AFL Reserves Discussion...

[Aerie]

2. They would have been able to prevent the Matt Suckling, Andrew Ainger, Nathan Gordon types from ever making it to a SANFL club by offering better $ and opportunity.

On that, today Rucci had this in his 'Roast' today:

NORWOOD midfielder Matt Suckling is watching history repeat through this debate. He came to The Parade from a traditional Victorian suburban club, Port Melbourne, in a VFL that is being converted to an AFL reserves competition. Now he is to see the SANFL fall the same way. His thoughts:

"I COME from the Victorian environment where the VFL is a prehistoric VFA but it is so diluted by the AFL clubs now that it has killed that competition and lacks any type of integrity. I'm not saying that is going to happen here ... but I don't think SA has the population to sustain SANFL football with AFL influence.

"You are going to get (a change in the supporter flow) ... (kids who have) their mum and dads followed SANFL clubs, they're growing up barracking predominantly for the Crows. Their one bit of alignment to the SANFL clubs was their mum and dad. But if they've got a reserves side that is playing in the SANFL, then they are less inclined to want to support (their parents' SANFL) team and more follow the AFL team."

And at the end of the day, I can't see more than a handful of Crows fans making the trek down to Noarlunga on a cold, windy Saturday afternoon to follow the reserves.

Seriously need to quit reading Rucci. He has an agenda. Just like he led trial by media on Football Park being a crap venue, he is doing the same with the SANFL. Unfortunately it does have an effect. Positive media will go along way to ensuring football is strong. Unfortunately the media is mostly so negative, which seems to be reflective on a fair portion of society.

Suckling's comments by themselves, fair enough. He would have some inside knowledge having experienced both competitions. You can pick holes in them as well though - there will only be 2 of 10 clubs with any AFL influence for one.

[JK]

YOU !!!

LOL! As much as I was against the AFL Reservers coming in, I think looking at the reasons the clubs decided to vote Yes on are all real and valid. I had cocenrs too about the SANFL if we were competing in the same City against a lesser league but with AFL influence and media attention tied to it what would happen to the SANFL ultimately.

That is my opinion also. Who knows whether the decision made will help or hinder and same for if the alternate decision had been made. However I can see why the clubs voted this way. I don't like having AFL reserves in the SANFL in the slightest, but the minute the Crows forced the issue there was threat either way to the SANFL and it's clubs, and I kinda think the SANFL might have given themselves the best chance to survive this way.

Big fan of both of you boys but thats absolute crap fellas. THis was never done with SA footballs best interest at heart.

If this was done as the best thing for SA football why wasnt entering our reserves even allowed to be discussed ????

We have been railroaded, bluffed ,scared, bribed to agree.

$50K a year is not enough to save any club. IT wouldnt even pay half a senior coaches wage FFS!!!!!!
.

When Port come in I'm assuming that means $100k per year, per SANFL club INCREASED revenue which might be enough to help some?

I dunno, I can see what you are saying and it makes perfect sense, who really knows the truth outside of West Lakes?

[SDK]

For once I agreed with Neil Craig when he said ...... having a reserves side for an AFL club is not as big an advantage as people think.
In other words our system before was fine.

[SDK]

When Port come in I'm assuming that means $100k per year, per SANFL club INCREASED revenue which might be enough to help some?

I dunno, I can see what you are saying and it makes perfect sense, who really knows the truth outside of West Lakes?


Where the hell are Port going to get an extra $500,000 ?

[RB]

In other words our system before was fine.

Correctomundo. It would be nice if Sando had at least considered why the 5 previous Crows coaches hadn't seen fit to field a reserves team in the past 23 years.

[cracka]

In other words our system before was fine.

Correctomundo. It would be nice if Sando had at least considered why the 5 previous Crows coaches hadn't seen fit to field a reserves team in the past 23 years.

The crows reserves idea/debate has been around long before Sando was coach, was probably thought of when he played for them. Having said that I'm now changing my opinion on this topic after reading all the arguments on this thread. I used to think how good would it be for the crows & port to have reserves playing in the SANFL for the other teams to knock them off. Now I think if they are only there to develope the players then it would be best if the crows reserves play in the SANFL reserves comp.

[RB]

The crows reserves idea/debate has been around long before Sando was coach

My point is that no-one in the last 23 years has actually seen the need to push for one like Sanderson.

[UK Fan]

Big fan of both of you boys but thats absolute crap fellas. THis was never done with SA footballs best interest at heart.

If this was done as the best thing for SA football why wasnt entering our reserves even allowed to be discussed ????

We have been railroaded, bluffed ,scared, bribed to agree.

$50K a year is not enough to save any club. IT wouldnt even pay half a senior coaches wage FFS!!!!!!
.

When Port come in I'm assuming that means $100k per year, per SANFL club INCREASED revenue which might be enough to help some?

I dunno, I can see what you are saying and it makes perfect sense, who really knows the truth outside of West Lakes?

I think I understand why Norwood and norths board disregarded their members wants when making this decision.

Membership base is Full of pish and wind. Just feed them some bs about other clubs/sanfl commission will overturn it and their members couldn't be aished to keep them accountable either way.

Looks like Dave was the only president that knew a yes vote meant his tenure as president would be a short one

[The Sleeping Giant]

Talking to some at the club on Sunday, seemed to be a pro Crows attitude. Some of the quotes could have been straight from Bohdon's and Greg Edward's mouths.

[UK Fan]

Talking to some at the club on Sunday, seemed to be a pro Crows attitude. Some of the quotes could have been straight from Bohdon's and Greg Edward's mouths.

Exhibit A


Greg Edwards = scum

[Ronnie]

Sad to hear Sanderson sprout on about the Crows in the SANFL at a press conference just after the decision was made.
He referred to his links with Sturt and said how it meant something to him that this decision would (allegedly) see Sturt survive.
He then went on to say how a Sturt v Crows game would be good because Sturt supporters wouldn't lose, inferring that that most Sturt supporters have Crows leanings too.

Now what self respecting SANFL supporter would be happy or at least indifferent about their side losing to the Crows??!
According to Sando it will be a win-win situation, fun all 'round!!

Does he see it as a serious comp, i suppose not

[SimonH]

There's 5-8 players they could have bought as top-up's that wouldn't have made it to the SANFL.

If it were 30 Mat Sucklings we were missing out on, I could understand, but 5-8 doesn't really worry me. I guess it's subjective re where to draw the line.

That's not an issue, SAAFL or SANFL. Adelaide has better places to spend its money than buying in mature state-league players, unless it has a player of that ilk on its radar for drafting/rookieing after a year's trial. No AFL club buys in high-profile mature players to play in its reserves team.

Some examples: Sydney Swans reserves play top-ups mostly from its 'academy' (who are all kids) or otherwise plucked from the Sydney U/18 comp. All little tackers they want to have a look at; no-one else. GWS is much the same (albeit with their temporarily extended senior list, they hardly need top-ups). The lower standard of the NEAFL means they can afford to do that, and still be competitive (and, often, dominate) though.

If you look at the tougher playing standard of the VFL, despite the hype to the contrary there are actually very few genuine stand-alone AFL reserves teams. Even though of course the competition is compromised by many AFL clubs dictating selection, game time, tactics etc to their VFL underlings, the fact remains that, e.g. Box Hill is a club who bring up & through their own players, so there's a ready supply of mature-bodied players of VFL standard just waiting to be picked. If you look at the few 'true' AFL reserves sides, Geelong (who do well on-field) of course have a strong supply from the Geelong area (having a particular zone locked away isn't an option for the Crows). If you look at Collingwood's VFL playing list, it's a bundle of players from all backgrounds and areas, with no particular 'names' who would've been recruited on good coin, or stars-in-waiting (happy to be corrected). Collingwood isn't short of a quid, but aggressive recruiting of top state-league players for the sole purpose of maximising their chances of winning a VFL flag, isn't anywhere on their priority list.

So, Adelaide will get a bunch of players together, however they can from wherever they can (depending on the extent to which SANFL clubs will help them out; I'm guessing the poor clubs will help them out plenty if given another couple of pieces of silver to go with the 30). But apart from one retired/delisted Crow 'leadership player' (for whom running around on the paddock, is an adjunct to the low-level coaching/ player welfare role at the Crows he's likely performing, or at least auditioning for), they won't recruit any names.

[JK]

Big fan of both of you boys but thats absolute crap fellas. THis was never done with SA footballs best interest at heart.

If this was done as the best thing for SA football why wasnt entering our reserves even allowed to be discussed ????

We have been railroaded, bluffed ,scared, bribed to agree.

$50K a year is not enough to save any club. IT wouldnt even pay half a senior coaches wage FFS!!!!!!
.

When Port come in I'm assuming that means $100k per year, per SANFL club INCREASED revenue which might be enough to help some?

I dunno, I can see what you are saying and it makes perfect sense, who really knows the truth outside of West Lakes?

I think I understand why Norwood and norths board disregarded their members wants when making this decision.

Membership base is Full of pish and wind. Just feed them some bs about other clubs/sanfl commission will overturn it and their members couldn't be aished to keep them accountable either way.

Looks like Dave was the only president that knew a yes vote meant his tenure as president would be a short one

As per my other post (re: results of the club survey), Norwood disregarded the minority of members, which I would have thought was standard practice

[areaman]

As per my other post (re: results of the club survey), Norwood disregarded the minority of members, which I would have thought was standard practice

An important distinction though is what the consequences are of disregarding one group of members over others.

So let's say Norwood (or any club) stood to lose 10% of their members with a Yes vote and it was considered acceptable collateral damage (by the board) because 90% would stay.

However if they had voted No they wouldnt have lost 90% of those members - they most probably would have retained all 100% of the surveyed base. Those 90% would not have been people who were passionate advocates of allowing AFL reserves teams in. They would have been a mixture of people either ambivalent to the change or relucantly accepting it.

It's fair to say that many members are tolerating the change as opposed to supporting it.

If I buy an Eagles membership next year it should not be read as support for the Yes vote but reluctantly tolerating it until the dust settles.....

[JK]

As per my other post (re: results of the club survey), Norwood disregarded the minority of members, which I would have thought was standard practice

An important distinction though is what the consequences are of disregarding one group of members over others.

So let's say Norwood (or any club) stood to lose 10% of their members with a Yes vote and it was considered acceptable collateral damage (by the board) because 90% would stay.

However if they had voted No they wouldnt have lost 90% of those members - they most probably would have retained all 100% of the surveyed base. Those 90% would not have been people who were passionate advocates of allowing AFL reserves teams in. They would have been a mixture of people either ambivalent to the change or relucantly accepting it.

It's fair to say that many members are tolerating the change as opposed to supporting it.

If I buy an Eagles membership next year it should not be read as support for the Yes vote but reluctantly tolerating it until the dust settles.....

Yep all very fair points AM.

I guess the NFC decision makers consider they will lose between %2-%12 of membership, and think they can replace that revenue (inc matchday spend etc) with revenue coming via the AFC.

As feedback wasn't provided by around 2,500 members, there is the potential that they will be in for a nasty surprise.

[UK Fan]

As per my other post (re: results of the club survey), Norwood disregarded the minority of members, which I would have thought was standard practice

An important distinction though is what the consequences are of disregarding one group of members over others.

So let's say Norwood (or any club) stood to lose 10% of their members with a Yes vote and it was considered acceptable collateral damage (by the board) because 90% would stay.

However if they had voted No they wouldnt have lost 90% of those members - they most probably would have retained all 100% of the surveyed base. Those 90% would not have been people who were passionate advocates of allowing AFL reserves teams in. They would have been a mixture of people either ambivalent to the change or relucantly accepting it.

It's fair to say that many members are tolerating the change as opposed to supporting it.

If I buy an Eagles membership next year it should not be read as support for the Yes vote but reluctantly tolerating it until the dust settles.....

Yep all very fair points AM.

I guess the NFC decision makers consider they will lose between %2-%12 of membership, and think they can replace that revenue (inc matchday spend etc) with revenue coming via the AFC.

As feedback wasn't provided by around 2,500 members, there is the potential that they will be in for a nasty surprise.

risking a 10% loss in sponsors,members,matc day revenue and more importantly patronage back at your club for $50K.

Well thought/sold out NFC.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Talking to some at the club on Sunday, seemed to be a pro Crows attitude. Some of the quotes could have been straight from Bohdon's and Greg Edward's mouths.

Exhibit A


Greg Edwards = scum

He high tailed it very quick when asked why this was rushed through.

[areaman]

Yep all very fair points AM.

I guess the NFC decision makers consider they will lose between %2-%12 of membership, and think they can replace that revenue (inc matchday spend etc) with revenue coming via the AFC.

As feedback wasn't provided by around 2,500 members, there is the potential that they will be in for a nasty surprise.

Yep, that is exactly what the Eagles based their rationale on.

I raised the loss of members with our President and he was confident they can cover the loss in revenue by the extra dough from the Crows (I think it was still at $40k at that point).

Happy days.

[JK]

risking a 10% loss in sponsors,members,matc day revenue and more importantly patronage back at your club for $50K.

Well thought/sold out NFC.

You can bet your bottom dollar that all of the Major Sponsors were spoken to personally, and all of them have committed to continue.

If one of the Major Sponsors had threatened to walk THEN I have no doubt they would have listened and possibly would have voted differently.

[UK Fan]

I didnt say major sponsors . I said 10% of sponsors!!!!

If Norwood did this for the struggling SANFL clubs. Why did you only sell out for $50K like the crows were originally offering. Cos $50K will solve nothing to a struggling club with the revenue they will lose.


Why didnt you sell out for $200K for each club if you are really so concerned for the health of the league.

Mmmmm I wonder.... FOS NFC board.