2nds The Official Port Board Thread for the Discussion of the Port Power Seconds Team

[*PAF]

Other states are doing it and SA is still thinking about it.

They will think about it because perhaps it could be done bigger and better to make sure the other states know that SA is not backwards even when there is no need or there is no money, but hey it must be debated.
Why go for a Cessna and not a Jumbo jet? Yes only 2 people need to fly but if we are going to spend money now why waste it, shouldn't we be planning for the future when more people will need to fly?

 

[Us against the rest]

The Essendon issues could not have come at a worse time for us, or did the SANFL take advantage of the AFL being consumed by the drugs saga. If our license was all sorted, I think we may have more pull on our reserve side and may be the AFL would have taken more interest in our situation.

 

[Northalives]

And yet we manage to do this despite the fact that not every team in those regions is called the Port Adelaide Magpies! What is this strange alchemy???

People will identify with our club because they choose to, the same as always. Every time someone at Port cares to do it, they point out that Power supporters are among the most spread across the nation, with significant presence in QLD and WA. And they barrack for Port.

How many people on this board grew up in a suburb other than one with Port Adelaide postcode? I'd say the majority did. They still chose to barrack for Port.

Do you know what inextricably linked means? It means that even if you do something like this, they will hang on like limpets, because they are inextricably linked.

And if they don't, OK. But hang on, don't the Power do community programs? I'm sure I'm reading about them in the paper every second week. Don't kids get to learn to handball from one, or get an autograph, or maybe a chance photo at training? Oh hey, isn't that funny, a non-SANFL club can have a community program????? OMGZ!!!!

They will barrack for Port Adelaide because the AFL is what its all about.

You act as though the PAFC has made no gains in traditional Crow strongholds.

OK, so if we agree its not about breeding future players but supporters, and you are so certain that you need to be physically near a Port stronghold to count, then how exactly does geographical proximity to Alberton Oval represent a potentially viable support network for an AFL club going forward?

If someone cares, they can go through the list of SA players every year for the last ten years and see how many kids say they like Port despite being from *gasp* Woodville-West Torrens, etc.

Yes, national exposure with a charismatic media Chairman will definitely in no way affect support, and neither will playing good football on a national stage. You are clearly some kind of marketing savant.

If I did, that would only be a match for your insistence that just being called Port Adelaide is enough reason to keep the PAMFC around.

Portia, with all due respect, you know nothing about running a professional sporting organisation and all of your rebuttals are naive at best and based on what you think, goes on.

Off course there are youngsters and people from deep within every partisan area that go "against the grain": they are by far the minority and they cannot and must not be relied upon to form the bedrock of a club's future.

Geographical proximity to a club eg. Divett Place and Wudinna on the Eyre Peninsular are radically different in proximity from Alberton Oval but both these geographical locations are inextricably (look up the meaning) linked to us at present but that does not mean that those links should just be taken for granted and that regardless of what happens, they will always remain in the fold. Go and have a gander at how many limpets have become extinct over the last couple of centuries.

Our future is to keep what we have and expand our sphere of influence, not contract it.

 

[Northalives]

Well i hope the plan B Koch spoke of is what i am thinking because we will be light years ahead of the pathetic franchise down the road.

 

[Portia]

Portia, with all due respect, you know nothing about running a professional sporting organisation

Which professional sporting organisation do you run, Northa?

and all of your rebuttals are naive at best and based on what you think, goes on.

What I really like is that you are trying to discredit me because you clearly can't discredit my argument. Go on, have a go.

Off course there are youngsters and people from deep within every partisan area that go "against the grain": they are by far the minority and they cannot and must not be relied upon to form the bedrock of a club's future.

By far the minority? How far? Have you got any stats?

I seem to recall it being figured that we had a bit over 1/3 of support across the state...I don't recall ever hearing that this is entirely due to 1/3 of the state living within the Alberton post code and Eyre Peninsula.

Geographical proximity to a club eg. Divett Place and Wudinna on the Eyre Peninsular are radically different in proximity from Alberton Oval but both these geographical locations are inextricably (look up the meaning) linked to us at present but that does not mean that those links should just be taken for granted

So we don't take them for granted. The club continue to play the odd preseason game there and so on. The Power already do this. Already.

Our future is to keep what we have and expand our sphere of influence, not contract it.

Insisting that the PAMFC is the true Port Adelaide that must be slavishly propped up, at the expense of the welfare of the AFL side that the actual majority of Port fans actually support, is contracting it.

 

[Doctor Feel]

Which professional sporting organisation do you run, Northa?

What I really like is that you are trying to discredit me because you clearly can't discredit my argument. Go on, have a go.

By far the minority? How far? Have you got any stats?

I seem to recall it being figured that we had a bit over 1/3 of support across the state...I don't recall ever hearing that this is entirely due to 1/3 of the state living within the Alberton post code and Eyre Peninsula.

So we don't take them for granted. The club continue to play the odd preseason game there and so on. The Power already do this. Already.

Insisting that the PAMFC is the true Port Adelaide that must be slavishly propped up, at the expense of the welfare of the AFL side that the actual majority of Port fans actually support, is contracting it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

In 1990 the AFL had an A grade, reserves and under 19's. We wanted to go into the AFL but from the time Port started talking to Alan Schawbb to the media leak that we were talking to the AFL ie about 3.5 weeks, there was no concrete decision made whether we were going to move lock stock and barrel to the AFL as a club, or try and field teams in both the AFL and SANFL. The SANFL and its clubs were torn between wanting to kick us out and the fear that if they kicked us out we would get the licence and at the same time wanting to stop us completely from entering the AFL.

Nobody knew what was likely to happen. Scenarios would have been thrown around and if Rucci thinks that pulling some documents from 1990 where Port directors said we should get rid of the Magpies and that should be how we think about this in 2013, then that's BS. None of it was set in concrete in 1990 as once the s**t hit the fan it was a mad scramble to get any deal done and fill in the minor details later.

Then when we were gearing up to make a charge for a second licence we made our position very clear. I wrote about it in post 26 of this thread ( ie first in page 2) back in 2009

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/5aa-and-g-cornes-contradiction.571071/page-2#post-14347382

Port's initial licence bid in early 1994 before the tender rules were set up, was to field a team in the AFL with its base at Alberton and use Footy Park. That's happened. It also wanted to have another team in the SANFL and use Alberton oval as its base and home ground. It would invite the SANFL to have directors on its board, but not control. [See pages 8 and 9 of the SANFL's official publication - South Australian Football 1994 Year Book published in May 1994 for the summary of the proposal by Port, Glenelg/South, Norwood/Sturt and The Cartel (ie other 4clubs)

Ie a similar set up to what you have with Geelong, the one club has a team in the AFL and another in the VFL. The SANFL rejected this.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/5aa-and-g-cornes-contradiction.571071/page-2#post-14347382

Once again Rucci might go on about directors papers that show the port board said that they wanted to get rid of the magpies. So what it was probably one scenario we looked at.

going back to what I wrote in 2009.

The SANFL clubs wanted to kick Port out of the SANFL as soon as we won the licence, but Port did its homework this time and knew that wasn't possible.

So a compromise was struck. The SANFL said the PAFC and the PAMFC had to be seperate clubs if Port wanted an AFL sub licence. The PAMFC were forced to move to Ethelton to have their training facilities but play at Alberton. They were allowed to move back to Alberton after Port built its current headquarters and training facility and PAMFC used the old ones.

And as Port's fact sheet of 2002 looking back on the conditions applied, once the tender process was set up we compromised on our desire to have full control of our club across all grades to get into the AFL.

3. Tender for second AFL licence

The SANFL set out certain conditions in a tender document issued to interested parties on 1 August 1994. These conditions included:-

--- The terms and conditions of the sub-licence would be negotiated between the SANFL and the AFL without club involvement.
--- The entity that was granted a sub-licence would be an autonomous body that would be subject to the ultimate control of the SANFL Commission.
--- Details of the offeror’s proposal would need to state what effect a successful bid would have on its team to be fielded in the SANFL competition and how this effect can be minimised.
--- The offeror’s view on the financial effect that a successful bid would have on its team to be fielded in the SANFL competition if a re-definition of boundaries to cater for an AFL team is applied.
--- The proposal of the tenderer had to include how the SANFL competition would be reduced to 8 teams.

Both the SANFL Commission and the Port Adelaide Football Club wanted to ensure that the tender process was both independent and without any conflict of interest.

The Port Adelaide Football Club lodged its tender document on 14 September 1994 and addressed the below issues that impacted on the SANFL competition and the Magpies.

--- The PAFC promoted strongly the idea of promotional zones with 4 SANFL clubs attached to each of the Crows and Port Adelaide.
--- The tender document strongly supported the continuation of the Magpies in the SANFL competition.
--- As part of the tender the Outback Odyssey would be run by the AFL club.
--- There was acknowledgement that to maximise the success of the Magpies it should operate as a separate organisation to the AFL club.
--- The document encouraged and promoted cross membership packages between the Magpies and the AFL club.
--- The PAFC tender document did not support nor agree to the pre-condition of a merger to create 8 SANFL teams was fundamental to the granting of the licence.

..........

5. Negotiations with SANFL Directors and Commission re Magpies in the SANFL

- SANFL clubs lodged letters of concerns relating to the Magpies continued involvement in the SANFL following the entry of the PAFC into the AFL. These letters to the SANFL Commission strongly pushed the below points:-
--- The Magpies should not remain in the SANFL competition thereby enabling a reduction to 8 teams.
--- No joint administration facilities should occur.
--- The Magpies should not train at Alberton.
--- There should be no joint sponsorship and membership arrangements between the Magpies and the Power.
--- There be no common employees or Directors in both clubs.
--- Licence Club profit share tendered by the PAFC to the Magpies at 15% was too high.
--- The Magpies would have an advantage in recruiting players if linked with the Power.
--- The AFL facilities should not be accessible to the Magpies.
--- There should be no financial links, loans or any funding between the Magpies and the AFL club.

- The Port Adelaide Board in 1995 obtained legal opinions on the power of SANFL league Directors to expel the Magpies from the competition and were ready to defend this issue. The SANFL Commission was supportive of the PAFC remaining in the SANFL competition.

- During 2 months of negotiations and various SANFL Directors meetings, certain conditions were imposed in the sub-licence agreement that was signed on 26 November 1996. These included:-
--- No promotion or joint membership packages with the Magpies SANFL club.
--- No joint fundraising activities.
--- Any proposed joint activities between the SANFL club and the AFL club must be approved by the SANFL Commission.

- Separate resolutions of the SANFL Directors further imposed:-
--- The Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club must not train at Alberton.
--- The Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club must not operate administration from Alberton Oval.

So in 1994 and 1995 there were compromises left right and centre by Port and the SANFL because of this fear of a great club was going to be too strong and powerful. remember at the end of 1994 the crows were floundering. had sacked Cornes at the end of the season and 1995 wasn't that great a year either.

FDR at the height of the depression said, the greatest thing to fear, is fear itself. FDR helped lead the USA out of the great depression and backwardness and when he died in 1945 he had lead the country into the world's number 1 economic and military super power that is still running the world nearly 70 years later. The SANFL never got the message about fear.

I am glad we are back to wanting to be like our April 1994 position of wanting to be one club that has teams fully integrated in the AFL and SANFL. I am glad that we will soon be rid of the SANFL's control and interference on our board and management of our AFL division. The sooner the better.

Part of me wants to piss the SANFL and its clubs right off and level them in our wake. But * it, we should stand and fight for what we have helped built. We were a foundation club of the SANFL back in 1877. We did our share of building footy in this state into the no. 1 sport of the people. We should be allowed to have a team in the best league in the state and not be given ridiculous conditions. There is no need to waste money and stick a team VFL. If there is a national reserves one day then we move a team into that comp.

But we have to have these 15 step processes with pissants and pants wetters when 2 would get the job done. Pity FDR couldn't rise from the dead and have a chat to the pants wetters about fear.

 

[*PAF]

Great post REH. *ing Great!

 

[Papa G]

On Portia point, I guess everyone needs to go back and work out why they are a Port supporter and whether location is influential or deciding factor. I am a Port supporter because my Dad is. My Grandparents emigrated to Australia and settled in the Port Adelaide region. My father grew up in Queenstown. My 90 plus year old grandparents still live in Queenstown. I myself have never lived in the Port Adelaide zone, but I'd definately say location (that of my Dad/Grandparents) was the deciding factor in me being a Port supporter.

Is this as important as it once was? Probably not. Is it still important though, in light of Northa's impassioned post, I'd say it still is. I agree with Kochie, we must do everything in our power to retain our historical links to the community. We are Port Adelaide.

 

[raman]

I'm open to the idea that zones are somehow inexorably linked to our future success, I just don't think a cogent argument has been made yet to support that, in light of how footy actually works today.

 

[*PAF]

On Portia point, I guess everyone needs to go back and work out why they are a Port supporter and whether location is influential or deciding factor.
...

There is part 2 that IMO Portia missed.
...work out if Port being who they are had an influence or was a deciding factor.
Who they are includes being a community based club rather than an out and out franchise.

That is a question for the Port supporters who do not come from a long line of Port supporting families. For me (I fall in that group) it was not the only reason, but most certainly part of the reason.

EDIT:
FWIW if Norwood had won the licence chances are I'd be following them in the AFL but if it had been another franchise I think it would be Hawthorn as they were the VFL team I supported.

 

[Jones2ByrneJones]

Two of my great grandfathers played for Norwood. My grandfathers (not their sons) played for Sturt and West Torrens. Two of my uncles played for North Adelaide. My dad was a Woodville supporter, who now "sort of" supports Adelaide (although I think he has a soft spot for us).

I grew up far south of Adelaide and have only visited the Port Adelaide area a handful of times (namely to go to Alberton) but I'm a Port Adelaide supporter through and through.

 

[Rexie J]

Not sure isolating the zones as a stand alone point of discussion for people expressing opinions in the reserves discussion achieves anything.

Personal view being the PAFC must be considered in its entirety rather than isolated segments.

I doubt if any football club has relied on its immediate (urban/regional ) residents as its primary supporter base for many decades.

 

[MrMeaner]

For me, it was a combination of location, family and class that made me a Port supporter.

I grew up in Semaphore Park and Osborne. Russell Ebert made a guest appearance at my school footy training (I still have the, now threadbare, Port towel I won by correctly answering Russ's question that day). After school footy, I played for Port Districts. I couldn't comprehend playing for a side that was not dressed in black and white.
My great grandmother was the oldest and strongest Port supporter in my family. She indoctrinated me.

My family were all blue collar, working class until my parents. They swapped blue collars for white. However, the link to the working class remained.

If you scratch many rusted on Port supporters, I think you'll find similar links. But people move, families grow and that's why you find Port supporters in unexpected spots. Most of them still have a conscious link to the Port area, of which support for the PAFC is only the most obvious example.

In short, I think I'm saying that links to the community matter.

 

[Spadge]

I grew up in Centrals zone... lived in a Centrals zone most of my life.. and i work in a Centrals zone

for me i became a Port supporter as my mum and uncle are both Port supporters. My grandmother was also a Port supporter. They grew up in Kingoonya in the middle of outback SA although my grandmother lived in Price (near Ardrossan) for many many years
My dad is a South Adelaide and Crows supporter

i had no real affinity at all to the Port areas or zones. I have been a Port supporter all my life

 

[FishingRick04]

People follow winners. If you can't win highlight your winning history, Man Utd supporters highlight this

 

[StrappingTape]

Rucci misses the obvious thing that the SANFL commission seems to over look to. If they screw us fine we'll just play our reserves in the VFL.

 

[Power Raid]

Why does the sanfl feel the need to control the afl sides through terms and conditions?

The sanfl control our board and the crows board. Are they that untrustworthy, they don't even trust themselves?

 

[Alberton Proud]

F**k the SANFL. What business is it of theirs if the two AFL clubs in this state want to have reserves sides?

The two AFL clubs can ask the SANFL if they can field their reserves in the SANFL competition and the SANFL can say either yes or no. For those c***s to start dictating to Port Adelaide Magpies that they will withdraw our licence to play in the SANFL in an attempt to cower us into handing over our zones and communities to the other 8 SANFL clubs is as disgusting as it gets and the Rucci's and Olsen's of this world can go and get f***ed!

If Port and the other mob want AFL reserves but the SANFL cannot accommodate them, then let the two AFL clubs take it up with the f*****g AFL as to what to do.

The c***s at the SANFL have no right to demand that the Port Magpies or any other SANFL club for that matter, be wound up or booted out to accommodate a "team" or "teams" that play IN ANOTHER COMPETITION.

On what grounds could the SANFL kick out the Magpies? We haven't done anything contrary to the leagues rules and laws!
Let that c**k sucker Olsen and his bunch of filthy, contemptible, immoral scum try and boot the Maggies out of the SANFL and see what happens. The war that will start both inside and outside of the courts will be like nothing this backwater, hick state has ever seen before.

This says it all, full stop, period, done & dusted

Could not have put it better myself

 

[tribey]

Why does the sanfl feel the need to control the afl sides through terms and conditions?

The sanfl control our board and the crows board. Are they that untrustworthy, they don't even trust themselves?

- They appointed an independent forensic accountant during the final months of the Duncanson-Haysman regime. Independent forensic accountant reports no wrongdoing, sound financial planning and resigns: SANFL backfire #1.

- The SANFL respond by engineering an abortive coup against Haysman, which while unsuccessful, makes our previous CEO's position untenable.

- Rob Lucas - no doubt having been worded up by his old mate John Olsen - goes on record in parliament stating that Keith Thomas will be installed as Port CEO.

- Haysman 'resigns' and the majority of the incumbent Board follows. Port advertises the position nationwide. Keith Thomas is supposedly the outstanding candidate for the position and is appointed accordingly.

- Within months of joining the Port Adelaide family Thomas picks up Haysman's legacy and improves upon it, becoming as Port as anyone else on the payroll, past or present. Rather than doing the SANFL's bidding he fights tooth and nail to prevent the club being bent over by his masters: SANFL Backfire #2.

 

[*PAF]

Why does the sanfl feel the need to control the afl sides through terms and conditions?

The sanfl control our board and the crows board. Are they that untrustworthy, they don't even trust themselves?

Oi!
They can do what they like at the Crow's board, but I'm sure Ford, Macca, Ricky and Forza will be able to get the SANFL to keep their grubby hands off this board.

 

[*PAF]

- They appointed an independent forensic accountant during the final months of the Duncanson-Haysman regime. Independent forensic accountant reports no wrongdoing, sound financial planning and resigns: SANFL backfire #1.

- The SANFL respond by engineering an abortive coup against Haysman, which while unsuccessful, makes our previous CEO's position untenable.

- Rob Lucas - no doubt having been worded up by his old mate John Olsen - goes on record in parliament stating that Keith Thomas will be installed as Port CEO.

- Haysman 'resigns' and the majority of the incumbent Board follows. Port advertises the position nationwide. Keith Thomas is supposedly the outstanding candidate for the position and is appointed accordingly.

- Within months of joining the Port Adelaide family Thomas picks up Haysman's legacy and improves upon it, becoming as Port as anyone else on the payroll, past or present. Rather than doing the SANFL's bidding he fights tooth and nail to prevent the club being bent over by his masters: SANFL Backfire #2.

The other thing you could mention is that Haysman was another non Port CEO. IIRC he followed the Crows.

 

[Rexie J]

Zones, specifically rural, were introduced by snafl for the sole purpose of player recruitment - supposedly to bring about 'balance and equity'

Supporter recruitment is/was a by-product which obviously all snafl clubs have attempted to exploit.

Glenelg have the South East where I come from but their presence has minimal effect on Bay membership - although their current recruiting boss is a former resident and coach of a local team.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Country zone's came in 1970 give or take a year. We got the west coast, the furthermost from Adelaide. No fluke about that. We initially thought s**t that's tough but we then got down and made an investment and worked it hard and got wonderful results both in terms of players picked up and followers picked up because local boys were playing for us and those towns and communities and footy clubs had a direct link to us via players and via time we put into local clubs and leagues.

Its not hard for Norwood and Sturt to have strong link to the Adelaide hills communities and just over towards the River Murray as its nice and close to their base and the expense isn't as great. Same with Centrals and the Barossa.

West Torrens were given Tea Tree Gully and Golden Grove as their "country zone" which became an extended city zone as they also got around Port Augusta and Port Pirie as well. Growing up in Hope Valley and having mates who played for various clubs in the WT zone I know they made a half hearted effort to develop that zone. I had to play school footy but snuck in a couple of part seasons with Hope Valley. There was no real connection, admittedly Norwood and North Adelaide were so much closer but if they couldn't work a zone 20km from their base properly, then how well did they work their country zone?

Gary McIntosh was in the Torrens zone. I knew him from when we used to kick the footy around at half time watching Hope Valley A grade play when I was 12,13,14. My cousin also played footy with him for 3 or 4 years. But he had no ambition to play for Torrens and Norwood got hold of him at around 15. The time and effort Torrens put into the area was SFA.

When Torrens and Woodville merged there were big re alignment of boundaries and Tea TreeGully went to Norwood and some of Colden Grove went to Centrals.

 

[cj_09]

On Portia point, I guess everyone needs to go back and work out why they are a Port supporter and whether location is influential or deciding factor. I am a Port supporter because my Dad is. My Grandparents emigrated to Australia and settled in the Port Adelaide region. My father grew up in Queenstown. My 90 plus year old grandparents still live in Queenstown. I myself have never lived in the Port Adelaide zone, but I'd definately say location (that of my Dad/Grandparents) was the deciding factor in me being a Port supporter.

Is this as important as it once was? Probably not. Is it still important though, in light of Northa's impassioned post, I'd say it still is. I agree with Kochie, we must do everything in our power to retain our historical links to the community. We are Port Adelaide.

Below is what I wrote a few pages back...



I've changed my mind about the reserves debate a million times, but I think I'm starting to lean towards getting rid of the Magpies from the SANFL and entering a Power reserves team in the strongest league possible (not the SANFL).

I played for the Magpies when I was younger and playing for the seniors was all I dreamt about. I was an absolute massive fan of the magpies, but as soon as Port Adelaide joined the AFL, that was the end of the Magpies for me.

It didn't take long for me to feel all of those emotions I felt for the Magpies, for the Power and quickly forgetting about the Magpies. I mean, Port were in the best league in the land and it was time to prove ourselves to the rest of Australia.

Someone said the other day, kids dream about playing for the Power now, not the Magpies and never will they dream about playing for the Magpies again.

Yes we have a rich history in the SANFL and that will never be forgotten. But the magpies are a dying club in an already dead league. The AFL is where it's at and will only become stronger, it's time to put all of our eggs into the AFL basket and move on.