The second licence in SA

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The key with your situation is that your parents never went for Port, only you did at the age of 10 (bandwagoner, let's be honest) when Port were always winning, it's quite different for people who have had a family of Port supporters for 100+ years, it gets past down.

It's why us Port fans are very very lucky to support this club

Thinking about this further and the Port crowds stuff up my theory. If I'm right and fans have a stronger bond with a club they've supported all their life and a more passive love of the AFC, then we should be seeing consistent crowds at Port games. Instead your crowds are a mile down from what they were 10 years ago.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Regardless of who got the second licence, you'll always have the lemmings who follow the crowd, who seem to gravitate to the path most travelled, that don't want to do the hard yards...simply because it is easier (not that anyone on here is like that ). And that's just simple Psychology 101 - why put yourself through pain unnecessarily? That's why AFC will always have the lion's share of support in this state - you can say it's because they are a better club - I maintain it's just because it's the default AFL club. When you are from SA, most people assume you follow Adelaide, and most of the state likes the Crows (not loves, likes). It's safe, it's vanilla...and I hate to say it, but it's boring.

The things is, that's what appeals to South Australians - we'd rather keep the status quo of something that is good, rather than take a risk and change it up into something better (or worse). That's why the majority of Crows supporters would rather make finals five years in a row, than miss the eight for a couple of years for a shot at the flag in year five.

Let's see if in ten years time, that same attitude of 'steady as she goes' prevails in this state and in SA footy. I'd wager it won't.

That's not it.

It's more to do with the relative size of the clubs plus their history/likelihood of AFL success. If you're going to throw your support behind something why would you bother with a minor player?

If someone develops a taste for soccer and starts watching the EPL they will naturally gravitate towards Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Livepool... no one picks Bolton.

For a South Aussie, if you've got a choice you wouldn't pick Port. You'd pick the Crows or, if you want to be try-hard cool you'll go for Collingwood or Essendon. The only people who go for you guys are the ones who had no choice (ie they already barracked for the Port Magpies).

 

[Ebert80]

The only people who go for you guys are the ones who had no choice (ie they already barracked for the Port Magpies).

Whilst its true that a large proportion of Port supporters followed the club during SANFL days, its not true to say that they're the "only" ones following the club. I'm continually surprised by people i come across (ie. taxi drivers, people on footy forums, people i come across on social occasions) who barrack for Port Adelaide, but follow an SANFL club such as Sturt, Norwood or WWT.

A month or so ago, my dad was telling me how he got a tradesman to do some work on his house. This bloke played in West's premiership side in 83, and is now a Power supporter.

I'm not saying its a large percentage, but what i'm saying is that its not only traditional Port supporters who follow the club in the AFL. Obviously the secret to the club's ongoing success is converting a greater number of these "non SANFL PAFC" supporters. Easier said than done however.

 

[rooboy]

Whilst its true that a large proportion of Port supporters followed the club during SANFL days, its not true to say that they're the "only" ones following the club. I'm continually surprised by people i come across (ie. taxi drivers, people on footy forums, people i come across on social occasions) who barrack for Port Adelaide, but follow an SANFL club such as Sturt, Norwood or WWT.

A month or so ago, my dad was telling me how he got a tradesman to do some work on his house. This bloke played in West's premiership side in 83, and is now a Power supporter.

I'm not saying its a large percentage, but what i'm saying is that its not only traditional Port supporters who follow the club in the AFL. Obviously the secret to the club's ongoing success is converting a greater number of these "non SANFL PAFC" supporters. Easier said than done however.

As someone who has followed Westies forever, I reckon the player who played in our '83 premiership and barracks for Port, should be taken by the scruff of the neck to the nearest brick wall, stood against it, and be shot.

And I want Kerley, Roo, Rhen, Modra and Edwards doing the shooting.

 

[Janus]

That's not it.

It's more to do with the relative size of the clubs plus their history/likelihood of AFL success. If you're going to throw your support behind something why would you bother with a minor player?

If someone develops a taste for soccer and starts watching the EPL they will naturally gravitate towards Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Livepool... no one picks Bolton.

For a South Aussie, if you've got a choice you wouldn't pick Port. You'd pick the Crows or, if you want to be try-hard cool you'll go for Collingwood or Essendon. The only people who go for you guys are the ones who had no choice (ie they already barracked for the Port Magpies).

There's a word in football (soccer) for anyone who follows this line of reasoning. It's called plastic.

