SA Footy

Thought Id just bring up this topic and compare the differing fees and the unfairness of the system.

Example (Brett White)
If Brett White wanted to continue his SANFL career say at Port Adelaide, his clearance fee would be around the 25k-30k. This is the fee even if he was sacked and by all accounts has been. If the Roosters keep him on for now their 1-35 list this is the sort of fee applied.

This was evident by Souths with Cuppido, you change his contract to force a player to move but you dont take him of your active list so you can still demand a hefty fee under SANFL rules.

When West cleared Scott Lewis to GLG, Slatts to CD & Jericho to NWD all players rewarded Westies with a cash winfall. These players all chose greener pastures so this is fair, but when as a club you SACK a player or dont renew his contract or tell him is his services are no longer required a think a system of a low clearance fee should apply to any player delisted as to give a guy a chance to rejuvinate his football career.

The other part of this inbalance is Brett White would cost say ports 30k, yet they could get 2 X VFL players for the same amount, and thats at the new fee of 15K.

MY POINT AFTER ALL THE DRIBBLE IS
The SANFL has to make the clearance system and fees fairer on a player who is no longer required, when a cash hungry club keeps a player on their active list, players 1-35.
You either want the player of take him of your list FULL STOP

PS Brett white I thought would be a good example and I have no idea of what the Roosters are doing but I just used him as an example in this dribble I posted, Ben Schwarz at the eagles would be another good example if they have had a fall out. , so rooster supporters this is not a go at you but its a go at the overall system

Can't the player and any club looking to pick him up go to a tribunal if they beleive the transfer fee is excessive, ala, Norwood with Heath Culpitt?

Constance_Perm wrote:Can't the player and any club looking to pick him up go to a tribunal if they beleive the transfer fee is excessive, ala, Norwood with Heath Culpitt?

The fee usually set by the tribunal is usually way over the price of a VFL clearance, I think this is why so many clubs do recruit interstate players more so than locally. Even with the re-location costs

Some clubs play hard ball whilst others are a bit fairer to the player and club that looks to take on that player.

What gives me the irks is those clubs that have indicated to a player that they will not or may not be in the best 21, and should prepare to play a lot of Reserves footy, but then block any moves for that player to seek opportunities elsewhere, and raise the amount of any subsequent transfer fees, scaring away prospective and interested clubs.

TigerBoss wrote:Some clubs play hard ball whilst others are a bit fairer to the player and club that looks to take on that player.

What gives me the irks is those clubs that have indicated to a player that they will not or may not be in the best 21, and should prepare to play a lot of Reserves footy, but then block any moves for that player to seek opportunities elsewhere, and raise the amount of any subsequent transfer fees, scaring away prospective and interested clubs.

Thats my point of this thread, SANFL should open up their closed eyes

dash61 wrote:

TigerBoss wrote:Some clubs play hard ball whilst others are a bit fairer to the player and club that looks to take on that player.

What gives me the irks is those clubs that have indicated to a player that they will not or may not be in the best 21, and should prepare to play a lot of Reserves footy, but then block any moves for that player to seek opportunities elsewhere, and raise the amount of any subsequent transfer fees, scaring away prospective and interested clubs.

Thats my point of this thread, SANFL should open up their closed eyes

Cue Leigh Whicker to dodge any questions around this issue and spruik that the crowds are up, memberships are up, and the SANFL sold three more beers this year than last year...

Its a good point and I agree if a player is let go he should have no transfer fee.
I know for a fact that North plays 'harder' ball with some clubs than it does other merely as a tit for tat as some clubs have made it harder for them to pick up players and we certainly dont need the money.
North have even as recently as earlier this year forced an amateur club who has provided them with players a fee for players they no longer wanted.
Not good enough IMHO.
Brett Whites an interesting one too as are OBrien and Ward as they were all under contract for 09 too.

Constance_Perm wrote:Can't the player and any club looking to pick him up go to a tribunal if they beleive the transfer fee is excessive, ala, Norwood with Heath Culpitt?

Yes, but the example you gave were SANFL players

So true , hearing Whicker wank on about the obvious gives me the shits ! When KG & Whicker dribble on about games at Adelaide Oval etc. , you would think they had found a way to turn used beer cans into gold bullion . Anyway , let the peripheral players move about free , its not like league players are full time pros anyhow .

TigerBoss wrote:

dash61 wrote:

TigerBoss wrote:Some clubs play hard ball whilst others are a bit fairer to the player and club that looks to take on that player.

What gives me the irks is those clubs that have indicated to a player that they will not or may not be in the best 21, and should prepare to play a lot of Reserves footy, but then block any moves for that player to seek opportunities elsewhere, and raise the amount of any subsequent transfer fees, scaring away prospective and interested clubs.

Thats my point of this thread, SANFL should open up their closed eyes

Cue Leigh Whicker to dodge any questions around this issue and spruik that the crowds are up, memberships are up, and the SANFL sold three more beers this year than last year...

Question

If a SANFL player has a 2 or 3 year contract, is marched on after a year, does his year 2 or 3 salary in his contract count as part of a clubs salary club like the AFL ???????????????????????????

I believe it doesnt , its an issue to be resolved between the club & player regarding the remaining year/s . The cap is a year to year assessment , like a tax return . Thats my take on it anyway !

holden78 wrote:I believe it doesnt , its an issue to be resolved between the club & player regarding the remaining year/s . The cap is a year to year assessment , like a tax return . Thats my take on it anyway !

Thanks for that , another unexplained grey area

Maybe the answer is to take the "dream team" approach - have player's transfer values established by a central independent body. If a player wants to move, the price is set by the independents who could also have the power to approve the transfer if a club was being seen to be unreasonable.

Why are we complaining about the $15K for interstate recruits when SANFL clubs pay $25-$30K for SANFL recruits?

I thought the $15K was some sort of national disgrace now it sounds like a bargain!

Or am I missing something?

10k or less is the norm

So, we scrap the successful U19 & U17 comp to replace it U18 with an understanding of increased financial support from the AFL. So in return we don't get inreased financial support in fact we get further financial imposts on the clubs. For as long as the aged administrators of the SANFL allow the AFL to run and eventually undermine our comp with salary cap restictions, increased transfer fees, destroying underage SANFL footy l, like Chris Grant and other sensible administrators in the SANFL fear for the long term viability of our great comp.