National 2nd Tier Competiton Discussion

[Barto]

Thought McDermott's article today was an (amazingly enough) excellent summary and gave some balance after Cornsey's disgraceful AFL-slanted tirade in yesterday's paper

Summary for those of us without access to the Mail?

Better still Barto, below is the full article...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/san ... 5973285102

Cheers, had a quick look on the site but obviously didn't have my eyes open.

Edit: no wonder. I have the Local SA Footy section bookmarked and it's under general sport.

[doggies4eva]

I think there is 2 clear arguments for and against here and I can see the pros/cons for both, hence why there is plenty of debate on here and elsewhere.

And as the clubs have shown I think the comp (in its current form) is a right fit for some clubs but not others.

Respect the right of those clubs to decline and for those to accept.

I do respect their right Dutchy. But with rights alos come responsibilties. All clubs have a responsibility towards the SANFL.

The dogs have said that they like the idea of the comp but there are a few improvements needed before they will sign. A majority of the clubs agreed but some went aginst the majority ensuring that the divide and conquer tradition of the AFL continues.

[redandblack]

I think there is 2 clear arguments for and against here and I can see the pros/cons for both, hence why there is plenty of debate on here and elsewhere.

And as the clubs have shown I think the comp (in its current form) is a right fit for some clubs but not others.

Respect the right of those clubs to decline and for those to accept.

I do respect their right Dutchy. But with rights alos come responsibilties. All clubs have a responsibility towards the SANFL.

The dogs have said that they like the idea of the comp but there are a few improvements needed before they will sign. A majority of the clubs agreed but some went aginst the majority ensuring that the divide and conquer tradition of the AFL continues.

And Dutchie - R&B is another of the posters on this site that cannot tell the difference bewteen fact and opinion [/quote]

[PhilH]

For what it is worth down here in Tassie, there has not been a mention of this in The Mercury for at least the last week.

By rights the Clarence Roos (Based at Bellerive, Eastern Shores of Hobart) as State League champions should get the gig.

Biggest footy news down here this week has been the fate of Grand Finalist the Devonport Magpies. In debt to the tune of $500K they needed to produce $120K by next week to avoid having their state league licence taken away by AFL Tasmania.

A local business consortium got together to raise the money but would only give it to the club on the basis that their entire board resign ... which they have done.

Hard to believe that being the #1 sporting team in a city of size of Devonport (Pop 25,000), and having a succesful year on field that you could actually end up that far in debt after just 1 statewide league season.

.

[am Bays]

For what it is worth down here in Tassie, there has not been a mention of this in The Mercury for at least the last week.

By rights the Clarence Roos (Based at Bellerive, Eastern Shores of Hobart) as State League champions should get the gig.

Biggest footy news down here this week has been the fate of Grand Finalist the Devonport Magpies. In debt to the tune of $500K they needed to produce $120K by next week to avoid having their state league licence taken away by AFL Tasmania.

A local business consortium got together to raise the money but would only give it to the club on the basis that their entire board resign ... which they have done.

Hard to believe that being the #1 sporting team in a city of size of Devonport (Pop 25,000), and having a succesful year on field that you could actually end up that far in debt after just 1 statewide league season.

.

Surely Don from Devenport could've got onto his Coodabeen mates and arranged some sort of benefit concert with Champs....

[DOC]

RD.

Great Post.

[redandblack]

RD.

Great Post.

Certainly was.

[sjt]

sjt, you have no evidence at all to claim the SANFL don't know the terms and conditions.

You are also incorrect to say that the SANFL 'signed their clubs up'. Have they signed up Centrals? Or Glenelg? Or WWT? Or Norwood? Or Sturt? Or only those clubs who want to participate?

I can also assure you that the vast majority of players are very keen to play in it.

As for the guernsey, the club sponsor's name will be on it. Regarding national exposure, yes, I would be very happy for interstaters to see West Adelaide play.

The difficulty with your argument is that perhaps it's hard to fit a pre-conceived opinion with the facts.

"sjt, you have no evidence at all to claim the SANFL don't know the terms and conditions"

Well if they do, they shouldn't have kept it a secret from the clubs. The only evidence I have is the statements made by the non participating clubs;

Glenelg:

Thirdly, there are a number of unresolved factors with regard to conditions of
participation in the competition as currently presented by the AFL including
costs and associated commercial implications including sponsorship rights.
Notwithstanding the above, our Club remains broadly supportive of the concept for
such a competition and see some merit in future participation should the issues be
addressed and we earn the right to participate in the future.

Norwood joint press release.

Regrettably, the current version of the concept does not meet what we would consider to be the
minimum financial requirements our Club’s would need to participate effectively in the competition. It
is our view that the cost of participating would not be fully covered by the prize money on offer, and
would therefore ultimately represent a new cost to our Clubs.

As several other logistical and financial considerations also remain unresolved

Also Chandler on the radio last night said they still weren't sure of sponsorship implications, however the clubs didn't have to worry as the new guernseys would be paid for. Good one.

I can also assure you that the vast majority of players are very keen to play in it. I haven't seen this evidence, nor spoken to a vast majority of players so won't contradict your assurance.

The SANFL did sign up to the concept. Unless the commission was intending to play, I assume they intended some SANFL teams to participate. I understand participation is not compulsory nor ever said it was.
December 9th
THE SANFL has signed on to be part of the AFL's state Leagues Championship today, Localfootysa understands.

The SANFL's chief officer football and corporate operations Darren Chandler will be announcing the league's support for the champion's league-style tournament today.

I'm not sure what you have interpreted my pre-conceived opinion to be. I don't believe my opinion is hard to "fit" with the facts.
I like the concept. Good luck to the clubs that have chosen to participate. Hopefully, the clubs can negotiate better terms-quite simple.

The "evidence" keeps mounting:
"AFL general manager of national and international development Dave Matthews, in his own words, admits there is still much work on this concept to be done and a final program for the comp along with sponsorship details and prizemoney is also a work in progress.
Maybe the SANFL should let the AFL know the terms and conditions? Just my opinion. I still cant find those "facts" that reveal a "vast majority of players are keen to play in it", despite your assurances.

[redandblack]

Andy Collins stated that West Adelaide players were prepared to play for nothing.

On radio, the Glenelg President said his players were originally keen to play.

The SANFL, as you say, gave support to the comp, but they haven't forced anyone to participate and neither have the AFL.

As you say, each club's decision has to be respected, but I don't believe that any unresolved matters should really make any difference to each club's decision. Generally they have said their main reason for not competing is related to it affecting their premiership chances.

I do get frustrated with those who see this as some sort of AFL 'plot'.

[Hondo]

It's interesting to compare the sentiment of the first half of this thread until the point when the SANFL top 5 pulled out and compare it to the sentiment thereafter.

[Dutchy]

I do get frustrated with those who see this as some sort of AFL 'plot'.

How do you explain GWS's entry into the comp then?

[sjt]

It's interesting to compare the sentiment of the first half of this thread until the point when the SANFL top 5 pulled out and compare it to the sentiment thereafter.

It probably changed when a few of the conditions became known, as well as the clubs providing their reasons for pulling out.

[JK]

Andy Collins stated that West Adelaide players were prepared to play for nothing.

On radio, the Glenelg President said his players were originally keen to play.

The SANFL, as you say, gave support to the comp, but they haven't forced anyone to participate and neither have the AFL.

As you say, each club's decision has to be respected, but I don't believe that any unresolved matters should really make any difference to each club's decision. Generally they have said their main reason for not competing is related to it affecting their premiership chances.

I do get frustrated with those who see this as some sort of AFL 'plot'.

I don't think the competition is without merit, I just think it's been a bit hurried to fit it in, in 2011.

RD makes a reasonable post, but in many instances it's like comparing apples with oranges .. Norwood playing Carlton in 1976 might have been a huge buzz at the time but the football landscape is incredibly different now than it was back then, Norwood playing Labrador prior to an AFL game is hardly the same thing IMHO.

If this competition is to be a regular fixture, hopefully within the next 12 months any remaining issues can be sorted or tweaked to ensure there's adequate appeal for all states top 3 sides to want to compete in 2012.

[zipzap]

Consey's article from Saturday http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opin ... 5973099452

"Who knows, some of them might even be drafted to the AFL on the basis of their performances" - clearly the pinnacle of achievement in the eyes of Mr Cornes

[redandblack]

I do get frustrated with those who see this as some sort of AFL 'plot'.

How do you explain GWS's entry into the comp then?

I'm sorry, but I still don't see that as any evidence of an AFL plot

[Hondo]

"Who knows, some of them might even be drafted to the AFL on the basis of their performances" - clearly the pinnacle of achievement in the eyes of Mr Cornes

For a player it is

I think that's what he means. Whether or not a performance in one of these games would get you drafted or noticed anymore than normal I'm not convinced.

Rightly or wrongly and agree with him or not, his article is trying to get the SANFL clubs to think of the bigger picture and the possible benefits for the players and the competition as a whole in terms of opportunities for different experiences and exposure.

4 of the 9 clubs seem to agree with him.

[Hondo]

If this competition is to be a regular fixture, hopefully within the next 12 months any remaining issues can be sorted or tweaked to ensure there's adequate appeal for all states top 3 sides to want to compete in 2012.

So why not strike while the iron is hot while we have our financier and make year 1 as successful as it can be. The clubs could then point to the success of the comp in year 1 and drive a better deal for year 2. If SANFL clubs are clearly keys to the success of year 1 then they could go their hardest to negotiate in year 2.

Instead, we undermine the validity of the comp in year 1 and risk it falling over altogether.

If the clubs were truly supportive of the concept and believed in it they would gang together and make it a success despite the question marks. I don't believe they are however. And, as I said, that's their right and I respect it. I just don't agree with it and I wish the clubs wouldn't throw up all these other excuses. Just say we aren't interested because we are solely focussed on the SANFL premiership thanks all the same.

[on the rails]

I think most if not all the AFL clubs have a pretty good idea of those players who might be potential draft prospects playing in the State Leagues and the U/18's comps however some national exposure particualry if a club is drawn to play the likes of GWS might enhance their chances.

Still not exactly sure what benefit the competing SANFL clubs will get? Certainly not financial given the small prize pool and the additional money clubs will have to fork out re match payments and travel cost top ups. Exposure on a a National stage for sponsors is also unlikely or not what they would expect as it appears that the competing clubs will have to play in jumper designs that the AFL decree are suitable.

Personally I would rather North was not competing in this comp for the same reasons the top 5 have declined their invite as well we need to earn a place or invitation, not compete by default being ranked 7th best in SA.

[sjt]

"Who knows, some of them might even be drafted to the AFL on the basis of their performances" - clearly the pinnacle of achievement in the eyes of Mr Cornes

For a player it is

I think that's what he means. Whether or not a performance in one of these games would get you drafted or noticed anymore than normal I'm not convinced.

Rightly or wrongly and agree with him or not, his article is trying to get the SANFL clubs to think of the bigger picture and the possible benefits for the players and the competition as a whole in terms of opportunities for different experiences and exposure.

4 of the 9 clubs seem to agree with him.

We keep hearing one of the major reasons clubs should participate is for the "exposure". What's so positive about the extra exposure, to make the risks and cost of competing worthwhile? It's not like Australian Rules is being exposed to a new market.
I don't think a Glenelg major sponsor for example will jump ship to Westies just because they're competing in this comp.
Five of the nine clubs disagree with him.

[JK]

If this competition is to be a regular fixture, hopefully within the next 12 months any remaining issues can be sorted or tweaked to ensure there's adequate appeal for all states top 3 sides to want to compete in 2012.

So why not strike while the iron is hot while we have our financier and make year 1 as successful as it can be. The clubs could then point to the success of the comp in year 1 and drive a better deal for year 2. If SANFL clubs are clearly keys to the success of year 1 then they could go their hardest to negotiate in year 2.

Maybe the clubs are sceptical there won't be a year 2? (I dunno, just speculating there)

You're question also works both ways though, what if the comp isn't as successful as the AFL or Foxtel would like and they believe they need the SANFL grand finalists to participate to make the extra impact - Then who holds the bargaining power?

Maybe some of them (and I suspect this is my mob) have adopted an approach of protecting their core-business as their highest priority (ie, sponsorship, best possible route to perform in the SANFL, and keeping their $ under control)

I don't have the answers, but then I don't have all the details for this competition either .. I just believe it's been hastily put together, and IMHO shouldn't be anywhere near the highest priority for my club as things stand today.