Panther Pack wrote:Absolute joke that Port and Adelaide get a marquee player and the other 8 clubs don't.
The dinkum 8 clubs don't need a marquee player. They aren't subject to rules which can be bent by declaring a player to be "marquee".
by Pseudo » Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:52 am
Panther Pack wrote:Absolute joke that Port and Adelaide get a marquee player and the other 8 clubs don't.
by PanthersFan » Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:50 am
by Dogs64 » Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:35 am
by VALE PARK » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:05 pm
by Dutchy » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:07 pm
VALE PARK wrote:The competition is not a level playing field.
Why can't every fair dinkum SANFL club have 1 Marquee player and pay him the same salary as an extra too.
I am surprised a few clubs don't squeal about this.
by Dogs64 » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:27 pm
VALE PARK wrote:The competition is not a level playing field.
Why can't every fair dinkum SANFL club have 1 Marquee player and pay him the same salary as an extra too.
I am surprised a few clubs don't squeal about this.
by StrayDog » Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:44 pm
Dogs64 wrote:VALE PARK wrote:The competition is not a level playing field.
Why can't every fair dinkum SANFL club have 1 Marquee player and pay him the same salary as an extra too.
I am surprised a few clubs don't squeal about this.
Roy Laird did.
by DOC » Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:31 pm
Dogs64 wrote:Anyone know the actual rule regarding "marquee" players?
by daysofourlives » Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:38 pm
Dutchy wrote:VALE PARK wrote:The competition is not a level playing field.
Why can't every fair dinkum SANFL club have 1 Marquee player and pay him the same salary as an extra too.
I am surprised a few clubs don't squeal about this.
Norwood have
by LMA » Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:15 pm
StrayDog wrote:Dogs64 wrote:VALE PARK wrote:The competition is not a level playing field.
Why can't every fair dinkum SANFL club have 1 Marquee player and pay him the same salary as an extra too.
I am surprised a few clubs don't squeal about this.
Roy Laird did.
Ah yes. Part of Roy's supposed "anti AFL stance" that was reflected in Centrals' failure to "keep up with the times". Apparently.
I seem to remember reading that on this thread somewhere.
by LMA » Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:23 pm
DOC wrote:Dogs64 wrote:Anyone know the actual rule regarding "marquee" players?
The marquee player is able to be picked ahead of any AFL listed player.
by LMA » Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:36 pm
PanthersFan wrote:I thought the likes of Dixon, Wines, Westhoff and Ryder et al would be enough marquee players.
No? Are they not up to SANFL standard?
And yes I’m aware that they don’t all play every week, but every week there is at least one good AFL player playing in the SANFL.
Surely that is marquee?
Then there’s the rest of the team who are full time footballers, but I think we’ve had this conversation before...
by DOC » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:01 pm
LMA wrote:DOC wrote:Dogs64 wrote:Anyone know the actual rule regarding "marquee" players?
The marquee player is able to be picked ahead of any AFL listed player.
This would rarely happen. It would mean that Port or Adelaide virtually have an injury free list.
AFL list is 47, 22-24 for the A's and 21 for the B's each week.
by beef » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:02 pm
by LMA » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:22 pm
DOC wrote:LMA wrote:DOC wrote:Dogs64 wrote:Anyone know the actual rule regarding "marquee" players?
The marquee player is able to be picked ahead of any AFL listed player.
This would rarely happen. It would mean that Port or Adelaide virtually have an injury free list.
AFL list is 47, 22-24 for the A's and 21 for the B's each week.
It is exactly what happened to Steve Summerton and why Port sought the marquee player.
by LMA » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:30 pm
beef wrote:Grundy wouldn't get 4 disposals playing ammos. There isn't a worse footballer playing sanfl, no idea how he's on an afl list. Should get 2 marquee players if having to play Grundy.
by oldfella » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:59 pm
by LMA » Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:47 pm
by oldfella » Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:32 pm
LMA wrote:So the Marquee maxes out at $29k for playing and the top ups who aren't good enough to make other SANFL clubs get a base payment of upto $4k and match payments accordingly. Storm in a teacup? What would the best players in the league at other clubs be on?
by LMA » Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:52 pm
oldfella wrote:LMA wrote:So the Marquee maxes out at $29k for playing and the top ups who aren't good enough to make other SANFL clubs get a base payment of upto $4k and match payments accordingly. Storm in a teacup? What would the best players in the league at other clubs be on?
Base payment of $20,000 and match payments of $500 per match (22 games =11k) then potentially Marquee Player gets 31k not 29k. You must also include in your calculations that normally the Marquee has a paid Coaching role with the Power 20-30k which is not included within the salary cap hence in total Marquee gets between 51-61k which is top dollar for most clubs trying to recruit.
The number of AFL list players ( minimum 38 senior listed with a maximum of 40 senior listed plus 4/6 Rookie listed depending on how many senior listed players == total of 44 players) hence on face value if no injuries (unlikely) then Supplementary List of players unlikely to get a game with exception of Marquee player who can play instead of a rookie.
Also there is only a maximum of 10 contracted players (including NGA and father son players who only play when not enough other AFL players of various type are available due to injury). Interesting fact about the Supplementary Players they get 4k regardless and are also getting a realistic $$ from the lower home clubs that they play for --- based on several players that I have spoken too most get more than the SANFL base salary and as such it is difficult to recruit them.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |