The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[therisingblues]

JTC
It actually says "to be reviewed at the end of 2016 season".
The CPI applies"in subsequent seasons", and then as a "minimum".
I don't think we are painted into a corner as yet.

[am Bays]

I was led to believe that the terms of the Clowns presence was to be reviewed annually, purportedly so that fine-tuning could occur. Chiggy mentioned this at the GFC information night.

I have heard that since then the clubs have made suggestions for change to the SANFL - and have been broadly told to **** off. "A deal is a deal" , apparently.

I very much suspect that a review of the license fee will be handled in a similar fashion.

Are they holding some sort of metaphorical gun to the club's heads? What is it they have over us to make the clubs go from a unanimous "NO" vote to a minimum required "YES" vote and then putting up with all this god damn arrogant crap? Surely if their proposal was so tenuous, with so many clauses written into the agreement, the clubs had grounds for specifying them.

Our biggest "blockers" to any licence renegotiation are Olson and Parkinson, they're the ones hell-bent on keeping the AFL clubs "sweet"

With this issue hanging over the sport: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-2016-wealthiest-clubs-in-funding-battle-with-afl-20160915-grhf6q.html the SANFL are fearful any any more money being taken out of their share of the Adelaide Oval pie.

The SMA distribution will be negotiated first before any SANFL licence fee, and the SANFL doesn't want that to happen, hence why it keeps the AFL clubs happy over the SANFL clubs

The reality is the SANFL and it's sovereign clubs are between a rock and a very hard place.

[johntheclaret]

JTC
It actually says "to be reviewed at the end of 2016 season".
The CPI applies"in subsequent seasons", and then as a "minimum".
I don't think we are painted into a corner as yet.

Yeah I saw the word 'minimum'. I just believe that without any performance related agreement in place, anyone who thinks the AFL Clubs are going to divi up anything more than the CPI minimum are kidding themselves. Sadly!

[UK Fan]

WAFL clubs receive an extra $270k a year for afl reserves.

$150k in cash plus $120k in management grants.

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=474

Last paragraph for those who don't want to read it all

[JK]

I was led to believe that the terms of the Clowns presence was to be reviewed annually, purportedly so that fine-tuning could occur. Chiggy mentioned this at the GFC information night.

I have heard that since then the clubs have made suggestions for change to the SANFL - and have been broadly told to **** off. "A deal is a deal" , apparently.

I very much suspect that a review of the license fee will be handled in a similar fashion.

Are they holding some sort of metaphorical gun to the club's heads? What is it they have over us to make the clubs go from a unanimous "NO" vote to a minimum required "YES" vote and then putting up with all this god damn arrogant crap? Surely if their proposal was so tenuous, with so many clauses written into the agreement, the clubs had grounds for specifying them.

Our biggest "blockers" to any licence renegotiation are Olson and Parkinson, they're the ones hell-bent on keeping the AFL clubs "sweet"

With this issue hanging over the sport: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-2016-wealthiest-clubs-in-funding-battle-with-afl-20160915-grhf6q.html the SANFL are fearful any any more money being taken out of their share of the Adelaide Oval pie.

The SMA distribution will be negotiated first before any SANFL licence fee, and the SANFL doesn't want that to happen, hence why it keeps the AFL clubs happy over the SANFL clubs

The reality is the SANFL and it's sovereign clubs are between a rock and a very hard place.

Was having this discussion with some mates yesterday, and this was my guess too .. The SANFL can't keep appearing to side with the needs of AFL clubs at the expense of their own competition (in terms of fairness and equality) without having some sort of reason (either real or perceived), and the only thing I could come up with was the share of SMA income.

[Dutchy]

Thats the issue, SANFL comp is the bottom of the pile, they can't have Crows, Port or SMA/AO failing, if that means the SANFL fails and loses its stature I feel they don't really care as long as the 3 strong pillars are fine.

[therisingblues]

If I am following this conversation correctly, then the AFL sides financial situation is not as secure as they would hope. Even the Crows, who returned a profit, might struggle as the AFL looks to close the gap between the haves and the have nots (Interesting strategy, as according to the article posted by Am Bays, 13 of the AFL clubs actually lost money last year. If they "closed the gap", that would leave a high chance that every club would be making a loss, but that loss would be evened out across the board, unless the new record telecasting rights deal just saves everyone and all is hunky dory. That's another conversation however).
The SANFL is therefore more concerned about the AFL clubs running smoothly, in order to keep filling the Adelaide Oval and paying off the associated debt?
Hence they'd rather keep the AFL clubs happy than their own competition?

[therisingblues]

Just revisiting that article in the Age. Is it not amazing how 13 of the clubs recorded losses last year?
Isn't this just continuing a trend begun in the 70's by those spend hungry VFL clubs, and their inability to balance spending and income?
SANFL clubs did not truly begin to struggle until the 90's, once the Crows were formed and took Mr and Mrs Mainstream with them.
Now we are having a situation where SANFL clubs and AFL clubs are struggling.
It is quite well known that the VFL clubs were very close to falling over before the cash injection supplied in the form of license fees by the likes of West Coast and Adelaide. The greater exposure provided by the national stage and the devotion of Mr and Mrs Mainstream seems not to have translated into a consistent profit making system.
Surely a national competition should have been managed by the more financially viable SANFL, rather than built on this VFL ideal of spending cash that you don't have.

[therisingblues]

JTC
It actually says "to be reviewed at the end of 2016 season".
The CPI applies"in subsequent seasons", and then as a "minimum".
I don't think we are painted into a corner as yet.

Yeah I saw the word 'minimum'. I just believe that without any performance related agreement in place, anyone who thinks the AFL Clubs are going to divi up anything more than the CPI minimum are kidding themselves. Sadly!

Interesting times....
I would suggest that if they agreed to it being a "minimum" then the Clubs have allowed themselves some bargaining power to request payment beyond that minimum.
My interpretation would then be that the Crows can take it or leave it. The latter meaning that the Crows would then have reneged on their part of the deal.
That scenario would depend on how the legals interpret/argue it. It would have to be pushed by the SANFL clubs, and they would need the stomach for the fight. I can't see the Crows laying down and taking such a proposal likely.

[UK Fan]

Keep ringing/writing SANFL to complain.

Phone has been off the hook this week. Those at SANFL house starting to crack.

Keep up the pressure people Olsen and Parkinson have had to send an internal email to calm everyone down.


The time to raise a motion of no confidence in John Olsen at your clubs Agm is now.

[VALE PARK]

Agreed.
To me if you are disenchanted with the current SANFL situation,
Complain to your clubs President and all the board.
No action result will be that nothing will happen that is certain.
Plus,
I get the feeling we can expect another 3 byes plus another bye for a state game into 2017.

[Booney]

Agreed.
To me if you are disenchanted with the current SANFL situation,
Complain to your clubs President and all the board.
No action result will be that nothing will happen that is certain.
Plus,
I get the feeling we can expect another 3 byes plus another bye for a state game into 2017.

I get the impression you're not a fan of the byes then?

[heater31]

Agreed.
To me if you are disenchanted with the current SANFL situation,
Complain to your clubs President and all the board.
No action result will be that nothing will happen that is certain.
Plus,
I get the feeling we can expect another 3 byes plus another bye for a state game into 2017.

I get the impression you're not a fan of the byes then?

Never would have guessed that

[Dogs72]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 0792a81a36

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... af0e1bd96d

Someone's had a bit of a crack at Ruccis latest two Reserves articles. Quite possibly the worst two articles ever written re the reserves (sorry kickinit)

"Michelangelo your current club captain is spot on.

Steve Summerton Facebook quote - "none of this one club #$%^ - its never been one club. That was just a ploy to try to get the Magpies supporters on board with the power. It makes me sick...A power reserves team will be full of blokes not playing for the prison bars, but playing only to get themselves noticed by the afl side. They will be playing AT our club not FOR our club...the integrity of the SANFL is now dead...and take down all the premiership flags down from the port power rooms and put them in the magpies rooms - you didn't win them the magpies did!"

Great to see some integrity and foresight"[i]


[i]Geez, and here I was last year cheering on who I thought was Wayne Milera being "nurtured" at central district. Obviously if it weren't for port he would never have been good enough to be drafted. What garbage.

Turn Adelaide into an authentic club in the SANFL, there couldn't be a quicker way to close the doors of the SANFL, unless of course you give every SANFL club state of the art training facilities, full time footballers and a 10.6m salary cap. This is perhaps the worst article ever written re for or against the reserves debate.

The one club hasn't exactly worked a treat for the power. Now with the 8th worst home crowd attendances in the league as the loyal magpie supporter is now lost and disenchanted.

You constantly rabbit on about what's best for the afl clubs how about what's best for SANFL clubs in the SANFL competition.

The afl clubs will survive not being in the SANFL as they did successfully pre 2014. But the SANFL clubs will not survive with the afl clubs using the SANFL.



Michelangelo in your other article re the advantages of the reserves, you can only really put forward a couple of flimsy points.

The t.v rights; you say the $1m paid to seven was sourced by the afl clubs sponsors. Is this really correct or has the SANFL had to come up with $300,000 or the equivalent of $37,500 a club (for two or 3 games). You say if fox televise a vfl reserves competition people will stay at home on their couch and not venture to suburban grounds. Are you serious? Isnt this what's happening now and therefore not helping attendances or the survival of clubs? So people will stay home to watch Sydney reserves play Collingwood?

Have seven signed on for 2017?

You say what will happen when 5000 go to the crows versus Essendon at thebarton. Are you serious? Crows supporters don't go currently and port home game attendances have dropped 35%. In the VFL an Essendon v Collingwood game struggles to get over 2,000. We all know how good pro reserves advocates are at attendance predictions.

The constant raising of the $50,000 received per club as such a positive is never countered with the in excess of $800,000 lost revenue per year due to the close to 30% drop in crowds since their inception.

It's pretty obvious the experiment has failed. No one blames the crows or port for doing what they perceive in their best interest. But it's not in the interest of the SANFL clubs. It is now the fault of spineless SANFL boards and directors. As Roy said the SANFL now always will bendover to the AFL - there's too many afl board careers on the line.

Why did your friend Tripodi change his vote at the last minute (besides the lifting of recruitment restrictions due salary cap breaches)?

The afl don't want a national comp, with 13 afl clubs losing money, they'd rather "use" the SANFL and wafl. See the rumblings coming out the West, with peel thunders recent result.

For the sake of integrity and the only chance the SANFL has, take the risk

[MW]

Not often I agree with Rucci, but time to put all the talk into action people.

[saintal]

Rucci has consistently pushed the 'club model' for the Ravens. I fail to see how it would make any difference. Removes the bye in the reserves and gives them a steadier pool of top ups to call on- big deal. The elephant in the room remains regardless.

In one article he's stating the Ravens play in-front of officials and family, and in the next he's predicting 5K crowds at AFL reserve games. Rightio.

[DoublebluTiger]

Rucci and Cornesy on 5AA talking about it on main stream media. It's a topic, Get on the phone and tell em. Here's your chance for your voice to be heard!

[mighty_tiger_79]

sent

[goddy11]

Interesting if the Crows AFL team win through to GF and the SANFL Cows win. Will the SANFL Crow withdraw players as there will only be a 6 day break.

[Dogs72]

With the crows out against Sydney, the Eagles are now sitting pretty.