AFL Reserves Discussion...

[areaman]

My concern is Adelaide seem to be moving along quietly to having their proposed model accepted and this too (with the SANFL declaring both teams would need to work to the same model) would spell the end of the Magpies. I'm not surprised that Adelaides model is seen as more attractive to the league directors, well, they are the team for all South Australians after all.

We all share this concern too, Booney.

The petition and all the other lobbying is just as much opposed to the Crows proposal as Port's.

Ironically the people on here pushing for the NO AFL cause are actually the Maggies best friends and their only chance of survival.

So beeny and kickinit, if you really want the Maggies to survive, get along to Prospect on Saturday and sign that petition!!

[TimmiesChin]

My concern is Adelaide seem to be moving along quietly to having their proposed model accepted and this too (with the SANFL declaring both teams would need to work to the same model) would spell the end of the Magpies. I'm not surprised that Adelaides model is seen as more attractive to the league directors, well, they are the team for all South Australians after all.

We all share this concern too, Booney.

The petition and all the other lobbying is just as much opposed to the Crows proposal as Port's.

Ironically the people on here pushing for the NO AFL cause are actually the Maggies best friends and their only chance of survival.

So beeny and kickinit, if you really want the Maggies to survive, get along to Prospect on Saturday and sign that petition!!

The problem seems to be there is black (Crows position), white (NO AFL in SANFL position), and grey (Port position) ....Both the black and white options effectively kill off port (assuming I understand the no AFL groups preference correctly.

Unless I'm mistaken, don't the No AFL group not only want no AFL reserves sides, but also want all the AFL aligned players pulled from the SANFL as well (because ultimately, a decision like this impact both AFL clubs, and also reduces the standard of SANFL football - especially given salary cap constraints) ?

[tipper]

I actually think that taking out the best part of 25 or so league standard players each weekend (AFL reserves players) and shipping them to Victoria or AFL reserves each weekend ... as well as another 20 or so to make up the numbers would rip the guts out of the SANFL standard of comp. How will clubs replace these players without a salary cap increase.

regardless of whether the reserves are playing here or interstate, those players are getting removed from the sanfl sides to top up the reserves, so it is irrelevant. agree thought that with an afl reserves standalone comp more players would need to be found, but im not sure that it would be as many as you think. most other afl sides have reserves teams already, would they transition out of their current leagues into a reserves comp? if so, they already have the top up players.

[areaman]

My concern is Adelaide seem to be moving along quietly to having their proposed model accepted and this too (with the SANFL declaring both teams would need to work to the same model) would spell the end of the Magpies. I'm not surprised that Adelaides model is seen as more attractive to the league directors, well, they are the team for all South Australians after all.

We all share this concern too, Booney.

The petition and all the other lobbying is just as much opposed to the Crows proposal as Port's.

Ironically the people on here pushing for the NO AFL cause are actually the Maggies best friends and their only chance of survival.

So beeny and kickinit, if you really want the Maggies to survive, get along to Prospect on Saturday and sign that petition!!

The problem seems to be there is black (Crows position), white (NO AFL in SANFL position), and grey (Port position) ....Both the black and white options effectively kill off port (assuming I understand the no AFL groups preference correctly.

Unless I'm mistaken, don't the No AFL group not only want no AFL reserves sides, but also want all the AFL aligned players pulled from the SANFL as well ?

To the best of my knowledge the NO AFL agenda is purely about the teams in the comp. There is no push to have the existing arrangement of AFL players spread over the 9 SANFL teams altered.

Yes this has it's own problems (heaven knows I'm not going to rehash these now) but we've been living with this arrangement for 23 years now and are coping with it.

If the two AFL clubs drop their proposals and keep the status quo I think the vast majority on this forum would consider it to be a succesful outcome.

And guess what - the Maggies continue under this scenario.

Simples.

[Booney]

Gotta agree anything spelling the end of the magpies is not an option for me.
First preference is for the setup to be as KT/Kochy have described. Still can't see who loses with it.
Second preference is to leave things as they are.
Will be interesting to see what happens if Port pushes the status quo, (given the SANFL clubs seem scared of their more logical solution ... than the Crows), with the SANFL still try to force them to disband. I think that will say a lot about the SANFL clubs and their motives.

Timmy, you've made a bit of sense elsewhere but to continue with this line that says the SANFL clubs want to get rid of the Maggies is just wrong.
The only people who are actually undermining the Maggies existence are Koch and Thomas.
There are two totally separate issues being rolled into one which is conveniently letting the Power administration pedal the untruth that it is the SANFL clubs killing the Maggies.
Find another option for the Power reserves team and the Maggies are safe as houses.
Can anyone point to any comments made by those in charge that contradict this statement?

Wrong. Koch stated last week that a reserves model that destroys the fabric of the Magpies is not on the PAFC agenda.

[Booney]

My concern is Adelaide seem to be moving along quietly to having their proposed model accepted and this too (with the SANFL declaring both teams would need to work to the same model) would spell the end of the Magpies. I'm not surprised that Adelaides model is seen as more attractive to the league directors, well, they are the team for all South Australians after all.

We all share this concern too, Booney.
The petition and all the other lobbying is just as much opposed to the Crows proposal as Port's.
Ironically the people on here pushing for the NO AFL cause are actually the Maggies best friends and their only chance of survival.
So beeny and kickinit, if you really want the Maggies to survive, get along to Prospect on Saturday and sign that petition!!

I'm all for power of the people, free speech etc etc. but I'm also a realist who knows 5000 signatures count for nothing, in the long run.

[Long live SAnFL]

My concern is Adelaide seem to be moving along quietly to having their proposed model accepted and this too (with the SANFL declaring both teams would need to work to the same model) would spell the end of the Magpies. I'm not surprised that Adelaides model is seen as more attractive to the league directors, well, they are the team for all South Australians after all.

We all share this concern too, Booney.
The petition and all the other lobbying is just as much opposed to the Crows proposal as Port's.
Ironically the people on here pushing for the NO AFL cause are actually the Maggies best friends and their only chance of survival.
So beeny and kickinit, if you really want the Maggies to survive, get along to Prospect on Saturday and sign that petition!!

I'm all for power of the people, free speech etc etc. but I'm also a realist who knows 5000 signatures count for nothing, in the long run.

Makes me think of Malcolm X who said "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything..."

[Booney]

My concern is Adelaide seem to be moving along quietly to having their proposed model accepted and this too (with the SANFL declaring both teams would need to work to the same model) would spell the end of the Magpies. I'm not surprised that Adelaides model is seen as more attractive to the league directors, well, they are the team for all South Australians after all.

We all share this concern too, Booney.
The petition and all the other lobbying is just as much opposed to the Crows proposal as Port's.
Ironically the people on here pushing for the NO AFL cause are actually the Maggies best friends and their only chance of survival.
So beeny and kickinit, if you really want the Maggies to survive, get along to Prospect on Saturday and sign that petition!!

I'm all for power of the people, free speech etc etc. but I'm also a realist who knows 5000 signatures count for nothing, in the long run.

Makes me think of Malcolm X who said "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything..."

Can't disagree with that.

[TimmiesChin]

regardless of whether the reserves are playing here or interstate, those players are getting removed from the sanfl sides to top up the reserves, so it is irrelevant. agree thought that with an afl reserves standalone comp more players would need to be found, but im not sure that it would be as many as you think. most other afl sides have reserves teams already, would they transition out of their current leagues into a reserves comp? if so, they already have the top up players.

Sorry, I can't agree.

Current arrangement:
* 9 SANFL league and reserves sides = ((9 * 21) * 2) = 378 players
* 2 AFL league sides = (2 * 22) = 44 players
Total = 422 players

Assuming the magpies were to remain but AFL sides put reserves in VFL:
* 9 SANFL league and reserves sides = ((9 * 21) * 2) = 378 players
* 2 AFL league and reserves sides (VFL) = ((2 * 22) * 2) = 88 players
Total = 466 players
[Note: As reserves sides in VFL, Crows/Port would in all likelyhood recruit players to fill lists, logic says this would come from SA to facilitate training.

