View Full Version : South Port Sharks
VanBerlo=God
1 Nov 2007, 12:36
There was interesting discussion around april/may of this year, about the SPS and their financial/membership base, and their likely success and sustainability at AFL level.
With NM most probably to declare a refusal to move to SEQld, the SPS look ready to launch their own club, for which the AFL will grant a license for.
Not quite sure if these figures are accurate, but one individual mentioned that the SPS had a member base over 60k.
If this is accurate, or even 50% accurate, it would sure represent a larger chance of survivability alone than NM currently stands even with assistance.
Discuss.
There was interesting discussion around april/may of this year, about the SPS and their financial/membership base, and their likely success and sustainability at AFL level.
With NM most probably to declare a refusal to move to SEQld, the SPS look ready to launch their own club, for which the AFL will grant a license for.
Not quite sure if these figures are accurate, but one individual mentioned that the SPS had a member base over 60k.
If this is accurate, or even 50% accurate, it would sure represent a larger chance of survivability alone than NM currently stands even with assistance.
Discuss.60k at $5.00 each so they can play pokies and enter the meat raffle
A real figure to keep in mind would be when Southport played in their GF this year in front of 3000 spectators
Not quite sure if these figures are accurate, but one individual mentioned that the SPS had a member base over 60k.
If this is accurate, or even 50% accurate, it would sure represent a larger chance of survivability alone than NM currently stands even with assistance.
60,000 people that pay $5 for a pokie license that entitles them to cheap food, drink etc. What percentage of those people that would fork out an extra $100+ on a season ticket is I guess what will determine whether Southport could make a go of it or not. Personally I suspect the percentage would be fairly low.
From what I understand, a lot of Gold Coast footy fans who aren't associated with Southport, wouldn't follow a Southport led club, apparently they are not well liked in the region.
A Living God
1 Nov 2007, 12:48
There was interesting discussion around april/may of this year, about the SPS and their financial/membership base, and their likely success and sustainability at AFL level.
With NM most probably to declare a refusal to move to SEQld, the SPS look ready to launch their own club, for which the AFL will grant a license for.
Not quite sure if these figures are accurate, but one individual mentioned that the SPS had a member base over 60k.
If this is accurate, or even 50% accurate, it would sure represent a larger chance of survivability alone than NM currently stands even with assistance.
Discuss.
I think a merger could be viable.
Southport actually supporters + North Melbourne Gold Coast members + South Port pokies money + Neutral AFL / AFLQ supporters that change allegiences to new GC team or just go watch NM/SP/GC as its the only AFL available + North Melbourne Melbourne based supports that will support the merged team = A team that with a small amout of AFL support and investment in the area would be viable
The Flying Belgian
1 Nov 2007, 12:49
60,000 people that pay $5 for a pokie license that entitles them to cheap food, drink etc. What percentage of those people that would fork out an extra $100+ on a season ticket is I guess what will determine whether Southport could make a go of it or not. Personally I suspect the percentage would be fairly low.
From what I understand, a lot of Gold Coast footy fans who aren't associated with Southport, wouldn't follow a Southport led club, apparently they are not well liked in the region.
Correct. Up in these here parts, if yur not wit 'em, your agin 'em.
Btw, where is this "South Port" that the OP alludes to? ;)
The Old Dark Navy's
1 Nov 2007, 12:50
It's a small point but can we call them Southport and not South Port? It's not SPS, it would be SS.
Just came back from there. it is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS the figures on Southport are GROSSLY SKEWED to suit the AFL agenda.
They are NOT a well supported club at all. as has been stated by many others on various threads, and at the risk of sounding repetitious:
*3000 supporters to the Grand Final - only the AFL will say that 99.9% of those are Southport supporters
*at $5 a piece- which GC local wouldn't get a membership given the entitlements they receive. I can't but a pie in Sydney for $5
* They are the Collingwood of the QAFL - if you don't support them- you hate them.
Other points while i'm at it:
* GC is RUGBY LEAGUE region!!! The only reason the AFL is desperate to FORCE us there is because of the Titans franchise.
* Brisbane is a triple premiership club- and still cannot attract members!!!
* AFL stated a few years ago- with the (abandoned?) plans for a Western Sydney team that the greater West of Sydney was the fastest growing locale in Australia. Now correct me if i'm wrong- the greater West of Sydney has a far greater population than that of the Gold Coast! their plans failed as that is RUGBY LEAGUE heartland. Gold Coast in no different.
AFL can jam their propaganda and so can the mouthpieces masquerading as media.
A Living God
1 Nov 2007, 13:13
The 60,000 members is more about pokies than Football.
North Melbourne + Southport pokies money = Gold Coast Kangaroos
fishmonger
1 Nov 2007, 13:18
* They are the Collingwood of the QAFL - if you don't support them- you hate them.
A bit like Port Adelaide (which is barely viable in an AFL city), just less passionate.
* Brisbane is a triple premiership club- and still cannot attract members!!!
Memberships is not the be all and end all, we still get better home averages than a few (including North). If we (a club struggling to attract members) can get more to a game at docklands playing Carlton than North can. What does that say about the support the Kangaroos are getting?
Membership pfft. :rolleyes:
BRISBANE- pffft
had to shaft a Victorian team with some heritage and claim it as your own to have ANY semblance of credibility
GO BEARS.......
GUMBY!
BRISBANE- pffft
had to shaft a Victorian team with some heritage and claim it as your own to have ANY semblance of credibility
GO BEARS.......
GUMBY!
If that makes you feel better........................ :)
actually yeah- it does
GO BEARS!
Hit And Rum
1 Nov 2007, 13:37
actually yeah- it does
GO BEARS!
Go Gold Coast...that makes me feel better!!!
* GC is RUGBY LEAGUE region!!! The only reason the AFL is desperate to FORCE us there is because of the Titans franchise.
* Brisbane is a triple premiership club- and still cannot attract members!!!
* .
The Gabba has a large members (Trust) area who don't pay and I paid a couple of hundred to become a corporate member of the Cricketers club, you just pay the gate price for the AFL game and can take several others and have great facilities. Both these areas of several thousand are better then the BL Social Club
A Living God
1 Nov 2007, 13:53
People are saying Brisbane can't attract supporters as it is in a RL area but Brisbane has attracts more supporters than argueably the most successful NRL team.
Brisbane Lions:
2002: 27,565
2003: 31,612
2004: 33,561
2005: 33,099
2006: 33,561
2007: 28,336
Brisbane Broncos:
2002: 20,131
2003: 24,326
2004: 28,667
2005: 30,331
2006: 31,208
2007: 32,868
Untill this year the Lions have had higher crowds every year going back to 1999
And even though the Broncos had a higher average in 2007 the numbers are misleading. If you exclude the games against the Gold Coast and North Queensland which had crowds of 47k and 50k the Broncos average is 27,080.
People are saying Brisbane can't attract supporters as it is in a RL area but Brisbane has attracts more supporters than argueably the most successful NRL team.
Brisbane Lions:
2002: 27,565
2003: 31,612
2004: 33,561
2005: 33,099
2006: 33,561
2007: 28,336
And we will be back over 30,000 next season. :thumbsu:
PumpyChowdown
1 Nov 2007, 14:19
60k at $5.00 each so they can play pokies and enter the meat raffle
A real figure to keep in mind would be when Southport played in their GF this year in front of 3000 spectators
3000 for the AFLQ GF compared to 13000 for the VFL GF.
I thought EVERYONE in Victoria went to the footy ALL THE TIME?
What's the deal with that?
60k members, most of whom couldn't give a toss about the footy, but what they do love is wasting their income/pensions in the pokies, and that means a non-stop, never ending revenue stream.
Of those 60k, I can assure you that AT LEAST 10% would be big footy fans, so if have of that 10% (and I'm low-balling these numbers) that's an extra 3000 members.
Then there's AFL fans that aren't members of the Southport Sharks, which at a guess, would more than likely be another 2000 - 5000 minimum.
It just makes sense for the 'Roos to relocate.
Relocate or wither and die.
Or merge with Melbourne.
How can you exclude the games against the Titans and Cowboys? Those teams aren't going anywhere. While we're at it, lets exclude the crowd figures for Collingwood vs Essendon games, and perhaps Collingwood vs Geelong too. hang on, lets just not include Collingwood vs ANYBODY games. those crowd figures are hardly sufficient to warrant a second AFL team to operate out of QLD. Also you may like to take into account that NORTH MELBOURNE get the rough end of the stick when it comes to
a) Free to air television coverage
b) Interstate travel
c) Friday night games (which we pioneered mind you)
d) Biased Media coverage
e) a sickeningly uneven draw
you should also note the gabba membership structure, and how this relates to the inflated BEARS home attendences. It should also be noted that Brisbane is a one team town, and still struggles to compete with even the lesser drawing Victorian teams crowds- let alone the Rugby League crowds.
If thats all you've got to justify shifting a club with a REAL history (not a fabricated, stolen one) then BRING IT ON!
and to that BEARS joker. If it wasn't for one J. Brown (drafted under their STOLEN heritage father son rule) you would retain your place, along with Carlton, at the foot of the ladder. where you belong.
3000 for the AFLQ GF compared to 13000 for the VFL GF.
I thought EVERYONE in Victoria went to the footy ALL THE TIME?
What's the deal with that?
60k members, most of whom couldn't give a toss about the footy, but what they do love is wasting their income/pensions in the pokies, and that means a non-stop, never ending revenue stream.
Of those 60k, I can assure you that AT LEAST 10% would be big footy fans, so if have of that 10% (and I'm low-balling these numbers) that's an extra 3000 members.
Then there's AFL fans that aren't members of the Southport Sharks, which at a guess, would more than likely be another 2000 - 5000 minimum.
It just makes sense for the 'Roos to relocate.
Relocate or wither and die.
Or merge with Melbourne.
no one trusts LYING CHEATING TANKING HYPOCRITES. your agruments are redundant.
A Living God
1 Nov 2007, 14:41
How can you exclude the games against the Titans and Cowboys?
Their Irrevalant because their misleading. Using Port Adelaide having a crowd of 45,000 at home games versus the Crows as a measure of Port Adelaides support would be a blatant misrepresenation. Those crowds do not reflect the true amount of support for the Broncos.
Their Irrevalant because their misleading. Using Port Adelaide having a crowd of 45,000 at home games versus the Crows as a measure of Port Adelaides support would be a blatant misrepresenation. Those crowds do not reflect the true amount of support for the Broncos.
DID YOU READ ON....OR STOP AT THE FIRST SENTENCE
woosh_era
1 Nov 2007, 14:51
Southport is a bad idea. New clubs should represent cities or regions, not suburban clubs. That excludes too many people with long-standing dislikes of that club... who would otherwise support a new club from thier home city.
Check port adelaides crowds and membership for evidence of admitting large state based clubs. This is the AFL now. Its a city vs city league. All this quaint suburban level stuff is just not relevant anymore.
Has to be the "Gold Coast" whatevers.
Southport is a bad idea. New clubs should represent cities or regions, not suburban clubs. That excludes too many people with long-standing dislikes of that club... who would otherwise support a new club from thier home city.
Check port adelaides crowds and membership for evidence of admitting large state based clubs. This is the AFL now. Its a city vs city league. All this quaint suburban level stuff is just not relevant anymore.
Has to be the "Gold Coast" whatevers.
Port have close to 35,000 members, something like the 5th or 6th highest in the AFL.
greennick
1 Nov 2007, 16:21
How can you exclude the games against the Titans and Cowboys? Those teams aren't going anywhere. While we're at it, lets exclude the crowd figures for Collingwood vs Essendon games, and perhaps Collingwood vs Geelong too. hang on, lets just not include Collingwood vs ANYBODY games. those crowd figures are hardly sufficient to warrant a second AFL team to operate out of QLD. Also you may like to take into account that NORTH MELBOURNE get the rough end of the stick when it comes to
a) Free to air television coverage
b) Interstate travel
c) Friday night games (which we pioneered mind you)
d) Biased Media coverage
e) a sickeningly uneven draw
you should also note the gabba membership structure, and how this relates to the inflated BEARS home attendences. It should also be noted that Brisbane is a one team town, and still struggles to compete with even the lesser drawing Victorian teams crowds- let alone the Rugby League crowds.
If thats all you've got to justify shifting a club with a REAL history (not a fabricated, stolen one) then BRING IT ON!
and to that BEARS joker. If it wasn't for one J. Brown (drafted under their STOLEN heritage father son rule) you would retain your place, along with Carlton, at the foot of the ladder. where you belong.
The games against those local teams were excluded by that poster because Brisbane has no equivalent local rival, so it is hardly fair to compare them. Once they have a local rival they will have games where they are getting 50k to as well.
On the AFL shafting North, a lot of that is because North is not a particularly popular club.
It is not the AFL's fault that the least amount of people want to watch North on TV.
It is not the AFL's fault that you can not get a reasonable amount of people to go to your games, hence you do not deserve many (or any really) Friday night and blockbuster games.
It is not the AFL's fault you are too poor so you sell games elsewhere and are hence sent on far more interstate trips.I know it sucks, but the AFL is a business and North is only a very small, close to irrelevant, part of it.
The Kangaroos have made their own bed through their consistent inability to gain and retain members. Even in the time recently where you have been under threat, there has been no increase in members and no more people going to the games.
FWIW, I dunno if North should be shifted, however I would like to see the game expanded into Qld. I say we should start a 17th team fresh and just throw money at that. It is not the cost that is the matter, as the AFL can afford that. It is worth it if they can get a real Qld rivalry going and the game is spread further around the country.
stmookeyj
1 Nov 2007, 16:26
Memberships is not the be all and end all, we still get better home averages than a few (including North). If we (a club struggling to attract members) can get more to a game at docklands playing Carlton than North can. What does that say about the support the Kangaroos are getting?
Membership pfft. :rolleyes:
So if it isn't the be all and end all, why do clubs spend thousands of dollars in advertising to attract new members and to encourage exisiting members to renew?
The fact that the NRL 'derbies' V GC & Nth Qld drew almost double the usual Broncos crowd is one of the reasons why the AFL wants a 2nd Qld team.
It's the 'Synergy' argument.
thejester
1 Nov 2007, 17:09
3000 for the AFLQ GF compared to 13000 for the VFL GF.
I thought EVERYONE in Victoria went to the footy ALL THE TIME?
What's the deal with that?
Wtf are you trying to argue here? That the fact the second-grade competition in Melbourne attracted 10,000 more people than its Queensland equivalent is somehow proof that North should relocate?
60k members, most of whom couldn't give a toss about the footy, but what they do love is wasting their income/pensions in the pokies, and that means a non-stop, never ending revenue stream.
Just the sort of ethical, family friendly approach the AFL is so keen on.
Of those 60k, I can assure you that AT LEAST 10% would be big footy fans, so if have of that 10% (and I'm low-balling these numbers) that's an extra 3000 members.
Again, wtf? Are you suggesting that all 3000 spectators at the recent grandfinal weren't members of SS?
Then there's AFL fans that aren't members of the Southport Sharks, which at a guess, would more than likely be another 2000 - 5000 minimum.
If they're already AFL fans, presumably they've already got their own allegiances - especially given that the GC is the graveyard of baby boomers.
It just makes sense for the 'Roos to relocate.
Relocate or wither and die.
Or merge with Melbourne.
No, it doesn't. Even if we go with your ridiculously optimistic pulled-out-of-arse figures, SS will have 11,000 members - which is what, half of North's current membership figure? And well below the 30,000+ financially viable clubs have. You'd have to be ruining a lot of lives for the club to be able to survive without massive amounts of AFL assistance.
harmesy 37
1 Nov 2007, 17:12
This is what the bloke that runs the pommy rugby league club up on the gold coast says - (and i think they are good points)
"Then there's the question of whether the Gold Coast people will take to their hearts a Melbourne team that may shift to the region mainly for economic reasons.
"You can't come here and do it by halves," Searle remarked.
"This four-game-a-year thing treats people with a little bit of complacency.
"If the AFL think they can just come here and put a Gold Coast badge on a jumper and get support, they're in for a rude shock because they've got a lot of work to do."
That is why a Southport club is a better option than the Kangaroos.
They have a presence there already - they are a local team, it displays a level of confidence in the local competition too.
I say give teh licence to Southport.
North should hold onto their identity but play in the VFL -not the AFL.
Clubs go up and down "divisions" all the time in english soccer- why can't North go back to the VFL and thereby hold onto their identity and history.
They would also strengthen the VFL competition in the process.
harmesy 37
1 Nov 2007, 17:26
I have got to say the Southport guernsey looks way cool too.
Other than the Carlton guernsey, it would be one of the best in the comp.
http://www.southportsharks.com.au/profiles.asp
Maybe they would need to rename them gold coast sharks but that is no big deal. I like the idea of Southport in the comp. representing the gold coast as they are part of the area already.
harmesy 37
1 Nov 2007, 17:27
I have got to say the Southport guernsey looks way cool too.
Other than the Carlton guernsey (which is the best one by a long way), it would be one of the best in the comp.
http://www.southportsharks.com.au/profiles.asp
Maybe they would need to rename them gold coast sharks but that is no big deal. I like the idea of Southport in the comp. representing the gold coast as they are part of the area already. less hassle with a north board not really wanting to be in qld etc... this way you have a board already united in its aims.
Southport is a bad idea. ...
Has to be the "Gold Coast" whatevers.
it will be, it will be the gold coast sharks, which will be southport branded to represent the whole city.
jimmy_clement#8
1 Nov 2007, 21:36
Some say 3,000 were there, others 12,000. How many did go to the QAFL final? Hard evidence would be good, put that one to bed.
Also, one thing about Southport, for what they are, a state league footy club, in a rugby state nonetheless, they are a sensationally run business. Don't underestimate the fact that they, Southport, will have 30 mil to spend on acquiring that license, with enough left in the bank after to start up an AFL club (with AFL assistance of course, but still). So even though those 60,000 odd members have paid hardly anything to be a member, its obviously enough to be making good money out of it (I know, pokies, but the membership revenue is still significant to the bottom line).
They have got some sort of following be it a spattering, or a cult, and as a business, they are highly profitable, and tremendously well run. The AFL would thoroughly enjoy those traits.
FootyJunkie
1 Nov 2007, 21:43
Southport is a bad idea. New clubs should represent cities or regions, not suburban clubs. That excludes too many people with long-standing dislikes of that club... who would otherwise support a new club from thier home city.
Check port adelaides crowds and membership for evidence of admitting large state based clubs. This is the AFL now. Its a city vs city league. All this quaint suburban level stuff is just not relevant anymore.
Has to be the "Gold Coast" whatevers.
Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond, St.Kilda
Valleys FC 4Ever
1 Nov 2007, 21:54
Some say 3,000 were there, others 12,000. How many did go to the QAFL final? Hard evidence would be good, put that one to bed.
I'm sure I read it was in the 2,500-3,000 range.
In any case that 12,000 figure is ridiculous, the statewide rugby league GF only got 7,000 and the Brisbane rugby union GF got 3,000 or so.
Brilliant
1 Nov 2007, 23:09
Southport would work.
Who cares if their members only pay $5 when they pour $200 per annum into the pokies. It's just a different style of getting membership dollars.
As for the ex pats alreafy have a team and would'nt support a new one.
Ex pats of football states would have allegiances that's true. At first only a few will drop them and support the local team just to be part of the comp. Slowly the rest of them will want to be part of the AFL and jump on board as well.
Do you think Melbourne Storms fans are all converted Victorians who did'nt support anyone before they got here? I'll let you on a secret, majority of them were always rugby fans and had allegiances that they have dropped to 2nd.
Wildmanwok
2 Nov 2007, 07:04
From what I understand, a lot of Gold Coast footy fans who aren't associated with Southport, wouldn't follow a Southport led club, apparently they are not well liked in the region.
Nothing like a bit of apparantely and my mates best friends sisters mother in law said... as per the above hey.
Bit like PAFC is hated by 2/3 of SA.
BTW, I am for Nth Melbourne staying in Melbourne. Read any of my post and you will see that.
Nothing like a bit of apparantely and my mates best friends sisters mother in law said... as per the above hey.
If anyone thinks otherwise they are more than likely to say so, and I'd rather make it clear that it is my belief based on hearsay than make out that I know it as a fact.
As it happens, my belief was confirmed by someone who does know it, and has been reaffirmed a couple of times on various boards on BF.
jack lives here
2 Nov 2007, 08:27
This is what the bloke that runs the pommy rugby league club up on the gold coast says - (and i think they are good points)
"Then there's the question of whether the Gold Coast people will take to their hearts a Melbourne team that may shift to the region mainly for economic reasons.
"You can't come here and do it by halves," Searle remarked.
"This four-game-a-year thing treats people with a little bit of complacency.
"If the AFL think they can just come here and put a Gold Coast badge on a jumper and get support, they're in for a rude shock because they've got a lot of work to do."
That is why a Southport club is a better option than the Kangaroos.
They have a presence there already - they are a local team, it displays a level of confidence in the local competition too.
I say give teh licence to Southport.
North should hold onto their identity but play in the VFL -not the AFL.
Clubs go up and down "divisions" all the time in english soccer- why can't North go back to the VFL and thereby hold onto their identity and history.
They would also strengthen the VFL competition in the process.
ha ha relegation for finishing 3rd, on the strength of that argument.........d2 ammos for carltank? (sorry to offend any d2 ammo players.):D
Doctor Jolly
2 Nov 2007, 08:57
So 2nd tier QAFL grand final gets 3000 fans in a city of 500,000 (0.6% of population), while 2nd tier VFL grand final gets 13000 fans in a city of 4000000 (0.3% of population).
Looks like another "Gold Coast Truth" is backfiring badly. I can see why the GC needs another team fast!
So 2nd tier QAFL grand final gets 3000 fans in a city of 500,000 (0.6% of population), while 2nd tier VFL grand final gets 13000 fans in a city of 4000000 (0.3% of population).
Looks like another "Gold Coast Truth" is backfiring badly. I can see why the GC needs another team fast!
Do you think that maybe one or two Zillmere supporters drove down the road from Brisbane (population 1.8m) to watch the match?
Southport would work.
Who cares if their members only pay $5 when they pour $200 per annum into the pokies. It's just a different style of getting membership dollars.
Why don't we give a team to Microsoft if all we are worried about is profit and loss? Seems now that a lot of the people saying that this move is a good thing don't even care that it will actually reduce bums on seats at football games. So long as the profits are up, and TV revenue is up who cares eh?
And to think footy used to be a sport.
Capitalist
2 Nov 2007, 09:19
Why don't we give a team to Microsoft if all we are worried about is profit and loss? Seems now that a lot of the people saying that this move is a good thing don't even care that it will actually reduce bums on seats at football games. So long as the profits are up, and TV revenue is up who cares eh?
And to think footy used to be a sport.
no offence - but they will hardly be losing many bums, how many Nth Games get under 25k ?
not that I am supporting the move/relocation, maybe a 17th and 18th team outside of Melbourne would produce enough income to keep all teams in Melborne viable, who knows
no offence - but they will hardly be losing many bums, how many Nth Games get under 25k ?
Last year it was 4, three Carrara games and one at the Docklands against Melbourne. Our average Victorian home attendance last season (not including finals) was 34,000 or so.
not that I am supporting the move/relocation, maybe a 17th and 18th team outside of Melbourne would produce enough income to keep all teams in Melborne viable, who knows
Unless you choose the right location, at the right time a new team doesn't automatically equate to more money.