is no reason why Port Power cannot challenge in 2007....and I cite the AFC as an example of how quickly things can be turned around.....notwithstanding that I do believe that our youngsters were more advanced when Craigy took over in 2004 than yours are at the moment - so maybe 2008 is more realistic. Either way....using this criteria there are probably 8 to 12 players on your list who you would not think would be part of future premiership success and so for the sake and development of the club should be consigned to "depth only"

I have no problems with all of this Mad Dog and agree with you.

As one or two others have said, playing the kids should not be viewed as being necessarily predictive of finishing at the bottom of the ladder.

The key is for the existing senior players in the side to play to the best of their ability, consistently. The failure of almost all of our experienced players to do this is what is hurting us. There have only been three exceptions so far this year (Lade, JB and Chad).

It comes back to a point Ford made elsewhere. Bringing in kids for this week's match and dropping a couple of badly underperforming seniors won't make any noticeable difference, unless the other half dozen seniors who are still performing below their best take their games to a higher level.

With the side named for this Sunday, we would put on a very good show, if
Kane Cornes, Wakelin, Wilson, Tredrea, Kingsley, Peter Burgoyne and Mahoney all rediscovered their best 2004 form. If that happens we can afford to introduce the young kids and not fall below 8-10th on the ladder.


Playing young kids is not a means to winning the first 2-3 draft picks.
It is about preparing for the future, reaching a better understanding of your player stocks and keeping the group as a whole fresh and on edge. Josh Mahoney is not the only player who performs better under those circumstances.

[PJ Power]

Either way....using this criteria there are probably 8 to 12 players on your list who you would not think would be part of future premiership success and so for the sake and development of the club should be consigned to "depth only"

And those players are:
Lonie
Thurstans
Bishop
Shattock
and probably Dew and Motlop, although these two guys could be carried as the only passengers if everyone else was performing at their absolute best (cf the situation in 2004 where Thurstans and Pickett were carried through games doing very little but were able to contribute at other important times).


A guy like Wakelin clearly won't play in our next premiership but he is one example of an experienced player who needs to teach the likes of Chaplin by example and tuition out there in the field of battle. Bishop, Lonie, Dew etc could not provide that sort of teaching role under any circumstances that I can see.

[Ford Fairlane]

Any imposed form outside of open slather football capitalism is designed to even up a competition though. We talk lovingly of zones, but they are their own form of football socialism. An arbitrarily assigned area that you work. It's not as if any club has special dispensation of players in a zone. Otherwise Port would have won Magarey Medals every year. I know when Port were first assigned the West Coast there were groans from supporters about whether we could be sent any further afield to find players. The moon perhaps. Yet we rolled the sleeves up, did the hard work there and have produced many fine players out of there. But it's no more a source of potentially top footballers than the South east or Mid north you'd expect. No special hormones in the diet or bacteria in the water.

Mad Dog talks of Port getting great players from other clubs but that's simply not true. It's been very rare, certainly no more than other SANFL clubs who have had much less success than Port.

As far as the salary cap goes, that's mostly there to protect clubs from themselves. But even in the SANFL's glory days, clubs were fiscally responsible - a self regulated salary cap if you like. No one was bailed out like St Kilda have been. Port got themselves into financial trouble in the early 80s, had to shed a few players and tighten a few belts, but were back in premiership heaven a few years later ... and hardly with a bunch of grossly paid superstars. But Port's financial problems were from recompensing players becasue of their success not buying them for their success.

I really think the effects of the draft and people hiding behind it as a reason for failure are a bit of a cop out. Brisbane were a great side, so were Hawthorn in the 80s. A bunch of great players came together, now they've gone away, just like Hawthorn's. I suspect you'll find cycles in the old AFL too. The difference with the SANFL is Port have somehow defied the cycles and won premierships with greater regularity. It's not because of collections of superstars, I suspect it has more to do with hard work than anything.

[RoosterLad]

After a lengthy chat with Tredders last night at the Hyde Park Tavern, he has reassured us that we are rebuilding the team and that the season isnt over for us yet.

He asked that we all hang in there and even though we have had some rather embarrasing games, the players are out there to win and show their loyal supporters that they have dedication and want nothing more than to get out there and play hard.

Wont go into the whole convo that we had at the table with him last night but, some may say its just an excuse, but he was explaining that at this time of year the ball would usually skid along the ground but it didnt. It bounced just straight back up and over his shoulder. This enabled his opponent to get the ball and run it down their end of the oval.

Look, I know that we all would love to see our team win but from the words of our captain "its just like having a puncture on a bike, you cant just expect to have the air put back in and be on your way, there is a process that you need to follow".

We exist to wins premierships yes, but we need to get the team and the coaching stafff that will take us to the last Saturday in September.


Gee thats a relief. Likes hes going to admit that the team sucks and will finish bottom this year. The ball normally skids along the ground hahah baloney my friend.

[Crow-mo]

You didn't get my point.

My point is that yes, we need the team and coaches that will get us there. Given that, why does the board want us to :D:D:D:D around with mid-table finishes that will ultimately delay our real premiership opportunities?

To use the bike tire metaphor, we are being directed to use a whole bunch of patches and short term fixes, when what we really need is a new tire.

Surely, the real reason is that no one is sure what the best way to ride the cycles in team fortunes are yet? the priority pick system has been changed, so that's not really possible - though I believe no team has ever won a flag with a PP? mid cycle rebuilding like Adelaide or Geelong is fine, if it works - and it hasn't for either yet; you could just as easily be a North Melbourne: mired no higher or lower than mid table.

Virtually every premier of the last 10 years has won with some sort of extra concessions that gave it an advantage over the other teams. It's still too early in the history of the league and it's equalisation policies to really know what should be done. No doubt, that one way will prove better than the other, but do we know what it is right now?

To be honest I have no idea whatsover whether you guys are doing the right or wrong thing, and I don't really think anyone else does either.

What is equally certain, is that the very rich clubs believe a sustainable advantage will lie in heavy investment in their footy operations dept's. though they may be wrong too.

[Porthos]

Crow-mo, one thing that I am certain of is that playing old guys that are only as good as the young guys are anyway is not the way to rebuild a list, regardless of which method you're using.

I'm not saying that we should just bottom out with a team full of rookies left to fend for themselves. I'm saying that playing the same old seniors in hopes of jagging a higher ladder position is dumb when it comes at the cost of potential premiership player development. Also that trading decent draft picks for bits and pieces players that won't be there for the next premiership is also stupid. Yet this is exactly what we are doing under these supposed board instructions to keep aiming for mid-table.

Our tall backs for this round are Wakelin and Bishop. It seems we've given up on Chaplin, maybe the way of the future is not to play tall backs any more when they retire.

[Powerstufff]

Gee thats a relief. Likes hes going to admit that the team sucks and will finish bottom this year. The ball normally skids along the ground hahah baloney my friend.That was actually not the context of what he said, it comes over as a whinge like that. Instead it was a wry/light hearted comment.
We were talking about how bad we were, and how when a team plays poorly it's as if the footy gods decide to add to their suffering. Tredders agreed and gave that example. He thought he had the low mark but instead it not only fell short but bounced right over him and into the hands of the following Bulldogs player. When you play like we played you can't win a trick and that was Tredder's example.

[GO 161]

See, this is why I hate the quasi-Communist AFL system as it now stands.

That it is now accepted you have to suffer years of sh#t for a crack at one year of sweet sugar.

I look at the NRL-ad which says "SEVEN DIFFERENT PREMIERS IN EIGHT YEARS!! ANYONE CAN WIN IT!!" and I cringe because a) it's pathetic and b) it's what the AFL will eventually become.

Premierships won't be won so much as a result of a club's overall acumen or ethos, but as a result of club waiting its turn.

The result? Powerhouses like Brisbane, Essendon, Carlton and Port are languishing at the bottom of the heap thanks to the deliberate retardation forced upon them.

And what are we left with? A p#ssweak competition where comedy clubs like St. Kilda and Footstern Bulldogs can jag a flag purely as a result of bottoming out for half a decade (some would argue, century) or more.
Excellent post

[Crow-mo]

Crow-mo, one thing that I am certain of is that playing old guys that are only as good as the young guys are anyway is not the way to rebuild a list, regardless of which method you're using.

I'm not saying that we should just bottom out with a team full of rookies left to fend for themselves. I'm saying that playing the same old seniors in hopes of jagging a higher ladder position is dumb when it comes at the cost of potential premiership player development. Also that trading decent draft picks for bits and pieces players that won't be there for the next premiership is also stupid. Yet this is exactly what we are doing under these supposed board instructions to keep aiming for mid-table.

Our tall backs for this round are Wakelin and Bishop. It seems we've given up on Chaplin, maybe the way of the future is not to play tall backs any more when they retire.

fair enough

[RussellEbertHandball]

You didn't get my point.

My point is that yes, we need the team and coaches that will get us there. Given that, why does the board want us to :D:D:D:D around with mid-table finishes that will ultimately delay our real premiership opportunities?

To use the bike tire metaphor, we are being directed to use a whole bunch of patches and short term fixes, when what we really need is a new tire.

Why?? Well think about the composition of the board. The board is half SANFL appointed directors and half appointed by those of us who are members.

The SANFL director’s primary fiduciary duty is to the SANFL, not the club and it’s members. They are there to protect the SANFL’s revenue stream. The SANFL receive income from the following areas

1. Rent from Port for using Footy Park. Last year I asked if anyone knew what rent we paid to the SANFL. After several posts I was told it was irrelevant, which, of course was B/S. I asked someone at the club about the rent we pay and whilst they said the amount was confidential, they said it comprised 3 parts. Firstly, a fixed component, secondly a variable component based on the seats sold in the northern stand and thirdly another variable component based on total attendance.

2. Income from sale of goods and services at Footy Park on match day.

3. Income from sale of corporate facilities at Footy Park for Port home games.

4. The sub licence fee. Currently this is a fixed amount, but it may revert back to a distribution of profit percentage, like it was prior to the 2003 season. Remember that 2006 is the last season of $400k of the licence fee + $200k of amortisation of establishment costs as well as the last year of the current fixed dollar distribution to the SANFL.

Those 5 SANFL directors are on average, more likely to make decisions based on the protection of the above mentioned revenue streams. A mid table finish will ensure our club attendances stay at a reasonable level. We made a $734k loss last year, after the SANFL licence fee payment, so the directors, all of them, will be driven by the desire to eliminate losses, especially in the short term. Bottoming out will see all of the above revenue streams materially affected as well as a few others. Only 4 clubs can say they are bullet proof to poor on field performance, i.e. Adelaide, West Coast, Collingwood and Essendon.

Look at what the Brisbane board said to Mathews in 2002. From Rucci’s article;

“A year earlier, in Brisbane - as the Lions celebrated their second flag - experienced coach Leigh Matthews went to the Lions' boardroom with one of those bitter-sweet propositions.

He too had been working his whiteboard. Matthews told the Brisbane directors he had two paths available to the team. He could win a third flag to finish off the three-peat and also claim a fourth title. But the consequences of keeping together a premiership-winning squad would be a sudden fall after the 2004 grand final.

Alternatively, the Lions could dismantle their "Kings of the Jungle" and begin to invest in players for 2006 and beyond.

No surprise, the ambitious Lions went for the option of taking more flags, regardless of the painful hit that would follow.
"We knew," says chief executive Michael Bowers, "it would lead to some substantial pain down the track but we also knew we had a chance of making (football) history."

There are no AFL of AFLQ directors on the Brisbane board. They were prepared to take the long term hit to the body. Our board hasn’t.

By achieving a third flag and fourth grand final, and being a monopoly team in the 3rd largest state and second fastest growing economy in a city that has many more corporate head offices than SA, Brisbane have the luxury to be able to ride out 2 or 3 bad years and not worry about appeasing their licence holders. Unfortunately we don’t have that luxury. Economic reality has a strong hold over major decisions made by our board.

It will be a few years yet before we can afford to buy a new tire or even a new bike.

[paul scholes]

See, this is why I hate the quasi-Communist AFL system as it now stands.

That it is now accepted you have to suffer years of sh#t for a crack at one year of sweet sugar.

I look at the NRL-ad which says "SEVEN DIFFERENT PREMIERS IN EIGHT YEARS!! ANYONE CAN WIN IT!!" and I cringe because a) it's pathetic and b) it's what the AFL will eventually become.

Premierships won't be won so much as a result of a club's overall acumen or ethos, but as a result of club waiting its turn.

The result? Powerhouses like Brisbane, Essendon, Carlton and Port are languishing at the bottom of the heap thanks to the deliberate retardation forced upon them.

And what are we left with? A p#ssweak competition where comedy clubs like St. Kilda and Footstern Bulldogs can jag a flag purely as a result of bottoming out for half a decade (some would argue, century) or more.
comedy club that's hysterical coming from somebody who follows wait for it newcastle . Mate stick to beating up such powerhouses as central districts in your little sanfl league.Still won as many flags as you lot :p :p

[Capital Power]

I look at the NRL-ad which says "SEVEN DIFFERENT PREMIERS IN EIGHT YEARS!! ANYONE CAN WIN IT!!" and I cringe because a) it's pathetic and b) it's what the AFL will eventually become.

Premierships won't be won so much as a result of a club's overall acumen or ethos, but as a result of club waiting its turn.

Not my club, mate - been waiting our turn 40 years ;)

[- PC -]

Why?? Well think about the composition of the board. The board is half SANFL appointed directors and half appointed by those of us who are members.

The SANFL director’s primary fiduciary duty is to the SANFL, not the club and it’s members. They are there to protect the SANFL’s revenue stream. The SANFL receive income from the following areas

1. Rent from Port for using Footy Park. Last year I asked if anyone knew what rent we paid to the SANFL. After several posts I was told it was irrelevant, which, of course was B/S. I asked someone at the club about the rent we pay and whilst they said the amount was confidential, they said it comprised 3 parts. Firstly, a fixed component, secondly a variable component based on the seats sold in the northern stand and thirdly another variable component based on total attendance.

2. Income from sale of goods and services at Footy Park on match day.

3. Income from sale of corporate facilities at Footy Park for Port home games.

4. The sub licence fee. Currently this is a fixed amount, but it may revert back to a distribution of profit percentage, like it was prior to the 2003 season. Remember that 2006 is the last season of $400k of the licence fee + $200k of amortisation of establishment costs as well as the last year of the current fixed dollar distribution to the SANFL.

Those 5 SANFL directors are on average, more likely to make decisions based on the protection of the above mentioned revenue streams. A mid table finish will ensure our club attendances stay at a reasonable level. We made a $734k loss last year, after the SANFL licence fee payment, so the directors, all of them, will be driven by the desire to eliminate losses, especially in the short term. Bottoming out will see all of the above revenue streams materially affected as well as a few others. Only 4 clubs can say they are bullet proof to poor on field performance, i.e. Adelaide, West Coast, Collingwood and Essendon.

Look at what the Brisbane board said to Mathews in 2002. From Rucci’s article;

“A year earlier, in Brisbane - as the Lions celebrated their second flag - experienced coach Leigh Matthews went to the Lions' boardroom with one of those bitter-sweet propositions.

He too had been working his whiteboard. Matthews told the Brisbane directors he had two paths available to the team. He could win a third flag to finish off the three-peat and also claim a fourth title. But the consequences of keeping together a premiership-winning squad would be a sudden fall after the 2004 grand final.

Alternatively, the Lions could dismantle their "Kings of the Jungle" and begin to invest in players for 2006 and beyond.

No surprise, the ambitious Lions went for the option of taking more flags, regardless of the painful hit that would follow.
"We knew," says chief executive Michael Bowers, "it would lead to some substantial pain down the track but we also knew we had a chance of making (football) history."

There are no AFL of AFLQ directors on the Brisbane board. They were prepared to take the long term hit to the body. Our board hasn’t.

By achieving a third flag and fourth grand final, and being a monopoly team in the 3rd largest state and second fastest growing economy in a city that has many more corporate head offices than SA, Brisbane have the luxury to be able to ride out 2 or 3 bad years and not worry about appeasing their licence holders. Unfortunately we don’t have that luxury. Economic reality has a strong hold over major decisions made by our board.

It will be a few years yet before we can afford to buy a new tire or even a new bike.So its the SANFLs fault once again :rolleyes:

[*PAF]

So its the SANFLs fault once again :rolleyes:
No, but it follows on from another thread that I started where I asked something along the lines of "is Williams able to go for broke"?
The answer is clearly no.

[birdmanptr]

The closes examination we get from Rucci at the tiser makes it hard to rebuild properly. We either go the whole hog, and get ridiculed in the Crow friendly media here; and take all the membership damage that can cause; or try to do it the much harder way, without bottoming out, and try to slowly regain momentum towards a premiership; thus minimising the Media and supporter base damage.

On the bright side, at least we have no fans as pathetic as the Carlton uni student (who isnt even a full club member !! ) starting petitions and websites to sack the coach.


:confused: :confused: :confused:

[birdmanptr]

No, but it follows on from another thread that I started where I asked something along the lines of "is Williams able to go for broke"?
The answer is clearly no.

For mine the answer is clear we both need reserves teams so the young guns can be developed in postions that suit the afl club

[Mad Dog]

For mine the answer is clear we both need reserves teams so the young guns can be developed in postions that suit the afl club
not favourable in terms of impact on the SANFL

[Toots Hibbert]

not favourable in terms of impact on the SANFL
The SANFL is now a feeder comp therefore the needs of the two AFL sides take precedence IMO.

Besides, I think that having two AFL seconds sides in the comp could well spice it up and add to the strength of the league. I wouldn't expect the AFL reserves sides to dominate and the other teams would go hard to knock them off. Port should have the PAMFC as their seconds side and the Crows can have their own side bringing the comp back up to 10 teams.

I'm with birdmanptr on this one.

[pafc4life]

We have the list to win a flag.

[RussellEbertHandball]

So its the SANFLs fault once again :rolleyes:

No I never said it’s the SANFL’s fault. For those people who have called for tough, radical or extravagant decisions from our board over this or other issues, I’ve tried to highlight how the decision making process is a little more complicated than that.

Given the clubs financial position, conservative decisions have to be made, that’s why I said “on average” the SANFL directors will make conservative decisions and protect the SANFL’s interest. That’s not a criticism of them, it’s just pointing out the reality of our board. I reckon all of the board are taking conservative positions at the moment, especially on maters that materially affect our financial position.

Mark Williams cannot go to the board and say, “if I play all of the kids, we will have 2 or 3 years of pain, revenue will be dramatically reduced, but I GUARANTEE YOU A FLAG IN 5 YEARS.” He can’t give a caste iron guarantee. So the directors, SANFL and elected, aren’t going to make a radical decision which will guarantee losses for 2 or 3 years. They made a conservative decision, one, which I would have also made.

Port’s board won’t be making radical or extravagant decisions over the next few years. So the sack Williams supporters before his contract is terminated will just have to wait. Hopefully the board will continue to make, and/or agree to innovative plans made by the clubs management team.

[- PC -]

No I never said it’s the SANFL’s fault. For those people who have called for tough, radical or extravagant decisions from our board over this or other issues, I’ve tried to highlight how the decision making process is a little more complicated than that.

Given the clubs financial position, conservative decisions have to be made, that’s why I said “on average” the SANFL directors will make conservative decisions and protect the SANFL’s interest. That’s not a criticism of them, it’s just pointing out the reality of our board. I reckon all of the board are taking conservative positions at the moment, especially on maters that materially affect our financial position.

Mark Williams cannot go to the board and say, “if I play all of the kids, we will have 2 or 3 years of pain, revenue will be dramatically reduced, but I GUARANTEE YOU A FLAG IN 5 YEARS.” He can’t give a caste iron guarantee. So the directors, SANFL and elected, aren’t going to make a radical decision which will guarantee losses for 2 or 3 years. They made a conservative decision, one, which I would have also made.

Port’s board won’t be making radical or extravagant decisions over the next few years. So the sack Williams supporters before his contract is terminated will just have to wait. Hopefully the board will continue to make, and/or agree to innovative plans made by the clubs management team.
Thats fair to point out, but I cant see the SANFL involving themselves that much..especially 18 months after a flag

I know the WAFC still struggle to infict any responsibility on Fremantle.

[SpringChoke]

See, this is why I hate the quasi-Communist AFL system as it now stands.

That it is now accepted you have to suffer years of sh#t for a crack at one year of sweet sugar.

I look at the NRL-ad which says "SEVEN DIFFERENT PREMIERS IN EIGHT YEARS!! ANYONE CAN WIN IT!!" and I cringe because a) it's pathetic and b) it's what the AFL will eventually become.

Premierships won't be won so much as a result of a club's overall acumen or ethos, but as a result of club waiting its turn.

The result? Powerhouses like Brisbane, Essendon, Carlton and Port are languishing at the bottom of the heap thanks to the deliberate retardation forced upon them.

And what are we left with? A p#ssweak competition where comedy clubs like St. Kilda and Footstern Bulldogs can jag a flag purely as a result of bottoming out for half a decade (some would argue, century) or more.

Turn it up DT. Clubs like Port Power, Freo etc should be grateful the way the competition is structured. If it was setup simliar to the English Pemier league, the top 4 every year would be out of Adelaide, West Coast, Collingwood, Essendon and Brisbane. Clubs like Port would be destined for mid table finishes.

[- PC -]

Turn it up DT. Clubs like Port Power, Freo etc should be grateful the way the competition is structured. If it was setup simliar to the English Pemier league, the top 4 every year would be out of Adelaide, West Coast, Collingwood, Essendon and Brisbane. Clubs like Port would be destined for mid table finishes.
To be fair they would have entered the competition differently if that was the case ie Private Ownership and mucho $$$ would have been used to set it up

[Paralowiepower]

Turn it up DT. Clubs like Port Power, Freo etc should be grateful the way the competition is structured. If it was setup simliar to the English Pemier league, the top 4 every year would be out of Adelaide, West Coast, Collingwood, Essendon and Brisbane. Clubs like Port would be destined for mid table finishes.
Composite clubs like the Camry crows and West Coast dont actually play in the premier league chokie.

[johnnypanther]

i gotta say that this thread is one of the better ones - actually have an intelligent discussion going with differing opinions

only problem is that it takes ages to read and digest such analytical stuff

[SpringChoke]

Composite clubs like the Camry crows and West Coast dont actually play in the premier league chokie.

REALLY???? Not much gets past you Paralowie.

[maccas_no1]

Its about list managment, some clubs do it better than others.

It is interesting to note and they were discussing this on Triple M in Melbourne on Sunday, that Kangaroos(1999) Essendon(2000) Brisbane(2001,02,03) and Port(2004) are all now down the bottom of the ladder in 2006, is that purely the draft???? Or list management???

If you look at the AFC we have a group of good older players Ricciuto, Goodwin, Mcleod, Hart, Edwards we then have another group in Hudson, Biglands, Burton, Doughty and then our young up and coming players Van Berlo, Reilly, Knights, Bock, Johncock that to me is good list managment you have the older leader's who are going to show the young kids the way and are going to have 2-4 years playing under them to learn the game and develop, sometimes lists get too 'top heavy' so you have alot of better players on your list but maybe they get played ahead of the kids and there isnt that balance to keep the club in the future heading in the right direction.

Just my 2c:thumbsu:

[portentous]

REALLY???? Not much gets past you Paralowie.
So you think Adelaide Crows=Manchester United?
Perish the thought.

I'd hate to see the AFL end up along those lines. I don't like the draft, but think the salary cap is an absolute neccessity.

[portentous]

Just my 2c:thumbsu:

It's 5c now Maccas. :p

I get irritated when people blame Carlton's position on the draft etc. They are where they are because of their own stupidity, it has nothing to do with the AFL. They pi:D :D ed away their draft picks by cheating.

As for St Kilda, well some things never change.....;)

[- PC -]

I get irritated when people blame Carlton's position on the draft etc. They are where they are because of their own stupidity, it has nothing to do with the AFL. They pi:D :D ed away their draft picks by cheating.


They have had enough time to regroup

Its the coach oh that goes for St Kilda as well

[Powerstufff]

.....If you look at the AFC we have a group of good older players Ricciuto, Goodwin, Mcleod, Hart, Edwards we then have another group in Hudson, Biglands, Burton, Doughty and then our young up and coming players Van Berlo, Reilly, Knights, Bock, Johncock that to me is good list managment you have the older leader's who are going to show the young kids the way and are going to have 2-4 years playing under them to learn the game and develop......I would have come up with Port's version of your list in that golden time after the 2004 GF. We had years at or around the top ahead of us. So while you are not unreasonably proud and excited the stability and long-term success you see may very well turn out to be just an illusion. Look at your team from 1998 to 2000.

[Paralowiepower]

So you think Adelaide Crows=Manchester United?
Perish the thought.

I'd hate to see the AFL end up along those lines. I don't like the draft, but think the salary cap is an absolute neccessity.
Chokie is a little to thick to work out that the club's in the Premier League are exactly that, clubs. Not a composite side made up by a state league like his side is.

[Macca19]

If you look at the AFC we have a group of good older players Ricciuto, Goodwin, Mcleod, Hart, Edwards we then have another group in Hudson, Biglands, Burton, Doughty and then our young up and coming players Van Berlo, Reilly, Knights, Bock, Johncock that to me is good list managment you have the older leader's who are going to show the young kids the way and are going to have 2-4 years playing under them to learn the game and develop, sometimes lists get too 'top heavy' so you have alot of better players on your list but maybe they get played ahead of the kids and there isnt that balance to keep the club in the future heading in the right direction.

Just my 2c:thumbsu:

Not too dissimilar to our position really.

We had a group of good older players in James, Francou, Primus, Wakelin, Wilson, Schofield, Lade. Another good group of 25-27 yo guys in Tredrea, C Cornes, Pickett, P Burgoyne, Carr, Brogan. Some good 2nd tier young guys in K Cornes, S Burgoyne, Cassisi. A good group of depth players in Mahoney, Cochrane, Poulton, Thurstans and some highly rated juniors who had shown great signs either at AFL level or SANFL level in Ebert, Salopek, Surjan, Chaplin and Pettigrew.

Now look at us. James, Primus retired, Schofield, Carr and Pickett left. Wilson, Tredrea, Brogan injured or underdone. Kane and Cassisi havent developed as expected, our depth is now non existant and our youngsters are in and out of the side or havent come on as we had hoped.

Doesnt take long for things to turn to poo (or the other way round for that matter). Doesnt matter what succession plans you have in place, you just dont know whether your 2nd tier and younger guys will handle being first tier players when your older guys (Roo, Mcleod etc) give it away in a couple years time, which is why you have to make the damn most of the chances you get when you are in a top position to win a flag.

[Toots Hibbert]

Turn it up DT. Clubs like Port Power, Freo etc should be grateful the way the competition is structured. If it was setup simliar to the English Pemier league, the top 4 every year would be out of Adelaide, West Coast, Collingwood, Essendon and Brisbane. Clubs like Port would be destined for mid table finishes.
If the AFL was structured like the English Premier League then Adelaide and West Coast would quite simply not exist. The EPL has a promotion/ relegation system and was set up from the strongest clubs of the old first division. Since then various clubs have dropped out and others from lower divisions have been promoted. If the AFL had been set up in the same way we would have seen the strongest clubs from each of the state leagues being promoted and the weaker clubs dropped. I'm guessing Port and Norwood would have been two from South Australia. In that scenario I don't think there's much doubt that Port would have been a powerhouse.

[maccas_no1]

Not too dissimilar to our position really.

We had a group of good older players in James, Francou, Primus, Wakelin, Wilson, Schofield, Lade. Another good group of 25-27 yo guys in Tredrea, C Cornes, Pickett, P Burgoyne, Carr, Brogan. Some good 2nd tier young guys in K Cornes, S Burgoyne, Cassisi. A good group of depth players in Mahoney, Cochrane, Poulton, Thurstans and some highly rated juniors who had shown great signs either at AFL level or SANFL level in Ebert, Salopek, Surjan, Chaplin and Pettigrew.

Now look at us. James, Primus retired, Schofield, Carr and Pickett left. Wilson, Tredrea, Brogan injured or underdone. Kane and Cassisi havent developed as expected, our depth is now non existant and our youngsters are in and out of the side or havent come on as we had hoped.

Doesnt take long for things to turn to poo (or the other way round for that matter). Doesnt matter what succession plans you have in place, you just dont know whether your 2nd tier and younger guys will handle being first tier players when your older guys (Roo, Mcleod etc) give it away in a couple years time, which is why you have to make the damn most of the chances you get when you are in a top position to win a flag.

Experts say its a 7-8 year cycle between flags in the AFL.

Also congrats on the win in the SANFL over my Tigers, wrong Tigers lost and wrong Tigers won:(

[Toots Hibbert]

Experts say its a 7-8 year cycle between flags in the AFL.
Also congrats on the win in the SANFL over my Tigers, wrong Tigers lost and wrong Tigers won:(
Have these same "experts" counted the number of teams in the comp? Sixteen into 8 won't go.

I'm not being frivolous about this, just making the point that various teams will fail to win flags for generations despite the equalisation policies of the AFL. Not just for arithmetical reasons but also because of factors such as culture, poor recruiting, lack of a good coach when the squad is strong etc.

[oporto]

Experts say its a 7-8 year cycle between flags in the AFL.

I disagree;
. depends on recruiter preferences
. depends on quality of trades
. depends on sponsors/financial support
. depends on coach/assistant coach's capabilities
. depends on "club culture" - winning/losing culture
. depends on draw & travel regime'
. depends on squad composition - age,

Winning a premiership is not dependant on;
. injuries
. early draft picks

I suggest if correctly quoted, the 7/8 yr figure may be an AFL spin doctor comment to give justify the "system" given most clubs would be delighted to win one every so often.

[maccas_no1]

I disagree;
. depends on recruiter preferences
. depends on quality of trades
. depends on sponsors/financial support
. depends on coach/assistant coach's capabilities
. depends on "club culture" - winning/losing culture
. depends on draw & travel regime'
. depends on squad composition - age,

Winning a premiership is not dependant on;
. injuries
. early draft picks

I suggest if correctly quoted, the 7/8 yr figure may be an AFL spin doctor comment to give justify the "system" given most clubs would be delighted to win one every so often.

I agree, as someone said 8 doesnt go into 16.

[Toots Hibbert]

I agree, as someone said 8 doesnt go into 16.
You need help Macca! :D Eight does go into sixteen...twice in fact! ;) What I said was that 16 doesn't go into 8.

[maccas_no1]

You need help Macca! :D Eight does go into sixteen...twice in fact! ;) What I said was that 16 doesn't go into 8.

Yes you know what I mean:o

[Toots Hibbert]

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5970/sketches/kapow-sketch.gif

[- PC -]

Experts say its a 7-8 year cycle between flags in the AFL.
Depends on how old the bike is and how much repair it needs

[maccas_no1]

Depends on how old the bike is and how much repair it needs

Only a new tire:p

[Paralowiepower]

Only a new tire:p
I think you mean tyre. Your not having a good run is thread maybe you should stick to the easy stuff like Port Power ;)

[maccas_no1]

I think you mean tyre. Your not having a good run is thread maybe you should stick to the easy stuff like Port Power ;)

:o Ive just finished a week of night shift, the AFC played crap on the w/end, Im badly effected you have gotta understand:p

[portentous]

:o Ive just finished a week of night shift, the AFC played crap on the w/end, Im badly effected you have gotta understand:p
You're not expecting sympathy from us Port ferals now Marty?? What next? :eek:

[maccas_no1]

You're not expecting sympathy from us Port ferals now Marty?? What next? :eek:

Nah not smpathy just understanding:p

[DSL64]

Nah not smpathy just understanding:p

Mate, we ain't a funeral parlour :D

[Ford Fairlane]

Mate, we ain't a funeral parlour :D

I dunno, we've buried plenty of team's hopes and aspirations in the Cheltenham Cemetery over the years ... ;)

[PtLincolnpower]

I guess the development of our youth hasnt been great.... its been slow and painful to be honest. But i think we are starting to see some good signs in the lads..... its going to be a while yet before any of them are truly elite players tho. But i think players like Pearce, Salopek, Symes are now playing good fairly consistant footy and this will only get better for them. I saw good signs in Ezard the other day - he looks like a red hot goer and not scared to mix it up with the big boys..... something we need desperately - especially in the middle. Thomson knows how to get in there and get the footy too..... he will benefit from more game time tho i think. Chaplin showed good signs last year and just needs more confidence and in all honesty he is probably suffering due to a weak and underperforming midfield..... its hard being a defender at any stage - but if the ball is streaming in consistantly and quickly - the defenders are going to be picked off everytime! He will play a lot of good footy for us. im liking what im hearing about Logan too - some experts are saying him and Ezard are our solutions to the toughness in the midfield! I hope their right. White is showing he knows how to get the footy and kick goals - once Tredrea starts performing again - they will make a formidable duo. Motlop needs to discover that flair again and we all know what skills he has..... Surjan is definately coming on surprisingly well. He adds a little bit of toughness to our half back line. Which assists others. ie - Lonie may be soft - but he is definately a Schofield like linkman - if we can use Symes and Surjan and Wilson as the tougher backman - it allows a softer like player to be the linkman and get the in between possessions - he has a great long leg - white white will gobble up all day long. The Grew is very dissappointing this year! But i think he is a victim of circumstances and absolutely no confidence. Give him a position, build his confidence and he will come good. I just hope players like Ware, Willits etc can all keep progressing and pushing for selection too.

[PtLincolnpower]

Double Post

[Powerstufff]

I guess the development of our youth hasnt been great.... its been slow and painful to be honest. But i think we are starting to see some good signs in the lads............... I just hope players like Ware, Willits etc can all keep progressing and pushing for selection too.Good post, all of it. :thumbsu:
I chopped it down for brevity, no reasons for especially selecting the bits I did.