by Wedgie » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:34 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by cracka » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:42 pm
Wedgie wrote:Different kettle of fish Cracka, the VFA disbanded in the 90s and the VFA clubs chose to join a competition run by the VFL.
by Jim05 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:52 pm
cracka wrote:Wedgie wrote:Different kettle of fish Cracka, the VFA disbanded in the 90s and the VFA clubs chose to join a competition run by the VFL.
But still full time footballers vs part time
by Wedgie » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:28 pm
cracka wrote:Wedgie wrote:Different kettle of fish Cracka, the VFA disbanded in the 90s and the VFA clubs chose to join a competition run by the VFL.
But still full time footballers vs part time
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by MW » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:30 pm
Jim05 wrote:cracka wrote:Wedgie wrote:Different kettle of fish Cracka, the VFA disbanded in the 90s and the VFA clubs chose to join a competition run by the VFL.
But still full time footballers vs part time
Not for much longer. Will be a pure AFL reserves comp within 3-4 years
by Jim05 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:36 pm
MW wrote:Jim05 wrote:cracka wrote:Wedgie wrote:Different kettle of fish Cracka, the VFA disbanded in the 90s and the VFA clubs chose to join a competition run by the VFL.
But still full time footballers vs part time
Not for much longer. Will be a pure AFL reserves comp within 3-4 years
There needs to be
by MW » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:41 pm
by therisingblues » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:01 pm
Actually Cracka, you have made me see the folly of my ways.cracka wrote:therisingblues wrote:cracka wrote:If it was all the best players on Adelaides & Ports lists then yeah its totally unfair but thats not the case. Its mainly the 2nd tier & rookie listed players that play in the SANFL.
I don't have access to the actual figures myself Cracka, but I would hazard a guess that those second tier and rookie players are also on a truckload more cash than the rest of the competition.
Are you then claiming that it would only be unfair if the wealthiest players in Australia competed in the SANFL, but seeing as the reserves, while far exceeding the salary of the top paid part time footballer in the SANFL, are not the wealthiest, then it is okay?
I am sure the SANFL regulars, while they are toiling away at their boiler-making, tile-laying, teaching, marine research, or whatever it is they must do to pay their mortgage, put food on the table and send their kids to school, are thanking their lucky stars that it is only the 2nd tier full time footballers who are being trained in the state of the art facilities, tended to by the nation's best sports doctors and taught the game by Australia's highest paid coaches, that they must play against on weekends.
Yeah, sounds COMPLETELY fair to me. Glad that the Crows fans realise that it would be totally unfair for the TOP paid players on their list to be playing in the SANFL.
So going by your theory, if someone wanted to sue a major company & can only afford a lawyer who practices part time in that particular law then the company should also only be able to have a lawyer who practices part time in that particular law instead of the 20 full time professional lawyers they usually have. Welcome to fantasy land where everything has to be fair & even.
by therisingblues » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:03 pm
cracka wrote:Wedgie wrote:Different kettle of fish Cracka, the VFA disbanded in the 90s and the VFA clubs chose to join a competition run by the VFL.
But still full time footballers vs part time
by cracka » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:30 pm
therisingblues wrote:cracka wrote:Wedgie wrote:Different kettle of fish Cracka, the VFA disbanded in the 90s and the VFA clubs chose to join a competition run by the VFL.
But still full time footballers vs part time
Yes, correct, and the part time footballer clubs are dying rather quickly in that comp. Have you noticed?
You will not find me on the relevant football board preaching to all the long time fans of that comp that the reserves are actually good for them. Carlton or not
by cracka » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:33 pm
therisingblues wrote:Actually Cracka, you have made me see the folly of my ways.cracka wrote:therisingblues wrote:cracka wrote:If it was all the best players on Adelaides & Ports lists then yeah its totally unfair but thats not the case. Its mainly the 2nd tier & rookie listed players that play in the SANFL.
I don't have access to the actual figures myself Cracka, but I would hazard a guess that those second tier and rookie players are also on a truckload more cash than the rest of the competition.
Are you then claiming that it would only be unfair if the wealthiest players in Australia competed in the SANFL, but seeing as the reserves, while far exceeding the salary of the top paid part time footballer in the SANFL, are not the wealthiest, then it is okay?
I am sure the SANFL regulars, while they are toiling away at their boiler-making, tile-laying, teaching, marine research, or whatever it is they must do to pay their mortgage, put food on the table and send their kids to school, are thanking their lucky stars that it is only the 2nd tier full time footballers who are being trained in the state of the art facilities, tended to by the nation's best sports doctors and taught the game by Australia's highest paid coaches, that they must play against on weekends.
Yeah, sounds COMPLETELY fair to me. Glad that the Crows fans realise that it would be totally unfair for the TOP paid players on their list to be playing in the SANFL.
