Hands off the SANFL - In what way?

[sjt]

Isn't it a fairly accepted fact that the AFL pressured the SANFL to halve its salary cap a few years back and when they resisted the AFL severely reduced the development money they give to state leagues? From where I'm sitting that's damaging enough and a fairly clear cut example of them attempting to weaken the league.

I was told this story by someone who, at the time anyway, would have know exactly what the story was.

I look forward to being told I'm wrong though.

I don't think so. Not sure what it was pre 2008, but in 2008 it was apparently $400,000 in 2010 it was $350,000.
Also (from the SANFL website) , "EXISTING payments, including a $20,000 veterans’ allowance and a $5000 playing assistant coach allowance have been removed. Further limits have been placed on travel and rent subsidies and Reserve player payments",

[JK]

Isn't it a fairly accepted fact that the AFL pressured the SANFL to halve its salary cap a few years back and when they resisted the AFL severely reduced the development money they give to state leagues? From where I'm sitting that's damaging enough and a fairly clear cut example of them attempting to weaken the league.

I was told this story by someone who, at the time anyway, would have know exactly what the story was.

I look forward to being told I'm wrong though.

I don't think so. Not sure what it was pre 2008, but in 2008 it was apparently $400,000 in 2010 it was $350,000.

IIRC Topsy's pretty close to the money ... Whether the reduction in funding was based on what we'd had previously, or just not in line with an increase that other state leagues received, Im not sure.

[redandblack]

Seeing that we're all guessing, I'd guess that the cap has never been as much as $400,000.

It would be good to find out.

[sjt]

Seeing that we're all guessing, I'd guess that the cap has never been as much as $400,000.

It would be good to find out.

Just going by Wiki (which I know is not always correct)

"Salary capThe SANFL is classed as a semi-professional competition. In 2008 the league had a salary cap of $400,000 (excluding service payments).[4] This is the second highest in Australia for an Australian rules football competition behind the AFL."

However from a 2006 article:
"Port's idea is one of many being discussed by the clubs. Most agree the $305,000 salary cap - which has been adjusted just once since 1999 - should increase in line with the Consumer Price Index since '99. "

[JK]

Isn't it a fairly accepted fact that the AFL pressured the SANFL to halve its salary cap a few years back and when they resisted the AFL severely reduced the development money they give to state leagues? From where I'm sitting that's damaging enough and a fairly clear cut example of them attempting to weaken the league.

I was told this story by someone who, at the time anyway, would have know exactly what the story was.

I look forward to being told I'm wrong though.

I don't think so. Not sure what it was pre 2008, but in 2008 it was apparently $400,000 in 2010 it was $350,000.

IIRC Topsy's pretty close to the money ... Whether the reduction in funding was based on what we'd had previously, or just not in line with an increase that other state leagues received, Im not sure.

Now I am, just had this confirmed .. The other state leagues due to their affiliation with the AFL had their development funding significantly increased whereas the SANFL did not.

[redandblack]

That's correct, JK and I've previously said that is the one area where I feel we've been poorly treated.

The reasoning, which I strongly disagree with, is that our salary cap was far higher than the VFL and WAFL, so we were 'rich enough' to be paid less for junior development.

[JK]

That's correct, JK and I've previously said that is the one area where I feel we've been poorly treated.

The reasoning, which I strongly disagree with, is that our salary cap was far higher than the VFL and WAFL, so we were 'rich enough' to be paid less for junior development.

OK, well that was the inference that I'd always been given and had accepted - ie, that the AFL weren't happy that the SANFL at the time was moving so far ahead of the VFL and WAFL in particular, that common (or close) Salary Caps were wanted in these competitions by the AFL to somewhat equalise them.

When the SANFL didn't comply, it's "punishment" was to not receive the increased funding that the other leagues did ... Are you saying that this line of thinking is incorrect?

[topsywaldron]

When the SANFL didn't comply, it's "punishment" was to not receive the increased funding that the other leagues did

The AFL wanted something, the SANFL said no so they punished us. A pretty open and shut case of threat I'm saying.

Hands off the SANFL then!

[redandblack]

No, I think you're correct, JK.

As for 'hands off', topsy, it's their money and they're still giving us a million dollars

[redden whites]

I'm with R&B also.

[sjt]

I'm with R&B also.

Whereabouts?

[Pseudo]

When the SANFL didn't comply, it's "punishment" was to not receive the increased funding that the other leagues did

The AFL wanted something, the SANFL said no so they punished us. A pretty open and shut case of threat I'm saying.

Hands off the SANFL then!

Game, set and match topsy. Though you must realise it will not convince the AFL apologists; their holy crusade will continue regardless.

Nevertheless the above example is worth highlighting because it demonstrates something I was agonising about a week or two ago. For one brief moment, the SANFL spat out the AFL funding teat and said NO, middle finger pointing at the clouds. It must cause much cognitive dissonance among the AFL apologists to realise that not only did the SANFL survive, it did so with greater freedom. The sky didn't fall after all.

If only the SANFL had also had the fortitude to say NO when the AFL encouraged it to review the structure of its junior competitions.

[HOORAY PUNT]

I haven't read all the comments about the salary cap but I asked this before withh no response , what has our salary cap got to do with the AFL ? How can they pressure us to reduce it and why is it their money ?

[Mr Irate]

When the SANFL didn't comply, it's "punishment" was to not receive the increased funding that the other leagues did

The AFL wanted something, the SANFL said no so they punished us. A pretty open and shut case of threat I'm saying.

Hands off the SANFL then!

Game, set and match topsy. Though you must realise it will not convince the AFL apologists; their holy crusade will continue regardless.

Nevertheless the above example is worth highlighting because it demonstrates something I was agonising about a week or two ago. For one brief moment, the SANFL spat out the AFL funding teat and said NO, middle finger pointing at the clouds. It must cause much cognitive dissonance among the AFL apologists to realise that not only did the SANFL survive, it did so with greater freedom. The sky didn't fall after all.

If only the SANFL had also had the fortitude to say NO when the AFL encouraged it to review the structure of its junior competitions.

Have you left yet ?
How many of you ?
What route are you taking.....Anzac Highway, City, Main North Road or Tapleys Hill, Port Rd, Expressway/Salisbury Highway ?
Is it cold out there ?

[Barto]

For me it's about the right to exist, not just independence.

There are people out there (guess which team they support) who thinks the SANFL should just pack up and go quietly into the night and everyone left over who wants to watch live footy should head to Football Park to watch AFL games.

SA and WA are unique cases compared to the rest of the country, their (now) second tier comps were the main game in town until the VFL expanded. Although we accept the reduced profile, there are many people who still like to be involved with local footy and to suffer continued attacks from outside SA is bad enough, but to be attacked by people who live there is beyond the pale. I believe the latter is what has started this groundswell and backlash against the AFL encroachment on the local game and the people who enjoy SANFL footy have said 'enough is enough'.

At least here in Perth, the local media isn't constantly attacking the WAFL, despite what is happening with the local AFL teams wanting reserves sides. There have been both sides of the argument presented.

[HOORAY PUNT]

I wouldn't call WA & SA as unique ,I'd call them footy states.I would call NSW & QLD unique though. It's really dangerous forgetting about where you came from and the AFL have been doing it for years , and that cascades down to the SANFL & WAFL comp. Good luck rebuilding when the foundation is stuffed and the AFL are slowly seeing signs of their work since Demetriou has been in charge .It's called lag time .

[redandblack]

When the SANFL didn't comply, it's "punishment" was to not receive the increased funding that the other leagues did

The AFL wanted something, the SANFL said no so they punished us. A pretty open and shut case of threat I'm saying.

Hands off the SANFL then!

Game, set and match topsy. Though you must realise it will not convince the AFL apologists; their holy crusade will continue regardless.

Nevertheless the above example is worth highlighting because it demonstrates something I was agonising about a week or two ago. For one brief moment, the SANFL spat out the AFL funding teat and said NO, middle finger pointing at the clouds. It must cause much cognitive dissonance among the AFL apologists to realise that not only did the SANFL survive, it did so with greater freedom. The sky didn't fall after all.

If only the SANFL had also had the fortitude to say NO when the AFL encouraged it to review the structure of its junior competitions.

Pseudo, calling posters with a different opinion “AFL apologists’ doesn’t add anything to your argument. Neither does representing their arguments as a holy crusade. Self-declaring victory also doesn’t carry much weight.

To then point to the strength of the SANFL, something I’ve been repeatedly saying to support my argument that the AFL haven’t harmed the SANFL, is wonderfully breathtaking

The clubs voted for an Under 18 comp. I’m glad they did. I might be right or you might be right, it’s just a matter of opinion, mate.

If some are AFL apologists, then perhaps some are grumpy conspiracy theorists

[HOORAY PUNT]

I don't rememmebr the clubs voting for it. I remember some did and I think it went 5 -4 . I thhink you are inferring all clubs , hardly and that was a very very poor decision as fara sfooty is concerned.Just another one.

[redandblack]

HP, I didn't say all clubs voted for it. You're right, it was a majority.

Whether it should have happened is opinion.

[HOORAY PUNT]

Of course it's an opinion , this whole site is an opinion. The clubs that voted against it had the wrong opinion!! My opinion of couse.I tell ya ,hindsight will be a magnificent thing in 5 - 10 years . The AFL are ruining FOOTBALL . Football is not solely AFL . Bookmark all my comments on this arrogant dictatorship and show them in 5 - 10 -15 years.