AFL Reserves - they haven't thought it through.

What i don't understand under this proposal, and please correct me if i'm wrong, but the majority of the Crows reserves players will be on decent contracts, will they not?
You can't have an SANFL (Crows) reserves side which has a much larger salary cap than 8 - 9 (Power pending) SANFL clubs. And they want to cut the SANFL clubs salary cap by $20,000.

I suspect Firstblood that the SANFL might be trying to protect the clubs from themselves with that, because I too find it one of the big oddities.

GN, I admire your pluck, but I'll take one of your points to start with:

"• It prevents permanent poaching of ‘top up’ players, while also providing SANFL clubs with a further avenue for player development."

The very reason the AFL clubs want this proposal to get up is so that their players play together, so that their development isn't "hindered" by having to play for another club with different game styles. And to enable them to do this, they want to do exactly that to players from SANFL clubs. So apparently it's an "avenue for player development" for SANFL players, but it's a hindrance for AFL players.

out of interest, boys - wonder if anyone has asked the players in the sanfl what they think of all this and whether they want it, and how they are reacting to it.

Gingernuts wrote: Your club administrators are in their positions for a reason, they are experienced professionals who are paid to make the decisions that are in the best interests of your club and the SANFL competition – and sometimes those decisions won’t be the popular, but it doesn’t make them any less right. Whichever way they vote on this one, I have no doubt it will be a considered decision that will provide the best way forward for everyone involved.

No they are not.
I assume you are talking about a club board, who are elected members from various backgrounds.
Not necessarily from business, commercial or even football backgrounds.
They are volunteers and not paid to do that job.
But they are the decision makers, not the CEO, Football Manager or the Coach - they are paid.

I signed up to a club who were one of 9 and now 8, all on equal terms and standings in the sanfl and all on equal competitive grounds (despite a couple of minor anomalies like zoning for example). But what we have here is a much different beast that I cannot see maintains the above premise and has serious potential to undermine a structure that is already struggling to retain players. $20,000 less cap for each club? More players to defect to other country / ammo leagues will be the result. And these are the players who the AFC may require. So someone will have to explain the logic of this one to me very slowly.

So if my club's directors want to feed this beast that will deliver such inequities and dilute the fairness / evenness and most importantly, tradition that presently exists, then I don't feel I have to support such a club in their endeavours. I personally, would feel two-faced.

It has been suggested to write to the club and voice my concern directly, which I will do.

However, no club could be blind to the vocal opposition that has been present for 6 months.
I know directors read club forums.
The SANFL would be patently aware of campaigins like "ERIC". The struggles of the banner and its proponents have even further provided media attention to this campaign.
If I hear out of this that clubs didn't know their members' feelings, I think I will puke!

Presuming this proposition goes ahead, the only thing an aggireved sanfl member / supporter can do, is vote with their feet. If that happens in sufficient numbers, maybe just maybe, they all (sanfl & clubs) will realise who they exist to answer to.

A game for the people? Not looking overly encouraging.........

Flag No.9 wrote:GN, I admire your pluck, but I'll take one of your points to start with:

"• It prevents permanent poaching of ‘top up’ players, while also providing SANFL clubs with a further avenue for player development."

The very reason the AFL clubs want this proposal to get up is so that their players play together, so that their development isn't "hindered" by having to play for another club with different game styles. And to enable them to do this, they want to do exactly that to players from SANFL clubs.  So apparently it's an "avenue for player development" for SANFL players, but it's a hindrance for AFL players.

The coaching and development framework of an AFL club structure would be far superior to anything an SANFL club can provide. That surely is undeniable. If you don't think a fringe SANFL player would benefit from playing under AFL coaches and with AFL players, and if you don't think an SANFL coach would want to funnel kids with potential into that system, then you are kidding yourself flaggy.

Scrunch wrote:For what it's worth I think whichever way the SANFL clubs elect to go holds risk. And I think this gets overlooked by many because it is hard to take the emotion out of it.

Exactly. Even doing nothing and denying entry holds risk, huge risk IMO.

What happens in 5 years time when they try again and the SANFL perhaps isn't in as strong a position to bargain as it is now? Hello WAFL/VFL affiliates? No thanks.

If it doesn't happen, then most posters will be happy, so no issue.

So let's look at what might happen if it does get passed.

First, the difference in the comp will be that there will be 4 games where our team plays an AFL Reserves team. Will they be too strong, too weak, or compromised. Possibly all three, IMO. I think the Crows Reserves will be relatively strong early in the season, then weaker as injuries take their toll. If Port keep their current structure, it will be a mish-mash, with all clubs having some AFL Power players and the Magpies staying as they are. More likely, if Port accept the same terms as the Crows, the Magpies could be very, very strong, with its current team supplemented by Power players, unless there's an exodus of Magpie players to other clubs, which I think will happen. Compromised? certainly, with no guarantee that the Reserves teams will go flat out at all times, etc.

So, it will be a compromised competitionm, but there's an argument that it's already compromised.

This week, West play Sturt. west will have no AFL listed players, Sturt may have half a dozen or more(?). That's a compromised competition, to a lesser degree than mooted, but still compromised.

This is where I depart from most. I remain against the concept, but I agree that there are dangers either way. It's realistic to presume it will happen, in the strange way these things seem to mysteriously become inevitable. I strongly don't think the AFL clubs will be advantaged at all in having these teams, quite the opposite, IMO. They've only looked at the advantages, not the downside.

So, like all of us, I have to make a decision whether I continue to folow SANFL and Westies if it happens. As much as I agree with the fight against it and the emotion that goes with it, it's an easy decision for me and that is to continue and adapt and see what the ramifications are. If, when it happens it stuffs up the competition and the SANFL don't cut them adrift, I might change my mind.

I will say that I don't either trust or respect either of the AFL clubs on this, so a minimum requirement of the SANFL is to show strength in insisting on the terms in future.

Nobody really knows what effect it will have either way at this stage. I don't believe for a moment that 4,000 will go to the games, but I do believe there is likely to be more interest in the SANFL as a result.

The question will be whether the benefits are worth it.

I'll wait and see.

Great post R&B. You've hit the nail on the head.

Yes good post Redandblack

Gingernuts wrote:
The coaching and development framework of an AFL club structure would be far superior to anything an SANFL club can provide. That surely is undeniable. If you don't think a fringe SANFL player would benefit from playing under AFL coaches and with AFL players, and if you don't think an SANFL coach would want to funnel kids with potential into that system, then you are kidding yourself flaggy.

But it's not about coaching and development framework it's more about keeping the players together to play the same game style surely. The AFL players are with their AFL clubs all week, then some play with SANFL clubs on the weekend. If this 2 and a half hour period is such a hindrance to the AFL club because their players are not playing their game style, why inflict the same scenario on the SANFL club?
And anyway, on game day, why would the AFC Reserves coaches spend any time on the top-up players? The coaches are there to develop AFC players, why would they waste their time on non-listed players?

The Hatchet wrote:out of interest, boys - wonder if anyone has asked the players in the sanfl what they think of all this and whether they want it, and how they are reacting to it.

a north Adelaide player Cambell - has said that he believes the afl reserves will add to the competition

There is no way the top-up players will train properly with the AFL clubs.

A light kick and a catch, along with introductions a day or two before the game will be about it.

OK, here's what their Reserves sides would look like right now.

Rough only, I haven't tried to work out all the right positions or all the injuries.


Crows:

Callinan Mckernan Mcintyre

Johncock Klaeson Petrenko

Joyce Jaensch Martin

Orval Shaw Ellis-Yolmen

Atkins Siggins Thompson



Graham, Grigg, Kerridge.

INT: Dowdell, Osborn, Top Up, Top Up.


3 or 4 ruckmen, lots of nippy smalls, weak down the middle, good on-ball.

Bear in mind, though, that at the start of next season, there'll be several new 18 year olds replacing some of these senior players, plus one or two drafted mature players to come in.

A fair side, but with several weaknesses.

Port:

Shaw          Stewart       Neade

Hitchcock    Salter            Young

Blee            Thomas         AhChee

Heath          Hombsch      Pfeiffer

Stevenson    Clurey         D Butcher


Renouf, Loganm, Newton.

INT:  Hoskin, Top up, Top up, Top up.


Not a bad side, not outstanding.

They'll both be trying to play an AFL style, which requires precision skills.

So what happens to Power players if this model goes through?

Do they remain at the same SANFL clubs, will new recruits be allocated to clubs as before and most importantly, how will they stop the movement of Power listed players away from their allocated SANFL club to Port under the guise of "more playing opportunities" or "not playing where the Power coaching staff wants"? Unless the movement of Power players is prohibited then what will stop Power players requesting transfers to Port?

Port could end up with most of the Power players and all their zones intact. That will also create an unbalanced competition and one that needs some definite rules that prevent such transfers either mid-season or as part of the end of season transfer market.

And does anyone seriously believe that an extra 2,500 to 3,000 Crows supporters are going to watch the seconds play SANFL teams every game? Its not going to happen. If only 500 new fans turn up and traditional SANFL fans stay away in protest, we could have the situation that clubs lose money by hosting the Pidgeons or whatever they are called.

This quote is from AFC's statement on its website:

“We believe unanimous SANFL club support is required for the proposal to be successful for all involved."

What does this mean then if they don't get unanimous support?

I would've thought they were saying this to suggest that they want to do the best they can to accomodate everyone. Nothing wrong with that attitude.

There's a report on Adelaidenow suggesting the AFC have a back up plan to field a team in the SAAFL if knocked back.

Well that report has Trigg saying they will join the Amateur League if they don't get unanimous support. I'm not quite sure why they would take that position, especially given Norwood's stated objection to it.
I know some clubs (if not all) are worried by the prospect of this move, fearing a greater focus on the Amateur League than on the SANFL.

I thought the same, F9. I can't believe they'd consider the Amateurs, or that the Ammos would be silly enough to have them anyway.

1 Dangerfield or similar neding a game after injury playing against Goody Saints?????

2 Crows Reserves 55.43 to Goodwood Saints 0.2 ?????

SANFL Reserves would be a better fit, surely?

I'm starting to get the feeling nothing will happen with them joining the SANFL now.

Would Norwood remain steadfast if the vote was 7-1?

Nope, it would be 8-0. Norwood wouldn't want to (ultimately) be seen as the only negative party in all of this.

I hope Port remain firm and keep the current model. Still think our first proposal was less damaging than the current Adelaide model.

Top up players - I cant see how this could possibly work.

The commission have decided, IMO, that they dont want to be the ones to make the decision on this so have handballed it onto the league directors. Poor, poor form indeed.

redandblack wrote:I thought the same, F9.  I can't believe they'd consider the Amateurs, or that the Ammos would be silly enough to have them anyway.

1  Dangerfield or similar neding a game after injury playing against Goody Saints?????

2  Crows Reserves    55.43 to Goodwood Saints    0.2   ?????

SANFL Reserves would be a better fit, surely?

I'm starting to get the feeling nothing will happen with them joining the SANFL now.

I agree. For starters Trigg's talking rubbish. Not for the first time. I'm starting to wonder whether this proposal, which contains nothing that hasn't already been rejected by most SANFL clubs, is set up to fail. Then the tin gods on the SANFL Commission can wash their hands of it and "blame" the clubs. Fine I'm quite happy to wear that, but I will not support any club that votes for it and that includes my beloved Double Blues. I never thought I'd walk away from football, but I will if this gets up.

Booney, the Commission haven't handballed it to the League Directors. The SANFL rules I think require the Commission to put up a proposal, but it's certain that the League Directors have always had the final vote on this.

Booney, I made the 7:1 comment before the proposal came out. Based on our League Delegate (Joe Tripodi) comments to the Press and TV.

I do not have his comments from tonight's meeting of members/supporters of his likely interpretation of the SANFL submission going forward too early in the evening yet.

I know the club are not in favour of either the Crows/Power in the SANFL League Competition, so it would have to be a big change of heart to move away from our definite "No" position.

Check back in the morning to establish what might be the NFC final position.

Booney wrote:
The commission have decided, IMO, that they dont want to be the ones to make the decision on this so have handballed it onto the league directors. Poor, poor form indeed.

Changes to the competition can only be made by the clubs, not by the Commission.