SA Footy

Is this true? I attended the North Adelaide President's Luncheon at Prospect yesterday & there was no representative from The CDFC, apparently because our opinion on whether there should be Under 17's & Under 19's differs from North's opinion on the matter.

If that's true, it's pretty poor, but Kris Grant has been feral in the media on this issue.

Perhaps we should just get him to make all the decisions.

He should stick to his creative accounting with player payments.

But We could have had at least 1 person there, to tell you the truth, it was a little embarrassing, which is easy for me, being such a quiet, shy, introverted type.

Just another example of people placing their own agenda ahead of the welfare of the game. Hardly surprising.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Just another example of people placing their own agenda ahead of the welfare of the game. Hardly surprising.

welfare of the game that is interesting statement ah, seeing it is the afl 'demanding' this decision & with their (afl's) changing of rules infinitum which does not help the welfare of the game imho & why should any league bow to the 'wisdom' of another ?


fwiw i can see both points of view, personally i can see a lot of kids moving away from footy because of this, because with just one u/18's team against the 2 teams at present there is 21 players not playing & it will be only the athletes & not footballers getting the games to impress afl scouts to get drafted

.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Just another example of people placing their own agenda ahead of the welfare of the game. Hardly surprising.

Agreed 100% as do John Halbert and Brenton Phillips.

Wedgie wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Just another example of people placing their own agenda ahead of the welfare of the game. Hardly surprising.

Agreed 100% as do John Halbert and Brenton Phillips.

i wonder whether sticks will agree if he does take over the coaching of north from jars (whenever that is) as the rumours suggest

bayman wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Just another example of people placing their own agenda ahead of the welfare of the game. Hardly surprising.

Agreed 100% as do John Halbert and Brenton Phillips.

i wonder whether sticks will agree if he does take over the coaching of north from jars (whenever that is) as the rumours suggest

Its a false rumour, no decision has been made to not reappoint Jars let alone appoint someone else.
I doubt the fact he agrees with the decision based on logic and his involvement with juniors wouldn't change if he joined a club that also has the same logic and fate of the game at heart though.

CENTURION wrote:which is easy for me, being such a quiet, shy, introverted type.

I was at the Norwood pre-game lunch and it was mentioned that Norwood and Sturt had different opinions and Sturt had come along - contrary to TWO other lunches where a club had 'boycotted' the lunch because of the issue.

I assume it was therefore Port who avoided the Westies lunch?

Did the Centrals not go or did North not invite? Just want to clarify which.

smac I think they are standing invitations where 2 officials from the away club are virtually expected to attend the home President's lunches. That would mean that there would have to be a notification from the home club to the away club to say don't bother coming.

I suspect that based on the norm for these lunches that there was a notification from the away club to the home club that there wouldn't be representation in attendance - at two lunches.

It is a good point you raise tho - who said no to who?

well whatever happens (it is a 'fait of compli' anyway) lets hope that the sanfl (clubs) don't implode

If as Centurion suggested that no officials attended the lunch because of the current under age debate then the CDFC need to take a good hard look at themselves. If they are so concerned with keeping the present U17's and U19's then maybe Kris Grant and co should go and support those grades in person if our hospitality and current views are not good enough!

P.S. I wonder why the CDFC and in particular Kris Grant are so vocal about keeping the U17's after the score in yesterdays clash:

NA 28-33 (201)
CD 3-3 (21)

I suppose they should be grateful for wet weather which obviously helped the poor kicking because god knows what the score would have been on a dry day with 61 scoring shots!

Interesting to see centurion raised this same topic on the cdfc forum. I find the following response from the sites administrator a petulant dummy spit as well as being publically rude to North's CEO:

Well done to the CDFC if they did indeed snub the North luncheon. Getting rid of the u17s/u19s structure is a stupid idea, supported only by short-sighted, struggling clubs who view their own clubs as nothing more than feeder clubs for the AFL.

Here's what the peanut CEO of North Adelaide (Glen Elliott) said:

"We have to realise we're part of the national scene, we're not sitting out on a desert island by ourselves."

So he thinks we should submit to the AFL? We are an independent competition. Not just a crappy feeder league like the VFL or WAFL.

Members of North, west, South, Eagles and Norwood should get stuck into their clubs' pathetic administrators and help support the SANFL, rather than destroy it.

I commend Port Adelaide, Sturt and Glenelg on supporting Central's efforts to save the SANFL.

Good one Campbell you really have lowered yourself to an even more condesending level than normal. A "great" advertisment for your club posting that rubbish which is available "publically" and being so bloody rude about another club's CEO because you don't agree with his or others views especialy as you are holding an "official" role at the CDFC!

And for your info we may have been a "struggling" club once that certainly does not apply these days, certainly not in the financial stakes. Do your self a favour and get a copy of our annual report and look at the figures. Whilst Centrals are the current league powerhouse it wasn't always that way certainly not when the league was at it's strongest pre AFL days.

campbell wrote:I commend Port Adelaide, Sturt and Glenelg on supporting Central's efforts to save the SANFL

He makes it sound like the other clubs are all falling inline behind the mighty Centrals fool

For Central to be talking about saving th SANFl is arrogance of the highest order.

It's a pity they don't take the same moralistic high ground when it comes to some other matters.

As for that diatribe, it just reflects the author's lack of intelligence.

drebin wrote:Interesting to see centurion raised this same topic on the cdfc forum. I find the following response from the sites administrator a petulant dummy spit as well as being publically rude to North's CEO:

[i][b]So he thinks we should submit to the AFL? We are an independent competition. Not just a crappy feeder league like the VFL or WAFL.

Members of North, west, South, Eagles and Norwood should get stuck into their clubs' pathetic administrators and help support the SANFL, rather than destroy it.

Agree with him on that point and rest assured I have made that point known to the SAFC!

For clarification.

Campbell is not the spokesperson of the CDFC, he has posted his opinion (on another forum), unsure why that was singled out and reposted here by someone else.