Statement from an SANFL clubs GM

[Rushby Hinds]

"People don't want to see development, they want to see entertainment"

How did you react when you read this quote in Saturday's Advertiser?

[am Bays]

Going to be interesting to see how the supporters of his club are going to vote (if at all) given previous comments thus.....

North have successfully recruited, Glenelg haven't, surprise, surprise...

I was there for the U17's flag, U19's flag & reserves flag.

I'm tipping the last option is going to be the prefered vote options of supporters of clubs North of the Oxford Hotel.......

[Dog_ger]

I never seen or read the article. But the papers know how to sell themselves. I voted for the "out of context" thingy. I go to watch the league games only. I really don't have the time to watch a full day of football. Life's too full now days. When you work full time, and being a batchelor, trying to bring up a son, do the housework, do the gardening, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, etc, etc, etc, there just isn't time to waist watching a full day of football. I'm sure there are many people in the same boat as me. I go to every Centrals game, and I make myself go, because I need the break from the workload...! I catch up with the Other grades in the Sunday mail. Entertain ME...! Sorry Fella's....!

[drebin]

If we want to maintain the mantle as the next best comp behind the AFL then we need to only raise the salary cap but not limit the number of recruits into the league. We don't limit the numbers of players allowed to go from SANFL clubs to the AFL although it cannot be endless due to AFL clubs only having a certain number of picks (in both the main drafts and rookie draft). As it is good juniors get drafted and are lost to the SANFL before we get any great value out of them.
All SANFL clubs have different recruiting needs year to year so it all balances out over a longer term - clubs simply cannot keep bringing in 5-6 high profile recruits each year because if all stayed over a 5 year period then there would simply be no room for some players to play regardless of whether a club has the finances to do it. Centrals is a good example - with good selective recruiting in the late 1990's they have managed to both develop juniors through to league but at the same time selct the type of players need from interstate to fill positional needs and hang onto them in a winning enviroment meaning only 1 or 2 "name" recruits coming in each year. They may be a perception they need more interstate experienced players this year tas they have lost some quality players but they get two home bred stars back to start with plus couple of other good pick ups so far and you couldn't blame them for grabbing as many as they need so I am suprised by Kris Grant's statement about limiting the number of recruits.

North has been rebuilding over the past 2 years and due to shortcomings in key postional players and not wanting to rely on AFL listed players (due to the unknowns with selections) we have aggressively gone after players we need. Port is also in the same boat. The trick for North, Port (and South to a degree as they seem to have a revolving door of interstate name players in and out) is to hope that most of these players stay for a longer period other than 1-2 years and success is built on like the CDFC model. At the end of the day the philosophy clubs should be adopting is to be the best and to get the best available players both locally and from interstate. To do that we need to increase the salary cap and not limit numbers into our league. If all clubs have to match the frontrunners re recruiting then so be it - it surely lifts the standard and hopefully makes the league more attractive and will put it above any other State based comp.

I find it amusing that the league and media are worried about the financial strugglers like Sturt and Norwood (and to a lesser degree Glenelg according to their whinging supporters hey TB?) missing out - who's fault is that? All SANFL clubs have had the same opportunity to develop their pokies operations - hell North nearly went under until we moved our gaming away from Prospect Oval. We didn't get any sympathy or help (apart from Rob Gerard going guarantor on borrowings). It is up to clubs to solve their own problems - not expect every other club to tread water re the salary cap and restrictions on recruiting whilst they catch up.

Speaking to an ex SANFL CEO (of a struggling club in the 70/80's) he pointed out that the league and the top clubs in the late 70's and 80's (Port/Nwd/Sturt/Glenelg) couldn't give "two hoots" about the amount of money they were throwing around to attract/poach players back then whilst other clubs were struggling on and off he field but all of a sudden now we (the other clubs) have to worry about poor old Sturt and Norwood. Having said that they seem to be trying to address their financial situations by relocating their pokies and I hope for their sake and for the sake of healthy comp they make it but all I am doing is pointing out so called double standards with those percieved "Big SANFL powers" which presently Sturt/Norwood or Glenelg are not. You didn't hear North complaining through the late 90's and into the 2000's about salary caps etc and other clubs recruits - we just worked to improve our own situation rather than whinge about other clubs and their percieved advantages.

You can also thank North for the current trend to look elsewhere re gaming opportunities as everyone sat back quielty and watched whilst we moved off site into the unknown and the move proved to (a) save our club financially despite the legal hassles and (b) enable us to now own and operate 2 licenced premises. We should all thank the CDFC for providing the lead in being aggressive and developing Grand Central and showing how much money can be made from that sort of operation.

I say lift the cap by around $100K at this point and let clubs recruit who they like if they need those players - no limits. For info as I mentioned on another post - recently at the CEO's meeting at the SANFL only 2 clubs voted for an immediate lift in the cap - Centrals who also wanted the restrictions on recruits as pointed out by Kris Grant in today's tiser and North - who wanted no limitations. Interesting times ahead.

P.S. Sorry about the length of this post!!!

[Ecky]

What I would REALLY like to see is a table containing:

1) The SANFL salary cap for each year
2) The AFL salary cap for each year
3) The AFL minimum player salary for each year
4) The amount of income and expenditure of each SANFL club for each year NOT including any payments to players.

If these figures were available, you should be able to get a good idea on what is an appropriate level for a Salary Cap.

[am Bays]

Drebin

All good points, as a paid up and proud Bays supporter I admit I couldn't give a shit as a kid about other teams as long as we won in the 70, 80s and v/early 90s. And I bet you did too in the mid 80s to mid 90s when Footy Times columnist Dick Jones had supplanted Sturt with North as one of the four power clubs of the SANFL. Winners are grinners and loser can go please themselves, I have sometimes given the impression in some of my posts that I may have come across as a tad self rightous bemoaning other clubs success they have been more in jest. I am a firm believer in that you get success through hard work if others are succeeding they merely set the minimum standard for the rest to attain if they want to be successful.

So rather than be a smartar5e with some of my previous posts I offer these, I agree with Wedgie that the cap should be raised in line with inflation so we can maintain our status as the 2nd best comp, however given the AFL want a viable and strong VFL I think pressure with respect to development $$$ from the AFL to the SANFL will be brought to bear on the SANFL to minimise any increases in the cap.

The cap should be policed, rigorously a la what happened in Rugby League. Good Luck to Centrals for developing a winning culture (based on Ports), good selective recruiting and good development programs as witnessed by the number of local juniors (Schell, Steinburner, Dew, etc) who have formed the backbone of the premiership successes.

However I hope to think that since the cap was introduced that no team has been able to get away with flaunting the rules at the expense of other clubs in the manner that Cantebury did in Thugby league.

Interesting to note that Glenelg & North in the 80's and Port in the 90's had significant local juniors in their winning teams so on that basis..

Development of teams must be encouraged, so good local juniors can help bring success to your club, this will also occur through a lift, in line with inflation of the cap.

In a nutshell, keep the cap, lift it, police it well but encourage local development. I enjoy watching local juniors come through and being successful. I still remember my first after match presentations as a 9 yo in 1980 listening to the following players win U/19 awards at the club after they spiflicated Centrals at Elizabeth, McDermott, McGuinness and BOG Kernahan......

Hence I voted development.

PS I'm sorry about the length of the post too

[Wedgie]

None of the above for me, no reaction whatsoever as it was just a statement of common sense.

Its very simple if people were more interested in development than being entertained you'd have more people at a U10 Primary School game than an AFL game, then the statement would be incorrect.

I can only assume some people saw something between the lines that wasn't there or perhapd didn't read the full article to keep it in context. Obviously development is important though, that wasn't even mentioned and wasn't what the article was about. Considering it was the North GM who made the comment and any true SANFL footy fanknows who won U15, U17, U19 and Reserves flags in 2005 it's pretty obvious which club did the best job of development in recent times which puts the statement in even more context for those that couldn't understand.

[oldfella]

I allways worry that our local papers misquote or selectively quote on many occasions but at least SANFL is being given some press time --- I will not knock that.

While Junior development is critical for SANFL clubs and will become even more important, I believe the truth is that supporters want success and entertainment at League level.

While accepting there are many reasons - the fact is that for the last 7-8 years West Adelaide has been a force in U17/19 football but it has not helped the overall image of the club with supporters due to lack of success at senior level.

Some times lessons can be learnt from history --- while I am quite willing to be corrected (and probably will be but for many years Norwood was successfull at junior level but not a massive amout of those junior players went on to league ----- at the same time Norwood was highly rated at League level with teams that were based on recruited players in the majority (see next sentence). To save time - yes Aish, Taylor, Gallager etc were outright champions from the juniors but also consider John Wynne, Balme etc.

Many League players who supporters call home grown are from country zones and do all thier development in the country and then come down to play senior football -- they probably are not a product of the clubs junior development which I feel is the question here.

Its about getting the balance right and being very competative at League level over a period of time not just one year --- eg Centrals - Eagles at present.

At the end of the day success at League level gets them in the gate/become Members and that is the bottom line for the future.

[oldfella]

Sorry forgot to say that Drebin's first two paragraphs are (in my opinion) spot on.

[LBJ8]

Entertain me, but i don't want to see some clubs paying excessive amounts on players and then others sticking by the rules. These clubs should be fined and get points taken away from them, they should be held acountable, if other clubs can stick by the rules why can't they, it's a form of cheating and should be frowned upon by everyone. IMO, Increase the Salary Cap and have a restriction on the number of imports compared with your losses (eg you can gain 5+ cover for your players that you have lost due to the AFL and other state leagues), if we did get rid of the cap we might end up killing of a couple of current clubs in the future and it wouldn't be very entertaining to see that happen.....

[Spiritof64]

People won't stand on the hill in the wind and rain in the middle of winter if they are bored.

[stan]

Good to see that the out of context seems to be the front runner. These days unless you were there actaually talking to him you cant really be sure of what he meant. Selective quoting is a great thing, dont we all love it

[drebin]

The comments by Glen Elliot were out of contect because I was privy to his statement as told to me personally prior to it going to press - pity the Advertiser didn't print the full balanced statement instead of fishing for "controversial" bits!

For info (certainly at North) there is avery low percentage of players who play 17's and 19's that actually go on and play league football. So given that statement/stat (I will ge thre officila NAFC percentage tommorow) you expect most of your senior players to come from a variety of other sources - Interstate, Country, other SANFL clubs. If we limit recruiting and rely on home grown proucts then we may as well have a salary cap like the WAFL and the VFL and watch the interest in the local football go if it is just a development ground for juniors with a few players that can't cut the grade elsewhere filling up the teams. This could drive the types of imports (and our own returning AFL players) we have now to the QAFL and ACTFL- both have very viable financial clubs willing to pay their prices and to improve their comps and in the end if we don't pay then someone else will.

[Hazydog]

Let's face it - the SANFL will never be able to dedicate enough resources to monitor a cap with any degree of accuracy. Limiting interstate recruits seems a good way of enforcing junior development, however you would surely have to factor in how many players clubs lost in the draft before stipulating how many players you could recruit. For example when Westies lost 7 or so a couple of seasons ago, surely they would be entitled to recruit more players that a club who lost only 1 or 2.
The relationship between SANFL clubs & AFL clubs should be a 2 way street. If they believe we should be a development league first & foremost- fine.. just pull the scoreboards down, let people in for free & see how long it lasts.
Does the average member prefer to see a premiership or it's club have the most players drafted??

[drebin]

Good post hazydog - I wonder how many people have considered your points!

[am Bays]

Development, is not just to the level above it is to SANFL league level too. Each club will be lucky to average more than 2 draftees per year over a five year period, So if you introduce four players per year to your side from your zones, and two get drafted and two stay for over a five year period that is half a "premiership side" if you win the ultimate.

The point I'm trying to make is yes recruiting is fine for topping up but it would be interesting what the %age of the last fifteen years premiership teams have been

1. Home grown from the clubs zones (includes AFL listed players originally from their zone)
2. Interstate recruits (includes AFL listed players picked up in mini draft)
3. Players from other SANFL clubs/zones

My tip would be home grown development would be the biggest source of playing talent to each of the premiers since 1991.

Get a player drafted and it is $$$ to your club, therefore more resources to recruit from other areas. For long term success at a club home grown is best as Port and Centrals have demonstrated. Good development programs helps entice delisted AFL players back to your club as they remember how good the club was to the previously. Before you jump down my throat I know warm and fuzzy feelings about their original clubs isn't the only reason why players return....

[doggies4eva]

This quote is hard to argue with - why else have SANFL crowds dropped and AFL become the main game??

[Ruck Legend]

The salary cap is there for a reason - to help struggling clubs compete against more financial clubs. We all know the more money you have the more players you can recruit. However we all know how dominant Central's have been over the past many years on and off the field. However off the field they have worked very hard and should be rewarded for that. Running an SANFL club is a like running business. The smarter you are and hard working you are the more profitable you become.
The more money you have leads to better offers you can put out to players, the better players you can get, this leads to better on-field performances, which leads to more membership, sponsorship, I think you get my point!!!
Also too each club is part of a competition that wants an even competition therefore back to the salary cap.
I do not think there is a true answer to what is happening. I definantly think you need a salary cap but how much is the question? At the moment $305,000 is not a lot for a salary cap. - For example that is only approx $15,000 between each player you steps out for A grade on a Saturday.
Not much hey for the pre-season that starts in November, and a possible grand final in October. It is a full-time committment.
I think the problem starts with the SANFL and there promotion of the product. You can't have that dickhead Tim "but wait there is more" promoting the product.
This is where it needs to start - at the promotion side of things - the SANFL need to promote their product as a league competition. Come on SANFL!!!!!

[MST]

People won't stand on the hill in the wind and rain in the middle of winter if they are bored.

Spot on spirit........ Perhaps that is why South's attendances are amongst the worst in the competition.