SA Footy

I think we can safely say crowds won't go down without AFL sides when you look at the crowds we got 3 years ago. Thinking they'd go down is crazy, 300 per game is ludicrous.

Wedgie wrote:I think we can safely say crowds won't go down without AFL sides when you look at the crowds we got 3 years ago. Thinking they'd go down is crazy, 300 per game is ludicrous.

I agree. But even if it were to happen, I'd rather have that, than the mess atm.

Booney wrote:Matt, let me save you 250+ pages of heartache mate.

The people on here who so vehemently despise the AFL sides entry into the SANFL want a competition that is played on an even playing field, even if that playing field has only 300 people watching it with no fence between the spectators and the players at a local park. They want the integrity restored, they want all sides playing to the line even if it proves to be the demise of the states highest club based competition. At least, they say, it will die with it's head in the air not on it's AFL knees.

Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.

Reworded:

Matt, let me put this in context.

Before 1997 I would have supported these peoples viewpoint 110%.

However, now that my team is in the AFL they are luddites and idiots.

Cheers.

Magellan wrote:

matt35 wrote:One common complaint I see on here, for example, is guaranteed coverage of games between the Crows and Port. Doesn't the fact that those games are always covered by channel Seven spell out everything you need to know about what the media would do if those teams were gone?

So what's the difference?

matt35 wrote:I loved the SANFL comp that we had in the 80s, with big crowds, replays every Saturday night etc etc. But I live in the real world and the real world is that we live in a town dominated by the AFL. We live in a town where the vast majority of Football supporters follow either the Crows or the Power. We live in a town where many people have been born since 1991 and do not have the connection to the SANFL that many of us have. I actually think it's probably fair to say that this site has a disproportionate number of people participating among it's regular posters who have no interest in either the Crows or Power. But if we are to have a viable competition going forward, it has to be a competition that is relevant to this town in 2016 and beyond. This absolutely means AFL participation, and thankfully the people running the competition have the foresight to see and accept this reality, as do the majority of clubs. Is it perfect? No. Could there be some tinkering? Quite possibly. But is it necessary? Absolutely.

You make it sound like the AFL teams rode in out of the distance like a white knight to save the SANFL, when really it was Brenton Sanderson's (remember him? He was the next prodigal son to deliver success to the Crows who ended up getting sacked in three years) brainchild, and the Crows merely took advantage of a league with clubs some of whom admittedly had a history of financial over-extension to get what they desperately wanted ASAP.

Bullsh!t. It was talked about long before he coached the crows.

Booney wrote:The people on here who so vehemently despise the AFL sides entry into the SANFL want a competition that is played on an even playing field, even if that playing field has only 300 people watching it with no fence between the spectators and the players at a local park. They want the integrity restored, they want all sides playing to the line even if it proves to be the demise of the states highest club based competition. At least, they say, it will die with it's head in the air not on it's AFL knees.

Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.

Are you saying that the entry of the AFL sides have led to an increase in crowds, interest, etc. in the SANFL?

Before you answer that, perhaps you could have a look at the difference in average crowds between 2011-2013 and 2014-2016.

You could have particular regard to the crowds that the Port Magpies franchise attracted during these two time periods, remembering that they have been much more successful during these last three years, even winning the minor premiership in 2014.

Once you've cleared that up you could explain why you are of the view that the removal of the AFL sides would lead to the demise of the SANFL.

cracka wrote:Bullsh!t. It was talked about long before he coached the crows.

Talked about, yes, informally and as an alternative concept in the media whenever issues arose with managing fringe players under the previous club-based system.

But Sanderson made the reserves sides happen. It was his brainchild to implement a system akin to Geelong and Collingwood who were strong at the time as soon as he was appointed in late 2011. In the the 7 and a bit seasons before him, Neil Craig had been a supporter of the club-based system (somewhat ironically, because as Norwood's coach he often played players in positions contrary to the Crows' wishes) and I'm not aware of any serious public discussion by him or the Crows on the issue, not like the following media statements by Sanderson. Happy to be corrected.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6228802287

COACH Brenton Sanderson has signalled his interest in the Crows having their own reserves in the SANFL.

When - and in what format - it would be introduced remains a mystery but what is clear is the former Geelong assistant's desire to control the development of his youthful playing list. "We'll just keep chipping away," Sanderson said.

"I think for the club it's certainly something on the agenda and something we would love to have.

"A reserves side is going to make us better as a football club and a football team."

Sanderson, who is fresh out of a Cats system that includes a reserves team in the VFL, has seen first-hand the benefits of having a seconds side.

Unlike his predecessor, Neil Craig, who spoke glowingly of his men playing in team-orientated environments at SANFL clubs, Sanderson is convinced shadowing the Cats and Collingwood is the way to go.

"Typically the sides which have their own players go back and get coached by coaches who are within the football club, are the ones who have the quicker improvement," Sanderson said.

"For the development of our younger kids it's imperative at some stage down the track we have a reserves side. We understand it's a delicate issue but at the same time, from my point of view as senior coach, we would love to have it.

"But we're not going to shove it down anyone's throat just yet, but we'll keep chipping away at it."

It is understood one proposal being considered is the Crows' reserves side playing whatever SANFL side has the bye, but not for premiership points. But this scenario could lend itself to the SANFL club resting senior players.

Sanderson then continued the rhetoric in mid 2013:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/crows- ... 6658133304

BRENTON Sanderson says Adelaide must field a stand-alone reserves team next year or it will risk falling further behind the AFL's power clubs.

"It's really important from my point of view as a senior coach," Sanderson said as the Crows joined hometown rival Port Adelaide in ramping up their push to field their own side in the SANFL.

"If we didn't get a reserves side up next year we would be, I think, the only team that doesn't send its players to one club. It's massive, it really is.

"I've seen the Geelong model and the Geelong program works so successfully with the development of young players getting drafted and coming through their own system.

"What's important is that if we can get our own team we can actually try and fight that battle against Collingwood, Geelong, Essendon, those sorts of teams that have had their reserves teams up and running for a number of years, which really helps their development.

"I'm not sure where we're at with the negotiation phase of it, getting it up and running, but we'll almost certainly have our own team next year."

The Power wants its SANFL affiliate, the Port Magpies, to be its reserves side from next year.

Sanderson said he'd like his players who aren't playing in the AFL each week to play in one team in the SANFL's league competition.

But he said the main priority is just getting them to play together, even if it is in the reserves. Other options are the VFL and NEAFL competitions, which host Victorian and Sydney and Brisbane clubs respectively.

While Sanderson said he wanted his non-selected players challenged in the strongest competition available, getting the team up and running was the priority.

"We'd want our own team playing in the strongest competition available but ultimately we want our own team first of all," he said.

"But coming up against Sydney this week, the young kid (Tom) Mitchell, who played really well for them last week, in his previous two games he had 56 and 52 possessions playing in the NEAFL.

"So that's also the debate - where are players going to learn and develop the most? But primarily, let's get our own second team first."

Under the current system, the Crows lose some control over their non-selected AFL players, who must line up for their SANFL clubs and often play different positions and learn different game styles.

"Obviously Port has got a fair bit of control over its players at the Port Magpies and ultimately that's what we'd like," Sanderson said.

"Apart from development it helps with the retention because our players can play together rather than go and play for the nine SANFL teams.

"It would be nice to be able to tell them when we draft them they will always play for the Crows."

Sanderson said the "wheels are certainly in motion for us to get a second team up and running".

"We're a long way down the path," he said.

"Phil Harper (football operations manager) and David Noble (list manager) are working hard behind the scenes."

You said it was his brain child, which it wasn't, he may have actually forced the issue because of his Geelong experience but he didn't think it up.

Righto then, so who do you say thought up the reserves concept?

Sanderson was the catalyst for the change.

To be fair, other options were being mooted as well - similar to what happened in Perth where West Coast absorbed East Perth, the idea was that the Cows would absorb WWT. I assume the main reason it didn't eventuate is because the competition would still have a Bye Round.

You've gotta love the defenders of the Reserves sides, commenting in an 'anti-thread' & bagging the very posters that post in the thread - interesting.
Is it for healthy debate or just trolling?

