by Swamp Donkey » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:12 pm
by oyster » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:17 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Yes, but to a watered down version.
The SACFL was never going to back down on this, so it's pretty much a victory for that league.
by Dogwatcher » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:21 pm
oyster wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Yes, but to a watered down version.
The SACFL was never going to back down on this, so it's pretty much a victory for that league.
Do all the other leagues around the state get the same watered down version of the salary cap/points system, as the one your talking about?
by oyster » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:27 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:oyster wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Yes, but to a watered down version.
The SACFL was never going to back down on this, so it's pretty much a victory for that league.
Do all the other leagues around the state get the same watered down version of the salary cap/points system, as the one your talking about?
Yes.
by Dogwatcher » Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:00 pm
by Swamp Donkey » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:09 pm
oyster wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:oyster wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Yes, but to a watered down version.
The SACFL was never going to back down on this, so it's pretty much a victory for that league.
Do all the other leagues around the state get the same watered down version of the salary cap/points system, as the one your talking about?
Yes.
Seems a waste of time having the salary cap then with ONE in particular watered down point. Basically nothing changes.
by oyster » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:32 pm
by oyster » Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:34 pm
Swamp Donkey wrote:oyster wrote:Swamp Donkey wrote:The name of this thread would be more accurate if it read...... the points system is crucifying clubs that have no idea when it comes to recruiting the right people and/or sustainably managing it's player payment system.
It could also be named. "The points and salary cap system, is currently crucifying country clubs so the SANFL Reserves are propped up and the SAAFL clubs who can't match the country clubs with recruiting, money, administration or volunteers, have devised a system where they think it will be tougher for country clubs to afford and attract city based players away from the city" No point in sugar coating the reasons
I don't disagree, but is it not a step in the right direction? Be interested to hear how you think they should approach and deal with the dilemma oyster if a salary cap and points system is not the answer? Yes, each strategy has their problems - but it is a complex issue.
by cracka » Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:46 am
oyster wrote:Swamp Donkey wrote:I don't disagree, but is it not a step in the right direction? Be interested to hear how you think they should approach and deal with the dilemma oyster if a salary cap and points system is not the answer? Yes, each strategy has their problems - but it is a complex issue.
I believe in a free and open market place. Sooner or later some country clubs and some city clubs will fall over. The lack of resources, sponsors, volunteers and players will dictate that. In the country the kids are leaving for jobs in the city. In the city, the kids have too many options other than football. Some clubs are bound to fall over. Many, many clubs have fallen over and amalgamated over time, and nothing will change in the years to come. We hardly need administrators to stop club people from running their own club, as they see fit. These football administrators have no idea how individual clubs are run and they are not qualified to make decisions about individual clubs and their futures. Only the clubs themselves and the people running them, know how their club best functions. The clubs that can afford the players shouldn't be hampered with rules to prevent them paying as they wish. If their volunteers and people want to help raise the money to purchase players, then let them. It should be an open and free market place and the AFL, CFL and every other official who wants to stick his or her nose in, should butt out. I've always maintained that most (not all), but most, administrators are frustrated footballers who weren't much chop at playing, yet want to govern and rule on the game, because they couldn't play all that well. This theory is proven in about 80% of instances.
by Swamp Donkey » Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:44 am
cracka wrote:The only problem with that is in every league there are 2 or 3 clubs who have a major benefactor that is willing to fork out sh!t loads for players & 6 or 7 club's in the same league who have to work twice as hard to just to get half the dollars. Those 2 or 3 clubs will just dominate their respective competitions while not having to do the hard yards, the 6 or 7 clubs will eventually get sick of busting their arses for no return & fold. Surely that isn't healthy.
by running defender » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:15 pm
by jo172 » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:21 pm
by cracka » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:41 pm
running defender wrote:Name the clubs in the hills with the major benefactor cracka
Enlighten me with the clubs that spend s##t loads of money
If clubs want to spend the money I say let them . Most clubs set a budget
Some don't so who cares, it's only the sanfl& SAAFL winging they can't retain the players.
Also what's clubs in the country have pokies as with clubs in the city
It's easy to point the finger at some country clubs , if they have people that want to tip in or do the hard yards let them
As I said before clubs don't run out of money they run out of players
by running defender » Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:10 pm
by cracka » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:08 am
by Grumpy Old B » Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:14 pm
cracka wrote:RD, you seem to be just as confused now as you were 2 years ago when you claimed to have kicked a long left foot goal in the 2014 GF but in reality you had been retired for 20 years.
The 4 clubs I named were an answer to who I'd heard had major benefactors, not who I though spent sh!t loads of money in the HFL.
by OnSong » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:08 am
by Grumpy Old B » Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:18 pm
by PuttingBStorest » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:57 pm
OnSong wrote:Monday, 12 December 2016
COMMUNITY FOOTBALL: PLAYER PAYMENT BREACH
A South Australian community football club has breached regulations controlling the payment of players.
Community Football’s Player Payments Investigation Committee has confirmed an unnamed club has breached Regulation 31 – the Player Payment Cap.
Once the investigation is completed, a full report will be presented to the Salary Cap Commissioner to determine a penalty which may include a loss of premiership points, a loss of Approved Player Points System (APPS) points, player suspension, a fine or all of the above.
“This should serve as a warning to all clubs and players that Community Football is taking Regulation 31 very seriously,” said Community Football Manager Matt Duldig.
“Should a club choose to cheat the system, the consequences could be very damaging – not only to the club but also to the individuals found to have been involved.”
There are currently seven other club investigations underway. Despite this, Mr. Duldig said the general acceptance of the Player Payment Cap in its first year had been very encouraging.
“Although our focus is clearly on the policing of regulations, we continue to hear positive stories of the effect of the payment cap,” he said.
“Many clubs have saved money and redirected those funds towards other areas including facilities, junior development and coaching – so it’s really having a very positive effect.
“However, clubs should understand that we are determined to penalise those who are found to be cheating the system.”
by 200 Killer Wasps » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:56 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |