SA Footy

Dutchy wrote:

therisingblues wrote:Yes, the AFL teams call the shots. No, this would not make me care if they had a problem finding somewhere for their overflow to play.
Why should we?
Are you advocating a "why bother, we can't win" stance Dutchy? Reading the above exchange seems to suggest that what's good for the reserves is good for the SANFL in your opinion?

SANFL - screwed since 2013

We will be saying this in 2025 if it still exists.

No way will a cap come in.

That may well be the reality of the situation. I'm sure what you'd like to see happen would be different though.

Wedgie wrote:

RB wrote:

Magellan wrote:

RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.

Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.

Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.

What I meant was, having caps on AFL players may be fairer in terms of competition but doesn't improve the integrity issues.

How about bucket hats or beanies?

I was thinking of a Stetson ten gallon hat.

Semi Related - another standalone VFL club on verge of leaving

They had 4 in 2016 - Frankston went broke, if North Ballarat leave that would mean just Port Melbourne & Williamstown left as non AFL aligned.


Board meeting to decide North Ballarat's VFL fate
Nick Bowen December 3, 2016 5:20 PM

Newsletter
RSS
Share
VFL 2016 Rd 20 - North Ballarat v Essendon
Nick Rippon in action for North Ballarat
THE VFL competition could lose its second club in little more than two months, with North Ballarat set to decide whether it continues in the state league at a board meeting on Monday night.

North Ballarat's looming board vote follows Frankston's expulsion from the VFL in late September, when the state league's governing body, AFL Victoria, terminated the Dolphins' licence after they were placed under financial administration.

North Ballarat entered the 2016 season as a standalone club after ending an eight-season partial alignment with North Melbourne that yielded three consecutive VFL premierships from 2008-10.

The Roosters finished second last this year – ahead of only Frankston – after notching just three wins.

It is understood they are now considering focusing solely on the Ballarat Football League, where they field a team, North Ballarat City, amid concerns about the mounting costs of fielding a VFL team.

North Ballarat chairwoman Jenny Bromley did not return calls when contacted about Monday night's vote, but AFL Victoria released a brief statement to AFL.com.au.

"AFL Victoria has been informed about a board meeting at the North Ballarat Football Club on Monday night, and will await the result of that meeting before making any further comment," AFL Victoria said.

If the Roosters vote to leave the VFL, the competition will be reduced from 15 to 13 teams next season.

It would also mean Eureka Stadium would be left without a VFL tenant as it nears the end of a major redevelopment ahead of the venue's first scheduled AFL game, between the Western Bulldogs and Port Adelaide in round 22 next season.

The Victorian State Government contributed $15 million to the stadium's redevelopment.

Saw on facebook Frankston want back in in 2018 after 12 months of fundraising.....doubt if North Ballarat go they could step up as most of their players have gone to Williamstown or back to local clubs.

More evidence that Gilligan and Co. will eventually kill off football. Gilligan and Co. have NFI about any football outside the AFL, such an attitude will kill off the game.

Was mentioned on 5aa that there is talk of capping the 2 reserves sides at 16 AFL listed players for finals only. What a ******* joke if true

Jim05 wrote:Was mentioned on 5aa that there is talk of capping the 2 reserves sides at 16 AFL listed players for finals only. What a ******* joke if true

Is that before or after their AFL team bomb out of finals?

Jim05 wrote:Was mentioned on 5aa that there is talk of capping the 2 reserves sides at 16 AFL listed players for finals only. What a ******* joke if true

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/ ... als/#page1

WAFL has now imposed a limit of 15 for finals.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jasetaylorke ... r%5Eauthor

17 for SANFL

UK Fan wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/jasetaylorkemp?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

17 for SANFL

So does still maintain if they are still playing AFL finals?

Hayden
Taylor
Bradman
Simpson
Cowper
The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

Right now it is Bradman v South Africa 1931-32 - 299*

UK Fan wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/jasetaylorkemp?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

17 for SANFL

Joke.
Looks like Norwood have just lost another 6 members

CUTTERMAN wrote:

UK Fan wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/jasetaylorkemp?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

17 for SANFL

So does still maintain if they are still playing AFL finals?

Capped at 17 only in the SANFL finals. Cap of 17 even if the afl side is in the finals. Gutless, spineless, toolbags.

Hard to believe the clubs let this happen if true.
No wonder most clubs seem to struggle.
I hate to think what the 2017 program will look like.
No membership for me next year too.

What a useless token effort.

http://www.oursportinglifesa.com.au/sin ... -in-Finals

SANFL will introduce a maximum player limit of 17 AFL listed players in SANFL finals for both Adelaide Football Club (AFC) and Port Adelaide Football Club (PAFC), commencing in season 2017.

This cap will apply regardless of whether the AFL Team is in the AFL Finals. There will be no cap on AFL-listed players throughout the Minor Round.

This limit has been introduced following the completion of the annual review of AFL Club licence agreements and the match conditions under which they compete in the SANFL competition.

Previously there has been no cap on the number of AFL-listed players available for selection throughout the finals series, though finals eligibility criteria have and will continue to apply.

The annual review of the terms and conditions of the AFC and PAFC licences involved submissions and consultation from SANFL and AFL Clubs.

An underwhelming yet unsurprising outcome. Another nail goes into the coffin.

Well that is interesting. I was at the Adelaide Oval test match on the Saturday and overheard a group of guys say SANFL, so I joined the conversation (yes I'd had a few drinks), turned out I was talking to Adam Kelly. Firstly he was very surprised I knew who he was after someone said this guy runs the SANFL, and even more surprised that I liked the SANFL as much as I did. He told me that I would be very happy in few weeks when it would be announced that there would be a cap on players. He made it sound like it would be for the season. I said that was great but it should also be that if you don't qualify for the finals then you don't qualify. Looks like they had to bend over for the AFL sides once again.

cennals05 wrote:Well that is interesting. I was at the Adelaide Oval test match on the Saturday and overheard a group of guys say SANFL, so I joined the conversation (yes I'd had a few drinks), turned out I was talking to Adam Kelly. Firstly he was very surprised I knew who he was after someone said this guy runs the SANFL, and even more surprised that I liked the SANFL as much as I did. He told me that I would be very happy in few weeks when it would be announced that there would be a cap on players. He made it sound like it would be for the season. I said that was great but it should also be that if you don't qualify for the finals then you don't qualify. Looks like they had to bend over for the AFL sides once again.

The highlighted bit demonstrates yet another sad episode in the devolution of the SANFL - the guy who runs the comp thinks that no-one gives a shit about it anymore. Not only sad, but flat-out incorrect. Show how out of touch some people are.

Explains everything. Cennals, he can bullshit you til the cows come home (should that be 'crows come home'? ) because he doesn't have to answer to you, because people like you don't exist.

Kelly does have to answer to his 'superiors', though. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Does anyone know how 'Ship of Fools' goes?