SA Footy

I've copied the gist of the topic from the CDFC forum.

I'm just throwing it out there, that the SANFL seems to be showing very little backbone/fight when issues changing the fabric of the SANFL are arising. It appears moreso of late the SANFL is bowing to the whims and direction as decreed by the AFL.
I understand that the SANFL receives substantial income as a licensee of the Crows and Power, which could be argued the SANFL relies on to maintain the comp in its current form. As a result do they have to obey the AFL?
Personally, I'm not too knowledgeable on the politics, structure or decision making process of the SANFL, so my impression may not be substantiated by the facts.
I believe the decision made to change to an under 18 comp. was voted for by a narrow majority of the clubs, so not the fault of the SANFL. With some vehemently opposing the move.
How did the salary cap change get introduced?
I believe the salary cap reduction is massively detrimental to our comp. I think it stems from the AFL attempting to make the VFL stronger. As is evidenced by the amount of players leaving the SANFL due to the commitment required and money offered by alternate leagues. It is weakening our competition.
Pretty soon once a players window of opportunity to play in the AFL has closed, they'll (understandably) follow the money. It seems, stating the obvious, the AFL wants the SANFL to be purely a feeder comp (taking their 9 players a year). If the VFL is stronger then a majority of players on AFL lists but not making their team will be playing in a better standard comp.
I'm starting to wonder what the priorities of the SANFL directors are. I'd be extremely happy to be proved wrong.

It should be compulsory for anyone agreeing with this proposition to explain what they would do to replace the many hundreds of thousands of dollars the SANFL receives from the AFL yearly.

redandblack wrote:It should be compulsory for anyone agreeing with this proposition to explain what they would do to replace the many hundreds of thousands of dollars the SANFL receives from the AFL yearly.

They wouldn't have to "replace" the funds.
So does this mean you believe as the SANFL receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the AFL yearly that they must do as the AFL decree ?
I'm not proposing that money needs to be replaced somehow. I'm asking surely isn't there a bit better "give and take"?
If the salary cap weren't reduced or if it were in fact increased by the SANFL, do you believe the AFL would then say the distribution to the SANFL would be reduced ?
I would have thought the AFL has done quite well out of the SA teams via license fees (propped up VFL based teams) and television rights. If it were to the AFLs detriment to have the SA sides they would never have issued the licenses.

redandblack wrote:It should be compulsory for anyone agreeing with this proposition to explain what they would do to replace the many hundreds of thousands of dollars the SANFL receives from the AFL yearly.

It should be compulsory for anyone disagreeing with the proposition to explain why it is desirable to accept money from the AFL if the deal involves dropping trou and bending forwards to accomodate any and all AFL demands.

That's fine, Pseudo and sjt, but the fact remains that the AFL give the SANFL a huge amount of money. If you don't think it needs to be replaced, say goodbye to Junior Development funds, transfer fees, etc.

I've never argued it's desirable to accept money on those supposed terms, only that it's a fact and it's the real world out there. I also don't think you can back up your generalised statement that the SANFL accommodate all the AFL demands.

I'm interested to hear your arguments, but not just the usual kneejerk reactions.

Pseudo wrote:

redandblack wrote:It should be compulsory for anyone agreeing with this proposition to explain what they would do to replace the many hundreds of thousands of dollars the SANFL receives from the AFL yearly.

It should be compulsory for anyone disagreeing with the proposition to explain why it is desirable to accept money from the AFL if the deal involves dropping trou and bending forwards to accomodate any and all AFL demands.

It's not desirable but it's inescapable. The SANFL is in no position to demand anything of the AFL. With the power and money vested in the AFL, all we can expect is strong advocacy of our position and desires, which I suspect (but don't know) could be more vigorous at times.

Answer to question...yes a thousand times yes!

redandblack wrote:That's fine, Pseudo and sjt, but the fact remains that the AFL give the SANFL a huge amount of money. If you don't think it needs to be replaced, say goodbye to Junior Development funds, transfer fees, etc.

I've never argued it's desirable to accept money on those supposed terms, only that it's a fact and it's the real world out there. I also don't think you can back up your generalised statement that the SANFL accommodate all the AFL demands.

I'm interested to hear your arguments, but not just the usual kneejerk reactions.

Sorry redandblack to clarify, I'm saying it wouldn't need to be replaced as there's no reason it would be taken away.
Unless the funding is subject to the SANFL being compliant on them doing exactly as the AFL decides.
It would be interesting to see what the AFL demands/wishes are and how closely aligned these are to the interests of the SANFL clubs.

I thought that the SANFL salary cap is irrelevant anyway, Allegedly tehre are many ways around it ?

Tell me more R&B about these $1,000s that the AFL are donating to the SANFL.

And don't talk about proceeds from the investments in the Crows or Power because that is irrelevant to this debate.

doggies4eva wrote:Tell me more R&B about these $1,000s that the AFL are donating to the SANFL.

And don't talk about proceeds from the investments in the Crows or Power because that is irrelevant to this debate.

Didn't the AFL just pay half of the new lights going up at Richmond, and the SANFL not put in a cent?

The SANFL are just a franchise of the AFL now, live with it.

doggies4eva wrote:Tell me more R&B about these $1,000s that the AFL are donating to the SANFL.

And don't talk about proceeds from the investments in the Crows or Power because that is irrelevant to this debate.

Certainly. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a direct amount of several hundred thousand dollars paid in cash to the SANFL for junior development, amongst other things. The AFL donate more than that to the WAFL, as they no doubt perceive us to be a 'richer' league.

I think that is relevant to this debate.

Does devoting some effort toward afl-proofing ourselves have to be at the expense of them handing out money for development?

After all, that development money would largely be going into the Under 18 comp, which is the afl breeding ground here.

It could be argued from one angle that the money is only a "sub-consultancy" fee for the sanfl to do the afl's development in SA.

Ok, I concede that many of the kids that have exposure to that system won't make the afl but that it still does do their development some good, albeit in a local sense. There are still a lot of those kids lost to the sanfl system altogether eventually if they can't forge their way into the senior team. You can hold 18 - 19 year olds in the reserves for only 1 or 2 years, before you have to move them on to make way for the next lot of U18s.

However, it just seems that the sanfl "well of wisdom" doesn't have a plan that aims at keeping the sanfl a functioning autonomous (and prospering) competition in its own right, at least to a reasonable degree.

Should the afl have other plans for what it wants to see in the state leagues, where would that leave us? If the AFL want to beef up its brand in these state leagues like Qld, NSW in pushing "AFL-SA", then maybe the sanfl would be ill-positioned to resist it.

So perhaps it is not so much the sanfl telling the AFL to p..off with their money, but undertaking its own strategic planning to develop a sustainable model, that would be at the very least, less reliant on the afl coin.

I wouldn't like to wait until our comp becomes not much higher than Div 1 amateur standard, before the sanfl consider that something must be done. I still consider that some of the moves taken in 2008 and 2009 by the sanfl in acceding to the AFL model, could potentially head us in that direction.

The media releases on the broad strategies put forward re: the U18 competiton and Salary Cap issue to name a few, were completely devoid of any detailed statements (or data) on how the claimed benefits to the competition will be achieved.

Surely those in "control" of the sanfl (ie commission) should be across all of this, but the large void of information coming forward on their blueprint for success, doesn't fill me with confidence.

Don't ask me what or how we do this at present, because I don't know. I would just like to hear some meaningful content come from the commission on just how the positive gains for the sanfl will be achieved. To date I think they have shortchanged the football supporting public in communicating what direction they see the sanfl heading.

sjt wrote:How did the salary cap change get introduced?
I believe the salary cap reduction is massively detrimental to our comp. I think it stems from the AFL attempting to make the VFL stronger. As is evidenced by the amount of players leaving the SANFL due to the commitment required and money offered by alternate leagues. It is weakening our competition.
Pretty soon once a players window of opportunity to play in the AFL has closed, they'll (understandably) follow the money. It seems, stating the obvious, the AFL wants the SANFL to be purely a feeder comp (taking their 9 players a year). If the VFL is stronger then a majority of players on AFL lists but not making their team will be playing in a better standard comp.
I'm starting to wonder what the priorities of the SANFL directors are. I'd be extremely happy to be proved wrong.

I haven't followed this debate at all, so my apologies if this appears ignorant, but surely with all the money troubles experienced by at least a couple of clubs recently (and in some cases for a few years running now) wouldn't the salary cap be beneficial to keeping our comp viable?

therisingblues wrote:

sjt wrote:How did the salary cap change get introduced?
I believe the salary cap reduction is massively detrimental to our comp. I think it stems from the AFL attempting to make the VFL stronger. As is evidenced by the amount of players leaving the SANFL due to the commitment required and money offered by alternate leagues. It is weakening our competition.
Pretty soon once a players window of opportunity to play in the AFL has closed, they'll (understandably) follow the money. It seems, stating the obvious, the AFL wants the SANFL to be purely a feeder comp (taking their 9 players a year). If the VFL is stronger then a majority of players on AFL lists but not making their team will be playing in a better standard comp.
I'm starting to wonder what the priorities of the SANFL directors are. I'd be extremely happy to be proved wrong.

I haven't followed this debate at all, so my apologies if this appears ignorant, but surely with all the money troubles experienced by at least a couple of clubs recently (and in some cases for a few years running now) wouldn't the salary cap be beneficial to keeping our comp viable?

So we make the competition stronger by limiting the financial clubs ability to recruit as this would make it harder for the clubs that are financially incompetant!

Only been saying this for about a decade.

Whicker is a disgrace.

We set up a system where the AFL clubs make the $$$$$ . The SANFL clubs as chief shareholders get dividends whilst nurturing the states junior footballing talent.

Now people want to penalise the SANFL clubs due to the fact the AFL clubs make most of the money. Hello!!!!!

redandblack wrote:That's fine, Pseudo and sjt, but the fact remains that the AFL give the SANFL a huge amount of money. If you don't think it needs to be replaced, say goodbye to Junior Development funds, transfer fees, etc.

I've never argued it's desirable to accept money on those supposed terms, only that it's a fact and it's the real world out there. I also don't think you can back up your generalised statement that the SANFL accommodate all the AFL demands.

I'm interested to hear your arguments, but not just the usual kneejerk reactions.

R&B, ever heard of the term "sell out". Cos saying the SANFL should just let the AFL do whatever they want to our comp is fine cos they pay well. Im sorry the SANFL is not a whore.

Sometime it isnt about money. It is time for the SANFL clubs to stand up for the future and protect the heritage of football in this state.

People thinking like R&B do us a favour and have nothing to do with your local clubs or this competition in an official capacity please. You maybe willing to sell out this league like Whicker and Basheer did. I cerainly am not.

I have asked this question a few times on this website but not once has it been answered. SO Ill try again.

We all know how much AFL games at AAMI stadium are worth in revenue to the SANFL.

Any chance someone could tell me how much Port and The Crows are worth to the AFL ????

350000 viewers every week, merchandising, ticket sales, sponsorship, the fact SA one of 3 traditional footballing states is involved with the league ????

I would think it would be a very valuable asset indeed. It would certainly cause some concern you would think if they were to even contemplate losing such a valuable asset.

To be honest if one of the SA teams fell over I don't think they'd give a rats. They have a broader agenda and I think you will find it has reached a point of how much are the crows and power worth to the SANFL. - Not a lot outside of the dividend they pay. Obviously without them the SANFL comp wold be a basket case. But as an assett they can't sell the licences so they are worthless. The AFL has the little bro right where it wants. Only a matter of time before it asks Leigh to bend over so it can take aim !!!!

doggies4eva wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

sjt wrote:How did the salary cap change get introduced?
I believe the salary cap reduction is massively detrimental to our comp. I think it stems from the AFL attempting to make the VFL stronger. As is evidenced by the amount of players leaving the SANFL due to the commitment required and money offered by alternate leagues. It is weakening our competition.
Pretty soon once a players window of opportunity to play in the AFL has closed, they'll (understandably) follow the money. It seems, stating the obvious, the AFL wants the SANFL to be purely a feeder comp (taking their 9 players a year). If the VFL is stronger then a majority of players on AFL lists but not making their team will be playing in a better standard comp.
I'm starting to wonder what the priorities of the SANFL directors are. I'd be extremely happy to be proved wrong.

I haven't followed this debate at all, so my apologies if this appears ignorant, but surely with all the money troubles experienced by at least a couple of clubs recently (and in some cases for a few years running now) wouldn't the salary cap be beneficial to keeping our comp viable?

So we make the competition stronger by limiting the financial clubs ability to recruit as this would make it harder for the clubs that are financially incompetant!

It all depends on how much player payments impact the balance sheet at SANFL clubs I guess D4E.
Just correct your misconception: my post was addressing club survival rather than strength on the field. I would hate to see Port tumble out, and if a cap goes toward keeping them alive in the current economic climate then I think it should be done.
Apart from Port, there are a couple of clubs that just don't have access to tens of thousands of poor people who have no idea about how to get rich other than stuffing all their cash into a pokie machine.....

what clubs are those "rising blues" besides Port? Have a look at the ins and outs thread, doesn't look like too many of the clubs are doing too badly. If a club can't pay the current low salary cap, then they're doing something seriously wrong.
Coming up with the same old pokie crap arguement wears a bit thin. Be interesting to see if the Blues, get Hinge Giles as well as Hassan.
Just for info Central (I'm assuming that's where your stereotypical jealousy is targeted) made a small profit this year. Maybe not going on recruiting splurges helps the balance sheet.