So going by your theory, if someone wanted to sue a major company & can only afford a lawyer who practices part time in that particular law then the company should also only be able to have a lawyer who practices part time in that particular law instead of the 20 full time professional lawyers they usually have. Welcome to fantasy land where everything has to be fair & even.
The injustices of the law system are the perfect justification for having different rules for different teams playing the same grade of football.
The next time someone whines to me about a doctored pitch in India, I am just going to roll my eyes at them and say "Hey, do you think a multi million dollar company should have to pay their lawyer the same as the family they are screwing over?"
And when they give me the old WTF expression I'll just say "Welcome to fantasy land brother! Hallelujah! I am off to water my garden with sand."
Honestly Cracka, at least use an argument that is relevant in some way.
by johntheclaret » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:55 pm
MW wrote:Take the AFL sides out, get your integrity back, but IMO, the SANFL will become even more irrelevant to both supporters (not the die hards like on here obviously) and media alike.
People are supporting AFL first, and after that, probably an Amateur league team because of free entry (mostly), cheaper food and drink, easier access etc.
by cracka » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:58 pm
by johntheclaret » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:24 pm
MW wrote:What cracka said.
If money decided who wins a football game, why aren't Crows and Port undefeated over the last few years?
by therisingblues » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:26 pm
by johntheclaret » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:39 pm
cracka wrote:therisingblues wrote:cracka wrote:johntheclaret wrote:You come across like a clever bloke MW so I'll assume you are deliberately missing the point, but in case I'm wrong and you really aren't that smart, I'll spell it out for you.
Paying players more money doesn't make them better players.
Better players command a higher salary, just like in any other line of work.
Having a higher salary cap enables a club to attract the better players because it can pay more.
Two teams in a league where their salary cap is significantly higher than the other teams competing in the same league, have a significant advantage over those other teams.
So would you agree a team with a salary cap 100 times greater, (or whatever the exact ratio is), than another team in the same league has an advantage. Or more to the point, do you think it is fair?
If it was all the best players on Adelaides & Ports lists then yeah its totally unfair but thats not the case. Its mainly the 2nd tier & rookie listed players that play in the SANFL.
I don't have access to the actual figures myself Cracka, but I would hazard a guess that those second tier and rookie players are also on a truckload more cash than the rest of the competition.
Are you then claiming that it would only be unfair if the wealthiest players in Australia competed in the SANFL, but seeing as the reserves, while far exceeding the salary of the top paid part time footballer in the SANFL, are not the wealthiest, then it is okay?
I am sure the SANFL regulars, while they are toiling away at their boiler-making, tile-laying, teaching, marine research, or whatever it is they must do to pay their mortgage, put food on the table and send their kids to school, are thanking their lucky stars that it is only the 2nd tier full time footballers who are being trained in the state of the art facilities, tended to by the nation's best sports doctors and taught the game by Australia's highest paid coaches, that they must play against on weekends.
Yeah, sounds COMPLETELY fair to me. Glad that the Crows fans realise that it would be totally unfair for the TOP paid players on their list to be playing in the SANFL.
So going by your theory, if someone wanted to sue a major company & can only afford a lawyer who practices part time in that particular law then the company should also only be able to have a lawyer who practices part time in that particular law instead of the 20 full time professional lawyers they usually have. Welcome to fantasy land where everything has to be fair & even.
by cracka » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:49 pm
therisingblues wrote:Hmmm.
Person A: "I think it is unfair that part time footballers must play against fulltime professionals in the SANFL for premiership points, but it's okay for other leagues to do it just as long as its not the SANFL"
Person B: "Life's not fair! What do you think this is, fantasy land? AFL clubs can do whatever they want!"
Oh, BTW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJqjE8dWbUk
by therisingblues » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:16 pm
by therisingblues » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:20 pm
cracka wrote:therisingblues wrote:cracka wrote:Wedgie wrote:Different kettle of fish Cracka, the VFA disbanded in the 90s and the VFA clubs chose to join a competition run by the VFL.
But still full time footballers vs part time
Yes, correct, and the part time footballer clubs are dying rather quickly in that comp. Have you noticed?
You will not find me on the relevant football board preaching to all the long time fans of that comp that the reserves are actually good for them. Carlton or not
Wont find you complaining relentlessly about the unfair advantages the AFL clubs have over the stand alone clubs on the relevant football boards either.
by cracka » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:25 pm
johntheclaret wrote:cracka wrote:So going by your theory, if someone wanted to sue a major company & can only afford a lawyer who practices part time in that particular law then the company should also only be able to have a lawyer who practices part time in that particular law instead of the 20 full time professional lawyers they usually have. Welcome to fantasy land where everything has to be fair & even.
Bit confused at this post Cracka. You seem to be agreeing that having the two AFL Reserve teams competing in the SANFL is unfair, and anyone wanting the SANFL competition to be "fair & even" is in "fantasy land". Yet isn't the current structure of the AFL competition exactly that, designed to keep it "fair & even" by the order of the draft picks? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, as my dad used to say.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |