SANFL Statement = Essendon

Clearly some SANFL player may find themselves with an offer of an AFL contract with this recent news,

"12 JAN 2016
SANFL STATEMENT: ESSENDON
SANFL CEO Jake Parkinson

“The SANFL has been in contact with the AFL following the decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport to suspend 34 past and present Essendon players for 12 months.

“We note the AFL has ruled that it will allow Essendon to add up to 10 extra players to its list for the 2016 season.

“We have taken the opportunity to remind the AFL that SANFL players are contracted and required players of their SANFL clubs and that any approaches must be made through the SANFL and/or the relevant clubs.

“We have received assurances this will be the case, and we will now work through the process with the AFL.

“It’s too early to speculate on if or how many SANFL players might be approached or what compensation may result. These matters will become clearer in due course. In the meantime, we will continue to work closely with the AFL as the situation evolves.”

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/3303/

Counting counting until the sanfl commision sells the clubs down the road and bends over to the required position for screwing by the afl

So who could be looked at?

Kavanagh back to the Bombers from Centrals.
Martin from Sturt.
Petrenko again to Essendon?
Is Hart7 a chance to get a call up as one of the premier big men defenders in the SANFL?
Porplyzia a chance to spend a year back up at AFL level?
Cross? Proven ball winner.

Perhaps Port may look at Redden as cover for Lobbe in the ruck department?

Interesting times ahead.

Booney wrote:

Perhaps Port may look at Redden as cover for Lobbe in the ruck department?

How could they do that? They can't draft anyone else onto their list, only Essendon can.

Flag No.10 wrote:

Booney wrote:
Perhaps Port may look at Redden as cover for Lobbe in the ruck department?

How could they do that? They can't draft anyone else onto their list, only Essendon can.

At this point, that's the case, yes. However I think we will ask that the position of Monfries on the list can be "replaced" by someone not currently on the Port rookie list. It may be a case of rookie listing Redden and then upgrading him if the need / injury arises.

So I'd expect Krakouer and Mitchell to be upgraded to the senior list from the rookie list to cover Ryder and Monfries, this though leaves us two ( with Ryder we knew what we were getting ) spots short in our list. I think we will ask to cover one of the spots with another player not currently listed.

The monfriers request is fair and should be supported by the afl imo

Mmm, that's going to sit well with the SANFL clubs.

As for the Essendon top ups, you'd think they'd source most of them from 'nearby': they've got Polkinghorne and Schroder in their VFL side, and guys like Jordan Russell, Matt Dea and Sam Dwyer are in the VFL. But you'd think they'd look closely at Kavanagh and O'Brien too.

Port should take their top up player from their SANFL side why should a true SANFL side be denied a player to suit them.

One thing that should be kept in mind, is that all the players being mentioned are now under contract to SANFL clubs. Inducing people to break contracts doesn't go down well in the courts. How many lawsuits do Essendon want to fight at the same time?

Most players would have an AFL release clause I would imagine

if a player gets picked up from another SANFL club, lets say ''Harts7'' because he would be able to give a players point of view, IF Harts7 doesn't make the Port AFL team does he play for the Port reserves or West Adelaide ?

Harts7's views would be interesting. So would Lee's, from his vantage point at West. If say a club signs a player who's time in the AFL has passed, in normal circumstances, contract him for 2 years, make him part of their leadership group. Would they put an AFL escape clause in the contract? Would the player expect it in those circumstances? I don't know, I'm not involved in these matters, and I'm just talking in general terms here anyway.

bayman wrote:if a player gets picked up from another SANFL club, lets say ''Harts7'' because he would be able to give a players point of view, IF Harts7 doesn't make the Port AFL team does he play for the Port reserves or West Adelaide ?

Port, as it stands, can't draft in anyone from outside their current lists. If it was permitted, he would obvioulsy play for their Reserves when not selected in their senior team.

Digressing slightly, are all sanfl contracts essentially the same like afl ones?

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Digressing slightly, are all sanfl contracts essentially the same like afl ones?

SANFL contracts would surely have an "AFL exit clause". I wonder, is it "October/November draft" or is it "AFL exit clause" only?

ie - Does it state that if drafted in October you trigger the exit, if it's not October it's not at all?

I would be pretty sure thatmost SANFL player contracts have an AFL release clause. However assuming that Essendon promote a few of their own rookies onto their main list, that means that any player picked up by Essendon maybe only signed as a rookie, and probably only for one year at that. So that player may end up running around in the VFL for a year before traipsing back to Adelaide. Oh no doubt the bombers will spin a yarn about potential seniorlist etc etc but Id be pretty sure that the Bombers will be handed some healthy concessions, in the name of hardship, at next years AFL draft..

I reckon Caroline Springs FC in suburban Melbourne would be worried about losing their star recruit (former SANFL player Brian Lake) to the Bombers. He might have let himself go a bit over the pre season but his form in last year's final series was great. I reckon they'd look to players who have only just been delisted/ retired so Petrenko and Porps are probably off the radar now I reckon.

I still think Clubs should not release players from contract without serious compensation and a maximum of 1 player per club (excepting Essendons Reserves).

Threaten EFC with court action if they don't part with $$$ for compensation - Another court challenge would be something they'd avoid at all co$ts right now. When all said and done, players have signed contracts for this season and they are binding if home clubs really want to play hardball.

No one wants to stand in the way of any player that wishes to play AFL, so clearly that is not going to happen. The club needs to be appropriately compensated though.

Still the AFL might want to have a close look at the fact that the feeder club is likely going to be disadvantaged and my suggestion might be that Essendon be limited to their own reserves list and the Northern Territory Football League for players once their season has finished on March 14th, those players are available should they wish to play and the experience will probably add to their home club as opposed to taking away from it.

Ben W wrote:No one wants to stand in the way of any player that wishes to play AFL, so clearly that is not going to happen. The club needs to be appropriately compensated though.

Still the AFL might want to have a close look at the fact that the feeder club is likely going to be disadvantaged and my suggestion might be that Essendon be limited to their own reserves list and the Northern Territory Football League for players once their season has finished on March 14th, those players are available should they wish to play and the experience will probably add to their home club as opposed to taking away from it.

agree 100% with first paragraph.....with the next one i had not even thought of the NT players & them being out of season, that is a great idea as it basically doesn't affect many at all, bar for the odd player that goes north to play during the summer

Some more news on the current situation via the ABC,

SANFL clubs nervous as Essendon prepares to rebuild player list after supplements scandal bans
By Nathan Stitt

SANFL clubs have a nervous few weeks ahead as they wait to see how Essendon plans to rebuild its crippled playing roster.

The South Australian league warns if the Bombers want to raid their playing lists, they cannot make deals behind clubs' backs.

The AFL club has been given the go-ahead to recruit up to 10 players and pay above the salary cap to sign them.

It could be a big opportunity for a handful of state league players in Adelaide.

But Norwood football club executive Geoff Baynes said SANFL clubs faced the prospect of losing star talent just months from the start of the season.

"Right now it's great uncertainty," he said.

"Obviously Essendon aren't going to go for an average player — they only look for the top-level clubs from the SANFL and other leagues.

"It will be very tough. I don't think anyone will be able to recruit to replace in the SANFL, or even the VFL or WAFL competitions.

"We don't know who Essendon want or who they'll contact."

Short-term contracts struck before

Almost a year ago, approaches were made to North Adelaide's Mitch Clisby and Woodville's Jared Petrenko as Essendon scrambled to field a team in the preseason cup with 26 contracted players out because of the supplements scandal.

Both Petrenko and Clisby signed short-term contracts, negotiating without prior consent from their clubs.

SANFL chief executive Jake Parkinson said he did not want that to happen again.

As soon as the Court of Arbitration for Sport decision was handed down this week, he said he was on the phone to the AFL.

We've been assured that Essendon will go through the right channels on this occasion.
Jake Parkinson, SANFL
"We're certainly displeased that the actions of Essendon football club in that 2012 season have now rippled down to impact football in South Australia," he said.

"[For] any player that is thought of by Essendon and going to be approached by Essendon, that needs to go through SANFL [at league level] and the SANFL club. They, and we, are owed that respect.

"We've been assured that Essendon will go through the right channels on this occasion."

The SANFL will not stand in the way of any player looking to sign a contract with Essendon.

"We certainly have empathy for any player which gets a chance to play AFL football," Norwood's Geoff Baynes said.

"But we'd like it done in an appropriate way."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-13/sanfl-clubs-nervous-essendon-player-list/7087200

The restrictions on Essendon recruits are one per club and the player must have been on an AFL list in the last 2 years. The other clubs must upgrade a rookie from their list.
I suspect that there will not be much effect on the SANFL

UncleHuey wrote:The restrictions on Essendon recruits are one per club and the player must have been on an AFL list in the last 2 years. The other clubs must upgrade a rookie from their list.
I suspect that there will not be much effect on the SANFL

I'm not sure so if Essendon take The Pup or Obrian from the Eagles they will be affected
They can not go and get players with their credibility now .
AFL should ban Essendon for a year no issue then

mickyj wrote:
AFL should ban Essendon for a year no issue then

We all know that won't happen. It would cost the AFL $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Which is all they care about.

countrycousin wrote:

mickyj wrote:
AFL should ban Essendon for a year no issue then

We all know that won't happen. It would cost the AFL $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Which is all they care about.

I know was nice to say .
We know it was worse for the AFL what the crows did in the tippet thing