SA Footy

JK wrote:I still think the AFL clubs overreacted a bit in wanting the reserves. I know the best policy for clubs is to play the same style across all grades, so it's hard to argue there wouldn't be benefit for them. But in terms of player development I'd doubt it's as good for them. Look how much better blokes like Thompson and Porplyzia are playing back with their SANFL clubs, much better than they were last season.

In the mid-2000's the Victorian footy media were all bemoaning the advantage Port and Adelaide had with their players developing against men in the SANFL. Then they go and draft blokes like Hitchcock, Butcher, Nick Gill, James Sellar etc, - Their problems stemmed from who they drafted, not from having a reserves team imho.

I don't think either scenario ticks every box for the AFL clubs.

Especially with the top up system.

Some young midfielder at the crows, say Riley knight for want of a better example. At the Eagles he might have been part of the midfield rotation, but generally wouldn't have to shoulder the load. Now he would be in the middle all of the time, which could arguably hinder his development.

bennymacca wrote:Reckon the increased professionalism of the sanfl has actually hurt it a bit. Players now would train almost at the level of their afl counterparts, not the same obviously, but increasing all the time.

But yet they still have to work, and get bigger all for that effort etc.

So instead of being a fringe league player they go and get 1k a game playing in he country where they hardly have to train and they get to sink as much piss as they want.

Agree. It's a hard balancing act because you always want to be better and not mediocre.
However, a rung less fitness might actually open up some games a bit more.
Also, said before, I don't think the SANFL teams should start training until the start of December. Give those who want to travel or go back home the chance to do so, uni (and school) students can finish their exams, refresh the older players a bit more. For example, the Eagles started pre-season in early November 2006, 5 weeks after winning the flag, which seems crazy.

I too was generally supportive of the idea but it turns out it wasn't a good idea. Yes, crowds had been going down anyway but I think one thing that is overlooked in all this is the $50,000 the clubs get each year form the Crows. Clearly they needed it and it's interesting the only dissenting voice is one of the two clubs that voted against the idea.

But really the discrepancy in salary caps vs the AFL teams and obviously the pros vs semi-pros factor (which I didn't think would be as significant), highlighted yesterday with Port almost comically running over the top of the Crows late in the game, Port had 6 more AFL players playing than the Crows has unfortunately compromised the integrity of the competition.

bennymacca wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I disagree the comp was on a downward spiral in the last few years.

Crowd numbers have been trending downwards for a long time now, correct?

No, relatively stable for a decade before the decline when the AFL teams became involved.
Interest, memberships and sponsorships were relatively stable for that period too.
Having the Crows and Power in is a complete failure.

JK wrote:I still think the AFL clubs overreacted a bit in wanting the reserves. I know the best policy for clubs is to play the same style across all grades, so it's hard to argue there wouldn't be benefit for them. But in terms of player development I'd doubt it's as good for them. Look how much better blokes like Thompson and Porplyzia are playing back with their SANFL clubs, much better than they were last season.

In the mid-2000's the Victorian footy media were all bemoaning the advantage Port and Adelaide had with their players developing against men in the SANFL. Then they go and draft blokes like Hitchcock, Butcher, Nick Gill, James Sellar etc, - Their problems stemmed from who they drafted, not from having a reserves team imho.

I don't think either scenario ticks every box for the AFL clubs.

There was alot of flag waving after a period of Collingwood and Geelong success, with the AFL reserves cheer-squad, while happy to point at standalone reserves teams in the VFL, blissfully forgot about this fact that you've pointed out. All the years that a VFL side never seemed to help Geelong's seniors for years became immaterial, despite them averaging about 9th from the end of 1999 until the day the went through the Power like a bad pre- Grand Final curry.

The performance of other AFL sides, with reserves sides elsewhere, also seemingly irrelevant. All drowned out in the noise of Collingwood's (after dropping its VFL affiliation) relatively new standalone reserves side being conveniently pumped up as significant factor in (eventual) 2010 success.

Wedgie wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I disagree the comp was on a downward spiral in the last few years.

Crowd numbers have been trending downwards for a long time now, correct?

No, relatively stable for a decade before the decline when the AFL teams became involved.
Interest, memberships and sponsorships were relatively stable for that period too.
Having the Crows and Power in is a complete failure.

That's my reading of the figures. The GF crowd in 2013 being the biggest since (I think) 1999 shows that the interest from the general public (cf. the diehard supporter who goes every week) was at least the same as it was fifteen years ago.

The SANFL was affected by, yet survived, the introduction of the Crows and the Power. It has survived other difficulties such as financial pressures (e.g. North Adelaide - mainly thanks to the fans), substantially less media coverage etc.

IMO, the acceptance of $50k from the AFL cancers for admittance into the SANFL is less a concession that the SANFL is somehow inevitably going to fade away than a sign that the six bendover clubs, and in particular the league directors, just didn't have the stomach to work hard enough to maintain interest in the comp.

Take the Eagles for example (who BTW had made a profit in the year before the reserves decision was made despite big write-downs of assets). When asked how the club was going to get new fans from people born from 2013 onwards, given the saturation of the Crows and Power in the media who are now competing in the same competition as the Eagles, Kurt Slaven replied that it was up to us (the ~200 members who'd gathered to hear him) to introduce young fans from our families to the club. Apart from the fact that most of those members were well past the normal child-bearing age, this way is obviously never going to lead to the current supporters being able to even replace themselves.

The six league directors who voted in favour did so, in part, because it was far, far easier to bank a cheque for $50,000 every year than to actually get off their fat arses and do some work in the community, the sort of work that only Phil Herden does. The boards should be doing the same thing as Phil.

No-one can seriously maintain, looking at the crowd numbers, that the interest in the SANFL was on the wane. Additionally, the past has proven that when times are tough re the SANFL, it is possible to marshal support from the people who come out of the woodwork. I fear that the only people who will 'come out of the woodwork' now, are Taylor Walker fans.

2000 for the SANFL showdown is a pathetic crowd.


I hope Granty rung up Mr Parkinson to remind him about it.

How about everyone rings the dickhead up to remind him about it.

#ringupparko

RB wrote:

IMO, the acceptance of $50k from the AFL cancers for admittance into the SANFL is less a concession that the SANFL is somehow inevitably going to fade away than a sign that the six bendover clubs, and in particular the league directors, just didn't have the stomach to work hard enough to maintain interest in the comp.

Take the Eagles for example (who BTW had made a profit in the year before the reserves decision was made despite big write-downs of assets). When asked how the club was going to get new fans from people born from 2013 onwards, given the saturation of the Crows and Power in the media who are now competing in the same competition as the Eagles, Kurt Slaven replied that it was up to us (the ~200 members who'd gathered to hear him) to introduce young fans from our families to the club. Apart from the fact that most of those members were well past the normal child-bearing age, this way is obviously never going to lead to the current supporters being able to even replace themselves.

The six league directors who voted in favour did so, in part, because it was far, far easier to bank a cheque for $50,000 every year than to actually get off their fat arses and do some work in the community, the sort of work that only Phil Herden does. The boards should be doing the same thing as Phil.

No-one can seriously maintain, looking at the crowd numbers, that the interest in the SANFL was on the wane. Additionally, the past has proven that when times are tough re the SANFL, it is possible to marshal support from the people who come out of the woodwork. I fear that the only people who will 'come out of the woodwork' now, are Taylor Walker fans.

Good post RB

The $50,000 is a pittance. There were many putting more money into their SANFL clubs than I did, but just taking my low level of spending for example, which might be $60 for a membership, 4 games a year, so $25 each between food and entry, I'd only be putting in $160 a year. However it only takes 300 people that spend as little as this to drop off from each club and that is your $50k.

Regarding the next generation, I would love to take my niece and nephew, who are almost at that age and would be able to see only one or two a year, to an Eagles game, but I just don't feel right encouraging it, given what I've felt over the last couple of years. May take them to a neutral game just for them to see what it's like and for something to do, but not with the same eagerness I would have before.

I still feel torn between feeling with the reduced interest my club and the league need me more than ever, but I just can't bring myself to forgive their betrayal.

Even better post, Flyinghigh.

Has there been any public (or even rumoured) comments from the clubs other than south and centrals? Wonder what Norwood think given they are up and about and centrals are really struggling.

bennymacca wrote:Has there been any public (or even rumoured) comments from the clubs other than south and centrals? Wonder what Norwood think given they are up and about and centrals are really struggling.

Most league delegates wouldn't say boo as they don't want to make themselves look stupid, most have large egos.
Clubs won't speak out against their league delegate/club president.

That's why I added the rumoured part. Some of you guys are pretty connected in those circles, wondering if there is a behind the scenes consensus of it being bad etc.

Norwood for instance seem to be going great guns, though Glenelg and a lot of other clubs might be against it behind the scenes

bennymacca wrote:That's why I added the rumoured part. Some of you guys are pretty connected in those circles, wondering if there is a behind the scenes consensus of it being bad etc.

Norwood for instance seem to be going great guns, though Glenelg and a lot of other clubs might be against it behind the scenes

Norwood benefitted in more ways than one from changing their vote.
If CEOs could vote anonymously and now with hindsight I'd be doubtful if the AFL clubs would get more than 2 votes.

Where would the two votes come from, Wedgie?

RB wrote:Where would the two votes come from, Wedgie?

North will be one whilst Bodan remains President. He is so much wanting a Commission seat!

FlyingHigh wrote:
The $50,000 is a pittance. There were many putting more money into their SANFL clubs than I did, but just taking my low level of spending for example, which might be $60 for a membership, 4 games a year, so $25 each between food and entry, I'd only be putting in $160 a year. However it only takes 300 people that spend as little as this to drop off from each club and that is your $50k.

...

For what it's worth, in comparison I think it's about the average yearly profit of one poker machine, or a bit less than the median yearly salaries of one accountant or one office manager.

Kudos to you bennymacca - takes a Man to admit he was wrong.

Some great points made by many, lately, on this thread.
To add my bit, in terms of Club income:
From my perspective, its not just the Membership Money they don't get from me or my son, now that we don't go to Woodville.
Food - from concession stand, Drink - Beer over the bar.

From other grounds; money through the TAB & over the Bar - at least $100 turnover through TABs (West, Port) - not to mention Local Pubs (Woodville, Holdfast, Cremorne, Pt Noarlunga, the one on corner of Regency & Prospect Rds - can't recall name), sure these aren't the Clubs but local economy & no doubt sponsors of the Clubs.

The reduced number of Members traveling throughout the Suburban Grounds & spending cash MUST have an impact, surely?

On the Eagles Members @ the meeting - I pointed that fact "... 60+ yr olds" out to Kurt before the meeting & he only shrugged.

To a man, the CEOs & Directors severely underestimated the anti-AFL sentiment, believing that we were 'loons' - they made a fatal mistake because they could well have signed off on their own mortality, by believing the lies. They were warned, but only saw the $50K.

If the Crows promised 4000 per game and are only getting 2000 per game then the SANFL should send them an invoice for the shortfall.
2000 fans x 18 games x $10 average spend (not even going to bother with admission) = $360 k

Gozu wrote:I too was generally supportive of the idea but it turns out it wasn't a good idea. Yes, crowds had been going down anyway but I think one thing that is overlooked in all this is the $50,000 the clubs get each year form the Crows. Clearly they needed it and it's interesting the only dissenting voice is one of the two clubs that voted against the idea.

But really the discrepancy in salary caps vs the AFL teams and obviously the pros vs semi-pros factor (which I didn't think would be as significant), highlighted yesterday with Port almost comically running over the top of the Crows late in the game, Port had 6 more AFL players playing than the Crows has unfortunately compromised the integrity of the competition.

" but I think one thing that is overlooked in all this is the $50,000 the clubs get each year form the Crows. Clearly they needed it" ,
it's a pity we're losing about $20,000 PER HOME GAME though, due to dwindling attendances.