SA Footy

I've never really understood zoning or how it's decided. Apart from say a 5 mile radius or whatever from the club's home ground the rest would be open season with the 8 SANFL clubs using scouts.
What kind of system gives PAFC Salisbury as it's Zone?? It's ridiculous.
And if a kid wants to play for North he can't because he is in a Norwood zone. Why shouldn't he play for North if he wants to.

I guess the problem is the draft. Spending coin to scout kids, develop them and then lose them to the AFL is the problem, unless they raised the draft age to say 23. At least that way the development club would get up to 5 years worth of player.

Alternatively they could be drafted from 18 with the AFL club paying their wages until they are 23 but the player stays at his SANFL club. It would also open up the salary cap as any draftee being paid by his AFL club would be excluded from the salary cap.

Simples

johntheclaret wrote:I've never really understood zoning or how it's decided. Apart from say a 5 mile radius or whatever from the club's home ground the rest would be open season with the 8 SANFL clubs using scouts.
What kind of system gives PAFC Salisbury as it's Zone?? It's ridiculous.
And if a kid wants to play for North he can't because he is in a Norwood zone. Why shouldn't he play for North if he wants to.

I guess the problem is the draft. Spending coin to scout kids, develop them and then lose them to the AFL is the problem, unless they raised the draft age to say 23. At least that way the development club would get up to 5 years worth of player.

Alternatively they could be drafted from 18 with the AFL club paying their wages until they are 23 but the player stays at his SANFL club. It would also open up the salary cap as any draftee being paid by his AFL club would be excluded from the salary cap.

Simples

Most of them take a couple of years to develop in the AFL system. Going by this those players wouldn't be playing until they are 25-26 years old only giving them a couple of years to play footy.

A even more simple idea is for the AFL to do a u/18 comp nation wide. If the SANFL clubs have a issue spending the money and losing the kids don't have the competition.

What a great idea. Agree 100%

If the AFL clubs aren't prepared to finance the state leagues to develop the kids, then totally agree. Scarp the AFL, get rid of the "made up" franchises like the Crows, WCE, GWS, Lions, Swans etc and promote the state leagues as it should be.

johntheclaret wrote:What a great idea. Agree 100%

If the AFL clubs aren't prepared to finance the state leagues to develop the kids, then totally agree. Scarp the AFL, get rid of the "made up" franchises like the Crows, WCE, GWS, Lions, Swans etc and promote the state leagues as it should be.

go back to the 70s, you are not welcome in this day and age.

lol.

johntheclaret wrote:I've never really understood zoning or how it's decided. Apart from say a 5 mile radius or whatever from the club's home ground the rest would be open season with the 8 SANFL clubs using scouts.
What kind of system gives PAFC Salisbury as it's Zone?? It's ridiculous.
And if a kid wants to play for North he can't because he is in a Norwood zone. Why shouldn't he play for North if he wants

They tried that in the 19th century and it didn't work - everyone went to Norwood. It wouldn't be fair on the less popular teams.

The premise behind zoning is quite simple. Use the census to count Males aged 10-19 (or similar) in Adelaide. Create boundaries that allocate about equal numbers of said males to each club. Becomes tricky with growth occurring in same areas (eg.southern areas around Seaford) and changes being needed. Also balancing metro zone and country zone numbers. Clubs have "traditional" areas they'd like to keep in their zone.

Hey, that's our zone and they're not refugees!

There's a move by some to have the zones decided around player base, rather than population base.
The CDFC would certainly be interested in seeing that.

Dogwatcher wrote:Hey, that's our zone and they're not refugees!

Having made that joke...it is possible that we will see it become an even more significant issue in coming years.
More affordable housing in our areas will possibly, in the future, make the areas around Elizabeth and Munno Para more attractive to refugee groups.
No longer will it be the 'English' playing soccer, but African or possibly Middle Eastern people.

Wedgie, is Kilburn North or Port these days?

No AFL in SANFL > AFL clubs in > Concessions for AFL clubs > Redistributing zones > What communities do zones have > Africans in Kilburn and moving to Elizabeth.

I reckon it's on topic.

Wedgie wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Wedgie, is Kilburn North or Port these days?

Definitely not Port, we had this discussion in another thread and someone thought it was the Eagles area but the final consensus was it was Norths area I think.
Its an interesting topic as an argument against using junior registrations is there would be less incentive for clubs to get involved at Auskick level to get kids signed up for footy.

Yep, it is in North's area



When I looked that up I was surprised North only have 7 clubs in their zone (including Kilburn) with juniors

Adelaide Uni (no jnrs)
BOS (no jnrs)

Broadview
Gaza
Gepps Cross
Greeacres
Ingle Farm
Kilburn
Walkerville

I'm not sure how that would stack up against the other clubs

Dogwatcher wrote:There's a move by some to have the zones decided around player base, rather than population base.
The CDFC would certainly be interested in seeing that.

Pity there's no reliable data to make decisions on that parameter.

The myfootball player registration website was supposed to fix that but three years after it was set up, it still isn't functioning properly.

Ian wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Wedgie, is Kilburn North or Port these days?

Definitely not Port, we had this discussion in another thread and someone thought it was the Eagles area but the final consensus was it was Norths area I think.
Its an interesting topic as an argument against using junior registrations is there would be less incentive for clubs to get involved at Auskick level to get kids signed up for footy.

Yep, it is in North's area

NAFC recruiting zone 2014.JPG

When I looked that up I was surprised North only have 7 clubs in their zone (including Kilburn) with juniors

Adelaide Uni (no jnrs)
BOS (no jnrs)

Broadview
Gaza
Gepps Cross
Greeacres
Ingle Farm
Kilburn
Walkerville

I'm not sure how that would stack up against the other clubs

We have about the same. This is just a guess.

Elizabeth
Smithfield
Central United
Eastern Park
Central United
Salisbury?
Brahma Lodge?
Angle Vale - I'm guessing

JK wrote:Norwood will lose their Hills zone most likely to Sturt I would think. Would think there's a domino effect so most if not all clubs zones would be amended.

That would be good, the HFL is zoned to 4 different SANFL clubs at the moment.

Dogwatcher wrote:
Elizabeth
Smithfield
Central United
Eastern Park
Central United
Salisbury?
Brahma Lodge?
Angle Vale - I'm guessing

plus the BLG, or are you not counting country zones?

Just talking city zones, in this case.

Eagles CURRENTLY have 7 junior city clubs

Henley
Flinders Park
Fitzroy
Seaton
SMOS West Lakes
Woodville South
West Croydon


Kilburn was in Eagles zone for about 4 years when I first started. They had no juniors at the time , went back to North about 1-2 allocations ago with 3 teams.

SANFL also now having to deal with some hostile media figures. The Crows have a heap of media 'ambassadors' and it's beyond belief they wouldn't expect them to promote Crow interests. Port have their boosters like Russell and Rucci. Even Ricciuto now critical of SANFL take from Adelaide Oval. Effectively the AFL pays the wages of commentators like the Roo so it's hardly surprising but it's a real issue now. I'm sure the club's leak info to the media and get their media mates to get out the baseball bats when they're not happy about the stadium deals etc. I did hear well over 1000 journos cover the AFL nation wide now so plenty of snouts in the trough. What SANFL perspective is allowed, Partland or someone gets a tiny column if he's lucky!

Ronnie wrote:SANFL also now having to deal with some hostile media figures. The Crows have a heap of media 'ambassadors' and it's beyond belief they wouldn't expect them to promote Crow interests. Port have their boosters like Russell and Rucci. Even Ricciuto now critical of SANFL take from Adelaide Oval. Effectively the AFL pays the wages of commentators like the Roo so it's hardly surprising but it's a real issue now. I'm sure the club's leak info to the media and get their media mates to get out the baseball bats when they're not happy about the stadium deals etc. I did hear well over 1000 journos cover the AFL nation wide now so plenty of snouts in the trough. What SANFL perspective is allowed, Partland or someone gets a tiny column if he's lucky!

Spot on. Media has a huge influence. Can be positive or negative. Wish it was more positive.