by mal » Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:45 pm
by Dog Day Afternoon » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:02 pm
by Rising Power » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:09 pm
tipper wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Any SANFL fan who agrees with pushing the problem to the amateur league is being a tad hypocritical.
i know, and i dont necessarily agree with it, i just used my hypocritical post to point out the hypocrisy of a power fan not wanting to put the problem in the saafl's lap, but also be perfectly happy to lump it all on the sanfl (of course, that the magpies have a stronger sanfl side with all their spare players at that level would have nothing to do with that argument though)
by SimonH » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:11 pm
Gee, never thought I'd agree with Rising Power on this sort of topic. This sounds like a bunch of effort to take it nowhere. Mandatory ammos (and why would it be ammos? Has Port already decided that its 'Academy side' is going to flee the SANFL reserves?) is a retrograde change as things sit now. Port Adelaide would have been as strong, or stronger, in the finals series with a 14-listed-player restriction. Take out Butcher and your 4 other 'worst' AFL-listed players and add in Bruggemann, Biemans, Robbie Young, Slattery, Johansen. The quality of the side isn't going to go down. The effort at that end needs to go into stopping an AFL club using its AFL-club resources to recruit top-up players—which has partially been fixed for the future, but the rule changes announced last month mean that Port has lots of motivation to hang on to its existing SANFL-listers, none of whom it's required to get rid of. And lots of motivation to keep 'em means lots of motivation to make it worth their while to stay. The SANFL needs to either enforce the $400 per game rule strictly, or change it to something that will be strictly enforced (for an example at the crazy opposite end of the spectrum, see the WAFL figures below!). 'Cos the situation with Summerton cf Slattery this year has been a joke.Rising Power wrote:Red Rocket wrote:Had lunch with a board member of an SANFL club today and he mentioned that despite yesterdays result there are still changes afoot.
At the moment 4 clubs are on board and trying to gather more support but he mentioned that it probably wouldnt get pushed until next year.
A lot depends on the two sides forming an alliance with an amateur side but the proposal would limit the ammount of AFL listed players per game to 14, the others would then go to the ammateur side to play. Small tweak to finals eligibity aswell with 6 games required to qualify unless both sides are still in (like the weekend) As he said too late to get it up this year but will be pushing hard next year for it to be introduced in 2016. He didnt say which 4 clubs were currently onboard but obviously it would be good if all clubs jumped on.
There was also talk of the AFL sides being excluded from finals but a couple of clubs have knocked that on the head already
So push the problem onto the SAAFL? If 19 full time professional players are available like in the GF, a single SAAFL club would take on the additional 5. That would make a hell of a difference to the results of games at that level. Would be interesting to see what changes are actually made.
by Booney » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:17 pm
by bennymacca » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:38 pm
Booney wrote:Sure got all the answers....
by SimonH » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:49 pm
Not a team. The AFL would never let that happen. The Victorian teams would have an alignment with a TAC Cup team; Freo/WCE and Crows/Pahhhhr would divide up the 'Colts' and U/18 sides between them (in the case of SA, choose 4 teams each); and Bris/GC and Syd/GWS already have arrangements dividing up the state they're in for the purpose of their 'academies', so nothing would need to change for them. Then all teams just pick those they wanna pick from their feeder clubs, to make up the numbers in their ressies side. Swans ressies already operate this way; their 'top-ups' are almost universally under 18 yoa.bennymacca wrote:Booney wrote:Sure got all the answers....
It does seem pretty good though. I don't see any people saying that an afl reserves comp isn't the best outcome.
Each of the afl teams having an u18 team would be controversial though
by bennymacca » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:54 pm
by bennymacca » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:55 pm
by FlyingHigh » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:04 pm
by Aerie » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:51 pm
by valleys07 » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:54 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:30 am
by holden78 » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:31 am
tipper wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Any SANFL fan who agrees with pushing the problem to the amateur league is being a tad hypocritical.
i know, and i dont necessarily agree with it, i just used my hypocritical post to point out the hypocrisy of a power fan not wanting to put the problem in the saafl's lap, but also be perfectly happy to lump it all on the sanfl (of course, that the magpies have a stronger sanfl side with all their spare players at that level would have nothing to do with that argument though)
by dedja » Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:12 am
by Aerie » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:08 pm
dedja wrote:This is where I struggle the most because for the moment, I can't see the forest for the trees for that strategy.
by FlyingHigh » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:40 pm
by FlyingHigh » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:50 pm
dedja wrote:a generic sense). Conversely, it does no good if the same supporters gloat about everyone else catching up The SANFL is not dead, 38K to the GF is healthy and the GF was a good spectacle.
The issue for me is that the 10 teams are not playing on equal terms. Port and the Crows operate under different conditions (and this year to each other) to the 8 SANFL clubs.
Unfortunately, the AFL teams requirements for a reserves side and maximising the selection of AFL listed players, and the ideals of the SANFL to have an equal and fair competition are impossible to achieve together.
Add in the presumption of the SANFL and the clubs that voted for the inclusion of the AFL that the participation of the AFL clubs in the SANFL is required to maintain sponsorship, media and spectator exposure. This is the killer for me. Without this presumption, then we could have just included the AFL reserves sides in the SANFL reserves and I wouldn't care less whether the competition was compromised or was won each year by an AFL club.
Unfortunately, now that the AFL clubs are in the SANFl, they're not going away in a hurry.
Perversely, one could somewhat justifiably mount an argument that the inclusion of the AFL sides this year has either been a resounding success or somewhat a failure, depending on what lens you are looking through.
My 2c is that the SANFL and the 8 SANFL clubs each should state what they consider the consider to be the KPIs and success factors for the competition and their individual clubs, because at the moment most of us aren't sure what they are. Due to this, we all seem to be guessing what defines success, and this breeds conspiracy theories, personal prejudices, not wanted to concede that the world has changed, etc.
Also, whilst I don't like what has happened to the SANFL in 2014, I don't think taking it out on the supporters of the AFL teams is good for anyone. In particular, the Port Magpies supporters who must feel somewhat wedged between their tradition and the new world (note that collective terms such as wharfie, scum, etc are acceptable if used in when they themselves didn't do any hard yards to obtain their unfair advantage, or even acknowledging that they have an unfair advantage, which isn't diluted if they don't happen to win the flag.
You can't really blame the administration of the AFL teams either. Their concern is about the welfare of their clubs, which is exactly what the SANFL clubs should be doing.
Regardless of which side of the argument one may sit, there can be not doubt that everyone isn't a winner and there are opportunities to improve I also believe you can't blame the SANFL clubs themselves. By this I don't mean the Presidents who voted on the AFL proposal, but the CEOs, office administrators, volunteers and players. This is why I increased my involvement and financial contribution to my club, because the need for assistance is currently at its greatest.
I know there are a few that have decided to decrease or withdraw their involvement, support and financial contribution to their club and that is their right to do so, but t pains me to see this occurring.
The responsibility for the inclusion of the the AFL teams in the SANFL falls squarely on the SANFL commission and SANFL Directors. They had the power to not only decide whether it happened at all, but the terms and conditions on any acceptance. It is the duty of all to discuss and try to influence our Presidents to ensure that we not only are appropriately informed, but are seen to be appropriately informed. I know there are those that will say that they tried this before to no avail, but ultimately the club's members have control if the constitutional tools are used correctly and effectively. If you strongly disagree with the decisions of your President (and therefore your Board), then vote them out.
the situation.
What is now required is a clear strategy to manage the SANFL competition so that the competition thrives within an even and competitive environment.
This is where I struggle the most because for the moment, I can't see the forest for the trees for that strategy.
by Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:51 pm
by FlyingHigh » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:53 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |