AFL Reserves Discussion...

[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.

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?

[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.

Access to more players... poor poor clubs

Needing more resources to cover the additional areas....poorer and poorer clubs.

[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.

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?

Most definetly because the 17th team draws about 6 to 800 pper game and is propped up by the AFL. Infact half the AFL teams (including Port) are propped up by the commission ie they are on welfare. . I don't believe the AFL commission expanded to Gold Goast and Western Sydney becuase they wanted to have 18 teams. they did it because they feel they need a presence in those areas and at this stage they can not get rid of the struggling melbourne clubs. It is unlikely though that teams like Melbourne, kangaroos and western bulldogs are going to surive long term however. They have no future and the AFL can't prop them up forever.

[Booney]

So they didnt want to expand but felt they needed to and now they'll kill off the traditional clubs like Melboure and North Melbourne to accomodate the expansion clubs funding requirements and the SANFL will prosper because of it.

Oooooook.

[Dogwatcher]

They expanded because of the $$$$ that would become available to them in a broadcast deal by having more games to sell to networks.

[gossipgirl]

So they didnt want to expand but felt they needed to and now they'll kill off the traditional clubs like Melboure and North Melbourne to accomodate the expansion clubs funding requirements and the SANFL will prosper because of it.

Oooooook.

surely you werent expecting any rational, common sense or intelligence in this thread

[Dogwatcher]

I don't get how any of this relates to the SANFL and what we're facing now. Sorry, am I missing something?

[Ecky]

So they didnt want to expand but felt they needed to and now they'll kill off the traditional clubs like Melboure and North Melbourne to accomodate the expansion clubs funding requirements and the SANFL will prosper because of it.

Oooooook.

surely you werent expecting any rational, common sense or intelligence in this thread

I believe that is one of the least intelligent comments in this thread.

Most of the debate in this thread, while passionate, has been very healthy and informative on both sides. Of course you are going to get a few silly comments and personality clashes, but the thread wouldn't have reached 151 pages if the majority of people were talking garbage! This is a very important issue for football in this state, and it is great that we have this forum to voice our concerns and discuss the proposals. I know quite a few influential people do regularly log on...

[Jim05]

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 doesnt surprise me one bit.
I feel sorry for the loyal Torrens and Peckers supporters who have first had to endure a merger and now this

[SDK]

I agree with and admire Port Adelaide's stance about maintaining their traditional area and continuing to assist in developing young players in their zone. It gives that club first chance at picking up a good player and can be right on top in assessing that player's character and work rate.
Port Adelaide contribute equally with the other SANFL clubs and sure they will lose some players to other AFL clubs but likewise they can pick up a player in the Centrals, Norwood, Glenelg zone etc.. Both Adelaide AFL clubs should always concentrate on drafting local SA boys in front of other states and having to continually fight to keep them from going home.
What are the Crows proposing along these lines ????? Nothing just take take take.
We now should be saying .... if Port don't have an AFL seconds team in the SANFL then neither can the Crows !

[Booney]

I don't get how any of this relates to the SANFL and what we're facing now. Sorry, am I missing something?

Sorry mate, passionatelegsfan was making some suggestions on how the SANFL could survive long term.

Go back one page.

[passionatelegsfan]

No boonie before being a smart ass read exactly what i said. I never said anything about killing of melbourne clubs to accomodate expansion teams. The fact is regardless of the expansion teams about half of the current afl teams are not bringing in enough revenue to survive in thieir own right. They are reliant from handouts from the afl commision to meet their expenses. The welfare stare is holding up for now but will eventually implode as all welfare states do. I'm not saying its going to happen next year or the year after but i think the consensus is that 18 teams is to many in a market of what? Say 10 million where afl is the preffered code? Right now they have to prop them up as they are tied into this ridicolous tv deal with foxtel. We don't know what the terms will be of any future deals however

[Booney]

No boonie before being a smart ass read exactly what i said. I never said anything about killing of melbourne clubs to accomodate expansion teams. The fact is regardless of the expansion teams about half of the current afl teams are not bringing in enough revenue to survive in thieir own right. They are reliant from handouts from the afl commision to meet their expenses. The welfare stare is holding up for now but will eventually implode as all welfare states do. I'm not saying its going to happen next year or the year after but i think the consensus is that 18 teams is to many in a market of what? Say 10 million where afl is the preffered code? Right now they have to prop them up as they are tied into this ridicolous tv deal with foxtel. We don't know what the terms will be of any future deals however

No, the Foxtel deal helps them prop up the clubs mate. Not the other way around. Anyway, well off track.....

[passionatelegsfan]

I don't get how any of this relates to the SANFL and what we're facing now. Sorry, am I missing something?

It relates because crows and port reserves advocates are using the argument that the sanfl will die a slow deathin its current format and hence needs the crows and port reserves. Hence people that may be wavering on this issue may be inclined to support sanfl independence if they feel confident about the future of the sanfl to continue to attract fans and be relavent. That is all i am saying. I am sorry if people feel that is irrelavent and not contributing to the thread,. I guess i must be a muddled thinker.

[passionatelegsfan]

I don't get how any of this relates to the SANFL and what we're facing now. Sorry, am I missing something?

It relates because crows and port reserves advocates are using the argument that the sanfl will die a slow deathin its current format and hence needs the crows and port reserves. Hence people that may be wavering on this issue may be inclined to support sanfl independence if they feel confident about the future of the sanfl to continue to attract fans and be relavent. That is all i am saying. I am sorry if people feel that is irrelavent and not contributing to the thread,. I guess i must be a muddled thinker.

[passionatelegsfan]

No boonie before being a smart ass read exactly what i said. I never said anything about killing of melbourne clubs to accomodate expansion teams. The fact is regardless of the expansion teams about half of the current afl teams are not bringing in enough revenue to survive in thieir own right. They are reliant from handouts from the afl commision to meet their expenses. The welfare stare is holding up for now but will eventually implode as all welfare states do. I'm not saying its going to happen next year or the year after but i think the consensus is that 18 teams is to many in a market of what? Say 10 million where afl is the preffered code? Right now they have to prop them up as they are tied into this ridicolous tv deal with foxtel. We don't know what the terms will be of any future deals however

No, the Foxtel deal helps them prop up the clubs mate. Not the other way around. Anyway, well off track.....

I think you are missing the point of what i am saying. No offense!

[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.

This doesnt surprise me one bit.
I feel sorry for the loyal Torrens and Peckers supporters who have first had to endure a merger and now this

I commented on that just a few minutes ago privately to another loyal Eagles poster on this site.

We stood by the club/s when they merged in 1990. We were shattered at the position we found ourselves in but accepted economic reality. It was either merge or sink.

We are not in this position now. It is not a case of a NO vote will sink the club.

Very disappointing for the fans who went through the upheaveal of a merger that the club is willing to sell its soul for $40k a year.

[Agile]

From a NAFC members perspective, all I want ,at this stage, is for the board to hold a special general meeting. The board can then have the opportunity to sell this proposal to its MEMBERS !!!. You know, the people that spend their hard earnt to buy a membership and then spend another $1000 a year on merchandise and product at the game .

If this proposal is so compelling, for god sake sell it to us !!! Convince me that its a good thing. If its a dog of a proposal then the MEMBERS can let you know and THEN you can act on the wants of the members. It's commonly referred to as a democratic process.

[UK Fan]

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 doesnt surprise me one bit.
I feel sorry for the loyal Torrens and Peckers supporters who have first had to endure a merger and now this

Agreed slaven will join cd at west lakes very soon.

[Ecky]

From a NAFC members perspective, all I want ,at this stage, is for the board to hold a special general meeting. The board can then have the opportunity to sell this proposal to its MEMBERS !!!. You know, the people that spend their hard earnt to buy a membership and then spend another $1000 a year on merchandise and product at the game .

If this proposal is so compelling, for god sake sell it to us !!! Convince me that its a good thing. If its a dog of a proposal then the MEMBERS can let you know and THEN you can act on the wants of the members. It's commonly referred to as a democratic process.

But if they do hold that meeting, I bet the argument for voting yes will be mainly along the lines of Olsen's statement:

“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.”

It is difficult for us "average" members to argue against this as it is just an opinion and the response will be "trust us, we understand the SANFL landscape much more deeply than you do, and we are sure this will happen".