Changes to the Salary Cap

[Wedgie]

If North voted for it I will be giving the board and the CEO an absolute blasting on Sunday!

North didn't vote for it and either did any other club. It was a Commission deal to appease the AFL who have been chipping away to reduce the strength of our comp for years. Due to where I have got my info from I can't comment at this time further than that but you can assume that North are furious to say the least.

The first step to AFLSA!

Cheers mate, sounds like I'll be shaking their hands and thanking them then. That's a rarity with me and our current board/ceo these days!

[drebin]

This was only passed because the clubs wanted it passed and the Commission just rubber-stamped it. Not only that, but apart from the import rule, the cap changes are just tinkering around the edges. Why are you all shouting doom and gloom over such minor changes? Why do you want to hang the Commission for agreeing to do what the clubs want them to do?

I believe the cap will be increased by a small amount in each of the next three years anyway.

If you think it's surrendering to the AFL , what would be your strategy to exist without AFL funding and support? Nobody seems to want to address that issue.

"We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan"

You might want to get your facts straight before taking others to task re what they post. As I said in my previous posts the clubs didn't agree to this and it was done without any vote or even proper consultation.

[The Sleeping Giant]

I believe the cap will be increased by a small amount in each of the next three years anyway.

How does that work? So the SANFL will decrease next years salary cap, then slighty increase it over 3 years?

Actually, that sounds about right with the way the SANFL is run.

[redandblack]

This was only passed because the clubs wanted it passed and the Commission just rubber-stamped it. Not only that, but apart from the import rule, the cap changes are just tinkering around the edges. Why are you all shouting doom and gloom over such minor changes? Why do you want to hang the Commission for agreeing to do what the clubs want them to do?

I believe the cap will be increased by a small amount in each of the next three years anyway.

If you think it's surrendering to the AFL , what would be your strategy to exist without AFL funding and support? Nobody seems to want to address that issue.

"We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan"

You might want to get your facts straight before taking others to task re what they post. As I said in my previous posts the clubs didn't agree to this and it was done without any vote or even proper consultation.

I'm happy that my facts are absolutely correct.

[drebin]

This was only passed because the clubs wanted it passed and the Commission just rubber-stamped it. Not only that, but apart from the import rule, the cap changes are just tinkering around the edges. Why are you all shouting doom and gloom over such minor changes? Why do you want to hang the Commission for agreeing to do what the clubs want them to do?

I believe the cap will be increased by a small amount in each of the next three years anyway.

If you think it's surrendering to the AFL , what would be your strategy to exist without AFL funding and support? Nobody seems to want to address that issue.

"We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan"

You might want to get your facts straight before taking others to task re what they post. As I said in my previous posts the clubs didn't agree to this and it was done without any vote or even proper consultation.

I'm happy that my facts are absolutely correct.

Get it from your clubs CEO did you? Wait until you see the response from the NAFC and you might get a clearer picture. Mind you with your clubs financial state, I could see the WAFC agreeing to anything if they were asked.

[Wedgie]

Maybe the difference in opinion here is the difference between "no club", "club", "one club", "some clubs", "clubs" and "a majority of clubs"?
My guess would be the truth might lay somewhere in the middle but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to drebin since you already got a key component wrong from your initial information r&b and the fact drebin tends to get his info from several sources and not just one who tends to tell you what you want to hear if history is any guide.

[redandblack]

No, I didn't, drebin. It's hardly top secret, anyway.

Did you get it from your CEO, or someone else at North?

Not that I'm suggesting my information is anywhere near as good as yours, of course

PS: Not sure what key component I got wrong, Wedgie, but I'm absolutely shocked that you've sided with drebin

That's really shot me down in flames. Whatever next

[Wedgie]

PS: Not sure what key component I got wrong, Wedgie

Umm, the fact that the salary cap went down, and not up like you first told some.
Some would call that a fairly key component my friend!

[redandblack]

PS: Not sure what key component I got wrong, Wedgie

Umm, the fact that the salary cap went down, and not up like you first told some.
Some would call that a fairly key component my friend!

Wedgie, we're all used to your lines of argument, but I've looked through all my posts on this thread and I can't see where I'v said the cap would go up, except for a small increase in the next 2 or 3 years.

Otherwise, please quote where I have and I'll apologise happily.

[Wedgie]

PS: Not sure what key component I got wrong, Wedgie

Umm, the fact that the salary cap went down, and not up like you first told some.
Some would call that a fairly key component my friend!

Wedgie, we're all used to your lines of argument, but I've looked through all my posts on this thread and I can't see where I'v said the cap would go up, except for a small increase in the next 2 or 3 years.

Otherwise, please quote where I have and I'll apologise happily.

No worries mate, I'll PM your quote, I look forward to your apology after you receive the pm.

[drebin]

No, I didn't, drebin. It's hardly top secret, anyway.

Did you get it from your CEO, or someone else at North?

Not that I'm suggesting my information is anywhere near as good as yours, of course

PS: Not sure what key component I got wrong, Wedgie, but I'm absolutely shocked that you've sided with drebin

That's really shot me down in flames. Whatever next

Hardly top secret - well if that is the case how many clubs will come and be truthful with how they feel or how they didn't get a say in the decision making.

Good to see such a loyal SANFL person like yourself has no problems with how our comp will be eroded in time by these types of stupid "knee jerk" decisions to appease the AFL?

[redandblack]

OK, drebin, you still haven't answered what you would do, if the AFL disagreed with you.

[Squawk]

Salry Cap DOWN
Imports CAPPED at 8
"More emphasis on junior development"

So does this mean there will be a commensurate increase in fees paid to clubs for drafted players?

[Wedgie]

Salry Cap DOWN
Imports CAPPED at 8
"More emphasis on junior development"

So does this mean there will be a commensurate increase in fees paid to clubs for drafted players?

Not that I read anywhere, in fact it reads like there will be LESS incentive for clubs to develop AFL players IMHO.

[Dogwatcher]

Salry Cap DOWN
Imports CAPPED at 8
"More emphasis on junior development"

So does this mean there will be a commensurate increase in fees paid to clubs for drafted players?

That's an interesting question Squawk.
More emphasis on junior development to breed AFL players.
Why would clubs emphasise JD when these players will disappear and there is no additional financial return....
Yes, it's fantastic to develop kids. Yes, it's fantastic to see them climbing to the highest peak. However, our clubs are still in the business of playing in an SANFL competition and developing players that will take them to a flag. Where is the recompense to the clubs for those missed opportunities?


Drebin, I agree with your call on AFLSA.

[Chambo100]

I will get back to what i said at the start of this.

We need to know what each club's position is on this new rule.
Not a majority, not some, not a few, not just one, but ALL of them.

Only from that will we be able to deduce from what basis the commission has acted and how it reflects what the clubs want to see. Not only that, it would be nice if they could support it with more detailed arguments. Reflecting on a one page press release is not a lot to go on.

Would that then answer most of the questions that we have been asserting or hypothesising on this thread?

[oldfella]

I am waiting until there is a more definitive definition of what "Imports CAPPED at 8" means.

Is this just senior players from other leagues (not SANFL affiliates) or is this from any other league.

Is it just senior players (eg have played senior football at equivilant grade to SANFL) or does this 8 imports include juniors or players from other state country leagues.

The reason the above concerns me is look at any SANFL club in the reserves or U/18 and you will get a shock how many come from other states - are they included in the 8?

[drebin]

I will get back to what i said at the start of this.

We need to know what each club's position is on this new rule.
Not a majority, not some, not a few, not just one, but ALL of them.

Only from that will we be able to deduce from what basis the commission has acted and how it reflects what the clubs want to see. Not only that, it would be nice if they could support it with more detailed arguments. Reflecting on a one page press release is not a lot to go on.

Would that then answer most of the questions that we have been asserting or hypothesising on this thread?

My "mail' is that there was no vote and the majority (well all clubs) were very resistant of these changes however there has been pressure fom the AFL for a few years to erode the SANFL and get the "State League" to fall in line with the AFL wish list. The AFL has been holding the financial dividend gun at the SANFL for years. There has been consultation over time with clubs about various proposal changes and the SANFL has used the financial losses of 7 of the 9 clubs to really crank this up. This doesn't mean it was voted for however that suits the SANFL to say that to justify the decision. The first one club heard about these changes was when they got the media release / info from the SANFL so how could that be that they were a club given a VOTE on the matter?

Unfortunately the Commission can make certain changes without putting it to the club by the way the SANFL Constitution is set up and I was told by one club CEO (not North's btw) that this is how it basically got through and it is only "spin doctoring" by Chandler and Co. saying the "majority of clubs" were in favour. So someone is lying and personally I would believe the word of 2 CEO's I have spoken to so far, ahead of the propaganda "spewing" out of West Lakes.

Let's see if the clubs really have the balls to come out and state the truth. I will wait with eager anticipation to North's response as they have been on for a long tiime to resist changes at the behest of the AFL that will erode our comp and North have at least got the balls to publically comment via their website on many issues.

Watch out next we will be known as AFLSA!

[sjt]

Salry Cap DOWN
Imports CAPPED at 8
"More emphasis on junior development"

So does this mean there will be a commensurate increase in fees paid to clubs for drafted players?

That's an interesting question Squawk.
More emphasis on junior development to breed AFL players.
Why would clubs emphasise JD when these players will disappear and there is no additional financial return....
Yes, it's fantastic to develop kids. Yes, it's fantastic to see them climbing to the highest peak. However, our clubs are still in the business of playing in an SANFL competition and developing players that will take them to a flag. Where is the recompense to the clubs for those missed opportunities?][/quote]



Agreed. The role of an SANFL club is to win SANFL premierships. As many have said thin edge of the wedge.
Less money for players means other leagues are more attractive, equals lower standard in our league. Again, AFL 'decree' seems to be ruling.
Excluding the import rule I can't see how the reduction in the salary cap is good for our league. Look forward to seeing each clubs response, and reasoning.

[am Bays]

I will wait with eager anticipation to North's response as they have been on for a long tiime to resist changes at the behest of the AFL that will erode our comp and North have at least got the balls to publically comment via their website on many issues.

Dreb I have only quoted this bit as basically I am not against the rest of your post or more correctly don't have the information to counter it if I did , I find your comment that North have for a long time wanted to resist changes at the behest of the AFL a tad ironic. Weren't North one of the leading proponents of the AFL led change to an U/18s and reduced 16s from our previous junior set up?? To me that was and has been a far more dangerous change to our leagues future development than these current changes.

The longer you can keep kids in your club set up the more chance you have of developing them.