AFL Reserves Discussion...

[LPH]

SANFL COMPETITION – MEDIA STATEMENT

The South Australian Football Commission has tonight formally presented a model by which the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs could enter teams in the SANFL competition in 2014.

The Commission has endorsed a negotiated model which delivers financial benefits for the SANFL clubs while protecting the integrity of the competition and has proposed the model to the SANFL League Directors.

The League Directors agreed to present the model to their respective boards for consideration prior to reconvening to consider their response.

A summary of the model is as follows:
- One league team from the Adelaide Football Club enters the SANFL from 2014, forming a 10-team competition. The Port Adelaide Magpies become the second team of the Port Adelaide Football Club;
- The 2014 SANFL competition would become an 18-round home-and-away season with all clubs playing each other twice;
- Each of the nine existing SANFL clubs would have 10 home games – the Adelaide Football Club’s SANFL team would play all its games ‘away’;
- The AFL clubs would pay each SANFL club a guaranteed uplift per annum;
- The AFL clubs would work closely with the SANFL and clubs on game development throughout the community; and
- The AFL clubs’ SANFL teams would not wear the AFL club’s jumper, will not be called by the AFL club’s nickname and would carry no AFL club sponsorship partners.

Top up players required by the AFL clubs’ SANFL teams would be provided by the other SANFL clubs on an as-needs basis. These would be 18-22 year-old players not currently playing league football.

The model commits the AFL clubs to the SANFL for a minimum of 15 years with the SANFL to review annually.

“It is the Commission’s belief that the recommended model protects the integrity, the relevance, game development and club and competition viability,” SA Football Commission Chairman John Olsen said.

“It provides the SANFL and its clubs with certainty about the future of our competition while also providing the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs the best competition outside of the AFL in which to test themselves.

“The alternative to this course of action exposes the SANFL to reduced corporate interest and reduced media coverage while also threatening the relevance of the competition as the best outside of the AFL.”

MODEL IN DETAIL

Listed players
All AFL listed players (including Rookie listed) to play with AFL support team should they not be in their AFL team.


Top Up players – leadership player
AFL clubs can contract one ‘leadership’ player per season.
28 years and over, must have been on AFC or PAFC respective lists.

Top Up players – other
18 – 22 years old, on an SANFL Club list.
Players selected at start of pre-season in conjunction with SANFL clubs.
AFL and SANFL clubs to review at agreed points throughout season.
Top-up players cannot play against their home SANFL club.
SANFL club has first rights to any top up player at League level during the minor round.

SANFL League Finals qualification
No qualification criteria for AFL listed players during the SANFL finals series when AFC/PAFC are still involved at AFL level.
Should AFC/PAFC not be involved in AFL finals, a player must have played the majority of his football at SANFL level, or 3 of the last 5 games at SANFL level to qualify.

Competition commitment
AFL clubs to commit to ‘playing to the line’.
Will not rest players and take up elective surgery options.
SANFL doctor to provide 2nd opinion on surgeries before end of season.
Will commit in writing to these points, to be in club and head coach charters.

Support Staff
AFL clubs to commit to not recruiting support staff directly from SANFL clubs.

Home Venue
AFC will not have a home venue; will play as away team throughout the minor round.


COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE

Licence Fee
AFL clubs to pay a licence fee to the SANFL for their involvement.

Membership
AFL clubs will not sell SANFL team membership.
SANFL to explore joint membership options with AFL clubs, including access to SANFL games.

Branding
AFC support team not to be branded Crows.
AFC support team not to wear Crows-style AFL guernsey in the SANFL.


Sponsorship
AFL clubs not to attract sponsors for their SANFL team.

Media
AFL clubs to generate interest in SANFL competition and other SANFL clubs through media activation, social media and online.


Community Engagement
AFL clubs to commit to working with SANFL clubs in promoting pathways to AFL Football.
In lead up to SANFL games, AFL clubs will help promote the game in tandem with the SANFL club within their promotional zone.

Commitment
AFL clubs to commit to the SANFL competition for 15 years, reviewed by the SANFL on a yearly basis.


COMPETITION STRUCTURE

SANFL Fixture
Focussed on maximising attendances for SANFL teams
25 week season from start to end; start date to be set once AFL fixture is known
18 minor round matches over 21 weeks
1 bye for State Game
2 split rounds
10 home matches per Club

Salary Cap
Reduced by $20,000 per SANFL club as acknowledgement of reduction in minor round matches.


