SA Footy

Just read an article online that says the AFL are meeting with the AFLNT today to discuss funding of a Darwin club into the AFL Queensland comp.
The AFL are keen to expand and improve the game in Qld in preperation for another AFL side.
If theyre going to help fund it then Id say its game, set and match as far as getting the NT here.
BASTARDS!!!!

Not surprised.

Though I suspect that the real reason has nothing to do about improving the game in Queensland. Rather this would be about the AFL maintaining its hegemony in the sport. An expanded SANFL (or WAFL) could in time be seen as a competitor to the AFL. An AFL-dependent patched-together Queensland league would not.

BASTARDS Indeed! And watch the SANFL sit back and justify what their masters tell them to do, they will be weak as....

Good didn't need them in our comp.

Its great to see the AFL kill our great game why The gold coast why not tassie or Canberra

I was never a fan of the concept anyway- vive la SANFL!

Wedgie wrote:Just read an article online that says the AFL are meeting with the AFLNT today to discuss funding of a Darwin club into the AFL Queensland comp.
The AFL are keen to expand and improve the game in Qld in preperation for another AFL side.
If theyre going to help fund it then Id say its game, set and match as far as getting the NT here.
BASTARDS!!!!

Please... I can't believe this reaction

1. Are you surprised by the AFL's 'solution'?

2. I don't really care if the NT don't join... I would question the costs involved anyway... having attended the AGM for our club, I would think that unless we added another bloody 150 Pokies to the 'Eagles Club' on Port Rd., we couldn't afford to travel there to play anyway.

3. This whole thing about adding another team to get rid of the bye, is idiodic IMHO... the competition needs to go to 8 teams NOT 10... although I hated the merger @ the time (& for years afterwards), it WAS the best solution to both club's issues... merging 2 other teams is a VIABLE & the preferred option, in my view.

I know this will get bagged by many of you but ask yourself this... Can clubs like West, Woodville WT, South & others really afford the extra costs involved in introducing a 'new' club to the fray?

I would suggest not.

No news from over here - but not surprising considering the actions of the AFL in recent weeks.

Funny how the WAFL was more than just as good as getting them some 6 months ago, now ... the worm has turned for an AFL whim!

I wonder what the cost difference between an NT side in the WAFL or the SANFL and the same side in the QAFL.

Who cares, more to the truth!

Let's get a team from let's say Mt Barker.

Wedgie wrote:Just read an article online that says the AFL are meeting with the AFLNT today to discuss funding of a Darwin club into the AFL Queensland comp.
The AFL are keen to expand and improve the game in Qld in preperation for another AFL side.
If theyre going to help fund it then Id say its game, set and match as far as getting the NT here.
BASTARDS!!!!

SANFL screwed for Queensland again. Surprise Surprise. Ive tried to warn you.

let me guess will Leigh Whicker praise the outcome like he did when the AFL sweetened the VFL deal for Tassie and took them away from us. There should be a vote of no confidence in the current SANFL board if not one objection is made over this.

Why QAFL honestly. Are they a better quality comp than the NTFL. Nope.

Do they have TV coverage for potential sponsors ????

How much more $$$$ is this now dedicated to the QAFL. whilst the AFL has committed to the SANFL how much in the last 17 years ?????

disgraceful. time to stand up SANFL. if the AFL players association has taught us nothing else (and it hasnt) if you dont stand up for yourself with the AFL you will get walked all over.

MightyEagles wrote:Let's get a team from let's say Mt Barker.

They'd be more likely to play in the WAFL

the competition needs to go to 8 teams NOT 10... although I hated the merger @ the time (& for years afterwards), it WAS the best solution to both club's issues... merging 2 other teams is a VIABLE & the preferred option, in my view.
So, at the risk of blasting the lid off Pandora's Box, how do we arrive at 8 Teams???

Either 2 Teams merge..(which 2??)

or... 1 Team folds.. (who??)

Regarding darley16s' thread "AFL expansion effects on SANFL", I think this thread should read "SANFL expansion effects on AFL"

Because if we didn't have that feeling already that the AFL does not want another League to "get closer", well we do now.

No I wasn't a fan of an NT side for two things - there would be only 18 rounds in a season, and how much will it cost the current 9 clubs* - but for the AFL to try and step in this way, well, it's best I don't say anything...



*I'd support an NT team if we had 22 matches and there was little cost on the clubs.

Spelly, where did you read that the season would be reduced to 18 rounds with an NT inclusion?
The other doubts people had over their once imminent inclusion were supposedly being covered by the interested parties. I was always a keen fan of the NT joining, if the paperwork said it was viable. My main reason was that life desperately needs to be injected in to the SANFL.
Somebody posted a list attendances of second string competitions from around Australia a while back, the table included all sports. SANFL was way out in front of the pack, per capita. This is because of what it once was IMO, and the memories (or those of us that remember the good old days) are getting dimmer (as us old bastards become fewer).
Second string comps' around the world usually attract pissy little crowds. The SANFL has defied this only through the strength of its image. Names like the Glenelg Tigers, Norwood Redlegs etc. are part of the identity of many of us who lived in the day when that was all the football that people talked about. And as I said, those days are becoming more distant with every passing year.
Our Grand Finals are expected to attract something between 22,000 to 35,000 nowadays. It wasn't that long ago that it was still occassionally sold out. The line may zig zag a bit from here, but the general trend is that attendances will one day be in synch with all the other pissy little crowds that second string comps usually attract....unless we do something to establish the SANFL as more than just a "second string" comp.
I agree with Pseudo, the AFL does not want a competitor that may one day rival its own league.
Attracting the NT to the SANFL may or may not prevent waning attendances, but it sure looks like a move that will put the spotlight on the SANFL, and that has to be a positive step.

Maybe it's high time the SANFL courted both Tassie & NT, & expand our competition to 12 teams? (add another suburban side from a growth area- say Mt Barker)

therisingblues wrote:Spelly, where did you read that the season would be reduced to 18 rounds with an NT inclusion?

It's what Leigh Whicker said. Buggered if I know how people were happy when there was 22 rounds between 1977 and 1989 with 10 teams. Even with 21 rounds, you could still play each team 7 times over a three year period. Have the draw on a rotation basis where (example) Central plays Eagles, Glenelg, 10th side three times one year; North, Norwood, Port three times the next year; South, Sturt and West three times the year after. All other teams in respective years are played twice.

Punk Rooster wrote:Maybe it's high time the SANFL courted both Tassie & NT, & expand our competition to 12 teams? (add another suburban side from a growth area- say Mt Barker)

punk, always from left field

bayman wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:Maybe it's high time the SANFL courted both Tassie & NT, & expand our competition to 12 teams? (add another suburban side from a growth area- say Mt Barker)

punk, always from left field

Didn't the SANFL try something like that when they weren't talking to the then VFL .you know when the sanfl played the vfa in a state game.

More fuel for bayman on the vfl forum as if he needs any help

Mickyj wrote:

bayman wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:Maybe it's high time the SANFL courted both Tassie & NT, & expand our competition to 12 teams? (add another suburban side from a growth area- say Mt Barker)

punk, always from left field

Didn't the SANFL try something like that when they weren't talking to the then VFL .you know when the sanfl played the vfa in a state game.

More fuel for bayman on the vfl forum as if he needs any help

your turn mickyj

spell_check wrote:It's what Leigh Whicker said. Buggered if I know how people were happy when there was 22 rounds between 1977 and 1989 with 10 teams. Even with 21 rounds, you could still play each team 7 times over a three year period. Have the draw on a rotation basis where (example) Central plays Eagles, Glenelg, 10th side three times one year; North, Norwood, Port three times the next year; South, Sturt and West three times the year after. All other teams in respective years are played twice.

I agree with your thinking Spelly. 22 rounds worked fine with 10 teams before, why not now?
Perhaps they are worried about one club having the burden of 2 games up the gun barrel highway in the same year? Perhaps with that in mind an 18 round season was the only way to make it viable?