SA Footy

goddy11 wrote:Its a sad state of affairs what is happening at the SANFL. The management of the SANFL that once owned the AFL teams is now a rubber stamp for them. Once local players drafted went back to play for the local clubs and their salaries were carried by the AFL teams. Now as rookies, they move to the AFL teams free of charge. These players in reality will not play much if any AFL but will play against their local clubs. The Port Magpies are totally an AFL side but through some wheeling and dealing do not pay a fee to the SANFL but enjoy all the benefits. Our SANFL pays for under 18 and under 16 state coaches that develop player for the AFL. Our club pay out of their own pockets to develop players and supply various levels of competition only for the players to leave for peanuts to the AFL. Our State government bank rolls the PAP and sponsors the academies but what does it do to help the local league and country leagues.
The AFL throws buckets of money into the Vic U18s as well as GWS and the Suns but very little into grass roots. Until the PAP, the AFC and AFL take more Fiscal responsibility this thread will never end.

banterfordays wrote:

goddy11 wrote:Its a sad state of affairs what is happening at the SANFL. The management of the SANFL that once owned the AFL teams is now a rubber stamp for them. Once local players drafted went back to play for the local clubs and their salaries were carried by the AFL teams. Now as rookies, they move to the AFL teams free of charge. These players in reality will not play much if any AFL but will play against their local clubs. The Port Magpies are totally an AFL side but through some wheeling and dealing do not pay a fee to the SANFL but enjoy all the benefits. Our SANFL pays for under 18 and under 16 state coaches that develop player for the AFL. Our club pay out of their own pockets to develop players and supply various levels of competition only for the players to leave for peanuts to the AFL. Our State government bank rolls the PAP and sponsors the academies but what does it do to help the local league and country leagues.
The AFL throws buckets of money into the Vic U18s as well as GWS and the Suns but very little into grass roots. Until the PAP, the AFC and AFL take more Fiscal responsibility this thread will never end.

You mean how port forgo their voting rights, and share of AAMI stadium being sold fund?

Let alone how no one would be interested in televising the SANFL if it wasn't for the reserve sides.

Sounds like you're all for AFLSA, I know I am.

banterfordays wrote:

goddy11 wrote:Its a sad state of affairs what is happening at the SANFL. The management of the SANFL that once owned the AFL teams is now a rubber stamp for them. Once local players drafted went back to play for the local clubs and their salaries were carried by the AFL teams. Now as rookies, they move to the AFL teams free of charge. These players in reality will not play much if any AFL but will play against their local clubs. The Port Magpies are totally an AFL side but through some wheeling and dealing do not pay a fee to the SANFL but enjoy all the benefits. Our SANFL pays for under 18 and under 16 state coaches that develop player for the AFL. Our club pay out of their own pockets to develop players and supply various levels of competition only for the players to leave for peanuts to the AFL. Our State government bank rolls the PAP and sponsors the academies but what does it do to help the local league and country leagues.
The AFL throws buckets of money into the Vic U18s as well as GWS and the Suns but very little into grass roots. Until the PAP, the AFC and AFL take more Fiscal responsibility this thread will never end.

You mean how port forgo their voting rights, and share of AAMI stadium being sold fund?

Let alone how no one would be interested in televising the SANFL if it wasn't for the reserve sides.

Sounds like you're all for AFLSA, I know I am.

cennals05 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Any word on changes to rules for the two imposters for next season?

There will be a cap on how many AFL listed players can play next year. Expect to hear it announced soon apparently.

Kahuna wrote:

cennals05 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Any word on changes to rules for the two imposters for next season?

There will be a cap on how many AFL listed players can play next year. Expect to hear it announced soon apparently.

21?

Dogs72 wrote: I'm hearing the SANFL is completely spineless (I know we knew this already). The SANFL is keen to bow to the whims of the Crows (for no logical reason). Tonight's interview highlighted it - Kelly as the SANFL representative and leader just doesn't get it - or care.

Dutchy wrote:I don't agree with a cap, I don't think that a poor Crows/Port team in the SANFL doesn't help the comp either.

If there is a cap where do the players that miss out play?

Dutchy wrote:I don't agree with a cap, I don't think that a poor Crows/Port team in the SANFL doesn't help the comp either.

If there is a cap where do the players that miss out play?

RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.

RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.

Jim05 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:I don't agree with a cap, I don't think that a poor Crows/Port team in the SANFL doesn't help the comp either.

If there is a cap where do the players that miss out play?

Who cares where they go.
would much rather see them beaten by 10 goals each week than win a game

Dutchy wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:I don't agree with a cap, I don't think that a poor Crows/Port team in the SANFL doesn't help the comp either.

If there is a cap where do the players that miss out play?

Who cares where they go.
would much rather see them beaten by 10 goals each week than win a game

I think there might be 2 AFL teams that care, hence why it won't happen

Magellan wrote:

RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.

Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.

Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.

Magellan wrote:

RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.

Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.

Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.

RB wrote:

Magellan wrote:

RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.

Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.

Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.

What I meant was, having caps on AFL players may be fairer in terms of competition but doesn't improve the integrity issues.

Wedgie wrote:

RB wrote:

Magellan wrote:

RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.

Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.

Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.

What I meant was, having caps on AFL players may be fairer in terms of competition but doesn't improve the integrity issues.

How about bucket hats or beanies?

therisingblues wrote:Yes, the AFL teams call the shots. No, this would not make me care if they had a problem finding somewhere for their overflow to play.
Why should we?
Are you advocating a "why bother, we can't win" stance Dutchy? Reading the above exchange seems to suggest that what's good for the reserves is good for the SANFL in your opinion?

Dogs72 wrote:

cennals05 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Any word on changes to rules for the two imposters for next season?

There will be a cap on how many AFL listed players can play next year. Expect to hear it announced soon apparently.

Caught a little bit of I think it was Adam Kelly (general manager of football) on 5aa tonight. Rowey asked about the player cap. He said the reserve review supposedly still hadn't been completed as yet, but will be ready to present to the commission in December. Rowey then re-phrased, asking what was his personal view. Kelly said well in three years neither had won a premiership, and both have won about 50% of games. Rowey then commented along the lines of "I think you'll find when they had 16 or more, their win ratio was substantially higher, we'll move on".
I'm hearing the SANFL is completely spineless (I know we knew this already). The SANFL is keen to bow to the whims of the Crows (for no logical reason). Tonight's interview highlighted it - Kelly as the SANFL representative and leader just doesn't get it - or care.