View Full Version : Members Info Night
Macca19
19 Jun 2008, 12:03
Anyone here go last night?
wharfie_1870
19 Jun 2008, 12:59
Couldn't make it but I'd be interested to hear what happened from any fellow subscriber to the Power franchise who was there.
I went along with about 200 others. The club was represented by JJ, Rohde, Brett Duncanson and Damon White and Robbie Gray. Choco was absent, but no real reason given and Boulton was interstate.
The whole evening other than a quick interview with Robbie and Damon consisted of the audience questions being written on a white board and answered in one session.
Other than a few cringe worthy and pedantic questions that the club cannot do anything about, eg other club away strips and using membership cards at Harris Scarfes, there were some interesting issues raised and discussed:
Game plan - has changed slightly from last season and has been tweaked during this season based on players form and availability.
Lack of player physical strength - acknowledged that this is an ssue compared to teams like Geelong and mentioned that on average we were 5 kgs lighter than Geelong.
GF mental problems - club has their own shrinks and and AFLPA shinks to cover on and off field issues.
Thommo selection - reinforced the club message of early signs of OP and now waiting for a full SANFL game performance - not far away.
Damon selection - Damon is close and playing well in the SANFL - Rohde and Damon's own assessment. He hasn't lost hope or confidence and continues try to break in.
After match location - club v AAMI was considered finacially more viable at AAMI. Only 100-200 at after match at alberton compared to over 200 at AAMI. Concerns re high price for drinks and no food available - club will look at subsidising drinks and providing snacks.
AAMI Home ground - we will have an exact 50/50 split in presence and foot print at AAMI as a condition of the $100m upgrade and we are working on how this will be achieved. Examples are a gear shop, after match funtions with room for 3,000 and some form of facility equal to the Cows Tavern.
Interstate presence - we cannot afford to have separate and fulltime offices in any interstate locations, even Qld where we hav our biggest interstate following.
Club membership - will be simplified into one card and different levels rather than having different categories. Membership gifts are being looked at - complaints re caps are always given, but not needed.
Scott HQ - $5m in the bank to be spent ATM on upgrades and member viewing and touring facilities to be included.
Other things were discussed but can't remember - hopefully others will.
Macca19
19 Jun 2008, 13:33
Cheers for that Natman, very appreciated.
Hodges 153!
19 Jun 2008, 13:45
I went along with about 200 others. The club was represented by JJ, Rohde, Brett Duncanson and Damon White and Robbie Gray. Choco was absent, but no real reason given and Boulton was interstate.
JJ said it was "because there was training this afternoon". :confused:
AAMI Home ground - we will have an exact 50/50 split in presence and foot print at AAMI as a condition of the $100m upgrade and we are working on how this will be achieved. Examples are a gear shop, after match funtions with room for 3,000 and some form of facility equal to the Cows Tavern.
I wanted to ask exactly what the "footprint" is going to be equal to, given most of the Crow facilities will be in the separate development on the "shed" site, but didnt get a chance. I dont think we'll ever appear to have "equal presence" with that right next door?
Alex Panas came and introduced himself afterwards. They are working hard to get the licensed club to be more profitable, and by all accounts appointing the new club manager Grant Cruickshank has made some in-roads there.
And LOL at Tony Saulters the Customer Service Manager, who after "listening" to people saying how unhappy they were with our presence moving away from our home at Alberton, suggested future info nights be held in other places such as in the city.
JJ shut him down "No, no, no, Alberton, I think we get that loud and clear"..... :)
blackdiamond
19 Jun 2008, 14:19
Gee a year is a long time in football.
Are the after match functions now at AAMI rather than Alberton?
RussellEbertHandball
19 Jun 2008, 14:30
Scott HQ - $5m in the bank to be spent ATM on upgrades and member viewing and touring facilities to be included.
Technically that's profit. Wonder if the club will spin it that way. Good that they will have tours and viewings. Good for us interestaters etc when we get back to SA to be able to have a look.
Hope they will build a decent Hall of Fame in the new facilities. Was there any further explanation of how and when this new facility will be constructed.
Thanks for the summary Natman.
Gee a year is a long time in football.
Are the after match functions now at AAMI rather than Alberton?
Yes - from this season onwards ATM.
Numbers dropped off badly at Alberton near the end of last season apparently and AAMI was the first move to increase our presence at AAMI and to take advantage of a captive audience at games in a bid to increase numbers.
Ï personally prefer Alberton - I get away from AAMI quickly and then go to Alberton, but now you need to hang around at AAMI while the players and coach get ready.
Technically that's profit. Wonder if the club will spin it that way. Good that they will have tours and viewings. Good for us interestaters etc when we get back to SA to be able to have a look.
Hope they will build a decent Hall of Fame in the new facilities. Was there any further explanation of how and when this new facility will be constructed.
Thanks for the summary Natman.
No problems. I have been lucky enough to do a couple of tours and it is pretty interesting. As I understand, the expansion will include more indoor training area and admin offices which are in short supply.
Not sure about a Hall of Fame - it might take away the atmosphere from the Port Club where a number of cups are displayed - the 2004 one is of particular interest:D
Interested in how you assess that the $5m is profit - most of it is from grants and should be conditional on specific expenditure and therefore not form part of profitability performance.
PowerKat
19 Jun 2008, 14:50
Yeah I went as well and was intending to post but Natman's saved me a lot of work - I'll just add a few comments:-
I missed the first few minutes.
I went along with about 200 others. The club was represented by JJ, Rohde, Brett Duncanson and Damon White and Robbie Gray. Choco was absent, but no real reason given and Boulton was interstate.
said Choco doesn't usually attend these particular nights
Other than a few cringe worthy and pedantic questions that the club cannot do anything about, eg other club away strips and using membership cards at Harris Scarfes, there were some interesting issues raised and discussed:
Agree - some of the Q's were quite stupid to be frank. I didn't mind the response from JJ re the away strips though - basically we can't have anything with black and the push is for white to be the predominate colour like freo, etc, "unless you're Collingwood".
Game plan - has changed slightly from last season and has been tweaked during this season based on players form and availability
Admission that maybe some players had been played when perhaps they shouldn't have been (it can be a tough call with players with niggles etc which is basically 10 -15 players every week).
Some poor decision making on-field leading to too many handballs and end up in trouble - so again an admission that 'yes- too much handball'.
Also said that Hawthorn gameplan would be closest to ours but they're doing it better. Not executing well - too many errors compared to last yr. Not getting the ball into our fwd line as often as we'd like.
It's not part of the plan to have no-one in our forward line :rolleyes:
Tempo being used less in last few weeks and something to keep working on.
Lack of player physical strength - acknowledged that this is an ssue compared to teams like Geelong and mentioned that on average we were 5 kgs lighter than Geelong.
Also that our list is younger which contributes to this.
Thommo selection - reinforced the club message of early signs of OP and now waiting for a full SANFL game performance - not far away.
Yep - that he has had groin problems over the years and would hopefully be in contention in a few weeks.
Also mentioned Lower's many times as emergency last yr and this yr and hope to see him consolidate now. :thumbsu:
After match location - club v AAMI was considered finacially more viable at AAMI. Only 100-200 at after match at alberton compared to over 200 at AAMI. Concerns re high price for drinks and no food available - club will look at subsidising drinks and providing snacks.
There was a bit of whinging about this and clearly it's a financially better option or the club wouldn't have done it.
Pushing hard for maximum returns from AAMI and to not be seen as '2nd cousins' there
A couple of other points:-
Confirmed the AFL acknowledged our establishment date as 1870 about 12 months ago.
Responded to a Q re 'Power' vs 'Port Adelaide' that teal/power successfully appeals to the kids and every other aspect dealing with members will refer to Port Adelaide Football Club. We will always be the Port Adelaide Football Club.
Some guy had an Australia Post stamp set that referred to "Port Power" (that was handed up to be looked at) and JJ said sometimes things still happen that piss us off. :)
After the Q's Brett Duncanson stood up impromptu to add (quite passionately) that they might be seen as faceless suits; the board is committed to the club; that there are Port Adelaide people on the board, like Wakelin and Abernethy - that we are the Port Adelaide Football Club and will always be the Port Adelaide Football Club . :thumbsu:
blackdiamond
19 Jun 2008, 14:59
Yes - from this season onwards ATM.
Numbers dropped off badly at Alberton near the end of last season apparently and AAMI was the first move to increase our presence at AAMI and to take advantage of a captive audience at games in a bid to increase numbers.
Ï personally prefer Alberton - I get away from AAMI quickly and then go to Alberton, but now you need to hang around at AAMI while the players and coach get ready.
Well that is a backwards step, I loved going back to Alberton as well, can only hope it flops at AAMI and we move back.
RussellEbertHandball
19 Jun 2008, 15:05
No problems. I have been lucky enough to do a couple of tours and it is pretty interesting. As I understand, the expansion will include more indoor training area and admin offices which are in short supply.
Not sure about a Hall of Fame - it might take away the atmosphere from the Port Club where a number of cups are displayed - the 2004 one is of particular interest:D
Interested in how you assess that the $5m is profit - most of it is from grants and should be conditional on specific expenditure and therefore not form part of profitability performance.
It's not operating profit of normal operations and you can't call it a capital contribution. But the bottom line is that it increases the net worth of the club. The Western Bulldogs have reported it that way in their financial statements for their $20mil redevelopment of Whitten oval. They have all the same sort of conditions attached to their grant. Betwen 2005 and 2007 they have received $12mil of the $20mil. Their balance sheet went from negative net assets of $4.2mil to net assets of $6.4mil between 2005 and 2007. It's the same for the crows and all the clubs who have received grants in Victoria to upgrade their facilities and they own those facilities. Geelong didn't record the monies it got to develop the Kardinia Park as profit as the ground is owned by the Geelong council.
The same thing happened in 2006 with the SANFL. The SANFL makes around $4.5mil operating profits but in 2006 it received 2 grants totalling $12.1mil from the SA government for the grandstand and video screen and security and that went straight to the bottom line and they recorded a profit of $16.8mil. The same in 2007 when they got $9mil from the SA govt for capital developments and a $1.4mil change room development grant from the AFL and reported a $14.6mil profit. This will continue to happen when ever parts of the $100mil the SA government has committed to Footy Park is handed over to the SANFL.
RussellEbertHandball
19 Jun 2008, 15:11
After the Q's Brett Duncanson stood up impromptu to add (quite passionately) that they might be seen as faceless suits; the board is committed to the club; that there are Port Adelaide people on the board, like Wakelin and Abernethy - that we are the Port Adelaide Football Club and will always be the Port Adelaide Football Club . :thumbsu:
Sounds like the deputy president is ready to take over from Boulton.:thumbsu:
wharfie_1870
19 Jun 2008, 15:13
Well that is a backwards step, I loved going back to Alberton as well, can only hope it flops at AAMI and we move back.Given that numbers at post match functions at AAMI so far have exceeded those at Alberton you and Natman would appear to be in the minority. Part of the proposed redevelopment of AAMI is to include a new area that will be used for PAFC after match functions. I can't see it ever going back to Alberton.
Personally I prefer the functions at AAMI as I am already there. To get to Alberton I have to walk home and get the car and then drive to Alberton.
..... now you need to hang around at AAMI while the players and coach get ready.The players and coach are already at AAMI. Not sure how having the after match function at Alberton can result in a shorter wait. :confused:
..... After the Q's Brett Duncanson stood up impromptu to add (quite passionately) that they might be seen as faceless suits; the board is committed to the club; that there are Port Adelaide people on the board, like Wakelin and Abernethy - that we are the Port Adelaide Football Club and will always be the Port Adelaide Football Club . :thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu:
Toots Hibbert
19 Jun 2008, 15:14
Thanks for the reports Natman, Hodges and Powerkat. It's good to hear that the AFL have acknowledged the establishment date as 1870. The PAMFC and the SANFL should stop playing games with this. But I'd like to know in what form the AFL's acknowledgement has come. Is it someone at AFL house saying this to someone at the club, is there a formal document? What...?
Happy to hear what Brett Duncanson said. Hopefully John James is as passionate as Duncanson sounded.
It's not operating profit of normal operations and you can't call it a capital contribution. But the bottom line is that it increases the net worth of the club. The Western Bulldogs have reported it that way in their financial statements for their $20mil redevelopment of Whitten oval. They have all the same sort of conditions attached to their grant. Betwen 2005 and 2007 they have received $12mil of the $20mil. Their balance sheet went from negative net assets of $4.2mil to net assets of $6.7mil between 2005 and 2007. It's the same for the crows and all the clubs who have received grants in Victoria to upgrade their facilities and they own those facilities. Geelong didn't record the monies it got to develop the Kardinia Park as profit as the ground is owned by the Geelong council.
The same thing happened in 2006 with the SANFL. The SANFL makes around $4.5mil operating profits but in 2006 it received 2 grants totalling $12.1mil from the SA government for the grandstand and video screen and security and that went straight to the bottom line and they recorded a profit of $16.8mil. The same in 2007 when they got $9mil from the SA govt for capital developments and a $1.4mil change room development grant from the AFL and reported a $14.6mil profit. This will continue to happen when ever parts of the $100mil the SA government has committed to Footy Park is handed over to the SANFL.
It would be irresponsible to brag about profits inflated by conditional grants - I would suspect that they wouldn't and maybe the money will commited to asset development come reporting time.
If we record profits that are too high might preclude us getting other ASDs from the AFL.
wharfie_1870
19 Jun 2008, 15:20
.... But I'd like to know in what form the AFL's acknowledgement has come. .....
This is how it came (https://www.clubsonline.com.au/shop/index.cfm?fuseaction=Display_Product&ProductID=5147&OrgID=1750&cfid=10361158&cftoken=59175268&dts=196200818232) :mad:
Given that numbers at post match functions at AAMI so far have exceeded those at Alberton you and Natman would appear to be in the minority. Part of the proposed redevelopment of AAMI is to include a new area that will be used for PAFC after match functions. I can't see it ever going back to Alberton.
Personally I prefer the functions at AAMI as I am already there. To get to Alberton I have to walk home and get the car and then drive to Alberton.
The players and coach are already at AAMI. Not sure how having the after match function at Alberton can result in a shorter wait. :confused:
:thumbsu::thumbsu:
Only that it takes time to walk to my car, drive home and then drive to Alberton - by the time I get there there is not much of a wait.
I actually don't mind where it is, it's just that I prefer Alberton.
Thanks for the reports Natman, Hodges and Powerkat. It's good to hear that the AFL have acknowledged the establishment date as 1870. The PAMFC and the SANFL should stop playing games with this. But I'd like to know in what form the AFL's acknowledgement has come. Is it someone at AFL house saying this to someone at the club, is there a formal document? What...?
Happy to hear what Brett Duncanson said. Hopefully John James is as passionate as Duncanson sounded.
No need to worry about passion with Brett and JJ - they are Port though and through.
The club settled the 1870 issue a year ago, but there was no detail provided on what form this took - personally the feeling I got was that the club were happy with the situation now, but JJ stated that sometimes club memorabillia and mis-communication does occur much to the annoyance of the club - maybe it's a reflection on the ability of the AFL marketing department.
RussellEbertHandball
19 Jun 2008, 15:29
It would be irresponsible to brag about profits inflated by conditional grants - I would suspect that they wouldn't and maybe the money will commited to asset developement come reporting time.
If we record profits that are too high might preclude us getting other ASDs from the AFL.
I agree that there is no bragging rights. That's already been done when they won the grant. But part of the AFL's review of the clubs and their financial position is to look at the income/profits as well as assets ie facilities and net assets of the clubs. In June 2006, 7 of the 10 clubs it was announced that they would have $55mil in facilities redevelopments. $40mil of that comes from Vic govt, local councils and the AFL. Those clubs increase their net worth from these monies. In March this year the Vic govt committed another $10.5mil for 10 Vic clubs and their suburban clubs and training facilities.
The ASD wont be affected by these payments. As I said, the Bulldogs are getting $20mil in govt grants and it hasn't affected their ASD.
Yeah I went as well and was intending to post but Natman's saved me a lot of work - I'll just add a few comments:-
I missed the first few minutes.
said Choco doesn't usually attend these particular nights
Agree - some of the Q's were quite stupid to be frank. I didn't mind the response from JJ re the away strips though - basically we can't have anything with black and the push is for white to be the predominate colour like freo, etc, "unless you're Collingwood".
Admission that maybe some players had been played when perhaps they shouldn't have been (it can be a tough call with players with niggles etc which is basically 10 -15 players every week).
Some poor decision making on-field leading to too many handballs and end up in trouble - so again an admission that 'yes- too much handball'.
Also said that Hawthorn gameplan would be closest to ours but they're doing it better. Not executing well - too many errors compared to last yr. Not getting the ball into our fwd line as often as we'd like.
It's not part of the plan to have no-one in our forward line :rolleyes:
Tempo being used less in last few weeks and something to keep working on.
Also that our list is younger which contributes to this.
Yep - that he has had groin problems over the years and would hopefully be in contention in a few weeks.
Also mentioned Lower's many times as emergency last yr and this yr and hope to see him consolidate now. :thumbsu:
There was a bit of whinging about this and clearly it's a financially better option or the club wouldn't have done it.
Pushing hard for maximum returns from AAMI and to not be seen as '2nd cousins' there
A couple of other points:-
Confirmed the AFL acknowledged our establishment date as 1870 about 12 months ago.
Responded to a Q re 'Power' vs 'Port Adelaide' that teal/power successfully appeals to the kids and every other aspect dealing with members will refer to Port Adelaide Football Club. We will always be the Port Adelaide Football Club.
Some guy had an Australia Post stamp set that referred to "Port Power" (that was handed up to be looked at) and JJ said sometimes things still happen that piss us off. :)
After the Q's Brett Duncanson stood up impromptu to add (quite passionately) that they might be seen as faceless suits; the board is committed to the club; that there are Port Adelaide people on the board, like Wakelin and Abernethy - that we are the Port Adelaide Football Club and will always be the Port Adelaide Football Club . :thumbsu:
Thanks for the additional info Powerkat - spot on.
Another old chestnut raised was the issue of why our SANFL games records are not recognised and VFL ones are - we will never win this, so why waste energy trying.
wharfie_1870
19 Jun 2008, 15:34
This is how it came (https://www.clubsonline.com.au/shop/index.cfm?fuseaction=Display_Product&ProductID=5147&OrgID=1750&cfid=10361158&cftoken=59175268&dts=196200818232) :mad:
...... JJ stated that sometimes club memorabillia and mis-communication does occur much to the annoyance of the club - maybe it's a reflection on the ability of the AFL marketing department.Surely the PAFC has full control over the Power Gear Shop. JJ needs to get his own backyard in order before he starts pointing fingers at the AFL marketing department.
Ford Fairlane
19 Jun 2008, 15:50
Just on the Geelong comparison, it's worth noting that Geelong came out at the end of 2003, said they were sick of being pushed around and knocked off the ball so easily, and publicly committed to an intense weights programs. By the start of the 2004 pre-season they were trumpeting their results in muscle weight gain on their players, and they have also responded well on-field since.
Sure the commitment to increasing their physical presence isn't the only reason that they've succeeded, but it's certainly helped. It's also worth noting that puts us about 5 years behind them, so people shouldn't expect too much change in this before next year.
Surely the PAFC has full control over the Power Gear Shop. JJ needs to get his own backyard in order before he starts pointing fingers at the AFL marketing department.
From what I could gather (for others there please confirm or correct my interpretation) the issue was raised on the noting on a stamp issue (an AFL official product, but not known by the PAFC) of Port Power being formed in 1996 and was not to be confused with the PAFC in the SANFL.
JJ was pretty pissed off and wanted to inspect the item in question and to discuss it more with the person who raised it.
wharfie_1870
19 Jun 2008, 16:13
.... JJ was pretty pissed off and wanted to inspect the item in question and to discuss it more with the person who raised it.I'd be happy to provide JJ with directions to the Power Gear Shop.
PowerKat
19 Jun 2008, 16:26
I'd be happy to provide JJ with directions to the Power Gear Shop.
well, why don't you send him an email about the issue?
I don't like the 96 stuff - but the fact the club doesn't produce this stuff - the AFL does - and it's clear that the AFL DGAF about this sort of thing, it appears to me to be somewhat of a losing battle. we have no idea exactly what the obligations of the club are and what actions have been taken regarding this. If you don't ask, you won't know.
Regardless of that, the club have confirmed in a P2P mag last year and last night that the AFL acknowledge our establishment date as 1870. I think that is the most important thing in all of this.
Generally speaking - it's been said before too - whinging on here doesn't get us anywhere. This is one reason I went last night and took the time to speak to John afterwards. I will also be sending him an email about one point. He was very open to discussion.
I'd be happy to provide JJ with directions to the Power Gear Shop.
If there are issues in our backyard then I suggest that you contact JJ.
wharfie_1870
19 Jun 2008, 18:06
well, why don't you send him an email about the issue?.....but the fact the club doesn't produce this stuff - the AFL does .....As I said above the AFL doesn't run the Power Gear Shop/Megastore. The AFL doesn't approve the glossy brochures for the Power Gear Shop/Megastore. The AFL doesn't put the glossy brochures in the Power To The People and mail it out to members.
If there are issues in our backyard then I suggest that you contact JJ.I have raised this issue with the club on numerous occasions as I'm sure a number of others have.
Why would they listen to me anyway? After all I'm only a long term member ...... errrr ...... sorry JJ, subscriber :rolleyes:
PowerKat
19 Jun 2008, 18:41
As I said above the AFL doesn't run the Power Gear Shop/Megastore. The AFL doesn't approve the glossy brochures for the Power Gear Shop/Megastore. The AFL doesn't put the glossy brochures in the Power To The People and mail it out to members.
I have raised this issue with the club on numerous occasions as I'm sure a number of others have.
Why would they listen to me anyway? After all I'm only a long term member ...... errrr ...... sorry JJ, subscriber :rolleyes:
I understand your point.
...and, so out of interest, what was JJ's reply to your concerns?
Hodges 153!
19 Jun 2008, 19:25
Peter Rohde was also asked who Mr Rucci has a bee in his bonnet with.
He laughed it off and said "he had no idea", but if MR had had a falling out with a "club employee" over player availability (IIRC), then I'd say he'd know it.
Thomson6
19 Jun 2008, 21:35
From what I could gather (for others there please confirm or correct my interpretation) the issue was raised on the noting on a stamp issue (an AFL official product, but not known by the PAFC) of Port Power being formed in 1996 and was not to be confused with the PAFC in the SANFL.
JJ was pretty pissed off and wanted to inspect the item in question and to discuss it more with the person who raised it.
The marketing ladies have got the stamp book and the club have said they will follow it up and as you said are extremely pissed off and couldnt believe it was an Official AFL product.
The club said they take matters like these seriously when the AFL slip in some of the bullshit such as this stamp book to delibrately piss the club off, and that dont for one moment think that they dont fight hard about the est. 1870 issue.
The general feeling I got from some of the staff when I spoke to them later in the night was that they feel somewhere along the lines the Port Adelaide Football Club has done something to annoy or upset the AFL, otherwise we wouldnt have to fight hard for so many things, whether it be small or a large matter e.g. fixture and most importantly the heritage issue.
Capital Power
19 Jun 2008, 21:46
SNIP ..
The general feeling I got from some of the staff when I spoke to them later in the night was that they feel somewhere along the lines the Port Adelaide Football Club has done something to annoy or upset the AFL, otherwise we wouldnt have to fight hard for so many things, whether it be small or a large matter e.g. fixture and most importantly the heritage issue.
Yeah I'm not big on the "seige mentality" view but we have copped a raw deal this year in many ways (eg Shaun's suspension, which seemed to be fair at the time but now seems significantly less so). I wrote it off to the AFL wanting to push the game elsewhere (especially NSW and Qld with their new teams coming)
The heritage thing is just crap. We finally get to wear the jumper, and then can't sell it. I don't even understand how that's legal, let alone commercially sensible for the AFL.
Yeah I'm not big on the "seige mentality" view but we have copped a raw deal this year in many ways (eg Shaun's suspension, which seemed to be fair at the time but now seems significantly less so). I wrote it off to the AFL wanting to push the game elsewhere (especially NSW and Qld with their new teams coming)
The heritage thing is just crap. We finally get to wear the jumper, and then can't sell it. I don't even understand how that's legal, let alone commercially sensible for the AFL.
It's commonly termed: "bending over to take wood from Collingwood".
dyertribe
20 Jun 2008, 10:15
It's commonly termed: "bending over to take wood from Collingwood".
The fact their official reasoning for it is allowed to stand is petty - akin to when the NBA rolled into town in the late 90s and demanded a cut of all Townsville Suns (NBL) and South Melbourne Lakers (NSL) merchandising or a complete C&D because of apparent trademark infringements.
The fact we aren't allowed to mass produce the prison bar guernsey for heritage round like everyone else - even if we made a concession that it be devoid of any Magpie emblem - because it would supposedly "harm Collingwood's brand" is simply shit and the AFL should tell Collingwood to get ____ed and grow up, like they should've with their laughable 'clash strip' that will see North face a fine if the Roos rock up to their home clash with the Pies in their home guernsey.
The worst one was the Stalinisation of the Planet Teal guernsey comp - blacking out the kid's original design of prison bars behind the fist, a true representation of our official logo, because oh noes, it's black and white stripes and somehow this harms Collingwood...
Power Pete
20 Jun 2008, 11:04
I went for a look and a listen. Thanks Natman...you covered about everything that was said.
When it comes to afternoon games, like this week, we'll be going back to the Port Club for a meal and will not attend the after match function at Footy Park. We like to give something back to the Port Club now that they've made big changes for supporters within the club, bar and bistro.
Early games (12:40am) and night games, we will attend the after match functions at Footy Park, then go back to the Port Club now and again for a meal.
blackdiamond
20 Jun 2008, 11:23
Pete you touched on exactly why I liked going back to the Port Club, slowly they are eroding any reason to go back to Alberton, then what? Sell off Alberton?
The general feeling I got from some of the staff when I spoke to them later in the night was that they feel somewhere along the lines the Port Adelaide Football Club has done something to annoy or upset the AFL, otherwise we wouldnt have to fight hard for so many things, whether it be small or a large matter e.g. fixture and most importantly the heritage issue.
Although it is not a new phenomenon, I think the AFL would be mightily pissed off with our embarrassing performance in the GF last year and secondly with our dwindling crowds. They see us as almost ruining their show piece game. I also get the feeling that since we've won a flag, they almost want us to go away a bit. We are not one of the comps glamour sides and they would much prefer the big Victorian teams to be there at the business end of the season. It's just the impression I get.
PowerKat
20 Jun 2008, 11:43
Pete you touched on exactly why I liked going back to the Port Club, slowly they are eroding any reason to go back to Alberton, then what? Sell off Alberton?
Another point made by JJ when discussing the aftermatch - that Alberton will always be our spiritual home - forever. There was mention of the fact that the club has to carefully watch every dollar and the Port Club has been losing money. I guess we have to accept that 1) the aftermatch at Alberton cost the club money / at AAMI it's profitable and more people are attending thus far; and 2) the aftermatch 'tied up' the room upstairs preventing it being used for other functions and this can now occur. It appears to be opening up the opportunity for more people to attend and that has to be a positive and when the redevelopment is complete up to 3000 people will have that opportunity. Alberton can't accommodate that.
Going back to Alberton is something I will miss however we have to accept commercial realities. JJ stressed that every such decision is carefully weighed up in view of our financial position.
We accept that our home games are played at AAMI and therefore it's our home ground, it's not totally unreasonable.
Although it is not a new phenomenon, I think the AFL would be mightily pissed off with our embarrassing performance in the GF last year and secondly with our dwindling crowds.
More pissed off we 'broke' their system of everyone gets a go at a GF and once yours has passed don't come back for at least 6 or 7 years, not 3. Our poor crowds are at least partly the result of being given crappy timeslots by the AFL.
The AFL, is still very much the VFL with extras, so not wanting us there at or near the top is true. They want a non-Vic club there periodically so they can market the game nationally, but within that 'sharing around' system required to placate having too many teams in Victoria for all to be near the top.
That and the current administration's VFL centric view really hates the fact we existed prior to joining the AFL. That they can't look down their noses at us and tell us we came into existance purely to join the splendour that is their competition. That we have a proud pre-AFL history really irks AD and it's bleedingly obvious. He sees the AFL as a cult or society with him as the unquestioned leader and we don't fit neatly into that box. Kim Jong-Dimwitrou. :p
wharfie_1870
20 Jun 2008, 12:16
well, why don't you send him an email about the issue?.....
.... out of interest, what was JJ's reply to your concerns?If I ever receive one I'll let you know :mad:
ExpectToWin
20 Jun 2008, 12:40
More pissed off we 'broke' their system of everyone gets a go at a GF and once yours has passed don't come back for at least 6 or 7 years, not 3. Our poor crowds are at least partly the result of being given crappy timeslots by the AFL.
The AFL, is still very much the VFL with extras, so not wanting us there at or near the top is true. They want a non-Vic club there periodically so they can market the game nationally, but within that 'sharing around' system required to placate having too many teams in Victoria for all to be near the top.
That and the current administration's VFL centric view really hates the fact we existed prior to joining the AFL. That they can't look down their noses at us and tell us we came into existance purely to join the splendour that is their competition. That we have a proud pre-AFL history really irks AD and it's bleedingly obvious. He sees the AFL as a cult or society with him as the unquestioned leader and we don't fit neatly into that box. Kim Jong-Dimwitrou. :p
Based on your conspiracy theory I think this will be our draw for the first 13 rounds of next year
Round 1: Port v Adelaide (AAMI)
Round 2: Geelong v Port (Skilled)
Round 3: Port v Sydney (AAMI)
Round 4: Hawthorn v Port (Arora)
Round 5: Bulldogs v Port (Darwin)
Round 6: Adelaide v Port (AAMI)
Round 7: Sydney v Port (Sydney)
Round 8: Port v Geelong (AAMI)
Round 9: Brisbane v Port (GABBA)
Round 10: Port v Bulldogs (AAMI)
Round 11: Port v Collingwood (AAMI)
Round 12: West Coast v Port (Subiaco)
Round 13: Fremantle v Port (Subiaco)