South Australian National Football League Inc | AAMI Stadium - Turner Drive, West Lakes SA 5021

[UK Fan]

The 5 CDFC board members are a NO!

Forgive me ...

YOU DOGS!!!!

To the AFL
Good luck with the player development in the SAAFL. Perhaps if they had had a SAAFL reserves team last year they would have gone further than last years prelim

They will be the laughing stock of the afl.

I see ruccis headline now "amateur hour officially hits Adelaide" enjoy the poop on your door handles when your playing away at Salisbury north

[GrandOldFlag]

We (the SANFL) need to be ready for dirty tricks and media (AFL puppets).

I can see the commercial TV stations abandoning us altogether, the Advertiser having SAAFL write-ups and not SANFL.

I have said elsewhere that it is 2013 and the internet with websites and YouTube along with lots of digital TV (Community TV C31 (44) would be best bet) options can still keep the SANFL marketed and in the spotlight.

Havnt got time to say what is wrong with commissions proposal other than I can see no benefit to SANFL other than perceived increases in relevance.

[BrekkyDJ]

So what do we believe is the current score...

Norwood - NO
Centrals - NO
Norths - YES
Sturt - ?
Souths - ?
Wests - ?
Eagles - ?
Bays - ?

[Dutchy]

Have heard nothing from Sturt, West and South - anyone?

[JK]

Have heard nothing from Sturt, West and South - anyone?

Certainly don't take this as Gospel, but I'd heard YES for Sturt, West, Glenelg and WWT .. My mail not certain though, and could be still time to change as the detail (usin the term loosely) of the proposal is relatively fresh still

[saintal]

Have heard nothing from Sturt, West and South - anyone?

From the website/facebook...The South Adelaide Football Club will communicate more with our members this week in relation to the next steps in this consideration by our League Director.

So who knows?

A meeting of members where the "pros and cons" of the proposal can be discussed should be a no-brainer really, but may not necessarily happen.

[on the rails]

North appear to be a YES however some of the Board who all voted NO originally but some have since said YES are now worried re the backlash today and could revert back to NO.

However I still don't trust our President not to vote yes regardless if the rest of the club said NO.

[Ecky]

Looks like the goalposts have moved again - what a shambles

ADELAIDE’S push for a reserves team in the SANFL was amid a major rework on Wednesday night after hitting a significant hurdle to win approval for the league’s directors

Less than 24 hours after the SA Football Commission approved the Crows borrowing 18-22-year-olds from rival SANFL clubs as “top-up” players to cover injuries, this key aspect was dumped after a meeting of SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker and Adelaide boss Steven Trigg.

Whicker told The Advertiser on Wednesday night: “The plan to take players out of their SANFL clubs to act as top-up players for the Adelaide Football Club has created too much anxiety among the SANFL clubs. That concern has become very clear to us.

“Steven Trigg has asked to revisit the model and find an alternative to claim players from other sources. We will tell the SANFL clubs (today) the top-up system proposed by the commission is off the table.”

Without this critical change to the top-up system to support the Crows reserves team, Adelaide will not get the six votes among the eight SANFL league directors to approve the Crows entering the state league as its stand-alone 10th team.

This would trigger the Crows removing all its AFL-listed players from the SANFL next year to place a reserves team in the SA Amateur Football League with games played at Thebarton Oval.

Trigg now will meet with all SANFL clubs to find a top-up model that would win approval at the directors’ table and retain the Crows’ link to the SANFL.

“We’re taking that model off the table — and we will listen to the SANFL club on what they want to do,” Trigg told The Advertiser on Wednesday night.

“We appreciate this is a sensitive issue. But we need direction from the clubs on what is suitable.

“We want to integrate with the SANFL clubs — we want their input.

“We respect the SANFL clubs’ concern and are open-minded on how we resolve the top-up player question.”

“We will have a support team playing somewhere next year and while we want it to be in the SANFL league competition, if that doesn’t work out then it will be in the Amateur League rather than the VFL or NEAFL.

“In terms of quality of competition, the big bodies, access, no travel, there are a whole range of reasons for this, so that’s what we would do.’’

Adelaide is prepared to propose it sign “top-up” from amateur and country ranks and recently retired Crows players, such as defender Graham Johncock who has continued to play in the SANFL with the Port Adelaide Magpies since leaving the Crows.

This “top-up” system was part of Adelaide’s second submission to the commission after Trigg and Crows football chief Phil Harper met SANFL clubs in the past month. The Crows were surprised the commission on Tuesday accept the first proposal to loan “top-up” players from SANFL clubs on the proviso these players never face their original SANFL teams.

