AFL Reserves Discussion...

[areaman]

The 2:1 vote is not a cross section of the SANFL Club membership base.

I'm not sure what conclusion you can draw - I didn't vote in it, in fact hadn't seen it - just the results. However it surely can be argued its a cross section of SA opinion.
As for it being a reflection on an individual club, well obviously no, however given how emotive the topic is, you would imagine many anti votes from club land would have voted.

No argument about that.

However from a SANFL Club Board's perspective the general cross section of the public is not relevant.

Their fate is tied to the opinions of the paid up and (in this case) quite passionate membership base.

The noisy minority within the state become the deafening and overwhelming majority when it comes to voting at an AGM or a Special GM.

Don't forget, the fate of the proposal is in the hands of the 8 President's votes. The noisy minority is in fact a very influential block if the Presidents intend to stay on at their clubs after this vote.

[TimmiesChin]

No argument about that.

However from a SANFL Club Board's perspective the general cross section of the public is not relevant.

Their fate is tied to the opinions of the paid up and (in this case) quite passionate membership base.

The noisy minority within the state become the deafening and overwhelming majority when it comes to voting at an AGM or a Special GM.

Don't forget, the fate of the proposal is in the hands of the 8 President's votes. The noisy minority is in fact a very influential block if the Presidents intend to stay on at their clubs after this vote.

Yep agree with all that.

But lets say (and I'm hypothesizing here) that at some point prior to the 'vote' club presidents came to the conclusion that letting them in was measurably better for the comp, and in turn their club, even though the "noisy minority/majority" was still opposed. Would they fall on their sword and take the chance they could convince the masses or vote based on existing member opinion.

I feel that ultimately, presidents will vote on what they understand to be best, rather than the wider based, and what will be will be. Or put differently, a president that votes against what he believes is in the best interests of his club to keep the masses quite probably shouldn't be the president.

[areaman]

No argument about that.

However from a SANFL Club Board's perspective the general cross section of the public is not relevant.

Their fate is tied to the opinions of the paid up and (in this case) quite passionate membership base.

The noisy minority within the state become the deafening and overwhelming majority when it comes to voting at an AGM or a Special GM.

Don't forget, the fate of the proposal is in the hands of the 8 President's votes. The noisy minority is in fact a very influential block if the Presidents intend to stay on at their clubs after this vote.

Yep agree with all that.

But lets say (and I'm hypothesizing here) that at some point prior to the 'vote' club presidents came to the conclusion that letting them in was measurably better for the comp, and in turn their club, even though the "noisy minority/majority" was still opposed. Would they fall on their sword and take the chance they could convince the masses or vote based on existing member opinion.

I feel that ultimately, presidents will vote on what they understand to be best, rather than the wider based, and what will be will be.

I've served on smaller club boards/committees, and sometimes the right decision isn't the popular one.

That will be the fascinating question.

Very few people have the courage of their convictions when faced with overwhelming opposition.

My hope is that the NO AFL campaign in fact persuades the Presidents that the opinion of their members is the correct one. I'd prefer they end up agreeing rather than just giving in reluctantly to popular opinion.

Pure base politics in action!

[UK Fan]

If a president wants to ignore his own members opinions for what he preceives is a "greater good".

Sorry its a president/boards job to represent its members wishes even if they dont always agree with them. And if this president doesnt want listen to us we will get one who will.

Ignore your members wishes at your peril IMHO.

[Booney]

If a president wants to ignore his own members opinions for what he preceives is a "greater good".

I wish him the best of luck with that.

Ignore your members wishes at your peril IMHO.

One wonders then if the league directors would be willing to vote on the opinion they have formed over and above that of the President/Board/Members view.

[TimmiesChin]

For the record, my position is to be against the Crows model of a single side only, and for any model which sees the Magpies survive and doesn't require a seperate power reserves side in any competition.

Hence I'm either for all power players to Magpies and Crows do the same, or the status quo to remain with a bit more cooperation and discussion between clubs on player development.

[Booney]

For the record, my position is to be against the Crows model of a single side only, and for any model which sees the Magpies survive and doesn't require a seperate power reserves side in any competition.

Hence I'm either for all power players to Magpies and Crows do the same, or the status quo to remain with a bit more cooperation and discussion between clubs on player development.

Interesting point.

Looking at a kid who has been drafted at 18, he would already have been bookmarked as a forward/mid/back. Now a mid is a mid is a mid. Always will be. Might be half back, might be half forward, but their all mid-fielders now anyway.

Forwards can go back and vice versa, but this is typically later in their careers, I think most will agree. Not usually in their first or second year of senior footy. So it's not so much about individual development but more about game style and team structures/the role your position plays.

So both the SANFL club and the AFL club would almost 100% of the time (I know there will be disputes) agree that "X" is a forward/mid/back but its the game style that differs and it always will. The physical aspect of AFL football with full time fitness, strength, endurance work means the style will always differ from SANFL. There are similarities, but it will always differ slightly.

I can see why the AFL clubs are so focused on structure and game style develoment. They do however have 5 days a week to teach the kid this and then for 2.5 hours on a Saturday he goes and does what he is told to do at SANFL level.

[UK Fan]

If a president wants to ignore his own members opinions for what he preceives is a "greater good".

I wish him the best of luck with that.

Ignore your members wishes at your peril IMHO.

One wonders then if the league directors would be willing to vote on the opinion they have formed over and above that of the President/Board/Members view.

Kickinit ?????

[SANFLnut]

The 2.5 hours of playing is the most important time of the week in terms of player development. Take Mitch Grigg for example and assume The Crows want to play him as a high half forward this week v Geelong. There is no doubt in my mind that the best preparation he can get for this is to have played the exact same role in their reserves side for a month and been supervised and had feedback delivered by Crows coaching staff. There is no doubt that having a reserves side would be better for Adelaide than the current situation. The most convenient existing competition for them to play in is the SANFL league comp.

Crows reserves in SANFL league comp = Best result for Crows

That is not the most relevant question though because it is the 8 SANFL clubs that will grant/deny permission for them to play, so the real question is:

What is the best scenario for 8 SANFL clubs?

I have left Port out of the above as I'm not sure whether they want to have an SANFL club with underage sides, Power reserves team, both, or all of the above in 1 team.

[therisingblues]

Can't give much creedence to a poll that fails to identify the status of those voting on this topic.
I'm sure if we had a poll open to Victorians and South Australians, and the question was "should Crows and Power be made to play all home finals on the MCG?" we might find the result 5 to 1 in favor of a "yes" vote. Would that make all those who believe the Crows and Power should be allowed to host home finals at Adelaide Oval a "vocal minority"?
I don't think it's fair to trivialize the debate by putting labels on the size of a supporter base when we have Jason before Goliath.
The analogy here is the Vics outnumber us about 5 to 1. Any poll asking for an SA sacrifice will show results skewed in their favour. Likewise Power/Crows fans outnumber SANFL purists by possibly 6 to 1. It's actually a wonder there wasn't a bigger vote in favour of the AFL club's needs on this.
The poll could have clarified this by asking if the voters were Port/Crows or SANFL followers.
We may be able to understand the difference, but the AFL masses in their little cocoons would look at those results and just see "vocal minority".

[LPH]

My concern is Adelaide seem to be moving along quietly to having their proposed model accepted and this too (with the SANFL declaring both teams would need to work to the same model) would spell the end of the Magpies. I'm not surprised that Adelaides model is seen as more attractive to the league directors, well, they are the team for all South Australians after all.

We all share this concern too, Booney.

The petition and all the other lobbying is just as much opposed to the Crows proposal as Port's.

Ironically the people on here pushing for the NO AFL cause are actually the Maggies best friends and their only chance of survival.

So beeny and kickinit, if you really want the Maggies to survive, get along to Prospect on Saturday and sign that petition!!

The problem seems to be there is black (Crows position), white (NO AFL in SANFL position), and grey (Port position) ....Both the black and white options effectively kill off port (assuming I understand the no AFL groups preference correctly.

Unless I'm mistaken, don't the No AFL group not only want no AFL reserves sides, but also want all the AFL aligned players pulled from the SANFL as well ?

To the best of my knowledge the NO AFL agenda is purely about the teams in the comp. There is no push to have the existing arrangement of AFL players spread over the 9 SANFL teams altered.

Yes this has it's own problems (heaven knows I'm not going to rehash these now) but we've been living with this arrangement for 23 years now and are coping with it.

If the two AFL clubs drop their proposals and keep the status quo I think the vast majority on this forum would consider it to be a succesful outcome.

And guess what - the Maggies continue under this scenario.

Simples.

As one of the 'antagonists', can I say this (& this is MY position only - I can not speak for the other 1500+ members of the Group):

1. I do NOT want Port Magpies to die - they are an integral part of OUR competition & I do NOT want them to become PAPs Reserves
2. Personally, I would be OK with the AFL Reserves Teams in the SANFL RESERVES (as a compromise) but with a WRITTEN UNDERTAKING from both them & the AFL, that this was a temporary measure until an AFL Reserves Competition came along (i.e. 2016, 18, whatever) - then they could be free to join that competition with little or no impact on our 135 year competition.
3. I do NOT want OUR competition to simply become' AFLSA' - & resulting in falling attendances such as those in Victoria or having the ridiculous situation as occurred to Peel Thunder this season (having to play a 42 yr old trainer to make up the numbers) - where is the 'Integrity' in that?
4. I would HATE to see the AFC envelope an existing SANFL Club - such as East Perth have in the WAFL
5. I think it is BEST that ALL existing AFL aligned players play for their AFL Reserves Teams (i.e. be removed from their SANFL Club list) - aforementioned Salary Cap issues & quite frankly don't want my Club's existing players like Vince, Salter, Broadbent, etc. playing against us in the League Competition
6. In terms of the $$$ issues @ some SANFL Clubs, I believe that could easily be sorted out (in time) by the SANFL selling some of it's assets such as; land @ West Lakes
7. I accept that the best thing for the PAFC & AFC is to have Reserves Teams, if fact I don't think this can be questioned - what I refuse to accept is how it will BENEFIT the SANFL League Competition to have these teams included, as they will undoubtedly be 'Development Teams'

These are MY main concerns.

I don't wish to sound like a 'rant' - I like the previous Malcolm X quote.
This is STILL Australia - where it's citizens are free to voice opinions & protest against perceived wrongs.
Apathy BREEDS apathy - this decision may well be a foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean people can't raise other people's awareness of the issues surrounding it.

NO AFL in the SANFL

[tipper]

As one of the 'antagonists', can I say this (& this is MY position only - I can not speak for the other 1500+ members of the Group):

1. I do NOT want Port Magpies to die - they are an integral part of OUR competition & I do NOT want them to become PAPs Reserves
2. Personally, I would be OK with the AFL Reserves Teams in the SANFL RESERVES (as a compromise) but with a WRITTEN UNDERTAKING from both them & the AFL, that this was a temporary measure until an AFL Reserves Competition came along (i.e. 2016, 18, whatever) - then they could be free to join that competition with little or no impact on our 135 year competition.
3. I do NOT want OUR competition to simply become' AFLSA' - & resulting in falling attendances such as those in Victoria or having the ridiculous situation as occurred to Peel Thunder this season (having to play a 42 yr old trainer to make up the numbers) - where is the 'Integrity' in that?
4. I would HATE to see the AFC envelope an existing SANFL Club - such as East Perth have in the WAFL
5. I think it is BEST that ALL existing AFL aligned players play for their AFL Reserves Teams (i.e. be removed from their SANFL Club list) - aforementioned Salary Cap issues & quite frankly don't want my Club's existing players like Vince, Salter, Broadbent, etc. playing against us in the League Competition
6. In terms of the $$$ issues @ some SANFL Clubs, I believe that could easily be sorted out (in time) by the SANFL selling some of it's assets such as; land @ West Lakes
7. I accept that the best thing for the PAFC & AFC is to have Reserves Teams, if fact I don't think this can be questioned - what I refuse to accept is how it will BENEFIT the SANFL League Competition to have these teams included, as they will undoubtedly be 'Development Teams'

These are MY main concerns.

I don't wish to sound like a 'rant' - I like the previous Malcolm X quote.
This is STILL Australia - where it's citizens are free to voice opinions & protest against perceived wrongs.
Apathy BREEDS apathy - this decision may well be a foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean people can't raise other people's awareness of the issues surrounding it.

NO AFL in the SANFL

very well summed up LEH, and i pretty much agree on every point.

[UK Fan]

If there is any centrals fans against our club voting in favour of afl reserves please pm myself.

You will receive correspondence on our options as members as to what we can do.

[CedeNullis]

Five AA is reporting that it is a fait accompli that the SANFL league competition with have AFL reserves teams next year. Great. Looking forward to watching a player CDFC develops then gets drafted to the Crows (for example) and possibly play against CDFC the following year. Throw in the pittance for the development, sounds like a great idea. Now this report is either true or someone's telling porkies.

[Lynwood]

Only 75 signatures are required to hold an SGM. Unlike AFL clubs we have options if we don't like how our board is handling things. I know of one president who is fully aware a yes vote will cost him his reign as president.

I'd be surprised if anyone lost a job over this. Calling an SGM is one thing, but having the votes to topple a president is another. ATM it appears 2/1 in favour of the change (Advertiser poll), so unless the representation at the SGM was stacked, one would think status quo would remain.

So you truly believe that an Advertiser poll is reflective of the attitudes of paid up SANFL club members? Unless I am mistaken to topple a club president doesn't require a poll be run in a newspaper. A vote would be reflective of the paid up club members not the attitudes of those responding to a news limited poll.

Adelaide now was done by Survey Monkey those polls are not hard to vote many times on. All you need to do is use a different web browser and you can vote from one computer at each, not to mention people voting from work computers and home as well as mobile devices. Only way to truly get a result is to go directly to the members

[am Bays]

Adelaide now was done by Survey Monkey those polls are not hard to vote many times on. All you need to do is use a different web browser and you can vote from one computer at each, not to mention people voting from work computers and home as well as mobile devices. Only way to truly get a result is to go directly to the members

Or set the settings to allow multiple responses from the one computer.

[Aerie]

As one of the 'antagonists', can I say this (& this is MY position only - I can not speak for the other 1500+ members of the Group):

1. I do NOT want Port Magpies to die - they are an integral part of OUR competition & I do NOT want them to become PAPs Reserves
2. Personally, I would be OK with the AFL Reserves Teams in the SANFL RESERVES (as a compromise) but with a WRITTEN UNDERTAKING from both them & the AFL, that this was a temporary measure until an AFL Reserves Competition came along (i.e. 2016, 18, whatever) - then they could be free to join that competition with little or no impact on our 135 year competition.
3. I do NOT want OUR competition to simply become' AFLSA' - & resulting in falling attendances such as those in Victoria or having the ridiculous situation as occurred to Peel Thunder this season (having to play a 42 yr old trainer to make up the numbers) - where is the 'Integrity' in that?
4. I would HATE to see the AFC envelope an existing SANFL Club - such as East Perth have in the WAFL
5. I think it is BEST that ALL existing AFL aligned players play for their AFL Reserves Teams (i.e. be removed from their SANFL Club list) - aforementioned Salary Cap issues & quite frankly don't want my Club's existing players like Vince, Salter, Broadbent, etc. playing against us in the League Competition
6. In terms of the $$$ issues @ some SANFL Clubs, I believe that could easily be sorted out (in time) by the SANFL selling some of it's assets such as; land @ West Lakes
7. I accept that the best thing for the PAFC & AFC is to have Reserves Teams, if fact I don't think this can be questioned - what I refuse to accept is how it will BENEFIT the SANFL League Competition to have these teams included, as they will undoubtedly be 'Development Teams'

These are MY main concerns.

I don't wish to sound like a 'rant' - I like the previous Malcolm X quote.
This is STILL Australia - where it's citizens are free to voice opinions & protest against perceived wrongs.
Apathy BREEDS apathy - this decision may well be a foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean people can't raise other people's awareness of the issues surrounding it.

NO AFL in the SANFL

I agree LEH, well said. Just a couple of points of difference - I am not fussed if Port Magpies are not part of the comp if they can only facilitate an AFL side. That is and should be there number one priority, if there is a way they can run separately again, then by all means do that. Also point 6, do you know if the assets and income would even be considered to be used to help SANFL clubs in the form of a grant?

[whufc]

No doubt there are alot of beneifts for the AFL clubs in having a reserves side, i can definatly understand why they would want this.

On the other hand i dont think it really hurts a footballer who may play at half back flank for an AFL side getting a serious run through the midfield in his aligned SANFL club.

Much like a cricketer who bats at six in the A Grade then when he plays B Grade bats at number 3.

Probably a poor comparison but hopefully you get what i mean.

[Gervais]

Five AA is reporting that it is a fait accompli that the SANFL league competition with have AFL reserves teams next year. Great. Looking forward to watching a player CDFC develops then gets drafted to the Crows (for example) and possibly play against CDFC the following year. Throw in the pittance for the development, sounds like a great idea. Now this report is either true or someone's telling porkies.

i've stayed out of this dicussion and have enjoyed (?) the arguments of most posters.

the one point i wanted to respond to is the bolded sentence above.

to see a norwood player drafted and play against us doesnt bother me in the slightest. the minute that we accept the afl payments (upon signing, first game, 10th game, etc) for developing him, that is the moment he becomes a power/crows player. he is their employee. they pay his wages. they are responsible for his welfare. to me, he is no longer ours and is no different to if he was drafted by any interstate team.

[Aerie]

Five AA is reporting that it is a fait accompli that the SANFL league competition with have AFL reserves teams next year. Great. Looking forward to watching a player CDFC develops then gets drafted to the Crows (for example) and possibly play against CDFC the following year. Throw in the pittance for the development, sounds like a great idea. Now this report is either true or someone's telling porkies.

i've stayed out of this dicussion and have enjoyed (?) the arguments of most posters.

the one point i wanted to respond to is the bolded sentence above.

to see a norwood player drafted and play against us doesnt bother me in the slightest. the minute that we accept the afl payments (upon signing, first game, 10th game, etc) for developing him, that is the moment he becomes a power/crows player. he is their employee. they pay his wages. they are responsible for his welfare. to me, he is no longer ours and is no different to if he was drafted by any interstate team.

I don't think many would mind the 18 year old leaving the club and playing against them, but players like Callinan, Rowe etc. who are gun players at SANFL level getting rookie listed and then spending the majority of the season playing against your side doesn't sit right with me. Theoretically Adelaide and Port could pick 2-3 mature rookies out of the SANFL each year. That is fine if they are getting AFL game time, but not if they're in the best players against your club.