by Oldman Munga » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:17 am
by Look Good In Leather » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:53 am
Oldman Munga wrote:Heard that MM @ SFL HQ has had a gutful of the points system and wants it canned , the model used in NTFL is each club has 22 and never changes , thoughts anyone ??
by BFG » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:19 pm
Look Good In Leather wrote:Oldman Munga wrote:Heard that MM @ SFL HQ has had a gutful of the points system and wants it canned , the model used in NTFL is each club has 22 and never changes , thoughts anyone ??
The points system is a joke, has inflated player prices and done nothing to "equalise" as it suggests.
Is purely there to protect the SANFL and SAAFL, and fails on both accounts.
by qwerty » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:34 pm
by Look Good In Leather » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:39 pm
qwerty wrote:Couldn't agree more with the above comments, get rid of the system and if you want to limit player movements etc then cap it as OMM has said at say 15-17points.
Imagine the issues it will cause going forward for clubs given the state of the u/18 competition in the SLF. If the SFL wants to improve the standard of the league the points system is certainly not helping and is becoming a hinderance for clubs that are trying to be proactive and make their sides more competitive.
I also hear, others may feel free to correct me, 5 or 6 clubs have already applied for additional points and all have been knocked back - Happy Valley, Morphettvile Park, Noarlunga, Hackham and I can't recall the other/s that were mentioned.
by qwerty » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:56 pm
by Oldman Munga » Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:48 pm
qwerty wrote:Hear the same thing has happened at the shoes in-terms of the SFL agreed to a points allocation over a couple of years, now a few player retirements, player movements/crows reserves and season injuries that are all 0 or low points. Guess H.V lost a few 0 pointers also by what was said on the previous page with retirements/guys moving on and as you said with Christies having allocated points agreed upon, kind of screws up your recuriting plans, I see a crate left christies pressumably 0 points so that effictively costs you six points to replace that player, doesn't seem fair really.
by Front & Centre » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:45 pm
qwerty wrote:Hear the same thing has happened at the shoes in-terms of the SFL agreed to a points allocation over a couple of years, now a few player retirements, player movements/crows reserves and season injuries that are all 0 or low points. Guess H.V lost a few 0 pointers also by what was said on the previous page with retirements/guys moving on and as you said with Christies having allocated points agreed upon, kind of screws up your recuriting plans, I see a crate left christies pressumably 0 points so that effictively costs you six points to replace that player, doesn't seem fair really.
by shoe boy » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:13 am
by shoe boy » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:44 am
by Front & Centre » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:03 pm
shoe boy wrote:Over the wend on a business trip I met with senior board member of a very strong league who also raised the same points that have been debated above. "Equalisation" my arse was one of his comments and pointed out to me that a number of clubs have rallied to protect their business model (THE CLUB) from more restraints.
He informed me that a break away comp was an option and has been discussed at senior level with a major sponsor keen to get involved.
This made me think how a Super League would look if you had SFL/HFL/GSFL/RMFL look at this model with no restraints. A great game of footy every wend , bumper crowds, happy members and more so happy sponsors that see their money spent well with a solid business model.
Umpires would also love to be involved in a well run comp with administration from member clubs.
Just a thought because something has to be done!
by Look Good In Leather » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:39 pm
Front & Centre wrote:shoe boy wrote:Over the wend on a business trip I met with senior board member of a very strong league who also raised the same points that have been debated above. "Equalisation" my arse was one of his comments and pointed out to me that a number of clubs have rallied to protect their business model (THE CLUB) from more restraints.
He informed me that a break away comp was an option and has been discussed at senior level with a major sponsor keen to get involved.
This made me think how a Super League would look if you had SFL/HFL/GSFL/RMFL look at this model with no restraints. A great game of footy every wend , bumper crowds, happy members and more so happy sponsors that see their money spent well with a solid business model.
Umpires would also love to be involved in a well run comp with administration from member clubs.
Just a thought because something has to be done!
Breakaway comp from the SFL has been discussed at the upper most levels within some of the strongest clubs in the SFL and surrounding leagues. Think that is about the worst kept secret going around.
by Dutchy » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:18 pm
by Look Good In Leather » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:25 pm
Dutchy wrote:So OSB/L play Aldinga this Saturday, is that right? Any junior games or just A/B grade?
by ol man emu » Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:00 am
shoe boy wrote:Great to see the above comments.
This system is a restriction on trade and as clubs we all have sponsors and members to answer to.
This also makes you wonder is the board of the SFL representing the best interest of the clubs or just bowing to the CFB ?
by Look Good In Leather » Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:13 am
ol man emu wrote:shoe boy wrote:Great to see the above comments.
This system is a restriction on trade and as clubs we all have sponsors and members to answer to.
This also makes you wonder is the board of the SFL representing the best interest of the clubs or just bowing to the CFB ?
Business model, restriction of trade, answer to members and sponsors.
This is grass roots football.
What about developing juniors. and a couple of top up players.
by cracka » Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:18 am
Look Good In Leather wrote:ol man emu wrote:shoe boy wrote:Great to see the above comments.
This system is a restriction on trade and as clubs we all have sponsors and members to answer to.
This also makes you wonder is the board of the SFL representing the best interest of the clubs or just bowing to the CFB ?
Business model, restriction of trade, answer to members and sponsors.
This is grass roots football.
What about developing juniors. and a couple of top up players.
Grass roots football is the juniors. Our A-Grade teams represent our communities.
by MatteeG » Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:12 am
ol man emu wrote:shoe boy wrote:Great to see the above comments.
This system is a restriction on trade and as clubs we all have sponsors and members to answer to.
This also makes you wonder is the board of the SFL representing the best interest of the clubs or just bowing to the CFB ?
Business model, restriction of trade, answer to members and sponsors.
This is grass roots football.
What about developing juniors. and a couple of top up players.
helicopterking wrote:Flaggies will choke. Always have.
by Luke15 » Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:22 am
ol man emu wrote:shoe boy wrote:Great to see the above comments.
This system is a restriction on trade and as clubs we all have sponsors and members to answer to.
This also makes you wonder is the board of the SFL representing the best interest of the clubs or just bowing to the CFB ?
Business model, restriction of trade, answer to members and sponsors.
This is grass roots football.
What about developing juniors. and a couple of top up players.
by LaughingKookaburra » Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:59 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |