Do the Crows need stable and strong Port Power?

[aneale]

Re: Does the Crows need stable and strong Port Power?

My point is we made those changes. Same club, but run differently, due to consent.

No you didn't, the Club now known as the PAMFC made those changes. And all they did was call a members vote to bid for the 2nd sub-license, members who didnt realise it at the time were making the last vote on the last issue they ever had a say in apart from those who retained Port SANFL memberships. Once the flock voted aye, they lost all control, something they never gained back.

 

[Geoffa32]

They've never been the same club. The Power are half owned by the SANFL, the Magpies have always been independent from the SANFL.

A few years after they were created, the Power wanted everyone to believe they were the old Maggies, and even changed the name of the incorporated company they setup in 1995 to enter the AFL so they could legitimately call themselves 'The Port Adelaide Football Club'.

Tealsters debunk this by saying that other AFL clubs incorporated was well after their foundation date. The AFC was registered in the late 80s as a business.

However this argument falls over when you learn that the PAMFC hold the original incorporation status of the PAFC dated some decades ago.

 

[aneale]

Not to mention that even tho' Collingwood were incorporated of a certain date, their legal entity had not changed, its the same being.

It's no different than John & Steve Fish & Chips trading as a partnership of John & Steve Fish. Who then become John & Steve Fish & Chips Pty Ltd as trustee of the John and Steve Fish Family trust, with John & Steve now being Working Directors. There is a clear line of this entity's existence.

No one at Collingwood created a new entity or business, they just incorporated what they had. Which is what Port should have done rather than stuff something up that even a first year Accounting student could have got right.

 

[ltdamn]

Tealsters debunk this by saying that other AFL clubs incorporated was well after their foundation date. The AFC was registered in the late 80s as a business.

However this argument falls over when you learn that the PAMFC hold the original incorporation status of the PAFC dated some decades ago.

Quite true. It can't be debunked purely because the original name of the company formed in 1995 was Port Adelaide Football Club (A.F.L) Limited, and as you said the PAMFC still hold the original business license of the PAFC from decades back.

They are 2 seperate organisations, and the one currently playing in the AFL is the one formed in 1995 as Port Adelaide Football Club (A.F.L) Limited.

 

[Geoffa32]

Not to mention that even tho' Collingwood were incorporated of a certain date, their legal entity had not changed, its the same being.

It's no different than John & Steve Fish & Chips trading as a partnership of John & Steve Fish. Who then become John & Steve Fish & Chips Pty Ltd as trustee of the John and Steve Fish Family trust, with John & Steve now being Working Directors. There is a clear line of this entity's existence.

No one at Collingwood created a new entity or business, they just incorporated what they had. Which is what Port should have done rather than stuff something up that even a first year Accounting student could have got right.

They had no choice. It was take the SANFL owned carrot or never see the Port Adelaide name in the AFL.

What the SANFL was offering was a partnership in a new club. A club that the SANFL wanted to ensure they have 22 games at Footy Park, ie a regular revenue stream. To protect the league against the AFL taking it over, like other state leagues. Therein lies the importance of the Power.

They werent giving an existing club a licence to compete in the big league.

 

[aneale]

In decrying it from them, you leave the SANFL club with nothing of worth and the AFL club with something worth nothing. Why not leave that history with it's owners where it belongs and it means something.

And this is the most critical aspect of this, the history means nothing. No one in the East (or West for that matter) puts one iota of substance in all those SANFL flags. They may as well be SAAFA, for as much as they care.

No kid getting drafted to Port really cares, if Adam Kingsley considers them to be a 13 year old club they are in trouble given he is a foundation squad player, that shows not everyone walks in a buys the SANFL 'history' and why would they? there is no direct correlation between what they see on the walls and what they play for. And the more the club gets diluted with non-Port people the further they get away from that link they so desperately try to hold on to.

The likes of Essendon and Carlton will look down their nose at Port and scoff, and there is no way that Port can ever emulate any SANFL achievements, the competition isn't designed for it, the AFL don't want it, they want everyone to play in a prelim in any 10 year period to show how much parity there is. So much of the Port culture is wasted energy in the AFL because it can't be achieved.

 

[Geoffa32]

Funny thing is I dont recall there being "Live the Creed" banners at Alberton. SUpporters may have had it on their personal banners, not that I recall. The club didn't tell everyone about it. In fact it was the complete opposite. The players knew it and it was part of the club fabric.

Having "Live the Creed" flashing every 30 seconds across the Western wing is a direct contrast to this. Add that to the performance of the players this year and it is a farce.

 

[Hondo]

Tealsters debunk this by saying that other AFL clubs incorporated was well after their foundation date. The AFC was registered in the late 80s as a business.

However this argument falls over when you learn that the PAMFC hold the original incorporation status of the PAFC dated some decades ago.

Don't get so hung up on the legal entities. Sporting clubs, even public companies like ANZ or Telstra, change legal entities all the time. They all have an existence that's greater or more than a specific legal entity. Anyone involed in corporate structures knows this. The ANZ bank have been around for > 100 years or so yet if you did a search on "ANZ Bank Ltd" it was probably incorporated in the 1980s.

The PAFC of course needed a new entity somehow to enter the AFL. Whether they used the old PAMFC entity or created a new one to cater for the new ownership and legal structure requirements for the AFL team is actually irrelevant. If they had dropped out of the SANFL in 1997 (as I feel they should have in hindsight) but still used a new corporate entity for the AFL license we wouldn't even think to have this debate. We would be comfortable that the 1871- history stayed with the AFL team.

The fact is that the SANFL insisted that the PAFC keep a team in the SANFL and enter a team in the AFL and it's that decision, that's lead to all this pointless debate 12 years ago. Of course an original PAMFC entity still exists and a new entity was created for the AFL team. How else do you suggest that they dealt with the unique stipulation (as far as I am aware) that they had to retain a team in the competition that their members had voted to leave? ie, show me another sporting club that moves to a new competition but has to continue to exist in the old.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

IMO Port are the new Richmond and no matter who successful or dysfunctional they are it will have little to no impact on the AFC

 

[Geoffa32]

Don't get so hung up on the legal entities. Sporting clubs, even public companies like ANZ or Telstra, change legal entities all the time. They all have an existence that's greater or more than a specific legal entity. Anyone involed in corporate structures knows this. The ANZ bank have been around for > 100 years or so yet if you did a search on "ANZ Bank Ltd" it was probably incorporated in the 1980s.

The PAFC of course needed a new entity somehow to enter the AFL. Whether they used the old PAMFC entity or created a new one to cater for the new ownership and legal structure requirements for the AFL team is actually irrelevant. If they had dropped out of the SANFL in 1997 (as I feel they should have in hindsight) but still used a new corporate entity for the AFL license we wouldn't even think to have this debate. We would be comfortable that the 1871- history stayed with the AFL team.

The fact is that the SANFL insisted that the PAFC keep a team in the SANFL and enter a team in the AFL and it's that decision, that's lead to all this pointless debate 12 years ago. Of course an original PAMFC entity still exists and a new entity was created for the AFL team. How else do you suggest that they dealt with the unique stipulation (as far as I am aware) that they had to retain a team in the competition that their members had voted to leave? ie, show me another sporting club that moves to a new competition but has to continue to exist in the old.

I cant think of any.

But my point is that the AFL club is a new one. However it is the AFL club that represents the old Port Adelaide. It is not the original club though.

 

[Vader]

This thread has gone way off topic. It's not about which team is the "real" Port Adelaide - it's about whether a strong (AFL) Port is important for Adelaide's success.

Given that there's no hope of this thread ever getting back on topic it is being closed.