West Coast/Freo Reserves in WAFL proposal

[redandblack]

Pseudo, count me in on your rally.

Your example of the 19’s and 17’s is a poor one, though. That was a decision voted on by the SANFL clubs. Many of us think it was a great move. At the very least, it’s a matter of opinion.
I’d still like to see a more substantial argument than your ‘raising a finger’. I’d like you to answer the reasonable questions posed a few days ago, which you seem to not have had time to answer yet.

The SANFL isn’t doing the AFL a favour by accepting a million dollars for junior development. They’d like more. Your argument on this is just silly, IMO.

WHUFC, the salary cap would still apply in a form to cover non-AFL players.

Csb, you’re exactly right, a lack of solidarity amongst the clubs is the main problem in any future decision making.

CUTTERMAN, I also think you’ve hit the nail on the head by saying the AFL don’t understand the market in SA and WA. I think this is the problem, not the various conspiracy theories that abound. If the AFL had wanted to destroy the SANFL, they wouldn’t have been trying to do it on a dri[p-feed basis. The SANFL is very strong right now, which defies the ‘AFL out to destroy us’ argument. Your take on it is exactly right, IMO.

Yes, Pseudo, I agree that it should be the middle finger. Well done.

Phil, yes, any decision would be up to the clubs.

It’s interesting that we’ve gone from saying the AFL reserves sides would be too strong by recruiting everyone, to now saying they’d be too weak. I agree they’d be weak and that would undermine the integrity of the competition.

If the SANFL don’t own the licences, I think they’d cheer to the rafters. The AFL wouldn’t want to own them, they’d sell/give them to the Crows and the Power. (If that had happened a few years ago, the Power wouldn’t exist, they would have folded years ago without AFL support – oh, hang on…

Topsy, I agree. That confirms what I have been saying. The SANFL is in a strong position, which surely is a tick for the management of our competition. I’m with you and whufc at the rally.

I suppose I’m saying that the SANFL is in a strong position. They control the stadiums, have an asset base of about $150 million and preside over a healthy, growing competition. There are challenges ahead, but the clubs and the Commission control the decision-making.

Phew!!

[The Sleeping Giant]

They elect the Commissioners, who are all club men.

Appointed don't you mean? Does the SANFL nominate who is to be appointed?

[sjt]

Interestingly, Caroline Wilson said last night (something most of us already know);

"clearly the AFL are trying to send the SANFL broke. Or they're hoping they go broke"


This from someone Victorian based that often knows what's going on at AFL headquarters. The SANFL has to stand up, as the AFL chips away at the foundations of our competition.

[redandblack]

I'm not sure about the nominations, TSG, but I'm pretty sure the clubs vote on the nominations, if it's ever necessary. I'll try to find out.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Demetriou stated recently that he'd like to see a least 1 million people playing the game. Why would he want that? People play footy when there are AFL games on TV. It'd be one million less viewers.

Luckily for the AFL, junior footy is played in the mornings.

[redandblack]

sjt, I'd ignore Caroline Wilson's comments entirely.

Her statement immediately has no credibility as there's a world of difference between the AFL 'sending the SANFL broke' and 'hoping the SANFL go broke'. They're totally opposite statements, for goodness sake.

Secondly, if the AFL wanted to send the SANFL broke, they wouldn't be putting money in. they'd leave it to the SANFL.

Don't believe what's written in the papers.

[whufc]

The AFL can get fugged! I

I hope the AFL players association go on strike about not seeing enough of the new tv rights deal. Similar to what has happened in America with their NFL and has happened before with the NHL.

That will put AD in a spin.

[The Sleeping Giant]

I'm not sure about the nominations, TSG, but I'm pretty sure the clubs vote on the nominations, if it's ever necessary. I'll try to find out.

Cheers. The clubs can go to the SANFL comission with their thoughts on issues affecting the SANFL, but the AFL can also go to the commision with their thoughts on issues affecting the 2 SA based AFL teams? Correct?

[Pseudo]

Pseudo, count me in on your rally.

WTF? I go to bed in the warm afterglow that comes with venting one's spleen on the internet, and I wake up to find I'm organising a rally?!?

Your example of the 19’s and 17’s is a poor one, though. That was a decision voted on by the SANFL clubs. Many of us think it was a great move. At the very least, it’s a matter of opinion.

Opinion, granted. Nevertheless it remains the best tangible example of AFL interference. The thin end of the wedge if you like. What's next?

I’d still like to see a more substantial argument than your ‘raising a finger’.

As I should like to see a less intellectually lazy attitude than the defeatist stance of "the AFL has the money, so we can't do squat".

I’d like you to answer the reasonable questions posed a few days ago, which you seem to not have had time to answer yet.

NO

Now throw some money at me and see what - if anything - happens.

The SANFL isn’t doing the AFL a favour by accepting a million dollars for junior development. They’d like more. Your argument on this is just silly, IMO.

The SANFL is most certainly doing the AFL a favour. Those kids ain't gonna develop theyselves!

Of course I see that the benefit is mutual. It seems to me that some folks see the relationship as one way: that the SANFL is beggar. People with this attitude ought not be negotiating for the SANFL.

[redandblack]

Well, we'll agree to disagree, mate, although I'm disappointed you won't put up any reply to the questions previously asked.

Never mind, thanks for organising the rally. I'll be right with you

[whufc]

What order would people put the issues with an AFL reserves side in order of importance?

eg

1. Integrity of the league
2. Financial Issues for SANFL
3. Their clubs own players playing against their 'home' side
4. Crowd Attendances
5. Crows/Power reserves sides making a GF

etc etc

[sjt]

sjt, I'd ignore Caroline Wilson's comments entirely.

Her statement immediately has no credibility as there's a world of difference between the AFL 'sending the SANFL broke' and 'hoping the SANFL go broke'. They're totally opposite statements, for goodness sake.

Secondly, if the AFL wanted to send the SANFL broke, they wouldn't be putting money in. they'd leave it to the SANFL.

Don't believe what's written in the papers.

Not really a "world of difference" or "totally opposite". They can act in a way that will be financially detrimental to the SANFL ("trying" to send it broke) whilst at the same time "hoping" other elements and factors may send them broke.
The end result is the same, it's just a matter of how much the AFL contributes to the outcome.
Opposite statements might be, "the AFL want's to keep the SANFL profitable and affluent. And they're hoping they go broke".

[redandblack]

They're the statements of someone who doesn't know and is guessing.

In any event, if that was true, why would the AFL put money into Port? They'd damage the SANFL more by not doing that.

[sjt]

What order would people put the issues with an AFL reserves side in order of importance?

eg

1. Integrity of the league
2. Financial Issues for SANFL
3. Their clubs own players playing against their 'home' side
4. Crowd Attendances
5. Crows/Power reserves sides making a GF

etc etc

1. Integrity of the league /. Their clubs own players playing against their 'home' side
2. Potential further AFL influence/control.
3. Financial Issues for SANFL
4. Crowd Attendances
5. Crows/Power reserves sides making a GF

[sjt]

Look at the fantastic benefits the document believes the reserves team would bring

"The proposal outlines a series of benefits of the move for existing WAFL clubs, the two AFL clubs and the WA Football Commission.

The proposal document says the inclusion of the Eagles and Dockers reserves teams would remove the disparity between the number of AFL listed players on WAFL playing lists and increase exposure for the competition."

What a load of rubbish these two points are. How would it increase exposure for the competition and to what benefit? We have a draft in the SANFL, for these players and it works quite well.

"It says top-up players would be a combination of delisted AFL players, interstate players and non-listed metropolitan or country league players.

It also proposes an innovative soccer-style loan system, where rival clubs could loan players to the Eagles and Dockers for six weeks under a "temporary permit" system."
Geez if you ever want to damage the integrity of a competition the above paragraph would be a good way. Sure, "Innovative", like the cane toad was.

[sjt]

They're the statements of someone who doesn't know and is guessing.

In any event, if that was true, why would the AFL put money into Port? They'd damage the SANFL more by not doing that.

I think they're the statements of someone who has observed the happenings over the last few years.
The AFL put money into Port, otherwise the SANFL was going to take them over.

[redandblack]

They're the statements of someone who doesn't know and is guessing.

In any event, if that was true, why would the AFL put money into Port? They'd damage the SANFL more by not doing that.

I think they're the statements of someone who has observed the happenings over the last few years.
The AFL put money into Port, otherwise the SANFL was going to take them over.

sjt, the SANFL can't 'take over' something they already own.

As for your next post about what they say are the 'benefits' of AFL reserves teams, I totally agree with you that it's total nonsense.

[whufc]

Look at the fantastic benefits the document believes the reserves team would bring

"The proposal outlines a series of benefits of the move for existing WAFL clubs, the two AFL clubs and the WA Football Commission.

The proposal document says the inclusion of the Eagles and Dockers reserves teams would remove the disparity between the number of AFL listed players on WAFL playing lists and increase exposure for the competition."

What a load of rubbish these two points are. How would it increase exposure for the competition and to what benefit? We have a draft in the SANFL, for these players and it works quite well.

"It says top-up players would be a combination of delisted AFL players, interstate players and non-listed metropolitan or country league players.

It also proposes an innovative soccer-style loan system, where rival clubs could loan players to the Eagles and Dockers for six weeks under a "temporary permit" system."
Geez if you ever want to damage the integrity of a competition the above paragraph would be a good way. Sure, "Innovative", like the cane toad was.

That last part would be an absolute disaster like what does happen in the EPL and lower English Soccer League fairly regulary.

example, Lee Spurr playing really good football at Centrals, all of a sudden the Crows need prop up players and they knock on Spurrs door asking him to play seducing him with lines such as 'you will be under the close eye of Neil Craig, this will give you a serious chance of being drafted at the years end etc etc, this is the break you need etc etc'

Spurry likes the idea and asks for the loan to go through. Obviously Central cant afford to let him go with all these injuries so say no chance.

We then get mexican stand off etc etc

While it does seem a bit far fetched this thing happens every season in European soccer comps and generally the only team that wins from these incidents are the higher rated side.

[JK]

Secondly, if the AFL wanted to send the SANFL broke, they wouldn't be putting money in. they'd leave it to the SANFL.

Not if it was the only way to keep a team afloat and preserve the level of TV rights money they want to claim.

[sjt]

They're the statements of someone who doesn't know and is guessing.

In any event, if that was true, why would the AFL put money into Port? They'd damage the SANFL more by not doing that.

I think they're the statements of someone who has observed the happenings over the last few years.
The AFL put money into Port, otherwise the SANFL was going to take them over.

sjt, the SANFL can't 'take over' something they already own.

As for your next post about what they say are the 'benefits' of AFL reserves teams, I totally agree with you that it's total nonsense.

They can take over control of the board. This was what Rucci was initially expecting, Duncanson and Haysman resigning or being removed (before the AFL stepped in).
For example, I may "own/manage/run" a McDonald's store and then the franchisor/licence holder decides to take it over if it's not meeting expectations (or other reasons). Simplistic, but yes they can take over the "running" of the Power by controlling the board.