cennals05 wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Any word on changes to rules for the two imposters for next season?
There will be a cap on how many AFL listed players can play next year. Expect to hear it announced soon apparently.
21?
by Kahuna » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:34 pm
cennals05 wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Any word on changes to rules for the two imposters for next season?
There will be a cap on how many AFL listed players can play next year. Expect to hear it announced soon apparently.
by banterfordays » Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:02 pm
goddy11 wrote:Its a sad state of affairs what is happening at the SANFL. The management of the SANFL that once owned the AFL teams is now a rubber stamp for them. Once local players drafted went back to play for the local clubs and their salaries were carried by the AFL teams. Now as rookies, they move to the AFL teams free of charge. These players in reality will not play much if any AFL but will play against their local clubs. The Port Magpies are totally an AFL side but through some wheeling and dealing do not pay a fee to the SANFL but enjoy all the benefits. Our SANFL pays for under 18 and under 16 state coaches that develop player for the AFL. Our club pay out of their own pockets to develop players and supply various levels of competition only for the players to leave for peanuts to the AFL. Our State government bank rolls the PAP and sponsors the academies but what does it do to help the local league and country leagues.
The AFL throws buckets of money into the Vic U18s as well as GWS and the Suns but very little into grass roots. Until the PAP, the AFC and AFL take more Fiscal responsibility this thread will never end.
by goddy11 » Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:41 pm
banterfordays wrote:goddy11 wrote:Its a sad state of affairs what is happening at the SANFL. The management of the SANFL that once owned the AFL teams is now a rubber stamp for them. Once local players drafted went back to play for the local clubs and their salaries were carried by the AFL teams. Now as rookies, they move to the AFL teams free of charge. These players in reality will not play much if any AFL but will play against their local clubs. The Port Magpies are totally an AFL side but through some wheeling and dealing do not pay a fee to the SANFL but enjoy all the benefits. Our SANFL pays for under 18 and under 16 state coaches that develop player for the AFL. Our club pay out of their own pockets to develop players and supply various levels of competition only for the players to leave for peanuts to the AFL. Our State government bank rolls the PAP and sponsors the academies but what does it do to help the local league and country leagues.
The AFL throws buckets of money into the Vic U18s as well as GWS and the Suns but very little into grass roots. Until the PAP, the AFC and AFL take more Fiscal responsibility this thread will never end.
You mean how port forgo their voting rights, and share of AAMI stadium being sold fund?
Let alone how no one would be interested in televising the SANFL if it wasn't for the reserve sides.
Sounds like you're all for AFLSA, I know I am.
by CUTTERMAN » Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:22 pm
banterfordays wrote:goddy11 wrote:Its a sad state of affairs what is happening at the SANFL. The management of the SANFL that once owned the AFL teams is now a rubber stamp for them. Once local players drafted went back to play for the local clubs and their salaries were carried by the AFL teams. Now as rookies, they move to the AFL teams free of charge. These players in reality will not play much if any AFL but will play against their local clubs. The Port Magpies are totally an AFL side but through some wheeling and dealing do not pay a fee to the SANFL but enjoy all the benefits. Our SANFL pays for under 18 and under 16 state coaches that develop player for the AFL. Our club pay out of their own pockets to develop players and supply various levels of competition only for the players to leave for peanuts to the AFL. Our State government bank rolls the PAP and sponsors the academies but what does it do to help the local league and country leagues.
The AFL throws buckets of money into the Vic U18s as well as GWS and the Suns but very little into grass roots. Until the PAP, the AFC and AFL take more Fiscal responsibility this thread will never end.
You mean how port forgo their voting rights, and share of AAMI stadium being sold fund?
Let alone how no one would be interested in televising the SANFL if it wasn't for the reserve sides.
Sounds like you're all for AFLSA, I know I am.
by Dogs72 » Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:52 pm
cennals05 wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Any word on changes to rules for the two imposters for next season?
There will be a cap on how many AFL listed players can play next year. Expect to hear it announced soon apparently.
by Groucho » Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:21 pm
Kahuna wrote:cennals05 wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Any word on changes to rules for the two imposters for next season?
There will be a cap on how many AFL listed players can play next year. Expect to hear it announced soon apparently.
21?
by am Bays » Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:24 pm
Dogs72 wrote: I'm hearing the SANFL is completely spineless (I know we knew this already). The SANFL is keen to bow to the whims of the Crows (for no logical reason). Tonight's interview highlighted it - Kelly as the SANFL representative and leader just doesn't get it - or care.
by Dutchy » Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:33 pm
by therisingblues » Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 pm
Dutchy wrote:I don't agree with a cap, I don't think that a poor Crows/Port team in the SANFL doesn't help the comp either.
If there is a cap where do the players that miss out play?
by RB » Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:54 pm
by Jim05 » Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:49 pm
Dutchy wrote:I don't agree with a cap, I don't think that a poor Crows/Port team in the SANFL doesn't help the comp either.
If there is a cap where do the players that miss out play?
by johntheclaret » Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:32 am
RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.
by Magellan » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:53 am
RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.
by Dutchy » Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:39 pm
Jim05 wrote:Dutchy wrote:I don't agree with a cap, I don't think that a poor Crows/Port team in the SANFL doesn't help the comp either.
If there is a cap where do the players that miss out play?
Who cares where they go.
would much rather see them beaten by 10 goals each week than win a game
by therisingblues » Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:59 pm
Dutchy wrote:Jim05 wrote:Dutchy wrote:I don't agree with a cap, I don't think that a poor Crows/Port team in the SANFL doesn't help the comp either.
If there is a cap where do the players that miss out play?
Who cares where they go.
would much rather see them beaten by 10 goals each week than win a game
I think there might be 2 AFL teams that care, hence why it won't happen
by therisingblues » Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:01 pm
Magellan wrote:RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.
Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.
Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
by RB » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:26 pm
Magellan wrote:RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.
Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.
Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
by Wedgie » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:39 pm
RB wrote:Magellan wrote:RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.
Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.
Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
What I meant was, having caps on AFL players may be fairer in terms of competition but doesn't improve the integrity issues.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by tipper » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:53 am
Wedgie wrote:RB wrote:Magellan wrote:RB wrote:I agree with Dutchy. The more you mess with it, the more the integrity of the comp is damaged.
Either something has integrity, or it doesn't. The SANFL sold its integrity for the metaphorical equivalent of a turd covered in glitter with a note attached saying 'by the way, this is not a turd'.
Whilst I agree with capping, it won't restore integrity until the reserves side are removed. We're still shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
What I meant was, having caps on AFL players may be fairer in terms of competition but doesn't improve the integrity issues.
How about bucket hats or beanies?
by Dutchy » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:53 pm
therisingblues wrote:Yes, the AFL teams call the shots. No, this would not make me care if they had a problem finding somewhere for their overflow to play.
Why should we?
Are you advocating a "why bother, we can't win" stance Dutchy? Reading the above exchange seems to suggest that what's good for the reserves is good for the SANFL in your opinion?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |