We've probably been over this topic a few times in the not-so-distant past, so I'll recycle my thoughts from a couple of those threads.
We have to project into the future, to strategically plan, and well out from our current start point. This is a long haul plan. It's too easy for people to want to pack up something they see these days as not working right away and move onto the next shiny new thing. Obviously I have a vested interest in seeing Port survive, but I don't see thirteen years as much of a time investment yet, it's just a part generational shift.
I don't know that Port have much chance to make any great inroads in any immediate timeframe into the existing football supporting public. As a single club entity we are an easy target for the non-Port supporters in this state. And it's hard to win them over. There's a certain parochialism in South Australia and it has a long memory. But that's not to say we can't build, even allowing for SA's ageing population.
On the above premise, probably our best chance for growth is in targeting and attracting migrants, a group with no pre-conceptions about football support. It's certainly worked for us in the past, although we had a greater geographic hook among the cultural communities settling in Queenstown, Royal Park, Seaton etc. It may not be the first generation of migrants, it may be the kids of those migrants. That's how it worked for me, and even today I see it with other second gen's as well. And there are the kids of parents who may have had limited interest in football who for whatever reason take an interest. Again, it's a time based strategy and finding the markets to tap into.
The SA government in South Australia's Strategic Plan has set a target of a 2 million population for South Australia by 2050. The Economic Development Board in a recently-released paper recommended this target be brought forward to 2027. How realistic this is terms of supporting infrastructure and services (not to mention water) remains to be seen. But this will only be achieved through a significant migrant intake, and this is the group we have to home in on, while continuing to work away at those South Australians without a strong football commitment from their past, and their children.
We have to hit that critical mass to get them, but in an ever growing population that can be achieved. It seems a reasonable assumption that one of the reasons for Freo's growth was the unavailability of West Coast tickets, especially once the mining/wealth/population boom kicked in. The Perth housing boom is reported to have driven up prices by 146 percent between 2002 and December 2007.
Marketing the club again as a strong, established football identity is important. Port meandered away from their roots to some extent in recent years but have made a conscious effort to get back there this season. As far as the Live the Creed marketing campaign goes, my honest view of it is that is was something we needed to do to re-establish our identity, which we diluted over the past few years. But I wouldn't want to see us bang on about it endlessly either, I'm happy for us just to be comfortable with that identity, just as we were as the Magpies for so many years. As the Boss sang, it's a sad man my friend who's livin' in his own skin and can't stand the company. We need to be comfortable in our own skin.
Port established a program with the City Of Salisbury last year. This has included initiatives such as a family day and linking it into its schools program - in one day alone Port visited 17 schools in the Gawler area. UniSA economics Professor Richard Blandy recently targeted Elizabeth as the most likely point for a
second South Australian CBD. Port Adelaide has always had a natural affiliation with the area - I grew up there, and there was no shortage of support for Port. Maybe that's changed, and we know Port have stated our support in the southern suburbs is strong. The outer southern suburbs have also been targeted.
The Thunderbirds sponsorship does provide Port with valuable marketing opportunities outside of football. increased exposure into the women's sporting marketplace and into international markets. Even watching 10HD ads for the sports channel lately, there's Mo'onia Gerrard with the Power logo on her netball uniform extolling the new channel. Everything helps, and I'm sure Port would not have gone into such a sponsorship deal without investigating the benefits fully.
It's not as if Port sit back wringing their hands about crowds while doing nothing. We have community programs, schools programs, targeted migrant groups, looked at sponsorship deals that extend our identity outside traditional football markets, etc. The hopefully soon-to-be-completed negotiations with the AFL and NT Government around Port's commitment to football in the NT (the central corridor of Australia) will be another strong marketing focus, and hopefully membership generator.
A revised stadium deal is important. I think there's a bit of uninformed faffing about this. Port need to be sustainable and successful. To do that, they need to wipe debt, be able to invest in the football department to keep pace with the successful clubs (as has been mentioned no AFL club invests less $/win than Port - but financial investment in football departments is becoming more and more an indicator of on-field success), and to keep searching for and entering into markets that will build our support and attendance base. It's not as if Port want to keep all the money out of Football Park or want an indefinite deal, just to make sure the keel is upright, and build strength from there. Of course the AFL could come to the party, but there's some political leveraging going on there that is out of our control.
I expect the SANFL will come to the party to some extent. I understand they juggle competing interests, but I would hope that they see the need to keep Port strong and competitive and prioritise accordingly. I would expect the last thing they'd want to do is run an asset into the ground, and then expect it to grow from that position. Port are trying to keep pace with all clubs that can invest significantly in off-field football improvement. To be able to do that means you have a better chance of keeping pace with your opposition's on-field performance.
Given the salary cap and draft, of course this is the area that allows clubs to find a competitive advantage, and isn't regulated by the AFL. If the SANFL wants a strong and sustainable second AFL club to provide it with the money to keep its competition strong and independent (and the AFL club dividends represent a very small percentage of that profit margin) of course they need Port to have access to the funding that will contribute to that outcome. They have to accept the current diffferential standing in support between the two clubs, and give us a stadium deal that enables us to compete if not equally at least more equitably with the big money-earning clubs. If the crows want more, that has to be addressed separately.
I think sometimes we get overwhelmed with the negativity and forget to celebrate not just our long-term history, but what we have done recently and can do. We have nearly one-third of football support in this state, give or take, that's amazing for a single club from a ten-team state-based competition - and it's certainly more than a 'boutique club'. Especially when you consider we come from way behind the eight-ball of giving a seven year headstart to a supportwise state-based team, and them winning two flags in our first two years.