The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[Tech1]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/norwood-to-lead-review-of-afl-reserves-in-sanfl/story-fnig5e6k-1226937921651

The irony. My favourite bit was the part about not destroying the Sanfl.

Only way for this to happen is for Port to go back to what they where in 2013, all AFL listed players spread between the clubs. Port gave a immediate flat out no to the concept when it was handed to the club late last year.

How is that the only way?
Just make it a rule where all top up players for Port and Adelaide are u23 and no mature age roles such as Callinan.
Summerton and co just have to find new clubs next year, fairly simple.
Also no home games for Port at Alberton.
Very easy to implement these changes

Exactly, very easy to implement. Not fussed about the no games at Alberton or if they don't want to use loan players but the rest should happen, plus the extra money that should come from the Power can go towards the 8 clubs salary cap, an extra $50k per team would be a great start.

[Tech1]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/norwood-to-lead-review-of-afl-reserves-in-sanfl/story-fnig5e6k-1226937921651

The irony. My favourite bit was the part about not destroying the Sanfl.

Only way for this to happen is for Port to go back to what they where in 2013, all AFL listed players spread between the clubs. Port gave a immediate flat out no to the concept when it was handed to the club late last year.

How is that the only way?
Just make it a rule where all top up players for Port and Adelaide are u23 and no mature age roles such as Callinan.
Summerton and co just have to find new clubs next year, fairly simple.
Also no home games for Port at Alberton.
Very easy to implement these changes

It's the only way because Port don't want "loan" players. Port flat out said we will never have "loan" players like the crows. Port will not give up it's jnr's and it's academy side. Plain and simple if they want us to go the same model as the crows then will reject it and go back to how thing where before. Think norwood will change it's mind pretty quick once they realise the zones and money have gone from them.

Who cares if you want or don't want. Your jnrs are gone next year and your Academy side can piss off to the saafl. You can still have your players from a squad of 15 but they can all be under 23, this has all been suggested and covered before, the top up loan players is just an option, you don't have to use it.

[Jim05]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/norwood-to-lead-review-of-afl-reserves-in-sanfl/story-fnig5e6k-1226937921651

The irony. My favourite bit was the part about not destroying the Sanfl.

Only way for this to happen is for Port to go back to what they where in 2013, all AFL listed players spread between the clubs. Port gave a immediate flat out no to the concept when it was handed to the club late last year.

How is that the only way?
Just make it a rule where all top up players for Port and Adelaide are u23 and no mature age roles such as Callinan.
Summerton and co just have to find new clubs next year, fairly simple.
Also no home games for Port at Alberton.
Very easy to implement these changes

It's the only way because Port don't want "loan" players. Port flat out said we will never have "loan" players like the crows. Port will not give up it's jnr's and it's academy side. Plain and simple if they want us to go the same model as the crows then will reject it and go back to how thing where before. Think norwood will change it's mind pretty quick once they realise the zones and money have gone from them.

Isnt Bruggemann a loan player?
He isnt from your zone so im assuming he must be.

[kickinit]

Isnt Bruggemann a loan player?
He isnt from your zone so im assuming he must be.

Nope signed with the magpies for the entire year.

[Jim05]

Isnt Bruggemann a loan player?
He isnt from your zone so im assuming he must be.

Nope signed with the magpies for the entire year.

Whats stopping you signing a dozen others next year then?
Under the rules ive proposed you could sign as many of these as required for top up players as long as they are u23. Just means Summerton and others have to leave

[kickinit]

Isnt Bruggemann a loan player?
He isnt from your zone so im assuming he must be.

Nope signed with the magpies for the entire year.

Whats stopping you signing a dozen others next year then?
Under the rules ive proposed you could sign as many of these as required for top up players as long as they are u23. Just means Summerton and others have to leave

I will apologise I read your comment after reading that article and thought you where implying everything the article was saying.

Port will be playing under those rules in a couple of years anyway. The entire idea around having the academy squad was to allow kids to still play for port while developing young players to fill the gaps in the league side. As to not playing at Alberton, maybe those extra $$ the SANFL is taking at AO could be given to the clubs to make up for the shortfall, but we all no that isn't going to happen.

[bulldogproud2]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

[Jim05]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

I did read that.
I know that area is quite expensive to maintain due to its distance and remoteness, perhaps they feel Norwood could most afford to service the area. Would say the payoff would be that we lose other strong areas of our zone.
I would hope the SANFL would sit down and redistribute all areas evenly

[daysofourlives]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

I did read that.
I know that area is quite expensive to maintain due to its distance and remoteness, perhaps they feel Norwood could most afford to service the area. Would say the payoff would be that we lose other strong areas of our zone.
I would hope the SANFL would sit down and redistribute all areas evenly

Or was that the sweetner that Norwood got to vote yes?

[heater31]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

I did read that.
I know that area is quite expensive to maintain due to its distance and remoteness, perhaps they feel Norwood could most afford to service the area. Would say the payoff would be that we lose other strong areas of our zone.
I would hope the SANFL would sit down and redistribute all areas evenly

Interestingly when this issue was first raised that Port would be losing their zone both Centrals and North were lobbying hard for it.

Common sense should prevail if Norwood were to take it over they would have to give up part or all of their current country zone.

one other way is if South desparately want Murray Bridge Sturt should take up Port's country area since their current club captain was overlooked by Port in the early 00's. Plus half a dozen other league players have also played for the Double Blues in the last 20 years.

[Jim05]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

I did read that.
I know that area is quite expensive to maintain due to its distance and remoteness, perhaps they feel Norwood could most afford to service the area. Would say the payoff would be that we lose other strong areas of our zone.
I would hope the SANFL would sit down and redistribute all areas evenly

Or was that the sweetner that Norwood got to vote yes?

Judging by the results of Port's juniors this year it aint no sweetner. Their u16's were a rabble and their u18's are not much better.

[Jim05]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

I did read that.
I know that area is quite expensive to maintain due to its distance and remoteness, perhaps they feel Norwood could most afford to service the area. Would say the payoff would be that we lose other strong areas of our zone.
I would hope the SANFL would sit down and redistribute all areas evenly

Interestingly when this issue was first raised that Port would be losing their zone both Centrals and North were lobbying hard for it.

Common sense should prevail if Norwood were to take it over they would have to give up part or all of their current country zone.

one other way is if South desparately want Murray Bridge Sturt should take up Port's country area since their current club captain was overlooked by Port in the early 00's. Plus half a dozen other league players have also played for the Double Blues in the last 20 years.

North and the Dogs want Salisbury which to me should be Centrals heartland anyway.
The Eyre peninsula country zone of Ports would be the one that Norwood is mentioned about id imagine. Is a remote area and would be interesting to find out from Port how much it costs to service that area. Has been a good recruiting area in the past

[RB]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

Like how they gave the TTG area from Sanfl powerhouse West Torrens to struggling Norwood in the 80s.

[kickinit]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

I did read that.
I know that area is quite expensive to maintain due to its distance and remoteness, perhaps they feel Norwood could most afford to service the area. Would say the payoff would be that we lose other strong areas of our zone.
I would hope the SANFL would sit down and redistribute all areas evenly

Interestingly when this issue was first raised that Port would be losing their zone both Centrals and North were lobbying hard for it.

Common sense should prevail if Norwood were to take it over they would have to give up part or all of their current country zone.

one other way is if South desparately want Murray Bridge Sturt should take up Port's country area since their current club captain was overlooked by Port in the early 00's. Plus half a dozen other league players have also played for the Double Blues in the last 20 years.

North and the Dogs want Salisbury which to me should be Centrals heartland anyway.
The Eyre peninsula country zone of Ports would be the one that Norwood is mentioned about id imagine. Is a remote area and would be interesting to find out from Port how much it costs to service that area. Has been a good recruiting area in the past

It would also be the reason Norwood don't want Port to have it's reserve side. Even after we lose our Jnr's we will still continue to have our country development academy in the area.

[JK]

Norwood will lose their Hills zone most likely to Sturt I would think. Would think there's a domino effect so most if not all clubs zones would be amended.

[Jim05]

It would also be the reason Norwood don't want Port to have it's reserve side. Even after we lose our Jnr's we will still continue to have our country development academy in the area.

I dont understand why you need a country development side. No other AFL side is allowed one and its not as if you can draft from them anyway. Just seems a waste of money to throw coin at players that have an almost zero chance of playing for Port ever.
Surely the money is better spent on your AFL side

[heater31]

Did I read correctly in the paper that Port's country zone will be given entirely to Norwood next year?? If so, is this not a case of making a very strong club stronger?? Norwood have had excellent juniors for years and have a wonderful area for development already. How about a fairer redistribution of Port's area??

Cheers

I did read that.
I know that area is quite expensive to maintain due to its distance and remoteness, perhaps they feel Norwood could most afford to service the area. Would say the payoff would be that we lose other strong areas of our zone.
I would hope the SANFL would sit down and redistribute all areas evenly

Interestingly when this issue was first raised that Port would be losing their zone both Centrals and North were lobbying hard for it.

Common sense should prevail if Norwood were to take it over they would have to give up part or all of their current country zone.

one other way is if South desparately want Murray Bridge Sturt should take up Port's country area since their current club captain was overlooked by Port in the early 00's. Plus half a dozen other league players have also played for the Double Blues in the last 20 years.

North and the Dogs want Salisbury which to me should be Centrals heartland anyway.
The Eyre peninsula country zone of Ports would be the one that Norwood is mentioned about id imagine. Is a remote area and would be interesting to find out from Port how much it costs to service that area. Has been a good recruiting area in the past

No, my mail is from the Country Zone representatives and they were the clubs pitching to both them and the SANFL to take over.


Port used to have a network of ex Players in various coaching roles at both club and interleague level over there. Also that zone holds a championships every year for both Juniors (Magpies Cup) and the seniors (Mortlock Shield) to select its country champs squad.

Can't see any reason why it can't continue apart from scratching the Magpies off the kids trophy and putting the Redlegs on it instead....

[Apachebulldog]

Jimo5 said

"North and the Dogs want Salisbury which to me should be Centrals heartland anyway"

Yah dead right !

It used to be Centrals zone and Doggy heartland until the SANFL changed the boundaries and handed to the PAFC .

Another great Faaarkk Up the astute people in high places one word MORONS !!!

[kickinit]

It would also be the reason Norwood don't want Port to have it's reserve side. Even after we lose our Jnr's we will still continue to have our country development academy in the area.

I dont understand why you need a country development side. No other AFL side is allowed one and its not as if you can draft from them anyway. Just seems a waste of money to throw coin at players that have an almost zero chance of playing for Port ever.
Surely the money is better spent on your AFL side

It's advertising for the club while still giving the kids that want to a chance to play for the PAFC.

[Aerie]

It would also be the reason Norwood don't want Port to have it's reserve side. Even after we lose our Jnr's we will still continue to have our country development academy in the area.

I dont understand why you need a country development side. No other AFL side is allowed one and its not as if you can draft from them anyway. Just seems a waste of money to throw coin at players that have an almost zero chance of playing for Port ever.
Surely the money is better spent on your AFL side

It's advertising for the club while still giving the kids that want to a chance to play for the PAFC.

Exactly. It is all just marketing. Even more reason to have the Power on exactly the same terms as the Crows from next season and beyond.