HFL Division 1 (Central)

[The Dictator]

The import rule in essence is the points system is it not? It limits the amount of imports you have. Without players attracting points the prices will still be the same as now as its supply and demand.

I think the country clubs/associations should band together to stand against the SANFL and SAAFL from using these bullying tactics. How many players from the country have moved down to Adelaide for work/uni and signed up at a city club? Hundreds of thousands.

Who are they to tell clubs that they are not allowed to try and recruit the best players they possibly can to their club!

[Howard]

The import rule in essence is the points system is it not? It limits the amount of imports you have. Without players attracting points the prices will still be the same as now as its supply and demand.

I think the country clubs/associations should band together to stand against the SANFL and SAAFL from using these bullying tactics. How many players from the country have moved down to Adelaide for work/uni and signed up at a city club? Hundreds of thousands.

Who are they to tell clubs that they are not allowed to try and recruit the best players they possibly can to their club!

Seems to me the SANFL are doing clubs a favour, or trying to at least, ie curtailing the amount of money clubs are wasting on players. Each year only one club per competition gets the value out of their recruits, the rest of the comp have spent buckets of cash for no real return.
This money is usually scratched together by a handful of committee members, who invariably are burnt out after a few years.
The amount of money paid these days is ridiculous and simply not sustainable, unrest within the clubs is usually not far away, refer to previous post by a club sponsor.

[daysofourlives]

The import rule in essence is the points system is it not? It limits the amount of imports you have. Without players attracting points the prices will still be the same as now as its supply and demand.

I think the country clubs/associations should band together to stand against the SANFL and SAAFL from using these bullying tactics. How many players from the country have moved down to Adelaide for work/uni and signed up at a city club? Hundreds of thousands.

Who are they to tell clubs that they are not allowed to try and recruit the best players they possibly can to their club!

Seems to me the SANFL are doing clubs a favour, or trying to at least, ie curtailing the amount of money clubs are wasting on players. Each year only one club per competition gets the value out of their recruits, the rest of the comp have spent buckets of cash for no real return.
This money is usually scratched together by a handful of committee members, who invariably are burnt out after a few years.
The amount of money paid these days is ridiculous and simply not sustainable, unrest within the clubs is usually not far away, refer to previous post by a club sponsor.

Like they did the clubs a favour by introducing the points system, all that did was drive the prices up.
Give me a break about the SANFL clubs having the interests of country clubs at heart

[qwerty]

Agree with the above. Points limits the number of players a club can recruit and drives up the price as clubs enter the market to bid for the services of the 'higher calibre players'. Its essentially a supply and demand scenario that inturn flows into the lower calibre players. Previously, a club could recurit a group of 6 or so mates/people who had played together or wanted to play at the same club and of course they cannot afford to pay them all big $$$ and they were more likely to pay for less if they could all play together. Points system only allows a small amount of players to be recurited at a time, so a lot harder for these 'groups' to be attracted to a club at the same time. There is also the other spin offs that these recurits if they stay and their points go down then also have a barganing chip to increase their payments or the club is forced to use more points to replace a player worth low points. Locals or junior players also have this barganing chip. Scrap the points system and let the well managed clubs be successful.

[cracka]

The import rule in essence is the points system is it not? It limits the amount of imports you have. Without players attracting points the prices will still be the same as now as its supply and demand.

I think the country clubs/associations should band together to stand against the SANFL and SAAFL from using these bullying tactics. How many players from the country have moved down to Adelaide for work/uni and signed up at a city club? Hundreds of thousands.

Who are they to tell clubs that they are not allowed to try and recruit the best players they possibly can to their club!

Seems to me the SANFL are doing clubs a favour, or trying to at least, ie curtailing the amount of money clubs are wasting on players. Each year only one club per competition gets the value out of their recruits, the rest of the comp have spent buckets of cash for no real return.
This money is usually scratched together by a handful of committee members, who invariably are burnt out after a few years.
The amount of money paid these days is ridiculous and simply not sustainable, unrest within the clubs is usually not far away, refer to previous post by a club sponsor.

Like they did the clubs a favour by introducing the points system, all that did was drive the prices up.
Give me a break about the SANFL clubs having the interests of country clubs at heart

Whats the solution to curbing the amount these mercanaries are getting. Players were getting paid ridiculous amounts long before the APPS came in,Hahndorf were paying players more than the SANFL back in the 60's.Noel Duffield admitted it in a story in the courier years ago.

[cracka]

Agree with the above. Points limits the number of players a club can recruit and drives up the price as clubs enter the market to bid for the services of the 'higher calibre players'. Its essentially a supply and demand scenario that inturn flows into the lower calibre players. Previously, a club could recurit a group of 6 or so mates/people who had played together or wanted to play at the same club and of course they cannot afford to pay them all big $$$ and they were more likely to pay for less if they could all play together. Points system only allows a small amount of players to be recurited at a time, so a lot harder for these 'groups' to be attracted to a club at the same time. There is also the other spin offs that these recurits if they stay and their points go down then also have a barganing chip to increase their payments or the club is forced to use more points to replace a player worth low points. Locals or junior players also have this barganing chip. Scrap the points system and let the well managed clubs be successful.

Dont get well managed clubs confused with clubs who have a major benefector that throws money at them,thats probably what has driven the prices up just as much as the APPS.

[Legs Man]

The points system is the major problem here and something that hasn't been managed well.

A reduction in points certainly drives up player payments particularly when a club has minimal points to utilise - thus spending more to secure a player worthy of allocating points to.

Clubs wont give up 3 - 4 points for a player that wont have a big impact.

This ultimately results in higher remuneration being afforded - when extra points would actually allow the load to be spread.

11 points minimum (possibly 13) for all clubs regardless of position they finish in and allow clubs an even playing field.

Anything less than this gives the mercenary type player too much bargaining power.

It's actually common sense - and as stated previously a supply and demand situation.

[cracka]

The points system is the major problem here and something that hasn't been managed well.

A reduction in points certainly drives up player payments particularly when a club has minimal points to utilise - thus spending more to secure a player worthy of allocating points to.

Clubs wont give up 3 - 4 points for a player that wont have a big impact.

This ultimately results in higher remuneration being afforded - when extra points would actually allow the load to be spread.

11 points minimum (possibly 13) for all clubs regardless of position they finish in and allow clubs an even playing field.

Anything less than this gives the mercenary type player too much bargaining power.

It's actually common sense - and as stated previously a supply and demand situation.

Like I said,mercenaries have been getting paid more in country leagues than at SANFL level long before the APPS came in,its just probably more rife now as clubs are limited as to how many mercenaries they can recruit.

[Look Good In Leather]

The points system is the major problem here and something that hasn't been managed well.

A reduction in points certainly drives up player payments particularly when a club has minimal points to utilise - thus spending more to secure a player worthy of allocating points to.

Clubs wont give up 3 - 4 points for a player that wont have a big impact.

This ultimately results in higher remuneration being afforded - when extra points would actually allow the load to be spread.

11 points minimum (possibly 13) for all clubs regardless of position they finish in and allow clubs an even playing field.

Anything less than this gives the mercenary type player too much bargaining power.

It's actually common sense - and as stated previously a supply and demand situation.

Like I said,mercenaries have been getting paid more in country leagues than at SANFL level long before the APPS came in,its just probably more rife now as clubs are limited as to how many mercenaries they can recruit.

Or maybe, like everything, its just more visible now with the internet/social media/SA Footy etc

Players seem happier to talk about what they are getting these days compared with it being not discussed previously

[Legs Man]

The points system is the major problem here and something that hasn't been managed well.

A reduction in points certainly drives up player payments particularly when a club has minimal points to utilise - thus spending more to secure a player worthy of allocating points to.

Clubs wont give up 3 - 4 points for a player that wont have a big impact.

This ultimately results in higher remuneration being afforded - when extra points would actually allow the load to be spread.

11 points minimum (possibly 13) for all clubs regardless of position they finish in and allow clubs an even playing field.

Anything less than this gives the mercenary type player too much bargaining power.

It's actually common sense - and as stated previously a supply and demand situation.

Like I said,mercenaries have been getting paid more in country leagues than at SANFL level long before the APPS came in,its just probably more rife now as clubs are limited as to how many mercenaries they can recruit.

Agreed Cracka - This is the crux of the current problem - hence the need for an even amount of points for all clubs at a level that allows for a spread of players.
Take away the demand and it will even itself out and mean mercenaries can't demand such high payments.
If a club can recruit 3 capable players for the same amount as 1 alleged superstar the smart clubs will take the 3 player option.
Clubs that have their "hands tied" with minimal points are more likely to ensure the player paid is of the best calibre available.
Effectively, less points = higher single player payments, as their value is driven up.

Bear in mind this also alleviates the problem of the governing body allocating extra points with little or no regard for the impact it has.
Even amount of points for all clubs at a level of 11 minimum that is SET IN STONE.

[cracka]

Legsman, have you heard anything on Echungas appeal from being relegated.

[Howard]

The import rule in essence is the points system is it not? It limits the amount of imports you have. Without players attracting points the prices will still be the same as now as its supply and demand.

I think the country clubs/associations should band together to stand against the SANFL and SAAFL from using these bullying tactics. How many players from the country have moved down to Adelaide for work/uni and signed up at a city club? Hundreds of thousands.

Who are they to tell clubs that they are not allowed to try and recruit the best players they possibly can to their club!

Seems to me the SANFL are doing clubs a favour, or trying to at least, ie curtailing the amount of money clubs are wasting on players. Each year only one club per competition gets the value out of their recruits, the rest of the comp have spent buckets of cash for no real return.
This money is usually scratched together by a handful of committee members, who invariably are burnt out after a few years.
The amount of money paid these days is ridiculous and simply not sustainable, unrest within the clubs is usually not far away, refer to previous post by a club sponsor.

Like they did the clubs a favour by introducing the points system, all that did was drive the prices up.
Give me a break about the SANFL clubs having the interests of country clubs at heart

Hey don't verbal me - I didn't say SANFL clubs have the interest of country clubs at heart - what I said was that paying ridiculous amounts of money (for no return) is not sustainable and can cause unrest at a club.

The SANFL, as a major player in the games development and overall administration (in SA), has a role in the evolution of the points and player payment system.

[Legs Man]

Legsman, have you heard anything on Echungas appeal from being relegated.

Hey Cracka

Only update I have is that on legal opinion (currently engaged) the points accumulated from finals matches are valid and must be accepted by the HFL in the relegation process.

The constitution states no delineation between minor and major round matches - even though the HFL assumes and has apparently stated there is.

This would put Bridgewater in the gun.

Haven't personally heard the HFL opinion or stance on this - but apparently it can go as high as the Supreme Court and will if required.

Echunga have a strong case which will be actioned as far as it needs to go if the league doesn't include the points from finals.

It will be interesting to see how much of the hills clubs money (and it's their money) that the HFL directors are willing to spend on a drawn out legal battle.

The question also arises as to whether the clubs have a say in this decision by the league, or whether they will take sole responsibility as the proprietors of the constitution.

Let's hope common sense prevails and Central clubs get a crack at beating the reigning premiers in 2015.

It would be a very hollow and worthless season otherwise.

[chopper7]

When are most clubs cranking up for pre season?

[cracka]

Legsman, have you heard anything on Echungas appeal from being relegated.

Hey Cracka

Only update I have is that on legal opinion (currently engaged) the points accumulated from finals matches are valid and must be accepted by the HFL in the relegation process.

The constitution states no delineation between minor and major round matches - even though the HFL assumes and has apparently stated there is.

This would put Bridgewater in the gun.

Haven't personally heard the HFL opinion or stance on this - but apparently it can go as high as the Supreme Court and will if required.

Echunga have a strong case which will be actioned as far as it needs to go if the league doesn't include the points from finals.

It will be interesting to see how much of the hills clubs money (and it's their money) that the HFL directors are willing to spend on a drawn out legal battle.

The question also arises as to whether the clubs have a say in this decision by the league, or whether they will take sole responsibility as the proprietors of the constitution.

Let's hope common sense prevails and Central clubs get a crack at beating the reigning premiers in 2015.

It would be a very hollow and worthless season otherwise.

Kym said at the last meeting he has spoken to club presidents & the majority are against an 11 team comp,I got the impression the HFL were adament its Echunga that will be relegated so unfortunately it looks like a court battle is on.

[CouchExpert]

First time poster but long time reader.No offense buy I think you guys are barking up the wrong when it comes to increasing the points per club,let me explain: If you have say 60 country clubs state wide(just a figure for the demonstration) & they all have say 13 points each this would possibly allow them all in theory to "recruit" between 3 & 4 quality players each.This means that the clubs are looking at recruiting somewhere between 180 & 240 players state wide.Now for arguments sake lets assume that there is a pool of180 talented players willing to be recruited at the right price,Now in this case demand (IE the clubs) outstrips Supply(the recruits) and the recruits can name their price.Now if you drop the points to 10 per club, and the clubs could only recruit 2 or possibly 3 players & the pool of recruits stays the same then supply will outstrip demand & the price per recruit will drop.
I don't agree that this will make the players worth more as I think clubs will be more cautious with their recruiting and will opt to recruit as many players as they can,which would mean going for 3 point players instead of 4 point players .If you still think I am talking crap(and you are entitled to your opinion) then the best example I can give of extra points driving up player payments is in my own league the Kowree-Naracoorte-Tatiara league. This season, 2014 the two clubs with biggest spend were the two who had the most points(16),these being Padthaway & Kaniva-Leeor.In fact it's common knowledge around the league that Padthaway spent somewhere between $250,000 & $300,000!!
The points system works but it needs to be tweaked.Chhers

[Look Good In Leather]

First time poster but long time reader.No offense buy I think you guys are barking up the wrong when it comes to increasing the points per club,let me explain: If you have say 60 country clubs state wide(just a figure for the demonstration) & they all have say 13 points each this would possibly allow them all in theory to "recruit" between 3 & 4 quality players each.This means that the clubs are looking at recruiting somewhere between 180 & 240 players state wide.Now for arguments sake lets assume that there is a pool of180 talented players willing to be recruited at the right price,Now in this case demand (IE the clubs) outstrips Supply(the recruits) and the recruits can name their price.Now if you drop the points to 10 per club, and the clubs could only recruit 2 or possibly 3 players & the pool of recruits stays the same then supply will outstrip demand & the price per recruit will drop.
I don't agree that this will make the players worth more as I think clubs will be more cautious with their recruiting and will opt to recruit as many players as they can,which would mean going for 3 point players instead of 4 point players .If you still think I am talking crap(and you are entitled to your opinion) then the best example I can give of extra points driving up player payments is in my own league the Kowree-Naracoorte-Tatiara league. This season, 2014 the two clubs with biggest spend were the two who had the most points(16),these being Padthaway & Kaniva-Leeor.In fact it's common knowledge around the league that Padthaway spent somewhere between $250,000 & $300,000!!
The points system works but it needs to be tweaked.Chhers

There is some logic to what you are saying except the other variable you did not include was the available funds at each club. If the clubs you talk about have a budget for $3,000 a week for those 3 players, this amount is not going to suddenly disappear and instead is likely to be spent on the two players. This is the main way that player payments are being pushed up, the same players then are able to find a club that will pay $1500 instead of the $1000 they would have received.

The money is just being distributed to fewer players. The main reason there is so much hysteria is that this change in behaviour due to the implemented points system coincided with better growing conditions for farmers who had been previously battling one of our worst ever droughts.

[CouchExpert]

Points are are in a way a form of cash,the more points a clubs has the more they can spend on players.As you say less points may mean that some of the best imports may get more money but I think a lot of clubs may think more carefully about how they spend their money.The reason I say this is if you have only enough points to recruit two four point players you would have to ask the question if the importing of these players will make you a genuine premiership contender.I would suggest that there are very few clubs in this position.The other thing that is worth considering that most of these "mercenaries" do want to play with clubs that are going to be successful. I know that imports that my clubs has had in the past has chosen us over other clubs paying the same money purely because they believed we were more likely to win a premiership
There are plenty of other things I could say about the points system but I'll leave that for another post

[The Dictator]

Sorry for bombing the HFL page, perhaps it needs its own thread on this topic!

What the salary cap will do is destroy competitions like KNTFL, RMFL, GSFL, YPFL etc etc as those clubs will not be able to attract a certain calibre of player for $500 for the travel. Fact. Are they going to reduce the metro competitions to a $200 salary cap to keep the other affiliated leagues at least able to compete in the market for high quality players? why not be smart and have a salary cap geographically focused whilst keeping the points system. Anything over 100km affords extra $300 per 100km. Say Bordertown, 3 hours travel (close to 300km?) attracts $600 giving them $1100 to attract some players within their point allocation.

[batmanbegins]

Any more recruiting news going around?

Blackwood picking up bricknell and Thompson should improve them significantly, even if they lost their recruits from last year.

Lobey would almost be equal favorites with echunga next year with their pick ups to add onto their local strength.

Surely barker will pick up a few handy players, especially with block in charge and can imagine hahndorf will be much improved next year.

Should make for a really good comp next year once again. Have heard Gordon may be leaving lofty, any truth to that rumor?