SA Footy

^^^ I get this & to a degree I agree, but...

We can't be happy with the current state of play, regardless who we support.
OUR Competition is close to ruin - thanks largely to misguided belief in 2 x entities & their false promises.
What's done is done, sadly.
I fear it is only the beginning of the End.

As for Port supporters ignoring the facts of 2010/11 & the MASSIVE cash injection they were afforded at the time, is anyone really surprised?
Just a little reminder - you received around $2 Million alone in "future dividends", in order to keep the doors open.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way!

So Glenelg bit off more than it could chew and it comes to this.

Feel sorry for those who hold the footy club dear.

Too often lately, across different clubs, associations, sports; those in power make decisions that seem like a good idea at the time without properly thinking (or caring) about the consequences.

I can't bring myself to say "it's your own fault, told you so" or any of that crap.
Sure, the powers that be have f%#ked up, but to lose Glenelg would be a devastating blow to the SANFL and I hope they can pull through.

What seems true though is the damage done to the league by the AFL and the loans to Port etc have certainly added to lack of funds a available from SANFL to support the clubs who make its existence viable in the 1st place. Not that I'm advocating the SANFL should just bail out clubs who have been poorly managed, but having a stronger SANFL would certainly help.

I'll take up a membership. I know it is f%^k all in the scheme of things but I love the SANFL and it will be poorer without Glenelg or any other of the sovereign teams that's for sure.

Hopefully all supporters and members who walked away so easily make their way back.

Booney wrote:Hopefully all supporters and members who walked away so easily make their way back.

I doubt it was easy and I hope they don't walk back and stick to their guns.

Wedgie wrote:

Booney wrote:Hopefully all supporters and members who walked away so easily make their way back.

I doubt it was easy and I hope they don't walk back and stick to their guns.

X2


Bring back Steve Barrett I say

What's that old saying, footy doesn't build character, it reveals it....

am Bays wrote:What's that old saying, footy doesn't build character, it reveals it....

It's football, not footy and was a reference to American Football.

Anyway even if it was relevant it can be taken supporting both sides of the fence but only one side of the fence has integrity.
Perhaps if Chiggy resigned the club would have a much better chance of attracting it's true supporters back and surviving?

That's actually a fair point Wedgie.

I'm just not sure I could sit and watch North go to the wall and not raise a finger to help because of who is president.
But I do understand where you are coming from and agree 99%. The fact is, like players, coaches and the board, the president will move on, but North is my club, period. And if they are gone, they are gone for good and I wouldn't like to think that could happen and I hadn't tried to help.

Let's not pretend this has happened just because of the AFL reserves.
They were a killer blow, but this is where we were heading all along.
I don't know what the answer is, but this competition needs Glenelg to survive.
This competition is becoming less and less relevant and its future is in question if we lose even one of its stand alone clubs.
If the Bays go, who's next?
We've seen clubs go to the wall and be saved before, Sturt and North, most notably. But those were different times.
Our clubs and our competition, in particular, need to look at a strategic plan that will see this competition survive and retain its strength.
Sure, the SANFL is 'only' second tier, but without a second tier the AFL doesn't have players as ready for the big time.
The AFL needs a strong second tier, it needs the SANFL.

Dogwatcher wrote:Let's not pretend this has happened just because of the AFL reserves.
They were a killer blow, but this is where we were heading all along.
I don't know what the answer is, but this competition needs Glenelg to survive.
This competition is becoming less and less relevant and its future is in question if we lose even one of its stand alone clubs.
If the Bays go, who's next?
We've seen clubs go to the wall and be saved before, Sturt and North, most notably. But those were different times.
Our clubs and our competition, in particular, need to look at a strategic plan that will see this competition survive and retain its strength.
Sure, the SANFL is 'only' second tier, but without a second tier the AFL doesn't have players as ready for the big time.
The AFL needs a strong second tier, it needs the SANFL.

I agree with much of what you have said, but does the AFL really need the SANFL? They could have a national reserves competition as the 2nd tier. They already have academies, I'm sure it wouldn't take much for all AFL clubs to have zones and develop their own talent.

Where does that leave the SANFL?

The SANFL perhaps needs to realise where it sits commercially? Forget about competing with AFL Reserves sides. Forget about competing with other State leagues and being "2nd best". Forget about paying $1m for tv coverage. Go back to grass roots - cut back on spending. Forget about big recruits. Create a sustainable model based on being a club for their local community and based on the traditions around each of the clubs and venues they occupy. Use social media and the online platform to expose and sell the game, together with community radio and newspapers.

The SANFL can't afford to lose clubs. Involvement with AFL Reserves was meant to fix that, but it hasn't helped. See the writing on the wall. They need to make the most of the funding that will be coming from West Lakes by creating and sticking to a model that will work for the next 50 years.

The AFL has chipped away at the SANFL for the last 30 years and it clearly isn't going to stop (junior football via zones/academies is next). Cut all ties and any reliance on the AFL and use the West Lakes funding to ensure the clubs find their way through this period. The clubs need each other as much as anything.

Dogwatcher wrote:Let's not pretend this has happened just because of the AFL reserves.
They were a killer blow, but this is where we were heading all along.
I don't know what the answer is, but this competition needs Glenelg to survive.
This competition is becoming less and less relevant and its future is in question if we lose even one of its stand alone clubs.
If the Bays go, who's next?
We've seen clubs go to the wall and be saved before, Sturt and North, most notably. But those were different times.
Our clubs and our competition, in particular, need to look at a strategic plan that will see this competition survive and retain its strength.
Sure, the SANFL is 'only' second tier, but without a second tier the AFL doesn't have players as ready for the big time.
The AFL needs a strong second tier, it needs the SANFL.

What like maybe cashing in on the sale of some assets but only being spoon fed the proceeds.

Dogwatcher wrote:Let's not pretend this has happened just because of the AFL reserves.
They were a killer blow, but this is where we were heading all along.
I don't know what the answer is, but this competition needs Glenelg to survive.
This competition is becoming less and less relevant and its future is in question if we lose even one of its stand alone clubs.
If the Bays go, who's next?
We've seen clubs go to the wall and be saved before, Sturt and North, most notably. But those were different times.
Our clubs and our competition, in particular, need to look at a strategic plan that will see this competition survive and retain its strength.
Sure, the SANFL is 'only' second tier, but without a second tier the AFL doesn't have players as ready for the big time.
The AFL needs a strong second tier, it needs the SANFL.

Ruh oh.

Let's not pretend it's not been a factor either, big fella.

Dogwatcher wrote:Let's not pretend it's not been a factor either, big fella.

Absolutely, not denying that, I also can't see how kicking them out will be the savior either.

The "product" is diluted now, take away more of the "product" ( whether it be pure or otherwise ) and the people in charge can only ask for less from the consumer for the product.

Booney wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Let's not pretend it's not been a factor either, big fella.

Absolutely, not denying that, I also can't see how kicking them out will be the savior either.

The "product" is diluted now, take away more of the "product" ( whether it be pure or otherwise ) and the people in charge can only ask for less from the consumer for the product.

i disagree. firstly, removing the reserves sides wont hurt the competition nearly as much as introducing them did. it wont be the sole reason for saviour, yes, but i see it as a massive step in the right direction.

i think removing them will actually condense what is left of the league, not dilute it. its already been shown that the reserves sides supporters are staying away in droves, so by getting rid of them, it will bring together what is left of the league

and asking for less from the consumer? when they will be providing more games (21 games, no byes as opposed to the farce we have now) against more relevant opposition is somehow less? not really the way i see it to be honest

tipper wrote:i think removing them will actually condense what is left of the league, not dilute it. its already been shown that the reserves sides supporters are staying away in droves, so by getting rid of them, it will bring together what is left of the league

The SANFL is dying a slow painful death.. Fact remains regardless of reserves sides or not, the interest in the comp from the next generation just isn't there period.

Kids/teenagers if they're interested in footy are either involved at club level or they're home watching the AFL if not at an AFL game.

Harsh reality, but grass roots footy (SFL, SAAFL, HFL) probably has a greater interest and following amongst the younger generation.

Fair points, I should have added in regards to my view the comp would be further diluted would be the calibre of player the competition could attract.

I'd say it's likely the recruiters would find it harder to drag "names" to the SANFL, thus the standard drops thus it's diluted....fair?

If the standard drops further sponsors will drop off as the almighty dollar is harder to come by, all making it harder for clubs to survive.

Zartan wrote:

tipper wrote:i think removing them will actually condense what is left of the league, not dilute it. its already been shown that the reserves sides supporters are staying away in droves, so by getting rid of them, it will bring together what is left of the league

The SANFL is dying a slow painful death.. Fact remains regardless of reserves sides or not, the interest in the comp from the next generation just isn't there period.

Kids/teenagers if they're interested in footy are either involved at club level or they're home watching the AFL if not at an AFL game.

Harsh reality, but grass roots footy (SFL, SAAFL, HFL) probably has a greater interest and following amongst the younger generation.

This is the biggest, IMHO, factor facing the SANFL. The "average" SANFL die hard would be 40 something or thereabouts. The number of 18-30 year olds who follow and support the competition would be far outnumbered by the 40'ers.

Booney wrote:Fair points, I should have added in regards to my view the comp would be further diluted would be the calibre of player the competition could attract.

I'd say it's likely the recruiters would find it harder to drag "names" to the SANFL, thus the standard drops thus it's diluted....fair?

If the standard drops further sponsors will drop off as the almighty dollar is harder to come by, all making it harder for clubs to survive.

Possibly fair, but how do recruiters go now with the reserves team in the league? I have no idea myself (i dont follow recruiting that closely) but i wouldnt have thought "come play against past it afl hacks and upcoming kids" is much of a sales pitch

And sponsors are already dropping off. Unless you mean the sponsors of the reserves teams. They are after all the most common team to see on tv, and are the only ones written about in the paper...