SANFL to remove the name Port Adelaide

Once again our friends at the SANFL are up to no good. The latest news is that they want to remove the name "Port Adelaide" and call the the 2nd team in Adelaide something like "Adelaide Power".

Talk about kicking a team while it is down. These leaches at the SANFL forget that it was Port Adelaide who held their competition together in the SANFL during the 70's and 80's with their continued success and large crowds. Plus they have never got over our failed bid to join the AFL in 1990.

Someone needs to ask the SANFL how an organisation running the 2 AFL licences here in SA can be $27 million in debt? The sooner Vlad steps in and removes both the licences from the SANFL the better. No other teams in the league have to pay dividends back to the the SANFL so that they can up prop up the clubs in the SANFL competition. It is about time both Port and the Crows have their own reserve teams but this will never happen as the SANFL are more interested in looking after the 8 SANFL clubs in some piss weak suburban state competition.

Yes I admit Port have made some mistakes along the way and our supporter base has dropped away since we have not been winning. But if they remove the name Port Adelaide from the team I support, I will give up football for good and follow some other sport.

End of rant :x

 

Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree.

End of agree :x

 

@Steve of Belair

Never sure whether Rucci is on to something or he is simply blowing his own trumpet. The issue in a nutshell, putting aside current form and finances for the moment, seems to me to be the avenging angel SANFL.

That might mean we have to jump into bed with the AFL, take our chances and get them to intervene. This might involve a petition involving members. I was unaware that members had also been disenfranchised. Leadership out of this dark (and deep) hole is required and I would think someone like Mrs. Scott (if she is not too frail) would be good in such times as these.

However, the analogy of an Eddie or a Kennett never allowing their clubs to be bullied in such a fashion is not astray, I think. Cometh the moment, cometh the man. The moment seems to have well and truly arrived.

Instead of bitching on the various forums, the immediate key would seem to be Ginever and the One Port organisation who have the capacity to circumvent the Power executive whose hands seem tied and to go direct to the members. If they were to start up a well focused online petition + email campaign, that might be a good first step? The second would be hiring a good lawyer.

 

<blockquote>A report yesterday suggested that the SA Football Commission wanted to re-brand Port Adelaide by dropping "Port" from its name to be simply "Adelaide Power". This would ultimately be a decision by the AFL, not the SA Football Commission, and Demetriou last night rubbished the suggestion claiming it was "absolutely ridiculous". </blockquote>

The Age 16/8/11

 

Steve, you'll actually find that the Eagles and Dockers are in a very similar boat. The WAFL owns the licences for both teams, and they have to pay dividends to the WAFL each year to prop up the state league and state coffers. I am with you that each team should be free to operate how they choose, and I think all four teams (Eagles, Dockers, Power, Crows) would benefit from having their own dedicated reserves teams, rather than the disorganised and uncontrolled mess that currently exists.

I do however believe that each of the teams should pay a "token fee" to the state leagues to keep them afloat, otherwise it will probably get to the point in both WA and SA where there is effectively no WAFL or SANFL to back up the AFL, and then our four teams will fall by the wayside in the AFL due to a lack of support from below.

 

Port Magpies should exist for as long as Alberton can drum up an audience.

Not a care in the world if Port Power goes under, but I care greatly for the Port Magpies, who have always been my "SANFL" team.

I think the SANFL have mismanaged the whole affair and need to go back to the drawing boards.

A move to the Adelaide Oval will be a good circuit breaker, but if the current head-in-sand mindset prevails we will see worse consequences.

Ideal world - all AFL teams have a dedicated reserves team in a local league (NTQLD, NSWACT, VFL, SANFL, WAFL) which has a few additional teams in there.

In the SANFL I'm convinced there needs to be Port Adelaide FC, which can wear whatever strip and have whatever mascot they choose. (Prison Bars / Magpies for sure).

Adelaide can have their junior Crows, and the rest of the teams can be like Port Melbourne in the VFL and be standalone.

The AFL needs to put genuine money into these standalone clubs so that they can put forward decent competition for the AFL teams. Indeed it is interesting in the VFL that the program at Port Melbourne is clearly beating the programs from Collingwood and Geelong who are mainly about getting time into precocious kids.

 

Interesting observations, both Woody and Lucas.

Suspect the "ideal" could go even a little further. The SANFL and the WAFL be put on an equal footing with the VFL and be regarded as nurseries (and in some cases, graveyards) by the AFL. The AFL in turn puts money into these standalone clubs and the clubs, in turn, fund and run their own Leagues. Many of the teams in these leagues could be reserve teams for AFL sides and thus (should) be financially secure.

The whole "Power" thing was ill-conceived from the start, not helped by the Collingwood hierarchy moving to protect their own interests. Personally, I have no problem with the latest jumper colours and why could they have not called the AFL team Port Adelaide, with Port as the nickname? Unfortunately, Demitriou is now saying we have invested heavily for 15 years in the Power concept and we cannot abandon it now.

@Woody - have you signed on for the TS-Port Adelaide League for next year?

 

TiB Collingwood was right to protect its interests.

Come now, a team coming into the competition as the Magpies where there is already a Magpies team there! Almost the most famous jumper in Australian sport...
Ridiculous.

The issue unfortunately is that the league tried to create a new team in the region but also enjoy the benefits of history.

East and South Fremantle became Fremantle in WA, which no doubt caused some issues, but nothing compared with the rebranding of Port.

I don't like the Power name, but the Port Magpies into the VFL/AFL was completely untenable, just as it would have been for the Collingwood Magpies to go to the SANFL.

Might have been better putting Sturt in.

 

To be honest, this thread's title is a total crock - the SANFL has no control whatsoever with the name of the club & therefore has no grounds to even consider removing the "Port" from the name - only the AFL can do that.

As for the attempts by the SANFL to take over the club, this will end up forcing Demitriou's hand & the AFL will remove both the Port & Adelaide licences from the SANFL!!!

If you keep biting the hand that feeds you, it'll end up slapping you!!!

@ Lucas - I totally agree with you, there was no possibility of Port entering as the Magpies, or with the Black & White Prison Bar jumper - but it should have been sufficient to enter the team as Port Adelaide, the clubs long standing history & tradition would have been enough without the need for a made up nickname just to please the marketers.

 

Fair call Bear.

However, West Lakes is really a northern ground. It's darn close to Alberton, so I'm struggling to see why Port fans didn't warm to it, and say to the Crows well we will put our HQ on the other side of the ground, up yer jumper!

The big Melbourne rivalries are built up by location. North v South, East v West.

That's why for Adelaide to be a team based at AAMI didn't make sense. It was a real PR disaster from the SANFL.

In an ideal world, Adelaide made up of the southern teams such as Sturt, Norwood and Glenelg would be fighting with Port with the northern teams of Port itself, Woodville and Norths.

No idea where Centrals fits in... I guess North but they really are out there on their own a bit like Geelong.

So for mine, Port should have their HQ at Alberton or AAMI and stick there long term. They probably don't really have business in having their home ground a long way south of their main support base.

Adelaide however should be based at the more southerly Adelaide Oval.

Then you have the rich southerners against the battler northerners battle again.

I've never been to Adelaide, but just supposing that this is one way it could play out...

In terms of the nicknames, and in due honour of Motlop, perhaps the Divers would have been more appropriate. It was, after all one of Port's original names. The Divers with a black, white and Magenta jumper...

 

Port were known as the Cockledivers so maybe instead of the Divers, they could be known as the Cock o the North!

The Port Adelaide Cocks. I think the Adelaide supporters would be in fair agreement.

 

Lucas - of course Collingwood were right to protect their interests. It was simply an observation that the fear of god that the Pies put into the AFL hierarchy on occasion got them running scared. Rational discussion (which could have ended up with Port Adelaide "Port") went out the window. Had Port Melbourne raised objections I don't think the AFL would have listened as intently.

While the historical development of supporter bases was very much as you describe, it is history and no longer entirely relevant. E.g., do you live in Collingwood (or, for that matter, do I live in Alberton)? Broader appeal is required these days and Port has a global membership with a SANFL administration still in the 19th century trying to turn us into a banana republic. They have been eminently successful in making us a failed state.

The "Power" that Andrew is so loathe to give up should be returned to the membership.

 

SANFL has always been against Port, and have tried to use them as a cash cow in recent years. Unfortunately when Port has struggled financially, SANFL has now needed to help step in.

Port and AAMI to me seem on the face of it good bedfellows, where Adelaide and the Oval seem perfect fits.

So basically, build Adelaide some rooms at the Oval, and give all the stuff Adelaide has created at AAMI to Port. Only needs a few touches of paint to "Port-ify" it.

TIB - I live in the North-East suburbs of Melbourne, the old Collingwood zone. Melbourne is absolutely still tribal at heart in terms of footy teams and the location of fans.

Hawthorn has a great and growing eastern suburbs presence, St Kilda has committed to the Mornington Peninsula (which is a massive growth area out of Casey/Berwick) with its new facility at Seaford.

Western Bulldogs, Geelong and Essendon have the west to themselves, which is wonderful for the Dogs as the new housing estates will draw in many new fans.

Collingwood, through their zone always had affinity in the north and north-east of Melbourne, with Carlton the rivals for north dominance.

Clubs without these zones of tribal influence tend to really struggle.
Melbourne is inner east, which is why you see the Asian focus for their team with trips to China; it's no secret they are angling for a base of fans in the east of Melbourne.

Richmond is also inner east, but it's hard to tell where their fans are now. Maybe outer east.

North has struggled getting fans in the North of Melbourne because they run up against Carlton (and Essendon to a lesser extent these days). I've always advocated a merger between these two clubs. Carlton gets a mascot, and North get money and a supporter base. "Carlton Kangaroos".

I'm completely unconvinced North can make a go of it in the south of Tassie. They needed to go for Ballarat with their successful VFL affiliation, and to try to get a new supporter base from those living between Melbourne and Ballarat in the north-west of Melbourne. Sure they will butt heads again with the Dons and Dogs, but it was worth a try. Tassie is the latest in a series of mistakes at a board level.

When you look at the membership targets for Hawthorn and Melbourne (inner east) you can clearly see that a merger would have been a great option for Melbourne. That club would have been a powerhouse dominating the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, had they had unity from both boards/supporters.

On Port and their slot in the cycle, they could have prepared like other clubs. Instead, really, they haven't. It's not all bad. The rebuild effort may take longer at the start (no early draft picks) but will be considerably easier in the future years if they go on the hunt for out of contract GC and GWS players.

What they need to do in order to attract them is to get their sh!t together. No half-assed assistants like Laidley. Surely they could have got some guys like Wakelin, Wanganeen, Tredrea, Francou, even guys like Roger James. It's the spirit of Port that James had that they need right now.