SA Footy

mal wrote:

Booney wrote:

mal wrote:Port people need to adapt that same concept
Anyone else can think what they like

One or the other? You pick...

Rising Power sums it up
Its up to the individual to think what they think on this matter

SimonH wrote:

Aerie wrote:A bit of an insight given during James Gowans speech at the Hall of Fame night about how he came to play SANFL. They did have a rookie contract at St Kilda for 2000, but only being paid $12k, they were better off coming to SA and playing SANFL, so they did. Every rookie listed Port and Crows player would be on more than the highest paid SANFL players these days. That is with an extra two AFL teams as well - i.e. it is easier to get on an AFL list now.

Not really a whinge or argument whether it is better now or then, but an example of why the SANFL is struggling to maintain its stance with AFL going from strength to strength and leaving the rest behind.

I'm sure both Gowans and many other very good SANFL players of the early to mid 2000's would be on AFL lists now if their careers began 15 years later.

Rookie listed players in 2014 are on $53,825 (warning: long PDF; it's on page 68). There are two players contracted to play entirely in the SANFL who would be on more than that: Henry Slattery and Ian Callinan. Surprise, surprise: their wages are both paid out of the kitty of an AFL club. (The rules don't appear to prevent the AFL reserves club's 'leadership player' getting paid $1 million a year if the club feels like paying it.) Unless Glenelg pays its assistant coaches unusually well (i.e. Mitch Thorp), presumably there are no others who get paid more than the AFL rookie wage for playing SANFL.

He who has the gold makes the rules, and over the last 30 years, the VFL/AFL has gone from having maybe 60% of the footy-related gold in Australia, to 95% plus. I think most fans are acclimatised to the idea that we'll never see new Super Carey/ Garry McIntoshes (i.e. elite players who play their whole career in the SANFL) again. But it's sad to think that there's a good chance that structural changes to footy mean we'll increasingly rarely see new Gowans brothers (top-level state players who start playing SANFL relatively early in their career and stay for 200+ games) again either.

Maddawg wrote:With the rookie wage of $53k that is a base salary surely the players would get a weekley payment for playing on top of this, if so what figure would that be, reading that page 68 surely it wouldnt be the senior match payment of $2980 although they are playing senior football just not at AFL level?

bennymacca wrote:

SimonH wrote:

Aerie wrote:A bit of an insight given during James Gowans speech at the Hall of Fame night about how he came to play SANFL. They did have a rookie contract at St Kilda for 2000, but only being paid $12k, they were better off coming to SA and playing SANFL, so they did. Every rookie listed Port and Crows player would be on more than the highest paid SANFL players these days. That is with an extra two AFL teams as well - i.e. it is easier to get on an AFL list now.

Not really a whinge or argument whether it is better now or then, but an example of why the SANFL is struggling to maintain its stance with AFL going from strength to strength and leaving the rest behind.

I'm sure both Gowans and many other very good SANFL players of the early to mid 2000's would be on AFL lists now if their careers began 15 years later.

Rookie listed players in 2014 are on $53,825 (warning: long PDF; it's on page 68). There are two players contracted to play entirely in the SANFL who would be on more than that: Henry Slattery and Ian Callinan. Surprise, surprise: their wages are both paid out of the kitty of an AFL club. (The rules don't appear to prevent the AFL reserves club's 'leadership player' getting paid $1 million a year if the club feels like paying it.) Unless Glenelg pays its assistant coaches unusually well (i.e. Mitch Thorp), presumably there are no others who get paid more than the AFL rookie wage for playing SANFL.

He who has the gold makes the rules, and over the last 30 years, the VFL/AFL has gone from having maybe 60% of the footy-related gold in Australia, to 95% plus. I think most fans are acclimatised to the idea that we'll never see new Super Carey/ Garry McIntoshes (i.e. elite players who play their whole career in the SANFL) again. But it's sad to think that there's a good chance that structural changes to footy mean we'll increasingly rarely see new Gowans brothers (top-level state players who start playing SANFL relatively early in their career and stay for 200+ games) again either.

to be fair though, these players have been playing in the sanfl since there were rookies, that hasnt changed. just that they are now concentrated within two teams.

Wedgie wrote:Its no different to religion, if people want to believe in fairy stories they're allowed too.
Theyre still ignorant fools and wrong but that's their right.

Dogwatcher wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

SimonH wrote:

Aerie wrote:A bit of an insight given during James Gowans speech at the Hall of Fame night about how he came to play SANFL. They did have a rookie contract at St Kilda for 2000, but only being paid $12k, they were better off coming to SA and playing SANFL, so they did. Every rookie listed Port and Crows player would be on more than the highest paid SANFL players these days. That is with an extra two AFL teams as well - i.e. it is easier to get on an AFL list now.

Not really a whinge or argument whether it is better now or then, but an example of why the SANFL is struggling to maintain its stance with AFL going from strength to strength and leaving the rest behind.

I'm sure both Gowans and many other very good SANFL players of the early to mid 2000's would be on AFL lists now if their careers began 15 years later.

Rookie listed players in 2014 are on $53,825 (warning: long PDF; it's on page 68). There are two players contracted to play entirely in the SANFL who would be on more than that: Henry Slattery and Ian Callinan. Surprise, surprise: their wages are both paid out of the kitty of an AFL club. (The rules don't appear to prevent the AFL reserves club's 'leadership player' getting paid $1 million a year if the club feels like paying it.) Unless Glenelg pays its assistant coaches unusually well (i.e. Mitch Thorp), presumably there are no others who get paid more than the AFL rookie wage for playing SANFL.

He who has the gold makes the rules, and over the last 30 years, the VFL/AFL has gone from having maybe 60% of the footy-related gold in Australia, to 95% plus. I think most fans are acclimatised to the idea that we'll never see new Super Carey/ Garry McIntoshes (i.e. elite players who play their whole career in the SANFL) again. But it's sad to think that there's a good chance that structural changes to footy mean we'll increasingly rarely see new Gowans brothers (top-level state players who start playing SANFL relatively early in their career and stay for 200+ games) again either.

to be fair though, these players have been playing in the sanfl since there were rookies, that hasnt changed. just that they are now concentrated within two teams.

Huh?

PhilH wrote:hope we don't have to merge with another thread at the end of '90

Booney wrote:

mal wrote:

Booney wrote:

mal wrote:Port people need to adapt that same concept
Anyone else can think what they like

One or the other? You pick...

Rising Power sums it up
Its up to the individual to think what they think on this matter

If you wish, so why say "Port people need to adapt the same concept"? Aren't you telling us what we should think, about our club?

Maddawg wrote:What woudl they be paid for an SANFL game?

bennymacca wrote:different team, same history. whats wrong with that?

bennymacca wrote:Can Sydney claim south Melbourne history?

bennymacca wrote:Can the eagles claim woodville history?

bennymacca wrote:If the answer is yes to both of those questions then it is yes to port too

Wedgie wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Can Sydney claim south Melbourne history?

Yes, same club, different location. Location means nothing.

bennymacca wrote:Can the eagles claim woodville history?

No, different clubs. The current Eagles was a new club that commenced in 1991.

bennymacca wrote:If the answer is yes to both of those questions then it is yes to port too

It isn't so I'm glad you've worked it out.