New Import rule

[sjt]

There was an article in the Sunday mail re next years introduction of the import rule. With a bit of a follow up article on the attached thread.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 5890227940

Personally, I can't see the value of the rule. Clubs no doubt are trying to develop their younger players already. With the introduction of GWS and the GC teams in the AFL, the local league will be further depleted.
According to the benchmark document the number of "imports" has decreased, over the past few years.
Players drafted have to be replaced, and sometimes the younger local talent might not be there.
Quantity of imports doesn't equate to success or an even playing field anyway.
From the benchmark document (as mentioned previously)
One snippet is "Woodville-West Torrens used 11 interstate players in 2009, the lowest of the clubs, followed by Central District and North Adelaide with one more."

Last year 31 players transferred to the SANFL, 19 less than 2007. This year only 20 have been recruited from interstate.

I believe the introduction of the rule will reduce the SANFL standard. It, as the article mentioned may lead to more intra SANFL recruiting.
I'm yet see how the positives outweigh the negatives. We are not merely an AFL feeder comp. I'd like to see the SANFL try to maintain the SANFL at a strong standard not reduce it.

[doggies4eva]

Can anyone tell me what the definition of an import is?

If a player has been recruited from interstate do they become a local player after a certain number of years- as in basketball?

This means that aging players who have played for a club for many years are not unfairly cut in their twilight years.

Will the Gowans be consiedered imports despite the fact that they have played for the dogs for the last 11 years?

[topsywaldron]

Just another nail in the coffin for the comp and another step down the path towards being the under 21 league the AFL want every other league to be.

Chandler is a disgrace.

[sjt]

Can anyone tell me what the definition of an import is?

If a player has been recruited from interstate do they become a local player after a certain number of years- as in basketball?

This means that aging players who have played for a club for many years are not unfairly cut in their twilight years.

Will the Gowans be consiedered imports despite the fact that they have played for the dogs for the last 11 years?

From memory. If they'd played three years they're not an import. An import classified as a player external to SA. Also, they've made it retrospective so Westies and South get hammered under the rule, as they had to recruit last year to cover a lot of "outs".
Again from memory, in Centrals case - Milne, Hardy and I think a third player are counted as imports. Sorry i really need the article from Sunday's paper that made it clearer.

[sjt]

Just another nail in the coffin for the comp and another step down the path towards being the under 21 league the AFL want every other league to be.

Chandler is a disgrace.

Hooray, we agree on something.

I would like to see, why the SANFL believe it to be a good thing.

[topsywaldron]

I would like to see, why the SANFL believe it to be a good thing.

Because the AFL said so.

[sjt]

Found it

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 5890219251

[blueandwhite]

Instead of coming down heavy on the sanfl to diminish it to a junior comp the AFL should;

1. For a change do something about grass roots footy Australia wide.Its under threat. For example the AUskick participant numbers in the South football club zone are at an alltime low. Centrals area is not much better.These are the 2 expanding areas in SA this should ring alarm bells everywhere.

2. Forget pouring money into GWS and Gold Coast, and money hungry NRL players who cant even kick or run, and spend the money at regional level in areas which are the heartland of the game.

The Afl are only interested in the TV rights, which in the end bolster their salaries in the form of bonuses. GWS and GoldCoast are only ploys to expand the game hence the TV ratings.The AFL dont really care about the game itself. Sure we see a tv add with a few indigenous lads having a kick and catch, ususally sponsored by some corporate giant- but they really dont care.

[Dogwatcher]

This is something I wrote in November 2008.
Kind of relevant to this discussion.

Footy needs OS market

THERE were wall to wall football identities at the AFL’s industry conference, Play On – The Future of Australian Football – In Focus, held in Melbourne last week.
With the national draft, at which Berri’s Rhys Stanley was picked up by St Kilda, to be held on Saturday, there was an undercurrent of tension surrounding the event.
Kevin Sheedy was there, as was Eddie McGuire, Neale Daniher, Brett Burton, Mark Williams and Gerard Whateley among a myriad of football and media types.
Listening to them talk, while watching the way they circulated around the room was one of the more fascinating parts of the conference.
All the pre-draft talk was of the two talents Jack Watts, taken by Melbourne, and Nick Natanui, who went to West Coast; while there were plenty of rumours circulating about the plight of Ben Cousins.
The conference speakers provided an interesting and sometimes left of centre look at the game of Australian rules football and where it must head if it is to continue to prosper.
The theme that seemed to resonate over the two days was that the AFL must expand or perish in this more challenging economic climate.
The phrase “four codes, one wallet” (referring to the Australian rules’ battle with the rugby codes and soccer for hearts and minds) was introduced on day one of the conference and expanded upon by former National Football League commissioner Paul Tagliabue.
Mr Tagliabue pushed the need for the AFL to expand overseas in order to increase the talent pool available to the game, as well as to take advantage of the financial riches that can arrive from taking the game into Asia and the Middle East.
It was a theme pushed by the very next speaker Ian McLeod, the current managing director of Coles supermarkets and the former head of the Glasgow Celtic Football Club, as well as by Peter Linford, the senior commissioner to South Asia for Austrade.
The question for country people, and grassroots football supporters in particular, is where does that leave us?
If the AFL directs its energies to further building markets in western Sydney, the Gold Coast and further a field to overseas nations, will there be less money in the pot for grassroots levels?
That question was not answered at the conference and it would seem football lobby groups at grassroots levels are going to need to continue to push to make sure funding comes our way to keep the game alive in their areas – the heartland of Australian rules football.

[JK]

Whilst still not a perfect vehicle for doing so, perhaps the SANFL figures this will help them to try to achieve what the Salary Cap is intended for, but has been too hard for them to police?

Or perhaps the SANFL is just as money hungry as big brother hence the sub-serviance? (is that a word?)

Either way, I agree with other sentiments, poor form SANFL.

[sjt]

Whilst still not a perfect vehicle for doing so, perhaps the SANFL figures this will help them to try to achieve what the Salary Cap is intended for, but has been too hard for them to police?

Or perhaps the SANFL is just as money hungry as big brother hence the sub-serviance? (is that a word?)

Either way, I agree with other sentiments, poor form SANFL.

Agreed, that could be part of the intention. Perhaps they need a points system though. For example having played, VFL or being on a "list" is worth x points, playing country NSW football is worth considerably less.
The other weakness of this is, I don't have much doubt Boyd would be getting paid more than Habel or Milne for Centrals (as an example). In addition, their own document reveals the amount of imports has dropped significantly, anyway, without an import rule.
I think your second point more the reason. They're being "subservient"

[gadj1976]

Instead of coming down heavy on the sanfl to diminish it to a junior comp the AFL should;

1. For a change do something about grass roots footy Australia wide.Its under threat. For example the AUskick participant numbers in the South football club zone are at an alltime low. Centrals area is not much better.These are the 2 expanding areas in SA this should ring alarm bells everywhere.

2. Forget pouring money into GWS and Gold Coast, and money hungry NRL players who cant even kick or run, and spend the money at regional level in areas which are the heartland of the game.

B&W, I agree with your points.

I noted also that my father who arrived back from the U16 championships said that the AFL weren't able to fund the 16's trip to the AFL GF this year (as it did last year) because they didn't have funds. It's a bit rich to say 'expand the comp' and subsequently prop up those two teams in their infancy (expected to be 10-20 years) and not be able to look after the CURRENT crop of young players wanting to play at the highest level.

These kids are literally two years away from being eligible for the draft. IMO it doesn't send a great message when they can't show some respect to the country's U16 teams. Please note, it's not just SA not going, it all states represented at the championships.

Once again, the AFL seems to be doing the right thing for the media and for it's own benefit but behind the scenes it isn't as forthcoming with funds when the benefit and kudos aren't as great in the media's eyes.

Regarding the import rule itself - you'd think the SANFL would gradually bring it in. ie, anyone currently playing for their teams would be outside the ruling and only future imports would be classified by the ruling. Within 10 years time the rule would be in force.

[doggies4eva]

How will the Crows and Port players be treated that are drafted into SANFL clubs. WIll they be "imports" or does an import have to be club initiated?

[sjt]

How will the Crows and Port players be treated that are drafted into SANFL clubs. WIll they be "imports" or does an import have to be club initiated?

I don't believe they'll be considered imports. I can't remember the article referring to Henderson (as one example) as an import.

[spell_check]

I think we should go to 16 a side on the field to help counter the GWS and Gold Coast drain on the clubs. It should also help to spread the small amount of money allowed to players.

[Strawb]

I think we should go to 16 a side on the field to help counter the GWS and Gold Coast drain on the clubs. It should also help to spread the small amount of money allowed to players.

It worked for the Old VFA for years You take out the wings and it frees up room but i dunno if the SANFL would consider this as an Idea.

[HeartBeatsTrue]

I think we should go to 16 a side on the field to help counter the GWS and Gold Coast drain on the clubs. It should also help to spread the small amount of money allowed to players.

As long as they expand the bench to 5 players

Seriously though that wouldnt work. 2 less on the field mean players need to work harder which means more injuries which means shorter careers which means less players wanting to play which means lowering the standard even further.

[Strawb]

I think we should go to 16 a side on the field to help counter the GWS and Gold Coast drain on the clubs. It should also help to spread the small amount of money allowed to players.

As long as they expand the bench to 5 players

Seriously though that wouldnt work. 2 less on the field mean players need to work harder which means more injuries which means shorter careers which means less players wanting to play which means lowering the standard even further.

Dunno on that. I feel it will free up the play and make the game more exciting and have 4 on the bench. It will make player more accountable and the game would be more free flowing. Some of the old VFA footage except for where one bloke is belting another bloke shows how exciting and great the game was.

[HeartBeatsTrue]

Growing up watching the footy in the 80s, we didnt need 16 on the field to make it exciting and great. It was exciting and great with 18 on each team.

Who knows what 2 less players on each team will change today's style of play.

[Hondo]

Norwood have done reasonably well this year with no imports as i understand. How do the posters in this thread reconcile their thoughts on this import rule with the success Norwood has achieved this year? (I'll probably get shot down with some facts here because I haven't seen a lot of Norwood TBH - anyway, good for a discussion point I think).

In fact, if you read through the "rate your imports this year" thread I'm not seeing that limiting the amount of imports would have as big an impact as some are saying here. A few 8/10 and 9/10 and then others 4-5/10. surely a 4/10 import is just taking the spot of a good South Aussie lad? Leave the import where he came from I reckon (if he's 4/10).

Are there good enough players in the lower levels that would come up if funds normally spent on imports were used on them? Is there the SANFL equivalent of a Michael Barlow lurking down there?

With downflow of funds tight from the Crows and Power at the moment I'm not convinced that evening out the recruiting spend on imports through the 9 SANFL clubs is a bad thing. What to me is a bad thing is when our SANFL State team is made up of > 50% of ex VFL players. Just doesn't sit right. Those players that leave for the AFL are the elite best who either haven't yet played an SANFL game or only a handful. They were never going to have long SANFL careers anyway.

What could be looked at is an extra import(s) allowed if an SANFL club has an abnormally high number of players drafted to the AFL in one hit. So long as the SANFL phase it in and then allow imports who have stayed with their SANFL club for a set number of years to qualify as a "non-import" then it should work in theory.