National 2nd Tier Competiton Discussion

[Thiele]

Just play your reserves or forgeit the game in the 3rd Tier SANFL and save the best players for the 2nd Tier Comp match.
Goes without saying!

Totaly agree

[Dutchy]

Thought Port admin would be pushing for a Power curtain raiser, the absence of this in the programming confirms they arent interested in pushing the ONE PAFC brand moreso trying to get increased attendences via Norwood/Sturt fans turning up

Doesn't confirm it at all. The AFL may well have been asked by Port to have them play their game as a curtain raiser in Adelaide before Port game. Wouldn't be their fault if the AFL decided not to have that happen.

Demetriou denied the dwindling attendances were a direct result of live TV telecasts against the gate, but said the AFL would look at granting the SANFL’s request of better games and timeslots at the venue next season.

Surely the AFL would look favourabley at Ports request considering what was said 6 months ago

[bayman]

Just play your reserves or forgeit the game in the 3rd Tier SANFL and save the best players for the 2nd Tier Comp match.
Goes without saying!

Totaly agree

thiele are you agreeing that you'd rather win & put more value on the daffy duck cup than an sanfl match ?....you've got to be kidding mate !!!

[Grahaml]

Anyone else having visions of a little kid pouting and trying so hard to say he didn't want that toy anyway when someone else got it?

[Wedgie]

Just play your reserves or forgeit the game in the 3rd Tier SANFL and save the best players for the 2nd Tier Comp match.
Goes without saying!

Totaly agree

thiele are you agreeing that you'd rather win & put more value on the daffy duck cup than an sanfl match ?....you've got to be kidding mate !!!

Daffy Duck >>>> Mickey Mouse

[sjt]

If three of the clubs have declined participation on the basis that it will cost them money (even if if they were to win the comp)

"the cost of participating would not be fully covered by the prize money on offer, and
would therefore ultimately represent a new cost to our Clubs. "

then how are Port Magpies able/allowed to compete? Are they spending borrowed money on a loss making venture?
I can understand the two profitable clubs participating, deeming the benefits outweigh their costs (although I still don't believe this detail is known).

[Hondo]

sjt,

I think that's because one of the reasons they declined was that the final details weren't known yet another of the reasons they gave was that costs would be > prize money. How could they know this if the final details weren't known? I think the 3 clubs should have put a "we believe" or "we estimate" in front of their quote. Maybe they did in the original press release?

I think what happened (as I heard from various media stories) was that costs were covered by the AFL up to a certain level which allowed a certain number of players and officials to travel. However the 3 clubs that declined wanted to send additional people with the group and the AFL refused to fund those extra people.

I can only assume PAM are prepared to work within the AFL's budget so it's not an extra cost to them. I wonder too if the clubs that declined looked at the absolute worst case scenario whereas the PAM, etc would look at other ways to spin revenues from the games.

[Hazydog]

added to that the PAM may be able to utilise some of the Power's support staff, (assuming they were playing in an interstate curtain raiser to the Power.)

[Royal City]

sjt,

I think that's because one of the reasons they declined was that the final details weren't known yet another of the reasons they gave was that costs would be > prize money. How could they know this if the final details weren't known? I think the 3 clubs should have put a "we believe" or "we estimate" in front of their quote. Maybe they did in the original press release?

I think what happened (as I heard from various media stories) was that costs were covered by the AFL up to a certain level which allowed a certain number of players and officials to travel. However the 3 clubs that declined wanted to send additional people with the group and the AFL refused to fund those extra people.

I can only assume PAM are prepared to work within the AFL's budget so it's not an extra cost to them. I wonder too if the clubs that declined looked at the absolute worst case scenario whereas the PAM, etc would look at other ways to spin revenues from the games.

So to summarise your assumption.

those who turned it down = BAD.

Those who accepted = GOOD.

[Grahaml]

Those who turned it down realised it would compromise their SANFL premiership hopes. Those who accepted had no realistic hopes of winning the SANFL premiership, but could win this competition. A few wins with some ordinary opposition thrown in and they have something they can actually achieve. Especially knowing several of the best clubs elegible declined, and other major VFL/WAFL sides might end up fielding a B grade side.

All that is really needed from North, Port and West is an admission that since they can't win an SANFL flag this year they went for the next best thing and the story will be complete.

[holden78]

ITS A JAOOOKE JOKE COMP. What dont you pinheads get ?

[beenreal]

Those who turned it down realised it would compromise their SANFL premiership hopes. Those who accepted had no realistic hopes of winning the SANFL premiership, but could win this competition. A few wins with some ordinary opposition thrown in and they have something they can actually achieve. Especially knowing several of the best clubs elegible declined, and other major VFL/WAFL sides might end up fielding a B grade side.

All that is really needed from North, Port and West is an admission that since they can't win an SANFL flag this year they went for the next best thing and the story will be complete.

Why the hell do they need admit anything. Other clubs turned down the opportunity, Port, North and west took it up.

End of story!

[Hondo]

Those who turned it down realised it would compromise their SANFL premiership hopes. Those who accepted had no realistic hopes of winning the SANFL premiership, but could win this competition. A few wins with some ordinary opposition thrown in and they have something they can actually achieve. Especially knowing several of the best clubs elegible declined, and other major VFL/WAFL sides might end up fielding a B grade side.

All that is really needed from North, Port and West is an admission that since they can't win an SANFL flag this year they went for the next best thing and the story will be complete.

There's no precedent for this type of thinking though. I saw some YouTube highlights of the 1985 Fosters Cup GF which was Essendon v Hawthorn. The same Essendon and Hawthorn that played off in their 3rd day premiership in 3 years at the end of that season. That was when they played 22 rounds in a row and had to play their 4 Fosters Cup games mid week at night. Hawthorn also won the Fosters Cup in 1986 when they also won the day premiership. Never before that I can think of have clubs declined invitations to secondary competitions like this using that argument.

At this stage, the argument that it compromises your premiership chances is speculation. Speculation that probably won't be able to be proven one way or the other. Unless one of the state teams that plays can win their state premiership as well.

[Grahaml]

So you're happy that you have an SANFL match the day after the final? Will you play your full strength side in the final of this comp if you're sitting a game ahead of 6th and a game behind 3rd? Especially if that game happens to be against on of those teams you're fighting for a finals berth. Or are you just expecting your SANFL season to be shot by then so you can afford to not worry if 4 blokes back up but 17 can't?

[Hondo]

So to summarise your assumption.

those who turned it down = BAD.

Those who accepted = GOOD.

It wouldn't be an assumption. It would be my opinion. But it isn't my assumption or my opinion. I don't think clubs can be "good" or "bad" based on decisions like this that they choose to make. I don't agree with those that turned it down for reasons I have said before but that doesn't mean they are bad and I respect their right to make their own decision.

[Grahaml]

Those who turned it down realised it would compromise their SANFL premiership hopes. Those who accepted had no realistic hopes of winning the SANFL premiership, but could win this competition. A few wins with some ordinary opposition thrown in and they have something they can actually achieve. Especially knowing several of the best clubs elegible declined, and other major VFL/WAFL sides might end up fielding a B grade side.

All that is really needed from North, Port and West is an admission that since they can't win an SANFL flag this year they went for the next best thing and the story will be complete.

There's no precedent for this type of thinking though. I saw some YouTube highlights of the 1985 Fosters Cup GF which was Essendon v Hawthorn. The same Essendon and Hawthorn that played off in their 3rd day premiership in 3 years at the end of that season. That was when they played 22 rounds in a row and had to play their 4 Fosters Cup games mid week at night. Hawthorn also won the Fosters Cup in 1986 when they also won the day premiership. Never before that I can think of have clubs declined invitations to secondary competitions like this using that argument.

At this stage, the argument that it compromises your premiership chances is speculation. Speculation that probably won't be able to be proven one way or the other. Unless one of the state teams that plays can win their state premiership as well.

That was firstly a different era when players didn't have to work as hard on the day, secondly not backing up the next day in a different state and thirdly I wonder how seriously Essendon and Hawthorn took those games. Did blokes carry injuries into Foster's cup matches like permiership season matches?

[Hondo]

So you're happy that you have an SANFL match the day after the final? Will you play your full strength side in the final of this comp if you're sitting a game ahead of 6th and a game behind 3rd? Especially if that game happens to be against on of those teams you're fighting for a finals berth. Or are you just expecting your SANFL season to be shot by then so you can afford to not worry if 4 blokes back up but 17 can't?

I think we've got to wait and see how it pans out and manage everything from there. I don't know if your scenario will come true. We might lose in round 1. We've got young, fit players who should be able to cope. The second game might replace most of the training for that week. Who knows? I don't see it as the complete write off of that particular SANFL round and I don't see that 1 game as breaking our season if we are good enough. I think you are making too much of it TBH but we'll see.

[baggy8]

Well said Hondo. Interesting that Swan Districts, Claremont and East Perth never considered that this comp. might compromise their premiership chances and it's surely a greater interruption to their season (because of the greater distances involved) than to the SANFL clubs. Good luck to North, West and Port. The reaction of the top five clubs is lamentable and unfortunately typical of a South Australian 'chip on the shoulder' inferiority complex when it comes to anything associated with the AFL. Tossing away an opportunity to promote your club on a national stage is absurd. McDermott's column about a 'hidden agenda' didn't help much either. How neurotic can you get?

[Grahaml]

So you're happy that you have an SANFL match the day after the final? Will you play your full strength side in the final of this comp if you're sitting a game ahead of 6th and a game behind 3rd? Especially if that game happens to be against on of those teams you're fighting for a finals berth. Or are you just expecting your SANFL season to be shot by then so you can afford to not worry if 4 blokes back up but 17 can't?

I think we've got to wait and see how it pans out and manage everything from there. I don't know if your scenario will come true. We might lose in round 1. We've got young, fit players who should be able to cope. The second game might replace most of the training for that week. Who knows? I don't see it as the complete write off of that particular SANFL round and I don't see that 1 game as breaking our season if we are good enough. I think you are making too much of it TBH but we'll see.

Lol. So all clubs should just go in and hope to lose before it becomes any issue? Backing up after a game can and has happened before, but not an entire team. And not key members of teams, just fringe players who come on for a short time then off again. I think from memory North might play Port on the Sunday. That game being important for one of both sides to make finals is far from out of the question. Would a club be foolish enough to expect to play both flat out? If not, which do they choose not to play their main side in? This is something the top sides (IMHO) were not willing to put their teams through.

[JK]

The reaction of the top five clubs is lamentable and unfortunately typical of a South Australian 'chip on the shoulder' inferiority complex when it comes to anything associated with the AFL. Tossing away an opportunity to promote your club on a national stage is absurd.

I dont really understand that - Do we think that only us supporters see the opportunity for exposure but the blokes who run our clubs aren't clever enough to understand that? I think we have to trust their reasons.

And they haven't necessarily missed the boat on the exposure altogether (for this one season, perhaps yes) .. If the competition survives for a number of years then the clubs should get another opportunity, and if it only lasts for a year or two then what meaning did it have anyway?

I'm still surprised that this is even an issue, as someone said earlier, 5 clubs said "No" 3 clubs said "Yes Please" and it's all settled, we all move on