Changes to the Salary Cap

[drebin]

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.

Agreed re your point for us pushing the change re the 17's / 19's to u18's however the main push by North was the financial factor of having both grades and the drain and expectation we put on our feeder zones to supply players when for example the Colleges were taking back their players mid-season.

Also if the young talent hadn't been discovered before they hit the 19's, be that via the 17's (or now 18's) or in the League and Ressies, is there any chance of them developing further or being discovered in the 19's? There is always the exception to the rule however it is unlikely that most 19's even go onto SANFL league Football let alone being drafted. It was also to bring us into line re the rest of Australia to make our juniors more competitive at that elite Commonwaelth Bank U18's National Championship level.

Our club has always supported and fostered junior development and realises the best talent will be drafted (as does your club) but that system did need streamlining but now these further changes make it hard for clubs now to top up what they lose in developing players with less money to recruit and now with stupid import restrictions to keep our comp strong.

[Pseudo]

My "mail' is that there was no vote and the majority (well all clubs) were very resistant of these changes
[...]
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.

On the ABC news last night they claimed that a majority of clubs was in favour of the changes. If this is indeed the case then it shouldn't be too hard to list which clubs formed that majority. Can anyone say which clubs were for and which against?

So far we have North against, if drebin's mail is OTM. What about the others?

[redandblack]

drebin, I'm not sure that 2 CEO's out of 9 constitute a majority.

Seriously though, if you think the SANFL should not bow to the AFL in any way, what strategy would you and the other doomsayers adopt to counter the measures the AFL would certainly take and how would you make the SANFL workable?

Isn't compromising by making minor changes to the rules a far more sensible strategy?

[tipper]

Isnt a compromise where the two parties meet somewhere in the middle? what has the AFL given up to get the SANFL to agree to their terms? no mention of increased fees paid for drafted players, no mention of increased payments from the AFL to the SANFL at all. how is that a compromise? unless you compare it to the compromises my wife and i usually get to.....

[redandblack]

That's OK in an even playing field. the reality the SANFL faces is that the AFL has all the aces if it came to a fight.

Nobody has yet to explain what they would do in such a situation, only moaning that it's not right. Well, it isn't, but that's the reality.

[TimmiesChin]

Isnt a compromise where the two parties meet somewhere in the middle? what has the AFL given up to get the SANFL to agree to their terms? no mention of increased fees paid for drafted players, no mention of increased payments from the AFL to the SANFL at all. how is that a compromise? unless you compare it to the compromises my wife and i usually get to.....

Umm a couple years ago the AFL's idea was to rename as AFL-SA, and make our underage side U18. Also they mentioned changingtransfer fees between state leagues, and reduction of our salary cap - thiese lattertwo points I beleive were aimed at slowing the poaching of players between state leagues ... possibly reducing the inflated salaries of imported players.

In return they were going to throw buckets of money at us - and the SANFL clubs would be healthy.

Just search for AFLSa/AFL-SA and similar terms on this forum to find some ofthe history.

[tipper]

I didnt mean exactly in the middle, and i realise that the AFL hold the high ground, but it isnt a compromise if we just bend over and accept it.

i think most on here are "moaning" about it cos no one "in charge" (for want of a better term) is even looking like they even want to put up a fight. i dont know that there are any other options, but if there have been others looked at, why not tell everyone that they have considered options a, b and c and this seems to be the best way forward? at the moment the perception is that we as a league are just happy to lube ourselves up for that "higher" organisation that is the afl.

has anyone that is paid to work on these things even tried to come up with any other suggestions? all the feedback we get is that this is what is going to happen, now go back into your box and only speak when spoken to, theres a good boy....

[Chambo100]

Not sure if I inferred that the clubs' have a vote. That is not the main thrust of the issue.
It is the position that they (the clubs) offered to the table on this that matters.

If the commission has sought to go against the wishes of a club majority (which I acknowledge, is the main thing yet to be determined), then that is the crux of it for me.

And will it come to pass that clubs were even fully consulted to even offer a position?

[JK]

Wouldn't another option have been for the SANFL to stop building new things at West Lakes all the time, and put some time and money into assisting the SANFL clubs set up their own ventures which could make them financially healthy/independant enough to operate without the AFL dividend?

Would be a decent initial $ investment, but if they recoup that via Dividends down the track it wouldn't take long to pay back.

Im not sure if my thinking is out of whack there, but to me it just kind of feels as though the SANFL clubs have sold their soul to the devil ... Many clubs will have the financial security to guarantee their survival for the next x-amount of years, but we're on all fours and big brother probably won't even bother with KY next time they want something in place.

[tipper]

Isnt a compromise where the two parties meet somewhere in the middle? what has the AFL given up to get the SANFL to agree to their terms? no mention of increased fees paid for drafted players, no mention of increased payments from the AFL to the SANFL at all. how is that a compromise? unless you compare it to the compromises my wife and i usually get to.....

Umm a couple years ago the AFL's idea was to rename as AFL-SA, and make our underage side U18. Also they mentioned changingtransfer fees between state leagues, and reduction of our salary cap - thiese lattertwo points I beleive were aimed at slowing the poaching of players between state leagues ... possibly reducing the inflated salaries of imported players.

In return they were going to throw buckets of money at us - and the SANFL clubs would be healthy.

Just search for AFLSa/AFL-SA and similar terms on this forum to find some ofthe history.

Thanks for making my point for me! i know the history and as i said, where is the mention of this extra money we are getting? no where in the press release did it say that this was in return for extra money from the AFL. in the past that is what was offered, there is nothing to say that it is still the case. if there is a financial incentive for doing it, why is there no mention of it? there is mention of an increased payment to clubs from the sanfl, but no mention of afl at all.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Seriously though, if you think the SANFL should not bow to the AFL in any way, what strategy would you and the other doomsayers adopt to counter the measures the AFL would certainly take and how would you make the SANFL workable?

Isn't compromising by making minor changes to the rules a far more sensible strategy?

Why do the SANFL have to bow to the AFL? It's a separate comp, in another state isn't it?

Why does the SANFL have to counter any moves the AFL want to take? The AFL aren't self appointed dictators of football are they?

Why can't the SANFL tell the AFL to keep their noses out of the running of an independent competition?

No one is saying we have to compete with the AFL. So why are you asking for strategy's?

I think, what most objectors want, is for the AFL to leave us the **** Alone. They will still have plenty of junior SA footballers to poach.

[FlyingHigh]

This thread makes very interesting (and concerning) reading, to which I have so far stayed out of, but do you know what really pisses me off? That our whole competition's salary cap equates to what I would (roughly) conservatively estimate the AFL spends on umpires salaries (umpires alone, not counting what is spent on some of the other buffoons in the AFL umpiring department) - people who are, depsite their histronics and egos, meant to be there to aid the flow of the game not become the game. And we continually get pressure from the AFL to reduce our cap.

[Pseudo]

I think, what most objectors want, is for the AFL to leave us the **** Alone. They will still have plenty of junior SA footballers to poach.

[Squawk]

This week the SANFL Commission (Darren Chandler) surveyed 9 club representatives and "a majority" agreed to reduce the salary cap, amongst other changes.

On the other hand, a survey of 4,413 people re the SANFL yielded this result -
32.8% of fans who responded said "Yes, please reduce the salary cap". 67.2% of fans who responded said "gefugged!".

[redandblack]

This week the SANFL Commission (Darren Chandler) surveyed 9 club representatives and "a majority" agreed to reduce the salary cap, amongst other changes.

On the other hand, a survey of 4,413 people re the SANFL yielded this result -
32.8% of fans who responded said "Yes, please reduce the salary cap". 67.2% of fans who responded said "gefugged!".

And 57.4% of those 'fans' said they had eiher no interest in the SANFL or a mild interest.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[spell_check]

This week the SANFL Commission (Darren Chandler) surveyed 9 club representatives and "a majority" agreed to reduce the salary cap, amongst other changes.

On the other hand, a survey of 4,413 people re the SANFL yielded this result -
32.8% of fans who responded said "Yes, please reduce the salary cap". 67.2% of fans who responded said "gefugged!".

And 57.4% of those 'fans' said they had eiher no interest in the SANFL or a mild interest.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Is there a way of telling how much of the 32.8% came from those 57.4% who had no or a mild interest?

[dedja]

Is there a way of telling how much of the 32.8% came from those 57.4% who had no or a mild interest?

Only a stats man can understand that comment

[Duckman]

Thanks for making my point for me! i know the history and as i said, where is the mention of this extra money we are getting? no where in the press release did it say that this was in return for extra money from the AFL. in the past that is what was offered, there is nothing to say that it is still the case. if there is a financial incentive for doing it, why is there no mention of it? there is mention of an increased payment to clubs from the sanfl, but no mention of afl at all.

Tipper, FYI from Press release....

"Club grants will be increased by eight per cent over the next three years with each club receiving $565,000 next year. More than half the money will be spent on talent and participation programs."

Where else (other than AFL) would the extra money be coming from?

[redandblack]

Seing that the major change to the cap is the removal of the $10000 allowance for each of two 'veteran' players, it would be interesting to see which clubs are currently claiming those allowances.

Perhaps a supporter of each club could go through their league list and suggest who might be eligible?

[holden78]

The new changes are great