New Import rule

[wycbloods]

I believe it is unfair that a rule comes in, that will penalise clubs, for decisions they made before the rule was even tabled at a meeting of the clubs let alone introduced.

The rule itself i believe is a good one but i think it should start from now and not apply retrospectively.

Essentially they are going to say to South that you can't recruit for the next two years which i don't think is a good thing for the competition.

[sjt]

Norwood have done reasonably well this year with no imports as i understand. How do the posters in this thread reconcile their thoughts on this import rule with the success Norwood has achieved this year? (I'll probably get shot down with some facts here because I haven't seen a lot of Norwood TBH - anyway, good for a discussion point I think).

In fact, if you read through the "rate your imports this year" thread I'm not seeing that limiting the amount of imports would have as big an impact as some are saying here. A few 8/10 and 9/10 and then others 4-5/10. surely a 4/10 import is just taking the spot of a good South Aussie lad? Leave the import where he came from I reckon (if he's 4/10).

Are there good enough players in the lower levels that would come up if funds normally spent on imports were used on them? Is there the SANFL equivalent of a Michael Barlow lurking down there?

With downflow of funds tight from the Crows and Power at the moment I'm not convinced that evening out the recruiting spend on imports through the 9 SANFL clubs is a bad thing. What to me is a bad thing is when our SANFL State team is made up of > 50% of ex VFL players. Just doesn't sit right. Those players that leave for the AFL are the elite best who either haven't yet played an SANFL game or only a handful. They were never going to have long SANFL careers anyway. It's been happening for 24 years now since the AFL draft came in.

I think that's the point. If imports are decreasing in number naturally, and imports don't necessarily equal success why bring in a new rule. Centrals had the second least imports last year (by one) to the Eagles yet it didn't make them less successful. Norwood weren't able to recruit outside of their zones for this year, doesn't mean they don't have a "reasonable" contingent of imports, and as you stated they've been more successful. As South and Westies management stated they don't want to have to import, they often have to, however to replace players "lost".
Also I don't think funds spent on imports is necessarily a lot. Again, I don't believe Spurr, Habel, Hayes, Milne, and Goodrem would have been high paid imports.

[JK]

imports are decreasing in number naturally

By design that was the intent of upping the transfer fee to a base of $20k as I understood it, now with this on top it surely means clubs are only going to invest in the top notch established talent.

I think Westies and South have very legitimate concerns, 1 with the "imports" they already have on list and 2 for replacing any numbers lost to homegrown players lost to the AFL in any given year.

If the SANFL are insistent upon this approach then perhaps they should be lobbying to have the income to clubs from transfers to the AFL system increased?

[am Bays]

I believe it is unfair that a rule comes in, that will penalise clubs, for decisions they made before the rule was even tabled at a meeting of the clubs let alone introduced.

The rule itself i believe is a good one but i think it should start from now and not apply retrospectively.

Essentially they are going to say to South that you can't recruit for the next two years which i don't think is a good thing for the competition.

wyc this rule was announced in May last year - clubs have known about it for over 18 months that this was going to come in. If clubs are too silly in 2009 to plan to recruit lots of imports for 2010 knowing in 2011 their will be an import rule well they can suffer the consequences. I know it was one of the reasons why Glenelg didn't chase another recruit too hard as they were aware of import restrictions coming in.

FWIW I don't like the rule for the implications Topsy alluded too - AFL penalising SA for having the strongest State League, but it is pretty generous in tems of allowing up to eight imports over a three year period.

[wycbloods]

I believe it is unfair that a rule comes in, that will penalise clubs, for decisions they made before the rule was even tabled at a meeting of the clubs let alone introduced.

The rule itself i believe is a good one but i think it should start from now and not apply retrospectively.

Essentially they are going to say to South that you can't recruit for the next two years which i don't think is a good thing for the competition.

wyc this rule was announced in May last year - clubs have known about it for over 18 months that this was going to come in. If clubs are too silly in 2009 to plan to recruit lots of imports for 2010 knowing in 2011 their will be an import rule well they can suffer the consequences. I know it was one of the reasons why Glenelg didn't chase another recruit too hard as they were aware of import restrictions coming in.

FWIW I don't like the rule for the implications Topsy alluded too - AFL penalising SA for having the strongest State League, but it is pretty generous in tems of allowing up to eight imports over a three year period.

Yes i know when it was announced ambays but considering a large proportion of westies recruits that fall under this new rule were recruited before that time i believe it is unfair for them to be penalised for that. I think the number is 5 that we recruited for the 2009 football season with most of them being stitched up in late 2008 well before this was even discussed.

[redandblack]

No weight is given to how many local juniors are in any team.

For example, West have close to the most imports. However, that also have probably the most 'locally bred' players in their league team as well. As well, they've certainly had close to the most juniors drafted over a recent period.

On the other hand, Sturt (for example) would have plenty of scope under this rule, even though they have very, very few local players in their side, but many from other SANFL clubs.

I think it needs an approach that looks at the whole picture, not just one part of it.

[am Bays]

But like the change to the 16s and 18s, R&B can the SANFL "afford" not to have the import rule???

My mail is the AFL wanted introduced for this year as part of stage two of the changes imposed in 2009. The SANFL was able to negotiate a years extension to compensate clubs that had already locked in recruits.

[sjt]

But like the change to the 16s and 18s, R&B can the SANFL "afford" not to have the import rule???

My mail is the AFL wanted introduced for this year as part of stage two of the changes imposed in 2009. The SANFL was able to negotiate a years extension to compensate clubs that had already locked in recruits.

The AFL just want to strengthen the VFL, where a majority of the listed (Victorian) AFL players play when not picked in the "league team". The AFL, is focused on expanding their comp (to the detriment) of grass roots and state comps, so Demetriou can meet his KPI's, and justify his enormous salary and bonuses. Sorry, off thread a bit. I know this was discussed in the "yes men, to the AFL" thread. Just another example.
I wish the SANFL would focus on our product!

[wycbloods]

But like the change to the 16s and 18s, R&B can the SANFL "afford" not to have the import rule???

My mail is the AFL wanted introduced for this year as part of stage two of the changes imposed in 2009. The SANFL was able to negotiate a years extension to compensate clubs that had already locked in recruits.

Well they didn't succeed in that did they. The recruits WAFC had already signed prior to the rule being discussed, let alone implemented, are impacted by this ruling.

[am Bays]

The AFL just want to strengthen the VFL, where a majority of the listed (Victorian) AFL players play when not picked in the "league team". The AFL, is focused on expanding their comp (to the detriment) of grass roots and state comps, so Demetriou can meet his KPI's, and justify his enormous salary and bonuses. Sorry, off thread a bit. I know this was discussed in the "yes men, to the AFL" thread. Just another example.
I wish the SANFL would focus on our product!

Spot on I agree 100% but the SANFL is caught between a rock and hard place with respect to its AFL dependant development funding, maintaining a strong vibrant SANFL and proping up a soul-less AFL franchise....

[JK]

the SANFL is caught between a rock and hard place with respect to its AFL dependant development funding, maintaining a strong vibrant SANFL and proping up a soul-less AFL franchise....

Agree with that too

[sjt]

The AFL just want to strengthen the VFL, where a majority of the listed (Victorian) AFL players play when not picked in the "league team". The AFL, is focused on expanding their comp (to the detriment) of grass roots and state comps, so Demetriou can meet his KPI's, and justify his enormous salary and bonuses. Sorry, off thread a bit. I know this was discussed in the "yes men, to the AFL" thread. Just another example.
I wish the SANFL would focus on our product!

Spot on I agree 100% but the SANFL is caught between a rock and hard place with respect to its AFL dependant development funding, maintaining a strong vibrant SANFL and proping up a soul-less AFL franchise....

Does anyone know what the AFL spend on development funding in this state? How (if at all) has it changed over the last decade?

[am Bays]

Does anyone know what the AFL spend on development funding in this state? How (if at all) has it changed over the last decade?

R&B might know having used that argument in justifying the change from 19s and 17s competitions to an 18s and a modified 16s competitions

I think it is substantial but not when compared on participation rates to the other tier 1 football states (VIC, TAS and WA).

[nickname]

The AFL just want to strengthen the VFL, where a majority of the listed (Victorian) AFL players play when not picked in the "league team". The AFL, is focused on expanding their comp (to the detriment) of grass roots and state comps, so Demetriou can meet his KPI's, and justify his enormous salary and bonuses. Sorry, off thread a bit. I know this was discussed in the "yes men, to the AFL" thread. Just another example.
I wish the SANFL would focus on our product!

That might be a popular line but I don't think the AFL give a tinker's cuss about the VFL.

[redandblack]

Does anyone know what the AFL spend on development funding in this state? How (if at all) has it changed over the last decade?

R&B might know having used that argument in justifying the change from 19s and 17s competitions to an 18s and a modified 16s competitions

I think it is substantial but not when compared on participation rates to the other tier 1 football states (VIC, TAS and WA).

It's a million dollars a year.

It's a figure the anti-AFL conspiracy theorists never mention. In future, we'll call it the "unspoken million"

PS: amBays, I've kept quiet about the new Under 18's comp, but I'm happy to defend it based on what has happened since it has come in

[sjt]

Found this from the Independent weekly 27th June 2008

"It is believed the AFL is pressuring the SANFL to enforce the changes to its name, structure and under-age competitions by offering a significant increase in finance for junior development. It is understood that while other states, which have conformed, receive $2.5 million for junior development, the SANFL receives just $1 million from the national competition."

Surely, it can't be just $1 million? The price of a Rugby recruit. Is it 2.5 mil now they've "conformed".

R&B beat me to it.

[sjt]

You're right R & B from last years SANFL annual report.

"issues and David Matthews in the area of game
development. The AFL invested just under $1 million into
game development programs in 2009 and for that we are
most appreciative"

[am Bays]

But like the change to the 16s and 18s, R&B can the SANFL "afford" not to have the import rule???

My mail is the AFL wanted introduced for this year as part of stage two of the changes imposed in 2009. The SANFL was able to negotiate a years extension to compensate clubs that had already locked in recruits.

Well they didn't succeed in that did they. The recruits WAFC had already signed prior to the rule being discussed, let alone implemented, are impacted by this ruling.

Compensate was probably the wrong word, but it gave clubs time to change lists and some scope for recruitment rather than bringing it in as the AFL would've preferred (for this year) and completely stopped some clubs from recruiting from over the borders.

[am Bays]

It's a million dollars a year.

It's a figure the anti-AFL conspiracy theorists never mention. In future, we'll call it the "unspoken million"

PS: amBays, I've kept quiet about the new Under 18's comp, but I'm happy to defend it based on what has happened since it has come in

Me too, still prepared to debate that the result could've been better if we'd stuck with the 19s, but I've wasted enough bytes already.

However of the Million they kick in, how much of that is an increase on previous funding?? My reckoning is we've bent over for just over $250 000 - the increased funding for the "centres of excellence".

iJust a tad surprised that another enforced AFL change on our to preserve our "unspoken million" and it is questioned.

[spell_check]

I think we should go to 16 a side on the field to help counter the GWS and Gold Coast drain on the clubs. It should also help to spread the small amount of money allowed to players.

As long as they expand the bench to 5 players

Seriously though that wouldnt work. 2 less on the field mean players need to work harder which means more injuries which means shorter careers which means less players wanting to play which means lowering the standard even further.

Coaches will need to adapt to it.