SA Footy

North just lost Chad O'Sullivan to the ammo's midway through the season.
AFL destroying the comp from one side and threatening to go to the ammo's if they don't get their own way, etc and Ammo clubs eating away at our player base from the other side

So what alternatives are the SANFL left with. Even assuming they kick the AFL Ressies out, a lot of irreparable damage had already been done and I don't think that simply kicking out the AFL Reseies and returning to an (8) club comp and hoping things go back to "normal" is the answer.

I would suggest instead of fighting the ammo's for players and attendances why couldn't the SANFL embrace the ammo's and have a two or even three tier comp where winners in each tier win promotion to the next tier and the bottom teams are relegated to tier below, just as they do in soccer. Even have play offs say between the top 3 of division 2 and the bottom side of division 1 with the winner moving up to / staying in division 1.

After removing the AFL Reserves from the SANFL I would;
1) Invite the top two Ammo sides into the league to maintain the 10 team comp SANFL League 1 or premier league.
2) increase the comp to 27 rounds with each team playing each other home / away and a neutral ground (perhaps AO)
3) Invite the next 10 best ammo's to form SANFL League 2. ( an alternative could be a third league of 10, with both the 2nd & 3rd divisions being grouped by geographical location. Say League 2 North and League 2 South) .
4) Top 5 in D1 play off in finals just as they do now.
5) Bottom club of each Division to play off against the top 3 sides of the division below for a place In the top division. 10th D1 v 3rd D2 & 1st D2 v 2nd D2, with the top sides using home advantage. The play off final to be the curtain raiser for the GF at AO.
6) A round robin play off between the winners of each ammo league and the bottom side in D2 for a place in D2.
7) The ammo sides joining the league would have to play by the same rules as the current SANFL clubs including the salary cap (whatever level that might be in the future), same recruiting rules and administration rules.

The advantages I could see would be:
1) The SANFL wouldn't keep losing players to the ammo's like O'Sullivan, for more coin.
2) Increased interest in the league overall by drawing in fans either lost to the SANFL or fans that have only ever followed an amature club and not the SANFL.
3) Maximising / maintaining public interest by holding play off finals for D2 and introducing real consequences to finishing bottom other than a wooden spoon in D1
4) Dilute the effects the AFL draft has on the current 8 SANFL clubs all be it only marginally.

I don't care if the overall standard of the SANFL drops, (although I'm not sure it would), as someone has already posted, because at least it would be an independent league again.
I'm not bothered that some ammo ovals aren't up to SANFL standard, there are plenty of ovals that are that can be used.
I'm not bothered about attendances as some of the top ammo games get nearly the same attendances as some of the SANFL games these days and I'm not bothered about the financial implications as some ammo clubs are as cashed up as some SANFL clubs.

I'm not bothered that the bottom club in D1 could be relegated to D2 even if it was one of the original 8. If it isn't competitive in the top flight then it deserves to go down and fight to get back in next year.

Just a thought.

Where's chad playing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was chad second in the North B & F last year?

The trouble with the idea Johnny is there are plenty of country sides that are Div 1 ammo standard and are offering as much if not more coin to entice SANFL players so I cant see the situation changing much. For guys who are older or missed the boat the boat for AFL it is far more financiay viable to take the coin on offer and only train 1 or 2 nights a week at a country club than train 4-5 times a week for the pittance SANFL clubs pay

Jim05 wrote:The trouble with the idea Johnny is there are plenty of country sides that are Div 1 ammo standard and are offering as much if not more coin to entice SANFL players so I cant see the situation changing much. For guys who are older or missed the boat the boat for AFL it is far more financiay viable to take the coin on offer and only train 1 or 2 nights a week at a country club than train 4-5 times a week for the pittance SANFL clubs pay

Yep the only real answer to the solution is for the SANFL to up the salary cap so SANFL players can compete with country/ammo clubs

Two problems with that are

-SANFL clubs can't afford to pay anymore

-And the AFL wont want the SANFL salary caps to high creating a situation where SANFL players could earn more playing SANFL then being a low list/rookie player at AFL level which could create a similar situation for the AFL where players could choose to play a lower standard for similar to better cash without the schedule or pressure of the higher league

Get rid of the salaray cap, easy.
Worked nicely for over 100 years.
If clubs can't spend responsibly then good riddance but don't penalise those that do.

Wedgie wrote:Get rid of the salaray cap, easy.
Worked nicely for over 100 years.
If clubs can't spend responsibly then good riddance but don't penalise those that do.

YES!!

Chad looked like he was past it. Maybe he was tapped on the shoulder, maybe it's time to give some others ago. There are some players in north reserves are dominating but not getting a look in. North seem to drop and bring in the same players and it's starting to upset the playing group from my sources.

Killa wrote:Chad looked like he was past it. Maybe he was tapped on the shoulder, maybe it's time to give some others ago. There are some players in north reserves are dominating but not getting a look in. North seem to drop and bring in the same players and it's starting to upset the playing group from my sources.

Who are these players that are dominating the reserves?

Yet again Country pilfering SANFL players. Scrap the cap, or cap the ammos is the only way the standard will rise. Why should people pay $14 at the gate when you are getting sub standard viewing. WAKE UP SANFL.

Wedgie wrote:Get rid of the salaray cap, easy.
Worked nicely for over 100 years.
If clubs can't spend responsibly then good riddance but don't penalise those that do.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!

I reckon if we got rid of the salary caps alot of the clubs would become alot more responsible with the money knowing that the big advantage is you can spend any extra income on players and wages.

Also was chatting to someone definatly in the know at Centrals and apparently Centrals this year put in a request to the SANFL to be able to drop its home match entry fee down to $10 due to a thought alot of northern suburb folk have now been outpriced from going to the SANFL.

The SANFL rejected the proposal due to wanting to have standardised prices across all SANFL clubs.

whufc wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Get rid of the salaray cap, easy.
Worked nicely for over 100 years.
If clubs can't spend responsibly then good riddance but don't penalise those that do.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!

I reckon if we got rid of the salary caps alot of the clubs would become alot more responsible with the money knowing that the big advantage is you can spend any extra income on players and wages.

Also was chatting to someone definatly in the know at Centrals and apparently Centrals this year put in a request to the SANFL to be able to drop its home match entry fee down to $10 due to a thought alot of northern suburb folk have now been outpriced from going to the SANFL.

The SANFL rejected the proposal due to wanting to have standardised prices across all SANFL clubs.

It is a joke that a neutral person coming off the street has to pay $14 at the gates. We all know that if you buy a season ticket it works out cheaper, but these are the supportersa who will come week in week out anyhow. We should be trying to attract the newcomers to the games.

Agreed all round. It should never have gone up from $10 and the extra money made from charging people extra would be lost five fold from the less people coming and the money they'd spend on food and drink not to mention the flow on effect from future memberships and interest. Really dumb business.

Wedgie wrote:

Killa wrote:Chad looked like he was past it. Maybe he was tapped on the shoulder, maybe it's time to give some others ago. There are some players in north reserves are dominating but not getting a look in. North seem to drop and bring in the same players and it's starting to upset the playing group from my sources.

Who are these players that are dominating the reserves?

Wow you call yourself a north supporter, I reckon you could do some research! I know one player who been in the best players 5 times out of 9 games. There is another player but unlikely to play again this season after getting his 3rd concussion for the season.

Special One wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Killa wrote:Chad looked like he was past it. Maybe he was tapped on the shoulder, maybe it's time to give some others ago. There are some players in north reserves are dominating but not getting a look in. North seem to drop and bring in the same players and it's starting to upset the playing group from my sources.

Who are these players that are dominating the reserves?

Wow you call yourself a north supporter, I reckon you could do some research! I know one player who been in the best players 5 times out of 9 games. There is another player but unlikely to play again this season after getting his 3rd concussion for the season.

Yes I do, that's why I asked the question as I haven't seen any players "dominating" the reserves who haven't got league games. North have introduced more first gamers this year in the league than I can remember which indicates the opposite of what your mail is.

Special One wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Killa wrote:Chad looked like he was past it. Maybe he was tapped on the shoulder, maybe it's time to give some others ago. There are some players in north reserves are dominating but not getting a look in. North seem to drop and bring in the same players and it's starting to upset the playing group from my sources.

Who are these players that are dominating the reserves?

Wow you call yourself a north supporter, I reckon you could do some research! I know one player who been in the best players 5 times out of 9 games. There is another player but unlikely to play again this season after getting his 3rd concussion for the season.

Must have plenty of blokes dominating games when the consistent wooden spooner of the reserves the last few years keeps you scoreless for the first quarter and a bit...

Wedgie wrote:Yes I do, that's why I asked the question as I haven't seen any players "dominating" the reserves who haven't got league games. North have introduced more first gamers this year in the league than I can remember which indicates the opposite of what your mail is.

It's about time, the likes of Shillabeer and Robinson be given ago. But Robinson is unlikely to play again this season, with one of the players saying he's been concussed 3 times this season. Then a left field option is Hayes who plays with intensity.

Special One wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Yes I do, that's why I asked the question as I haven't seen any players "dominating" the reserves who haven't got league games. North have introduced more first gamers this year in the league than I can remember which indicates the opposite of what your mail is.

It's about time, the likes of Shillabeer and Robinson be given ago. But Robinson is unlikely to play again this season, with one of the players saying he's been concussed 3 times this season. Then a left field option is Hayes who plays with intensity.

None of those are players are "dominating" as your mail informed you.

Okay why are they named continually in the best players? From what I've seen this season. For example Shillabeer has been efficient with ball use, can find the ball, can think his way through contests, can play back or forward and has a great ability to read the play. Robinson this year has been finding a lot of the ball this year as well.

Special One wrote:Okay why are they named continually in the best players? From what I've seen this season. For example Shillabeer has been efficient with ball use, can find the ball, can think his way through contests, can play back or forward and has a great ability to read the play. Robinson this year has been finding a lot of the ball this year as well.

I didn't say they hadnt occasionally been in the best players, efficient with ball use or finding a lot of the ball. I said they hadn't been dominating like you're mail has suggested.
Why would North give an record amount of kids a first game this year if young players aren't given a go?
From what I've seen the players you mentioned have been mediocre. Not bad but certulainly not dominating as your ridiculous mail suggested.
If anything North have been giving too many youngsters a go this year IMHO but respect their reasoning with an eye on the future.