AFL Reserves Discussion...

[Dogwatcher]

Maybe the Crows PLan B is actually to play in our reserves, but if they communicated that now then there would be no chance of getting into the league comp.

So the SAAFL is a bluff/3rd option. And if we reject the league proposal they will then negotiate the reserves option.

They've never really addressed the proposal to go in the reserves, have they?

[saintal]

I found Olsen’s comments on 5AAFL interesting, in that finances will not be a major factor in the decision making of the SANFL clubs. He basically implied that there won’t be a significant financial windfall for the clubs (the $80K figure rumoured was over inflated) and their main focus is ensuring that the integrity etc. is maintained. So without the financial carrot, I again ask what are the benefits to the clubs?

Crows in the SANFL reserves makes too much sense, as others have stated. Why the Crows against this but open to the SAAFL?

[Booney]

I reckon I might have to start recording all of these bold statements about what people are going to do if this goes ahead.

I'll send the dossier through.

[Dogwatcher]

Hey, this isn't black ops, mate!

[Ecky]

But assuming Port retain the status quo and Crows reserves enter the SANFL reserves, how would that work logistically?

With a 9 team league comp and a 10 team reserves comp, the Crows reserves would have to play the club that has the bye in the League. Where would they play? Sturt won't want to use Unley Oval for a game that would attract a few hundred spectators.

[heater31]

But assuming Port retain the status quo and Crows reserves enter the SANFL reserves, how would that work logistically?

With a 9 team league comp and a 10 team reserves comp, the Crows reserves would have to play the club that has the bye in the League. Where would they play? Sturt won't want to use Unley Oval for a game that would attract a few hundred spectators.

Footy Park is available next year isn't it?

[rod_rooster]

But assuming Port retain the status quo and Crows reserves enter the SANFL reserves, how would that work logistically?

With a 9 team league comp and a 10 team reserves comp, the Crows reserves would have to play the club that has the bye in the League. Where would they play? Sturt won't want to use Unley Oval for a game that would attract a few hundred spectators.

Just don't charge people to get in and then no need for putting the fence up. Security and other costs covered by the Cows.

[areaman]

It's been mentioned on here consistently that the Eagles were one of the more likely candidates to vote YES.

I held out hope that this wasn't correct but I've just heard from a good source that they are in fact the leader of the YES vote.

I feel sick.

[Dogwatcher]

But assuming Port retain the status quo and Crows reserves enter the SANFL reserves, how would that work logistically?

With a 9 team league comp and a 10 team reserves comp, the Crows reserves would have to play the club that has the bye in the League. Where would they play? Sturt won't want to use Unley Oval for a game that would attract a few hundred spectators.

Won't be an issue at all. Their junior sides play there when the league and reserves are away. Doesn't take too much work at all.

[eaglesfan]

I will be disgusted with the Eagles if they vote YES for this nonsense.

[Booney]

In response to the SANFL commission's recommendations to reject PAFC's preferred hybrid model as the basis to the club's AFL reserves team, chief executive Keith Thomas issues the following statement:

We are disappointed but not surprised by the SANFL commission's preferred model.

As a club with a long history of deep community connection, we have made it clear from the outset that we believe that any model that precludes Port Adelaide from retaining these links through our junior programs would not be positive for SA football and certainly not good for our Club.

Accordingly we will opt for the status quo in 2014, and reassess our options beyond that. We will continue to pursue the goal of creating an AFL development side as a matter of priority.

________________________________________________________________________


A few comments on the PAFC statement :


we have made it clear from the outset that we believe that any model that precludes Port Adelaide from retaining these links through our junior programs would not be positive for SA football and certainly not good for our Club.

I 100% agree and with the proposed Adelaide Football Club / commission accepted model before us, I would think more people are starting to think the same.

Accordingly we will opt for the status quo in 2014, and reassess our options beyond that

Very savvy move. Lets just sit back, see how this unfolds and we will decide in a timely manner while Adelaide rush in balls-and-all.

We will continue to pursue the goal of creating an AFL development side as a matter of priority.

"as a matter of priority"....but not as early as 2014. Good decision.

[Aerie]

It's been mentioned on here consistently that the Eagles were one of the more likely candidates to vote YES.

I held out hope that this wasn't correct but I've just heard from a good source that they are in fact the leader of the YES vote.

I feel sick.

This is a disgrace. Nothing much else to say. Can't defend the indefensible.

[areaman]

A few comments on the PAFC statement :

we have made it clear from the outset that we believe that any model that precludes Port Adelaide from retaining these links through our junior programs would not be positive for SA football and certainly not good for our Club.

I 100% agree and with the proposed Adelaide Football Club / commission accepted model before us, I would think more people are starting to think the same.

Accordingly we will opt for the status quo in 2014, and reassess our options beyond that

Very savvy move. Lets just sit back, see how this unfolds and we will decide in a timely manner while Adelaide rush in balls-and-all.

We will continue to pursue the goal of creating an AFL development side as a matter of priority.

"as a matter of priority"....but not as early as 2014. Good decision.

I get that you'd say it's not good for your club but how does it matter for SA football generally?

Any junior currently in the Port zone would just go to another club's zone. Are Port saying they have a superior junior development program?

Sounds like a cute statement that doesn't pass the bullshit test.

[Aerie]

A few comments on the PAFC statement :

we have made it clear from the outset that we believe that any model that precludes Port Adelaide from retaining these links through our junior programs would not be positive for SA football and certainly not good for our Club.

I 100% agree and with the proposed Adelaide Football Club / commission accepted model before us, I would think more people are starting to think the same.

Accordingly we will opt for the status quo in 2014, and reassess our options beyond that

Very savvy move. Lets just sit back, see how this unfolds and we will decide in a timely manner while Adelaide rush in balls-and-all.

We will continue to pursue the goal of creating an AFL development side as a matter of priority.

"as a matter of priority"....but not as early as 2014. Good decision.

I get that you'd say it's not good for your club but how does it matter for SA football generally?

Any junior currently in the Port zone would just go to another club's zone. Are Port saying they have a superior junior development program?

Sounds like a cute statement that doesn't pass the bullshit test.

I guess it would depend on how successful the junior development program Port run is. How do you measure success?

1) Number of AFL players produced?
2) Number of SANFL league players produced?
3) Number/pecentage of players involved in football in your zone?

If Port measured high in these things it would be a loss to game development in this state. If they are below average it is no loss to SA Football in general, just to Port supporters.

[areaman]

A few comments on the PAFC statement :

we have made it clear from the outset that we believe that any model that precludes Port Adelaide from retaining these links through our junior programs would not be positive for SA football and certainly not good for our Club.

I 100% agree and with the proposed Adelaide Football Club / commission accepted model before us, I would think more people are starting to think the same.

Accordingly we will opt for the status quo in 2014, and reassess our options beyond that

Very savvy move. Lets just sit back, see how this unfolds and we will decide in a timely manner while Adelaide rush in balls-and-all.

We will continue to pursue the goal of creating an AFL development side as a matter of priority.

"as a matter of priority"....but not as early as 2014. Good decision.

I get that you'd say it's not good for your club but how does it matter for SA football generally?

Any junior currently in the Port zone would just go to another club's zone. Are Port saying they have a superior junior development program?

Sounds like a cute statement that doesn't pass the bullshit test.

I guess it would depend on how successful the junior development program Port run is. How do you measure success?

1) Number of AFL players produced?
2) Number of SANFL league players produced?
3) Number/pecentage of players involved in football in your zone?

If Port measured high in these things it would be a loss to game development in this state. If they are below average it is no loss to SA Football in general, just to Port supporters.

Apart from two Eberts are there any Port juniors in the Power squad?

Maybe Port should run a junior program for anybody called Ebert and let the other clubs have the rest of their zone.

[Booney]

A few comments on the PAFC statement :

we have made it clear from the outset that we believe that any model that precludes Port Adelaide from retaining these links through our junior programs would not be positive for SA football and certainly not good for our Club.

I 100% agree and with the proposed Adelaide Football Club / commission accepted model before us, I would think more people are starting to think the same.

Accordingly we will opt for the status quo in 2014, and reassess our options beyond that

Very savvy move. Lets just sit back, see how this unfolds and we will decide in a timely manner while Adelaide rush in balls-and-all.

We will continue to pursue the goal of creating an AFL development side as a matter of priority.

"as a matter of priority"....but not as early as 2014. Good decision.

I get that you'd say it's not good for your club but how does it matter for SA football generally?

Any junior currently in the Port zone would just go to another club's zone. Are Port saying they have a superior junior development program?

Sounds like a cute statement that doesn't pass the bullshit test.

Perhaps like all clubs and their zones many hours have been put into building relationships with the regional and local clubs, junior development coaches have watched kids from an early age, following them through many grades to identify their talent.

All SANFL club resources are stretched to the limit so although yes, the zones would be given to other SANFL clubs it would further stretch their already exhausted resources and potentially 10-15 years of talent identification / relationships would be lost.

[passionatelegsfan]

I would be interested to hear from members about what they think about the SANFL's future prospects in the event it can stay independent. Of course we hear from Crows and Power fans that the SANFL needs them or face extinction in the not to distant future. Personally i can envisage a positive future for the SANFL if they can surivive this onlsaught. My thinkng maybe simplistic but i feel that 17 AFL clubs going forward is way to many considering the size of the AFL market. I think the ideal number is between 12-14. Assuming they went down to 14 teams in the future (AFL can't prop up struggling clubs forever) then that would be alot of current AFL players out of a job. Naturally they would want to get back in and logically thinking they would want to go play in the competition that gives them the best chance to get back into the AFL. In recent times this has been the SANFL and whether it continues to be is up to the club directors. This influx of availiable talent would more than make up for the loss of crows and power listed players and could perhaps even raise the standard of play. If the SANFL market themselves well it could be a real viable alternative to people who get tired of what is refered to as the sterile AFL environment. They should definetly put finals at suburban grounds back on the agenda as this should produce a great atmosphere. I think if at all possible Port Magpies should also stay. As much as i hate them they are probably good for the comp. If they have to leave though because they can't get their reserves side then so be it.

[Booney]

I would be interested to hear from members about what they think about the SANFL's future prospects in the event it can stay independent. Of course we hear from Crows and Power fans that the SANFL needs them or face extinction in the not to distant future. Personally i can envisage a positive future for the SANFL if they can surivive this onlsaught. My thinkng maybe simplistic but i feel that 17 AFL clubs going forward is way to many considering the size of the AFL market. I think the ideal number is between 12-14. Assuming they went down to 14 teams in the future (AFL can't prop up struggling clubs forever) then that would be alot of current AFL players out of a job. Naturally they would want to get back in and logically thinking they would want to go play in the competition that gives them the best chance to get back into the AFL. In recent times this has been the SANFL and whether it continues to be is up to the club directors. This influx of availiable talent would more than make up for the loss of crows and power listed players and could perhaps even raise the standard of play. If the SANFL market themselves well it could be a real viable alternative to people who get tired of what is refered to as the sterile AFL environment. They should definetly put finals at suburban grounds back on the agenda as this should produce a great atmosphere. I think if at all possible Port Magpies should also stay. As much as i hate them they are probably good for the comp. If they have to leave though because they can't get their reserves side then so be it.

So you're basing your SANFL's viability on the AFL reducing the competition to 14 teams, 3 years after they introduced the 17th club and 2 years after the 18th club?

[Slots It Through]

Hoskin is the only other Port Adelaide junior in the Power squad and he is a rookie. Thats not a realistic way of looking at it, given the draft doesnt allow you to take whoever you want from your junior grades.

No doubt they would have loved to have picked up Lycett and Broomhead in the last couple of years, but it doesnt always work our perfectly.

If you look at the number of players from the PA country academy who have gone on to play SANFL league footy, it would be a very high percentage compared to other clubs and their country zones.

[Look Good In Leather]

A few comments on the PAFC statement :

we have made it clear from the outset that we believe that any model that precludes Port Adelaide from retaining these links through our junior programs would not be positive for SA football and certainly not good for our Club.

I 100% agree and with the proposed Adelaide Football Club / commission accepted model before us, I would think more people are starting to think the same.

Accordingly we will opt for the status quo in 2014, and reassess our options beyond that

Very savvy move. Lets just sit back, see how this unfolds and we will decide in a timely manner while Adelaide rush in balls-and-all.

We will continue to pursue the goal of creating an AFL development side as a matter of priority.

"as a matter of priority"....but not as early as 2014. Good decision.

I get that you'd say it's not good for your club but how does it matter for SA football generally?

Any junior currently in the Port zone would just go to another club's zone. Are Port saying they have a superior junior development program?

Sounds like a cute statement that doesn't pass the bullshit test.

Perhaps like all clubs and their zones many hours have been put into building relationships with the regional and local clubs, junior development coaches have watched kids from an early age, following them through many grades to identify their talent.

All SANFL club resources are stretched to the limit so although yes, the zones would be given to other SANFL clubs it would further stretch their already exhausted resources and potentially 10-15 years of talent identification / relationships would be lost.

Access to more players... poor poor clubs