SA Footy

RB wrote:Pretty obvious DOC was having a laugh there.

I mean, what sort of league would have different rules apply to different teams?

Next you'll be telling us some teams have twenty times the salary cap as the rest.

That would be a dream.

The salary cap is now 62.38 times greater.

And that is not a joke even though it is.

Simple solution If you don't like the rules go and paly SOMEWHERE ELSE. Cant happen soon enough

Port Adelaide are NOT a member club of the SANFL. They are the reserves team of an AFL franchise playing under license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide are not paying to play in the SANFL, unlike the Crows who are paying a couple of hundred k per year.
Port Adelaide have not yet paid the SANFL for the license fee they purchased from the SANFL.They are 12 mill in debt currently.
Port Adelaide were financially propped up by the SANFL prior to transferring to Adelaide Oval for many years, I was told somewhere north of 20 mill.in total.

As far as Im concerned Port Adelaide can go and take a long walk on a short jetty.

Reddeer wrote:Simple solution If you don't like the rules go and paly SOMEWHERE ELSE. Cant happen soon enough

@morell thoughts?

blueandwhite wrote:Port Adelaide are NOT a member club of the SANFL. They are the reserves team of an AFL franchise playing under license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide are not paying to play in the SANFL, unlike the Crows who are paying a couple of hundred k per year.
Port Adelaide have not yet paid the SANFL for the license fee they purchased from the SANFL.They are 12 mill in debt currently.
Port Adelaide were financially propped up by the SANFL prior to transferring to Adelaide Oval for many years, I was told somewhere north of 20 mill.in total.

As far as Im concerned Port Adelaide can go and take a long walk on a short jetty.

We've got Largs or Semaphore. I quite like Largs.

Booney wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:Port Adelaide are NOT a member club of the SANFL. They are the reserves team of an AFL franchise playing under license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide are not paying to play in the SANFL, unlike the Crows who are paying a couple of hundred k per year.
Port Adelaide have not yet paid the SANFL for the license fee they purchased from the SANFL.They are 12 mill in debt currently.
Port Adelaide were financially propped up by the SANFL prior to transferring to Adelaide Oval for many years, I was told somewhere north of 20 mill.in total.

As far as Im concerned Port Adelaide can go and take a long walk on a short jetty.

We've got Largs or Semaphore. I quite like Largs.

Well Largs is the shortest jetty in metro Adelaide......

blueandwhite wrote:Port Adelaide have not yet paid the SANFL for the license fee they purchased from the SANFL.They are 12 mill in debt currently.

Is this true? I haven't seen any evidence of this in recent times.

"We've got Largs or Semaphore. I quite like Largs."

Aren't these now in Eagles territory? Get out of our territory !!

whybother wrote:"We've got Largs or Semaphore. I quite like Largs."

Aren't these now in Eagles territory? Get out of our territory !!

If you think the SANFuL moving some boundaries makes Largs Eagles territory you haven't been down there for a while.

Dutchy wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:Port Adelaide have not yet paid the SANFL for the license fee they purchased from the SANFL.They are 12 mill in debt currently.

Is this true? I haven't seen any evidence of this in recent times.

From 2014
THE SANFL has released SA’s two AFL licences, in a cash windfall that will see it paid more than $18 million by the Crows and Power. And more millions are coming its way.

THE SANFL has released SA’s two AFL licences, in a cash windfall that will see it paid more than $18 million by the Crows and Power. And it will receive another $45 million from the AFL.
Adelaide’s AFL licence has been released for $11.326 million, while Port Adelaide will pay $6.985 million in the next 15 years as both licences fall out of SANFL control.

And the SANFL’s finances are further boosted in the next 15 years by $45 million in funding from the AFL in game and talent development.



Unless Port has paid back $6 mill to the sanfl in the last 7 years ??

I’ve heard they have defaulted on the licence repayment the last 3 seasons

Into the second page before he made his way in. Probably lost because it's in the SANFL forum.

Booney wrote:Into the second page before he made his way in. Probably lost because it's in the SANFL forum.

Is he telling the truth though?

Have Port not being paying their SANFL debt?

If it is still outstanding the SANFL keep it very quiet, a debt like that is a major asset to them and you would think it would be mentioned in their annual reports etc

whybother wrote:"We've got Largs or Semaphore. I quite like Largs."

Aren't these now in Eagles territory? Get out of our territory !!

The roof of the Largs Kiosk is painted blue and yellow and the kiosk is set on beautiful green grass...so there!!!!!

Jim05 wrote:

DOC wrote:Could you not just have joined in?

Ah, crap I forgot about the date

Beautiful.

ferret wrote:

whybother wrote:"We've got Largs or Semaphore. I quite like Largs."

Aren't these now in Eagles territory? Get out of our territory !!

The roof of the Largs Kiosk is painted blue and yellow and the kiosk is set on beautiful green grass...so there!!!!!

mots02 wrote:

Booney wrote:Into the second page before he made his way in. Probably lost because it's in the SANFL forum.

Is he telling the truth though?

Have Port not being paying their SANFL debt?

Booneys response

Chris Davies - another who used the SANFL to advance his own personal interest.

Graham Cornes.

JUST as it was starting to work its way into our football hearts, Port Adelaide has blown it again.

There has been so much to like about the Power in recent years. It has shown us how to recruit, been more than competitive on the field and its 150th year celebrations took us all back on a fantastic journey of football nostalgia. And its young players have been a delight to watch. Most importantly, even before this season’s new rules impacted on the game, it has played football the way football was intended to be played – with a positive, attacking mindset.

But when you attack the SANFL, as Port has done this week, it is attacking the very hand that fed and nurtured it over the decades – saved it in fact when the administrators should have marched in and shut the club down. It’s bad enough having an AFL reserve team, with all the advantages it enjoys, playing in the SANFL. But then wanting to bring a player who has been a part of the AFL team back into its SANFL team on the same weekend is demanding too much. Surely it’s either one or the other. So it has gone running to the AFL to complain.

The one thing we South Australians should be proud of as the Melbourne-centric AFL slowly but surely has subjugated the game, is our independence of its stifling yoke. While it constantly tampered with the game, eroding the spirit and even the integrity of the game, the SANFL moved slowly and measured every new suggestion before accepting or rejecting it.

Port Adelaide’s pointed press release which attacked the SANFL for not allowing the substitute who may have played for the Power to then come back and play for the Magpies is petty and mischievous at best.

Remember, for a start, this ‘new rule’ was introduced with barely 36 hours’ notice before the season’s first AFL game. Besides, there are very few games this season when the SANFL game is scheduled after Port’s AFL match. It’s a spurious complaint because there will be very little, if any, disadvantage to the Power. Again, it ignites that simmering debate about highly-paid AFL players competing in the SANFL.

Port then complained further about the different rules its AFL players had to play under in the SANFL – as if this was a monumental disadvantage for its AFL team. As well as the hastily-introduced medical substitute law, it mentioned the standing the mark rule, third man up rule at ruck contests and last touch out of bounds. Interesting to note there was no mention of the anti-density laws that at the last minute were foisted on the VFL by the AFL this season. These are the rules that have generated so much consternation, confusion and criticism by AFL coaches in the first couple of weeks of implementation. We should be proud our SANFL refuses to knuckle under to such spontaneous, ill-considered decrees from the AFL.

The SANFL had a very good reason not to adopt the ‘standing the mark’ rule. It was concerned the coaches and players had not had enough time to absorb and understand the new rule which goes against centuries of ingrained football instinct. It should be noted the AFL invested over 500 hours with its umpires instructing and rehearsing the rule at the AFL clubs. Note also the rule hasn’t been introduced in the AFLW because of limited time constraints to bring players up to speed! It’s a ridiculous rule anyway that is completely unnecessary if coaches coach with attacking intent. The complaint of the third man up at ruck contests is again mischievous. The SANFL does have a rule preventing the third man up in ruck. You just don’t have to nominate who it is with the schoolboy-like hand in the air, as is the rather silly demand of the AFL.

There are other differing laws between the SANFL and AFL. The SANFL has a 25-metre rule for infringements as an alternative to the 50-metre penalty, football’s greatest blight. It’s much more sensible. And yes, we have a last touch rule designed to keep the ball in play, which as much as I personally dislike it, keeps the ball in play longer and reduces the stoppages. It’s impossible to see how any variations of those laws will impact on a young player’s development.

The Port Adelaide press release also complained about not having access to contracted players at other SANFL clubs. Is it serious? It wants to select a contracted player from a rival SANFL club to play against the team to which he is contracted? Surely I’ve misread that?

The debate about whether our two SA teams should have their reserve teams in the SANFL has never abated. We understand the advantages it provides for the two AFL coaches but it undermines the equity of the SANFL.

From the moment Port Adelaide launched its rogue bid to join the AFL back in 1990, it has torn at the integrity and the finances of the SANFL which has had no alternative but to bankroll it. When Adelaide Football Club, albeit reluctantly, had to pay 80 per cent of its profits back to the SANFL, Port paid nothing, devising devious methods and ‘Foundations’ to hide its true income. Today the Crows pay a levy of $400,000 to field their reserve team in the SANFL while Port pays nothing.

We should all have an appreciation of our origins and be grateful for the people and organisations which gave us our opportunities. Whether it likes it or not, Port Adelaide owes an enormous debt to the SANFL. Unfortunately, it has a poor way of showing it.

Absolutely spot on by Cornes.