SA Footy

Cant speak for other leagues/clubs but Junior numbers have increased this year. Have got tons of kids playing. Football and soccer can co-exist easily

It's really only the soft kids and families with over protective parents that are moving to soccer anyway.

Jetters wrote:

morell wrote:It might not be the Hamley Bridge Soccer Club, maybe the Gawler Soccer Club need a new home? Currently has over 30 teams in the FFSA State League, SAASL, SAWSA, EDJSA and FFSA Junior Premier League.

People arguing against these measures need to understand where the sport is at and how competitive the modern landscape is now and is going to be in regards to which sports kids pick to play.

We're getting beaten:

Soccer beating football in battle of codes amongst kids

Our failure with juniors is our failure to diversify. We need more girls playing and kids from non-traditional football families. Also, junior leagues need to start adopting rules to give kids the best opportunity to love footy.

Agreed, and if there is more money being spent by clubs on this sort of thing (junior development) rather than that gun recruit who can kick a bag this year from the half forward flank, then the sport in general will be more competitive.

It's the first really positive move towards tackling an issue I've been prattling on here about for years, its great to see.

Q. wrote:It's really only the soft kids and families with over protective parents that are moving to soccer anyway.

That's a strange comment.
Think he was implying his football junior ranks had improved.

Jim05 wrote:Cant speak for other leagues/clubs but Junior numbers have increased this year. Have got tons of kids playing. Football and soccer can co-exist easily

Across the board Soccer is winning the hearts and minds of parents and their kids. The numbers are legit scary. The two can coexist provided there are enough avenues towards juniors being able to play both games. By closing down clubs one would be reducing those avenues.

morell wrote:

Jetters wrote:

morell wrote:It might not be the Hamley Bridge Soccer Club, maybe the Gawler Soccer Club need a new home? Currently has over 30 teams in the FFSA State League, SAASL, SAWSA, EDJSA and FFSA Junior Premier League.

People arguing against these measures need to understand where the sport is at and how competitive the modern landscape is now and is going to be in regards to which sports kids pick to play.

We're getting beaten:

Soccer beating football in battle of codes amongst kids

Our failure with juniors is our failure to diversify. We need more girls playing and kids from non-traditional football families. Also, junior leagues need to start adopting rules to give kids the best opportunity to love footy.

Agreed, and if there is more money being spent by clubs on this sort of thing (junior development) rather than that gun recruit who can kick a bag this year from the half forward flank, then the sport in general will be more competitive.

It's the first really positive move towards tackling an issue I've been prattling on here about for years, its great to see.

You can spend as much as you want on junior development but unless your senior program environment is appealing you will struggle to keep the quality kids.

Maybe at the very top end if he still has aspirations to play at the elite levels but in my experience usually kids (I am talking 17 - 18 year old's here) just want to play with their mates - or sadly these days, chase the cash.

If we can remove the latter and encourage the former, then that only further enhances the community ties that football club has and makes them even more sustainable in the longer term.

Which is exactly what these measures are aimed at doing.

Computer Crashed wrote:

Q. wrote:It's really only the soft kids and families with over protective parents that are moving to soccer anyway.

That's a strange comment.
Think he was implying his football junior ranks had improved.

I thought my facetiousness was obvious.

Q. wrote:

Computer Crashed wrote:

Q. wrote:It's really only the soft kids and families with over protective parents that are moving to soccer anyway.

That's a strange comment.
Think he was implying his football junior ranks had improved.

I thought my facetiousness was obvious.

We recently had a meeting with our local MP and were told that soccer had grown so much in the last 2 years that they needed another 20 venues in our general area to fill the void. That's scary and its growing still.

Apparently a KNTFL attached official has told the SACFL that if these laws weren't implemented, three of their clubs would be on the brink.

Dogwatcher wrote:Apparently a KNTFL attached official has told the SACFL that if these laws weren't implemented, three of their clubs would be on the brink.

"Its their own fault"
"Stuff them, why should we be punished"
"Why are we supporting clubs that have mismanaged themselves"
"So be it, too many clubs anyway"
"People wont watch sub standard footy"
"The SANFL are just trying to prop up their reserves"

nek minnit the clubs saying this are part of a three way round robin tournament because all their competitors without rich farmer sugar daddy's have folded.

Don't know where you got your info from Morell, but I would suggest that if these laws are implemented three clubs in this league will definitely be on the brink.purely because without attracting 5-6 recruits to the club they will have 30 -35 players at best & that includes senior colts filling in & blokes playing who are closer to 50 than 40.
Most clubs that pay players don't pay them out of general revenue(IE gate takings & Bar takings) What they usually do is form a small committee that raises funds through either running livestock or cropping programs.These enterprise are generally very successful & can generate income of up to $100.000.The real issue that no-one seems willing to address is lack of playing numbers in most country areas of the state.

morell wrote:Good on them for trying to do something about this scourge on our game.

Scourge?

Some people want to pay someone extra money to play at their club rather than another one because they consider that their value to them. That club has the issue that they are in a regional location so in order to recruit better players they need to make it a bit more attractive. How is this a scourge?

A truck driver may get paid $40k a year in Adelaide, but a mining site in Karratha needs a driver and is willing to pay $120k a year if he is willing to FIFO. Maybe the Australian Government should put in a cap on truck driver wages because Toll and Linfox are complaining that they are losing their best drivers to the mines, such a "scourge" it is on our trucking industry.

Those truck drivers pay tax for their efforts. They also go to work in remote locations with some of the harshest weather conditions on the entire planet. On top of this they give up a lot of their every day life for upto weeks on end. Yes they are compensated well but deservidely so. Just a bit different.

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Those truck drivers pay tax for their efforts. They also go to work in remote locations with some of the harshest weather conditions on the entire planet. On top of this they give up a lot of their every day life for upto weeks on end. Yes they are compensated well but deservidely so. Just a bit different.

They choose that lifestyle and get paid good money for it - they should be allowed to. That is my point, no one is stopping someone paying whatever it takes to attract people to those places. I know of no industry where there is a restriction on how much you can pay one person. Even in sports where a salary cap is in place, a player still has the ability to find a club that is prepared to pay them a larger slice.

The overriding motivation here is jealousy.

Look Good In Leather wrote:

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Those truck drivers pay tax for their efforts. They also go to work in remote locations with some of the harshest weather conditions on the entire planet. On top of this they give up a lot of their every day life for upto weeks on end. Yes they are compensated well but deservidely so. Just a bit different.

They choose that lifestyle and get paid good money for it - they should be allowed to. That is my point, no one is stopping someone paying whatever it takes to attract people to those places. I know of no industry where there is a restriction on how much you can pay one person. Even in sports where a salary cap is in place, a player still has the ability to find a club that is prepared to pay them a larger slice.

The overriding motivation here is jealousy.

It is also classed as a hobby when it probably shouldn't as in some cases blokes are taking more than their weekly wage. SANFL players are taxed on their match payments....

heater31 wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Those truck drivers pay tax for their efforts. They also go to work in remote locations with some of the harshest weather conditions on the entire planet. On top of this they give up a lot of their every day life for upto weeks on end. Yes they are compensated well but deservidely so. Just a bit different.

They choose that lifestyle and get paid good money for it - they should be allowed to. That is my point, no one is stopping someone paying whatever it takes to attract people to those places. I know of no industry where there is a restriction on how much you can pay one person. Even in sports where a salary cap is in place, a player still has the ability to find a club that is prepared to pay them a larger slice.

The overriding motivation here is jealousy.

It is also classed as a hobby when it probably shouldn't as in some cases blokes are taking more than their weekly wage. SANFL players are taxed on their match payments....

No issue with that. They could probably do well out of the deductions that could be claimed.

Look Good In Leather wrote:

morell wrote:Good on them for trying to do something about this scourge on our game.

Scourge?

Some people want to pay someone extra money to play at their club rather than another one because they consider that their value to them. That club has the issue that they are in a regional location so in order to recruit better players they need to make it a bit more attractive. How is this a scourge?

A truck driver may get paid $40k a year in Adelaide, but a mining site in Karratha needs a driver and is willing to pay $120k a year if he is willing to FIFO. Maybe the Australian Government should put in a cap on truck driver wages because Toll and Linfox are complaining that they are losing their best drivers to the mines, such a "scourge" it is on our trucking industry.

Excessive player payments is absolutely a scourge. It's the games biggest challenge at the grass roots level in my opinion.

Why do you think the AFL has a salary cap? Why does the NBA have one? SANFL? etc Why does nearly every single sporting competition that takes itself relatively serious have one? Research how and why these caps were put in place and you have your answer as to why this is a scourge on the game.

Put really simply, a salary cap helps protect the profitability of clubs by guiding payments to be sustainable and it provides a level playing field by ensuring each club has access to the same payment total. By doing those two things it keeps clubs competitive and helps protect the future of the game by providing an adequate level of access to the sport for the next generation.

As for your analogy to FIFO truck driving in the mining industry - yeah, nah, there are more holes in that than in my old undies:

1. No one is really complaining about players leaving City leagues for Country ones - that is perhaps the biggest straw man argument I've seen raised in this debate.
2. A mining company is a business, sporting clubs are clubs - the inherent difference in that is one is profit driven, the other is not. Ergo, trying to compare relative salaries and the sustainability therein is utterly moot.
3. A mining company has rules and regulations pertaining to what they pay their employees. A football club, currently, does not. Ergo, trying to compare relative salaries and the sustainability therein is utterly moot.

but, the biggest difference is:

4. A mining company does not have competitors which it is reliant upon to be able to mine and be profitable. You don't see BHP waiting for Rio Tinto to rock up to Roxby Downs so they can start digging. A football club does rely on its competitors to be sustainable. Ergo, trying to compare relative salaries and the sustainability therein is utterly moot.

CouchExpert wrote:Don't know where you got your info from Morell, but I would suggest that if these laws are implemented three clubs in this league will definitely be on the brink.purely because without attracting 5-6 recruits to the club they will have 30 -35 players at best & that includes senior colts filling in & blokes playing who are closer to 50 than 40.
Most clubs that pay players don't pay them out of general revenue(IE gate takings & Bar takings) What they usually do is form a small committee that raises funds through either running livestock or cropping programs.These enterprise are generally very successful & can generate income of up to $100.000.The real issue that no-one seems willing to address is lack of playing numbers in most country areas of the state.

That was Dogwatcher's info, not mine, I was replying to him.

It's amazing how many people think these measures are going to stop recruitment. It's aimed at stopping a ridiculous mercenary culture and excessive payments, not ALL recruitment. You can spend $3k a game! Three grand a game! Plus game day incentives. Plus petrol allowances. If you can't recruit what you need with that sort of money then I would suggest you need to look at who you're trying to recruit. Which is again a good thing.

Maybe the quality of the players you recruit drops slightly, maybe they're a bit younger, or a bit older, maybe the standard of the game drops from a 9/10 to a 7/10 to use a Jetters-ism. You know what, I actually think that's a good thing too as it makes the sport more accessible and viable for the locals to be part of. Maybe that group of mates that just weren't quite good enough to play A's for their local team because of the paid players all of a sudden start getting a game and feeling more part of it. Their families start feeling a part of it... soon enough it's once again a community driven culture rather than a money driven one.

The other thing is you have to remember the club down the road can only spend three grand too, so its not like you're going to miss out on a recruit because someone is paying more - which is what IS currently happening.

All these clubs that are getting absolutely bent over a barrel, getting taken for a ride, blatantly ripped off and taken advantage of, someone is trying to help stop some of that from happening .... and they are up in arms? Mind blowing. Would have thought the leagues/clubs that are being extorted would have been running to these administrators saying thank you...

Let’s just scrap salary caps all together, that way the AFL can have Hawthorn and Collingwood take it turns on who wins the flag. Just look at the English Premier League they have had 4 premiers in the last 20 years, how’s that for equality but hey if some rich guy wants to buy all the best players he should be allowed to so he can watch his side win all the time.