SA Footy

Jim05 wrote:16 minute quarters, why even bother.
Still think it’s a bad look for these guys to play but I’ll still tune in

16 minutes will fix it

This is most left field decision I’ve ever seen!!

Why bother?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Channel 7 very very happy

Armchair expert wrote:Channel 7 very very happy

All time viewing records will be smashed this weekend

Quite simply the AFL is an UTTER F******G JOKE of an organization

jackpot jim wrote:Quite simply the AFL is an UTTER F******G JOKE of an organization

It’s ridiculous they are going ahead with it.
They think they are immune too it.
Obviously money still talks.

If the NRL weren't playing the AFL would of suspended days ago. They don't want to lose viewership to Rugby.

LMA wrote:If the NRL weren't playing the AFL would of suspended days ago. They don't want to lose viewership to Rugby.

Who’s going to watch that shit?

amber_fluid wrote:

jackpot jim wrote:Quite simply the AFL is an UTTER F******G JOKE of an organization

It’s ridiculous they are going ahead with it.
They think they are immune too it.
Obviously money still talks.

TBH I'm not really looking forward to it, usually champing at the bit Rd 1 eve.

amber_fluid wrote:

LMA wrote:If the NRL weren't playing the AFL would of suspended days ago. They don't want to lose viewership to Rugby.

Who’s going to watch that shit?

Plenty, if it's the only sport on. A League don't count

What's the purpose of shortened quarters?
Less sweat?

tigerpie wrote:What's the purpose of shortened quarters?
Less sweat?

Preparing for delays later in the season where they will cram games in and teams will be playing every 3-4 days potentially

I assumed it was to do with no waterboys or something of that nature.

Riewoldt said last night the 16 min quarters equate to %20 less playing time and coincidentally the AFL want the players to take a %20 cut

JK wrote:Riewoldt said last night the 16 min quarters equate to %20 less playing time and coincidentally the AFL want the players to take a %20 cut

Small businesses are taking a hit maybe the players should too.
At least the senior players on good coin anyway.

$600k a year down to $480k won’t send them broke.

amber_fluid wrote:

JK wrote:Riewoldt said last night the 16 min quarters equate to %20 less playing time and coincidentally the AFL want the players to take a %20 cut

Small businesses are taking a hit maybe the players should too.
At least the senior players on good coin anyway.

$600k a year down to $480k won’t send them broke.

The AFL and clubs made a rod for their own back when they started stuffing around with the TPP and offering front or back ended contracts, deferred payments etc.
I can understand people asking for a 20% cut across the board but with so many different contract structures it’s near on impossible. If I’m in the final year of a back ended contract there is no way I’m giving up 20% of my pay

Jim05 wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

JK wrote:Riewoldt said last night the 16 min quarters equate to %20 less playing time and coincidentally the AFL want the players to take a %20 cut

Small businesses are taking a hit maybe the players should too.
At least the senior players on good coin anyway.

$600k a year down to $480k won’t send them broke.

The AFL and clubs made a rod for their own back when they started stuffing around with the TPP and offering front or back ended contracts, deferred payments etc.
I can understand people asking for a 20% cut across the board but with so many different contract structures it’s near on impossible. If I’m in the final year of a back ended contract there is no way I’m giving up 20% of my pay

There was some talk of adding another year to everyones contracts to compensate for it. I guess that would run into the same issues of front and backended contracts.
The players should be locking in a 20% cut. It could get a lot worse.
I think the AFL are factoring in up to 6 months without football, going to be alot of cramming if thats the case. Id imagine there will be announcements to programming very soon with games moved forward as early as next week. We should have games every night of the week, will be a boom for TV rights while it lasts. Hopefully its a precursor to a 34 round season played in a season length similar to now.

Jim05 wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

JK wrote:Riewoldt said last night the 16 min quarters equate to %20 less playing time and coincidentally the AFL want the players to take a %20 cut

Small businesses are taking a hit maybe the players should too.
At least the senior players on good coin anyway.

$600k a year down to $480k won’t send them broke.

The AFL and clubs made a rod for their own back when they started stuffing around with the TPP and offering front or back ended contracts, deferred payments etc.
I can understand people asking for a 20% cut across the board but with so many different contract structures it’s near on impossible. If I’m in the final year of a back ended contract there is no way I’m giving up 20% of my pay

The AFL also made a rod for its back caving to the AFLPA on wage demands. That ball and chain was always going to cause them an issue at some stage.

Good point about contract structures though and your example is a good one. Same with if you were in the first year of a back ended contract.

amber_fluid wrote:

LMA wrote:If the NRL weren't playing the AFL would of suspended days ago. They don't want to lose viewership to Rugby.

Who’s going to watch that shit?

Is that the game where you run forward with the ball but then throw it backwards?

Lightning McQueen wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

LMA wrote:If the NRL weren't playing the AFL would of suspended days ago. They don't want to lose viewership to Rugby.

Who’s going to watch that shit?

Is that the game where you run forward with the ball but then throw it backwards?

I think so.

Having said that I’m going to the state of origin game here.
Only to catchup with mates and drink piss as I have zero interest in the game.