AFL Reserves Discussion...

[SDK]

So other clubs can replace the players lost to the Crows and Norwood and West cant ? And Norwood have 2 to replace, West have 3.
I repeat we did not exceed the salary cap.

[heater31]

So other clubs can replace the players lost to the Crows and Norwood and West cant ? And Norwood have 2 to replace, West have 3.
I repeat we did not exceed the salary cap.

But you broke the rules governing the Salary Cap.


Perhaps if your President didn't cave in and stuck with his original position then this wouldn't be an issue.

[UK Fan]

So other clubs can replace the players lost to the Crows and Norwood and West cant ? And Norwood have 2 to replace, West have 3.
I repeat we did not exceed the salary cap.

YOu can replace them. Via returning delisted/retiring former norwood juniors leaving afl clubs and players at clubs in local area ????

Who said you couldnt,.

[UK Fan]

We are only recruiting/replacing what the Crows are taking.
No Crows no loss of players.
No Crows no recruiting/replacing.

Well they will be taking 2 of North's home grown talents so where is the fairness when Norwood who were banned from recruiting for cheating are suddenly in the same market as North and the other clubs having to find replacements? What concession do we get for not breaking the rules yet having to replace players we wouldn't have had to worry about if this whole AFL Reserves thing hadn't happened?

Norwood could, by virtue of their position (a. being the top local club and b. the fact they are proven "cheaters" re throwing more "dirty" $$$ at potential recruits) replace 3 Crows players with 3 gun recruits which then may take away any need to worry re not being able to recruit others becasue of the original penalty! those recruits can come from anywhere and the market for top VFL / WAFL and or ex / delisted AFL players gets smaller every year!

The ruling is a joke and hence why the other clubs are angry!

OTR did Bohdan falsely claim the commission would overrule the league directors if motion to have crows in sanfl was voted against ??????

[UK Fan]

So other clubs can replace the players lost to the Crows and Norwood and West cant ? And Norwood have 2 to replace, West have 3.
I repeat we did not exceed the salary cap.

But you broke the rules governing the Salary Cap.


Perhaps if your President didn't cave in and stuck with his original position then this wouldn't be an issue.

Fair point!!!!

[JK]

So other clubs can replace the players lost to the Crows and Norwood and West cant ? And Norwood have 2 to replace, West have 3.
I repeat we did not exceed the salary cap.

But you broke the rules governing the Salary Cap.


Perhaps if your President didn't cave in and stuck with his original position then this wouldn't be an issue.

Can cop that from Dogs and South fans, but your mob couldn't sign up fast enough

[heater31]

So other clubs can replace the players lost to the Crows and Norwood and West cant ? And Norwood have 2 to replace, West have 3.
I repeat we did not exceed the salary cap.

But you broke the rules governing the Salary Cap.


Perhaps if your President didn't cave in and stuck with his original position then this wouldn't be an issue.

Can cop that from Dogs and South fans, but your mob couldn't sign up fast enough

Which I can't work out why they did. Not happy about it!

[on the rails]

OTR did Bohdan falsely claim the commission would overrule the league directors if motion to have crows in sanfl was voted against ??????

In as many words but he has since corrected himself. I suggest part of his original coments were part of the yes campaign scare which worked! The simple fact is that if the vote was overwhelmingly No such as 6-2 for No then that was it, the Commission cannot over rule the League Directors on this matter.

[on the rails]

Which I can't work out why they did. Not happy about it!

Because your club is a terrible financial bind maybe? That also applies to West and Glenelg, worse than would be publically admitted by all 3 I suggest and the survival of the comp and having 8 teams financially viable was also factored into the yes vote from North and dare I say it the same thoughts would have been the case with the Eagles. Not sure about Norwood as to think they would be too concerned about anything outside the walls of the Parade?

[SDK]

North were strongly NO at first but changed as did Norwood. Both clubs must have eventually got more information and North must have got it before Norwood.
Seems to be the same information...... even a NO majority would make no difference.

OTR you are wrong Norwood were very concerned about the financial state of those 3 clubs as would ALL SANFL clubs.

I also repeat my personal opinion .... NO !!!!

[heater31]

Which I can't work out why they did. Not happy about it!

Because your club is a terrible financial bind maybe? That also applies to West and Glenelg, worse than would be publically admitted by all 3 I suggest and the survival of the comp and having 8 teams financially viable was also factored into the yes vote from North and dare I say it the same thoughts would have been the case with the Eagles. Not sure about Norwood as to think they would be too concerned about anything outside the walls of the Parade?

But the Easy money on the table is going to be swallowed up by other factors relating to this decision. if it impacts negatively as many believe.

Would only need to see a drop of around 300 paid members or thereabouts next year to see the Cows cash be swallowed up.

we are back to where we started.

[SDK]

Correct.

[on the rails]

North were strongly NO at first but changed as did Norwood. Both clubs must have eventually got more information and North must have got it before Norwood.
Seems to be the same information...... even a NO majority would make no difference.

OTR you are wrong Norwood were very concerned about the financial state of those 3 clubs as would ALL SANFL clubs.

I also repeat my personal opinion .... NO !!!!

To be fair, I was being "flippant" re my Norwood comment.

A No majority would have stopped it but the fear of the Crows taking their money into the SAAFL (I think it was a bluff personally?) along with media exposure for the SANFL significantly reduced, relevance of the comp down graded even further than it presently is and the fear funding money from the AFL by-passing the SANFL and being channelled into the SAAFL would result in the death of 2 clubs and ultimately the League saw the Yes vote prevail. The Commission, the SANFL and AFL "spin doctors" did well!

[UK Fan]

Slaven claimed it didnt he Aerie/LEH ????


What about Chiggy Pseudo/Ecky/Dutchy ???

[SDK]

Now I am agreeing with you OTR.

[on the rails]

Now I am agreeing with you.

lol who?

[SDK]

YOU !!!

[UK Fan]

North were strongly NO at first but changed as did Norwood. Both clubs must have eventually got more information and North must have got it before Norwood.
Seems to be the same information...... even a NO majority would make no difference.
OTR you are wrong Norwood were very concerned about the financial state of those 3 clubs as would ALL SANFL clubs.

I also repeat my personal opinion .... NO !!!!

And again this is wrong.

The SANFL constitution could not be more explicit about this. Nothing the commission can do would be able to overide the clause forbidding them to include or expel teams. It is almost as this clause was worded knowing that this is what the Commission would try to pull.

[on the rails]

YOU !!!

LOL! As much as I was against the AFL Reservers coming in, I think looking at the reasons the clubs decided to vote Yes on are all real and valid. I had cocenrs too about the SANFL if we were competing in the same City against a lesser league but with AFL influence and media attention tied to it what would happen to the SANFL ultimately.

[JK]

YOU !!!

LOL! As much as I was against the AFL Reservers coming in, I think looking at the reasons the clubs decided to vote Yes on are all real and valid. I had cocenrs too about the SANFL if we were competing in the same City against a lesser league but with AFL influence and media attention tied to it what would happen to the SANFL ultimately.

That is my opinion also. Who knows whether the decision made will help or hinder and same for if the alternate decision had been made. However I can see why the clubs voted this way. I don't like having AFL reserves in the SANFL in the slightest, but the minute the Crows forced the issue there was threat either way to the SANFL and it's clubs, and I kinda think the SANFL might have given themselves the best chance to survive this way.