That last paragraph just confirms even more that the Commission are completely out of touch with reality and are clearly not acting in the best interests of the SANFL clubs!

[SDK]

Lets see what about face we get from Trigg in the next day or so regarding his 8 - 0 vote. Bet this prick gets hauled over the coals regarding that statement.
What a joke of a club the Crows have become since that arrogant arsehole became involved.

[Dutchy]

What a shambles, why the rush? WHy not take time to get it right if they want to come in??

[SDK]

Exactly !
That is basically what Port are saying, it is just the moronic crew at the Crows who are rushing it ..... and botching it !
Judas got 40 pieces of silver .... the Crows are offering less than $80,000 for a similar kiss !

[rod_rooster]

This just keeps getting more and more farcical. Love that even the Crows were surprised the Commission actually endorsed the top up players part of their proposal. I wonder what other parts they are surprised the commission endorsed? I'd say most of it but they would have put ridiculous things in with a mind to looking like they are flexible and respectful by changing them "out of respect for the SANFL clubs". What a crock! They are bluffing their way in and the SANFL Commission is falling for it hook line and sinker.

[csbowes]

I'm not surprised.

I'll be stunned if Sturt don't vote in favour of this proposal, even though voting for it will increase the chances of the club folding.

I have zero confidence in the board.

If it goes through, it will be interesting to see membership figures next year.

Have you talked to anyone on the board?

No. It's just my gut feeling.

I actually cut ties with the club after they disclosed at last seasons AGM that they purposely hid the details of financial mis-management from the members. That was the last straw for me... it's one of the reasons I don't post on here as much anymore. Members are the one's who should have a voice, supporters of the colours who choose not to be members, like me, well, it's just not the same.

I will be catching up with a well known identity around the club in the next couple of weeks, but that's not to talk about this issue, that's to talk about club finances, which as many know on here is a sore point of mine, something I get on my soap box about.

[csbowes]

If some clubs were convinced this was the wrong idea, they'd already be out and about saying they are against it.

Allowing the Crows to re-negotiate a top up player idea etc just makes me think the league directors already have a mind set that they should work something out with the Crows beforehand and then vote 8-0 in favour (or maybe 7-1 due to Norwood).

I don't agree with some posters that it would be better for the clubs to band together and decide whether its YES or NO and then whatever it is, put that vote through unanimously so that no club is singled out. That just means clubs could hide behind anonymity and never face up to their members on how they voted. Boards should have the courage of their convictions, if they vote YES, say so and be ousted if that's what the members want, don't vote one way and then try and hide it to stay in power.

I applaud the GFC and NFC for having information nights and allowing members to have a say, ask questions, I presume that's what happened at Norwood and what will happen at Glenelg.

Any news on the other clubs consulting members?

[prowling panther]

I was told the other night that South give updated reports on facebook (or words to that effect).

And I watch Big Brother, and X factor and The Voice and Masterchef and all those other BS shows, what makes ppl think I have got time to look at facebook.

[mighty_tiger_79]

The 5 CDFC board members are a NO!

Forgive me ...

YOU DOGS!!!!

To the AFL
Good luck with the player development in the SAAFL. Perhaps if they had had a SAAFL reserves team last year they would have gone further than last years prelim

They will be the laughing stock of the afl.

I see ruccis headline now "amateur hour officially hits Adelaide" enjoy the poop on your door handles when your playing away at Salisbury north

im not sure if the article was online when you posted this, but the back of todays tiser says Amateur Hour

[PhilH]

I thought the top up plan made reasonable sense and was close to what I proposed back in Sept last year (all be it at SANFL reserves level).

I would prefer some reserves level players be lent to the Crows with a SANFL club to go back
rather than
having the Crows compete in the recruiting market each summer and those players not having a team to play for when not needed by the Crows.

Surely in each SANFL club there are 2-3 players on a senior list of 55 just coming out of Under 18's who might benefit long term with an experience for a few months mixing it with AFL players

I accept it gifts an SANFL game to some otherwise not ready
but
it also ensures potential state league recruits end up at SANFL clubs and not the crows.
plus
ensures that the depth of the 10th team is low enough to keep them from dominating

[Kahuna]

FWIW I pledge to donate the equivalent of a years Membership to any Club that votes No whether this proposal (or any other) gets up or not. If it gets up, I'll pay as a "Thanks and Goodbye" if it doesn't "Thanks and Good Luck".

[Wedgie]

Norwood continue to impress me. Coopers and a No vote.