Crows in the SANFL - Q & A with the AFC

[adelaidefc]

13) why not trial it in the reserves?

The Club’s view is that the Commission endorsed the AFC to enter the league and we are not going to go in the SANFL reserves to play against a bye reserves side. We can get what we want for this team out of the A1 Ammos, although SANFL league is our strongly preferred option.

14) is the reserves deemed a higher standard than the saafl?

Not by people at the Club who watch a lot of football. It’s not so much the overall standard, it’s the type of bodies and experience the players will come up against. A1 is full of former SA league and reserves players, and the overall quality is pretty good.

15) if its not a higher standard why do you want top up players from the reserves?

Most SANFL clubs were supportive of the proposal to supply development players to the top up pool. If we are not to be allowed to recruit or use players from other comps, this was seen as a way of perhaps helping the SANFL clubs put some extra work into players on the edge of league selection. It is still open to negotiation.

16) is the only positive you can offer, the threat of what might happen if it doesn't proceed?

No, don’t believe so, but if you are knocking back a Football Commission decision you need to be aware of the alternative (the Ammos) and what the might mean. Key benefits in summary? A fixed guarantee sum to each of the SANFL clubs which doesn’t include a match day revenues from two home games per current club; Fixed advertising/promotion budget to each Club; keeps AFL listed players in SANFL; underline the SANFL as an attractive option for elite players from other competitions; provide more opportunities for players to pay SANFL league football; improve player retention; Equitable fixture: 18-game season (each team plays all other sides twice); Less disruption to SANFL clubs with interchange of AFL players (selection, training etc); Increased media coverage and promotion; Opportunity for free-to-air TV coverage and perhaps online streaming of SANFL games; Exposure to new audience; re-engage SANFL fans who reduced their interest to follow the AFL club; maintaining a close relationship between the SANFL and its biggest revenue driver.

[Aerie]

What might it mean if the Crows play their AFL Reserves in the A1 Ammos next year?

[adelaidefc]

What might it mean if the Crows play their AFL Reserves in the A1 Ammos next year?

A very big community-based competition receives a major bump up from our involvement, in many of the same ways mentioned as benefits for the SANFL.

[Dutchy]

How would the Crows feel about up to say 15 of their kids/developing players playing in an SANFL Grand Final in the second week of October when their AFL side has missed the 8 in late August. With the mandatory 8 week break you would not see these players until mid December for pre-season?

[whufc]

How does the ACFF (Adelaide Crows Football Franchise) expect the SANFL clubs to compete for future supporters when the general flow chart would be for the kids following the crows to just support the Ravens as well?

[BrekkyDJ]

Will the Adelaide Crows be requesting that all their reserves games (if possible) be played at or near the same time as the AFL side?

With respect David, this question has not been answered.

[UK Fan]

Dave,

Is it true that the AFC threatened to 'steal' sanfl sponsors if we didn't approve this reserves push?

[CUTTERMAN]

My questions on the previous page have gone unanswered however here's some more.
While its grossly unfair that teams competing in the same competition are working to salary caps hundreds of thousands of dollars apart, there is also talk of retaining players recently retired from AFL, ie Johncock. What will be the salary cap rules for these players, if any? I'd hate to think if Brodie Martin, Matty Jaensch or Tim McIntyre were delisted and not picked up by another AFL club, Adelaide could recruit them as reserves players and pay them more than what Sturt would be able to only because they have to play to a vastly different salary cap. Hardly seems fair.

[Jase]

14) is the reserves deemed a higher standard than the saafl?

Not by people at the Club who watch a lot of football. It’s not so much the overall standard, it’s the type of bodies and experience the players will come up against. A1 is full of former SA league and reserves players, and the overall quality is pretty good.

My question is why would you want to play regularly against "Former SA league and reserves players" in the SAAFL when you could play against current league (coming back from injury, out of a bit of form, quite ready to come back into the League team) and reserves players in the SANFL reserves?

[heater31]

This thread is for Questions and Answers only, no statements or other posts please, use the other thread for that. Hopefully it will avoid questions being answered twice etc.

[tipper]

No, don’t believe so, but if you are knocking back a Football Commission decision you need to be aware of the alternative (the Ammos) and what the might mean. Key benefits in summary? A fixed guarantee sum to each of the SANFL clubs which doesn’t include a match day revenues from two home games per current club; Fixed advertising/promotion budget to each Club; keeps AFL listed players in SANFL; underline the SANFL as an attractive option for elite players from other competitions; provide more opportunities for players to pay SANFL league football; improve player retention; Equitable fixture: 18-game season (each team plays all other sides twice); Less disruption to SANFL clubs with interchange of AFL players (selection, training etc); Increased media coverage and promotion; Opportunity for free-to-air TV coverage and perhaps online streaming of SANFL games; Exposure to new audience; re-engage SANFL fans who reduced their interest to follow the AFL club; maintaining a close relationship between the SANFL and its biggest revenue driver.

ok, lets break this down point by point.

fixed guaranteed sum? what is it? how can you expect people to come round to your side when you dont tell us (or from what i am aware, the sanfl clubs) a key part of your argument for benefit. SHOW ME THE MONEY!! $5 is a fixed guaranteed sum. not a very good one, but it fits the description. how much money is each club ging to get to sell the soul of the comp?

doesnt include match day revenue? of course it doesnt. under the proposed changes there will be no more home games than currently. now we have a 23 round season with three bye's. 10 home, 10 away. under the new proposal there will be 18 rounds, 10 home 8 away. the claims of "increased revenue from home games" is another furphy, unless you show us the evidence that your claim of up to 6000 people will go to a crows reserves game. so far that is just wishfull thinking....

Fixed advertising/promotion budget to each Club? so that would come under the banner of cash? but this lot is allocated to be spent on marketing. ok, how much? once again, just saying you will give us cash doesnt tell us anything. tell us how much. i dont mean to harp on about money, to me money isnt a good enough reason to agree to the bastardisation of a 136 year old competition. however, you keep bringing it up. stop teasing and show us the thirty pieces of silver.

keeps AFL listed players in SANFL? yes it does. but how is that a benefit to the sanfl clubs when they are playing for someone else?

underline the SANFL as an attractive option for elite players from other competitions;? how will you underline this? the SANFL already attracts a high standard of interstate players. that could be increased further if the salary cap was increased (not necessarily a good idea i know). no need for reserves teams. the SANFL already has a great track record of grooming underage kids for higher levels, and also of helping those dropped from an afl list to recatch the eye of recruiters as more mature age players. nick gill for example...

provide more opportunities for players to pay SANFL league football;? i agree that is a benefit, but its another furphy. that will come to pass whether the crows play in our league, or go elsewhere. if they go elsewhere there will be spots in every clubs list to be filled with new players, either recruits from interstate or people already in the system. if you mean the top up players that will play for you reserves side, that only adds another 6 players to the sanfl (your figure from a few posts ago) once again i hardly think that is another valid reason to sell out the comp.

improve player retention? how does it improve player retention? you cant just say something and hope we all believe it. you need to explain how players will be less likely to go elsewhere under you proposal?

Equitable fixture: 18-game season (each team plays all other sides twice)? surely this is a joke? i think that the sanfl system of playing every team the same number of times over two seasons is still much more equitable than the fixture used in the AFL, of which you are a part of? to me it is neither here nor there whether we play glenelg (as an example only) two or three times this season. if we are good enough we will win enough games to play finals, if we arent, we wont. are the AFC petitioning the afl for an equitable fixture? if not, why is it such an issue for you to be trying to improve the sanfl, but not your own competition?

Less disruption to SANFL clubs with interchange of AFL players (selection, training etc)? HOORAY, another one i agree on. however you arent exactly forthcoming here either. if you go to the amateur league, we still get this benefit. so like the "more opportunity" point, we win whether you join our league, or the ammos. if it is the same either way, off to the ammos with you

Increased media coverage and promotion? well isnt this interesting. do you mean of the sanfl in general, or each sanfl club? i can certainly see a greater coverage if you use the overriding "sanfl" banner, but i doubt that the real sanfl clubs will get a look in. it will all be about how taylor walker went in his first game after his knee recon, or how the latest rookie went for you. i dont see it as a benefit if the coverage is all about you. we already put up with the crowvertiser coverage of sanfl games focusing on individual afl listed players, rather than the whole game. sure, lewis johnston played brilliantly to kick 7 goals the other week, but he needed others to help him. i didnt see him rucking, roving his own ball, kicking it into the 50 (to himself) then nailing the set shot.....

Opportunity for free-to-air TV coverage and perhaps online streaming of SANFL games? thats funny, i thought the sanfl was in talks to look at that anyway? surely that doesnt hinge on a reserves team joining does it? are you telling us something we dont know? that opportunity exists already, and depending on sponsorship, could happen regardless.

Exposure to new audience? how? through the free to air deal? as i stated, that could happen anyway. if you mean exposure to crows fans, once again, how do you know they will go? if they dont go watch live, there is no benefit whatsoever to the sanfl clubs.

re-engage SANFL fans who reduced their interest to follow the AFL club? if they reduced their interest to follow their afl club, i doubt they will increase it again, let alone go back to their old club, because of the reserves. i have a good friend that plays for norths reserves. im lucky if i see the last ten minutes of the North reserves at the best of times, and i go to pretty much every game. i really dont see crows fans going to two games a weekend, or even just the reserves game when the crows play away. if you believe otherwise, show us the proof.

maintaining a close relationship between the SANFL and its biggest revenue driver.? hmmm, interesting point. i thought the sanfl's biggest revenue driver was to be a stakeholder in the stadium management authority. yes they will be getting money from you for the sale of your licence, but that is a sale. being in the stadium management authority effectively makes them the landlord of the new adelaide oval. if you choose to rent the oval, good for you. but we dont have to be best friends about it. it is a business deal, nothing more (particularly when we offload your licence). no matter if the SANFL and the crows have a close relationship, the sanfl can still derive revenue from the deal. the sanfl kinda have you over a barrel, there wont be any more afl standard venues in the state (once footy park is decomissioned) so its either rent adelaide oval (at whatever price the landlord sets) or build your own stadium??


so, very long story short, the benefits you have listed are: less disruption to sanfl teams, more opportunity for players to play sanfl, and money. the first two will be a benefit if you play in our league, or in the ammo's, and the third has not had a figure attached to it yet. from what i can see, unless the $$$ can be stacked roughly as high as the light towers at adelaide oval, there is still no benefit to you joining our league that cant be gained by you leaving our league. dont get me wrong, money talks, but so far it has been kept silent.

after looking at your list, it is still apparent to me that the sanfl will be better off with you leaving our league alone. thankyou for your time and enjoy the amateur league.

[UK Fan]

14) is the reserves deemed a higher standard than the saafl?

Not by people at the Club who watch a lot of football. It’s not so much the overall standard, it’s the type of bodies and experience the players will come up against. A1 is full of former SA league and reserves players, and the overall quality is pretty good.

My question is why would you want to play regularly against "Former SA league and reserves players" in the SAAFL when you could play against current league (coming back from injury, out of a bit of form, quite ready to come back into the League team) and reserves players in the SANFL reserves?

Do u honestly believe you r fooling anyone with your bluff re Amatuers ????

What is preventing afc admitting SANFL reserves is the best place for your developement squad.its also the best win/win scenario for SA football ??? Are the crows really that selfish

[sjt]

Thanks Tipper, saved me writing the same!
So only additional question to the above is; Won't there still be AFL players in the league (unless Port decide to go to the ammos as well)?

[Ecky]

Well answered tipper

doesnt include match day revenue? of course it doesnt. under the proposed changes there will be no more home games than currently. now we have a 23 round season with three bye's. 10 home, 10 away. under the new proposal there will be 18 rounds, 10 home 8 away. the claims of "increased revenue from home games" is another furphy, unless you show us the evidence that your claim of up to 6000 people will go to a crows reserves game. so far that is just wishfull thinking....

I have one easy question related to this. Will admission to Crows Reserves games be free for Crows members if they play in the SANFL?

[tipper]

i forgot to mention in that point that also trying to claim an increase of revenue for sanfl clubs for hosting crows games doesnt take into consideration the costs associated with hosting a game. the crows are trying to pass off not having a home ground as a benefit to the sanfl clubs (sanfl get to keep all the revenue), yet to me it looks like further cost cutting, they have zero maintenance costs for having a home ground. bit convenient that. once again the sanfl clubs wear the cost of the crows having a reserves side, and there is no guarantee that there will be enough spectators to cover them.

for a club like sturt, who i believe have the highest overheads of any club for hosting games, it could actually end up costing them significant dollars to host the crows, particularly if these 6000 people dont turn up, which there is no evidence yet of their existence.... (hint hint, where is the research? how do you know? did you just throw numbers at a dart board till you hit one that seemed good? is examples of poor crowds from the VFL not enough to show that your numbers are fatasy at best? outright lies at worst????) but somehow that is a benefit to them

the guaranteed sum could rapidly evaporate if there are no spectators going to watch the crows reserves. particularly as we dont know how much the sum is.... still....

[CUTTERMAN]

i forgot to mention in that point that also trying to claim an increase of revenue for sanfl clubs for hosting crows games doesnt take into consideration the costs associated with hosting a game. the crows are trying to pass off not having a home ground as a benefit to the sanfl clubs (sanfl get to keep all the revenue), yet to me it looks like further cost cutting, they have zero maintenance costs for having a home ground. bit convenient that. once again the sanfl clubs wear the cost of the crows having a reserves side, and there is no guarantee that there will be enough spectators to cover them.

for a club like sturt, who i believe have the highest overheads of any club for hosting games, it could actually end up costing them significant dollars to host the crows, particularly if these 6000 people dont turn up, which there is no evidence yet of their existence.... (hint hint, where is the research? how do you know? did you just throw numbers at a dart board till you hit one that seemed good? is examples of poor crowds from the VFL not enough to show that your numbers are fatasy at best? outright lies at worst????) but somehow that is a benefit to them

the guaranteed sum could rapidly evaporate if there are no spectators going to watch the crows reserves. particularly as we dont know how much the sum is.... still....

This is one of my main issues and as yet hasn't been answered. I'd also like answered as to why the AFC aren't willing to cover the gate for the SANFL clubs.

[HH3]

If the Crows dont get a side in the SANFL, do they automatically get to enter the SAAFL, or is it put to a club vote for that as well?

[the joker]

If the Crows dont get a side in the SANFL, do they automatically get to enter the SAAFL, or is it put to a club vote for that as well?

I can answer that one.
The clubs at SAAFL have no say in new clubs entering the comp. it comes down to an SAAFL delegates vote.

[85 WAS A GOOD YEAR]

David I'm trying to come to terms with the top up players and can't come up with any option which will be acceptable by all parties.

Who do they train with?
If AFC: when will they train & catch up with meetings if not available during work / uni hours?
Proposal says they won't play against their SANFL club. If they are not playing against their club, where will they play?

Hypethetical question: If Adelaide have no big men available to play Reserves in say rnd 13 ( due to injuries) does another player or two get taken from their SANFL team where they've played all season?
I ask this question as AFC said they want control over positions players play in.
If there aren't any squad rucks/tall defenders available, will players be taken from elsewhere to cover?

What about the cash reimbursement grass roots clubs & leagues usually get as players progress though to SANFL league milestones, AFL drafting, AFL selection?
Will junior clubs & leagues still be recognised, seeing as these lads will be taken out of the usual AFL pathway reimbursement system?

Thanks for taking the time to interact.
It's more than Glenelg FC have been willing to do so far

[zipzap]

David I'm trying to come to terms with the top up players and can't come up with any option which will be acceptable by all parties.

Proposal says they won't play against their SANFL club. If they are not playing against their club, where will they play?

Was wondering this too. Sturt are criticised for being very Crows-heavy this year, but many are home-grown Blues. Does this rule just apply to Sturt-developed Crows? What about ring-ins like Riley and Tambling (assuming they're still listed) who have played more for Sturt than for AFC? Do they play against Sturt? If not, where do they go?

Hypethetical question: If Adelaide have no big men available to play Reserves in say rnd 13 ( due to injuries) does another player or two get taken from their SANFL team where they've played all season?
I ask this question as AFC said they want control over positions players play in.
If there aren't any squad rucks/tall defenders available, will players be taken from elsewhere to cover?

Conversely, what if there's a glut of rucks for instance? You currently have 6 players listed as rucks. Let's pretend in a given week that they're all available. Two are selected for the AFL team leaving four to fight it out for the Ravens. How is that better for the players' development than having them lead the rucks in their local SANFL affiliated club as happens presently?