SA Footy

I was thinking with the current inbalance with the full time proffessionals & part time players. There will be a problem with these two clubs dominating the sanfl comp when the gap between Sanfl & AFL becomes greater due to salary cap restrictions, fitness ,skill development etc . There will be a time when the game day teams need to be evened out.
I suggest restrictions on the no. of Afl listed able to play as being max 60% with first &second year draftees exempted unless over 23
anyone have any thoughts on this?

Limit of 10-12 AFL listed players each week and all other top up players must be u21's. Port must also lose its thirds. Unfortunately the majority of clubs dont have the balls to stand up and make demands

Kick 'em out. All problems solved.

Pseudo wrote:Kick 'em out. All problems solved.

Get rid of them. The sanfl have no obligation to the success or otherwise of the AFL franchises anymore (the licenses are sold). Promote sanfl football as an alternative to the afl. At the very least increase their fee to participate in the sanfl by threefold and introduce some fairer terms. Otherwise let them deliver on triggs threat and play in the amateur league. The sanfl pays for the tv coverage anyway, which last year was predominantly advertising the franchises.

I'm all for that. But, then the SANFL would have about 1.5 million black hole. Then comp would be dead within 3 years...

Where's the black hole from?

Special One wrote:I'm all for that. But, then the SANFL would have about 1.5 million black hole. Then comp would be dead within 3 years...

What a load of toss!
Thats just a scare tactic the AFL clubs used into blackmailing the SANFL clubs, unfortunately the majority of clubs were gullible enough to fall for these lies

Jim05 wrote:

Special One wrote:I'm all for that. But, then the SANFL would have about 1.5 million black hole. Then comp would be dead within 3 years...

What a load of toss!
Thats just a scare tactic the AFL clubs used into blackmailing the SANFL clubs, unfortunately the majority of clubs were gullible enough to fall for these lies

1. The fee to play in the competition
2. Crows are still paying their Dividend even when they don't have to no more.

Special One wrote:I'm all for that. But, then the SANFL would have about 1.5 million black hole. Then comp would be dead within 3 years...

How??

Special One wrote:1. The fee to play in the competition
2. Crows are still paying their Dividend even when they don't have to no more.

Isn't the fee 40K per club? So there's roughly 300K, where's the other 1.2M coming from?

Maybe it's the 4000 Crows supporters each week spending up big on beer and pies?

Special One wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Special One wrote:I'm all for that. But, then the SANFL would have about 1.5 million black hole. Then comp would be dead within 3 years...

What a load of toss!
Thats just a scare tactic the AFL clubs used into blackmailing the SANFL clubs, unfortunately the majority of clubs were gullible enough to fall for these lies

1. The fee to play in the competition
2. Crows are still paying their Dividend even when they don't have to no more.

The Crows save more money from getting free training facilities at West Lakes than what they pay to the comp.

Wedgie wrote:

Special One wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Special One wrote:I'm all for that. But, then the SANFL would have about 1.5 million black hole. Then comp would be dead within 3 years...

What a load of toss!
Thats just a scare tactic the AFL clubs used into blackmailing the SANFL clubs, unfortunately the majority of clubs were gullible enough to fall for these lies

1. The fee to play in the competition
2. Crows are still paying their Dividend even when they don't have to no more.

The Crows save more money from getting free training facilities at West Lakes than what they pay to the comp.

They pay for maintenance up keep, the SANFL pretty much don't own the facility... Light towers are going next year and Max Basher will be no more.

Bugger the light towers, I'm still looking for explanation of the 1.5M black hole.

topsywaldron wrote:Bugger the light towers, I'm still looking for explanation of the 1.5M black hole.

Easy, it's an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air by someone who pretends they are in the no about the finances of both the Adelaide Crows and the SANFL

Come to think of it, I'm beginning to think the Special One is Trigg

Trigg is a special one.

What would Trigg care? He's too busy buggering up Carlton now

Jim05 wrote:Limit of 10-12 AFL listed players each week

Can't see that ever happening, the whole reason they wanted the present setup was so all their leftovers could play together.
I prefer the 0 AFL players model.

Kahuna wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Limit of 10-12 AFL listed players each week

Can't see that ever happening, the whole reason they wanted the present setup was so all their leftovers could play together.
I prefer the 0 AFL players model.

They had a similar rule in the VFL for a few years and it worked fine. Only got voted out when the AFL clubs all banded together

Special One wrote:They pay for maintenance up keep, the SANFL pretty much don't own the facility... Light towers are going next year and Max Basher will be no more.

Yeah, you're right, the land would be worth absolutely nothing, Im sure the SANFL would get nothing if they rented it out or sold it.

Special One wrote:quote="Special One"]

Jim05 wrote:

Special One wrote:I'm all for that. But, then the SANFL would have about 1.5 million black hole. Then comp would be dead within 3 years...

What a load of toss!
Thats just a scare tactic the AFL clubs used into blackmailing the SANFL clubs, unfortunately the majority of clubs were gullible enough to fall for these lies

1. The fee to play in the competition
2. Crows are still paying their Dividend even when they don't have to no more.

The Crows save more money from getting free training facilities at West Lakes than what they pay to the comp.[/quote]

They pay for maintenance up keep, the SANFL pretty much don't own the facility... Light towers are going next year and Max Basher will be no more.[/quote]
We'll who does "practically own" it then?