Am looking forward to the extra 4K @ the game Saturday - so is Roy Laird, no doubt?

Find it very fitting that a bloke who couldn't coach his way out of a wet paper bag has this shit sandwich as his legacy......unfortunately his club's board also realised he can't coach and gave him the boot but they can't go back on their publicly stated position

LPH wrote:Sanderson was the catalyst for the change.

To be fair, other options were being mooted as well - similar to what happened in Perth where West Coast absorbed East Perth, the idea was that the Cows would absorb WWT. I assume the main reason it didn't eventuate is because the competition would still have a Bye Round.

You've gotta love the defenders of the Reserves sides, commenting in an 'anti-thread' & bagging the very posters that post in the thread - interesting.
Is it for healthy debate or just trolling?

Am looking forward to the extra 4K @ the game Saturday - so is Roy Laird, no doubt?

There was also talk of them absorbing Sturt at one stage.

Magellan wrote:Righto then, so who do you say thought up the reserves concept?

Well I thought about it when Port entered the AFL in 97.

cracka wrote:

Magellan wrote:Righto then, so who do you say thought up the reserves concept?

Well I thought about it when Port entered the AFL in 97.

Good-o, but it doesn't answer my question.

Magellan wrote:

cracka wrote:

Magellan wrote:Righto then, so who do you say thought up the reserves concept?

Well I thought about it when Port entered the AFL in 97.

Good-o, but it doesn't answer my question.

Sorry I can't remember any actual names of who was discussing it all those years ago.

RB wrote:

Booney wrote:The people on here who so vehemently despise the AFL sides entry into the SANFL want a competition that is played on an even playing field, even if that playing field has only 300 people watching it with no fence between the spectators and the players at a local park. They want the integrity restored, they want all sides playing to the line even if it proves to be the demise of the states highest club based competition. At least, they say, it will die with it's head in the air not on it's AFL knees.

Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.

Are you saying that the entry of the AFL sides have led to an increase in crowds, interest, etc. in the SANFL?

Before you answer that, perhaps you could have a look at the difference in average crowds between 2011-2013 and 2014-2016.

You could have particular regard to the crowds that the Port Magpies franchise attracted during these two time periods, remembering that they have been much more successful during these last three years, even winning the minor premiership in 2014.

Once you've cleared that up you could explain why you are of the view that the removal of the AFL sides would lead to the demise of the SANFL.

Are you struggling to understand my post?

Matt has been debating the merits or otherwise of the reserves inclusion with the punters on here, I just tried to sum up the sentiment of most for him. Read it again, if it helps, I stated that most on here would give up crowds if integrity was restored. The counter argument is crowds will increase if and when integrity is restored, neither party can be assured of the outcome of either result.

Now, to your comments, you don't need to be too clever to work out crowds have dropped and why. Would it lead to the demise of the SANFL? As noted above, perhaps, perhaps not but that's not ( again ) what I was saying to matt.

therisingblues wrote:

Booney wrote:Matt, let me save you 250+ pages of heartache mate.

The people on here who so vehemently despise the AFL sides entry into the SANFL want a competition that is played on an even playing field, even if that playing field has only 300 people watching it with no fence between the spectators and the players at a local park. They want the integrity restored, they want all sides playing to the line even if it proves to be the demise of the states highest club based competition. At least, they say, it will die with it's head in the air not on it's AFL knees.

Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.

While I wouldn't actively wish for a league that has only 300 at a game, I would rather run the risk of that happening and have the AFL sides out, than have the situation as it is..

@RB, the point I was making supported by TRB's comments.

therisingblues wrote:

Wedgie wrote:I think we can safely say crowds won't go down without AFL sides when you look at the crowds we got 3 years ago. Thinking they'd go down is crazy, 300 per game is ludicrous.

I agree. But even if it were to happen, I'd rather have that, than the mess atm.

Can't be so sure.

Look what happened in and around the 1990's, people were lost to the SANFL as they were drawn to the AFL. Have they come back? Some might have, some might not, they've moved onto either the AFL or other pastime.

Because of the AFL reserves inclusion people have been lost to the SANFL, will they return? Perhaps, perhaps not, perhaps an 8 team "pure" competition will mean more people walk away, who can tell?

Again, I was saving matt hundreds of posts by summing up the overall sentiment of most on here and your comments above back that up.

Booney wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Wedgie wrote:I think we can safely say crowds won't go down without AFL sides when you look at the crowds we got 3 years ago. Thinking they'd go down is crazy, 300 per game is ludicrous.

I agree. But even if it were to happen, I'd rather have that, than the mess atm.

Can't be so sure.

Look what happened in and around the 1990's, people were lost to the SANFL as they were drawn to the AFL. Have they come back? Some might have, some might not, they've moved onto either the AFL or other pastime.

Because of the AFL reserves inclusion people have been lost to the SANFL, will they return? Perhaps, perhaps not, perhaps an 8 team "pure" competition will mean more people walk away, who can tell?

Again, I was saving matt hundreds of posts by summing up the overall sentiment of most on here and your comments above back that up.

You might have quoted the wrong part of my post, but I'll answer anyway.
Yes, I am sure I'd take a drop in crowds as opposed to the current mess. Speculation about crowds returning is another issue which isn't included in that quote, but I believe a comp without reserves would encourage the return of crowds. Especially if the SANFL showed some Max Basheer balls and went on the front foot promoting a competition with integrity.
I don't speak for the majority, I often find my views are definitely out of kilter with the majority, but I believe that difference makes us stronger, maybe that's one of the reasons I am not completely sold on the AFL. So I think RB's post is valid as a reflection of how he read your post. You and I are having a different conversation though.

Booney wrote:Because of the AFL reserves inclusion people have been lost to the SANFL, will they return? Perhaps, perhaps not, perhaps an 8 team "pure" competition will mean more people walk away, who can tell?

who can tell? well, i would suggest that the "anti's" have a proven track record in predicting what will happen with the changes in the league. posters like wedgie, uk fan, lph etc etc, they argued against the introduction of the reserves sides, and so far they have been proven correct on every count. crowds have fallen, memberships have fallen, media interest (apart from that focused on the reserves sides) has fallen, the crows $50k hasnt been the financial saviour of the clubs, the crows arent getting crowds of 4k (with or without opposition support), even the maggies crowds have plummeted.....

maybe, just maybe, the passionate and loyal sanfl supporters actually can see what is best for their own league and can see through the bullshit spin put forth by the afl clubs and those sucking up to them. maybe this time they will also be correct that the removal of the reserves sides will help the league.

either way, surely any good business would see that this change has hurt the leagues health, and attempt to make changes to correct the damage. the experiment failed. surely its time to either excise the problem, or make other changes to reverse the slide. sticking to a bad decision is much worse than making the bad decision in the first place. people need to admit they were wrong, and fix the issue sooner rather than later.

tipper wrote:

Booney wrote:Because of the AFL reserves inclusion people have been lost to the SANFL, will they return? Perhaps, perhaps not, perhaps an 8 team "pure" competition will mean more people walk away, who can tell?

who can tell? well, i would suggest that the "anti's" have a proven track record in predicting what will happen with the changes in the league. posters like wedgie, uk fan, lph etc etc, they argued against the introduction of the reserves sides, and so far they have been proven correct on every count. crowds have fallen, memberships have fallen, media interest (apart from that focused on the reserves sides) has fallen, the crows $50k hasnt been the financial saviour of the clubs, the crows arent getting crowds of 4k (with or without opposition support), even the maggies crowds have plummeted.....

maybe, just maybe, the passionate and loyal sanfl supporters actually can see what is best for their own league and can see through the bullshit spin put forth by the afl clubs and those sucking up to them. maybe this time they will also be correct that the removal of the reserves sides will help the league.

either way, surely any good business would see that this change has hurt the leagues health, and attempt to make changes to correct the damage. the experiment failed. surely its time to either excise the problem, or make other changes to reverse the slide. sticking to a bad decision is much worse than making the bad decision in the first place. people need to admit they were wrong, and fix the issue sooner rather than later.

Agreed, the damage may be irreparable and beyond repair.