SA Footy

...to a 10th team located at Tea Tree Gully? By that I mean, would there be an issue even if the zones were redone to ensure an equal amount of population for each 10 clubs? The Modbury/Tea Tree Gully area has been a part of Norwood for 25 years, and North has a share in nearby Para Hills/Valley View, and would people on here object to losing some of this traditional recruiting zone regardless of the new zone being of equal proportion?

the biggest joke with zones was salisbury in ports zone (it still maybe in ports zone but regardless that was a joke)

as for the north/norwood objecting, i'd suggest they wouldn't be happy

Wont happen so why discuss it

locky801 wrote:Wont happen so why discuss it

I know it won't happen, but I want to gauge the feeling* of supporters about the thought.

With what they have out that way and the development, after 3 or 4 years of struggling they would probably dominate the comp, funny this topic was put on here tongight as we were discussing it at Broadies tonight, when you start looking at junior grades at TT Gully and Golden Grove, they have 1 or 2 under 6 sides, 4 or 5 under 8 sides and I am not sure above that due to the fact I am only involved in those grades, think if anything SANFL headed up that way there would have to be a total revamp of zoning, just what I have seen from U6 and U8 in 3 years there footy is awesome, cant wait for 2 games coming up against Golden Grove

bayman wrote:the biggest joke with zones was salisbury in ports zone (it still maybe in ports zone but regardless that was a joke)

as for the north/norwood objecting, i'd suggest they wouldn't be happy

A lot of Salisbury still is and I heard this week that the zone boundary is shifting a little closer to Centrals again at the end of this year.

There was a time when the boundary between Port and Centrals was the train line at the back of the club so I suppose we should be grateful.

I'd love to obtain a copy of the exact locations of the zones now, I mean to which road/suburb it uses as to divide clubs.

smac wrote:

bayman wrote:the biggest joke with zones was salisbury in ports zone (it still maybe in ports zone but regardless that was a joke)

as for the north/norwood objecting, i'd suggest they wouldn't be happy

A lot of Salisbury still is and I heard this week that the zone boundary is shifting a little closer to Centrals again at the end of this year.

There was a time when the boundary between Port and Centrals was the train line at the back of the club so I suppose we should be grateful.

still is a joke though & imagine the outcry if pennington,cheltenham etc were given to central

spell_check wrote:I'd love to obtain a copy of the exact locations of the zones now, I mean to which road/suburb it uses as to divide clubs.

It would go by suburbs so if you line the maps on this post up with a street directory you should be able to work it out.
http://www.safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2723&hilit=zones

No doubt in 1959 people objected or had problems with Central District and Woodville being admitted to the SANFL, yet both went onto a rich history, Central becoming the current league heavyweight and Woodville now merged have gone on to play in several premierships winning two.

Because of the objections, Woodville and Central both had to do five years in the reserves first. I dont have a problem with a North Eastern Suburbs side being birthed in the same fashion, five years to contest the reserves competition should be well enough time to get the club ready to be competitive in the SANFL and to get a following going through the local area. As it happens TTG and several other clubs actually have waiting lists of players that want to play for the club, so there is clearly the interest in footy in the North Eastern Suburbs for us to have a side of our own with the same opportunity that Woodville and Central District were given.

Prior to the Amalgamation of WWT the North Eastern Suburbs were allocated to the West Torrens Football Club, so its fairly obvious that even the SANFL dont really see Norwood as the perfect suitor for the North Eastern Suburbs as opposed to the Eastern Suburbs.

The stronghold of Soccer is the North Eastern Suburbs at present with strong clubs in the area. Its time that the SANFL hit back and did some work in making SANFL football strong in the area and giving us our own team would be a pretty good way of starting!

Give it a rest. It aint gonna happen.

It wont be just Norwood and North opposing. It will be all 9 clubs.

Wedgie wrote:

spell_check wrote:I'd love to obtain a copy of the exact locations of the zones now, I mean to which road/suburb it uses as to divide clubs.

It would go by suburbs so if you line the maps on this post up with a street directory you should be able to work it out.
http://www.safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2723&hilit=zones

I remember that, and the once accessible pdf links. That's what I was thinking of, those links which set out exactly where the boundaries went, and from memory it was a combinations of roads and suburbs which were used as boundaries. And the River Torrens.

spell_check wrote:
I remember that, and the once accessible pdf links. That's what I was thinking of, those links which set out exactly where the boundaries went, and from memory it was a combinations of roads and suburbs which were used as boundaries. And the River Torrens.

Pretty much.
The overlay function in GoogleEarth is handy as well.

StrayDog wrote:

spell_check wrote:
I remember that, and the once accessible pdf links. That's what I was thinking of, those links which set out exactly where the boundaries went, and from memory it was a combinations of roads and suburbs which were used as boundaries. And the River Torrens.

Pretty much.
The overlay function in GoogleEarth is handy as well.

Yeah, I'm curious about this stuff, and other little rules that aren't really known to most, such as the Reserves finals qualification once the League team is finished for the year - during or before the finals.

spell_check wrote:Yeah, I'm curious about this stuff, and other little rules that aren't really known to most, such as the Reserves finals qualification once the League team is finished for the year - during or before the finals.

So what is the rule for that then Spelly... ???

Is it like the League finals qualification rule of 3 games minimum ???

Big Phil...

With more teams in the AFL in the future, the ideal number of teams in the SANFL is eight, not ten IMO. Still, I wouldn't dare to suggest which two teams should merge in order for this to happen. Norwood are going through one of our bleakest periods and as such probably wouldn't welome a new neighbour on 'our' side of town.

regards,

REB

Yes, forget it.
The crowds turning up don't support 9 teams let alone 10, and 8 makes more sense in a shrinking market.
After all the time and money I assume Norwood and North have put into development in these areas of course they would object.
It makes as much sense as letting Gawler join and take over areas Central have been working with.

Psyber wrote:Yes, forget it.
The crowds turning up don't support 9 teams let alone 10, and 8 makes more sense in a shrinking market.
After all the time and money I assume Norwood and North have put into development in these areas of course they would object.
It makes as much sense as letting Gawler join and take over areas Central have been working with.

I like it Psyber. Let Gawler in.

Or we could roll out that old "Kick Port out"

Psyber wrote:Yes, forget it.
The crowds turning up don't support 9 teams let alone 10, and 8 makes more sense in a shrinking market.
After all the time and money I assume Norwood and North have put into development in these areas of course they would object.
It makes as much sense as letting Gawler join and take over areas Central have been working with.

If the SANFL does that, how do they include the North Eastern Suburbs in footprint of the SANFL when the club that is allocated the area is located some 25ks away from the area? South moved to Noarlunga and solved the problem of their being no SANFL south of Sturt Rd, and Central District being created covers the outer Northern areas well. Yet in the meantime the inner and outer North Eastern Suburbs have seen a massive amount of population growth with more and more new estates continually being built and added onto.

How many companies do not locate their stores in an even footprint across the suburbs so that they can grow the business? I am tipping most if not all. If the SANFL sticks its head in the sand and ignores whole sections of the suburbs then all it achieves is more people disconnected from the SANFL.

It was ok for the SANFL to cut major chunks out of South Adelaides area including the traditional area that the club was based in for the reason that the SANFL wanted to include the Southern Suburbs in their footprint, so it stands to good reason that the same thing needs to happen in the Northern Suburbs. Norwood always has been and is the club for the Eastern Suburbs of Adelaide, doing what the SANFL did to South and pushing them out of their area and handing it to say Sturt for example is not going to work, so creating a new side is the better option if the SANFL is to continue to grow with the expanding population of S.A.

Ive got an idea, get rid of North and Norwood and have a new team at Tea Tree Gully.
Fixes the problems of getting rid of a couple of underachieving sides and getting rid of the bye at the same time.