SA Footy

hollywood7477 wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

hollywood7477 wrote:

UK Fan wrote:Both!!!!! We dont want them to get out of paying the $$$$$ they owe us

Pay US. so they owe you money do they.

Yep

Let me know if you need me to explain the article to you.



https://www.afl.com.au/news/99008/sa-cl ... e-than-18m

So ur an SANFL club are you. they dont owe YOU 1c. you are just a nobody to Port and the Crows.

Proof that Neanderthal man still exists.

hollywood7477 wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

hollywood7477 wrote:

UK Fan wrote:Both!!!!! We dont want them to get out of paying the $$$$$ they owe us

Pay US. so they owe you money do they.

Yep

Let me know if you need me to explain the article to you.



https://www.afl.com.au/news/99008/sa-cl ... e-than-18m

So ur an SANFL club are you. they dont owe YOU 1c. you are just a nobody to Port and the Crows.

I was clearly Speaking on behalf of the SANFl clubs dumbass.

For a bonus point: Why do you think the SANFl set the licence sale price at $18 mill to be paid back ??

21 games season won't work, there are already complaints about demands on players, if they can earn good coin playing country for 16 games season the choice will be simple.

17 games might be the answer, play everyone home/away and the 3 other teams 3 times depending your your previous season finish (i.e. top 4 play each other 3 times and same with bottom 4)

Dutchy wrote:21 games season won't work, there are already complaints about demands on players, if they can earn good coin playing country for 16 games season the choice will be simple.

17 games might be the answer, play everyone home/away and the 3 other teams 3 times depending your your previous season finish (i.e. top 4 play each other 3 times and same with bottom 4)

Not perfect but I feel like the 17-game season has to be the go.

whufc wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Would think it needs to be 21 game season
Home-away-neutral

Would you play a game each year at a country ground?

How would you make that work.

Would you have 2 rounds (1 home game each team) that are specifically country rounds or would just stipulate to each club they must hold one home game at a country venue and then each club could decide which round/game that would be.

Maybe clubs could host neutral game / home game double headers on a rotating basis instead, perhaps

StrayDog wrote:

whufc wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Would think it needs to be 21 game season
Home-away-neutral

Would you play a game each year at a country ground?

How would you make that work.

Would you have 2 rounds (1 home game each team) that are specifically country rounds or would just stipulate to each club they must hold one home game at a country venue and then each club could decide which round/game that would be.

Maybe clubs could host neutral game / home game double headers on a rotating basis instead, perhaps

That's what I was thinking of, double headers.
Particularly at ovals with lights

whufc wrote:

Dutchy wrote:21 games season won't work, there are already complaints about demands on players, if they can earn good coin playing country for 16 games season the choice will be simple.

17 games might be the answer, play everyone home/away and the 3 other teams 3 times depending your your previous season finish (i.e. top 4 play each other 3 times and same with bottom 4)

Not perfect but I feel like the 17-game season has to be the go.

17 games don't do it for me

14 or 21

dedja wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Yes to Bass but the other clubs have now worked out how to beat it

It wasn't Rawlings' game plan that won that one. Quite the opposite. Change or you're not here next year.
Then we win it so he goes back this year to try to prove his game plan does work

Buckley did the same (although he missed the premiership). They cant help themselves. Maximum hubris

That was easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Bass will be the head coach before the end of next season, let’s see if he’ll change anything from that ultra defensive game plan that, as you say, everyone worked out years ago.

Maybe I need to create a separate Norwood whinging thread.

It's just that we like to win premierships...........

The sanfl could create
North conference
South conference
Eastern conference
Western conference

Teams play each other Home/away/neutral on 2 occasions

Then the winners of each conference plus 2 teams with the next highest percentage go through to the next round.

Teams are seeded based on percentage. Top 2 get a bye.

3v6
4v5
Play in a 3 game series where high ranked side gets home ground advantage
Home/away/home

Then we move into a top 4 finals series

FFS, that’s something the dickheads at the AFL would come up with.

Interesting times ahead.

I do roll my eyes at the huffing and puffing of (mostly) Port supporters about the “unfair rules” imposed on their poor reserves team and the hindrance this places on development. Many of these folk I’d imagine a) don’t really know the rules b) choose to ignore the advantages the reserves teams have over the other 8 clubs and c) haven’t set foot in Alberton or another SANFL venue for many a year.

As for the fixture…keep it simple. 18 games. 9 home, 9 away. The 4 additional games can be a split of 2 games against top 4 finishers from the prior year, and 2 against the bottom 4. Why should a South Adelaide (to use 2023) for example benefit the following year by tripling up on just the lower ranked clubs, hardly fair. Not a perfect model, but there isn’t really one. Minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

saintal wrote:Interesting times ahead.

…

Why should a South Adelaide (to use 2023) for example benefit the following year by tripling up on just the lower ranked clubs, hardly fair. Not a perfect model, but there isn’t really one. Minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

No offence, but it’s been 59 years, so I’d take any advantage if I were you.

21 games is perfect. No need to get complicated. Scrap the state games.
23 used to be good but 21 works perfectly. Start in early April and finish on the long weekend in October.
Play 7 neutral games in carnivals, double headers and country matches if required.

hollywood7477 wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

MW wrote:you lot are a little strange...
For how many years you are pushing Port and Crows out of the SANFL
As soon as it looks like happening..."how will they afford it?" "SANFL have a binding contract for $400k per year" etc etc
which one do you want?

Both!!!!! We dont want them to get out of paying the $$$$$ they owe us

Pay US. so they owe you money do they.

Using the pronouns such as 'we' in the context of allegiance is nothing unusual.

When someone on here says "I think we'll beat you this week", most people that weren't born with cranio-rectal issues understand that the author is most likely talking about respectively supported teams. Personally, I try not to use these pronouns in this context, but that's just me.

Regardless, unpaid debts having flow-on effects to a broader communal 'we' is hardly an abstract notion.

Don’t underestimate the idiocy of the SANFL, they are perfectly capable of kowtowing to Port to do anything to keep them in the competition.

dedja wrote:FFS, that’s something the dickheads at the AFL would come up with.

They’re not that smart!

Port acting like the spoilt toddler stamping his feet because they aren't winning. Look forward to them achieving nothing in the AFL and VFL reserves, i'm sure they will come up with a way of shifting the blame when that happens too.

Here is another idea - Carnival style double of even quadruple headers twice a year at Adelaide Oval, one home and one away country game and we get back to 18.

Anything without the afl reserves sides in it will be an improvement. Hopefully the league doesn't drop the ball and miss out on being a bit innovative with programming and just trying a few different things out.

StrayDog wrote:

hollywood7477 wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

MW wrote:you lot are a little strange...
For how many years you are pushing Port and Crows out of the SANFL
As soon as it looks like happening..."how will they afford it?" "SANFL have a binding contract for $400k per year" etc etc
which one do you want?

Both!!!!! We dont want them to get out of paying the $$$$$ they owe us

Pay US. so they owe you money do they.

Using the pronouns such as 'we' in the context of allegiance is nothing unusual.

When someone on here says "I think we'll beat you this week", most people that weren't born with cranio-rectal issues understand that the author is most likely talking about respectively supported teams. Personally, I try not to use these pronouns in this context, but that's just me.

Regardless, unpaid debts having flow-on effects to a broader communal 'we' is hardly an abstract notion.

We is justified if you are a club member, voting rights etc... You are part of the club and have a function. Must be hard for a SA AFL supporter to understand, your money buys you entry and some cheap merchandise.

Can we please rename the thread to The never ending No AFL in the Adelaide Footy League Premier Division whinge thread?

Only a matter of time now ya defunct boomer dinosaurs. RIP $ANFL.

Once the Premier Division is created we can then convert the junior comps to be a more elite style TAC cup. Then juniors play for their grassroots clubs. Might then have a structure and hierarchy that gives our kids the best chance to realise their dreams (hot tip, that's not playing for any of your tinpot clubs)

Everyone wins! Except for ... you know, the pissed old farts that object to change at every turn and yearn for when the $ANFL was relevant. So like, the 90s maybe?

Happy days

morell wrote:Can we please rename the thread to The never ending No AFL in the Adelaide Footy League Premier Division whinge thread?

No, faark off.