by johntheclaret » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:56 pm
by kickinit » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:21 pm
johntheclaret wrote:I've never really understood zoning or how it's decided. Apart from say a 5 mile radius or whatever from the club's home ground the rest would be open season with the 8 SANFL clubs using scouts.
What kind of system gives PAFC Salisbury as it's Zone?? It's ridiculous.
And if a kid wants to play for North he can't because he is in a Norwood zone. Why shouldn't he play for North if he wants to.
I guess the problem is the draft. Spending coin to scout kids, develop them and then lose them to the AFL is the problem, unless they raised the draft age to say 23. At least that way the development club would get up to 5 years worth of player.
Alternatively they could be drafted from 18 with the AFL club paying their wages until they are 23 but the player stays at his SANFL club. It would also open up the salary cap as any draftee being paid by his AFL club would be excluded from the salary cap.
Simples
by johntheclaret » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:37 pm
by bennymacca » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:46 pm
johntheclaret wrote:What a great idea. Agree 100%
If the AFL clubs aren't prepared to finance the state leagues to develop the kids, then totally agree. Scarp the AFL, get rid of the "made up" franchises like the Crows, WCE, GWS, Lions, Swans etc and promote the state leagues as it should be.
by RB » Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:55 pm
They tried that in the 19th century and it didn't work - everyone went to Norwood. It wouldn't be fair on the less popular teams.johntheclaret wrote:I've never really understood zoning or how it's decided. Apart from say a 5 mile radius or whatever from the club's home ground the rest would be open season with the 8 SANFL clubs using scouts.
What kind of system gives PAFC Salisbury as it's Zone?? It's ridiculous.
And if a kid wants to play for North he can't because he is in a Norwood zone. Why shouldn't he play for North if he wants
by SANFLnut » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:45 pm
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:09 am
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 am
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:13 am
Dogwatcher wrote:Hey, that's our zone and they're not refugees!
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:15 am
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:28 am
by Ian » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:57 am
Wedgie wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Wedgie, is Kilburn North or Port these days?
Definitely not Port, we had this discussion in another thread and someone thought it was the Eagles area but the final consensus was it was Norths area I think.
Its an interesting topic as an argument against using junior registrations is there would be less incentive for clubs to get involved at Auskick level to get kids signed up for footy.
by am Bays » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:02 am
Dogwatcher wrote:There's a move by some to have the zones decided around player base, rather than population base.
The CDFC would certainly be interested in seeing that.
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:13 am
Ian wrote:Wedgie wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Wedgie, is Kilburn North or Port these days?
Definitely not Port, we had this discussion in another thread and someone thought it was the Eagles area but the final consensus was it was Norths area I think.
Its an interesting topic as an argument against using junior registrations is there would be less incentive for clubs to get involved at Auskick level to get kids signed up for footy.
Yep, it is in North's areaNAFC recruiting zone 2014.JPG
When I looked that up I was surprised North only have 7 clubs in their zone (including Kilburn) with juniors
Adelaide Uni (no jnrs)
BOS (no jnrs)
Broadview
Gaza
Gepps Cross
Greeacres
Ingle Farm
Kilburn
Walkerville
I'm not sure how that would stack up against the other clubs
by cracka » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:28 am
JK wrote:Norwood will lose their Hills zone most likely to Sturt I would think. Would think there's a domino effect so most if not all clubs zones would be amended.
by bennymacca » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:14 am
Dogwatcher wrote:
Elizabeth
Smithfield
Central United
Eastern Park
Central United
Salisbury?
Brahma Lodge?
Angle Vale - I'm guessing
by Dogwatcher » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:38 am
by PhilH » Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:38 pm
by Ronnie » Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:27 pm
by Aerie » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:07 am
Ronnie wrote:SANFL also now having to deal with some hostile media figures. The Crows have a heap of media 'ambassadors' and it's beyond belief they wouldn't expect them to promote Crow interests. Port have their boosters like Russell and Rucci. Even Ricciuto now critical of SANFL take from Adelaide Oval. Effectively the AFL pays the wages of commentators like the Roo so it's hardly surprising but it's a real issue now. I'm sure the club's leak info to the media and get their media mates to get out the baseball bats when they're not happy about the stadium deals etc. I did hear well over 1000 journos cover the AFL nation wide now so plenty of snouts in the trough. What SANFL perspective is allowed, Partland or someone gets a tiny column if he's lucky!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |