by sib » Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:36 pm
by PhilH » Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:41 pm
by saintal » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:27 pm
PhilH wrote:North Melbourne going it alone with team in VFL next year.
3 of those alignments have forced clubs to adopt identity of AFL team
Northern Blues (Carlton) from Preston Knights
Box Hill Hawks (Hawthorn) from Mustangs
Casey Demons (Melbourne) from Scoropions
Only St Kilda with Sandringham Zebras remains an alignment with a team of seperate identity.
by Jim05 » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:32 pm
PhilH wrote:North Melbourne going it alone with team in VFL next year.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-24/roos-to-field-standalone-vfl-team-from-next-year
That tips the balance in the VFL to 6 AFL reserves teams, 4 alignments.
3 of those alignments have forced clubs to adopt identity of AFL team
Northern Blues (Carlton) from Preston Knights
Box Hill Hawks (Hawthorn) from Mustangs
Casey Demons (Melbourne) from Scoropions
Only St Kilda with Sandringham Zebras remains an alignment with a team of seperate identity.
Would leave Port Melbourne, Wiliamstown, North Ballarat (if they stay in) and now Werribee as stand alone VFL teams.
by Dutchy » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:15 am
by am Bays » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:29 am
Dutchy wrote:Hopefully this means an AFL reserves comp is getting closer with the VFL and SANFL reverting back to genuine 2nd tier comps.
by UK Fan » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:03 pm
stan wrote:@Uk fan I was saying the AFL pushing out the SANFL from the SMA. Basically the SANFL having no slice at all. I was referring to the AFL killing of the SANFL.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
by Pseudo » Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:28 pm
Gozu wrote:Perhaps I should've said third-rate comp. Think about it Channel 7 deal would disappear,
by therisingblues » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:29 pm
Pseudo wrote:Gozu wrote:Perhaps I should've said third-rate comp. Think about it Channel 7 deal would disappear,
Yes, without channel 7's commitment to the SANFL there would be no free to air TV coverage of today's Grand Final replay.
Oh, hang on....
by Gozu » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:43 pm
therisingblues wrote:On a side note, the ramifications that Gozu outlined in his last post were what the Crows threatened if we didn't allow them to join the league.
by Gozu » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:47 pm
Pseudo wrote:Gozu wrote:Perhaps I should've said third-rate comp. Think about it Channel 7 deal would disappear,
Yes, without channel 7's commitment to the SANFL there would be no free to air TV coverage of today's Grand Final replay.
Oh, hang on....
by therisingblues » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:55 pm
Gozu wrote:therisingblues wrote:On a side note, the ramifications that Gozu outlined in his last post were what the Crows threatened if we didn't allow them to join the league.
What were they? I remember the Crows threatened to play in the Ammo's as laughable as that threat was. Again I'm not defending what has happened what's done is done unfortunately you can't unscramble an egg. Playing devil's advocate here the SANFL clubs signed off on this allowing it to happen and I suspect they knew the clubs/comp was in trouble and thought getting the AFL clubs more involved would either prolong the life of the comp or possibly even turn it around.
I know everyone here wants the SANFL to go it alone give those pricks at the AFL the big finger and all that but maybe the brass of the SANFL clubs knew something the fans don't about the health and potential viability of the comp?
by therisingblues » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:58 pm
Gozu wrote:Pseudo wrote:Gozu wrote:Perhaps I should've said third-rate comp. Think about it Channel 7 deal would disappear,
Yes, without channel 7's commitment to the SANFL there would be no free to air TV coverage of today's Grand Final replay.
Oh, hang on....
Didn't the ABC give the SANFL the arse?
by Gozu » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:12 pm
therisingblues wrote:There was also this one....
and if the AFL ever start up a reserves comp they'll bail on the SANFL like no tomorrow and take all the contacts with them.
I remember one of the Crows boys in the paper threatening the bolded part. I forget the exact wording, but it was to the effect that they would take all their media and sponsorship clout with them to wherever it was they would land and then promote that comp, while basically using that same clout to shut down the SANFL. That was the gist of what they actually said in the media. I think what took place behind doors would have been more rotten. Remember, they had already held one vote that ended unfavourably for them, they upped the ante after that with a mix of carrot or stick.
For the record, I am not wanting to get rid of them purely to shwo them the finger, I just want them out because their presence is destroying what maeks the comp valuable. I don't think it is too late yet, but it soon will be. We need them out at the end of this year at the latest. I would even say that confirmation of them leaving at the end of this year would boost crowds.
by Gozu » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:19 pm
therisingblues wrote:Gozu wrote:Pseudo wrote:Gozu wrote:Perhaps I should've said third-rate comp. Think about it Channel 7 deal would disappear,
Yes, without channel 7's commitment to the SANFL there would be no free to air TV coverage of today's Grand Final replay.
Oh, hang on....
Didn't the ABC give the SANFL the arse?
Yes, we had poor media coverage before. Now we have the cancers, and poor (and worsening) media coverage. Now what was one of those promises they made so that they could join the comp?
by tipper » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:27 pm
Gozu wrote:Would you define a game a week on Channel 7 (sometimes two games) worse than a game a week on the ABC I certainly wouldn't? Much more exposure on a commercial channel and with the potential for sponsorship/advertising not available on the ABC. The radio situation is sad but as I understand it that has nothing to do with the TV deal. I'm not sure giving members access to an internet stream is anything other than damage control, if you really wanted to grow the league you would open it up to be purchased by non-members or even to be viewed for free but I could understand the league not going down the free route. Once you start giving away something for nothing it's difficult to then down the track to start asking people to pay for it.
by therisingblues » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:33 pm
by Gozu » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:40 pm
tipper wrote:
now be fair Gozu. when has 7 broadcast 2 games in a weekend?i must have missed that.
also, i believe you can purchase the internet streams as a non member. its just significantly cheaper for members. something they have actually got right imo. finally gives members a tangible benefit
by Gozu » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:48 pm
therisingblues wrote:The media coverage often favours the two AFL sides. Not just the telecast, but general SANFL news is often jsut how the AFL reserves did.
The main point is the cost of them being in the comp was the extra coverage. If that coverage is eroded, or blatantly favours the reserves then there's less point in them being in the league.
by Pseudo » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:48 pm
Gozu wrote:Would you define a game a week on Channel 7 (sometimes two games) worse than a game a week on the ABC I certainly wouldn't?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |