SA Footy

Dols wrote:

Red Rocket wrote:

dedja wrote:I'm hearing there's a groundswell within the clubs emerging to make changes to the AFL setup after this year.

There's lots of theories in the 6 billion pages of whinging in here, but what are those close to the decision makers at clubs hearing?

The main change he believes is that top up players will be restricted to underage players who havnt been on a AFL or state league list in the last 2 years, possibly u21 but could be u23. This would be effective immediately so Krakouer, Summerton, Callinan etc would be forced out.

Obviously don't know much about contract law. I believe summo has a contract for several years under the current conditions. My belief is no matter what changes are made the contracts still stand. So how do you deal with that?

buy them out of their contracts?

bennymacca wrote:

Dols wrote:

Red Rocket wrote:

dedja wrote:I'm hearing there's a groundswell within the clubs emerging to make changes to the AFL setup after this year.

There's lots of theories in the 6 billion pages of whinging in here, but what are those close to the decision makers at clubs hearing?

The main change he believes is that top up players will be restricted to underage players who havnt been on a AFL or state league list in the last 2 years, possibly u21 but could be u23. This would be effective immediately so Krakouer, Summerton, Callinan etc would be forced out.

Obviously don't know much about contract law. I believe summo has a contract for several years under the current conditions. My belief is no matter what changes are made the contracts still stand. So how do you deal with that?

buy them out of their contracts?

no retrospective law will ever occur

The VFL once had a law where only 12 AFL listed players each week could play, perhaps this should be looked at

Jim05 wrote:The VFL once had a law where only 12 AFL listed players each week could play, perhaps this should be looked at

so where do the others play?

Dols wrote:

Red Rocket wrote:

dedja wrote:I'm hearing there's a groundswell within the clubs emerging to make changes to the AFL setup after this year.

There's lots of theories in the 6 billion pages of whinging in here, but what are those close to the decision makers at clubs hearing?

The main change he believes is that top up players will be restricted to underage players who havnt been on a AFL or state league list in the last 2 years, possibly u21 but could be u23. This would be effective immediately so Krakouer, Summerton, Callinan etc would be forced out.

Obviously don't know much about contract law. I believe summo has a contract for several years under the current conditions. My belief is no matter what changes are made the contracts still stand. So how do you deal with that?

summo's (sic) contract is between himself and Port. Not the SANFL's problem.

Pseudo wrote:

Dols wrote:

Red Rocket wrote:

dedja wrote:I'm hearing there's a groundswell within the clubs emerging to make changes to the AFL setup after this year.

There's lots of theories in the 6 billion pages of whinging in here, but what are those close to the decision makers at clubs hearing?

The main change he believes is that top up players will be restricted to underage players who havnt been on a AFL or state league list in the last 2 years, possibly u21 but could be u23. This would be effective immediately so Krakouer, Summerton, Callinan etc would be forced out.

Obviously don't know much about contract law. I believe summo has a contract for several years under the current conditions. My belief is no matter what changes are made the contracts still stand. So how do you deal with that?

summo's (sic) contract is between himself and Port. Not the SANFL's problem.

you are ignorant of the facts. All contracts are approved by the SANFL.

Dols wrote:

Jim05 wrote:The VFL once had a law where only 12 AFL listed players each week could play, perhaps this should be looked at

so where do the others play?

In the VFL they were just rotated weekly. This rule ended once the majority of the VFL sides become AFL reserves.
In the SANFL a similar system could be used, its not our concern if players miss weeks, remember the SANFL isnt here to benefit the AFL sides.
Surely its time that if you want to play in our comp you play by the rules we set, if not the SAAFL can have you

Jim05 wrote:

Dols wrote:

Jim05 wrote:The VFL once had a law where only 12 AFL listed players each week could play, perhaps this should be looked at

so where do the others play?

In the VFL they were just rotated weekly. This rule ended once the majority of the VFL sides become AFL reserves.
In the SANFL a similar system could be used, its not our concern if players miss weeks, remember the SANFL isnt here to benefit the AFL sides.
Surely its time that if you want to play in our comp you play by the rules we set, if not the SAAFL can have you

"we set" your comp is it!!!!

Im sure the SANFL could afford to pay out Summerton and the others contracts. Its about time the AFL clubs made some concessions instead of the other way around

Dols wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Dols wrote:

Jim05 wrote:The VFL once had a law where only 12 AFL listed players each week could play, perhaps this should be looked at

so where do the others play?

In the VFL they were just rotated weekly. This rule ended once the majority of the VFL sides become AFL reserves.
In the SANFL a similar system could be used, its not our concern if players miss weeks, remember the SANFL isnt here to benefit the AFL sides.
Surely its time that if you want to play in our comp you play by the rules we set, if not the SAAFL can have you

"we set" your comp is it!!!!

By we I mean the SANFL clubs which im a voting member of so yes in a way it is every SANFL members comp

Jim05 wrote:

Dols wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Dols wrote:[quote="Jim05"]The VFL once had a law where only 12 AFL listed players each week could play, perhaps this should be looked at

so where do the others play?

In the VFL they were just rotated weekly. This rule ended once the majority of the VFL sides become AFL reserves.
In the SANFL a similar system could be used, its not our concern if players miss weeks, remember the SANFL isnt here to benefit the AFL sides.
Surely its time that if you want to play in our comp you play by the rules we set, if not the SAAFL can have you

"we set" your comp is it!!!!

By we I mean the SANFL clubs which im a voting member of so yes in a way it is every SANFL members comp[/quote]which your presidents vote in spite of your wishes!!!! Your vote means nothing..,,,

Cannot change the rules to force the breaching of contracts. Simple. Would not stand up for one second in court. So that one is a non starter.

Dols wrote:you are ignorant of the facts. All contracts are approved by the SANFL.

Either way, still Port's problem. When the SANFL changes the rule on player eligibility it will be Port left hanging on to contracted players who will be forbidden to play; no skin off the noses of the SANFL or the eight clubs.

Pseudo wrote:

Dols wrote:you are ignorant of the facts. All contracts are approved by the SANFL.

Either way, still Port's problem. When the SANFL changes the rule on player eligibility it will be Port left hanging on to contracted players who will be forbidden to play; no skin off the noses of the SANFL or the eight clubs.

u are funny

That was true last time and my club was guilty of it.
I feel the groundswell is becoming too great now and the clubs will put away their petty infighting to rise against a common enemy. A lot will depend on the outcome of the finals, Port win the flag and there will be changes, it has finally taken this long for the clubs to see the error of their judgements.
I would confidently say that if a vote was taken now it would be a 8-0 NO vote

matt35 wrote:Cannot change the rules to force the breaching of contracts. Simple. Would not stand up for one second in court. So that one is a non starter.

You are probably right but aren't you guys trying to keep your Ressies next year?
If so that is where they play

I cant believe you Port guys are you really that stubborn?
The SANFL clubs are allowing you to play in their comp and these year they are looking at changing a couple of concessions to make the comp even yet you dont want a bar of it. Its this attitude that has the clubs losing patience, at a guess if there isnt changes forthcoming in the next year or two it wouldnt suprise me if the clubs went down the path of evicting you from the comp.
At the end of the day all most supporters want is a fair and even comp where they feel they have a chance of being competitive, at the moment Port has that many leg ups its not funny.
Perhaps excluding AFL reserves sides from finals had some merit after all

It's a simple argument and always was. If the Crows or Power don't want to have players assigned to clubs then that's their call. Go and find somewhere to play. If it's the SANFL then abide by those rules of that competition.

Won't be long and they'll be whinging about something else ala Power at Adelaide Oval . No Demetriou now, you are own your own.

Dolls will be able to tell us the legalties of contracts for the SANFL. Post away Dols ......

The answer is simple, let them keep their academy side until these contracts are up and just change the rules with League eligibility. They can then have the highest paid League Reserves and Reserves Reserves teams