SA Footy

Hence why it would be beers for life!

Suri wrote:

Trader wrote:Morell, I don't understand why you are so against allowing clubs to spend money.

There are blokes that spend 200k on a boat and fishing equipment because they enjoy that hobby and find it a great way to fill their weekends.
There are other blokes who don't like to fish, but would rather watch local footy. So rather than spending 200k on a boat, they donate 10-15k a year to their local club. If a club has 10-20 of these blokes floating around, which is easily the case at some of the bigger clubs, then why shouldn't that club be allowed to spend $200k a year on players?

The fisherman is allowed to spend his money to buy a better boat, why cant the footy fan donate and enable his side to buy a bigger ruckman?

I don't buy the argument that we need to cap the top end to push the quality of players around, that's a false economy of football talent. Div 7 isn't meant to be equal to Div 1, there is no reason for the talent to be equally spread.

I wouldn't mind just one of those guys

Haha. A former A grade coach of yours was doing that for years

bird of prey wrote:

Suri wrote:

Trader wrote:Morell, I don't understand why you are so against allowing clubs to spend money.

There are blokes that spend 200k on a boat and fishing equipment because they enjoy that hobby and find it a great way to fill their weekends.
There are other blokes who don't like to fish, but would rather watch local footy. So rather than spending 200k on a boat, they donate 10-15k a year to their local club. If a club has 10-20 of these blokes floating around, which is easily the case at some of the bigger clubs, then why shouldn't that club be allowed to spend $200k a year on players?

The fisherman is allowed to spend his money to buy a better boat, why cant the footy fan donate and enable his side to buy a bigger ruckman?

I don't buy the argument that we need to cap the top end to push the quality of players around, that's a false economy of football talent. Div 7 isn't meant to be equal to Div 1, there is no reason for the talent to be equally spread.

I wouldn't mind just one of those guys

Haha. A former A grade coach of yours was doing that for years

What, fishing.

jo172 wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:I agree the C9AFL should have the same salary cap as Country Leagues.. Barring obviously the fuel allowances

But you also need to look at your definition of 'champion footballers'.. Who is the last champion footballer lost to country leagues?

Sure Pembroke would have loved to see Angus Kurtze in their colours. I know we (and ROCS) would have loved to see Jesse O'Brien.

Is that the Jesse O'Brein from Freeling?

morell wrote: When that fisherman spending 200k on his boat results in the guy in his tinny not being able to enjoy his weekend with the reels, then it would be apt. That's what everyone misses. Amateur football is a network. We're all interconnected. You cannot have some clubs paying huge money and not have it affect other clubs that can't.

Your right, the 200k a year fisherman doesn't stop the bloke in his tinny.

However, equally, inflating the price of a marlin doesn't stop you standing on the jetty and catching a squid or two.
To say D1 or country clubs inflating the price of the top end players prevents D7 mitchell park from enjoying their weekend is a load of trollop! You're never going to catch a marlin so don't stop those than can and want to catch one from doing so!

As for protecting the clubs from harming themselves, that's just modern society isn't it. Previously we allowed the stupid to remove themselves from the gene pool, now we put a fence around the pool and have a WHS form for everyone to fill out.

Yes there are 7 Divisions to allow for all levels of success, but a Div 7 club with aspirations but little cash should have the potential at least to rise up the Divs in the same way a club with lots of dollars can. Whilst I think the cap is hard to police, I can't see another way to stop particular clubs dominating, or others under poor management falling over.

BigB wrote:Yes there are 7 Divisions to allow for all levels of success, but a Div 7 club with aspirations but little cash should have the potential at least to rise up the Divs in the same way a club with lots of dollars can. Whilst I think the cap is hard to police, I can't see another way to stop particular clubs dominating, or others under poor management falling over.

If a Div 7 club has aspirations, open the wallet and let the moths out.

Trader wrote:

morell wrote: When that fisherman spending 200k on his boat results in the guy in his tinny not being able to enjoy his weekend with the reels, then it would be apt. That's what everyone misses. Amateur football is a network. We're all interconnected. You cannot have some clubs paying huge money and not have it affect other clubs that can't.

Your right, the 200k a year fisherman doesn't stop the bloke in his tinny.

However, equally, inflating the price of a marlin doesn't stop you standing on the jetty and catching a squid or two.

Yes it does. And this is precisely what I mean by people thinking we're all in distinct, separate, quantifiable buckets of players and clubs and divisions - instead of what we really are - a series of social networks, connections and relationships.

By inflating the price of the Marlin, it means the D2 club wont get to reel him in, so they inflate the price of a Tuna. Which is normally the fish of choice for the D3 club, who now goes for the Salmon. The Salmon was going to go with the D5 club of his junior days, so instead, they now have fish for the King George Whiting. That little whiting was the perfect fish for old mates Mitty Parks to launch into season 2017 with so now they have to settle with the Carp - or no fish at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_cascade

Trader wrote:To say D1 or country clubs inflating the price of the top end players prevents D7 mitchell park from enjoying their weekend is a load of trollop! You're never going to catch a marlin so don't stop those than can and want to catch one from doing so!

If you regulate the price of that very first Marlin, it causes a cascade of price reduction down the divisions and allows for more quality fish for all. It doesn't mean Mitchell Park are going to all of a sudden be able to recruit Matthew Pavlich or Steve Summerton (Marlins) but it does mean we get to keep hold of ... Travis Hyde, Chris Farrell and Brandon Walczak (Whitings).

We have noticed a difference since the salary cap has been introduced. There is no doubt in my mind that if something wasn't done, Mitchell Park would cease to exist as a Football Club within my lifetime. And many more clubs would also cease to exist.

Just like overt growth driven capitalism leads to the consolidation of corporations, overt money driven economies in football will lead to the consolidation of clubs. Some, like yourself, think that's a good thing but as I have explained - the removal of potential gateways for people to play football will have a negative affect on *everyone* from the top to the bottom.

Trader wrote:As for protecting the clubs from harming themselves, that's just modern society isn't it. Previously we allowed the stupid to remove themselves from the gene pool, now we put a fence around the pool and have a WHS form for everyone to fill out.

And yet we're living in the safest time to work in human history.

Maybe go and have a chat to someone who has lost a loved one at the workplace with the "removal of the stupid" line and see how far you get. Like my extended families Cousin for example, who when trying to fix a machine that stamps out metal tools had his sleeve caught and got drawn in and crushed to death - through no fault of his own the person he was with didn't know where the emergency shut down button was:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-05/m ... ath/423772

You lack basic level empathy Trader and your privilege taints the way you think.

Bloody socialists!

Jim05 wrote:Bloody socialists!

As I said earlier, that really is what it comes down to in the end.

In my mind, we're not Silicon Valley corporations competing for profits. We're community driven sporting clubs. Or at least we should be.

Would have thought we'd err on the socialist side of the political spectrum given the above.

morell wrote:You lack basic level empathy Trader and your privilege taints the way you think.

C'mon Morgs, just cause I don't agree with you doesn't mean you need to have a swipe at me personally.
As you've said several times on here, if we didn't have different opinions a forum would be a very boring place.


To avoid banging on when we clearly aren't going to come to an agreement, I'm happy to agree to disagree on the economics of amateur football talent.
However, can you please explain to me (as someone who clearly doesn't understand lower grade footy), why does Mitchell Park need to buy a whiting or 3?

You talk about the need to maintain lower grades as places for social footy and gateways for people to join the game and hopefully move up. I agree with this completely. What I don't understand is why that requires Whiting to occur? Can't they simply be 22 unpaid blokes running around having a kick and a catch?

Trader wrote:

morell wrote:You lack basic level empathy Trader and your privilege taints the way you think.

C'mon Morgs, just cause I don't agree with you doesn't mean you need to have a swipe at me personally.
As you've said several times on here, if we didn't have different opinions a forum would be a very boring place.


To avoid banging on when we clearly aren't going to come to an agreement, I'm happy to agree to disagree on the economics of amateur football talent.
However, can you please explain to me (as someone who clearly doesn't understand lower grade footy), why does Mitchell Park need to buy a whiting or 3?

You talk about the need to maintain lower grades as places for social footy and gateways for people to join the game and hopefully move up. I agree with this completely. What I don't understand is why that requires Whiting to occur? Can't they simply be 22 unpaid blokes running around having a kick and a catch?

Im not sure Mitchell Park are chasing the Whiting. Well they might be, I cant say that for sure. I read it as its become easier to retain players from poachers since the salary cap has come in because the money on offer hasn't been as high and inflated as it was in recent years gone by..

That part I agree with. Some of the players I know, even mates of mine, have had inflated prices paid to them in recent years because of the spiralling trend that we faced a couple of years back. In that regard I think the salary cap has been good IMO

Trader wrote: You talk about the need to maintain lower grades as places for social footy and gateways for people to join the game and hopefully move up. I agree with this completely. What I don't understand is why that requires Whiting to occur? Can't they simply be 22 unpaid blokes running around having a kick and a catch?

When Whiting are getting paid to play average footy in Div 5, Div 6 and Div 7, how do you keep them in the net?

Dogwatcher wrote:

Trader wrote: You talk about the need to maintain lower grades as places for social footy and gateways for people to join the game and hopefully move up. I agree with this completely. What I don't understand is why that requires Whiting to occur? Can't they simply be 22 unpaid blokes running around having a kick and a catch?

When Whiting are getting paid to play average footy in Div 5, Div 6 and Div 7, how do you keep them in the net?

But if Div 7 sides are simply a gateway as Morell says, then why are they trying to keep them in the net?

I get that MP want to move out of div 7 and up the grades, but that involves spending money on a better net doesn't it?

no one with any talent is gonna go to mitchell park

human_torpedo wrote:Im not sure Mitchell Park are chasing the Whiting. Well they might be, I cant say that for sure. I read it as its become easier to retain players from poachers since the salary cap has come in because the money on offer hasn't been as high and inflated as it was in recent years gone by..

That part I agree with. Some of the players I know, even mates of mine, have had inflated prices paid to them in recent years because of the spiralling trend that we faced a couple of years back. In that regard I think the salary cap has been good IMO

Yup, I agree that the cap has decreased poaching for sure, but one could argue that that's actually a worse result for the lowest divs.

Previously you could have had a situation where the lowest grades all get poached and you are left with the kick and catch, social footy that Morell says Div 7 needs to be.

Now, the top end take fewer players, as does the middle, and you end up with some Whiting that should be swimming in div 4 ponds, but instead are the big fish in Div 7, demanding money.
So instead of being a cashless society, Div 7 is now forced to pay $54,000 a season or be uncompetitive is it not?

This whole conversation is getting fishy

If it ever gets to a point where you have to spend $54k in div 7 to be competitive, then all is lost.. I was gob smacked when Jo172 dropped his call yesterday that a division 7 side spending mirrored that of a mid range div 1 club - That shouldn't happen.

But, having said that, if a div 7 club is financial enough to sustainably pay that, then they should be able to match offers from other clubs higher to retain players.. I would be concerned how they are staying in div 7 and paying that sort of money, stinks of either greedy playing group or horribly over paid playing group.. Or both! You really should be winning div 7 comfortably if you have a playing group on the same wage level as a div 1 club

Furthermore, i'd be amazed if there was a significant or overwhelming correlation between % of salary cap spent and what division a club is in.

human_torpedo wrote:If it ever gets to a point where you have to spend $54k in div 7 to be competitive, then all is lost.. I was gob smacked when Jo172 dropped his call yesterday that a division 7 side spending mirrored that of a mid range div 1 club - That shouldn't happen.

Totally agree!
And by pushing the talent away from the top end and down towards the lower divs, I would assume that is what ends up happening!

I would have thought it was best to let the top end pay away whatever they want and keep the money hungry grubs away from the lower grades.