Port Adelaide - Club in Crisis?

[stewie griffen]

On the crowd issue, 4 friends of mine didnt renew their season tickets this year for the first time since the Power's inception due to a change in their circumstances i.e. moving interstate for work........

If the club is fair dinkum......why has no one ever contacted them to follow up or find out why this is the case?....The club constantly states they are working 'Very hard at increasing our crowd numbers'........

These people had never missed a game and bought a season ticket every year........just thought maybe the club might be interested to know why they hadn't renewed........obviously they aren't.

Sorry to invade the thread guys, don't post in here much, but this is something that I have gone through as well. Having been a season ticket holder since inception I gave it up this year as I moved overseas for work. What's the incentive for me to join up as a member though? All you get is interstate membership so I can go to a couple of games in Victoria - that's useless to everyone not in Vic tho.

What would be great is if (and it's not going to happen) the club could package up an online membership with something to offer. Like Power tv that they used to have on Vodafone, and if Telstra sorted out their shambles of a website this could be bundled with an online subscription package. Of course, this relies on the AFL getting a decent ISP to setup their systems... but hey its nice to dream...

 

[Zvim]

Port will bounce back and will be a strong club in the future, I don't think these low points hurt clubs long-term as long as lessons are learnt. Success can often breed stagnation, not listening to supporters can breed resentment.

I wouldn't blame the supporters that don't show up, they are pissed at what is going on and they are using the only voice they have, don't show up to games.

While that does hurt the club it is a very real reality check that you are doing something wrong when your fans are not showing up.

I think the fans just want to see that even in poor years on-field, the club is heading in the right direction. My guess is a lot are not happy with Williams being re-signed or with what is going on behind the scenes, people don't seem to be happy with the board and if you can't vote them out they really only have one course of action.

AFL and SANFL wont let Port die, but if things deteriorate they will probably push for greater change, which is probably a good thing.

 

[AlbertonProud81]

I have a bit of an interest in crowd figures, and I wonder if I am alone in saying that I think 25,000 average crowd is great for our club.

To put it in perspective, here is a list of the 'bigger' English soccer clubs who in the last season, had lower average attendances than us....

Also compared to NRL games, we are fantastic....

What you're saying is absolutely true, but there's a few key differences when you look at our position compared lower league soccer in the UK and NRL in Aus.

With soccer, the key difference is that the clubs OWN their stadium, therefore they get to keep everything they make. As a result they don't need as many people to come to the games to make a profit. The deal that Geelong has is the closest equivalent in AFL terms. The Cats make about $500k for a crowd of 22 000, we only break even at 27 000 people.

With NRL, it comes down to one thing - POKIES. The laws in NSW are different to SA - only sporting, social, and RSL clubs can have pokies. Imagine all the pokies money is SA going to footy clubs rather than pub owners! The NRL clubs are funded entirely from TV and Pokies money, crowds are irrelevant for them.

With a decent, centrally located stadium we could average close to 30 000. If Freo can manage that in the same situation we're in (2 team town, similar population, with a more popular local rival who had a head start) then surely we could too.

 

[AlbertonProud81]

Sorry to invade the thread guys, don't post in here much, but this is something that I have gone through as well. Having been a season ticket holder since inception I gave it up this year as I moved overseas for work. What's the incentive for me to join up as a member though? All you get is interstate membership so I can go to a couple of games in Victoria - that's useless to everyone not in Vic tho.

As a Victorian member, I can tell you it's pretty useless as well. A couple of years ago, I wanted to buy a Grand Final Anchor. The rules stated you could only do so if you were a member AND a season ticket holder. I was a Victorian Member, and yet I had to buy a full season ticket for AAMI stadium that I would never be able to use if I wanted to buy a GF anchor. Madness!

 

[FishingRick04]

Port will bounce back and will be a strong club in the future, I don't think these low points hurt clubs long-term as long as lessons are learnt. Success can often breed stagnation, not listening to supporters can breed resentment.

I wouldn't blame the supporters that don't show up, they are pissed at what is going on and they are using the only voice they have, don't show up to games.

While that does hurt the club it is a very real reality check that you are doing something wrong when your fans are not showing up.

I think the fans just want to see that even in poor years on-field, the club is heading in the right direction. My guess is a lot are not happy with Williams being re-signed or with what is going on behind the scenes, people don't seem to be happy with the board and if you can't vote them out they really only have one course of action.

AFL and SANFL wont let Port die, but if things deteriorate they will probably push for greater change, which is probably a good thing.

Good comments, our numbers started dwindling whilst successful I guess 01, 02 & 03 started the rot of bandwagon supporters not happy with our finals record

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

With NRL, it comes down to one thing - POKIES. The laws in NSW are different to SA - only sporting, social, and RSL clubs can have pokies. Imagine all the pokies money is SA going to footy clubs rather than pub owners! The NRL clubs are funded entirely from TV and Pokies money, crowds are irrelevant for them.

That is a sweeping inaccurate generalisation. I think you need to read this article from a couple of years ago in the SMH.

Get rich or die trying

 

[AlbertonProud81]

That is a sweeping inaccurate generalisation. I think you need to read this article from a couple of years ago in the SMH.

Get rich or die trying

'Entirely funded' was the wrong term to use. 'Kept afloat' would have been more accurate. But my point remains - comparing our crowd numbers to those in the NRL is not like-for-like due to the fact that they have that revenue stream.

 

[johnnypanther]

On the crowd issue, 4 friends of mine didnt renew their season tickets this year for the first time since the Power's inception due to a change in their circumstances i.e. moving interstate for work........

If the club is fair dinkum......why has no one ever contacted them to follow up or find out why this is the case?....The club constantly states they are working 'Very hard at increasing our crowd numbers'........

These people had never missed a game and bought a season ticket every year........just thought maybe the club might be interested to know why they hadn't renewed........obviously they aren't.

Good comments, our numbers started dwindling whilst successful I guess 01, 02 & 03 started the rot of bandwagon supporters not happy with our finals record

Although there are always different reasons for people not attending/not joining etc...... IMO there is an underlying and ongoing crowd issue problem which affects both Port & the Crows - more noticeable currently at Port but becoming increasingly obvious at the Crows too (with smaller crowd turn-ups, smaller waiting list etc).

 

[Northalives]

When a club has a big debt that is growing by the day.

When sponsors are avoiding a club like the plague.

When attendances to games have plummeted and will continue to plummet and a vast number of people will not be renewing their memberships.

When an elite player doesn’t want to play for the club anymore and other players, elite or not, would walk out given half a chance.

When the only way to arrest this woeful state of affairs is to start by having a team of players who are absolutely committed to the pursuit of on field success. This would motivate the fans and sponsors to get back on board but this playing group is riddled with factions and cliques and makes this initial step impossible.

When a coach is too busy worrying about his and only his welfare during the mid-season and allows players to appear in the media and make outrageous and inflammatory remarks about the opposition and their own club’s state of affairs without having sanctions applied to them for such ludicrous outbursts.

When a club puts forward a tried and tested set of principles and does not follow these principles itself and allows the coach and players to disrespect these same principle.

When supporters, imbued with one hundred and forty years of tradition have their concerns and misgivings completely ignored then this club is in deep crisis and will not survive under the present regime.

 

[Steve Dore]

.... When sponsors are avoiding a club like the plague. .......

They are

Didn't I hear something about some bloke named Gordon Pickhandle or something and isn't the club set to announce a new significant sponsorship deal in the not too distant future

I agree with most of the other sentiments in your post.

 

[Platinum]

Although there are always different reasons for people not attending/not joining etc...... IMO there is an underlying and ongoing crowd issue problem which affects both Port & the Crows - more noticeable currently at Port but becoming increasingly obvious at the Crows too (with smaller crowd turn-ups, smaller waiting list etc).

Which is???

 

[Malibu#27]

Which is???

Foxtel I'm guessing.

 

[Platinum]

FWIW, 'The Creed' would have been fine if you had a bigger membership, but all it did was alienate non-Port people and perhaps retained some wavering diehards. The Creed could have been introduced as a secondary marketing campaign for that purpose. I don't know what the answer is, but some hints like the positivity surrounding a new and strong club guernsey this year, as opposed to one designed by a marketing company, leads you to believe that perhaps some of the answers are actually very simple and that the surgery required is not major, but more corrective surgery. I'm sure there are far smarter people than me who can work this out and see your club back off the ropes.

I would dispute this.....earlier in the season it was reported by Rucci that the PAFC had about 6,000 new members. Now our 2009 membership total has declined further from the 2008 figure however it appears to show that the LTC promotion has not deterred people from becoming new members. The problem appears to be with existing supporters renewing their memberships. That could be due to a number of factors including game plan and team performance to name just two.

 

[tribey]

Who cares if our marketing campaign alienates non-Port people.

Yeah, I'm sick of hearing it. It's an anecdotal assumption based on a fundamental flaw.

The Creed, the 126 years of asskicking SAFA/SAFL/SANFL history, the prisonbar.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if you're truly neutral and intending to become a financial supporter/member of the Port Adelaide Football Club. It is heritage, tradition, success, prestige, a proud past which is the basis of a confident future.

If you aren't going to support the club because of this, you have an inherent bias anyway and would be just as turned off by the name 'Port Adelaide' or the fact the club resides in the very same place it has since 1880.

If you're truly neutral it is a clear option. The old club with 139 years of tradition that is the only non-Victorian club to graduate to the highest level in the land based on its glittering CV or the hastily enacted conglomerate that spent the first four years of its life playing out of Max Basheer's desk drawer.

Collingwood should be our model, not f#cking Fremantle.

 

[Waspy79]

Yeah, I'm sick of hearing it. It's an anecdotal assumption based on a fundamental flaw.

The Creed, the 126 years of asskicking SAFA/SAFL/SANFL history, the prisonbar.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if you're truly neutral and intending to become a financial supporter/member of the Port Adelaide Football Club. It is heritage, tradition, success, prestige, a proud past which is the basis of a confident future.

If you aren't going to support the club because of this, you have an inherent bias anyway and would be just as turned off by the name 'Port Adelaide' or the fact the club resides in the very same place it has since 1880.

If you're truly neutral it is a clear option. The old club with 139 years of tradition that is the only non-Victorian club to graduate to the highest level in the land based on its glittering CV or the hastily enacted conglomerate that spent the first four years of its life playing out of Max Basheer's desk drawer.

Collingwood should be our model, not f#cking Fremantle.

Great post DT, correct.

Looking forward, I have already done a ladder prediction for 2010, and I have the bottom three clubs as Melbourne, North Melbourne and Port Adelaide. Coincidentally (or not) these clubs are also in the biggest financial trouble of the 16 clubs in the league.

Worringly, if these three clubs continue to flounder on-field, not only will they continue to lose supporters at games and sponsorship dollars and be given poor fixtures, but they will also be participating in national drafts where the best talent will be taken by the new expansion franchises. This will restrict these clubs abilities to rebuild and become powerful on-field again, which will in turn affect these clubs ability to remain viable.

I can only see the gap between the league's current top 6-8 clubs and the bottom 4-6 becoming greater over the next 5 years and this could spell big financial problems for 3 or 4 of the clubs at the wrong end of the table. Crisis - no. Potential crisis - definitely.

 

[Northalives]

Yeah, I'm sick of hearing it. It's an anecdotal assumption based on a fundamental flaw.

The Creed, the 126 years of asskicking SAFA/SAFL/SANFL history, the prisonbar.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if you're truly neutral and intending to become a financial supporter/member of the Port Adelaide Football Club. It is heritage, tradition, success, prestige, a proud past which is the basis of a confident future.

If you aren't going to support the club because of this, you have an inherent bias anyway and would be just as turned off by the name 'Port Adelaide' or the fact the club resides in the very same place it has since 1880.

If you're truly neutral it is a clear option. The old club with 139 years of tradition that is the only non-Victorian club to graduate to the highest level in the land based on its glittering CV or the hastily enacted conglomerate that spent the first four years of its life playing out of Max Basheer's desk drawer.

Collingwood should be our model, not f#cking Fremantle.

Spot on.

 

[Zvim]

Great post DT, correct.

Looking forward, I have already done a ladder prediction for 2010, and I have the bottom three clubs as Melbourne, North Melbourne and Port Adelaide. Coincidentally (or not) these clubs are also in the biggest financial trouble of the 16 clubs in the league.

Worringly, if these three clubs continue to flounder on-field, not only will they continue to lose supporters at games and sponsorship dollars and be given poor fixtures, but they will also be participating in national drafts where the best talent will be taken by the new expansion franchises. This will restrict these clubs abilities to rebuild and become powerful on-field again, which will in turn affect these clubs ability to remain viable.

I can only see the gap between the league's current top 6-8 clubs and the bottom 4-6 becoming greater over the next 5 years and this could spell big financial problems for 3 or 4 of the clubs at the wrong end of the table. Crisis - no. Potential crisis - definitely.

Nah, we are doing fine off-field. We will pretty much break even this year effectively making no money at TD despite generating approximately $10m at the gate, we just don't see anything of what we make.

We will get a slightly better deal next year, a minimum of $1.1m assuming poor crowds. I believe the supreme court ruling also means we should have been receiving a fair bit from areas they were holding back on us so I hope there is a fair bit of change next year.

We just have to go through the motions until TD goes into the AFL hands and we will be looking around the 75% return on the gate there in the future. Still about 15 years to go so we still need to make ends meet and expand the supporter base as much as possible during that period but in today's monetary terms we would be about $7m better off per year when the stadium goes into the AFL's hands.

There is a lot less pressure on Victorian teams because whenever one is on the decline you still have a fair number of supporters of other clubs still attend games. Hawks weren't pulling crap crowds when they were rebuilding, they have 50k members now, although 10k I think are Tasmanian.

All we need to do is get to about the 40-45k membership mark over the next 15 years which isn't a massive ask, TD doesn't really hold much more than that once you factor the Axcess One, Medallion club and public reserve seating.

Melbourne has re-joined the MCC, I don't see them having any major issues. They will effectively have 100,000 members from 2010 onwards.

I don't think Port is in any real danger. I would like to see the AFL make the same stand they did with out shareholders and force the SANFL to return the club to the members if they do not help you out. If you get what SACA was offering us to play there then you wouldn't have any real financial issues. They offered us $500k per game years ago.

 

[relapse]

Yeah, I'm sick of hearing it. It's an anecdotal assumption based on a fundamental flaw.

The Creed, the 126 years of asskicking SAFA/SAFL/SANFL history, the prisonbar.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if you're truly neutral and intending to become a financial supporter/member of the Port Adelaide Football Club. It is heritage, tradition, success, prestige, a proud past which is the basis of a confident future.

If you aren't going to support the club because of this, you have an inherent bias anyway and would be just as turned off by the name 'Port Adelaide' or the fact the club resides in the very same place it has since 1880.

If you're truly neutral it is a clear option. The old club with 139 years of tradition that is the only non-Victorian club to graduate to the highest level in the land based on its glittering CV or the hastily enacted conglomerate that spent the first four years of its life playing out of Max Basheer's desk drawer.

Collingwood should be our model, not f#cking Fremantle.

I dont agree with that at all.

Collingwood are the Manchester United of Australian Sport, they have the highest amount of supporters and are most famous, recognisable and popluar "brand" out of any sporting code in Australia.

The reality is that it is widely being accepted that Port are one of the boutique/niche clubs in the AFL and modelling themselves on Collingwood or catchy marketing slogans will not greatly alter that. This is much the same situation as the Bulldogs and Kangas etc who remain this way in Melbourne, you need to find yourself a decent realistic model that will enable the club to grow and attract more supporters, that will take time and not just something that will happen overnight.

The reason why they are looking at Fremantle is to try and understand the method in which Fremantle are managing to continue to grow their brand since joining the AFL despite being far from successful on the field.

 

[aneale]

If you're truly neutral it is a clear option. The old club with 139 years of tradition that is the only non-Victorian club to graduate to the highest level in the land based on its glittering CV or the hastily enacted conglomerate that spent the first four years of its life playing out of Max Basheer's desk drawer.

Collingwood should be our model, not f#cking Fremantle.

except, DT how many truly neutrals care about that? How many 7yo kids care about that? They will often care about who their old man barracks for (the converted) or who all their mates from school/footy club barrack for. A good mate of mine, staunch as they come and his Port supporting wife have a 7yo son, who at the age of 5 announced he was a Crows supporter, he couldn't remember 2004 of course, the showdowns started evening out, all his mates at school are crows fans and he doesn't want to be left out, he doesn't care about Creed's, 1870's, Fos or anything else they mean nothing to a kid. Neutrals and their kids (and even other kids) follow success its as simple as that.

The Port fans will breed further Port fans and it won't matter what the current ad slogan is because they will always be Port fans and it will draw in neutrals in dribs and drabs of no real note. All Clubs get neutral fans the same way, winning. The Pommy volunteer at my work follows the Crows because when he got off the plane in 2006 we were on top, he didn't care about the fact that one was started in 1990 and the other 120 years earlier, he moved to Adelaide and the team by that name was winning. I guarantee we all know someone who has a kid or a sibling that for some reason follows Richmond or Carlton or West Coast for that same reason.

The Creed ad doesn't alienate them, because it wouldn't have attracted them in the first place so to say it does is wrong. It's about solidifying the base, what the Club does after that is an entirely different subject.

Fremantle wear purple, have achieved three fifths of sweet **** all and still are growing, they are clearly doing something right off-field.

 

[Trevanian]

except, DT how many truly neutrals care about that? How many 7yo kids care about that? They will often care about who their old man barracks for (the converted) or who all their mates from school/footy club barrack for. A good mate of mine, staunch as they come and his Port supporting wife have a 7yo son, who at the age of 5 announced he was a Crows supporter, he couldn't remember 2004 of course, the showdowns started evening out, all his mates at school are crows fans and he doesn't want to be left out, he doesn't care about Creed's, 1870's, Fos or anything else they mean nothing to a kid. Neutrals and their kids (and even other kids) follow success its as simple as that.

The Port fans will breed further Port fans and it won't matter what the current ad slogan is because they will always be Port fans and it will draw in neutrals in dribs and drabs of no real note. All Clubs get neutral fans the same way, winning. The Pommy volunteer at my work follows the Crows because when he got off the plane in 2006 we were on top, he didn't care about the fact that one was started in 1990 and the other 120 years earlier, he moved to Adelaide and the team by that name was winning. I guarantee we all know someone who has a kid or a sibling that for some reason follows Richmond or Carlton or West Coast for that same reason.

The Creed ad doesn't alienate them, because it wouldn't have attracted them in the first place so to say it does is wrong. It's about solidifying the base, what the Club does after that is an entirely different subject.

Fremantle wear purple, have achieved three fifths of sweet **** all and still are growing, they are clearly doing something right off-field.

In fear off a Minor Infraction...i must say that is a spot on post on the situation. The Freemantle factor has to re-looked at, how the devil those Purple people can grow their club at such levels based on such Mediocrity yet Port is struggling in relative comparison with a wealth of History and success always astounds me.

Perhaps indeed thinking outside the square is needed.....such as that great Jumper designed by that kid earlier this year, took some guts to run with it...perhaps running down that route might lead to greater things..as a while a Crows supporter i DO want a Strong and Vibrant Power...win/lose/draw......cause i am sick of Demetroiu and his merry band of Victorians Lording it over us here is SA...Oh and obviously get a better stadium deal...which will be good for both the Power and the Crows. We need a WIN/WIN not a Lose/Almost Win (crow deal aint much chop either) as stands.

 

[Portsmeff]

can I add one point about crowds in Adelaide in recent years (this applies to crows also due to the large number of no-shows) is that AFL appears to be a bit uncool in this city to the 20-30 year olds compared to Melbourne. Wasting all that time driving to AAMI, surrounded by many old farts (sorry) whining constantly about umpires, pretty dull stadium, watching Port play shit football, is not a selling point to the large market of 20-30 year olds that turn up with 3-4 mates, who maybe come down from the CBD after work, drink a few beers etc. This is a common sight in Melbourne, not here anymore. One solution to this is the Adelaide Oval

AFL is just not cool in Adelaide at the moment. If you see someone in town during the week dressed in footy colours, I wrongly automatically think that they're a low life loony, whereas in Melb this is not the case

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

'Entirely funded' was the wrong term to use. 'Kept afloat' would have been more accurate. But my point remains - comparing our crowd numbers to those in the NRL is not like-for-like due to the fact that they have that revenue stream.

Where have you been the last 12 to 18 months. Crowd numbers are ****en irrelevant.

The AFL get, in simple figures, $156mil per year from TV and the NRL get $83mil per year from TV rights (in Australia). The NRL are being screwed by News Ltd. See the linked articles below.

So the AFL is probably more dependant on its TV revenue stream than the NRL, when you look at the total picture.

It's all about Stadium Yields. Collingwood can average 59,000 people at the MCG, but they make less money than Geelong when Geelong draw 23,000 at Kardinia Park. Why? Because the cost structures are the all important factor in producing Stadium Yields, not the mickey mouse Victorian sports fan orgasm over headline crowd figures.

The NRL have different cost structures to the AFL. They don't need the same crowds as the AFL as they have different salary cap amounts, they have lower general costs and they don't play at stadiums that have $320mil debt to pay off like the MCG or in the case of the Docklands private stadium have to make a commercial $$ were the private owners have to hand the stadium over to the AFL for $1 in December 2025 after paying $330mil in June 2006 to buy the stadium ( or $400m in 1999/2000 for the original owners to build it + $30mil from the AFL to fund construction.)

Read the following to see why the NRL should be getting a shit load more money from both Channel 9 and Fox Sports.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6924008&postcount=92

How News Ltd sunk its claws in league

Deja view

 

[Waspy79]

can I add one point about crowds in Adelaide in recent years (this applies to crows also due to the large number of no-shows) is that AFL appears to be a bit uncool in this city to the 20-30 year olds compared to Melbourne. Wasting all that time driving to AAMI, surrounded by many old farts (sorry) whining constantly about umpires, pretty dull stadium, watching Port play shit football, is not a selling point to the large market of 20-30 year olds that turn up with 3-4 mates, who maybe come down from the CBD after work, drink a few beers etc. This is a common sight in Melbourne, not here anymore. One solution to this is the Adelaide Oval

AFL is just not cool in Adelaide at the moment. If you see someone in town during the week dressed in footy colours, I wrongly automatically think that they're a low life loony, whereas in Melb this is not the case

Possibly a factor. I think it is definitely uncool to be seen wearing Port colours, and this is a major issue for the club and one that will probably never be overcome as it cannot be denied that a fairly large percentage of our supporter base comprises bogans.

I also think the way the club has been forced by the AFL (and the club itself must take some blame for this) to tinker with its branding, history and traditions as part of the entry conditions and on-going stay in the AFL has over time turned many fans away as the club has been bastardised into something it is not.

I want to touch on Aneale's comments as I don't think they are spot on. Whilst success is the most obvious lure to a sporting club, people have several reasons for jumping on board a particular club, including the colour, nickname, history, traditions, location and favourite player(s).

I wonder if Aneale would still suggest we use a Fremantle model for attracting fans if the following equation in the SA market can be used to determine fans:

Assuming success is split 50-50 between the SA clubs, that means 50% of new supporters will chose Port, and 50% Crows, according to the narrow view that success buys fans.

However, I have mentioned above that history and traditions are an important reason people chose a club to support. This is where the Collingwood model of pushing its brand - club colours and on-field history has helped them establish the biggest following in the league - this despite only winning one flag in 50+ years. It obviously works.

Given Port win the traditions and history selling-point in a head-to-head with the Crows, it is exactly why the club must use this differential to lure neutrals. The Crows can always claim to be the team for all South Australians, but they will never be able to claim a history dating back to 1870, or a trophy cabinet containing SANFL premierships.

The club can certainly try to understand how Fremantle have grown their fan base, however I believe what Port are doing (The Creed, 1870 etc) is the best possible way to differentiate from their main rival in an attempt to win fans over the long haul. Playing decent footy would obviously help too... as would have adopting this strategy from day one of our entry into the AFL... as would have Saint Kilda and North Melbourne premierships in 97 and 98...

 

[P.A.F.C]

I dont agree with that at all.

Collingwood are the Manchester United of Australian Sport, they have the highest amount of supporters and are most famous, recognisable and popluar "brand" out of any sporting code in Australia.

The reality is that it is widely being accepted that Port are one of the boutique/niche clubs in the AFL and modelling themselves on Collingwood or catchy marketing slogans will not greatly alter that. This is much the same situation as the Bulldogs and Kangas etc who remain this way in Melbourne, you need to find yourself a decent realistic model that will enable the club to grow and attract more supporters, that will take time and not just something that will happen overnight.

The reason why they are looking at Fremantle is to try and understand the method in which Fremantle are managing to continue to grow their brand since joining the AFL despite being far from successful on the field.

First of all, I loled at boutique club. Oh dear.

Secondly, both North Melbourne and Melbourne have made considerable attempts to get in touch with their historical roots. Do you think North Melbourne would have had people saving the club through buying memberships, if they ditched everything North Melbourne, and tried to appeal to a wider supporter base? They'd be dead now. Melbourne are currently doing the same thing.

 

[AlbertonProud81]

Where have you been the last 12 to 18 months. Crowd numbers are ****en irrelevant.

The AFL get, in simple figures, $156mil per year from TV and the NRL get $83mil per year from TV rights (in Australia). The NRL are being screwed by News Ltd. See the linked articles below.

So the AFL is probably more dependant on its TV revenue stream than the NRL, when you look at the total picture.

It's all about Stadium Yields. Collingwood can average 59,000 people at the MCG, but they make less money than Geelong when Geelong draw 23,000 at Kardinia Park. Why? Because the cost structures are the all important factor in producing Stadium Yields, not the mickey mouse Victorian sports fan orgasm over headline crowd figures.

The NRL have different cost structures to the AFL. They don't need the same crowds as the AFL as they have different salary cap amounts, they have lower general costs and they don't play at stadiums that have $320mil debt to pay off like the MCG or in the case of the Docklands private stadium have to make a commercial $$ were the private owners have to hand the stadium over to the AFL for $1 in December 2025 after paying $330mil in June 2006 to buy the stadium ( or $400m in 1999/2000 for the original owners to build it + $30mil from the AFL to fund construction.)

NRL TV revenues? Evil News Corp? I'm sure it's all true but not really relevant to anything I've said. If you'll remember, this topic began because of a comment by someone saying that Port's crowd figures were healthy compared to NRL clubs so we shouldn't be worried about our finances.

I'm not having a go at NRL clubs or suggesting they have it easy. I'm sure they have their own issues as well. The only point I've made, which I'll make again now for the third time, is that comparing AFL and NRL crowd numbers is not a like for like comparison due to the different sources of revenues and expenses of each, and therefore should not be used as the sole basis for determining the financial position of the clubs in each code.

I hope that clarifies.