Another SA AFL team?

Remove this Banner Ad

Hi I'm from Canberra. As much as I would love to have an AFL team here, economically it makes no sense. First of all, the home ground only holds about 12,000 and GWS has never sold it out. In Canberra, we have a professional rugby league and rugby union teams already.

More importantly Canberra has very few options in corporate sponsorship as the government dominates.

NT having a team - zilch, more chance of Tasmania happening.

And SA having a 3rd team, unless Olympic Dam happens I can't seeing it happening.

For those who advocate a 12 team competition, you have to realize the current and future tv rights deal requires a certain amount of games to be shown which is why GWS and Gold Coast were created to ensure a 9th TV slot. Going back to 6 matches a week is going to result in less money for each of the clubs surviving.

Cheer Cheer!
 
I reckon I'd switch from Adelaide to Norwood if they came into the league (with a major soft spot for the Crows)

However, not sure how I'd feel if it was a Norwood/Sturt/Glenelg combination of some sort...
 
radiojake said:
I reckon I'd switch from Adelaide to Norwood if they came into the league (with a major soft spot for the Crows)

However, not sure how I'd feel if it was a Norwood/Sturt/Glenelg combination of some sort...
Click to expand...

Agreed w the above. Wouldn't mind the combination.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Papa G said:
It's too late for Norwood, they had their chance......... but they played it safe and now have been consigned to relative irrelevance. Their colours are a part of the Crows guernsey, so I guess they have that.
Click to expand...

Played it SAFE? Don't you mean, did the right thing by the SANFL by reporting VFL activity to them rather than seek out ways of knifing the SANFL in the back and forcing them into a corner, a la Port Adelaide?
 
Norwood had their chance really. If Port had entered in 1990, then Norwood would have been allowed to enter in 1997, and we'd have two SA teams with proper traditions in heritage, as opposed to one team with real traditions and heritage, and one team that pretends they do, even though they don't. Being founded in an emergency, 60-90 minute meeting is hardly traditional.

It would have also made the reserves issue a tad easier personally.

****

I do believe that one day SA will have more than just two teams, as well as WA. I think a realistic timeframe for SA's third and fourth teams would be 20-25 years from now. Norwood would be one of them, and I think Sturt or Centrals would be the other. However at the same time I can also see any "new" SA team replacing a Victorian team - think Melbourne or North finally folding, or a merger.
 
Heardy_101 said:
Norwood had their chance really. If Port had entered in 1990, then Norwood would have been allowed to enter in 1997, and we'd have two SA teams with proper traditions in heritage, as opposed to one team with real traditions and heritage, and one team that pretends they do, even though they don't. Being founded in an emergency, 60-90 minute meeting is hardly traditional.

It would have also made the reserves issue a tad easier personally.

****
Click to expand...

at what point does a team get their 'tradition' and history? Does the club have to be around for 100 years before it's 'real' ?

This attitude really shits me. Honestly I would rather Norwood in the AFL because I am a 'Legs supporter and in reality, they deserve to be in the national comp ahead of some crab teams like St Kilda -

But they aren't and the Crows are here. It's been a quarter of a century now and 2 flags. How much longer can you say there is no 'tradition' or 'history' ?
 
The word I should have used is "Heritage".

Being formed out of a 90 minute meeting because Port wanted bigger and better things is hardly historical nor does it mean they have heritage.

I mean hello, you guys thought you had the right and the privilege to wear the State jumper because of the mindset that the Crows are apparently the team for all South Australians, which must obviously mean they are the state team (sarcasm). What I am saying is 20-30 years in existence is hardly worth talking about considering Port and Norwood have been around for nearly 150, and Melbourne and Geelong are the two oldest football clubs in Australia.
 
Of course that 90 minute meeting is 'historical' - It happened and had a major effect on the football landscape of South Australia. It what way is it not a 'historical' event? - 'Heritage', as you have used it, is nothing more than 'legacy' - You haven't answered the question. Is the Adelaide Football Club consigned for eternity to have 'no history' because of the way they formed? I'm pretty sure some of the old, 100+ year old clubs around were formed after 'meetings' when likeminded people decided to form a football club.

I like how you used the 2nd person pronoun 'you' to address me as if I had anything to do personally with the state guernsey replica. Nice work.

I know that Adelaide has a substantially shorter history than Port Adelaide, Norwood, Geelong and Melbourne.. I never disputed that. What I asked, and you failed to answer, is at what point does Adelaide fail to have any history at all, considering the four above mentioned clubs were all 25 years old at one stage.
 
radiojake said:
Of course that 90 minute meeting is 'historical' - It happened and had a major effect on the football landscape of South Australia. It what way is it not a 'historical' event? - 'Heritage', as you have used it, is nothing more than 'legacy' - You haven't answered the question. Is the Adelaide Football Club consigned for eternity to have 'no history' because of the way they formed? I'm pretty sure some of the old, 100+ year old clubs around were formed after 'meetings' when likeminded people decided to form a football club.

I like how you used the 2nd person pronoun 'you' to address me as if I had anything to do personally with the state guernsey replica. Nice work.

I know that Adelaide has a substantially shorter history than Port Adelaide, Norwood, Geelong and Melbourne.. I never disputed that. What I asked, and you failed to answer, is at what point does Adelaide fail to have any history at all, considering the four above mentioned clubs were all 25 years old at one stage.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not sure really. How would you define it?

If you want me to put a time limit on it, I would say 50 years, minimum.

Reason why I say that is because yes, Adelaide have a couple a flags to their name, which is one more than the Port AFL side, but how many years ago was that? The Crows have done bugger- all ever since.
 
Heardy_101 said:
Well I'm not sure really. How would you define it?

If you want me to put a time limit on it, I would say 50 years, minimum.

Reason why I say that is because yes, Adelaide have a couple a flags to their name, which is one more than the Port AFL side, but how many years ago was that? The Crows have done bugger- all ever since.
Click to expand...

50 years? Ironically the same amount of time since the Saints last won a flag
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Heardy_101 said:
The point I am trying to get across is that the Crows often go around talking about their heritage, without actually explaining what their heritage is, was or where it comes from.
Click to expand...

Did anyone honestly see this "heritage" logo before 2004 when they used it for the heritage round?

Adelaide-Heritage-2004.gif
 
Heardy_101 said:
The point I am trying to get across is that the Crows often go around talking about their heritage, without actually explaining what their heritage is, was or where it comes from.
Click to expand...

The Adelaide Crows heritage is born from the SANFL - Sure, it's got nothing on Port Adelaide or St Kilda in terms of 'longeviety' - Your arbritary 50 year minimum to have 'heritage' actually just proves how stupid your concept is.

Adelaide has history. It was formed in 1990, and initially was representative of the SANFL clubs in the national competition.

So what should we say about St Kilda's history? Got invited into the VFL because Junction Oval had a superior playing surface at the time?
 
FootyJunkie said:
Did anyone honestly see this "heritage" logo before 2004 when they used it for the heritage round?

Adelaide-Heritage-2004.gif
Click to expand...

This.

They were getting jelly that Port were getting more publicity than them for the last couple of years.

Bit like this year and jumpergate - "Oh crap, Port are getting more publicity, we can't have that, let's wear the State jumper, even though 75% of our current list is Victorian"
 
Mate, it is pretty constructive. The Advertiser doesn't help the cause either. Sorry I meant Crowvertiser.

No, I don't "hate" the Crows, only the senior management. I think the Crows are a good side on their day, however one problem is they have AWLAYS been reliant on one or two players. Think 2005 or 2006, Cwaigy said they lost because Riccuto was out.

Last year, for example, they had built their forward line around Taylor Walker, he went down and all of a sudden they had no-one.
 
Haven't read The Advertiser for years as I don't live in Adelaide so not really sure what that has to do with anything -

Your criticisms of Adelaide in terms of on the playing field, ie reliant on Ricciuto, McLeod (iin the past) or Walker/Tippet/Danger these days is fine, not every club is Geelong or Hawthorn

What I don't get is your 'no history' 'no heritage' rubbish that gets spouted all the time. It's quite frankly, annoying. The only reason that St Kilda were invited to the VFL was because Junction Oval was the considered the best football oval at the time in terms of its quality. They had never won a VFA flag, and were quite frankly, s**t house. 130 odd years later, they are still, quite frankly, s**t house. One flag is dismal. Atleast Footscray had 10 or so VFA flags.

So what is St Kilda's heritage? Their old home ground from 50+ years ago was considered so good they got invited into a league that was well above their capacity? Well, it's not a very good one, but it's heritage nonetheless

Adelaide's heritage stems from what was originally an SANFL representative team in the new, expanded national competition. As I said, if history was perfect, Norwood would be playing. But they're not, and we have Adelaide. The circumstances of their forming and entry into the comp are not illegitimate just because it only happened 25 years ago. If you consider Adelaide's entry into the AFL and it's history 'illegitimate', I would argue that St Kilda's entry was just as spurious -

Ofcourse, St Kilda's history is legitimate, just as Adelaide's is -
 
Even though I am a Port fan I would love to see the Norwood Football Club granted an AFL licence. That club is way too proud and accomplished to slowly wither away in the SANFL. Lets face it the SANFL is a feeder/reserves competition now. Sure, it is probably the second highest quality Australian Rules league in Australia but nowadays 3,000 is considered a bumper H&A attendance. A major hurdle would be the Adelaide Football Club. This is because a reasonable chunk of the Adelaide Crows supporter base would be Norwood supporters or would side with Norwood if they entered. I dont think any CEO, or anybody involved with the Adelaide Crows, would contemplate that happening.

We could split the Crows up into two or three clubs though :p (Jokes Crows fans I'm not your biggest fan but no one deserves their club taken away).

#RIPFitzroy #RIPWoodvilleWarriors
 
Ian Dunross said:
I suggest that hypothetically if Norwood entered the AFL tomorrow it would attract about 35,000 members more or less straight away. 25,000 would be genuine Norwood fans, of those, approx 5,000 would come from the Crows membership. The remaining 10,000 would be people who want to support a new club/haven't been an AFL member before. Over time, I reckon another 5,000 SANFL Norwood members would join.

Norwood might play 3-4 games on the Parade (after some redevelopment) against a GWS, St Kilda and another smaller club and the remaining 7-8 at Adelaide Oval.

I don't see the difference between having a Norwood vs having Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne or St Kilda. Each of those Vic clubs would have less members than Norwood would (comfortably IMO), each have been historically and recently less successful than Norwood and each are subsidised by the AFL.

I understand there would be resistance from AFC and PAFC.
Click to expand...

I dont think Port Adelaide would be against Norwood entering the competition. I'd say <2.5% of Port supporters once followed or follow Norwood. Having the extra games in South Australia plus the 143 year rivalry between the clubs would be a no-brainer for Port Adelaide.
 
I couldn't help myself and had a go at making a hypothetical Norwood guernsey. I tried to differ the design as much as possible from the Melbourne Demons but still holding the vibe and colours. Norwood remind me more of the Boston Redsox while Melbourne more Liverpool. What do you think? ReebokTemplate.jpg
 
Heardy_101 said:
I don't think there is any reason why Norwood couldn't have the same home jumper but obviously coming up with a clash, and away option would be needed.

Curious, would Melbourne react the same way Collingwood did when Port entered the league?
Click to expand...
Nope, because they dont have the money, membership, clout or Eddie that the Pies have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
SANFL 2024 -- Round 3 Wrap-Up
Replies
3
Views
148
kane249
kane249
R
SANFL 2024 -- Round 2 Wrap-Up
Replies
1
Views
183
MannyK
M
R
SANFL 2024 -- Round 1 Wrap-Up
Replies
2
Views
258
Adelaide Hawk
Adelaide Hawk
R
SANFL 2024 -- Season Kick-off Thread
Replies
1
Views
394
FilthyMule
FilthyMule
R
SANFL vs. VFL 2024 -- State Match Wrap-Up
Replies
0
Views
185
raboyle
R
Tigerlaird
Expansion of the SANFL post Port & Crows
Replies
7
Views
913
Tandy
Tandy
R
SANFL 2023 -- Grand Final Wrap-Up
Replies
3
Views
2K
Grand Uncle Horace
Grand Uncle Horace

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top