AFL Reserves - they haven't thought it through.

It will be interesting, that's for sure. After all, weren't Woodville introduced to the comp to 'curtail' the strong development of the initial Port zone??

With Port delisting Pfeiffer, that should cancel out the need to compensate Norwood for losing one of Grigg and Jonas to the Crows shouldn't it?

Flag No.9 wrote:With Port delisting Pfeiffer, that should cancel out the need to compensate Norwood for losing one of Grigg and Jonas to the Crows shouldn't it?

You can't be serious? Personally I dont think there should of been any concession to us but I'm not sure I agree with this logic. I dont know why West supporters are so upset after your penalty appeared to be manipulated in such  a way that it had virtually no effect. I expect other clubs to be annoyed though and I cant blame them.

Well I'm not completely serious but there's some logic to it isn't there? If they want to be compensated for losing 2 players to the SA AFL teams, but then they get one back, why shouldn't that be taken into account?
What if you got Pfeiffer, Jonas and Brown back, do you think it would still be fair to be compensated for losing the other two?

As for West's penalty having no effect, a $50,000 fine is not without a dramatic effect, especially when we are losing a very good coach because we apparently can't afford him.

Flag No.9 wrote:Well I'm not completely serious but there's some logic to it isn't there? If they want to be compensated for losing 2 players to the SA AFL teams, but then they get one back, why shouldn't that be taken into account?

That would make sense if they were in line to get a compensation pick for Pfeiffer (ie, either the Player or the pick) but they're not.

Notwithstanding the issue of whether they should be receiving any compensation in the first place.

Scrunch wrote:
That would make sense if they were in line to get a compensation pick for Pfeiffer (ie, either the Player or the pick) but they're not.

Not quite sure what you mean Scrunch, a compensation pick in what?

so what happened with respecting the SANFL & the SANFL doctors having a final or equal say in so called injuries ?

as soon as the Crows bullied their way into a prestigious league their word has back fired or does it start next year ?

Lewis Johnson has been declared unfit by the Crows doctor yet the North doctor thinks he's fine to play, this is a disgrace because if a soccer player, basketballer etc were injured like this (sprained ankle) they'd be up & about playing the next game & remember Lewis played almost 3 quarters with it last week

the ink is still wet on the agreement papers & the Crows show this distinct lack of respect what is it going to be like by half way through next year ?....6 blokes need their heads read

I think we know how much respect the Crows will pay to their agreement to play properly.

Probably about the same respect the Magpies paid to their agreement to keep the Power/Maggies football departments separate.

I hope that everyone that thought it was a good idea for the Cows and the Smears to have sides in the SANFL thought about the outcome as shown in this picture because it very well may be the future of the SANFL. The grand final becomes the domain of the two AFL Reserves teams year in and year out - and no one turns up to watch it....

Yes, the grand final of a development league run by the AFL in rugby league heartland is the perfect example of what will happen to the SANFL.

Not.

Completely different environment and circumstances. I can't believe people are underselling the standard of the SANFL so much. I doubt very much whether either side will make finals on a regular basis, if at all.

Agreed Ginge. The NEAFL has always been a development leauge, it never had nor will have the prestige of the SANFL so it's hardly comparing apples with apples.

Also this wasn't really the grand final, that was last week.

in Brisbane - Brisbane v Aspley
in Canberra - Sydney v Belconnen

the cross conference game is really an added extra.

Won't exist next year due the reduction of teams 19-14 so it is one conference.

TAS GF got 5,500
VFL GF 15,000
WAFL GF 20,008

Gingernuts wrote:Yes, the grand final of a development league run by the AFL in rugby league heartland is the perfect example of what will happen to the SANFL.

Not.

Completely different environment and circumstances. I can't believe people are underselling the standard of the SANFL so much. I doubt very much whether either side will make finals on a regular basis, if at all.

Spot on Gingernuts, just another example of people getting carried away.  

It's extraordinary just how much negativity there is about SANFL football and the standard.

I'd say there aren't too many teams of the last 20 years or so that would beat the current Norwood team.

So as not to disappoint the Norwood fans, how they assembled that team is another question. But the standard of that team is as good as I've seen for a long time. For young players, I haven't seen any better group than the current group at Norwood.

I'm now looking forward to next year (and the rest of this). Westies play the finals without any AFL players - would have been nice to have Crouch, Porplyzia and Laird. - but won't be affected next year.

SANFL, it's in my blood and I embrace whatever next year brings.

short memory r&b i'd suggest the Central team in the early to mid 2000's would give this Norwood team a real hard & close contest

----------------------------------------------------------------
20,008 to the WAFL grand final.....is that because West Coast reserves were playing & their supporters turned up too making three groups of supporters going !!!

I said 'as good', Bayman.

I don't think I've seen a side so much better than the rest of the comp for a long time.

Heard on radio that we should stay tuned for a "sub" in the SANFL.

PhilH wrote:Heard on radio that we should stay tuned for a "sub" in the SANFL.

Have no problem with the sub coming into the SANFL, on the proviso that, like the AFL, we can have 4 on the bench (including the sub)...

But the sanfl is nowhere near as fast as the afl.
The injuries are nowhere near as critical as a result.
So we need a sub rule because.......?

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:But the sanfl is nowhere near as fast as the afl.
The injuries are nowhere near as critical as a result.
So we need a sub rule because.......?

sadly it's only a matter of time before the sign at footy park changes to aflsa, & there is your answer  

Not that I have heard anything to this effect, but what would happen if Port Magpies were found to have breached the salary cap (again) this year? i.e would the normal penalty of a recruiting ban still be practicable given their changed circumstances from next year?

while it is way too late & i think it was ''agreed upon'' before any club meetings (the why we are voting yes seminar) happened.......we've all heard from various people & not just my club with the ''would you knock back $50,000.00 per year for 15 years'' well i'm absolutely positive every club could find 50 members donating an extra $20.00 per week (direct debit) for 52 weeks that equates to $52,000.00 per year...after 15 years that is an extra $30,000.00 better off than selling your soul & btw i think you would find more members than just 50 donating $20.00 per week

You may well be right there Bayman but its all too late now, the wound has been open for two germs to infiltrate and sully the SANFL forever.  

bayman wrote:short memory r&b i'd suggest the Central team in the early to mid 2000's would give this Norwood team a real hard & close contest

Would suggest youre being very polite toward Norwood and the current state of the competition there Bayman. I think Central would do them comfortably.

That said, the further you go back (to a point) you could likely find a team better than those that followed.