Ron Fuller on club zones

[Aerie]

Sounds like Eagles will lose section south-west of Henley Bch Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd to Glenelg, Thebby to West and Angle Vale to Central. Not sure if any is gained?

Would it not be wise to maybe wait a year to see what is happening with this AFL Reserves stuff as there may well need to be a realignment with just the 8 clubs if Port Magpies become the AFL Reserves option. It does seem more likely this AFL Reserves issue will come to a head next season - whether it changes anything or not remains to be seen. Seems a bit of a waste to do it all right now.

[DOC]

South will stuff this relationship up with the River Murray league

What relationship?

[RB]

Unbelievable to think that the suburb of Thebarton might no longer be in the Eagles' zone.

[Gravel]

Surely Thebarton can not be taken from the Eagles. It is the original heartland suburb for the club and I find it a disgrace that the SANFL would even consider this. Eagles fans need to protest.

[blueandwhite]

Surely Thebarton can not be taken from the Eagles. It is the original heartland suburb for the club and I find it a disgrace that the SANFL would even consider this. Eagles fans need to protest.

original heartland.for my club was around Hutt St in the city.........weve been a movable feast when it comes to zones for 100 yrs.

[JK]

Would it not be wise to maybe wait a year to see what is happening with this AFL Reserves stuff as there may well need to be a realignment with just the 8 clubs if Port Magpies become the AFL Reserves option. It does seem more likely this AFL Reserves issue will come to a head next season - whether it changes anything or not remains to be seen. Seems a bit of a waste to do it all right now.

Top post Aerie

[holden78]

Sounds like Eagles will lose section south-west of Henley Bch Rd/Tapleys Hill Rd to Glenelg, Thebby to West and Angle Vale to Central. Not sure if any is gained?

Would it not be wise to maybe wait a year to see what is happening with this AFL Reserves stuff as there may well need to be a realignment with just the 8 clubs if Port Magpies become the AFL Reserves option. It does seem more likely this AFL Reserves issue will come to a head next season - whether it changes anything or not remains to be seen. Seems a bit of a waste to do it all right now.

This seems like working some minor issues around so when the Magpies are gone to AFL Ressie Heaven then the logical club for the port and peninsula will be the Eagles.
Don't forget the old Eagles have played home games for a time at Alberton oval, before leaving it to the Magpies!
I can't see any other club being able to fit in down that way, definitely not the Bays anyhow

[The Sleeping Giant]

Your right. Eagles supporters would fit right in down the port.

[Dutchy]

From the Murray Bridge paper

Sturt promises to fight for RMFL place

THE Sturt Football Club will fight to maintain its relationship with the River Murray Football League (RMFL) in the face of the South Australian National Foot-ball League (SANFL) plans that would see the 27-year-long partnership end.

Sturt talent development manager Colin Casey said the club would argue strongly against the SANFL's plans to make the RMFL a feeder league for the South Adelaide Football Club, a move that would end the long-running partnership between the local league and Sturt.

"We will be responding to the boundary commission, strongly objecting to the changes," he said.

"Our relationship with the River Murray over the last 27 years has been more than cordial.

"It has been very fruitful, we've had a great Pathways (development) program and successful interleague competitions and players."

Mr Casey said Sturt had been aware changes to club relationships were planned but said Sturt had "never in our wildest dreams" thought the changes would end the club's partnership with the RMFL.

He echoed concerns raised by RMFL president Mick O'Hara over the effect the changes would have on the development of local juniors who had seen their skills grow as a result of the league and the club's partnership.

Mr O'Hara said last week the RMFL would have to start from scratch with South Adelaide to rebuild the foundations it had with Sturt.

"If we do have to change we would be in exactly the same boat," Mr Casey said.

"We would have to go and convince Norwood teams that we're as good."

“You’re looking at fractured families with one kid playing in one team and another kid at another club with no say in it.”

Mr Casey also agreed with concerns raised about increased travel time if RMFL players were forced to attend training or games in the South Adelaide heartland of Noarlunga rather than at Sturt’s home in Unley.

“Everyone is time poor these days and getting poorer,” Mr Casey said.

The SANFL’s boundary commission is due to make a decision on the proposed zone changes on Tuesday, December 18.
Print StorySave
DISQUS...

[Wedgie]

Report in todays paper. Sturt kept the RMFL but lost more chunks of the hills. Seems weird they would change them so Sturt have even less participants than South did before the change. Sturt have gone from 11637 to 11083 where South went from 11200 to 12080. From the outside looking in Sturt appear to have been screwed and South gifted a larger to ignore.
As predicted before the Eagles lost Thebarton to West.

[Sojourner]

Which would Sturt suppoters prefer, to retain the RMFL, or be pushed out of the Unley area as growth continues in the Adelaide Hills in new developments at Callington, Mt Barker and so on?

[Bunton]

Report in todays paper. Sturt kept the RMFL but lost more chunks of the hills. Seems weird they would change them so Sturt have even less participants than South did before the change. Sturt have gone from 11637 to 11083 where South went from 11200 to 12080. From the outside looking in Sturt appear to have been screwed and South gifted a larger to ignore.
As predicted before the Eagles lost Thebarton to West.

Assume you mean population not participants wedgie! Good that souths population has gone up, but would bet my left agget that we still have the least participants by a mile

[Wedgie]

Report in todays paper. Sturt kept the RMFL but lost more chunks of the hills. Seems weird they would change them so Sturt have even less participants than South did before the change. Sturt have gone from 11637 to 11083 where South went from 11200 to 12080. From the outside looking in Sturt appear to have been screwed and South gifted a larger to ignore.
As predicted before the Eagles lost Thebarton to West.

Assume you mean population not participants wedgie! Good that souths population has gone up, but would bet my left agget that we still have the least participants by a mile

Actually I should have meant males aged 10-19. Whoops!

[SANFLnut]

Two things:
1. Anyone using participation figures in zoning discussions is only attempting to muddy the waters to support their own case.

These figures are incredibly unreliable and do not give an accurate picture of the situation. The SANFL and many others in the know are well aware that lots of kids are counted two, three or four times in these figures. The only reliable source of accurate population data is the census which is then used to equalise numbers (within 5%) of males aged 10-19 in each club zone. It is then part of the SANFL clubs role to generate participation within the zone. If having less participants in your zone lead to an increased zone then this would actually provide a disincentive to promote and develop the game in your area.

2. Can someone please publish the figures (or a link to them) as they don't seem to be on SANFL website. I'd like to see population numbers before and after the change for each club to judge for myself whether the changes have lead to greater equity or not.

[am Bays]

Two things:
1. Anyone using participation figures in zoning discussions is only attempting to muddy the waters to support their own case.

These figures are incredibly unreliable and do not give an accurate picture of the situation. The SANFL and many others in the know are well aware that lots of kids are counted two, three or four times in these figures. The only reliable source of accurate population data is the census which is then used to equalise numbers (within 5%) of males aged 10-19 in each club zone. It is then part of the SANFL clubs role to generate participation within the zone. If having less participants in your zone lead to an increased zone then this would actually provide a disincentive to promote and develop the game in your area.

2. Can someone please publish the figures (or a link to them) as they don't seem to be on SANFL website. I'd like to see population numbers before and after the change for each club to judge for myself whether the changes have lead to greater equity or not.

This site has been going for over seven years, finally the most erudite, ingenous and knowledgable post in this sites history.

Some clubs sem to forget they get participation and development funding from the AFL via the SANFL to boost participation numbers not inherit them. One could ask how the Sturt are feeling this morining given the work they have done in their metropolitan zone over the past few years to boost their Auskick numbers, seems others will get the benefit of that hard work.

SANFLnut, I am seeking the report too from my SANFL club, it hasn't been released publically yet. I am interested in the before and after population numbers too.

[SANFLnut]

Thanks am Bays, please post the numbers if you get a copy. So far it sounds a bit dodgy but it may just be Sturt making noise about getting a rough deal.

[Aerie]

So if West get Thebarton, presumably that is east of South Road so Thebby Oval itself is still in Eagles territory. That's fine by me. Eagles keep Henley South as well. APY lands officially Eagles territory now also. The end result not as bad as first drafted a couple of weeks ago from an Eagles point of view.

[SDK]

So if Sturt retain Murray Bridge do Norwood retain their traditional area too and so can go ahead with their academy at Charles Campbell HS ?
As Colin Casey said Sturt have to start fresh with the area like South would in MB.
Leave the fxxxing areas alone !!!!!!!!! How much damage can the SANFL do ? No one is happy so shelve it all.

[holden78]

Just to try and put a fine point on this....... Is this all being done simply to paper over the cracks ie. South's pathetic record in the last half century..... so as to shut them up by expanding their zone!

It won't stop some of their better players wanting out to other clubs or back home and it won't stop local clubs offering top $ with little training required unlike a SANFL League team!

It's a traditional comp with traditional zones..... leave it alone ffs!

[kneedeepinthehoopla]

Quote Colin Casey "and its all just to get these other clubs off the bottom." Ummmm...