SA Footy

LOL Not rocket science is it my old friend!

Wedgie wrote:

Special One wrote:When you all realise the sanfl is a farm system and you'll know there was no real options to choose from. Go ask league coach's what they would prefer? This year or last year. I know they would prefer this years structure. Anyway the magpies loses their zone, under 18's and recruiting rights due to it constricts afl draft rules. It's maybe time that clubs be more professional instead going through the motions eg like North Adelaide.

A South supporter saying North are just going through the motions!!!
At least North have won a flag or two since man landed on the moon!
What next?
A Collingwood supporter teaching us about dentistry?

South supporter ??? Please re-read post and the team they follow mate.

whufc wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Yes im worried we will end up the VFL.
Bendigo has folded and will pull out at end of season, Frankston also look like doing the same. Crowd numbers are dropping off alarmingly since the first few game novelty factor wore off. Never expected any Cows fans to attend as I predicted that last year but must be a huge concern that a side that is sitting top in both comps now cant even draw two cats and a dog to their games. I honesy expected Port to be drawing big crowds with the way they are playing

Yep the current Port situation is equally as worrying.

I actually thought that with Port reserves being top and the Power flying and now being 'one club' like they all wanted that the numbers would be coming back to watch the 'magpies'

Hasnt been the case though.

When was the last time a top of the table team at end of the minor round would have an average home crowd of less than 3k.

History (VFL with Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn) showed us that 50K plus members doesnt equal big crowds to watch reserves play.

At a rough estimate, I'd say Sturt supporters outnumbered Port by about four to one at Unley on the weekend, would've had 4000 there had their numbers matched ours. In past years, given the relative ladder positions this deep into the season, the ground would've been full and boiling over with passion echoing those great Sturt v Port clashes of years past.

Wedgie wrote: A Collingwood supporter teaching us about dentistry?

How about a Geelong supporter not wearing ugg boots?

Wedgie wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

Wedgie wrote: A Collingwood supporter teaching us about dentistry?

How about a Geelong supporter not wearing ugg boots?

You been talking to my girlfriend?

Soooo many lines...

Wedgie wrote:He changed his team after my post from South to Eagles, perhaps you shouldn't make false assumptions telling people to re-read things?
Point still stands since he's changed from South to Eagles as they went through the easiest possible pathetic motions when they merged.
If their supporters had some balls in the 80s we probably wouldn't be in this mess now!

Wasn't the fans that racked up a massive debt that forced the merger. Criticise the board members all you like but the fans didn't have much of a choice.

Shame we didnt have a sugar daddy to bail us out of every financial hole we created. How times have changed. Now the AFL or SANFL would just bail us out if we made bad commercial decisions. Isn't that how it works?!?

Tech1 wrote:I agree with Jim05, this evens things up massively but i don't think we should scrap the cap either, we still need some sort of salary cap otherwise we will have a new set of problems to deal with, something like an increase to around $450,000 and the league should fund the extra amount and the clubs can either use it for the cap or not. The crowd numbers for Port have been terrible for a team top of the ladder, surely it's decreased this year? and the crows numbers are going to end up crap too. Surely at the end of the year the alarm bells should be ringing at SANFL headquarters that big changes need to be made to both port and the crows structures to save the competition before it's too late.

Well with Port, thats what happens when you kill of the soul of a team. As for alarm bells, well who knows what will happen at the end of the year. Its the SANFL anything is possible........

Wedgie wrote:

southee wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Special One wrote:When you all realise the sanfl is a farm system and you'll know there was no real options to choose from. Go ask league coach's what they would prefer? This year or last year. I know they would prefer this years structure. Anyway the magpies loses their zone, under 18's and recruiting rights due to it constricts afl draft rules. It's maybe time that clubs be more professional instead going through the motions eg like North Adelaide.

A South supporter saying North are just going through the motions!!!
At least North have won a flag or two since man landed on the moon!
What next?
A Collingwood supporter teaching us about dentistry?

South supporter ??? Please re-read post and the team they follow mate.

He changed his team after my post from South to Eagles, perhaps you shouldn't make false assumptions telling people to re-read things?
Point still stands since he's changed from South to Eagles as they went through the easiest possible pathetic motions when they merged.
If their supporters had some balls in the 80s we probably wouldn't be in this mess now!

....and how was I supposed to know he/she changed their team from South to Eagles as I read it????? - it was the Eagles at the time.

Bit touchy there Wedgie........

Meanwhile in Perth AFL reserves teams are starting games two players short.


WAFC under siege over Peel stance

Dale Miller The West Australian July 2, 2014, 6:54 am


A core group of WAFL presidents want Peel Thunder and Fremantle threatened with sanctions to prevent AFL-listed players being held out of games at the last minute on match day.

The WA Football Commission has asked for a please explain from the Thunder and the Dockers after Kepler Bradley and Tom Sheridan did not arrive at Saturday's match against Subiaco at Medibank Stadium until midway through the second quarter.

Bradley and Sheridan had both been named as Fremantle emergencies and were late to the Peel game after being asked to warm up with teammates taking part in the western derby at Patersons Stadium. Peel subsequently started the league match with 20 players and lost by 26 points.

WAFC officials were urged to take a heavy-handed approach against similar acts at a heated council of presidents' meeting on Monday night, but the governing body stopped short of flagging sanctions.

Council chairman and West Perth president Brett Raponi said the league needed to do more than seek a verbal explanation.

"I don't think that's strong enough," he said. "I don't think it's good enough from the WA Football Commission.

"I think there needs to be some serious dialogue between the commission, Fremantle and Peel to assure the competition and its stakeholders that it won't happen again.

"It is personal and we expect the WAFC to react accordingly and address the situation."

West Perth were fined $7000 in 2012 after club figures, including coach Bill Monaghan, confronted umpires and East Perth players during a drawn derby at Arena Joondalup - a move Raponi said had proved a deterrent.

South Fremantle's Haydn Raitt said some club presidents were angry about the issue, which has fuelled tensions over the AFL alignment model.

"It makes a mockery of our competition," he said. "It's almost like it helps contrive the result."

WAFC chief operating officer Nick Sautner said the commission had sought clarification from Peel and the Dockers.

"Any challenges identified during the inaugural year of the WAFL partnering model will be assessed at the conclusion of the season in line with the WAFC's commitment to an annual review," he said.

Peel president John Ditchburn said it was a "one-off" and that the Thunder made their decision in consultation with Fremantle. He said only clubs in finals contention - who stood to lose from Subiaco's win - had voiced their disapproval.

Subiaco president Mark Lawrence said he had no issue with Peel starting the match two players short.

Put Fremantle and West Coast up on the scoreboard when the stand alone clubs play Peel and East Perth.....

heater31 wrote:Put Fremantle and West Coast up on the scoreboard when the stand alone clubs play Peel and East Perth.....

Even for their reserves and colts?

heater31 wrote:Put Fremantle and West Coast up on the scoreboard when the stand alone clubs play Peel and East Perth.....

There was more of an uproar over that when they did it (as a joke) than for this incident.

Only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what almost certainly will occur down the track. Fast forward to the Powers last minor round game in WA against Freo- what happens if their position on the ladder can't change & they wish to rest half the side in preparation for finals the following week? (As Freo did last year if I recall)

oh please come on, how can any of you think that this situation could possibly arise here in SA..............

and the last little part of that article says it all really.......


the AFL has done a fantastic job of foookin over the state leagues

Peel president John Ditchburn said it was a "one-off"...

So that makes it OK? (Assuming it is merely a one-off)

and that the Thunder made their decision in consultation with Fremantle.

If anything, that sort of collusion with the AFL cancers makes the whole thing worse.

He said only clubs in finals contention - who stood to lose from Subiaco's win - had voiced their disapproval.

No shit - seriously, how selfish are clubs like that who put their self-interest in making the finals ahead of the AFL clubs' interests? How many clubs aren't in finals contention in late June anyway? Just Peel?

Subiaco president Mark Lawrence said he had no issue with Peel starting the match two players short.

Oh well lardy ****ing dah, how gracious of him.

Rising Power wrote:

heater31 wrote:Put Fremantle and West Coast up on the scoreboard when the stand alone clubs play Peel and East Perth.....

Even for their reserves and colts?

If half of those sides contain AFL listed players, then sure

RB wrote:Peel president John Ditchburn said it was a "one-off"...

So that makes it OK? (Assuming it is merely a one-off)

and that the Thunder made their decision in consultation with Fremantle.

If anything, that sort of collusion with the AFL cancers makes the whole thing worse.

He said only clubs in finals contention - who stood to lose from Subiaco's win - had voiced their disapproval.

No shit - seriously, how selfish are clubs like that who put their self-interest in making the finals ahead of the AFL clubs' interests? How many clubs aren't in finals contention in late June anyway? Just Peel?

Subiaco president Mark Lawrence said he had no issue with Peel starting the match two players short.

Oh well lardy ****ing dah, how gracious of him.

what team wouldn't have an issue with the opposition starting two players short???

I hope the Eagles rock up 2 players short on sunday, just to give us a chance for 5 mins

Rucci mentioned tonight there will be changes next year but also mentioned that both sides are looking at forming an alliance with a SAAFL side

Jim05 wrote:Rucci mentioned tonight there will be changes next year but also mentioned that both sides are looking at forming an alliance with a SAAFL side

presumably as their "reserves" for the top up players?

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

RB wrote:Peel president John Ditchburn said it was a "one-off"...

So that makes it OK? (Assuming it is merely a one-off)

and that the Thunder made their decision in consultation with Fremantle.

If anything, that sort of collusion with the AFL cancers makes the whole thing worse.

He said only clubs in finals contention - who stood to lose from Subiaco's win - had voiced their disapproval.

No shit - seriously, how selfish are clubs like that who put their self-interest in making the finals ahead of the AFL clubs' interests? How many clubs aren't in finals contention in late June anyway? Just Peel?

Subiaco president Mark Lawrence said he had no issue with Peel starting the match two players short.

Oh well lardy ****ing dah, how gracious of him.

what team wouldn't have an issue with the opposition starting two players short???

I hope the Eagles rock up 2 players short on sunday, just to give us a chance for 5 mins

Eagles would have to turn up with half a team for your mob to have a chance