The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[Wedgie]

One North member I know got free double passes to all the finals as thanks for going to every home game this year.
If everyone with a ticket rocks up we should get approximately 60,000 there!

Are you expecting 60,000 north supporters?

I'm on the Panther bandwagon now mate!

[therisingblues]

MW; spot on. This sooking is absolutely laughable. The point is that what has happened is actually allowed for by the very rules people are demanding be upheld. The rules allow for an application for a permit in exactly this type of situation, where a player has played just about all year in the SANFL and simply came in to replace a suspended player. We are not talking about someone who has played 1 or 2 games here. The ability to apply for a permit allows for common sense to prevail in exactly a situation such as this. If we handed out premierships for whinging, Centrals and some of their supporters would have that one in the bag. But as they don't, I look forward to them being sent packing by 3 on Saturday.

You're a hollow drum.

[MW]

Serious question:
Will the perceived benefits of the Crows leaving the SANFL outweigh the financial impact to each club losing the $400,000 funding supplied by said club?

[Wedgie]

Serious question:
Will the perceived benefits of the Crows leaving the SANFL outweigh the financial impact to each club losing the $400,000 funding supplied by said club?

Big time and easily!

[Pseudo]

Serious question:
Will the perceived benefits of the Crows leaving the SANFL outweigh the financial impact to each club losing the $400,000 funding supplied by said club?

Big time and easily!

Now speculate as to how much the perceived benefits of the smears leaving the SANFL will outweigh their financial contribution to each club.

It's a no-brainer, innit?

[MW]

Financial contribution of zero?

[matt35]

@MW

In the real world, not even close. Fortunately it isn't of course going to happen, but let's run with the hypothetical. The first thing to remember is that it isn't just about the money. People think the comp doesn't get the media it deserves now? You could pretty much say goodbye to any media. The ABC are gone and not coming back. Think commercial media are going to have any interest in covering a comp with absolutely no AFL connection to it? No chance! One common complaint I see on here, for example, is guaranteed coverage of games between the Crows and Port. Doesn't the fact that those games are always covered by channel Seven spell out everything you need to know about what the media would do if those teams were gone?

I loved the SANFL comp that we had in the 80s, with big crowds, replays every Saturday night etc etc. But I live in the real world and the real world is that we live in a town dominated by the AFL. We live in a town where the vast majority of Football supporters follow either the Crows or the Power. We live in a town where many people have been born since 1991 and do not have the connection to the SANFL that many of us have. I actually think it's probably fair to say that this site has a disproportionate number of people participating among it's regular posters who have no interest in either the Crows or Power. But if we are to have a viable competition going forward, it has to be a competition that is relevant to this town in 2016 and beyond. This absolutely means AFL participation, and thankfully the people running the competition have the foresight to see and accept this reality, as do the majority of clubs. Is it perfect? No. Could there be some tinkering? Quite possibly. But is it necessary? Absolutely.

[FlyingHigh]

It's the rule that's no good. CEY would be stiff to miss the SANFL finals, but granting the permit is crap and as others have pointed out there's been bad luck circumstances like these in the past. There will never be a perfect rule, country leagues have had these disputes for years.
Having said that, perhaps the rule needs to be prior rather than post - if, going into the last game, replacements are nominated so that a suspension, concussion like Smith or 2+ week injury (ie so the AFL player isn't being rested and if gets named the next week his replacement can't drop back) the replacing player can come back down if he's otherwise qualified. For example, before last week the Crows got the opportunity to say CEY is replacing Sloane, someone replacing Smith. However, if it was CEY replacing Thompson on form, then he wouldn't be able to come back down. No doubt there will be holes in this idea, but seems a bit better than the current.

[Magellan]

One common complaint I see on here, for example, is guaranteed coverage of games between the Crows and Port. Doesn't the fact that those games are always covered by channel Seven spell out everything you need to know about what the media would do if those teams were gone?

So what's the difference?

I loved the SANFL comp that we had in the 80s, with big crowds, replays every Saturday night etc etc. But I live in the real world and the real world is that we live in a town dominated by the AFL. We live in a town where the vast majority of Football supporters follow either the Crows or the Power. We live in a town where many people have been born since 1991 and do not have the connection to the SANFL that many of us have. I actually think it's probably fair to say that this site has a disproportionate number of people participating among it's regular posters who have no interest in either the Crows or Power. But if we are to have a viable competition going forward, it has to be a competition that is relevant to this town in 2016 and beyond. This absolutely means AFL participation, and thankfully the people running the competition have the foresight to see and accept this reality, as do the majority of clubs. Is it perfect? No. Could there be some tinkering? Quite possibly. But is it necessary? Absolutely.

You make it sound like the AFL teams rode in out of the distance like a white knight to save the SANFL, when really it was Brenton Sanderson's (remember him? He was the next prodigal son to deliver success to the Crows who ended up getting sacked in three years) brainchild, and the Crows merely took advantage of a league with clubs some of whom admittedly had a history of financial over-extension to get what they desperately wanted ASAP.

[Dogs72]

@MW

In the real world, not even close. Fortunately it isn't of course going to happen, but let's run with the hypothetical. The first thing to remember is that it isn't just about the money. People think the comp doesn't get the media it deserves now? You could pretty much say goodbye to any media. The ABC are gone and not coming back. Think commercial media are going to have any interest in covering a comp with absolutely no AFL connection to it? No chance! One common complaint I see on here, for example, is guaranteed coverage of games between the Crows and Port. Doesn't the fact that those games are always covered by channel Seven spell out everything you need to know about what the media would do if those teams were gone?

I loved the SANFL comp that we had in the 80s, with big crowds, replays every Saturday night etc etc. But I live in the real world and the real world is that we live in a town dominated by the AFL. We live in a town where the vast majority of Football supporters follow either the Crows or the Power. We live in a town where many people have been born since 1991 and do not have the connection to the SANFL that many of us have. I actually think it's probably fair to say that this site has a disproportionate number of people participating among it's regular posters who have no interest in either the Crows or Power. But if we are to have a viable competition going forward, it has to be a competition that is relevant to this town in 2016 and beyond. This absolutely means AFL participation, and thankfully the people running the competition have the foresight to see and accept this reality, as do the majority of clubs. Is it perfect? No. Could there be some tinkering? Quite possibly. But is it necessary? Absolutely.

MW and Matt - the SANFL is paying approximately $300k for the commercial TV coverage, this would cost the 7 legitimate clubs the equivalent of $42,000. There goes the crows contribution to the SANFL clubs for playing in the league. Good for the crows and port as their supporters can sit at home and watch their reserves. Not spending a cent at the local club on game day. How does this "mainstream coverage" of two games a year (unless you're port or the crows), help a Glenelg, Norwood etc. don't tell me sponsorship. Most sponsors want people at the games to the benefit of the club they sponsor.
Additionally in 2012 we had twenty games, now 18 with more byes and reasons for people to follow other interests. Of those 18 we play only 14 against "real clubs", playing under the same terms. One game is at Alberton with match day spending going to the power. Games against the crows receive no gate takings from crows freebie members. Membership prices wouldn't be the same as 2012 (I assume they've gone up) for less games.
I don't believe a decline (if it happened) to the current pathetic mainstream media coverage would have any major impact on the SANFL.
Let them go to the amateur league if they want. MW in answer to your question, I think the afl clubs in the current structure is costing the SANFL clubs.

[MW]

All good info mate, stuff I don't know a great deal about.

[tipper]

wait, isnt the bill for channel 7 coverage closer to (or over) $1 million a year? and havent channel 7 already announced that they wont be renewing hte contract once the current agreement finishes? (i think i read that here didnt i?)

it was around 300k for the abc coverage. channel 7 more than tripled the cost, but according to the crows spin, that would be covered by increased sponsorship. not a bad deal for the crows, someone else foots the bill and their supporters get to watch the reserves for free...

and as to MW's question on the $400,000. you do realise it isnt that amount for each club right? your wording makes it seem that each club gets that amount, but in reality, each club gets $50,000 ($400,000 total that the crows pay, which is far too little IMO). which, as already detailed, could be made up with more paying customers through the gate, and more games.

(apologies if your post wasnt intended to infer that MW)

[Pseudo]

But if we are to have a viable competition going forward, it has to be a competition that is relevant to this town in 2016 and beyond.

Pure unadulterated bulldust.

If the competition is to be viable then it must be relevant to its core support base: the SANFL fan.

Attempting to be relevant to other parties is pointless, ably demonstrated by the relative lack of opposition support at games involving AFL clubs. There was a belief among certain SANFL directors that catering to the AFL clubs was the only thing that was going to keep the SANFL afloat. This has proven to be folly.

No, if the competition is to be viable then it needs to cater for the SANFL fan. Those who turn up to see the games, buy merchandise, patronise the clubs, educate their kids to continue the support in future generations - you know, the lifeblood of the league. So the support is not there to bring back those halycon days of the 70s and 80s - but the support might be there to bring back the SANFL of 2013. Most of us here would be happy with that.

[stan]

A certain radio station that played parts of the Roy interview this morning, have had a phone call from the SANFL. They are not happy!

Diddums to the scum at the SANFL

I assume they are talking about MMM this morning. Thats ******* hilarious. MMM are actually keen to get him on and have a chat.

So the SANFL have said they arent happy well christ they were lucky enough to get a meniton in the first place.

[Booney]

Matt, let me save you 250+ pages of heartache mate.

The people on here who so vehemently despise the AFL sides entry into the SANFL want a competition that is played on an even playing field, even if that playing field has only 300 people watching it with no fence between the spectators and the players at a local park. They want the integrity restored, they want all sides playing to the line even if it proves to be the demise of the states highest club based competition. At least, they say, it will die with it's head in the air not on it's AFL knees.

Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.

[Pseudo]

wait, isnt the bill for channel 7 coverage closer to (or over) $1 million a year? and havent channel 7 already announced that they wont be renewing hte contract once the current agreement finishes? (i think i read that here didnt i?)

We can only hope so. Seven should never have been given the contract. It would have been worth paying more to give it to another channel, who would have no qualms in covering a single match at the same time each week - instead of massaging the SANFL fixtures so that game times and coverage slots best fit around the schedules of that other league.

[tipper]

Matt, let me save you 250+ pages of heartache mate.

The people on here who so vehemently despise the AFL sides entry into the SANFL want a competition that is played on an even playing field, even if that playing field has only 300 people watching it with no fence between the spectators and the players at a local park. They want the integrity restored, they want all sides playing to the line even if it proves to be the demise of the states highest club based competition. At least, they say, it will die with it's head in the air not on it's AFL knees.

Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.

its dieing any way though boonster. or hadnt you noticed the lack of interest? surely no one is still claiming that the afl reserves sides have actually helped the league, despite all evidence to the contrary, are they?

[Booney]

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm not saying they have been.

[therisingblues]

Matt, let me save you 250+ pages of heartache mate.

The people on here who so vehemently despise the AFL sides entry into the SANFL want a competition that is played on an even playing field, even if that playing field has only 300 people watching it with no fence between the spectators and the players at a local park. They want the integrity restored, they want all sides playing to the line even if it proves to be the demise of the states highest club based competition. At least, they say, it will die with it's head in the air not on it's AFL knees.

Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.

While I wouldn't actively wish for a league that has only 300 at a game, I would rather run the risk of that happening and have the AFL sides out, than have the situation as it is. I wish the question would be asked as directly as you put it just now, that would remove the bull-dust from some people's eyes.
Do you want the reserves out and run this risk or not? Hmm, I would rather that than a compromised competition. YES, that is how I feel. Can I have that please?
We had a couple of games this year with under 1000 in attendance. I think that the way the league is run at the moment would actually hasten the day that we get 300 to a game, and we will still be compromised.

[therisingblues]

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm not saying they have been.

What do you want to say then? Just, that if the reserves leave the competition will maybe one day be as you described? And you are also saying that if they stay it will maybe one day be as you described? I actually think the latter would be the more true.
Are you willing to take a punt either way, seeing as we are discussing it?