AFL Reserves - they haven't thought it through.

Sounds like a good idea if you're employed by an AFL club in Adelaide, doesn't it?  Have your own Reserves team in the SANFL.  No downside, we can do what we want with our players, instead of seeing them play for different clubs.

That's either just plain silly, or else it's the start of a dangerous scenario.  Let's look at whether it's silly or not, from a viewpoint that hasn't been looked at much.  Forget the powerful and logical arguments that Adelaide, Port Adelaide and West Coast have all won premierships under the current system and firget that Fremantle are heading in the same direction under the same system until this year.  Forget that having their own Reserves team hasn't helped those AFL teams hanitually at the bottom of the table.

Take Rory Laird.  Playing for West doesn't seem to have hurt his development, as far as I can see. Nor did it for Ben Rutten, or Jason Porplyzia, or any of dozens of similar players.  But how would Rory Laird go under this new scenario?

Let's say Adelaide field a Reserves team, with (say) 12 players from their list.  The top- up players come from junior or amateur teams.

Let's see some hypotheticals in Part 2 as follows:

At West Adelaide, Rory can expect to play against strong men and with strong men. When he goes for a mark, he can reasonably expect to be protected by his team mates. When he runs to receive a handpass, he can expect the handpass to go to him. When he looks to give a handpass, he can reasonablt expect a player to know where to be.

Let's look at the scenario of him playing with 8 or 9 amateur players. Is it really going to help his development. Seriously, how confident will he be spending his time covering for their errors, being left vulnerable by their lack of fitness or footy 'smarts' or lack of skill. Will his development really accelerate under this scenario, just to play in his correct position or under the AFL game plan. With amateur players, there is no way that game plan could be maintained.

None.

I haven't played much footy at all, so I'd be interested in the opinions of those who have.

So, if that scenario has plenty of flaws, have they not thought about it, or, more likely, is there another thin end of the wedge in mind?

Let's look at that in part 3,

Have said this many times. The only advantage I can see is that all players are together. However there is plenty more advantages playing in a legitimite competition . Its actually dumb from the AFL clubs.It is just another trend , Victorian clubs ditched their reserves before , then aligned to VFL clubs, ditched them, re aligned. Can't make their mind up.

If we (and the AFL clubs) think topping up with amateur or junior players is fraught with danger, then what is the alternative?

We all know that, don't we. It wouldn't take long for the cry to go out that better players are needed. So then it would be the SANFL's best juniors, or then one senior player from each club.

And so on.

A couple of other points.

Towards the end of last year, Port Adelaide (AFL) said they only had about five more ontheir list to choose from. Where would the top-up players ave come from and what about the fairness to the opposition and supporters ithat scenario?

Rory Laird is a West Adelaide junior. Before that, his junior club spent time and money to coach and put him on the field. West then did the same and the same goes for all drafted young players, from whatever club.

They play in the SANFL, but 'they're our players'. Yes, they are, because a compulsory procedure made them your players, in return for you giving W est Adelaide, or Sturt, or North Adelaide, or whatever club, a relative pittance.

There are a lot of good people in the AFL clubs. There are many intelligent people, too. I'm not one of those who deride AFL football. At its best, it leaves the SANFL for dead for skill and I've seen and enjoyed so many great games. I'll continue to barrack for the Crows and I'll continue to hope for success fir Rory Laird and the many, many AFL stars who started their football journey at West Adelaide.

I just wonder whether those good, intelligent people have thought this one through.

I really hope they haven't.

The idea that the AFL club needs to 'keep its players together' as a justification for a Reserves team is barely credible. They train together full time all week, every week, so the suggestion that half a dozen of them need to play together for another 2 hours on the weekend or their team will suffer is facile. And when that club delists about 10 of just these sorts of players every year, it makes the need to 'keep them together' even less compelling.

R&B, what worries me is that they may well have thought this through better than we think. I say this because the AFL is driving the process, not the clubs, nor the SANFL. I can imagine they're driving a very hard bargain over the purchase of the licenses and it may well include a stipulation that the reserves teams are set up before they take over. There may well be good trustworthy people at the club level, but in Demetriou's empire the bottom line is always $$$. There may be the odd individual somewhere who trusts the boys at AFL house, though I can't say I've actually met one. I certainly don't and I can see this being dumped on us as a fait accompli, all nicely wrapped in legalize, with no way out and to hell with the SANFL clubs. I know I'm an old cynic from way back and I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

CC, the licences are the domain of the SANFL, the composition of the competition is the domain of the clubs. The SANFL can't deliver to the AFL clubs entry to the SANFL comp unless the clubs agree to it, as I understand it.

Flag No.9 wrote:CC, the licences are the domain of the SANFL, the composition of the competition is the domain of the clubs. The SANFL can't deliver to the AFL clubs entry to the SANFL comp unless the clubs agree to it, as I understand it.

Unless an offer too good to refuse is tabled. But like CC says, what the AFL want....

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/adelaide-crows-face-a-tough-sell-to-the-sanfl-on-reserves-team/story-e6freckc-1226665900813

Thanks, W.

That article backs up everything I've said about tonight's meeting and proves that Michelangelo was totally wrong originally.

I give him credit for sticking up for the SANFL, though.

It also makes you wonder if the Crows will just try to railroad clubs into an affirmative decision.

That they haven't put a proposal showing how it will not compromise the sanfl comp at this late stage attests to that.

Whilst the club Presidents may not need their members endorsement of their vote, they will run the risk of alienating members (like me) if they don't provide information to clubs prior to any vote.

And that the league hasn't pulled Port up a bit in their Power Ressies by stealth campaign, shows their position in respect to the separation of football departments agreement.

Does anyone get the impression that they (crows / power / possibly sanfl) think this will all just happen irrespective of what clubs, members and sanfl supporters in general may want?

Chambo, I too have the same impression. I think that the two clubs are used to getting their way with the SANFL.

HOWEVER, once the two licences are gone/sold then the SANFL should have no interest in the financial position of these two clubs and will concern themselves with the local clubs only?

Silly question here... How do the Crows and Power go regarding the SANFL salary cap should they enter into the SANFL?

Are the current AFL players wages covered by the SANFL clubs at the moment? Are their salaries counted towards the SANFL cap?

AFL players are paid by their AFL clubs, not SANFL clubs.  Their salaries are not included in SANFL clubs' salary caps, but a nominal amount of (I think it's) $400 is counted towards the cap for each SANFL game each AFL player plays.

Who owns the licences ? Ah  I remember now.

Why is this even a discussion and it has nothing to with reserves sides or AO. It's driven by the AFL. Sorry but F ...Off. 

If the SANFL sell the licences then sell them  ................100 million. I mean surely you look at purchase price and potential earnings . If you don't want them at the price,dont buy. Simple.

But WTF does this have to do with anything ????  I never heard the SANFL come out and say they want to sell their licences.

apart from the swearing i agree with waddayamean 100% & have mentioned parts of his post previously...i don't know of any company/business who tells the supplier how much they'll pay for what they want, hell i can't even go into woolworths & barter when buying an iced coffee from $2.20 down to $2.00...we have what they want, if they want it that much they can pay through the nose for it

well done to North & Norwood to a lessor extent

& i'm not very happy with a certain club in the western suburbs  & it isn't West or Glenelg i'm talking about

bayman wrote:apart from the swearing i agree with waddayamean 100% & have mentioned parts of his post previously...i don't know of any company/business who tells the supplier how much they'll pay for what they want, hell i can't even go into woolworths & barter when buying an iced coffee from $2.20 down to $2.00...we have what they want, if they want it that much they can pay through the nose for it

well done to North & Norwood to a lessor extent

& i'm not very happy with a certain club in the western suburbs  & it isn't West or Glenelg i'm talking about

?

Eagles voted yes last time along with sturt!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'last time' wolves. There's never been a proposal put to the clubs before so what was the vote about?

Last meeting, there was a vote to see the positions of directors as they stood without an outcome that was officially binding.

Since then, a proposal has been generated and submitted tonight to the directors and commissioners for discussion

If you have a look in here, both teams you mention voted yes informally are 1-2 of local and equal most total number of listed players involved at any club:

http://www.talkingfootysa.com/t1603-afl-listed-players-currently-at-each-club#29653

I'll bet you or anyone would know more than me, but perhaps the yes vote is in mind due to the fact that it would be easier on both clubs not having to juggle all those players, while also thinking that there would be more monetary compensation for losing the players altogether that way, as opposed to the Crows and Power finding a home in another competition.  They also have to juggle this nominal payment of $500 for every match the AFL listed players play more than the other clubs.

Either way, I'm not really fussed actually if the clubs' official vote comes down to that because:

a) It's unlikely there will be enough support to permit the motion from carrying

b) The SANFL competition will be poorer no matter how it's done, it is just a matter of how much.  The standard of the competition continues to slide; removing these players into either the SANFL Reserves or NEAFL, VFL, SAAFL will add liquid soap to that slide.

SANFL MEDIA RELEASE (WEDNESDAY JUNE 19TH 2013)
 MESSAGE FROM SA FOOTBALL COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
 

Are we (members and supporters) not stakeholders?
Do any of these bozos actually give a sh!t what we think?

If they cock this up, there won't be a bloody SA football community.

I think decisions need to be made with all the information available by non-hysterical individuals/clubs. I appluade the way that the SANFL are going about it.