Power and Crows have standalone reserves sides in SANFL - Magpies remain
* 9 SANFL league and reserves sides = ((9 * 21) * 2) = 378 players
* 2 AFL league and reserves sides (SANFL) = ((2 * 21) * 2) = 84 players
Total = 462 players

Power moves players to Magpies, Crows field reserves in SANFL
* 9 SANFL league and reserves sides = ((9 * 21) * 2) = 378 players
* 2 AFL league sides = (2 * 22) = 44 players
* Crows reserves side = 21 players
Total = 443 players

Port and Crows both field 3 sides in SANFL
* 10 SANFL league and reserves sides = ((10 * 21) * 2) = 420 players
* 2 AFL league sides = (2 * 22) = 44 players
Total = 464 players


So basically, any model which sees both Port and Crows with standalone reserves sides and the Magpies remain sees a need for additional players (around the 40 mark)

[CUTTERMAN]

Gotta agree anything spelling the end of the magpies is not an option for me.
First preference is for the setup to be as KT/Kochy have described. Still can't see who loses with it.
Second preference is to leave things as they are.
Will be interesting to see what happens if Port pushes the status quo, (given the SANFL clubs seem scared of their more logical solution ... than the Crows), with the SANFL still try to force them to disband. I think that will say a lot about the SANFL clubs and their motives.

Timmy, you've made a bit of sense elsewhere but to continue with this line that says the SANFL clubs want to get rid of the Maggies is just wrong.
The only people who are actually undermining the Maggies existence are Koch and Thomas.
There are two totally separate issues being rolled into one which is conveniently letting the Power administration pedal the untruth that it is the SANFL clubs killing the Maggies.
Find another option for the Power reserves team and the Maggies are safe as houses.
Can anyone point to any comments made by those in charge that contradict this statement?

Wrong. Koch stated last week that a reserves model that destroys the fabric of the Magpies is not on the PAFC agenda.

Surely having all Power excess players at the Magpies destroys the fabric of the Magpies.

[Ian]

Surely having all Power excess players at the Magpies destroys the fabric of the Magpies.

most definately, as would have all of the Crows excess at any other club (either existing or new)

[Wedgie]

Been thinking about this a bit and although I'd prefer neither proposition to be implemented Ports proposal does more for the "integrity" of the competition than Crows. Ports biggest problem is the way they've gone about selling it which includes their interaction with the other clubs for a few years and their previous stances.

[TimmiesChin]

Been thinking about this a bit and although I'd prefer neither proposition to be implemented Ports proposal does more for the "integrity" of the competition than Crows. Ports biggest problem is the way they've gone about selling it which includes their interaction with the other clubs for a few years and their previous stances.

So what you need is a no Crows in SANFL banner

[UK Fan]

My concern is Adelaide seem to be moving along quietly to having their proposed model accepted and this too (with the SANFL declaring both teams would need to work to the same model) would spell the end of the Magpies. I'm not surprised that Adelaides model is seen as more attractive to the league directors, well, they are the team for all South Australians after all.

We all share this concern too, Booney.
The petition and all the other lobbying is just as much opposed to the Crows proposal as Port's.
Ironically the people on here pushing for the NO AFL cause are actually the Maggies best friends and their only chance of survival.
So beeny and kickinit, if you really want the Maggies to survive, get along to Prospect on Saturday and sign that petition!!

I'm all for power of the people, free speech etc etc. but I'm also a realist who knows 5000 signatures count for nothing, in the long run.

5000 signatures can assure all SANFL CEOs act in the best interest of their members or they can Push off.

Only 75 signatures are required to hold an SGM. Unlike AFL clubs we have options if we don't like how our board is handling things. I know of one president who is fully aware a yes vote will cost him his reign as president.

[TimmiesChin]

Only 75 signatures are required to hold an SGM. Unlike AFL clubs we have options if we don't like how our board is handling things. I know of one president who is fully aware a yes vote will cost him his reign as president.

I'd be surprised if anyone lost a job over this. Calling an SGM is one thing, but having the votes to topple a president is another. ATM it appears 2/1 in favour of the change (Advertiser poll), so unless the representation at the SGM was stacked, one would think status quo would remain.

[UK Fan]

Only 75 signatures are required to hold an SGM. Unlike AFL clubs we have options if we don't like how our board is handling things. I know of one president who is fully aware a yes vote will cost him his reign as president.

I'd be surprised if anyone lost a job over this. Calling an SGM is one thing, but having the votes to topple a president is another. ATM it appears 2/1 in favour of the change (Advertiser poll), so unless the representation at the SGM was stacked, one would think status quo would remain.

Yeah mate cdfc members vote on the Adelaide now.

75 signatures and people to rock up SGM would be more than enough imho. Considering 30-50 people generally attend agms.

[Ecky]

But an adelaidenow poll is hardly an accurate representation of the views of members of SANFL clubs - it would presumably include votes from many Crows and Port supporters who don't really care what happens to the SANFL.

I would presume that the vast majority of SANFL club members would be opposed to all this, meaning that it wouldn't be that hard at all to overthrow a board, providing you could find some reasonable candidates to stand against them.

So if anyone has ambitions of becoming a SANFL club board member, I would say that now is the ideal time...

[areaman]

Only 75 signatures are required to hold an SGM. Unlike AFL clubs we have options if we don't like how our board is handling things. I know of one president who is fully aware a yes vote will cost him his reign as president.

I'd be surprised if anyone lost a job over this. Calling an SGM is one thing, but having the votes to topple a president is another. ATM it appears 2/1 in favour of the change (Advertiser poll), so unless the representation at the SGM was stacked, one would think status quo would remain.

The 2:1 vote is not a cross section of the SANFL Club membership base.

Eagles have just closed a membership questionaire (if you call one question a questionaire) to gauge the members support or rejection of the proposals. I'd be stunned if it wasn't an overwhelming rejection.

I can't recall the wording or choices of the Advertiser poll. Were people given the option to say yes to AFL reserves but then an option of where they play?

[rod_rooster]

Only 75 signatures are required to hold an SGM. Unlike AFL clubs we have options if we don't like how our board is handling things. I know of one president who is fully aware a yes vote will cost him his reign as president.

I'd be surprised if anyone lost a job over this. Calling an SGM is one thing, but having the votes to topple a president is another. ATM it appears 2/1 in favour of the change (Advertiser poll), so unless the representation at the SGM was stacked, one would think status quo would remain.

So you truly believe that an Advertiser poll is reflective of the attitudes of paid up SANFL club members? Unless I am mistaken to topple a club president doesn't require a poll be run in a newspaper. A vote would be reflective of the paid up club members not the attitudes of those responding to a news limited poll.

[TimmiesChin]

Yeah mate cdfc members vote on the Adelaide now.

I'd assume some have - surely they are just as literate as the rest of us
But regardless, 6700+ (albeit it an online poll and open to fraud) would be a statistically significant number to judge public opinion.

75 signatures and people to rock up SGM would be more than enough imho. Considering 30-50 people generally attend agms.

I'd imagine a notice of SGM etc would need to go out notifying people of the purpose of the SGM with 14 days notice or similar ?
I dunno, I just suspect overthrowing presidents is more in the realm of optimistic rather than the likely outcome. [Especially if the president smelt an attempt to overthrow taking place]

The 2:1 vote is not a cross section of the SANFL Club membership base.

I'm not sure what conclusion you can draw - I didn't vote in it, in fact hadn't seen it - just the results. However it surely can be argued its a cross section of SA opinion.
As for it being a reflection on an individual club, well obviously no, however given how emotive the topic is, you would imagine many anti votes from club land would have voted.