SA Footy

Spargo wrote:

DOC wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote::lol: oh man, I thought this thread would produce the goods tonight and it has.
You blokes live a miserable life

Nothing wrong with what Port is doing, its taking up a list spot that would have been taken by another SANFL player anyway but you guys are too thick to realise that.

Why would the "list spot" be taken by a SANFL player?

And why has ol’ mate @bertiebeatle changed his profile teams from port power & port magpies to both bulldog sides???

Woof woof

amber_fluid wrote:

Spargo wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Isnt there a rule that a Marque player cant have played AFL in past 2 seasons?

They just mentioned on Ch 7 that Goldsack has nominated for the AFL draft so the Magpies can pick him as a marquee player if he’s not picked up.
Another loophole

Umm, 2 marquee players?

I just saw it again.
Power are rookie listing him so he isn’t the marque player but won’t play afl and will mentor and play sanfl

Yep - both Crows and Power are allowed 1 marquee player with basically no restrictions on who it is. Then everyone else on the supplementary list cannot have played AFL in the past 2 seasons. Therefore by naming Sutcliffe as the marquee player, they cannot have Goldsack on the supplementary list as he played AFL in 2019.

bertiebeatle wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote::lol: oh man, I thought this thread would produce the goods tonight and it has.
You blokes live a miserable life

Nothing wrong with what Port is doing, its taking up a list spot that would have been taken by another SANFL player anyway but you guys are too thick to realise that.

You can’t rookie list players from other states?
Umm ok!

Of course you can, have a look at ports history into recent years of rookie drafted players. Majority come from the SANFL. There’s a very good chance Schofield is the one that may miss a list spot due to Goldsack potentially being on the rookie list

So maybe not a SANFL player,

If Port add Goldsack to their rookie list, there is nothing the SANFL can do about it - they are naming him on their AFL list just like they could name an 18 year old that doesn't get picked up in the draft.

Whilst their plan is to boost their SANFL squad because they have a spot available, they can spin it that they are adding him as security in case they get injuries to their AFL side.


The issues are:

1. At an AFL level, allowing veteran players on a rookie list defeats the purpose of what the rookie list was originally trying to achieve.

2. The idea of adding a player to your rookie list with the primary aim of boosting your SANFL side starts to go into the same territory that the SANFL and their clubs have been fearing in relation to mid-season drafts. Imagine if they "rookie listed" the best player from your SANFL club knowing that the player isn't going to play AFL and the sole aim of rookie listing them is to improve their SANFL premiership chances whilst also weakening a rival.

Additionally they can pay him up to $80k as a rookie and it does not go into their AFL Salary Cap

bertiebeatle wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote::lol: oh man, I thought this thread would produce the goods tonight and it has.
You blokes live a miserable life

Nothing wrong with what Port is doing, its taking up a list spot that would have been taken by another SANFL player anyway but you guys are too thick to realise that.

You can’t rookie list players from other states?
Umm ok!

Of course you can, have a look at ports history into recent years of rookie drafted players. Majority come from the SANFL. There’s a very good chance Schofield is the one that may miss a list spot due to Goldsack potentially being on the rookie list

So the question is - if Port were not in the SANFL, would they choose Schofield or Goldsack?

Port's one goal should be winning an AFL premiership. Any success or otherwise that they have in the SANFL should be circumstantial to this.

As soon as they start using their existence in the AFL (such as making decisions with their AFL playing list) with the aim of trying to win an SANFL premiership is when they should no longer be allowed in the competition.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the whole point of taking Goldsack would be to mentor the younger players into the mould that is required to play AFL football. I hate Port as much as the next bloke but your argument is about as solid as Swiss Cheese.

Maggies2002 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here but the whole point of taking Goldsack would be to mentor the younger players into the mould that is required to play AFL football. I hate Port as much as the next bloke but your argument is about as solid as Swiss Cheese.

Someone finally gets it

Port rookie listing Goldsack is to do with two things.
1 - the soft cap. This allows Port to have an extra coach now
2 - Help with the kids as an on field leader.

Nothing wrong with port is doing. He’s only taking a spot that’s going to be used by someone else anyway.
It’s likely the only way Goldsack plays footy in 2021 as well

DOC wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote::lol: oh man, I thought this thread would produce the goods tonight and it has.
You blokes live a miserable life

Nothing wrong with what Port is doing, its taking up a list spot that would have been taken by another SANFL player anyway but you guys are too thick to realise that.

You can’t rookie list players from other states?
Umm ok!

Of course you can, have a look at ports history into recent years of rookie drafted players. Majority come from the SANFL. There’s a very good chance Schofield is the one that may miss a list spot due to Goldsack potentially being on the rookie list

So maybe not a SANFL player,

Maybe yes, maybe no, but..
Since 2016, Port have had 10 rookie draft selections. 9 have been used on players that have played sanfl or if weren’t rookie listed were going to play SANFL. So it’s 90% likely with the direction port is taking that they will be selecting SANFL caliber players in the rookie draft as per recent experience.

Port will have 3 marquee players Sutcliffe Goldsack and Broomhead watch this space

bertiebeatle wrote:

DOC wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:
You can’t rookie list players from other states?
Umm ok!

Of course you can, have a look at ports history into recent years of rookie drafted players. Majority come from the SANFL. There’s a very good chance Schofield is the one that may miss a list spot due to Goldsack potentially being on the rookie list

So maybe not a SANFL player,

Maybe yes, maybe no, but..
Since 2016, Port have had 10 rookie draft selections. 9 have been used on players that have played sanfl or if weren’t rookie listed were going to play SANFL. So it’s 90% likely with the direction port is taking that they will be selecting SANFL caliber players in the rookie draft as per recent experience.

80% of all stats are made up

"80% of all stats are made up"....including this one

whybother wrote:"80% of all stats are made up"....including this one

Nah that ones in the 20% mate.

Maggies2002 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here but the whole point of taking Goldsack would be to mentor the younger players into the mould that is required to play AFL football. I hate Port as much as the next bloke but your argument is about as solid as Swiss Cheese.

How many bloody mentors do they want in the team. I thought Sutcliffe being appointed captain and marquee player that would be his responsibility. I'm sure during the year senior power players will play in the reserves so that would mean they have more mentors. Why can't Goldsack do the mentoring during the week and at quarter and half time, surely they don't need to have their hand held on the field as well. What's the bloody coach getting paid for???? Always knew power would find someway to get around it.

Why don't they F off out our league and take the Crows with them.

Groucho wrote:Why don't they F off out our league and take the Crows with them.

Because the SANFL wants them back for some stupid reason.

stan wrote:

Groucho wrote:Why don't they F off out our league and take the Crows with them.

Because the SANFL wants them back for some stupid reason.

Kerin the crows ambassador. I’m sure it’s just coincidence that the last 2 sanfl presidents have been crows ambassadors

UK Fan wrote:crows ambassador

What the hell does that title even mean?

stan wrote:

Groucho wrote:Why don't they F off out our league and take the Crows with them.

Because the SANFL wants them back for some stupid reason.

Emphasis on stupid