2016 draw

Booney wrote:

Scrunch wrote:

Booney wrote:Please. It's Elizabeth at best, the Ponderosa at worst and naming rights is a load of tripe.

Not for the 8 clubs without AFL and SANFL guarantors

(On the phone to a mate)

"So, you heading to My Money House Oval on the weekend?"

Purrrrlease.

Unfortunately it's a necessity for the SANFL clubs

Scrunch wrote:

Booney wrote:

Scrunch wrote:

Booney wrote:Please. It's Elizabeth at best, the Ponderosa at worst and naming rights is a load of tripe.

Not for the 8 clubs without AFL and SANFL guarantors

(On the phone to a mate)

"So, you heading to My Money House Oval on the weekend?"

Purrrrlease.

Unfortunately it's a necessity for the SANFL clubs

And that was more the point I was trying to make with my post earlier that upset Booney - sorry mate, I didn't mean for it to come accross that way...

Well done to Centrals to obtain a Naming Rights Sponsor for their oval.

I agree with "Flag No.10" it will feel very strange for Jonno Beech to see the unveiling of the Premiership Flag
at Richmond Oval.
I also think he will be lucky to play a handful of AFL Matches

i agree with Mr Booney to a degree, i agree in that the ovals should be called the traditional names & that's what i do (personal choice) however in the financial climate of today, clubs must achieve income streams from any reputable company that comes along..............................................................................................i think Alberton oval one day will  have a sponsors name attached to it & if or when that happens will you Mr Booney embrace it ? Accept it as part of the times but still call it Alberton oval yourself ?

Kinda hard for me to complain when the call it Peter Motley Oval after an ex-legend.

Richmond Oval has been City Mazda 'Stadium' for some years now.

I'm a traditionalist, but I'm very happy to refer to it as 'City Mazda'/ Without this sponsorship, West would be struggling to get by and most clubs would be the same.

Our other major sponsor is Adelaide Galvanising. Both sponsors are at the club often, are great people (some Life Members) and are passionate about the Bloods.

Alberton is Alberton and that's fine with me, no ifs or buts.

Support the sponsors, they're valued people at all clubs.

Well said.

There will be plenty of byes, necessitated by fitting only 18 games into an Easter start and a fixed GF date.

In this case, I think the SANFL are blameless if people don't like the byes.

lachlan wrote:Well done to Centrals to obtain a Naming Rights Sponsor for their oval.

It's Official - http://www.cdfc.com.au/club-news/new-oval-naming-partner-my-money-house-oval/

New Naming Rights Partner for Elizabeth Oval

The Central District Football Club is pleased to announce a new Naming Rights Partner for Elizabeth Oval. In seasons 2016, 2017 and 2018 the Oval will be known as My Money House Oval.

My Money House has been a Premier Partner of CDFC for the past 4 seasons and have provided fantastic support for our Club.

"To have MMH extend this support up until the end of 2018 is a real boost for our Football Club, and an indication of the terrific relationship we have built with My Money House". Central District Football Club President David Cavenett said.

"We look forward to helping My Money House build their brand at My Money House Oval, Elizabeth, in 2016 and beyond"
My Money House specialises in home loans, investment loans, financial planning and wealth creation through investing in property. My Money House are also launching, in the new year, a very exciting program to help more people “Enter the Market” with their new First Home Owners program initiative.

“Our continuing sponsorship of CDFC reconfirms our support for football in South Australia, as well as building on our strong relationship with the Northern Community” said Andrew Potter, My Money House (Director).
If you are thinking of reviewing your current home loan, investing in property or starting your journey to buying your first home, talk the professional team at My Money House. With as little as $1,000 deposit, the team at MMH can help people break out of the renting cycle and get them into their first home sooner.

The draw is out and the usual suspects are slamming the SANFL for the numerous byes and asking if the clubs have any say.

FYI the SANFL wanted 20 games and fewer byes, but the clubs wanted to stay at 18.

Totally in line with what the clubs wanted.

Bit of a stop-start start season for Centrals - who have the bye in round 2 and 21.

Lee wrote:The draw is out and the usual suspects are slamming the SANFL for the numerous byes and asking if the clubs have any say.

FYI the SANFL wanted 20 games and fewer byes, but the clubs wanted to stay at 18.

Totally in line with what the clubs wanted.

Certainly a lot of whinging about the draw. Just gives people an opportunity to knock the AFL reserves and SANFL. I am against the reserves teams but its here to stay . These whingers should go and find something else to do with time .

waddayamean wrote:

Lee wrote:The draw is out and the usual suspects are slamming the SANFL for the numerous byes and asking if the clubs have any say.

FYI the SANFL wanted 20 games and fewer byes, but the clubs wanted to stay at 18.

Totally in line with what the clubs wanted.

Certainly a lot of whinging about the draw. Just gives people an opportunity to knock the AFL reserves and SANFL. I am against the reserves teams but its here to stay . These whingers should go and find something else to do with time .

Well said...

Lee wrote:The draw is out and the usual suspects are slamming the SANFL for the numerous byes and asking if the clubs have any say.

FYI the SANFL wanted 20 games and fewer byes, but the clubs wanted to stay at 18.

Totally in line with what the clubs wanted.

interesting call, that the clubs wanted 18 & not 20 matches, i would have thought an extra 2 matches would help revenue to all the clubs, Lee would clubs be able to get an extra quality recruit in the salary cap because of less games or do they get paid by a season however long it is ?

A salary cap is a salary cap.

thanks Lee

Good question, Bayman. I think the SANFL were prepared to leave the extra 2 games payments out of the salary cap, but the clubs were concerned about the overall cost.

Getting another recruit wasn't relevant.

The clubs are paid a fixed amount per season.

My guess would be we'll be back to 20 games next season.

No inside info, just opinion.

thanks Lee

What happened to the salary cap when we went back to 18 rounds?
Was it reduced or left as is?

Left as is, basically. There was a small rounding adjustment of no real effect.

Another forum going into meltdown over the draw.

Comedy Gold

It seems to me that the SANFL has tried hard to accommodate the clubs' wishes. For example Sturt and Adelaide have negotiated to have their Rd 15 clash, nominally a Crows "home" game moved from Unley to Thebarton and promoted as a feature game, on very good terms for the Sturt FC, in the hope of boosting revenue . Something that's always close to the heart of our General Manager for Business.

Some notes from the draw which (despite the weekly byes) is a vast improvement on last year's, however, wish there was more night games and less occasions where 4-5 games are banked into the same timeslot.

* Only 6 night games - lowest since 1996 (2)

* Only 4 Sat games in first 6 rounds (13 Sun games in that time)

* 2nd successive year with NO Sat night matches (although it's the first to be fixtured with none since 2004)

* There's 43 matches at unique time slots (ie. the max number of full matches you can physically go to), up from the 40 last year which was the lowest in 10 years. Probably contributed to the lower crowds across the year with less neutral supporters able to get to matches. In 2014 it was 55.

* 3 Monday games - the most since 2004.

* 33 Sunday games - the highest I have on my records (since 1979). 1991 went close with 31.

From my own perspective as an SAFC supporter I can't see a great deal wrong with the draw and think that we got a pretty good deal out of it all things considered. For South Adelaide to get to open our season against Glenelg at home is a good thing and the promotion around the match being a southern derby can only be a good thing for the club. We then play our next two matches at home against the Eagles and then West Adelaide.

One observation that I would make is that rounds 8, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 22 have all matches being played on the same time and often in the same timeslot meaning that some of these games will miss out on media coverage. I do wonder if there may not be some room here to negotiate further on when some of these games could be played and perhaps if we could look at doing something like an afternoon - twilight - night double header match at Football Park or another venue to boost the attendance and interest in these rounds of footy?

I think the idea of Sturt playing the Crows at Thebarton is a good idea, simply because I suggested previously that Sturt could consider playing a 'home' game at Thebarton although I said against WWT at the time. This way it may boost the gate and make some money as opposed to the constant set up costs each time to play at Unley, considering the cost of setting up Unley for a match against the AFC which I suspect will draw less than the break even number it is not a bad idea for Sturt to give it a try.

As for the AFC playing Westies in Berri, I would support that idea also as its a great way to market the WAFC in their zone where they are well supported and are one of the few clubs that believe in investing back into their allocated country zone. All SANFL clubs should have to play a match in their country zone once every two years to support their country leagues and supporters.

When Adelaide are scheduled to pay Port Adelaide in Round 18 at Alberton, I would give some consideration to moving the match to be played after whoever has the home match that week at Adelaide Oval, simply to see how many may stay on for the match and if its worth considering for future seasons when they play one another, they might as well play thier games in front of a group of people that are interested in their juniors and have some interest in supporting them.

Will the issue raised above regarding media coverage of the games be sorted in time, or will some matches go without coverage?