North and the AFL

[Sojourner]

Sojourner - How is playing young interstate players only in the reserves going to help the situation?

It is not a case of young players, rather any player that was not drafted from that SANFL club in the first place.

The situation is helped by giving the SANFL side continuity and balance. Players are only played for the SANFL club that are 100% commited to the jumper and the goals of that SANFL club. No AFL listed player can assure the SANFL club of that level of commitment because that decision is taken out of his control.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Barto - You say a reserves team is a terrible situation but that AFL clubs shouldnt treat SANFL clubs that way. What is your solution to the problem then?

We've been over this before Macca.
So give us your Power reserves line up for this week.

As I have said numerous times before, supplementary list players would need to be involved.

Understood, where from?

[Macca19]

Dont know.

Either ex SANFL players from Amatuers. Or each SANFL club nominates 4 players (2 for Crows, 2 for Port) from their reserves or Under 19s who can be used as supplementary list players.

To me, having a Port and Crows reserves team in the SANFL is right far down the bottom of choices.

[Dutchy]

He didn't get dropped the SANFL club communciated with his AFL franchise and other 2s palyers suffered the consequences. So there are examples where AFL players are given priority treatment to satisfy the AFL franchise.

interesting choice of word their Tassie?

[am Bays]

He didn't get dropped the SANFL club communciated with his AFL franchise and other 2s palyers suffered the consequences. So there are examples where AFL players are given priority treatment to satisfy the AFL franchise.

interesting choice of word their Tassie?

yep, thought of you when I wrote it, hypocritical - you betcha!!!!

[Hondo]

Apparently Glen Elliott has since said to the Crows that he was a bit out of line with his comments and would handle things differently if he had his time again.

He refused 5AA requests to be on their show tonight but apparently Johnny Reid set him straight today over the phone!

I say this to SANFL clubs ... either keep the AFL listed players in the SANFL reserves (put up) or work with the imperfect system as best you can (shut up). They aren't your players, you get them on 'loan' only ... if they get drafted interstate you NEVER see them.

[Wedgie]

Apparently Glen Elliott has since said to the Crows that he was a bit out of line with his comments and would handle things differently if he had his time again.

He refused 5AA requests to be on their show tonight but apparently Johnny Reid set him straight today over the phone!

I say this to SANFL clubs ... either keep the AFL listed players in the SANFL reserves (put up) or work with the imperfect system as best you can (shut up). They aren't your players, you get them on 'loan' only ... if they get drafted interstate you NEVER see them.

I think you and a few others have missed the point.
The point is surely an AFL club can be more professional and courteous than telling a club at 5pm on a Thursday that a player wont be playing espeically when that AFL club hasn't even got a game that coming weekend!!
The answer isn't to drop the players or shut up, the answer is to improve the communication from the AFL clubs, simple.

There's obviously lots of imperfections but the pure and simple fact of an AFL club not showing any respect or courtesy when it easily could (if a game was coming up and they had to make late selections themselves it would be different). The point of the communication to North's members from North was that its a 2 way street and kept North's members informed of an area they'd been asking many questions.

Also goes to show how lazy Rucci is in his journalism these days.

Im assuming most people who are critical failed to actually read the first paragraph of the communication to its members.

North Adelaide Football Club fully understands that once a player is drafted to either the Crows or the Power, he is totally under their control. However that doesn't reduce the frustration for our Club, and probably others, in not being aware of availability or being directed as to how much game time a specific player is allowed in a given game. Our comments cannot be construed as a criticism of either AFL Club but as a means of communication to our members explaining the frustration of the situation. Overall the interchange agreement between AFL and SANFL Clubs works well, but it is never a perfect world and there will always be issues which arise from time to time.

I think its great that the club keeps its members up to date on various topics of interest instead of just putting the same generic boring front page with minimal update that other clubs usually have.

[Hondo]

Wedgie that's all fine and nice in an ideal world. But if the Crows or Power have a guy having an injury test on a Fri or Sat then how can they give clear communication to the SANFL club by Thursday?

Secondly, how is whatever straw broke Glenn's back any different from what has been happening since 1991?

Thirdly, are you saying that's it's OK to make an SANFL club not play one of it's players so long as the AFL club 'communicates' it with 'courtesy'. I am saying that there's more to the frustration than the simple communication issue ... it's surely to do with the system itself and, as I said in the 1st para, sometimes the SANFL clubs just won't be able to get all the nice notice in advance they would like.

Having said that, I take your point that the frustration here seems to be to do with a player being rested when the AFL team wasn't playing and, in that case, if the communication was late then that would be a pain however it still may have been unavoidable if both sides were able to make a public statement.

So I come back to my point, if you want to have these guys as part of your league team plans for the season then you have to put up with some of these inconveniences.

[Macca19]

He didn't get dropped the SANFL club communciated with his AFL franchise and other 2s palyers suffered the consequences. So there are examples where AFL players are given priority treatment to satisfy the AFL franchise.

interesting choice of word their Tassie?

yep, thought of you when I wrote it, hypocritical - you betcha!!!!

Its the 2nd time youve said that. Whats hypocritical about me having an opinion?

[Wedgie]

Wedgie that's all fine and nice in an ideal world. But if the Crows or Power have a guy having an injury test on a Fri or Sat then how can they give clear communication to the SANFL club by Thursday?

Once again, you've missed the point, why would the Crows or Power hae a guy having an injury test on a Fri or Sat when they're not even playing that weekend? Surely if the guy was in any doubt they'd pull him out of the SANFL side early in the week, and at the very least well before 5pm on Thursday.

Secondly, how is whatever straw broke Glenn's back any different from what has been happening since 1991?

I never mentioned Glenn, you did on a slightly different point but having said that, this was the first time ever (ie since 1991) a player had been rested on the weekend an AFL club had that week of AND it was only advised to the club at 5pm on a Thursday night.

Thirdly, are you saying that's it's OK to make an SANFL club not play one of it's players so long as the AFL club 'communicates' it with 'courtesy'.

Courtesty would be nice but respect is more important and in the above example there's no reason:
a) AFL club could advise North at start of week that Player A will not be playing them for that week or
b) AFL club lets North have Player A for weekend AFL club isn't playing

So I come back to my point, if you want to have these guys as part of your league team plans for the season then you have to put up with some of these inconveniences.

I think you'll find with the higher clubs they wouldn't give a brass razoo if no AFL players played SANFL league footy BUT they would care if some of the mid or lower clubs had a plethora of them and knocked them off.

[am Bays]

Macca Dutchy is referring to some PMs we swapped about two months ago when I got on my high horse about him calling the Adelaide football Club a "franchise".

The hypocrit part of my post is a "self-sledge" for using the word franchise in reference to Port, here I am using the term when referring to the Port Power footy club....

[Macca19]

Macca Dutchy is referring to some PMs we swapped about two months ago when I got on my high horse about him calling the Adelaide football Club a "franchise".

The hypocrit part of my post is a "self-sledge" for using the word franchise in reference to Port but here I am using the term when referring to the Port Power footy club....

Ahh, apologies then!

[Macca19]

I think whats probably happened is the person involved in this at the Power - David Hutton - simply stuffed up this time. It happens.

There is a perfectly valid reason why Lonie was left out last week, same with Bentley and Logan.

[TroyGFC]

I agree with everything North have said.
Last year Glenelg's president in a b4 game speech exhausted his disgust at Cows taking Douglas as a travelling emergency with no chance of playing. (I think Borat might have said it before but just confirming it).

[Squawk]

The SANFL clubs are shareholders in the licences of the two AFL clubs.
Most boards are made up of shareholders so maybe this will work:

Have the nine SANFL club coaches pick the Crows and Power teams each week. Then Craigy and Choco can live with that and the SANFL clubs will know who is playing for them. And they would pick the best teams for the AFL because the success of those teams drives the annual dividends (note - if Port can afford them).

I reckon that North have said exactly what everyone's been thinking and noticing and fair enough. What's the difference saying it publicly?

[Hondo]

Wedgie

I take all your points on board. But you are getting very specific about the incidents last week when the AFL teams had the bye and yet the article on the site covers more than just that.

Examples in recent times:
Players flying interstate as emergencies with some allowed to return the following day to play and some not. In a specific case it has meant that the player has turned up on match day without having trained with the Club - hardly an ideal situation.
Players being made available but only allowed to play half a game in the reserves -one would think a full time professional footballer, if declared fit, would certainly be up to SANFL league standard.
Late notice of availability, it is quite mystifying that a professional AFL Club with full time staff can only notify an SANFL Club of player availability by 5pm to 5.30pm on a Thursday prior to the game. More so when the weekend's teams are released to the media at 5.30pm anyway.
Players transferring to new Clubs during the season - Jericho (Crows) and Willets (Power)

In these comments about the 5pm Thursday notification they haven't singled out last weekend like you are. What you are saying was intended by the article and what the article actually says are 2 different things.

I understand the club's frustration (and yours) but, as a NAFC member, I don't think that was the best way to handle it - especially given the negative publicity it's generated.

An aside, you picked me up on saying it was Glenn's article. The website doesn't say who the author is (that I can see). Who actually wrote it and why isn't the author's name published BTW?

EDIT - You don't need to respond now Wedgie ... rather than argue with you on this forum I have written to the club directly expressing my concerns as a member.

[BPBRB]

Apparently Glen Elliott has since said to the Crows that he was a bit out of line with his comments and would handle things differently if he had his time again.

He refused 5AA requests to be on their show tonight but apparently Johnny Reid set him straight today over the phone!

I say this to SANFL clubs ... either keep the AFL listed players in the SANFL reserves (put up) or work with the imperfect system as best you can (shut up). They aren't your players, you get them on 'loan' only ... if they get drafted interstate you NEVER see them.

Stick to the actual facts - there are not even "half truths" in your post and you are only going by what was said on 5AA last night. Glenn was not available and did not refuse but by the same token Cornesy was angling for a confrontation as he does everytime with NAFC issues (e.g. the carry one he made with the South Africa trip proposal).

John Reid took some "poetic licence" last night too as he was advised (as was the Power ) pirior to the comments goign on the website about what the content was. It has only become a talking point because Rucci raised it in the 'Tiser. What makes me laugh is that John Reid is quoted in the 'Tiser article that he is happy to get feedback from the SANFL clubs yet he bleated and carried on as if the Crows always do the right thing? The irony of all this is that Cornes didn't have the balls last night to use historical "similar types of issues" from when he was coaching the Crows and Neil Craig was coaching Nwd. Craig used every opportunity to "white ant" the Crows with players dropping back to Nwd in his day. I can remember clearly quotes from him defending his selection of AFL listed players in Nwd's reserves as doing what he saw fit as his main objective was to his employers - Nwd and he only cared about their success, not the Crows. Ried, Cornes and Craig are bloody hypocrites with selective memories.

[Hondo]

Stick to the actual facts - there are not even "half truths" in your post and you are only going by what was said on 5AA last night. Glenn was not available and did not refuse but by the same token Cornesy was angling for a confrontation as he does everytime with NAFC issues (e.g. the carry one he made with the South Africa trip proposal).

I tried to be careful to say that my comments were based solely on what I heard on 5AA - using "apparently" and "I heard on 5AA". It is true that Glenn wasn't available but you're right, it was Cornesy suggesting it was intentional on Glenn's part. I don't pretend to know the truth of that .... just passing on what I heard for those forum members that missed the interview with John Reid.

My conclusion on all this is that these frustrations have been going on ever since the Crows started (as you quite rightly point out Neil Craig was not a willing helper when he coached Norwood) and that to highlight them all over again serves no purpose other than to rile everyone up again about it. In my view, it is the system itself that causes most of the problems ... having AFL-listed players participating in the SANFL comp when they aren't needed by the AFL teams. It will always cause grief regardless of the best intentions of the clubs involved.

However, I believe the current system is the best in the circumstances and, if the SANFL clubs want to work better with the AFL clubs and visa versa, then I think problematic issues should be addressed and sorted out privately between them without resorting to public statements on club web-sites which can only strain the relationship further. That's just my view of it FWIW and it's the view I have expressed directly to the club (my club!).

[am Bays]

The irony of all this is that Cornes didn't have the balls last night to use historical "similar types of issues" from when he was coaching the Crows and Neil Craig was coaching Nwd. Craig used every opportunity to "white ant" the Crows with players dropping back to Nwd in his day. I can remember clearly quotes from him defending his selection of AFL listed players in Nwd's reserves as doing what he saw fit as his main objective was to his employers - Nwd and he only cared about their success, not the Crows. Ried, Cornes and Craig are bloody hypocrites with selective memories.

I heard years ago (alledgedly) that Cornes wanted to play another one of his 10 young players in 1991 (like he did with Rehn) this player was at South. Reid said no you can't have him we need him to qualify for positions in the finals. No idea why if this is true why Cornes didn't stick to his guns. I can only think that that Cornes wanted to play him once the finals were out of the question and Reid was able to negotiate that it was in the "player's best interest" to continue his development in Souths side

Reid was a master at criticising the Crows until he did the back-flip and joined them in 1995-6, "how dare Cornesy give players the option of staying in Perth an extra day (on their scheduled day off) after a game to go surfing......"

[JK]

Ried, Cornes and Craig are bloody hypocrites with selective memories.

Not that I follow too closely what goes on at AAMI, but I wouldn't have thought Craigy was being hypocritical .. In both cases in charge of different clubs (Crows and Norwood) he's doing what he believes to be in the best interests of that particular club? (Whether that be right or wrong)