by Dogwatcher » Mon May 19, 2014 11:02 am
by Dogwatcher » Mon May 19, 2014 11:04 am
by TimmiesChin » Mon May 19, 2014 11:10 am
Dogwatcher wrote:There needs to be AFL money in the SANFL and all other grades for development of players for drafting purposes.
Any money the AFL sends downwards is, ultimately, to its own benefit.
by stan » Mon May 19, 2014 11:13 am
by JK » Mon May 19, 2014 11:13 am
by bennymacca » Mon May 19, 2014 11:16 am
by Dutchy » Mon May 19, 2014 11:17 am
bennymacca wrote:
The thing is though, if port were also down the bottom there would be no whinging in this thread whatsoever. It would be "sucked in, this what you wanted." People worried about two (or three) sets of rules wouldn't say a word
Smells of a little sour grapes at this point in time. But also shows that it doesn't take much to turn a really bad side into a really good one. Bottom end depth vitally important.
by stan » Mon May 19, 2014 11:18 am
TimmiesChin wrote:dedja wrote:TC, the 2nd and 3rd points are completely irrelevant and have no relationship with AFL reserves teams in the SANFL.
Nice try though.
Well they do really.
Without them, the only relationship between the SANFL and AFL sides is the money the SANFL pulls from them out of Adelaide Oval. ... if you don't want them in, then I reckon all ties should be severed and the SANFL should work directly with the AFL, as I believe the VFL, and WAFL do.
Because at the moment it seems that without the money they are generating for footy in this state (and have been for a long time) the SANFL would not be a viable comp. financially.
I'd certainly be happy with a "No AFL in SANFL" ticket if it also involved a "No AFL money in SANFL"
by Dogwatcher » Mon May 19, 2014 11:23 am
by Dutchy » Mon May 19, 2014 11:27 am
by TimmiesChin » Mon May 19, 2014 11:58 am
Dogwatcher wrote:If the NRL has the money to run an under 23 comp (or whatever it is), which receives national coverage on Fox, then I'm pretty certain the AFL, which already bankrolls the NEAFL competition (which has teams in two states/one territory), can afford to operate a reserves/under 23/south-eastern conference.
by StrayDog » Mon May 19, 2014 12:06 pm
bennymacca wrote:
The thing is though, if port were also down the bottom there would be no whinging in this thread whatsoever. It would be "sucked in, this what you wanted." People worried about two (or three) sets of rules wouldn't say a word
Smells of a little sour grapes at this point in time. But also shows that it doesn't take much to turn a really bad side into a really good one. Bottom end depth vitally important.
by Big Phil » Mon May 19, 2014 12:15 pm
Warren Partland wrote:Quit the charade, Magpies are dead...
THE Port Adelaide Magpies are in name only and are not the true Magpies.
Port Adelaide and the SANFL can voice their disapproval as much as they want but the charade is already over after just eight rounds.
They ceased to be the Magpies when they were given a licence to include Eagles, Roosters, Bulldogs and Tigers in the side.
Paul Stewart is a Woodville-West Torrens product, last year Cameron Hitchcock was in the Glenelg jumper and Sam Colquhoun learned his football at Central District. State league clubs are now playing against players they developed who signed with the Power for the AFL.
The Power, just like the Crows, wanted teams in the state league so they could keep their players together. Any club with a second side calls it their reserves under the same label.
The Crows didn’t come up with the Galahs or Pigeons for their second side. They stuck with the Crows and while they prefer the team be tagged its state league side, it is still acknowledged as their reserves.
So why is the Power reserves called the Magpies, especially when products of other state league programs are involved? And don’t they want to be known as the one club?
The difference between the Crows and Power reserves is the more favourable conditions offered to Port Adelaide, which was allowed to retain key personnel from last year’s Magpies outfit.
Next year, Port Adelaide will lose its zones and under age teams. However, the damage is already being done on the evidence of the past six weeks.
The Power reserves have won their past six games by a combined 423 points at an average of more than 70. Their past two wins were by 50 and 60 points against Sturt and South Adelaide respectively. Those two teams sat second on the ladder underneath the Power reserves going into those battles.
The Power reserves have also beaten the Eagles by 58 points. It is the Eagles’ only loss.
When the Crows were given the green light to field a team in the state league and Port Adelaide was allowed to keep its reserves at Alberton and not spread throughout the competition, there were plenty of nerves of an AFL team domination.
Already clubs are relying on Power injuries to bring it back to the pack.
No doubt if the Power reserves win the grand final the club will claim it as an extension of the Magpies’ proud history. Yeah, right.
by Jim05 » Mon May 19, 2014 12:24 pm
TimmiesChin wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:There needs to be AFL money in the SANFL and all other grades for development of players for drafting purposes.
Any money the AFL sends downwards is, ultimately, to its own benefit.
I agree with that, but at the moment from my understanding the two Adelaide clubs are at a competitive disadvantage because the majority of SANFL funding does not come directly from the AFL, but instead from them.
I think all SANFL funding should come directly from the AFL, and the clubs should be freed of this impost.... especially if you want to ramp up their costs by making them play elsewhere. It would also force the AFL to be more equitable with state leagues. Put it this way - I certainly dont think you will see a line item titles "VFL distribution" on a Collingwood financial statement.
by TimmiesChin » Mon May 19, 2014 12:36 pm
Jim05 wrote:The thing you are forgetting Timmy is that the SANFL are part owners of AO and without them the move to AO would never of been made possible. The SANFL is entitled to claim rent off the AFL sides as long as they are tennants. The two AFL sides dont even get a say on the SMA. Id be more than happy for the SANFL to just collect rent of them for eternity, at a decent rate of course
by Jim05 » Mon May 19, 2014 12:42 pm
TimmiesChin wrote:Jim05 wrote:The thing you are forgetting Timmy is that the SANFL are part owners of AO and without them the move to AO would never of been made possible. The SANFL is entitled to claim rent off the AFL sides as long as they are tennants. The two AFL sides dont even get a say on the SMA. Id be more than happy for the SANFL to just collect rent of them for eternity, at a decent rate of course
See that bolded comment scares me. We are trusting the likes of Whicker and co...... at least we know the pie warmers will be cranked up at Adelaide Oval.
I don't mind the clubs paying 'rent', however rent should be related to cost of opening venue plus profit margin. So what is a decent rate... if it relates to the cost of opening and operating the venue then all well and good, if it includes all sorts of other stuff, then I have an issue.
by smac » Mon May 19, 2014 12:46 pm
by Jim05 » Mon May 19, 2014 12:51 pm
smac wrote:Why should the 2 AFL clubs have a say on SMA? I wouldn't appoint a tenant in my rental property as my agent to manage the property.
by TimmiesChin » Mon May 19, 2014 12:51 pm
smac wrote:Why should the 2 AFL clubs have a say on SMA? I wouldn't appoint a tenant in my rental property as my agent to manage the property.
by TimmiesChin » Mon May 19, 2014 12:54 pm
Jim05 wrote:Agreed on not being too gready, can get a little bit of cream on the top but no need to go over the top. There is enough cash to be made by both parties
If the Reserves sides continue to play in the SANFL perhaps the rent should be jacked up to cover the cost of increasing our salary cap though
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |