Page 1 of 2
SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:54 pmby FOURTH ESTATE
SANFL community football general manager Glen Rosser refused to comment on whether the introduction of the points system was hurting the league competition.
"It was introduced to control the movement of players into leagues... and stop clubs spending a lot on match payments one year and going bust the next," he said.
"Has it worked? It's early days. It's under review. We review it every year."
Gee great statement from Glen every league could have told him that it was not working. Just look at the amount of money being thrown around in the country they are paying less players in total and a few players are loading up for little or no input into the country club that they are playing for.
Another great appointment by the SANFL for a jobs for the boys to look after their own.
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:06 pmby The Big Shrek
Fair enough too. How is he supposed to comment on whether it is hurting the SANFL? He works in country footy.
It is early days for APPS, and I can see the arguments against it, but league players at the end of their careers were getting coin in the country before the system was even thought of.
Clubs are willing to spend cash APPS or no APPS.
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:11 pmby RooShootOhh
FE, you really don't get it do you. I assume you lost a couple of players to a country club, now have the sh!ts on with the entire country football community.
Lets have a common sense look at the situation, Ammo's vs Country:
Div 1 Ammo
10 Teams
15 points per team
150 points for the division
50 new players (based on ave 3 point player)
Major Country League (Use BLG as example)
9 Teams
Points vary per team dependant on previous results
say mabe 75 points for the league
25 new players (based on ave 3 point player)
now lets just say a team in each comp has 100k to spend:
Every Ammo team has to spread that 100k across approx 5 players + say 5 payed locals (nearly half team), ave suggest 10k per player can be allocated.
BLG team at the bottom like a Freeling and Ango (with 15 points) are in exactly the same position
Tanunda on the other hand only have 3 points to play with, granted they would have more than 5 locals to pay, but they have to pay top dollar to maximise the 3 points they are given.
The problem you have is the rule is being used for two seperate outcomes, Ammos to stop player movements, Country to even the playing field.
Now take into account, Ammo clubs have greater access to the population than country clubs, they have to pay top dollar to not only attempt to be successful, but also to survive.
Have a look a clubs like Angaston, Meningie, Hummocks Watchmen, Callington, Sadan -Cambrai, all striving to compete and continue proud club history (or create one) with dwindling population bases, how do you expect them to achieve this without bringing in paid players?
So two ways to look at this with a solution are:
Country clubs allocate all clubs 15 points (to match Ammo's), this will then allow the stronger and financial clubs to prosper and potentially close proud country clubs, if you think this wil stop country clubs paying quality dollars to good players your are just plain wrong! What you will find is, that along with the high paid player, those clubs will now be able to recruit his mates as well...
Or Ammos move to a results based points system to accompany your relegation system, this will give Ammo clubs the chance to operate/recruit exacatly the same aas country clubs, then how they choose to chase players becomes their issue.
You can't have your cake an eat it too, you want to have the larger points allocation, yet wont outbid other clubs to keep them.
The other question is, you seem so angry at country clubs for buying these players, you slag these players for chasing the cash, yet you seem so filthy the players you seem to despise aren't playing at your club, why do you want them if you dislike them so much?
If your going to have a grumble, don't attack the man who is obviouly toeing the company line, how about provide some solutions for debate or quit whinging???
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:09 pmby Q.
RooShootOhh wrote:Or Ammos move to a results based points system to accompany your relegation system, this will give Ammo clubs the chance to operate/recruit exacatly the same aas country clubs, then how they choose to chase players becomes their issue
How would that even work?! You want to complicate promotion/relegation with a performance-based points system? I'd like to see you come up with an equitable system for that.
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:52 pmby daysofourlives
To put it into simple terms the main cause of the problem between SANFL, SAAFL and country clubs is that country clubs don't pay every player therefore meaning the points players can be offered more cash. The locals in general are more than happy to go down this path as they realise they need these guys to have success.
The SANFL and SAAFL (Div 1) pay every player.
Maybe the SANFL clubs should stop paying reserves and kids under say 20 years of age. They would still play at the SANFL club as they want to get drafted and it would allow the clubs to offer more to their league stars to keep country clubs at bay.
The SAAFL could go down the same path if they restricted movement between clubs thus creating some loyalty and a sense of belonging to your club.
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:15 pmby RooShootOhh
Just posted in Div 1 thread, but remembered it was relevant to a discussion here earlier:
Ok, So there will always be floors in a points system, but maybe something like this:
DIV 1
1st - 6 Pts
2nd - 6 Pts
3rd - 9 Pts
4th - 9 Pts
5th - 12 Pts
6th - 12 Pts
7th - 15 Pts
8th - 15 Pts
---------------
9th (Relegation) - 12 Pts (In Div 2)
10th (Relegation) - 12 Pts (In Div 2)
DIV 2
1st (Promotion) - 12 Pts (In Div 1)
2nd (Promotion) - 12 Pts (In Div 1)
--------------
3rd - 9 Pts
4th - 9 Pts
5th - 12 Pts
6th - 12 Pts
7th - 15 Pts
8th - 15 Pts
---------------
9th (Relegation) - 12 Pts (In Div 3)
10th (Relegation) - 12 Pts (In Div 3)
And so forth for each Division. The basic principal is to even each grade based on performaces, bing the gap between divisions closer together. What you will find, as country counterparts are now finding, soon enough players cant shop themselves around every year, with limited points available (rather than the straight 15 across the board) clubs will be more decisive on their recruits, meaning club hoppers will find their option drying up quicker! Hopefully it will encourage players to stay at clubs for longer periods of time and encourage clubs to promote an atmosphere that entices GOOD players to stay.
Basically 2 players (if 3 pointers) are the difference between the highest rated clubs and lowest rated clubs in each division, the clubs entering the division (either through promotion or relegation) are rated middle of the pack.
Feedback please, happy to discuss any potential flaws/problems to make the solution look better...
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:31 pmby CoverKing
Nothing wrong the points system as it is. I like the idea and hope it stays!
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:37 pmby Robb_Stark
CoverKing wrote:Nothing wrong the points system as it is. I like the idea and hope it stays!
flinders park was one of the clubs who abused the new system put in place from the start and won a flag that year all other clubs played by the rules and you had 28 points most games saafl went soft on you and cost every other club a chance at the flag that year
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:38 pmby Footy Smart
CoverKing wrote:Nothing wrong the points system as it is. I like the idea and hope it stays!
Agreed Coverking, it creates a 'reasonably' even playing field for all sides no matter the $$$ the club has/willing to spend.
Yes it has seen $$ increase per player in some cases but it does allow clubs who focus on junior development instead of paying $$ compete week in week out.
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:54 pmby zedman
Robb_Stark wrote:CoverKing wrote:Nothing wrong the points system as it is. I like the idea and hope it stays!
flinders park was one of the clubs who abused the new system put in place from the start and won a flag that year all other clubs played by the rules and you had 28 points most games saafl went soft on you and cost every other club a chance at the flag that year
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:34 pmby Phantom Gossiper
The concept has merit, whoever i would imagine the side coming up would require more points than the side coming down. An integral part of being competitive in the higher grade is boosting your playing list with more quality players, where as going down the current list is likely to be competitive in the drop in standard.
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:50 pmby The Cows
Robb_Stark wrote:CoverKing wrote:Nothing wrong the points system as it is. I like the idea and hope it stays!
flinders park was one of the clubs who abused the new system put in place from the start and won a flag that year all other clubs played by the rules and you had 28 points most games saafl went soft on you and cost every other club a chance at the flag that year
28 points??? What gear are you on!!
Check your facts, I do believe in the GF that year we played under 15 points. We applied to the league and we were granted a couple of extra points due to our recruiting that was done before the points system was confirmed. Gotta love the haters
. Zed your still at your best!!!
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:52 pmby Robb_Stark
The Cows wrote:Robb_Stark wrote:CoverKing wrote:Nothing wrong the points system as it is. I like the idea and hope it stays!
flinders park was one of the clubs who abused the new system put in place from the start and won a flag that year all other clubs played by the rules and you had 28 points most games saafl went soft on you and cost every other club a chance at the flag that year
28 points??? What gear are you on!!
Check your facts, I do believe in the GF that year we played under 15 points. We applied to the league and we were granted a couple of extra points due to our recruiting that was done before the points system was confirmed. Gotta love the haters
. Zed your still at your best!!!
fact 1 during the season you played with over 20 points you were no where near the 15 points not once during the year did you play under 20 points
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:56 pmby The Cows
Robb_Stark wrote:The Cows wrote:Robb_Stark wrote:CoverKing wrote:Nothing wrong the points system as it is. I like the idea and hope it stays!
flinders park was one of the clubs who abused the new system put in place from the start and won a flag that year all other clubs played by the rules and you had 28 points most games saafl went soft on you and cost every other club a chance at the flag that year
28 points??? What gear are you on!!
Check your facts, I do believe in the GF that year we played under 15 points. We applied to the league and we were granted a couple of extra points due to our recruiting that was done before the points system was confirmed. Gotta love the haters
. Zed your still at your best!!!
fact 1 during the season you played with over 20 points you were no where near the 15 points not once during the year did you play under 20 points
Check your facts!!! How would you even know!!! GF played with 12 or 13 points!!!
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:00 pmby zedman
calm down cows..your hyperventilating..you got more points given to you than any other club in the grade..you got favorable treatment..there is no argument..you got what no other clubs got..extra points..wether you used them in rd 1 or in the GF the facts were you could use them whenever you wanted.. cheers
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:07 pmby The Cows
zedman wrote:calm down cows..your hyperventilating..you got more points given to you than any other club in the grade..you got favorable treatment..there is no argument..you got what no other clubs got..extra points..wether you used them in rd 1 or in the GF the facts were you could use them whenever you wanted.. cheers
Yes sir Zed, we did and maybe we should all live in the past. Maybe we could talk about other clubs that have done it without seeking permission from the league. It's all about using your mouth and asking. If the league said no we wouldn't have done it. Hold it against the league not the club.
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:09 pmby Robb_Stark
The Cows wrote:zedman wrote:calm down cows..your hyperventilating..you got more points given to you than any other club in the grade..you got favorable treatment..there is no argument..you got what no other clubs got..extra points..wether you used them in rd 1 or in the GF the facts were you could use them whenever you wanted.. cheers
Yes sir Zed, we did and maybe we should all live in the past. Maybe we could talk about other clubs that have done it without seeking permission from the league. It's all about using your mouth and asking. If the league said no we wouldn't have done it. Hold it against the league not the club.
actually the club had 2 or 3 meetings and made a big deal about it i remember it clear as day cause you had the north adelaide ruckmen at the time your football director at the time nearly cryed to the other clubs as well at one point
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:13 pmby The Cows
Robb_Stark wrote:The Cows wrote:zedman wrote:calm down cows..your hyperventilating..you got more points given to you than any other club in the grade..you got favorable treatment..there is no argument..you got what no other clubs got..extra points..wether you used them in rd 1 or in the GF the facts were you could use them whenever you wanted.. cheers
Yes sir Zed, we did and maybe we should all live in the past. Maybe we could talk about other clubs that have done it without seeking permission from the league. It's all about using your mouth and asking. If the league said no we wouldn't have done it. Hold it against the league not the club.
actually the club had 2 or 3 meetings and made a big deal about it i remember it clear as day cause you had the north adelaide ruckmen at the time your football director at the time nearly cryed to the other clubs as well at one point
Yep that's it. I seriously don't know why other clubs didn't use it as a precedent. The league couldn't have said no but no other club applied for it. I found that very hard to understand!!
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:20 pmby Robb_Stark
The Cows wrote:Robb_Stark wrote:The Cows wrote:zedman wrote:calm down cows..your hyperventilating..you got more points given to you than any other club in the grade..you got favorable treatment..there is no argument..you got what no other clubs got..extra points..wether you used them in rd 1 or in the GF the facts were you could use them whenever you wanted.. cheers
Yes sir Zed, we did and maybe we should all live in the past. Maybe we could talk about other clubs that have done it without seeking permission from the league. It's all about using your mouth and asking. If the league said no we wouldn't have done it. Hold it against the league not the club.
actually the club had 2 or 3 meetings and made a big deal about it i remember it clear as day cause you had the north adelaide ruckmen at the time your football director at the time nearly cryed to the other clubs as well at one point
Yep that's it. I seriously don't know why other clubs didn't use it as a precedent. The league couldn't have said no but no other club applied for it. I found that very hard to understand!!
at the time only you and one other club were given permission other clubs did try but refused
Re: SUNDAY MAIL ARTICLE
Posted:
Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:33 amby Rat Catcher
