SANFL rule changes to affect Magpies structure and contracted players.

Remove this Banner Ad

Macca19 said:
I disagree. It's all about the type of players we select. In 2014 we got Bruggemann who wasn't part of the club before, neither was Biemans, or Gordon. We had Ben Haren who was another KPP. We brought back Krakouer.

This year almost all our top up players were 176cm, 65kg guys. Poor recruiting. How many short people do we want?

There are plenty of talented young players who can come and perform a role.

Prior to the change, we hadn't made the finals in 5 years, hadn't won a final in 8 years. We were not a strong club. Our junior development was extremely poor. The vast majority of our supporters wanted all our AFL players in the one side. It had to come at a cost.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree entirely with the prior to 2014 stuff but it is irrelevant to compare to that anyway. I am not buying into the KT game of reflecting on our previous dire situation and saying that today everything is fine. That is not what this club is about. This is about the future and about Port being on the map of success. For far too long, too long, like a combined 30+ years we have won West Adelaide levels of silverware at either level.

I don't disagree with your point of the current recruiting of short people either but I am concerned this is likely due to there not being decent big men available. Let's be frank, the available players we have at our disposal are ninth best players after all eight sanfl clubs have picked the talent pool apart. We no longer have sanfl level players form our juniors anymore. Pointing out Bruggerman and Beiman's and Krakouer and Gordon is mute as Beiman's had his ties with Boak's sister and Krakouer was a wayward afl player, and Gordon couldn't crack the league side, and Bruggerman proved to be decent but evident that he didn't want to work hard. These are not what successful clubs are built upon. This is very few fish in the sea and since that year have we gotten any others with similar ability? 'The answer's no ... no'. Besides, if they're any good they get lured by money offers and the ****ing cycle begins again. What ****ing baloney is this?

When you say "The vast majority of our supporters wanted all our AFL players in the one side. It had to come at a cost." you are sounding that you don't give a stuff about winning or losing sanfl games, whether true or not that is how it sounds but the comment is totally irrelevant and doesn't need to be said. How much of a cost? Being made a bottom club in the sanfl? Is that the deserved cost? From the very outset of joining the afl all Port players should have been playing at Port Adelaide as of 1997 onwards. Had that occurred from the beginning, the board at the time probably had a bit more nous and balls to make sure we had some kind of better deal for the sanfl teams, but let's assume that in 1997 we were stripped of juniors and had these dead rotten rules enforced in 1997 that we have now, I'm confident the vast majority of us supporters would've been up in arms about it because there would have only been one club for all supporters to identify with, Port Adelaide, not Magpies, not Power. This is the problem of Port supporters of today as they still appear to have their opinions influenced on the notion that there are still two tribes of supporters or communities, pro-Magpies or pro-Power ... I don't know how to really explain my point here but had this crap been set upon us in 1997 or prior no way would there have been this soft acceptance. There is one club of 40+ listed players with extras and some ridiculous development dampening rules on us with a growing poor number of extras at that but PAFC is in the sanfl, not Magpies, but PAFC and it is being treated dirty.

It really is time for Port supporters to stop thinking that the Magpies are a sideshow and acknowledge that we have under these rules a PAFC team that is now going to be too young and inexperience to win sanfl games let alone make finals. There are no 24+ year old experienced Sharrad, Young, Beimans et al and these young AFL draftees need men around them, not just one leadership player. These rules are designed to keep us bottom and being bottom is not good development for any player and any poor sucker coach. You look around the leagues and other AFL clubs have had the ability to rookie or draft players form their contracted list, not many, but it has happened. Under our rules we will have no chance of doing that because our quality is far from it.

Why the hell should the sanfl have a right to tell us who our best 21 is on a week by week basis and in finals? Why? This infringes on our club's on-field performances, its culture, its in-club competition between players. What right does any organisation have on who we pick week by week? It is like the AFL telling all non-Vic teams that come finals time they need to play four rookie listed players ahead of other players that are in better form. What right do they have? Why should my son get drafted by Port or the crows and be a long shot at making the afl but be good enough to play sanfl weekly yet have limited chance of success at his level for a handful of years just because he's been recruited by the two SA clubs? Why?

Bottom line is this, our club name, our history, our culture is being stomped on. For us to be successful at AFL we must have our stuff together from top to bottom but we can't. Let Port Adelaide control its inner sanctum from end to end and we will become successful but by not having this autonomy it is hindering us from becoming who we truly can be. Not one Port Adelaide person should be at all satisfied with this.​
 
PA88 said:
I don't disagree entirely with the prior to 2014 stuff but it is irrelevant to compare to that anyway. I am not buying into the KT game of reflecting on our previous dire situation and saying that today everything is fine. That is not what this club is about. This is about the future and about Port being on the map of success. For far too long, too long, like a combined 30+ years we have won West Adelaide levels of silverware at either level.​
Click to expand...


Would I prefer we still have zones and juniors and all that? Yes, absolutely. No question. Did we make any sort of use of that before? Definitely not. I agree, our lack of success has been frustrating and not good enough. But, the changes to our structure didn't hinder that. Factually, it has helped us. We should have beaten Norwood in 14 with the team we had on the park. We should have beaten Sturt last year. We would not be having this discussion had we won 2 flags in 4 years.

I don't disagree with your point of the current recruiting of short people either but I am concerned this is likely due to there not being decent big men available. Let's be frank, the available players we have at our disposal are ninth best players after all eight sanfl clubs have picked the talent pool apart. We no longer have sanfl level players form our juniors anymore. Pointing out Bruggerman and Beiman's and Krakouer and Gordon is mute as Beiman's had his ties with Boak's sister and Krakouer was a wayward afl player, and Gordon couldn't crack the league side, and Bruggerman proved to be decent but evident that he didn't want to work hard. These are not what successful clubs are built upon. This is very few fish in the sea and since that year have we gotten any others with similar ability? 'The answer's no ... no'. Besides, if they're any good they get lured by money offers and the ******* cycle begins again. What ******* baloney is this?
Click to expand...

There's always big men available. Who knew anything about Gus Bruggemann before he came along? Now he wasn't heaps great, but he performed his role well. That's all we need. Guys that have some size that can play a role. We don't need the top ups to be in our top 10 players.
​
When you say "The vast majority of our supporters wanted all our AFL players in the one side. It had to come at a cost." you are sounding that you don't give a stuff about winning or losing sanfl games, whether true or not that is how it sounds but the comment is totally irrelevant and doesn't need to be said.
Click to expand...

Not at all. In fact my first post in this thread said that the changes this week would give us a better chance of winning games than what the previous system of the last few years was.

How much of a cost? Being made a bottom club in the sanfl?
Click to expand...

Injuries in conjunction with poor choices of top up players made us a poor team this year. Not the SANFL. And yes, there was always going to be a cost. Everyone knew that we couldnt have all the AFL players plus be able to cherry pick whoever else we wanted.

It really is time for Port supporters to stop thinking that the Magpies are a sideshow and acknowledge that we have under these rules a PAFC team that is now going to be too young and inexperience to win sanfl games let alone make finals. There are no 24+ year old experienced Sharrad, Young, Beimans et al and these young AFL draftees need men around them, not just one leadership player.
Click to expand...

This will only be a team of 18 year olds if we want it to be. I think people have missed this part:
Any South Australian player who is attaining the age of 19 or older and who is not on the Senior List of a SANFL Club (which is a list of 40 players).

We can still pick players who are older than 19 if we so wish. There are plenty of talented ex-sanfl players around who might want a second chance. It's up to us to find them and not just settle on a bunch of 172cm guys.

These rules are designed to keep us bottom and being bottom is not good development for any player and any poor sucker coach. You look around the leagues and other AFL clubs have had the ability to rookie or draft players form their contracted list, not many, but it has happened. Under our rules we will have no chance of doing that because our quality is far from it.
Click to expand...

Everyone said the previous rules would keep us bottom. We then made 2 GF's and a Prelim.

I appreciate your passionate post. I just see these changes as a positive, not as a negative.
 
PA88 said:

When you say "The vast majority of our supporters wanted all our AFL players in the one side. It had to come at a cost." you are sounding that you don't give a stuff about winning or losing sanfl games, whether true or not that is how it sounds but the comment is totally irrelevant and doesn't need to be said. How much of a cost? Being made a bottom club in the sanfl? Is that the deserved cost? From the very outset of joining the afl all Port players should have been playing at Port Adelaide as of 1997 onwards. Had that occurred from the beginning, the board at the time probably had a bit more nous and balls to make sure we had some kind of better deal for the sanfl teams, but let's assume that in 1997 we were stripped of juniors and had these dead rotten rules enforced in 1997 that we have now, I'm confident the vast majority of us supporters would've been up in arms about it because there would have only been one club for all supporters to identify with, Port Adelaide, not Magpies, not Power. This is the problem of Port supporters of today as they still appear to have their opinions influenced on the notion that there are still two tribes of supporters or communities, pro-Magpies or pro-Power ... I don't know how to really explain my point here but had this crap been set upon us in 1997 or prior no way would there have been this soft acceptance. There is one club of 40+ listed players with extras and some ridiculous development dampening rules on us with a growing poor number of extras at that but PAFC is in the sanfl, not Magpies, but PAFC and it is being treated dirty.

​
Click to expand...

Were you meant to say bottom team here?

The magpies are not a club
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Macca19 said:

Would I prefer we still have zones and juniors and all that? Yes, absolutely. No question. Did we make any sort of use of that before? Definitely not. I agree, our lack of success has been frustrating and not good enough. But, the changes to our structure didn't hinder that. Factually, it has helped us. We should have beaten Norwood in 14 with the team we had on the park. We should have beaten Sturt last year. We would not be having this discussion had we won 2 flags in 4 years.



There's always big men available. Who knew anything about Gus Bruggemann before he came along? Now he wasn't heaps great, but he performed his role well. That's all we need. Guys that have some size that can play a role. We don't need the top ups to be in our top 10 players.
​


Not at all. In fact my first post in this thread said that the changes this week would give us a better chance of winning games than what the previous system of the last few years was.



Injuries in conjunction with poor choices of top up players made us a poor team this year. Not the SANFL. And yes, there was always going to be a cost. Everyone knew that we couldnt have all the AFL players plus be able to cherry pick whoever else we wanted.



This will only be a team of 18 year olds if we want it to be. I think people have missed this part:
Any South Australian player who is attaining the age of 19 or older and who is not on the Senior List of a SANFL Club (which is a list of 40 players).

We can still pick players who are older than 19 if we so wish. There are plenty of talented ex-sanfl players around who might want a second chance. It's up to us to find them and not just settle on a bunch of 172cm guys.



Everyone said the previous rules would keep us bottom. We then made 2 GF's and a Prelim.

I appreciate your passionate post. I just see these changes as a positive, not as a negative.
Click to expand...

No, a lot of suporters that commit to the Magpies said the previous rules would make us bottom over time when our better sanfl players got picked off, and that's the truth, and it did. The beginning of the effect of the rules was the mass exodus of players at the end of 2017 when only three players remained out of the entire sanfl list, when the reserves finished three wins clear. These revised rules we got now are not going to bring that type of quality back. So we are still left with the guys that are not accepted by their sanfl teams. So we search all of SA to get a longshot hopeful to play for peanuts and a league game on an if and only if basis? Good luck.

We didn't win those grand finals. We couldn't select the best 21 that we wanted to select and that cannot be discounted as reasons for losing those grand finals. Those GF appearences were still on the back of at least having a good run of injuries, some experienced 24 year old afl listed fringe players and some decent sanfl listed players that were also not too young and good enough to help us win games during 2014.

2018 does not compare to 2014 nor 2017 after the exodus of 2017.

The crux of it is that so long as we cannot play an sanfl listed player in our best 21 ahead of underperforming afl listed players and that we cannot pay them even close to the going rate of a seasoned sanfl player and give them opportunity to forge an sanfl career then we will not attract quality and our quest for success is dampened severely.

From 2014 I gave it five seasons to see how it would work. I don't have the patience to give it five more with the adjusted rules but I feel we'll most times be closer to collecting a wooden spoon than a premiership.

I'll stand to be corrected if the club does recruit better sanfl players but I doubt it.
 
PA88 said:
Port Adelaide is the club and the club is being designed into being a bottom club in the sanfl competition. Distinguishing the words team or club makes zero difference. So the afl team didn't make the afl finals this year but the club did?
Click to expand...

I view it as the Port Adelaide Football Club has 2 teams

1) Power - AFL
2) Magpies (Power Reserves) - SANFL

So in my opinion its the Magpies team that is being designed into being bottom of the SANFL.

Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, all I really care about is the in game development of our young players/non 22 starters on our AFL list. If this gets compromised by the changes then we really do have a problem because AFL Premierships are the main game here.

Love your passion though PA88
 
I watched the replay of the 2018 NEAFL grand final late last night/early this am.

The 4 NSW and QLD AFL clubs field their reserves in that comp, and in the 8 completed seasons Brisbane have won 3 flags, the next best is NT Thunder with 2, and Aspley, Western Sydney Uni, and Southport, all have 1 each.

None of the other 3 AFL clubs have saluted the judge, but the swans have been runners up in 5 of the last 6 seasons, with margins of 8 points, 2 points ( a goal to Aspley from a free that was kicked after the siren ), 4 points, 3 points, and a 55 point belting by Southport in the most recent game.

The 2014 gf between Sydney and Aspley was replayed on NITV about 6 weeks ago, and there were quite a few Swan's players in that game who I recognised, eg Nankervis ( who looked like an absolute giant in that comp ), Heeney, Parker, and a number of others, (including from memory), Hannebery.
It looked to be a very strong team, but still didn't get the chocolates after leading by about 5 goals at 3/4 time.

The Swans 2018 gf line up appeared very inexperienced by comparison, and had virtually no one in it I had heard of, although the commentators mentioned there were quite a number of Academy players in the team, but whether that was caused by a long injury list to more senior players, or possible rule changes wasn't explained.

I am assuming the top up players for the AFL clubs come from their academies, which would prevent them from being poached and paid extra by the non AFL clubs, which has unfortunately happened regularly to the Maggies under the SANFL set up, and unless I'm missing something I can't see how the new changes will help.

Maybe KT will reveal the positives tonight.
 
ExpectToWin said:
I view it as the Port Adelaide Football Club has 2 teams

1) Power - AFL
2) Magpies (Power Reserves) - SANFL

So in my opinion its the Magpies team that is being designed into being bottom of the SANFL.

Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, all I really care about is the in game development of our young players/non 22 starters on our AFL list. If this gets compromised by the changes then we really do have a problem because AFL Premierships are the main game here.

Love your passion though PA88
Click to expand...

So in 2004 the afl team won the flag but not the club? You can see it the way you do but the reality is that these teams are the club.

What is being compromised here is our winning culture and our development, and so too are the crows. We have teams of too many kids taking on experienced men weekly with little support around them and 2018 showed up the vulnerability of their development when they don't have support, as it did in 2016. Our club never accepted losing being part of the development program in our past, so why do supporters accept it now just because we field an afl team? Unless we're going to trade in and draft ten or more ready made afl players each year like an NBA team whereby the seconds are of no consequence and you can win titles with duds in your seconds then fine but that isn't the case and so duty of care and expectation should be loaded upon the seconds.

There's got to be some good reasons for the recent many afl premiers having their seconds winning flags, mainly the Vic clubs.

There is nothing negative with full steam ahead planning and intentions to win both flags.

To be the Port Adelaide we once were we need to run the club the way we see fit.
 
PA88 said:
So in 2004 the afl team won the flag but not the club? You can see it the way you do but the reality is that these teams are the club.

What is being compromised here is our winning culture and our development, and so too are the crows. We have teams of too many kids taking on experienced men weekly with little support around them and 2018 showed up the vulnerability of their development when they don't have support, as it did in 2016. Our club never accepted losing being part of the development program in our past, so why do supporters accept it now just because we field an afl team? Unless we're going to trade in and draft ten or more ready made afl players each year like an NBA team whereby the seconds are of no consequence and you can win titles with duds in your seconds then fine but that isn't the case and so duty of care and expectation should be loaded upon the seconds.

There's got to be some good reasons for the recent many afl premiers having their seconds winning flags, mainly the Vic clubs.

There is nothing negative with full steam ahead planning and intentions to win both flags.

To be the Port Adelaide we once were we need to run the club the way we see fit.
Click to expand...

We run the club based on constraints/rules put on us by the AFL and the SANFL across the 2 competitions our teams compete in.

Both sets of constraints/rules are uneven but what can you do about it?

It was great back in the day but times have changed
 
1954 said:
I watched the replay of the 2018 NEAFL grand final late last night/early this am.

The 4 NSW and QLD AFL clubs field their reserves in that comp, and in the 8 completed seasons Brisbane have won 3 flags, the next best is NT Thunder with 2, and Aspley, Western Sydney Uni, and Southport, all have 1 each.

None of the other 3 AFL clubs have saluted the judge, but the swans have been runners up in 5 of the last 6 seasons, with margins of 8 points, 2 points ( a goal to Aspley from a free that was kicked after the siren ), 4 points, 3 points, and a 55 point belting by Southport in the most recent game.

The 2014 gf between Sydney and Aspley was replayed on NITV about 6 weeks ago, and there were quite a few Swan's players in that game who I recognised, eg Nankervis ( who looked like an absolute giant in that comp ), Heeney, Parker, and a number of others, (including from memory), Hannebery.
It looked to be a very strong team, but still didn't get the chocolates after leading by about 5 goals at 3/4 time.

The Swans 2018 gf line up appeared very inexperienced by comparison, and had virtually no one in it I had heard of, although the commentators mentioned there were quite a number of Academy players in the team, but whether that was caused by a long injury list to more senior players, or possible rule changes wasn't explained.

I am assuming the top up players for the AFL clubs come from their academies, which would prevent them from being poached and paid extra by the non AFL clubs, which has unfortunately happened regularly to the Maggies under the SANFL set up, and unless I'm missing something I can't see how the new changes will help.

Maybe KT will reveal the positives tonight.
Click to expand...

KT will bring up how better off we are compared to the dark decades of our history.
 
ExpectToWin said:
We run the club based on constraints/rules put on us by the AFL and the SANFL across the 2 competitions our teams compete in.

Both sets of constraints/rules are uneven but what can you do about it?

It was great back in the day but times have changed
Click to expand...

I believe we can do something about the sanfl. Times change for Port but the rest of the AFL clubs don't face these issues. I don't conform to unfair oppressions.
 
1954 said:
I watched the replay of the 2018 NEAFL grand final late last night/early this am.

The 4 NSW and QLD AFL clubs field their reserves in that comp, and in the 8 completed seasons Brisbane have won 3 flags, the next best is NT Thunder with 2, and Aspley, Western Sydney Uni, and Southport, all have 1 each.

None of the other 3 AFL clubs have saluted the judge, but the swans have been runners up in 5 of the last 6 seasons, with margins of 8 points, 2 points ( a goal to Aspley from a free that was kicked after the siren ), 4 points, 3 points, and a 55 point belting by Southport in the most recent game.

The 2014 gf between Sydney and Aspley was replayed on NITV about 6 weeks ago, and there were quite a few Swan's players in that game who I recognised, eg Nankervis ( who looked like an absolute giant in that comp ), Heeney, Parker, and a number of others, (including from memory), Hannebery.
It looked to be a very strong team, but still didn't get the chocolates after leading by about 5 goals at 3/4 time.

The Swans 2018 gf line up appeared very inexperienced by comparison, and had virtually no one in it I had heard of, although the commentators mentioned there were quite a number of Academy players in the team, but whether that was caused by a long injury list to more senior players, or possible rule changes wasn't explained.

I am assuming the top up players for the AFL clubs come from their academies, which would prevent them from being poached and paid extra by the non AFL clubs, which has unfortunately happened regularly to the Maggies under the SANFL set up, and unless I'm missing something I can't see how the new changes will help.

Maybe KT will reveal the positives tonight.
Click to expand...

Didn’t GWS beat Sydney a couple of years ago in the GF?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ford Fairlane said:
The tail is wagging the dog so hard, the dog just had a brain bleed.

Click to expand...


What’s their ultimate goal? An 8-team league sans Port and the Cr’eserves that the wider SA football public will give even less of a shit about than they do now?
 
tribey said:
What’s their ultimate goal? An 8-team league sans Port and the Cr’eserves that the wider SA football public will give even less of a shit about than they do now?
Click to expand...
While further reducing their ability to attract and retain talent. ‘Come play SANFL where were we do our best to ensure that if you do get drafted it won’t be by a local club!’
 
GremioPower said:
We should have moved the Power reserves to the VFL ages ago, so SANFL could give our zones back. We should be able to play and beat them fair and square, as usual.
Click to expand...

I suspect the SANFL would still retain control over all levels of football in SA. The chances of them allowing us to take our zones with us to the VFL would have been less than zero.
 
TeeKray said:
I suspect the SANFL would still retain control over all levels of football in SA. The chances of them allowing us to take our zones with us to the VFL would have been less than zero.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood me. The Power reserves would play in the VFL. The Magpies would get its zones back and play in the SANFL.

We would have three teams: Power (AFL); Heritage (VFL); and Magpies (SANFL).
 
GremioPower said:
You misunderstood me. The Power reserves would play in the VFL. The Magpies would get its zones back and play in the SANFL.

We would have three teams.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, gotcha. I'm so far removed mentally from the idea that we would have a separate team competing in the SANFL competition that I didn't even realise what you were saying. To be honest, I'd rather we just ditch the SANFL altogether, they're an anchor.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

SANFL rule changes to affect Magpies structure and contracted players.

Similar threads

Ford Fairlane
2nds Jez McLennan has signed with Port Magpies
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
RossFC
RossFC
RossFC
SANFL List Management 2024-25
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
kgerlach01
K
Power Plus
2023 SANFL Rd6 Magpies v Panthers Pics
Replies
3
Views
386
sobrave
sobrave
RossFC
SANFL 2024 Fixtures
Replies
6
Views
1K
RossFC
RossFC
Power Plus
2024 SANFL Rd1 Glenelg v Port Adelaide Pics
Replies
3
Views
506
Power Plus
Power Plus
RossFC
MVP SANFL 2023 Magarey Medal Count
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
1954
1954
RossFC
SANFL List Management 2023-24
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
158
Views
10K
RossFC
RossFC

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top