SA Footy

Took the girlfriend down to Prospect yesterday and actually enjoyed the afternoon. First SANFL game i have been able to go to in 2 years and thought there was a great crowd there yesterday with perfect weather.

Glenelg should have had the game wrapped up by half time but didn't take their chances in the 2nd quarter, then North dominated the 3rd through the middle and shut down the Bays outside run. Glenelg was just too good in the last quarter and looked as if North ran out of gas after their 3rd quarter charge. Enjoyed the day though as a neutral.

Will hopefully be able to get to more Magpies games later in the year when they don't clash with the local footy

therisingblues wrote:

LMA wrote:So is it about the money or the players. It's pretty hard to fit a squad of 45 players into 22 is my educated guess why they are playing SANFL, not to mention the fact they're not quite up to the level yet. If you're hanging your hat on a couple of players making a difference then the standard of the league may be worse than I thought. Just guessing but I reckon the money recieved from the AFL clubs would offset a couple of 30k transfers (highly inflated considering weekly match payments)

A) Set up in a reserves comp then if it is such a problem for you.
B) In that case, just send Wingard and Pittard over to Carlton. No transfer fees applicable, and it is only a couple of players, if that makes any difference then the standard at Port is much worse off than I thought.

A) IMO a reserves comp could be worse off for the SANFL clubs and survival would be even harder
B) Totally different, there's around 100 draftees per season entering the AFL from many leagues, you're saying that the AFL clubs should pay a transfer fee for every player. Like it or not the SANFL is a feeder comp for the AFL, I understand people don't like change but most of the players are playing there for one reason only, time to accept it for what it is

CUTTERMAN wrote:

LMA wrote:So is it about the money or the players. It's pretty hard to fit a squad of 45 players into 22 is my educated guess why they are playing SANFL, not to mention the fact they're not quite up to the level yet. If you're hanging your hat on a couple of players making a difference then the standard of the league may be worse than I thought. Just guessing but I reckon the money recieved from the AFL clubs would offset a couple of 30k transfers (highly inflated considering weekly match payments)

What money from the AFL clubs?

To my understanding the 2 AFL clubs are paying the SANFL something like $15million for AFL licences over a period of time and the Crows are paying around $300k per year for their reserves team, if this money is not filtering to the other 8 clubs from the SANFL then their is only 1 party to be bitter at here.

LMA wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

LMA wrote:So is it about the money or the players. It's pretty hard to fit a squad of 45 players into 22 is my educated guess why they are playing SANFL, not to mention the fact they're not quite up to the level yet. If you're hanging your hat on a couple of players making a difference then the standard of the league may be worse than I thought. Just guessing but I reckon the money recieved from the AFL clubs would offset a couple of 30k transfers (highly inflated considering weekly match payments)

A) Set up in a reserves comp then if it is such a problem for you.
B) In that case, just send Wingard and Pittard over to Carlton. No transfer fees applicable, and it is only a couple of players, if that makes any difference then the standard at Port is much worse off than I thought.

A) IMO a reserves comp could be worse off for the SANFL clubs and survival would be even harder
B) Totally different, there's around 100 draftees per season entering the AFL from many leagues, you're saying that the AFL clubs should pay a transfer fee for every player. Like it or not the SANFL is a feeder comp for the AFL, I understand people don't like change but most of the players are playing there for one reason only, time to accept it for what it is

To be sure, our specific complaint is about two reserve entities operating in our league under different rules to us, and an agenda other than winning.
This is being highlighted by reference to transfer fees. It would be exactly the same as Carlton suddenly taking two of your better players and just handing them to another club to be used against you.
You would find these complaints would evaporate as soon as you took your reserve side out of the SANFL.
So if you would be totally cool with handing two of your better players to a rival club for no compensation, then you would have grounds to tell us that it is a fair system.
The problem here is that there are two reserve teams competing with eight fair dinkum passionate clubs, whose chief motive is winning, rather than practice.There are so many of these irregular quirks that we tend just to say "compromised", so of course we will discuss the actual examples when they turn up also.

A great photo from yesterday's presidents lunch, tussles between these two were legendary to watch.

LMA wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:

LMA wrote:So is it about the money or the players. It's pretty hard to fit a squad of 45 players into 22 is my educated guess why they are playing SANFL, not to mention the fact they're not quite up to the level yet. If you're hanging your hat on a couple of players making a difference then the standard of the league may be worse than I thought. Just guessing but I reckon the money recieved from the AFL clubs would offset a couple of 30k transfers (highly inflated considering weekly match payments)

What money from the AFL clubs?

To my understanding the 2 AFL clubs are paying the SANFL something like $15million for AFL licences over a period of time and the Crows are paying around $300k per year for their reserves team, if this money is not filtering to the other 8 clubs from the SANFL then their is only 1 party to be bitter at here.

Yes, you are paying a license fee. You would have to pay it regardless of parking your reserves in the SANFL.
Then it gets a bit weird...
The Crows pay a fee for being in the league, but get to use Football park facilities for free... go figure.
Port do not have to pay this fee, but then they are responsible for their own training oval etc.
Just part of the contrivances employed in the failed endeavour to make the reserves workable.
Free transfers is another...

LMA wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:

LMA wrote:So is it about the money or the players. It's pretty hard to fit a squad of 45 players into 22 is my educated guess why they are playing SANFL, not to mention the fact they're not quite up to the level yet. If you're hanging your hat on a couple of players making a difference then the standard of the league may be worse than I thought. Just guessing but I reckon the money recieved from the AFL clubs would offset a couple of 30k transfers (highly inflated considering weekly match payments)

What money from the AFL clubs?

To my understanding the 2 AFL clubs are paying the SANFL something like $15million for AFL licences over a period of time and the Crows are paying around $300k per year for their reserves team, if this money is not filtering to the other 8 clubs from the SANFL then their is only 1 party to be bitter at here.

License repayments and Adelaide's reserves fee have nothing to do with transfer fees don't try to confuse the stark difference.
Both reserves teams get these players for nothing, SANFL clubs would have to pay transfer fees. Can you possibly attempt to understand the inequality of this situation and why people are pissed off.

Wedgie wrote:A great photo from yesterday's presidents lunch, tussles between these two were legendary to watch.

FB_IMG_1497324263496.jpg

Yes I saw this last night - great Pic, a couple of handy big blokes!

I suspect that if Port/ Crows payed transfer fees to Sanfl clubs then you would find another reason to feel hard done by. Excuses for mediocrity can't go on for ever

therisingblues wrote:

LMA wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

LMA wrote:So is it about the money or the players. It's pretty hard to fit a squad of 45 players into 22 is my educated guess why they are playing SANFL, not to mention the fact they're not quite up to the level yet. If you're hanging your hat on a couple of players making a difference then the standard of the league may be worse than I thought. Just guessing but I reckon the money recieved from the AFL clubs would offset a couple of 30k transfers (highly inflated considering weekly match payments)

A) Set up in a reserves comp then if it is such a problem for you.
B) In that case, just send Wingard and Pittard over to Carlton. No transfer fees applicable, and it is only a couple of players, if that makes any difference then the standard at Port is much worse off than I thought.

A) IMO a reserves comp could be worse off for the SANFL clubs and survival would be even harder
B) Totally different, there's around 100 draftees per season entering the AFL from many leagues, you're saying that the AFL clubs should pay a transfer fee for every player. Like it or not the SANFL is a feeder comp for the AFL, I understand people don't like change but most of the players are playing there for one reason only, time to accept it for what it is

To be sure, our specific complaint is about two reserve entities operating in our league under different rules to us, and an agenda other than winning.
This is being highlighted by reference to transfer fees. It would be exactly the same as Carlton suddenly taking two of your better players and just handing them to another club to be used against you.
You would find these complaints would evaporate as soon as you took your reserve side out of the SANFL.
So if you would be totally cool with handing two of your better players to a rival club for no compensation, then you would have grounds to tell us that it is a fair system.
The problem here is that there are two reserve teams competing with eight fair dinkum passionate clubs, whose chief motive is winning, rather than practice.There are so many of these irregular quirks that we tend just to say "compromised", so of course we will discuss the actual examples when they turn up also.

The same people that tell me Port Magpies are there for practice only and don't care about winning are the same people that tell me Port Power only recruit SANFL players to improve their Magpies side. That sounds like a contradiction to me.

LMA wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

LMA wrote:

therisingblues wrote:
A) Set up in a reserves comp then if it is such a problem for you.
B) In that case, just send Wingard and Pittard over to Carlton. No transfer fees applicable, and it is only a couple of players, if that makes any difference then the standard at Port is much worse off than I thought.

A) IMO a reserves comp could be worse off for the SANFL clubs and survival would be even harder
B) Totally different, there's around 100 draftees per season entering the AFL from many leagues, you're saying that the AFL clubs should pay a transfer fee for every player. Like it or not the SANFL is a feeder comp for the AFL, I understand people don't like change but most of the players are playing there for one reason only, time to accept it for what it is

To be sure, our specific complaint is about two reserve entities operating in our league under different rules to us, and an agenda other than winning.
This is being highlighted by reference to transfer fees. It would be exactly the same as Carlton suddenly taking two of your better players and just handing them to another club to be used against you.
You would find these complaints would evaporate as soon as you took your reserve side out of the SANFL.
So if you would be totally cool with handing two of your better players to a rival club for no compensation, then you would have grounds to tell us that it is a fair system.
The problem here is that there are two reserve teams competing with eight fair dinkum passionate clubs, whose chief motive is winning, rather than practice.There are so many of these irregular quirks that we tend just to say "compromised", so of course we will discuss the actual examples when they turn up also.

The same people that tell me Port Magpies are there for practice only and don't care about winning are the same people that tell me Port Power only recruit SANFL players to improve their Magpies side. That sounds like a contradiction to me.

And what's your opinion? You seriously think the Magpies now take the field with a win at all costs attitude? That if your first ruckman got injured the day before, you wouldn't rest up your reserves ruck a bit, even if the game was on the line?
Recruiting players purely to boost the Magpies would not contradict the above, by the way. You can fill up on Rookies without contradicting the first law of reserves, which is they exist to support a side in a higher grade.
Whether Eddy, Irra , Leinert and co were recruited for that purpose alone might be a bit of a stretch, but it is a very, very, easy way of boosting your side, while weakening others.
What's the solution?
Get the reserves out of the SANFL.
Easy!

List management, nothing new there even in Amateurs

am Bays wrote:Three things I learnt yesterday:

1. Norths kicking is sh!t!
2. You don't have to be follically challenged to make WTF umpiring decisions
3. We can't afford to be lazy and stop working as a team!

Despite saying North skills were shit, it was noticeable that when they had their game plan going (in the third) they looked a better side than us - paint the fence in the back lines, create space in the corridor and then hit the hot spot. I think we got through on having better skills/players on the day.

if North can put four qtrs together of what Carry is trying to do they will be a finals bound team.

Hopefully this tread is now back on track discussing rd 9

LMA wrote:List management, nothing new there even in Amateurs

Yes, list management.
and....?
Did you not understand my previous post? I just asked you if you believe the Magpies exist purely to win. If it came down to resting a KPP because he'd be needed the following week to cover injuries, would he be rested as opposed to playing on in order to win that match.
I will give you a hint, the answer will be yes, or no. It will not be "list management"!
The rest of my post focused on the fact that you can recruit players, and STILL be serving to support a more senior team, whose Win/Loss ledger is more important than the reserves team's.
What do you think of that?
Let me give you a hint. The answer will be along the lines of "Yes, you are right", or "No, in my opinion you are wrong".
It will not be, "List management", followed by the rolly eyes symbol.
I think you are confusing what I am saying with a conversation about the MERITS of recruiting those players. If we WERE talking about that, then it would be quite correct of you to respond with "List management". If i were trying to deny the fact that they were there as part of list management, you MIGHT then decide to insert a rolly eyes smiley to show that you are frustrated. Seeing as NEITHER of these things have happened, I am beginning to question your ability to follow what's happening on this page, and I would not at all be surprised if you returned an answer of "Yes, I believe the first maxim of the Magpies is to win, as opposed to practice and develop players for the Power.

am Bays wrote:

am Bays wrote:Three things I learnt yesterday:

1. Norths kicking is sh!t!
2. You don't have to be follically challenged to make WTF umpiring decisions
3. We can't afford to be lazy and stop working as a team!

Despite saying North skills were shit, it was noticeable that when they had their game plan going (in the third) they looked a better side than us - paint the fence in the back lines, create space in the corridor and then hit the hot spot. I think we got through on having better skills/players on the day.

if North can put four qtrs together of what Carry is trying to do they will be a finals bound team.

Hopefully this tread is now back on track discussing rd 9

Skills are definitely poor at Prospect, and we just haven't got the personnel to reach the finals this year. Once the Bays stepped up in the last term we went to water.

PS We've already put four quarters of footy together this season...unfortunately its been across nine games.

o five wrote:Just a quick note that the Prospect RSL on Monday, the kitchen will be open. Chicken curry with rice for $5 and $2 Coffees. And I will be selling the lucky squares at half time of the league, all proceeds go to the Prospect RSL.
Cheap beer, cider, wine softdrink and Port of course. See you all there

Must apologize for the no curry and coffee on Monday fellow forum members, unfortunately the cook fell ill early Monday morning and was a scratching. Sorry if it was an inconvenience for anyone.

Corona Man wrote:

Wedgie wrote:A great photo from yesterday's presidents lunch, tussles between these two were legendary to watch.

FB_IMG_1497324263496.jpg

Yes I saw this last night - great Pic, a couple of handy big blokes!

Met Mick Redden a couple of times years ago, ripper bloke.

o five wrote:

o five wrote:Just a quick note that the Prospect RSL on Monday, the kitchen will be open. Chicken curry with rice for $5 and $2 Coffees. And I will be selling the lucky squares at half time of the league, all proceeds go to the Prospect RSL.
Cheap beer, cider, wine softdrink and Port of course. See you all there

Must apologize for the no curry and coffee on Monday fellow forum members, unfortunately the cook fell ill early Monday morning and was a scratching. Sorry if it was an inconvenience for anyone.

The bigger inconvenience was not calling my lucky number out!

Magellan wrote:

o five wrote:

o five wrote:Just a quick note that the Prospect RSL on Monday, the kitchen will be open. Chicken curry with rice for $5 and $2 Coffees. And I will be selling the lucky squares at half time of the league, all proceeds go to the Prospect RSL.
Cheap beer, cider, wine softdrink and Port of course. See you all there

Must apologize for the no curry and coffee on Monday fellow forum members, unfortunately the cook fell ill early Monday morning and was a scratching. Sorry if it was an inconvenience for anyone.

The bigger inconvenience was not calling my lucky number out!

Sorry mate, better luck next time

Corona Man wrote:

Wedgie wrote:A great photo from yesterday's presidents lunch, tussles between these two were legendary to watch.

FB_IMG_1497324263496.jpg

Yes I saw this last night - great Pic, a couple of handy big blokes!

Mick must be sick of that bloody long drive by now!