SA Footy

I sent this to SFC on 17 Sep 15... as I've come to expect... no reply.

Even when you politely request that they at least tell you they don't want to reply and I don't even get that... sheesh.

Poor. No excuse for it...

Sir / Maám,

I believe the SANFL commission will be making some decisions soon regarding the AFL reserves teams in the SANFL. I’d like to formally put forward a few points for the club to consider before they cast their vote or take action on the subject (assuming you haven’t already) :-

• Crowds this year were poor. A 13% reduction in crowds is not due to weather as the SANFL states (I commend the club for publicly stating they don’t buy that line), but it is also not due to the Adelaide Oval factor either in my opinion, since crowds at Adelaide Oval for the AFL were down this season on last season. So overall less people went to the AFL and could have gone to the SANFL, but in fact the SANFL crowds dropped regardless. Crowds must surely be the No.1 KPI for SANFL clubs, so this isn’t a good trend.
• Membership is supposedly up 3% across the league. However, this small increase in membership, which is welcome, would not make up for the loss of attendees at games. Overall, I would expect the revenue received by the clubs from the Adelaide FC would not make up for the drop in game day revenues.
• Including two AFL teams into the league who get 95% of the television, radio and print media coverage will not result in more children supporting the SANFL clubs. If kids can go to the SANFL to see the Crows or Power, then what is the chance they’ll follow a local team? I’d say very minimal. My guess would be that most children who follow SANFL clubs do so, because they are raised to support them by their parents. As fans drop away, if that continues, I can’t see SANFL clubs recruiting new fans.
• The AFL clubs don’t even play in the league by the same rules. There is one rule for the SANFL teams, one for Adelaide and one for Port Adelaide. Having 10 teams competing in a single league under three different sets of rules is just not reasonable. It degrades the integrity of the league.
• The AFL clubs do not have the SANFL premiership as their No.1 goal. AFL clubs will sacrifice their reserves in the name of promoting the goals of the senior AFL team. The basket case of a result we saw in the WAFL with Peel Thunder and then the VFL with Werribee is not something we want to see in the SANFL. Some decisions by Port Adelaide this year showed they weren’t that fussed about their finals campaign and overall that focus on all things AFL degrades the integrity of the SANFL further.
• No tangible benefit in social media from the AFL reserves teams being included in the league (i.e. hasn’t resulted in net increases to crowds + memberships and therefore revenue).
• No tangible benefit in television coverage from the AFL reserves teams being included in the league (i.e. no revenue increase for clubs directly attributable to AFL reserves).
• No tangible benefit in print media from the AFL reserves teams being included in the league (i.e. no increased column inches in the paper).
• No tangible benefit (I would argue there’s been a negative impact) in radio media from the AFL reserves teams being included in the league (i.e. no increased radio coverage).
• Negative impact on fans as clubs chose to go ahead with letting the AFL reserves teams in without any consideration of the membership base or fan base. Yes, this is something disappointing about Sturt, as they chose not to engage their members or fans about the decision, but rather made the decision from within. Something as important as this decision should have at least been backed with a mandate from the members who bank roll the club to a certain degree.
• Loss of atmosphere at games involving Crows and Power. There are almost no fans supporting the opposition sides.
• Demise of Port Adelaide Magpies (yes, in my opinion that’s a major negative, it was my most loved match up of the year, but its gone now).

Now if SFC has evidence to the contrary, like SFC has seen noticeable increases in revenue directly attributable to AFL participation in the league, then I’d love to hear it. It’s something that should be publicised so I and others who aren’t fans of the AFL inclusion can see there has been one or more upsides.

I beg the club to engage its supporter base and have an information night where the pros and cons of the AFL inclusion can be discussed. The club can take the opportunity to put its case forward on why its been so beneficial or otherwise to them since voting the AFL teams in. The club could also inform the members of how they see things improving over the years.

Likewise, it would give members who feel it wasn’t a good move, to voice their concerns and thoughts. If in the end, the membership is split or in favour of the AFL reserves, then I and others would surely feel the club has a mandate to continue supporting the idea. If however the members are clearly against it, what would the club feel about that?

To go against the members would be a difficult decision surely.

I would appreciate a reply to this email. I’m also happy to come down to the club after hours to chat if you’d prefer a face to face discussion. If you’d rather not reply, could you at least write back saying you don’t want to engage in such a discussion. It would save me re-sending the email a few times not knowing whether it was received.

I only request that because I have emailed the club earlier this year about my concerns about crowds and I got no reply.

Regards,

Chris

Also sent this to SFC the same day... same courteous response received.

Sir / Ma’am,

I’ve come across the following information :-

The West Australian reported that a new deal had been proposed and accepted by the G7 clubs.
Under the deal an extra $120,000 will be paid to the clubs and the East Perth and Peel clubs will have no out of zone players.
Clubs will now receive $150,000 in cash and a further $120,000 in management grants.

WAFL clubs get $270K each.

If that’s correct, surely we’re not getting a fair deal at just $50K per club?

Has the WAFL model been looked at?

Regards,

Chris

So when will the "weak" powers that be finally have the nouse (courage) to announce that there will be no games at Alberton and the AFL intruders will be capped at 13 registered contracted players per game in their SANFL practice matches.

This thread has 0.0 integrity

gossipgirl wrote:This thread has 0.0 integrity

And neither has the competition

gossipgirl wrote:This thread has 0.0 integrity

It had more integrity before you put your second rate posts in it. ;-)

Its a pity there's not a lengthy thread on this subject already.

Wedgie wrote:Its a pity there's not a lengthy thread on this subject already.

I know but its gone quiet and it needs a reboot before we just get sucked down the drain with non action

gossipgirl wrote:This thread has 0.0 integrity

It does now, thanks to the presence of an Adelaide Crows' logo.

When you come up with somewhere for the up to 5 players who could potentially miss out on a game if the cap was in place.. Stopping 5 kids from playing footy, which is ironically their job, purely because the side they play for may be too strong that week is ridiculous..

I agree that the AFL in SANFL has decreased the sanctity of the comp, and if they are in then both clubs should have the same criteria, but you cant force players to not play a game that weekend because the side they play for would be a strong team..

human_torpedo wrote:When you come up with somewhere for the up to 5 players who could potentially miss out on a game if the cap was in place.. Stopping 5 kids from playing footy, which is ironically their job, purely because the side they play for may be too strong that week is ridiculous..

Rubbish. So we should happily place individuals and their careers above the quality of the competition in its entirety? Hmmmkay ....

JK wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:When you come up with somewhere for the up to 5 players who could potentially miss out on a game if the cap was in place.. Stopping 5 kids from playing footy, which is ironically their job, purely because the side they play for may be too strong that week is ridiculous..

Rubbish. So we should happily place individuals and their careers above the quality of the competition in its entirety? Hmmmkay ....

Just let blokes play footy mate. IMO capping players wont add to the integrity of the competition at all.. Plenty of other means to be looked at before we start capping sides on field selections

human_torpedo wrote:

JK wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:When you come up with somewhere for the up to 5 players who could potentially miss out on a game if the cap was in place.. Stopping 5 kids from playing footy, which is ironically their job, purely because the side they play for may be too strong that week is ridiculous..

Rubbish. So we should happily place individuals and their careers above the quality of the competition in its entirety? Hmmmkay ....

Just let blokes play footy mate. IMO capping players wont add to the integrity of the competition at all.. Plenty of other means to be looked at before we start capping sides on field selections

The SANFL league team the only place they can play?

I'd never stand in the way of any lads pursuing their dreams or wanting to have a kick, but be f***ed if I'd root up a whole competition for the sake of a few.

The AFL sides would simply refuse to agree to that. If the SANFL can't bring themselves to kick them out then they won't bring themselves to introduce conditions that would have the same effect.

Talk about players not playing reminds me,
4 byes or whatever you call it this year,
when no footy played.
Let's hope the powers to be get it right in 2016.
We need players and supporters at the footy not at home gardening!

Grahaml wrote:The AFL sides would simply refuse to agree to that. If the SANFL can't bring themselves to kick them out then they won't bring themselves to introduce conditions that would have the same effect.

That is the problem they haven't the guts to do anything to protect OUR competition

Reddeer wrote:

Grahaml wrote:The AFL sides would simply refuse to agree to that. If the SANFL can't bring themselves to kick them out then they won't bring themselves to introduce conditions that would have the same effect.

That is the problem they haven't the guts to do anything to protect OUR competition

The SANFL havnet provided any reason to think they will do anything in regards to this.

Reddeer wrote:

Grahaml wrote:The AFL sides would simply refuse to agree to that. If the SANFL can't bring themselves to kick them out then they won't bring themselves to introduce conditions that would have the same effect.

That is the problem they haven't the guts to do anything to protect OUR competition

Don't think there's much they can do. Last I heard any agreements in place would require the AFL clubs to accept any changes that would remove them from the competition and obviously that's not going to happen. How accurate I'm not sure.

VALE PARK wrote:Talk about players not playing reminds me,
4 byes or whatever you call it this year,
when no footy played.
Let's hope the powers to be get it right in 2016.
We need players and supporters at the footy not at home gardening!

Was thinking about this yesterday if South & Glenelg continue their Good Friday clash next year the GF could be held in mid August! This is not taking into account multiple split rounds and byes.....

How will UK fan handle Milera playing against the dogs?