SANFL Clubs - not the bad guys

[aneale]

Oh well, we live in a world were the VFL is the old VFA but a joke. The WAFL not much more, and the SANFL strips its AFL clubs to hold on.

What's right or wrong?

As much as I love Essendon. I think that in the best interests of footy either a league with promotion or relegation or something fashioned basing teams on population would've been the way to go. (4 teams in Melbourne, 2 in every other major capital, 1 each in Hobart, Darwin, and Canberra, and perhaps a regional team...) But footy is so parochial and so we have the shit fight we have................

That's what the SANFL wanted and why they were so reluctant to enter the VFL and knocked them back twice. To their enduring disservice however, they failed to see the horse had bolted in 1987 and stood their holding the gate like a bunch of idiots.

The moment the Eagles and Bears were created the SANFL should have realised that their dream of an independently created National comp consisting of existing State league teams was gone and should have either crapped or got off the pot much quicker. It clearly should have been Eagles and Crows in 1987.

Of for a Crows team in that era of players.

Its a disgrace what has happened to those VFA Clubs tho'.

 

[Forzaport]

As a person who has followed SANFL football since the 1960s, I've had it with Port Adelaide. All they do is whinge and blame other clubs, mismanage their own club, and then hold out their hands for more as if by devine right.

Remember one thing Port Adelaide. The SANFL bought the licence, they own it. Port Adelaide accepted it on SANFL terms, and that was to provide support so the SANFL competition could survive.

Nobody held a gun to Port's head and forced them to bid. Now they want to change the agreement because it doesn't suit them .. well suck it up Port. You're failing, and it's YOUR fault, nobody else's. You would never have won a licence on your own, so STFU and start behaving like a business, not some charity.

If anyone should be complaining it's the SANFL. I used to admire the Port Adelaide Football club so much .. those days are long gone.

Bitter much?

As I understand it, Port earned the right to compete in the national competition, twice.

It is the SANFL that has mismanaged both AFL licences and football in this state. How can the SANFL which owns both licences and AAMI stadium be so far in debt and unable to extend their line of credit? Why are attendences diving for both South Australian clubs? How can the state team which has the lion's share of support be forecasting a $1-2 million loss for the second consecutive year?

Placing blame solely on the Port Adelaide Football Club for the 1995 licence agreement and its current financial woes is ignorant, outdated and does not address the core issues facing football in this state today.

 

[aneale]

The clubs should be spending less. What a joke that they are paying washed up hacks over the odds when really they should be cutting down.

which is what? care to share with us what the average SANFL player makes? what is under the odds? what was Warren Tredrea worth in 1996?

feel free to regale us with your knowlege of the SANFL

 

[Jade]

Whoa whoa whoa.....

The SANFL..

ARE THE BAD GUYS!

Seriously, the patience of the AFL, with what is effectively a competing governing body has been extreme.

The SANFL acts in the interest of the SANFL.

The AFL acts in the interests of the game.

What staggers me at the moment is that the AFL are in a position to utterly bury the SANFL.

And yet they choose not to do so.

Why?

Because it's in the interest of the game.

The SANFL needs to stop acting like a damn child.....

Grow up.

 

[aneale]

Whoa whoa whoa.....

The SANFL..

ARE THE BAD GUYS!

Seriously, the patience of the AFL, with what is effectively a competing governing body has been extreme.

The SANFL acts in the interest of the SANFL.

The AFL acts in the interests of the game.

What staggers me at the moment is that the AFL are in a position to utterly bury the SANFL.

And yet they choose not to do so.

Why?

Because it's in the interest of the game.

The SANFL needs to stop acting like a damn child.....

Grow up.

pigs arse, the AFL acts in its own self interest as much as anyone else. The AFL sees grass roots footy as not much more than $1000 for every super goal kicked in a Mickey Mouse competition.

They're about as far away from reality of the actual grass roots of the game as the LA Lakers are to basketball.

Competing bodies are not a bad thing, the AFL don't own the game, they run a league, thats it, nothing more, nothing less. It's like the NBA deciding they are going to rename the sport of basketball 'NBA'.

 

[Scodog10]

Except most 'interstate' players are not highly paid. Our local Ammo Clubs pay better than the SANFL. Toby Thurstans is getting paid more at Keith than he did at Sturt. Matt Duldig got cut by Glenelg, went to the Barossa, earned more money there and has now taken a pay cut to play for Sturt this year to have one more shot at SANFL after Brant Chambers got sacked. Glenelg are constantly losing SANFL players to clubs like Brighton.

Glenelg's captain is a Victorian, basically plays for nothing and would be close to their best player. You can argue that the salary cap will go down but the interstaters will still be here and the Ammo's will be chock full of even more footballers as they shell out $600-$700 a game.

It's a myth. Most of the money goes to local players, or blokes like the Gowans who have been here for a decade and won 8 flags.

Who funds and is responsible for the National U18's comp that allows the Oakleigh Chargers to have all those draftees and to what extent? Who funds and is responsible for the SANFL U18's and to what extent?

As of 2008 the cap was $400,000, I can't find an updated figure, but taking $25,000-$50,000 off of that wouldn't hurt in the slightest and it creates goodwill between the SANFL and both the Crows and Power especially if it adds a few extra S.A youngsters to the draft pool.

Losing players from state leagues to lower levels happens in all states. Bundoora has Cameron Cloke running around who was on an AFL list last year and Hayden Skipworth was on one in 2009 but is down at Aberfeldie now. Both would quite easily find their way onto VFL lists if they weren't on such good money at their respective clubs.

The Chargers would be funded by the AFL in the same way that the SANFL provide money to their associate clubs. The only difference would be that the AFL tells the TAC cup teams how to spend their money and we both know that can never happen in the SANFL. However if the SANFL were to drop the cap by say $30,000 but implement a rule that each club has to hire a Junior development manager with that extra money, as well as other initiatives to help junior development, then we would see the number of S.A recruits increase which has the flow on effect of increasing the standard of S.A football in general.

Yeah some of the lower level leagues may end up having more players to poach but it still builds a bigger and better quality pool of talent in the long run!

 

[Jade]

pigs arse, the AFL acts in its own self interest as much as anyone else. The AFL sees grass roots footy as not much more than $1000 for every super goal kicked in a Mickey Mouse competition.

They're about as far away from reality of the actual grass roots of the game as the LA Lakers are to basketball.

Competing bodies are not a bad thing, the AFL don't own the game, they run a league, thats it, nothing more, nothing less. It's like the NBA deciding they are going to rename the sport of basketball 'NBA'.

Mate, appreciate your response.

Absolutely stunned, that a supporter of Adelaide would be convinced that the AFL is the 'bad guy'.

I'm not sure if you live in SA (didn't check), but if you do, my god this whole SANFL v AFL because I live in SA response is bloody ridiculous.

Why do SA fans think the SANFL is your friend?

Are you seriously THAT DAFT?

The AFL intended to bring in an existing SANFL club (lets say Port ), but was forced to effectively create its own when the SANFL rejected the offer. The AFL created the Crows.

The part that truly staggers me - they allowed the SANFL, a competing body, to bid to OWN the license. A level of foresight that in my limited experience has not been displayed by ANY SPORTING ORGANISATION IN THE WORLD.

This unified, Adelaide club is strong. It is r*ped just as badly by the SANFL as Port, but because of it's ambigious beginnings has a higher supporter base than Port. A beginning driven by the AFL.

The independent body, the AFL, did everything it could to support football in SA. The SANFL did everything it could to act in its own interest.

It sickens me that people don't understand this. Adelaide fans especially, should appreciate the damage that the SANFL is inflicting on football.

 

[aneale]

As of 2008 the cap was $400,000, I can't find an updated figure, but taking $25,000-$50,000 off of that wouldn't hurt in the slightest and it creates goodwill between the SANFL and both the Crows and Power especially if it adds a few extra S.A youngsters to the draft pool.

Losing players from state leagues to lower levels happens in all states. Bundoora has Cameron Cloke running around who was on an AFL list last year and Hayden Skipworth was on one in 2009 but is down at Aberfeldie now. Both would quite easily find their way onto VFL lists if they weren't on such good money at their respective clubs.

The Chargers would be funded by the AFL in the same way that the SANFL provide money to their associate clubs. The only difference would be that the AFL tells the TAC cup teams how to spend their money and we both know that can never happen in the SANFL. However if the SANFL were to drop the cap by say $30,000 but implement a rule that each club has to hire a Junior development manager with that extra money, as well as other initiatives to help junior development, then we would see the number of S.A recruits increase which has the flow on effect of increasing the standard of S.A football in general.

Yeah some of the lower level leagues may end up having more players to poach but it still builds a bigger and better quality pool of talent in the long run!

But unlike the AFL, the SANFL cap is inclusive of the senior coaches salary and the assistants/reserves/U18's coaches. Some coaches get more leaving the assistants with very little. Stephen Rowe for example is the midfield coach of Glenelg. He does the job for nothing, completely voluntary. I know of another coach who gets about $80,000 of that $400,000. The remaining amount goes to the players, League, Reserves. You're talking about blokes who get about $8,000 on average to play 22 games a year. Every now and again some dreamer asks for $30K

They could drop the salary cap and employ a Junior Development caoch. or they could raise the cap by $30,000 and buy another Development coach over and above what they already have given the cost is inclusive of the cap. So what's the difference? This rubbish of dropping the cap by $30,000 - $50,000 to create some sort of goodwill and ibcreasing the talent pool is ignorant twaddle. The draft is cyclic and always has been, the SANFL has gone to an U18 model rather than their previous U17 model, because after all the sport is about the AFL Draft isn't it, and you will now see the results in line with our population/player ratio.

 

[aneale]

Mate, appreciate your response.

Absolutely stunned, that a supporter of Adelaide would be convinced that the AFL is the 'bad guy'.

I'm not sure if you live in SA (didn't check), but if you do, my god this whole SANFL v AFL because I live in SA response is bloody ridiculous.

Why do SA fans think the SANFL is your friend?

Are you seriously THAT DAFT?

The AFL intended to bring in an existing SANFL club (lets say Port ), but was forced to effectively create its own when the SANFL rejected the offer. The AFL created the Crows.

The part that truly staggers me - they allowed the SANFL, a competing body, to bid to OWN the license. A level of foresight that in my limited experience has not been displayed by ANY SPORTING ORGANISATION IN THE WORLD.

This unified, Adelaide club is strong. It is r*ped just as badly by the SANFL as Port, but because of it's ambigious beginnings has a higher supporter base than Port. A beginning driven by the AFL.

The independent body, the AFL, did everything it could to support football in SA. The SANFL did everything it could to act in its own interest.

It sickens me that people don't understand this. Adelaide fans especially, should appreciate the damage that the SANFL is inflicting on football.

The AFL didn't create the Crows, as much as they needed the Eagles, Bears and Crows to prop up their failing adminsistration and Clubs.

I accept that the SANFL take way too much from their AFL Clubs and both Clubs should be let off their leash and be allowed to prosper for no other reason than just competing on a level footing as the big Victorian Clubs.

The SANFL are no fools given they a) got a license to call their own and then in that same license contract were smart enough to get a clause added in that prevented the AFL from putting in another without it being offered to them and played at the stadium they own freehold, Football Park. Fact is they're just smarter, looking after themselves, absolutely. But no idiots.

The difference is, and yes I do live in Adelaide, is that I don't accept that it's one way and no other. We cannot live in a world where there is AFL and nothing else. The SANFL, WAFL, TFL all have their own identity. The Modbury Football Club, an ammo club was est in 1862, before Carlton, before Essendon, Collingwood et al and why should them or any other CLub around the country have to lose any part of their identity because Vlad acts like a spoiled child.

I love my Crows, I love the SANFL for what it was and is and still attend when the Crows play away or on Sunday's, I loved when SA beat the Big V and i'd shoot myself in the head before having to live in a vanilla AFL world where everything was the same. You only have to see the cluster**** that is going on NT to realise that the AFL is not the benevolent be all and end all.

The SANFL and any other State League should be able to run its competition withou recriminations, does that mean I think they should strangle the life out of its AFL teams? no. But if you don't want the horns, don't play with the Bull. Hardly the SANFL's fault that the AFL is run by idiots and got duped.

 

[Jade]

The AFL didn't create the Crows, as much as they needed the Eagles, Bears and Crows to prop up their failing adminsistration and Clubs.

The Eagles, Bears and Crows were all VFL/AFL expansion attempts with varied results.

"to prop up their failing adminsistration and Clubs"

This statement is a flat out joke, and displays a lack of knowedge of history in this respect.

Whilst the 'existing' clubs in the VFL/AFL were a spectrum of success/failure off field, the expansion into WA, SA and QLD was driven by a desire to expand the game, not support existing clubs.

This is flat out PROVEN by the fact that AFTER such expansion, Fitzroy dissapeared, Melbourne and Hawthorn near merged and North was offered relocation to the GC..... how many more??

I accept that the SANFL take way too much from their AFL Clubs and both Clubs should be let off their leash and be allowed to prosper for no other reason than just competing on a level footing as the big Victorian Clubs.

You have my vote sir.

I wonder, are you aware of which body prevents this?

The SANFL are no fools given they a) got a license to call their own and then in that same license contract were smart enough to get a clause added in that prevented the AFL from putting in another without it being offered to them and played at the stadium they own freehold, Football Park. Fact is they're just smarter, looking after themselves, absolutely. But no idiots.

Mate I don't dispute that the SANFL looked after themselves. But when you turn to 'interest of the game'..... the SANFL are a disgrace.

Is rapist the right term? I'd say leeches with a second thought.

The difference is, and yes I do live in Adelaide, is that I don't accept that it's one way and no other. We cannot live in a world where there is AFL and nothing else. The SANFL, WAFL, TFL all have their own identity. The Modbury Football Club, an ammo club was est in 1862, before Carlton, before Essendon, Collingwood et al and why should them or any other CLub around the country have to lose any part of their identity because Vlad acts like a spoiled child.

This would frustrate me if I wasn't so used to it - Demetriou is an excellent administrator. Disagree, and for lack of a better way to convey, you're a peon. You simply know nothing of administration.

Try to argue, and I will blow you away with factual figures - clean and simple as that. So please don't.

I love my Crows, I love the SANFL for what it was and is and still attend when the Crows play away or on Sunday's,

You love your team.... you don't get any argument from me.

I loved when SA beat the Big V

As you should...

and i'd shoot myself in the head before having to live in a vanilla AFL world where everything was the same.

The same? You know absolutely nothing about Hawthorn, Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton et al.

If you did, you wouldn't be silly enough to make a statement like that.

You only have to see the cluster**** that is going on NT to realise that the AFL is not the benevolent be all and end all.

Sorry, wasn't the SANFL a national body, equally responsible for any and all development of the game outside of SA?

The SANFL and any other State League should be able to run its competition withou recriminations, does that mean I think they should strangle the life out of its AFL teams? no. But if you don't want the horns, don't play with the Bull. Hardly the SANFL's fault that the AFL is run by idiots and got duped.

Run by idiots.....

$1.1b AUD

Find me someone willing to pay the same for your product mate.

You are currently enjoying the benfits of a national league, supporting a team created by the national league, and you criticise the hand that feeds you.

MODS, please forgive me for the statement is clear as water:

You know NOTHING about football - you're a peon that blindly follows a side and understands little to nothing about the machinations that provide it.

 

[Scodog10]

But unlike the AFL, the SANFL cap is inclusive of the senior coaches salary and the assistants/reserves/U18's coaches. Some coaches get more leaving the assistants with very little. Stephen Rowe for example is the midfield coach of Glenelg. He does the job for nothing, completely voluntary. I know of another coach who gets about $80,000 of that $400,000. The remaining amount goes to the players, League, Reserves. You're talking about blokes who get about $8,000 on average to play 22 games a year. Every now and again some dreamer asks for $30K

They could drop the salary cap and employ a Junior Development caoch. or they could raise the cap by $30,000 and buy another Development coach over and above what they already have given the cost is inclusive of the cap. So what's the difference? This rubbish of dropping the cap by $30,000 - $50,000 to create some sort of goodwill and ibcreasing the talent pool is ignorant twaddle. The draft is cyclic and always has been, the SANFL has gone to an U18 model rather than their previous U17 model, because after all the sport is about the AFL Draft isn't it, and you will now see the results in line with our population/player ratio.

WTF are you talking about???

http://blogs.news.com.au/adelaidenow/sundaymail/index.php/adelaidenow/comments/scott_walsh_the_sanfl_salary_cap_is_a_joke

In 2009, the SANFL salary cap demands clubs spend no more than $360,000 on their senior lists.
That figure is $10,000 higher than last year. But there is growing cynicism about the level of adherence to the salary cap rules.

The salary cap is for the senior list not the coaches!

Your allegiance is with the SANFL ahead of anything else and despite me putting forward a suggestion that helps both your AFL club and the SANFL you steadfastly refuted it! Its clear I'm wasting my time so I won't go any further with this....

 

[R00StaR]

Is this how the SA people wanted it? I mean surely the AFL wouldve prefered a team that isnt siphon to a lower league? I must admit i really didnt pay much attention to the politics of getting these new teams up at the time, but its strikes me that it was done this way to gain support from the people.

If the VFL just created a SA and WA teams and just plonked em there, what wort of support wouldve they received? Very little id imagine, so as i see it the people wanted it this way, where they owned the team (via SANFL). There wouldve no doubt been stadium issues as well (without the SANFL on side).

Really it doesnt appear such a bad model, perhaps though it should be a 50/50 profit split between owner and club which allows the club to stay in the black rather than a set figure. Of course both parties would need to agree on required spending or club would make sure there wasnt much profit to split.

Without the second AFL team the SANFL are clearly limiting potential income. It makes no sense to kill the income stream, unless of course they feel they can make better use of it in another form?

 

[NTRabbit]

Seriously, the patience of the AFL, with what is effectively a competing governing body has been extreme.

The SANFL acts in the interest of the SANFL.

The AFL acts in the interests of the game.

Whilst the 'existing' clubs in the VFL/AFL were a spectrum of success/failure off field, the expansion into WA, SA and QLD was driven by a desire to expand the game, not support existing clubs.

Mate I don't dispute that the SANFL looked after themselves. But when you turn to 'interest of the game'..... the SANFL are a disgrace.

Is rapist the right term? I'd say leeches with a second thought.

Try to argue, and I will blow you away with factual figures - clean and simple as that. So please don't.

You are currently enjoying the benfits of a national league, supporting a team created by the national league, and you criticise the hand that feeds you.

MODS, please forgive me for the statement is clear as water:

You know NOTHING about football - you're a peon that blindly follows a side and understands little to nothing about the machinations that provide it.

You've got a little bit of the

about you in all of your postings in this thread.

 

[Ants]

I'm confused as to why the bush leagues can pinch these players. In Victoria it makes sense - attendances are crap for VFL, there is little sponsorship, all the focus is on the 10 AFL teams and frankly most of the teams have little to no history or real identity per se. So it shouldn't be too hard to pick players off.

But in South Australia the SANFL has a long history and presumably a lot of supporters for each club. With only a single AFL game each week their attendances should be far higher than any bush league, they should be getting significant sponsorship, and its been said some have pokies. They even get a free player or two from the AFL. That's ignoring any other funds they get.

So why aren't they far better off than any bush league and able to keep their best players?

 

[Macca19]

I'm confused as to why the bush leagues can pinch these players. In Victoria it makes sense - attendances are crap for VFL, there is little sponsorship, all the focus is on the 10 AFL teams and frankly most of the teams have little to no history or real identity per se. So it shouldn't be too hard to pick players off.

But in South Australia the SANFL has a long history and presumably a lot of supporters for each club. With only a single AFL game each week their attendances should be far higher than any bush league, they should be getting significant sponsorship, and its been said some have pokies. They even get a free player or two from the AFL. That's ignoring any other funds they get.

So why aren't they far better off than any bush league and able to keep their best players?

SANFL clubs do keep their best players. Its not the best players that go to country clubs, its the mid range B-grade players who are definitely good enough for SANFL level who get offered $40,000 a year plus a job plus a car etc. compared to $200 a game at SANFL level beacuse, despite what aneale says, a lot of money is offered to ex-AFL players to get them across to improve their list and to improve crowds. In the local league where I am, guys (that will mean nothing to you) like Michael Liebelt, Nick Prokopec, Ryan Darling, Zac Hier, Nick Jackman, Brad Currie, Aaron Spicer were all decent SANFL players but hey, money talks.

Not some have pokies, every club has pokies, and every club relies on pokies to make a profit. The SANFL clubs are just about completely reliant on problem gamblers to make a buck. Thats why all SANFL clubs in the past 6-7 years were falling over themselves trying to find a hotel to buy and its why all SANFL clubs will be staunchly standing up against any proposed pokie regislation changes. Centrals arent the richest club because they have the most supporters (they dont) nor do they have the most members, but theyve had a huge pokie fortress for 10 years which has completely bankrolled the club. Its why the Port Magpies nearly died, due to not having a hotel until a couple of years back. This is why in my opinion, it would be worth dropping the salary cap (if aneale thinks the big names dont come here for money then we wont lose anything) which would put the pressure of the SANFL clubs relying on pokies, and the money can be spent elsewhere.

 

[PortBrillance]

Most crows fans would stick up for the SANFL even though it is quite clear that they are raping their club. Yet they continue to ignore the issue as long as they break-even (made a loss last year and will do the same this year)

Provided they stay afloat and see Port struggling on it's death bed, they are happy.

Welcome to SA, where you would rather see an enemy suffer then worry about your own club. So many bitter people here it's not funny.

 

[Hellgood]

Oh well, we live in a world were the VFL is the old VFA but a joke. The WAFL not much more, and the SANFL strips its AFL clubs to hold on.

The state leagues are going very well in WA and SA. Crowds have been fantastic in the WAFL, culminatining in 20k+ crowd for last years WAFL Grand Final. The crowds the SANFL get are also pretty great too. The clubs are close with juniors entering the system at a young age in development squads and progressing through the club.

The VFL may be strong in terms of the quality of the clubs, but the community and support of the WAFL and the SANFL is much much stronger.

 

[sigur]

Not some have pokies, every club has pokies, and every club relies on pokies to make a profit. The SANFL clubs are just about completely reliant on problem gamblers to make a buck. Thats why all SANFL clubs in the past 6-7 years were falling over themselves trying to find a hotel to buy and its why all SANFL clubs will be staunchly standing up against any proposed pokie regislation changes. Centrals arent the richest club because they have the most supporters (they dont) nor do they have the most members, but theyve had a huge pokie fortress for 10 years which has completely bankrolled the club. Its why the Port Magpies nearly died, due to not having a hotel until a couple of years back. This is why in my opinion, it would be worth dropping the salary cap (if aneale thinks the big names dont come here for money then we wont lose anything) which would put the pressure of the SANFL clubs relying on pokies, and the money can be spent elsewhere.

You'd have to ban pokies from all levels of footy though, or the Ammos would have even more cash to throw at SANFL players. If Chris Judd decided today to quit Carlton to concentrate on his VISY career then perhaps more people would understand.

Question still stands - if the SANFL has higher attendances and more revenue sources than the WAFL/VFL then why shouldn't it have a higher salary cap?

 

[aneale]

The salary cap is for the senior list not the coaches!

No it isn't, and the fact you quoted the Advertiser is half your problem. The SANFL cap includes their footy department spending.

I have personal knowledge within 3 of our our Clubs, like I said, explain why certain coaches do it for the love rather than paid. The Clubs all have Pokies venues, they could pay coaches from proceeds of that if they so wish ..... unless there is a specific reason they can't. I wonder what that is?

Whilst Victorians sit over the border in complete ignorance of anything west of them, I'll sit in the knowledge that SA'ians, particularly those associated with a Club, have a greater understanding of what is actually going on.

 

[aneale]

SANFL clubs do keep their best players. Its not the best players that go to country clubs, its the mid range B-grade players who are definitely good enough for SANFL level who get offered $40,000 a year plus a job plus a car etc. compared to $200 a game at SANFL level beacuse, despite what aneale says, a lot of money is offered to ex-AFL players to get them across to improve their list and to improve crowds. In the local league where I am, guys (that will mean nothing to you) like Michael Liebelt, Nick Prokopec, Ryan Darling, Zac Hier, Nick Jackman, Brad Currie, Aaron Spicer were all decent SANFL players but hey, money talks.

Not some have pokies, every club has pokies, and every club relies on pokies to make a profit. The SANFL clubs are just about completely reliant on problem gamblers to make a buck. Thats why all SANFL clubs in the past 6-7 years were falling over themselves trying to find a hotel to buy and its why all SANFL clubs will be staunchly standing up against any proposed pokie regislation changes. Centrals arent the richest club because they have the most supporters (they dont) nor do they have the most members, but theyve had a huge pokie fortress for 10 years which has completely bankrolled the club. Its why the Port Magpies nearly died, due to not having a hotel until a couple of years back. This is why in my opinion, it would be worth dropping the salary cap (if aneale thinks the big names dont come here for money then we wont lose anything) which would put the pressure of the SANFL clubs relying on pokies, and the money can be spent elsewhere.

no one gets 'a lot' of money. Your point about Ammo's and Country Clubs offering $40,000 + a job and a car is well made. SANFL can't compete with that, my Club certainly can't.

You have a position of where decent footballers who didn't make their shot at AFL level either come home or are implored by coaches/family to head over to play in the best standard they can whilst they still can or they will end up with regrets by the time they finish. I can name you a player from Port, Glenelg and Sturt who were told that, and when they came over all of them could have made more money staying home or from playing in our Ammo's.

The money doesn't lure them, it might keep them after they come over and prove their worth. My Club uses the majority of their cap to keep their players from playing in the country rather than chasing recruits. It's a bit of a catch 22

 

[PrideOf]

Welcome to SA, where you would rather see an enemy suffer then worry about your own club. So many bitter people here it's not funny.

One question for Port fans:

"Considering so many of you openly hate the SANFL so much and would be happy if it died tomorrow, why do you expect the SANFL to be fair to you and not reciprocate that attitude?"

Haven't been able to get a straight answer on that from my Port mates for days.

 

[Subprime]

The SANFL needs to figure out a sustainable model in which to operate which doesn't rely on dividends from the 2 AFL clubs. Twenty years have now past since the football world changed forever in SA and its time the SANFL clubs adjusted to the realities of the national competition.

 

[PrideOf]

The SANFL needs to figure out a sustainable model in which to operate which doesn't rely on dividends from the 2 AFL clubs. Twenty years have now past since the football world changed forever in SA and its time the SANFL clubs adjusted to the realities of the national competition.

I agree. Moving to a new stadium in the city is the perfect time to do it too.

The big challenge (which I don't expect Melbournians to understand) is that one possible new model is that the AFL funds State footy here. That's something no-one who cares about SANFL footy is comfortable with, because the AFL's grand plan for footy over here is for 50% of people to go to an AFL game and the other 50% to sit on their arses at home and watch it on Foxtel.

 

[PortBrillance]

Considering so many of you openly hate the SANFL so much and would be happy if it died tomorrow, why do you expect the SANFL to be fair to you and not reciprocate that attitude?

Because we are the Port Adelaide Football Club.

enough said.

 

[PrideOf]

Because we are the Port Adelaide Football Club.

enough said.

Thanks champ. Still don't have a straight answer. Play on.