Is the SANFL board just "yes men" to the AFL ?

[holden78]

The vote last year to go to an 18 age comp was all for show ; once the AFL threatened to pull the $ , it was inevitable ! Just have a look at Whicker and Payze , how forced was that wank of a media conferance the other week to Spin the Adelaide Oval , or should I call it the AFL Oval redevelopment ! Does anyone think Demetriou gives a **** about SANFL Footy , he has zero interest . $ rules !

[redandblack]

Do you ever have a positive thought about anything at all, Holden

[therisingblues]

what clubs are those "rising blues" besides Port? Have a look at the ins and outs thread, doesn't look like too many of the clubs are doing too badly. If a club can't pay the current low salary cap, then they're doing something seriously wrong.
Coming up with the same old pokie crap arguement wears a bit thin. Be interesting to see if the Blues, get Hinge Giles as well as Hassan.
Just for info Central (I'm assuming that's where your stereotypical jealousy is targeted) made a small profit this year. Maybe not going on recruiting splurges helps the balance sheet.

Dude, if pokies don't have a place in this debate then Koalas don't climb trees and chew leaves. There is more than one thing that makes a club successful, I am sure a lot of players would like to head out to Elizabeth just to play under Laird and experience the stability of the CDFC. My only jealousy of them is for their recent onfield success and I am not afraid to admit that. I have tipped my hat to the Dogs on more than one occassion just this past year, an dmany more times before then.
So my earlier comment was not from such motivation however, and if pokies don't make such a difference to the balance sheet then I'll withdraw the comment, but my understanding is that it is a veritable cash cow and it is a simple truth that poorer people dump much more money into pokie machines.
Originally I pondered how some clubs would survive under the old cap. For D4E to throw out a line like "financial incompetence" without considering some factors is short sighted. In attempting to address one of those factors I have seemed to have offended you. But I fail to understand how easy it is for your ilk to goad over others their lack of cash yet cry foul when we mention the source of yours.
P.S. The other clubs I was referring to were Sturt and Norwood. I read a fair bit about their financial struggles in recent times. If you are now telling me that it is all in my head and Sturt is cruising by then that is good news to me.

[sjt]

what clubs are those "rising blues" besides Port? Have a look at the ins and outs thread, doesn't look like too many of the clubs are doing too badly. If a club can't pay the current low salary cap, then they're doing something seriously wrong.
Coming up with the same old pokie crap arguement wears a bit thin. Be interesting to see if the Blues, get Hinge Giles as well as Hassan.
Just for info Central (I'm assuming that's where your stereotypical jealousy is targeted) made a small profit this year. Maybe not going on recruiting splurges helps the balance sheet.

Dude, if pokies don't have a place in this debate then Koalas don't climb trees and chew leaves. There is more than one thing that makes a club successful, I am sure a lot of players would like to head out to Elizabeth just to play under Laird and experience the stability of the CDFC. My only jealousy of them is for their recent onfield success and I am not afraid to admit that. I have tipped my hat to the Dogs on more than one occassion just this past year, an dmany more times before then.
So my earlier comment was not from such motivation however, and if pokies don't make such a difference to the balance sheet then I'll withdraw the comment, but my understanding is that it is a veritable cash cow and it is a simple truth that poorer people dump much more money into pokie machines.
Originally I pondered how some clubs would survive under the old cap. For D4E to throw out a line like "financial incompetence" without considering some factors is short sighted. In attempting to address one of those factors I have seemed to have offended you. But I fail to understand how easy it is for your ilk to goad over others their lack of cash yet cry foul when we mention the source of yours.
P.S. The other clubs I was referring to were Sturt and Norwood. I read a fair bit about their financial struggles in recent times. If you are now telling me that it is all in my head and Sturt is cruising by then that is good news to me.

Koalas do climb trees and agreed Pokies do make a difference to the balance sheet. I believe, perhaps as you do, that there should be a cap. For obvious reasons i.e the wealthier clubs can't just go and buy all the best players, then become more successful and wealthier still. It provides for a potentially "fairer" comp. However, I'm not for any reduction in the already reduced current cap. we are already seeing quite a few players prematurely retiring due the demands of SANFL footy for lesser pay.
I don't believe the current cap (though difficult) is too onerous for clubs to support. Regarding Norwood one of the clubs mentioned. The cap payments not only were met by them but exceeded, so they can't be struggling to badly. As for Sturt, if they are able to attain the services of Hinge or Giles, I think you can rest a bit more easily regarding their financial situation, and ability to meet player payments (the cap).
Maybe both clubs have been able to deal with previous poor decisions and adversity and have turned things around.
P.S I don't goad over others lack of cash (not even Port.......well maybe a little

[am Bays]

My $0.02 worth. I think our Board should stand up to the AFL and say our cap is indexed to the AFL cap. Given the AFL cap is roughly $6 000 000 our cap should be 10% of that $600 000. It allows our players to earn a decent amount of cash for their commitment.

For equity the VFL and WAFL should be allowed to have a cap of $600 000 too, so our League isn't seen as being more attractive (even though we know it is).

The AFL should help the State leagues with some $$$ to help fund this appropriate remuneration for our League players. The AFL sells them the dream of being professional footballers and then within as little as 22 months they can be cast adrift purely on the opinion of a "list management committee".

However if we were to lose a club or two because of this cap limit well so be it.

[redandblack]

Finding an extra quarter of a million each year might send more than one or two of our clubs broke.

Especially if the AFL decided that if we vwere that rich, they'd abolish payments for drafted players, hence each club losing more money.

Sounds good in theory, but we're playing in the real world.

[am Bays]

Finding an extra quarter of a million each year might send more than one or two of our clubs broke.

Especially if the AFL decided that if we vwere that rich, they'd abolish payments for drafted players, hence each club losing more money.

Sounds good in theory, but we're playing in the real world.

R&B This is a sport on the verge of signing a Billion dollar TV rights deal not too mention the other revenue streams. All I'm saying the AFL should do more for the next level below AFL level especially in the major Footballing states so the yong kids who get cut through no real fault of their own can still earn some decent coin whilst they try to set up the rest of their lives.

This shouldn't be just limited to our league but the WAFL and VFL should be supported in this way too.

The money is there the SANFL along with the WAFl and AFL Victoria should be arguing this point vigorously.

You don't think your Westies boys deserve more coin for their commitment???

[redandblack]

I'll answer properly later, am Bays, but it seems like you're saying we should tell the AFL to go jump, as long as they give us more money from their TV deals.

Can't see it happening, mate

[am Bays]

I'll answer properly later, am Bays, but it seems like you're saying we should tell the AFL to go jump, as long as they give us more money from their TV deals.

Can't see it happening, mate

No I'm telling them to open up their purse strings to support the next level of the sport below them across the country. Basically over five years I'm asking for approximately 1% of their Billion over five years (extra $250 000 a year per SANFL club) 9 x $ 0.25 Million x 5 = $11.25 Million

However I think our clubs should find more coin too.

Like you I can't see it happening but it should. Also teh AFL should be mindfull of the fact that we provide ex-AFL players with a high level of competition that allows them to practise what teh AFL has demanded of them and filled their heads with for over five years - elite junior competitions and AFL competition.

Talking to an ex-AFL players father he is bitter of the demands placed on his kid only to be cut adrift at the whim of "the competiton". The SANFL allows his son to earn good money, in a club environment whilst at the ame time preapring and playing at an reasonably elite level - as has been drummed into his head for over eight years prior to coming to SA. We shouldn't be punished for that, IMO the AFL should reward it.

[Barto]

My $0.02 worth. I think our Board should stand up to the AFL and say our cap is indexed to the AFL cap. Given the AFL cap is roughly $6 000 000 our cap should be 10% of that $600 000. It allows our players to earn a decent amount of cash for their commitment.

Seems fair, the players put in a decent amount of work as well as having "day jobs". Why should the AFL have a say in what the SANFL cap is?

I'd question if there's a case for restraint of trade against the AFL.

[redandblack]

Have a look at the facts.

They have a say because they give the SANFL hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It might not be fair, but that's the reality.

[Pseudo]

Have a look at the facts.

They have a say because they give the SANFL hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It might not be fair, but that's the reality.

Letting the AFL have a say, and acceding to every demand of the AFL, are two different things.

Allowing the AFL to have a say in how its funding for junior development is spent is not at all unfair.

Saying "yes" to the AFL on every matter - which is the subject of the original post - is another matter entirely, and the day this becomes total reality is the day that I cease to support Australian Rules Football.

[redandblack]

Pseudo, I agree that the way the AFL dishes out its funds could be much better for the SANFL than it is. Where we disagree is to the extent the SANFL accedes to the AFL's demands.

My opinion is that they accede to the extent they have to, maybe a little more sometimes, but the funding and power ratio reality makes it ridiculous to think they can just ignore the AFL.

The other point is that people keep saying the SANFL kowtow to every demand of the AFL (not you, otherwise you would have given up footy by now), but rarely give any detail, apart from a small reduction in the salary cap, when the AFL would like them to slash it.

Perhaps you could list your grievances and give some detail about what alternative action you'd like them to take.

I'm happy to act as the AFL in replying

[FOURTH ESTATE]

Your right on the fact that they may be just yes men but if you look a little closer the new "SA Community Football Board" which is controlled by the SANFL is doing what the AFL are doing in that the are starting to have a say in how the SAAFL, SFL & GSFL are run and telling them what to do. Is it a case Big Brother's Monkey See Monkey Do?????

[Blue Boy]

Yes !!!

[sjt]

what clubs are those "rising blues" besides Port? Have a look at the ins and outs thread, doesn't look like too many of the clubs are doing too badly. If a club can't pay the current low salary cap, then they're doing something seriously wrong.
Coming up with the same old pokie crap arguement wears a bit thin. Be interesting to see if the Blues, get Hinge Giles as well as Hassan.
Just for info Central (I'm assuming that's where your stereotypical jealousy is targeted) made a small profit this year. Maybe not going on recruiting splurges helps the balance sheet.

Dude, if pokies don't have a place in this debate then Koalas don't climb trees and chew leaves. There is more than one thing that makes a club successful, I am sure a lot of players would like to head out to Elizabeth just to play under Laird and experience the stability of the CDFC. My only jealousy of them is for their recent onfield success and I am not afraid to admit that. I have tipped my hat to the Dogs on more than one occassion just this past year, an dmany more times before then.
So my earlier comment was not from such motivation however, and if pokies don't make such a difference to the balance sheet then I'll withdraw the comment, but my understanding is that it is a veritable cash cow and it is a simple truth that poorer people dump much more money into pokie machines.
Originally I pondered how some clubs would survive under the old cap. For D4E to throw out a line like "financial incompetence" without considering some factors is short sighted. In attempting to address one of those factors I have seemed to have offended you. But I fail to understand how easy it is for your ilk to goad over others their lack of cash yet cry foul when we mention the source of yours.
P.S. The other clubs I was referring to were Sturt and Norwood. I read a fair bit about their financial struggles in recent times. If you are now telling me that it is all in my head and Sturt is cruising by then that is good news to me.

Koalas do climb trees and agreed Pokies do make a difference to the balance sheet. I believe, perhaps as you do, that there should be a cap. For obvious reasons i.e the wealthier clubs can't just go and buy all the best players, then become more successful and wealthier still. It provides for a potentially "fairer" comp. However, I'm not for any reduction in the already reduced current cap. we are already seeing quite a few players prematurely retiring due the demands of SANFL footy for lesser pay.
I don't believe the current cap (though difficult) is too onerous for clubs to support. Regarding Norwood one of the clubs mentioned. The cap payments not only were met by them but exceeded, so they can't be struggling to badly. As for Sturt, if they are able to attain the services of Hinge or Giles, I think you can rest a bit more easily regarding their financial situation, and ability to meet player payments (the cap).
Maybe both clubs have been able to deal with previous poor decisions and adversity and have turned things around.
P.S I don't goad over others lack of cash (not even Port.......well maybe a little

The other clubs I was referring to were Sturt and Norwood. I read a fair bit about their financial struggles in recent times. If you are now telling me that it is all in my head and Sturt is cruising by then that is good news to me.[/quote

Good News Rising Blues!!!! It was all in your head. Perhaps you should stop reading the annual reports from the mid 90's.

[am Bays]

R&B, with respect a simple yes no answer required, Do you think our players deserve remuneration that is equivalent to 10% of the AFL remuneration for the effort they put in?

As a competition we should be working towards making that a reality. As an Industry we should be making that a reality for all the major State Leagues (VFL, WAFL and SANFL)

[JK]

Im not sure whether it's something we will ever be able to achieve, but I very much like your %10 concept AB ... It's critical to the health of the competition (and it could be argued, football in general) that the players remuneration is in line with the sacrifice they make, IMHO.

[redandblack]

R&B, with respect a simple yes no answer required, Do you think our players deserve remuneration that is equivalent to 10% of the AFL remuneration for the effort they put in?

As a competition we should be working towards making that a reality. As an Industry we should be making that a reality for all the major State Leagues (VFL, WAFL and SANFL)

No.

With respect, though, aB, I think some deserve more and some less, just as it is now. The main attraction of SANFL to most young players is that it gives them their only chance of making it to the AFL., or they are there to make a successful SANFL career. The reality is that most, if they aren't happy with their pay, will go to a local or country team for the dollars.

As for 10%, 10% of what? The AFL club salary cap in total? 10% of what Chris Judd is on, or 10% of what a new draftee is on? Whatever it is, the SANFL clubs have to raise the dollars. Some will do it easily, some will go to the wall trying to keep up.

It might sound good saying they're worth more than they're getting. That's the world we live in. They're no orphans, but if they're good enough, they have a chance to make very big dollars in a system called the AFL, not the SANFL.

Again with respect, I think some ideas floated on here are made with good intentions, but some are too simplistic.

[am Bays]

Our salary cap 10% of the TPP for each AFL club which as I understand it is $6 Million (excluding the extra payments Sydney currently get and the new franchises will).

R&B surely we should be doing all we can to keep our players involved in the SANFL by rewarding them for their commitment rather than seeing them play ammos or country footy??

I'm realistic to know that this won't happen over night but it should be our aim as a competion to make it as elite as it can possibly be in terms of standard and professionalism.