Just how bad can things get for Port?

[SA1NTER]

They need to: get a real coach (not another ex-player-turned-caretaker-turned-senior coach), get more money, spend alot of said money into a football department that is at least up to AFL standard (the current one is arguably the competition's worst), fix up their situation with the SANFL and build up a playing group that can gel together as a team with at least basic skills and game plan.

Easier said then done, but this is what PAFC need to do in the next 3-5 years in order to be successful once again.

 

[PJ Power]

We're destined for at least one more year (2012) the equivalent of this year (could be even worse with more >100 point beltings). In terms of losing young players, most Port people acknowledge that there are only 6-10 players we really want to keep anyway.

Carlile, Chaplin, Pearce may go better in better teams, but they've shown over the past 3-4 years that they don't have the strength of character or leadership to lead from the front.

Trengove is a bit young to be tainted by the same brush, but trading him now for a decent return may be better than losing him after another two poor seasons.

We have to accept that until we rebuild with elite youngsters (e.g. with picks 1,2 in 2012) we will be a long, long way off.

With regard to our current list, there is no doubt that the coaching and development over the past three years has created a very underperforming and fragile group of players. Primus has accentuated that this year countless fold. Personally, I predict that he will oversee the next two seasons of bottom or bottom three finishes, enable us to get decent draft picks and then be moved on by a new board at the end of 2013.

 

[mwalker]

We're destined for at least one more year (2012) the equivalent of this year (could be even worse with more >100 point beltings). In terms of losing young players, most Port people acknowledge that there are only 6-10 players we really want to keep anyway.

Carlile, Chaplin, Pearce may go better in better teams, but they've shown over the past 3-4 years that they don't have the strength of character or leadership to lead from the front.

Trengove is a bit young to be tainted by the same brush, but trading him now for a decent return may be better than losing him after another two poor seasons.

We have to accept that until we rebuild with elite youngsters (e.g. with picks 1,2 in 2012) we will be a long, long way off.

With regard to our current list, there is no doubt that the coaching and development over the past three years has created a very underperforming and fragile group of players. Primus has accentuated that this year countless fold. Personally, I predict that he will oversee the next two seasons of bottom or bottom three finishes, enable us to get decent draft picks and then be moved on by a new board at the end of 2013.

Let me finish your thought..

and MM coming out of retirement/contract from coaching director will take over the reigns.

 

[Dalphonso]

The last half of this season we have been woeful but at this stage no one cares .We are going to finish bottom.We have blooded several new young players.More dead wood will be cut at seasons end so all the members plus more will get on the bandwagon again next year to see a fresh new batch of exciting players come through the ranks and maybe win a few more games next year.No one expects us to do any or much better over the next couple of years but in 3 or 4 we will be right back up there.

 

[Dalphonso]

Where will all the money come from to get all the coaches they are going to need to develop their existing list so rapidly as to start competing?

$9 million is coming our way thanks to Andy D.
Which rock have you been sleeping under mate?

 

[rose jam]

It's what happens when you try and bring in a suburban club into the big league, absolute failure as a model. They should abandon them and createa a new team as with all the other introductions into the league.

 

[Dalphonso]

I just hate how cocky some Victorian supporters have got considering how s**t their teams have been at various times over the last 20 years.

Weren't they screaming blue murder , "bring back the VFL" and "kick out the Interstate clubs" back in the early to late 2000's when flags were one by Brisbane,Port,Sydney and West Coast all in a row.
It was the end of footy as we knew it.

 

[Changaneen]

It's what happens when you try and bring in a suburban club into the big league, absolute failure as a model. They should abandon them and createa a new team as with all the other introductions into the league.

Very stupid and narrow minded post, we won a flag in 2004.

And dont forget, Collingwood was the ultimate suburban club, remember Victoria park ??

 

[Hipster Doofus]

It's called a cycle, theyll be back

 

[aneale]

Very stupid and narrow minded post, we won a flag in 2004.

And dont forget, Collingwood was the ultimate suburban club, remember Victoria park ??

except Collingwood haven't been a 'suburban' club for the best part of 20 years, whilst they still played the odd game at Vic Park into the 90's the had the ability to pull 85,000 into the MCG.

Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and to a lesser extent Richmond are not and have not been that for a long time. It's like calling Man U a small surburban club from Manchester.

Port was entirely the wrong model to come into a fast moving and ever increasing $$ driven national competition, the AFL didn't do a 'Port' before their introduction and haven't since. Why haven't we seen Southport (who as a club have more money than Port) handed a license? Why not one of the Sydney football clubs instead of GWS?

Port did win a flag in 2004. North won one in 1999, to follow 96 (Carey flags) and 77 and 75 (some would say Blight flags), or a flag every 21 years in the comp.

If Port become 'we exist to win premierships every quarter century' they'll burn down Alberton.

Port are in a cycle, but their cycle is always going to be hamstrung by what and who they are financially.

 

[Changaneen]

except Collingwood haven't been a 'suburban' club for the best part of 20 years, whilst they still played the odd game at Vic Park into the 90's the had the ability to pull 85,000 into the MCG.

Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and to a lesser extent Richmond are not and have not been that for a long time. It's like calling Man U a small surburban club from Manchester.

Port was entirely the wrong model to come into a fast moving and ever increasing $$ driven national competition, the AFL didn't do a 'Port' before their introduction and haven't since. Why haven't we seen Southport (who as a club have more money than Port) handed a license? Why not one of the Sydney football clubs instead of GWS?

Port did win a flag in 2004. North won one in 1999, to follow 96 (Carey flags) and 77 and 75 (some would say Blight flags), or a flag every 21 years in the comp.

If Port become 'we exist to win premierships every quarter century' they'll burn down Alberton.

Port are in a cycle, but their cycle is always going to be hamstrung by what and who they are financially.

Do you hold the same view as Freo who were in a very similar position as Port in 2001 ?, on and off feild. Even though Port have been in two GF and taken a flag.

 

[Arwib]

Port was entirely the wrong model to come into a fast moving and ever increasing $$ driven national competition, the AFL didn't do a 'Port' before their introduction and haven't since. Why haven't we seen Southport (who as a club have more money than Port) handed a license? Why not one of the Sydney football clubs instead of GWS?

Port are much, much bigger than any other non-AFL club you could name. They'll never be a giant like Collingwood on the national stage but then, on that logic about ten other clubs should be seen as "mistakes" as well.

They were by far the biggest club in footy's second city (sorry Perth) for a century. There's no analogous situation to them anywhere else.

Even now, it should be noted, they have more members than my own club.

 

[Papa G]

except Collingwood haven't been a 'suburban' club for the best part of 20 years, whilst they still played the odd game at Vic Park into the 90's the had the ability to pull 85,000 into the MCG.

Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and to a lesser extent Richmond are not and have not been that for a long time. It's like calling Man U a small surburban club from Manchester.

Port was entirely the wrong model to come into a fast moving and ever increasing $$ driven national competition, the AFL didn't do a 'Port' before their introduction and haven't since. Why haven't we seen Southport (who as a club have more money than Port) handed a license? Why not one of the Sydney football clubs instead of GWS?

Port are in a cycle, but their cycle is always going to be hamstrung by what and who they are financially.

Under this strategy/model, there should be no Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Gold Coast, GWS or North Melbourne either.

 

[aesthetic]

Do you hold the same view as Freo who were in a very similar position as Port in 2001 ?, on and off feild. Even though Port have been in two GF and taken a flag.

The main difference is Freo has only strengthened as a club off feild and thats without any success. Good crowds, good financially and growing supporter base.

Its the opposite for Port who have struggled with its supporter base and financially even after winning a premiership. Poor crowds, stagnant supporter base. Plus the whole SANFL aligned thing that alienates many SA'n people from seeing it as an alternative club to the crows to support whereas freo has more of a widespread appeal in WA which is a big factor in its off field fortunes.

WA having more big corporate companies with money to throw also helps all sporting clubs in WA, many are practically lining up to support even a new NRL team while Port struggled to find a sponsor this year. Also throw in the fact Adelaide as a city has barely grown in population (or potential supporters!) in the past 15 years compared to Perth, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Melb and Syd and theres some good ingredients to add to a recipe for off field failure. The fact they exist in an AFL city is the saving grace.

I cant knock you for actually winning a premiership in that time though lol. Port will have a few dark years but with the move to AO and improvement on the field it cant be all that bad ahead, but i think in part itll be due to the fact the AFL wont let Port go down...they need 2 teams in SA.

 

[aneale]

Under this strategy/model, there should be no Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Gold Coast, GWS or North Melbourne either.

except, Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda, WB, Melbourne, North have all survived in this league for 8 decades plus and are essentially foundation clubs in this competition, they are used to the scrap it takes to survive and fight for sponsorship $ and exposure in Victoria.

Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and GC are 'expansion' clubs into the foreign territory, an AFL funded project to create a national brand. They don't need to be profitable, the AFL will just give them money if needed. Even then they created new clubs with the exception of South's relocation.

Port's job was to bring 40,000 through the gate every second week and be a WCE, Freo and Adelaide.

 

[aneale]

Do you hold the same view as Freo who were in a very similar position as Port in 2001 ?, on and off feild. Even though Port have been in two GF and taken a flag.

Freo aren't an existing club. There was no club in the WAFL called the Fremantle Football Club. What we have is a brand new club created in a city in its own right basically. Fremantle and the surrounding suburbs has about 25,000 people in it. Port and its surrounding area about 8,000. A better comparison was if they gave the second license top a club called 'Elizabeth', a growing area about the same size as Fremantle

Fremantle was a long term decision, Port was a for the now decision. I remember all the tin rattling in Port's history to survive, in the glory days. They were never a financially viable Club even in the SANFL.

 

[aneale]

Port are much, much bigger than any other non-AFL club you could name. They'll never be a giant like Collingwood on the national stage but then, on that logic about ten other clubs should be seen as "mistakes" as well.

They were by far the biggest club in footy's second city (sorry Perth) for a century. There's no analogous situation to them anywhere else.

Even now, it should be noted, they have more members than my own club.

Southport have won 13 flags since 1983 in the QAFL after winning 8 on the Coast. They've never not made the finals in the QAFL. They nearly have more social club members than Port Adelaide and Sydney combined. They could buy and sell Port Adelaide 4 times over.

If Port Adelaide were a good case for the 2nd license in Adelaide, Southport have just as strong if not a stronger case for a license on the Gold Coast. They're certainly more financial and in a faster growing area in population and economy.

 

[Jose Cruzeiro]

Aneale the horse has bolted mate.

Even IF a 2nd composite side could've done better than Port (doubtful in a market where the original composite has the city name, state-branded colours/mascot, a 6 year headstart and goes on to win the next 2 flags) it is completely irrelevant now. Replacing Port with a Crows Mk2 would be an absolute disaster for footy in this state, so the focus needs to be on building us up rather than tearing us down.

Easier said than done though in Pissantville.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Southport have won 13 flags since 1983 in the QAFL after winning 8 on the Coast. They've never not made the finals in the QAFL. They nearly have more social club members than Port Adelaide and Sydney combined. They could buy and sell Port Adelaide 4 times over.

If Port Adelaide were a good case for the 2nd license in Adelaide, Southport have just as strong if not a stronger case for a license on the Gold Coast. They're certainly more financial and in a faster growing area in population and economy.

When I played up there in 1994 Southports social memberships were $1 so you could play the pokies and they had about 20,000 members 95% of whom wouldn't have even known there was an Aussie Rules club operating out of the same building so is hardly a fair comparison.

 

[aneale]

When I played up there in 1994 Southports social memberships were $1 so you could play the pokies and they had about 20,000 members 95% of whom wouldn't have even known there was an Aussie Rules club operating out of the same building so is hardly a fair comparison.

and by 2002 when I was up there it was very different. Secondly, there are more and more players being drafted out of the area and club, thirdly I reckon they'd have noticed an AFL club and that still doesn't take away their argument for being granted a license.

 

[aneale]

Aneale the horse has bolted mate.

Even IF a 2nd composite side could've done better than Port (doubtful in a market where the original composite has the city name, state-branded colours/mascot, a 6 year headstart and goes on to win the next 2 flags) it is completely irrelevant now. Replacing Port with a Crows Mk2 would be an absolute disaster for footy in this state, so the focus needs to be on building us up rather than tearing us down.

Easier said than done though in Pissantville.

Thats right the horse has bolted. I was responding to the 'suburban' model. Horse. Bolted. Gate. Slammed.

What Port are now is what they are destined to be for however long they are in the comp. A poor suburban club with struggling resources that jump out of the box every 20-30 years and win a flag a la North Melbourne.

 

[pebblestone]

Port Adelaide Kangaroos in 2016?

 

[UrLordUnbeliever]

They'll be screwed for as long as they have Dean Laidley at the club..