A plastic supporter is someone who has no affinity for the club they support other than the fact that they are 'cool' or successful. Their passion is artificial, because they have no connection at a level deeper than the outward success that the club enjoys. In other words, the majority of the Crows supporter base.

It's the classic: "I love you as long as you make me happy." It's no coincidence that the crowd levels fall away once the Crows start losing. Now try missing the finals three years straight, and see how many plastic supporters are still hanging on. Not many, I'd wager.

Anyone who picks a side to follow, whether it be in the AFL, SANFL or EPL, isn't worthy of being called a supporter, IMO. The side chooses you, because it represents who you are, where you come from and what you stand for. That's how you generate a club culture. And that's why the Crows will never have it - because they, and their fans, are more concerned with the 'relative size' of their club then anything else.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

There's a word in football (soccer) for anyone who follows this line of reasoning. It's called plastic.

A plastic supporter is someone who has no affinity for the club they support other than the fact that they are 'cool' or successful. Their passion is artificial, because they have no connection at a level deeper than the outward success that the club enjoys. In other words, the majority of the Crows supporter base.

It's the classic: "I love you as long as you make me happy." It's no coincidence that the crowd levels fall away once the Crows start losing. Now try missing the finals three years straight, and see how many plastic supporters are still hanging on. Not many, I'd wager.

Anyone who picks a side to follow, whether it be in the AFL, SANFL or EPL, isn't worthy of being called a supporter, IMO. The side chooses you, because it represents who you are, where you come from and what you stand for. That's how you generate a club culture. And that's why the Crows will never have it - because they, and their fans, are more concerned with the 'relative size' of their club then anything else.

Absolutely.

Why the wink? This is the exact point I have been alluding to throughout the thread, that supporters of the AFC over the age of 30 don't have the same ingrained love of their club that other supporters do. And, in turn, this could explain our declining crowds.

What torpedos my theory is that Port's crowds are also dropping. If you and I are right, then Port's crowds should be remaining solid and should be at the same level they were at 10 years ago.

 

[srv23]

There's a word in football (soccer) for anyone who follows this line of reasoning. It's called plastic.

A plastic supporter is someone who has no affinity for the club they support other than the fact that they are 'cool' or successful. Their passion is artificial, because they have no connection at a level deeper than the outward success that the club enjoys. In other words, the majority of the Crows supporter base.

It's the classic: "I love you as long as you make me happy." It's no coincidence that the crowd levels fall away once the Crows start losing. Now try missing the finals three years straight, and see how many plastic supporters are still hanging on. Not many, I'd wager.

Anyone who picks a side to follow, whether it be in the AFL, SANFL or EPL, isn't worthy of being called a supporter, IMO. The side chooses you, because it represents who you are, where you come from and what you stand for. That's how you generate a club culture. And that's why the Crows will never have it - because they, and their fans, are more concerned with the 'relative size' of their club then anything else.

But honestly doesn't this equally apply to Port Adelaide. How many, as you put it, "plastic" supporters did Port accumulate during those years of being ther most successful SANFL side 30+ premierships etc. Yes there are the types who have 2 or 3 generations of Port supporters in their family and were born bleeding black and white, heck I have a mate whose parents met at Alberton, but there are a huge number of supporters who jumped on Port just because they were the most succesful side in the comp. Not only that but it was "Super cool" because they were the club everyone else loved to hate. Then these plastic Port supporters got accustomed to winning flags and the number of Port supporters who would come out of the woodwork in September each year was huge.

The problem is in the AFL you guys aren't the succesful big bullies you were in the SANFL, you didn't win flags every year. Another Port supporter I knew bet someone a hundred bucks in 1996 that Port would win 5 flags before the Crows would win one. He never paid up but that was the arrogance that a lot of Port supporters went into the AFL with and when you didn't have the success at AFL level that the bandwagoners were accustomed to at SANFL level, the fairweather supporters dropped off. The Port crowds we're seeing now is a true representation of the number of diehard Port supporters there are. Just like the 30-35k crowds the Crows are getting this year are a true representative of the diehard Crows people out there.

 

[marvin]

Absolutely.

Why the wink? This is the exact point I have been alluding to throughout the thread, that supporters of the AFC over the age of 30 don't have the same ingrained love of their club that other supporters do. And, in turn, this could explain our declining crowds.

What torpedos my theory is that Port's crowds are also dropping. If you and I are right, then Port's crowds should be remaining solid and should be at the same level they were at 10 years ago.

You might want to check Collingwood's average crowds (65366 for home games this year) against previous years (let's pick 2004 - 2005, when crowds were 41 - 42k). You might also want to check their ladder position in those years.

Likewise Carlton (crowds on the up as they make the finals the last 2 years), likewise Richmond (best crowds of last 10 years were in 2001 when they last made the finals, all time record was 1980 when they last won a flag), likewise Essendon (crowds down 10k on last year).

There's nothing special about Port, or unspecial about Adelaide. Every club has a core who will turn up rain, hail or shine, and a swinging vote who will turn up for special occasions. Success begets excitement.

 

[marvin]

Quite a few of us have admitted that if our SANFL side had entered the competition (even in a merged state) we would have dropped the Crows like a hot potato and followed our true home club.

The follow up question is if Sturt, or Sturwood joined next year, which way would you jump now? And is the answer different to what it would have been in 1996?

 

[sigur]

If we could do it all again I reckon the SANFL would done it this way:-

1990 -DON'T JOIN THE VFL! Wait a few more years for the VFL to go through some more financial strife. Many of the VFL clubs had overspent and were cash hungry and close to bankruptcy. The SANFL was shoring up cash in the player retention scheme, owned footy park, etc and whilst it was losing players the the VFL it was still financially the strongest of the state leagues. Had we waited a few more years it's likely that a whole raft of concessions would have been offered to the SANFL to secure their entry. Instead we had a rushed (3 months!) process that resulted in an awful lot of pain and bitterness. Additionally, the VFL, bereft of the $4 million entry fee and the extra cash generated by the crows may have been forced to rationalise their structure (eg mergers/demotions) and we might have ended up with a not-so-lopsided AFL.



1994/5/6 Setup two South Australian AFL clubs starting at the same time and aligned on geographical lines - eg one club for Port/Centrals/Woodville/West Torrens/North and another for South/Glenelg/West/Sturt/Norwood. New clubs formed only from players aligned to those clubs (perhaps including uncontracted VFL players from those sanfl clubs ala Gold Coast), and for the next 5 years each team to have exclusive drafting rights to that geographical zone. That would create two equally strong SA teams instead of the 70/30 split we have now, and with a stronger alignment to the traditional SANFL supporter base.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You might want to check Collingwood's average crowds (65366 for home games this year) against previous years (let's pick 2004 - 2005, when crowds were 41 - 42k). You might also want to check their ladder position in those years.

Likewise Carlton (crowds on the up as they make the finals the last 2 years), likewise Richmond (best crowds of last 10 years were in 2001 when they last made the finals, all time record was 1980 when they last won a flag), likewise Essendon (crowds down 10k on last year).

There's nothing special about Port, or unspecial about Adelaide. Every club has a core who will turn up rain, hail or shine, and a swinging vote who will turn up for special occasions. Success begets excitement.

Yeah, you're right. But I think I've already acknowledged that crowd figures have torpedoed my theory?

 

[marvin]

Yeah, you're right. But I think I've already acknowledged that crowd figures have torpedoed my theory?

You are right. I must learn to read all paragraphs of the post I'm replying to.

(As an aside, as someone well over the age of 30, I'd back my love for my club in against supporters of any other club. In my current office we can claim support for 15 of the 16 clubs. Over here, no-one cares about Port )

 

[Janus]

Absolutely.

Why the wink? This is the exact point I have been alluding to throughout the thread, that supporters of the AFC over the age of 30 don't have the same ingrained love of their club that other supporters do. And, in turn, this could explain our declining crowds.

What torpedos my theory is that Port's crowds are also dropping. If you and I are right, then Port's crowds should be remaining solid and should be at the same level they were at 10 years ago.

Port Adelaide picked up a 'bandwagon' or 'plastic' element when they first entered the competition in 97, and that carried on to our first flag in 04.

Plastic supporters will still front up when the going seems to be good, or something is new and shiny. It's when the grime sets in, and the pain and insults start to fly from opposition supporters (seriously, only a masochist would have joined Port Adelaide after 119 ) that your TRUE supporter base is revealed. But I can tell you, those who were there for THAT experience will find our next flag much more sweeter than the plastics that seem to gravitate to success. As they say, you can't really appreciate the dizzying highs until you've experienced the terrifying lows.

The question is: have the Crows been tested in this regard? I don't think so. This year was an abberation, but it is a sign of things to come. Wait until you REALLY suck (as opposed to copping injuries etc).

 

[Papa G]

That's not it.

It's more to do with the relative size of the clubs plus their history/likelihood of AFL success. If you're going to throw your support behind something why would you bother with a minor player?

If someone develops a taste for soccer and starts watching the EPL they will naturally gravitate towards Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Livepool... no one picks Bolton.

For a South Aussie, if you've got a choice you wouldn't pick Port. You'd pick the Crows or, if you want to be try-hard cool you'll go for Collingwood or Essendon. The only people who go for you guys are the ones who had no choice (ie they already barracked for the Port Magpies).

Mmmm, yeah nah. Your example would be fine if Adelaide were streets ahead in terms of onfield success, but they simply are not.

I still think the biggest factors outside the relative success of the clubs are where you live and your parents/peer groups attitude.

I live in the eastern suburbs and I know that it is going be tough to indoctrinate my kids into Port supporters simply because of location. 90% of the kids they will go to school with will be Crows supporters. 25 years ago 90% of them would have been Norwood or Sturt supporters. Their peers have a lot of influence, who ofcource are influenced by their own parents. If I lived at Grange, things would be different.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Mmmm, yeah nah. Your example would be fine if Adelaide were streets ahead in terms of onfield success, but they simply are not.

The perception is out there that we are more successful than Port in all facets - financially, facilities, resources, crowds, members, sponsors, coaching and on-field success.

You guys can point to winning percentage as much as you like. If you critically analysed the Victorian teams through the AFL years you'd probably come up with the Kangaroos as the most successful club. But it hasn't helped them and won't help you guys either, because of all that other stuff.

Heck, you're still getting bailed out and you're future in the competition isn't a stone cold certainty. Who'd want a piece of that? I bet Fitzroy didn't gather too many new members through the mid 90's.

I still think the biggest factors outside the relative success of the clubs are where you live and your parents/peer groups attitude.

I live in the eastern suburbs and I know that it is going be tough to indoctrinate my kids into Port supporters simply because of location. 90% of the kids they will go to school with will be Crows supporters. 25 years ago 90% of them would have been Norwood or Sturt supporters. Their peers have a lot of influence, who ofcource are influenced by their own parents. If I lived at Grange, things would be different.

You're right here and this is exactly what Port should tap into.

The Crows are the nice club that all the nerds who sit down to pee go for. Mummy and Daddy want you to finish your homework, be in bed by seven, kiss your grandma goodnight, say your prayers before night-night and barrack for the Crowies like a good little boy.

Port should offer themselves as the antithesis to this. The BadAss option for kids. Revel in the differences, don't try to set yourself up as an another club just with different colours.

Port are the violent, aggressive winners who bring coffins to games and scare the crap out of opposition fans. Kids should be able to register online to be a secret Port fan without having to ask permission from mum and dad. Get an eye ring, smoke cigarettes behind the shelter shed, talk back to adults and barrack for Port. That'll show them.

The AFC have a Crows In Schools program. Port should encourage kids to skip school. No guy ever pulled a chick by doing his times tables well.

Sell yourself as the club for all cool South Australians.

 

[Papa G]

You're right here and this is exactly what Port should tap into.

The Crows are the nice club that all the nerds who sit down to pee go for. Mummy and Daddy want you to finish your homework, be in bed by seven, kiss your grandma goodnight, say your prayers before night-night and barrack for the Crowies like a good little boy.

Port should offer themselves as the antithesis to this. The BadAss option for kids. Revel in the differences, don't try to set yourself up as an another club just with different colours.

Port are the violent, aggressive winners who bring coffins to games and scare the crap out of opposition fans. Kids should be able to register online to be a secret Port fan without having to ask permission from mum and dad. Get an eye ring, smoke cigarettes behind the shelter shed, talk back to adults and barrack for Port. That'll show them.

The AFC have a Crows In Schools program. Port should encourage kids to skip school. No guy ever pulled a chick by doing his times tables well.

Sell yourself as the club for all cool South Australians.

I Like it

 

[PortBrillance]

that's basicly what it is today though. Port are the bad, arrogant team and Crowa are the nice, boring team

 

[Portology]

Top thread - thanks.

As a Port person from the year dot I would have loved nothing more than for Port and Norwood to have both been promoted to the AFL in the early 90s. I think it would have worked naturally and financially given the strength of the two clubs' supporter bases at the time, and the polarization of other SANFL clubs' fans along what at the time were very evident geographical and 'cultural' fault lines. "Whose side are you on??!" The Showdown is nothing if not the b*st*rd child of the old Port-Norwood rivalry.

I think a Norwood/Sturt union would have worked as a second licensee in 1997 IF and only IF Port had been granted the first license in 1990. I just think now that generational change, the AFL's dominance of TV and the 'softening' effect of the SANFL mini draft** have eroded many of those once prominent and fiercely defended local boundaries.

Given what actually happened, I don't think our second license should ever be defining itself purely in reaction to or relative to your first license. We have our history, it's our thing, it is what we are and one of the unique things we have to attract people to us while Moving Forward . There are always going to be more boring people than cool people OK, no offence intended, but then don't go pigeon holing Port as a boutique club and dressing it up in weasel words. That is a concept that definitely applies in the overcrowded Victorian market, not here.

** It doesn't amaze me any more how many Sturt and Norwood people I know back Port, not the Crows, even if they don't come to Port games much. Call it the Toby Thurstans/Roger James factor What I don't see are too many Bays supporters picking up on Port yet, but even that discrepancy will level out - eventually - courtesy Cornes's and other great players we have had down there (see what I did there ?? my bad).

 

[PortBrillance]

Port v Norwood in the AFL would be epic, two of Australia's most successful and oldest clubs. Would be bigger than Carlton/Collingwood

 

[afc1991]

Port v Norwood in the AFL would be epic, two of Australia's most successful and oldest clubs. Would be bigger than Carlton/Collingwood

Yet it wouldnt be as big as the port-crows rivalry.

As an aside, why do port people take out their frustration on the crows at being the second team? You should thank us. If port went in first, there would be no port-norwood rivalry- you would be "portwood".

 

[Portology]

Yet it wouldnt be as big as the port-crows rivalry.

As an aside, why do port people take out their frustration on the crows at being the second team? You should thank us. If port went in first, there would be no port-norwood rivalry- you would be "portwood".

I think you have conglomeratitis there I don't think anyone was suggesting a combined Port-Norwood entry, ever.

The Port-Norwood rivalry was as big as it could get, just moving it to a bigger stage would have certainly got it to Showdown status. Cue Bruce, Sandy & Dennis calling "for 100 years these two have been slugging it out, now on the biggest stage...", etc, etc. Outside SA it would have had more cred than Showdown - at least at the start, and certainly to anyone who knew their footy history. It would not be bigger than Carlton-Collingwood, on sheer population numbers. It would be bigger than any other rivalry on the % of all people in the town committed to one side or another. Come to think of it Showdown probably already is the biggest one-town game in the country in those terms. I reckon Perth cares less about their Derby than we all do about Showdown and that would still have been true were Showdown a purer North/West Vs East/South confrontation ie Port Vs Norwood AFL.

Speaking of conglomeratitis, I think I just caught a nasty case of speculation.

Cheers !

 

[sigur]

Port v Norwood in the AFL would be epic, two of Australia's most successful and oldest clubs. Would be bigger than Carlton/Collingwood

See, personally I don't see how this could work. No sturt supporter could ever support norwood, not after 1978.

The crows were an instant hit because they represented all SANFL teams (even Port). Just having port and norwood alienates 60% of footy followers.

 

[afc1991]

I think you have conglomeratitis there I don't think anyone was suggesting a combined Port-Norwood entry, ever.

The Port-Norwood rivalry was as big as it could get, just moving it to a bigger stage would have certainly got it to Showdown status. Cue Bruce, Sandy & Dennis calling "for 100 years these two have been slugging it out, now on the biggest stage...", etc, etc. Outside SA it would have had more cred than Showdown - at least at the start, and certainly to anyone who knew their footy history. It would not be bigger than Carlton-Collingwood, on sheer population numbers. It would be bigger than any other rivalry on the % of all people in the town committed to one side or another. Come to think of it Showdown probably already is the biggest one-town game in the country in those terms. I reckon Perth cares less about their Derby than we all do about Showdown and that would still have been true were Showdown a purer North/West Vs East/South confrontation ie Port Vs Norwood AFL.

Speaking of conglomeratitis, I think I just caught a nasty case of speculation.

Cheers !

Showdown is huge. The crows are bigger than norwood would ever be, port are port. There is no way it would be bigger. Why all of a sudden is or supporter base full of people who actually wish their sanfl club got in instead of the crows? It may be true for some, even alot, but the crows still have a large number of diehard supporters that 100% support the club. Same as any afl club.

You give too much credit to what people in victoria think (they still wouldnt give a shit), and who cares if it dated back 100 years. One day there will 100 years of showdowns. Port supporters are so obsessed with time.

Finally on the portwood thing, well thats my info from someone with ties to the club. They maintain that if it came to the crunch in 1990, port needed a partner, and it sure wasnt going to be glenelg.

Makes sense though, how could you come up with 4 million with no sanfl support? You couldnt do it as an afl side.

 

[Portology]

Showdown is huge. The crows are bigger than norwood would ever be, port are port. There is no way it would be bigger. Why all of a sudden is or supporter base full of people who actually wish their sanfl club got in instead of the crows? It may be true for some, even alot, but the crows still have a large number of diehard supporters that 100% support the club. Same as any afl club.

You give too much credit to what people in victoria think (they still wouldnt give a shit), and who cares if it dated back 100 years. One day there will 100 years of showdowns. Port supporters are so obsessed with time.

Finally on the portwood thing, well thats my info from someone with ties to the club. They maintain that if it came to the crunch in 1990, port needed a partner, and it sure wasnt going to be glenelg.

Makes sense though, how could you come up with 4 million with no sanfl support? You couldnt do it as an afl side.

Lets not cover too much cold dead ground here. Ah b*gger it, why not. In the heat of 1990 there were a few odd suggestions made on all sides. What you say is not one I've heard of previously.

Speaking of cold dead ground, the AAMI stadium deal is the way we as in both of our clubs, continue support the SANFL. A Port independent of the SANFL stadium deal would have had two stadiums to play off, that both would have had everything to gain from an extra revenue stream and balanced by the competitive tension of a regular rebidding process. Even with the stadium deal that has now turned sour, we have paid off our $4m "AFL license" via the SANFL come out without an asset to show for it, and continue to pay.

What a figure very central to the club said to me was that Port's original modeling re Adelaide oval was premised on the need to upgrade it to ~50k. Financing that along with a $4m license in the early/mid 90s would have been a stretch too far. Also the SANFL would have rejected our tender as non compliant had we proposed playing at AO. Gee, I wonder why ? Leave Dracula in charge of the blood bank much ?

Final cold dead ground: had the SANFL stuck its head in the sand much longer I have no doubt we would have had a Fitzroy Lions or equivalent transplant playing at Adelaide oval for over a decade now. The real irony of both our clubs being stuck out at pleurisy park is that more money now comes from TV and membership than from the gate, so the imperative to get the only 50k seat stadium in town was no longer there pretty much since 1997 or so when the revenue balance tilted over to other sources. And here we are both clubs funneling cash hand over fist into the old SANFL structures just because the AFL thought we had to have a 50k stadium. Oh well, opportunity lost, here we are 20 years later still living with it. Still the AFL couldn't have guessed how total media revenues were going to grow (from ~20% of AFL revenue in 1987 to 40% in 2006 and rising. source AFL annual report 2006).

People in Victoria gave a sh*t when you won two flags, Brisbane won three and we won one, and they were a bit worried when a Vic team hadn't made the GF for what, 3 years ? Rather than taking forward the best elements of the SANFL comp, ie the two clubs with the winning-est formulas we got to keep in place the crusty bits of the SANFL structure that hold us both back from winning more AFL flags than our fair share.

 

[sigur]

Final cold dead ground: had the SANFL stuck its head in the sand much longer I have no doubt we would have had a Fitzroy Lions or equivalent transplant playing at Adelaide oval for over a decade now.


......
People in Victoria gave a sh*t when you won two flags, Brisbane won three and we won one, and they were a bit worried when a Vic team hadn't made the GF for what, 3 years ? Rather than taking forward the best elements of the SANFL comp, ie the two clubs with the winning-est formulas we got to keep in place the crusty bits of the SANFL structure that hold us both back from winning more AFL flags than our fair share.

The landscape in 1990 was completely different to what it is now. If they'd dumped Fitzroy FC into adelaide it would have been a spectacular failure - people would stick with their sanfl side. VFL was barely on TV here, and they still televised sanfl RESERVES games. Fitzroy vs Carlton/Hawks/etc at Adelaide Oval would have a bit of novelty value but no traction and would have died in a year.

Port, the most successul and popular SANFL club have largely failed at persuading non-port fans to join up. How on earth would Norwood with fewer fans be able to achieve what Port couldn't?