AFL reserves vote

i believe it will be on Thursday night at Footy Park around 5pm, unfortunately i'll still be at work & then have young bayman to pick up at footy training so i can't go down there but for those that can PLEASE go down there & voice your opinions as you never know if there is enough people there you could swing the swinging voters

if the day of voting changes, i'll let you know

Unlikely to make any difference what the supporters say now unfortunately. Some of the behind-the-scenes deals being worked to ensure this happens will rival some of the happenings of 1990. Clubs that were firm NO are being worn down now under extreme pressure from other vocal clubs. This will cause many long standing business relationships to fracture.

You know, I hope a decision is made tomorrow night because frankly, I am sick of all the same discussion points, innuendo, polls that twist words to get a result, threats, white lies and bald face lies.

Roll on SANFL Directors, lets see what you are really made off.

If it is No, then lets move on without the AFL and all its players in the SANFL competition as of now, yes now. That will force the Power and Crows to look elsewhere for playing options for "their" seconds. How dare they insinuate that their seconds will play well in SANFL League, our seconds maybe, but definitely not the SANFL league

If its Yes, what deal and conditions now apply that make it worthwhile to the remaining SANFL clubs 8 because I expect the SANFL will advise that the Magpies will become defunct effective the end of the 2013 season, other questions, are the SANFL is in control of the SANFL operations, fixture, umpiring, player payments, conditions, insurances etc, etc.

I will be just glad when the whole bloody thing is over and life and footy gets back to some sort of sanity.

The vote will be 6-2, barring dramatic changes. Norwood and South the dissenters. Most other clubs have either been worn down, or decided to ignore their members wishes entirely - which makes their Board positions interesting at election time.

If that vote transpires, Adelaide will very likely simply press ahead anyway, despite their pledge for a unanimous vote.

I don't think Norwood will be voting No ettg.

Agree, try Central?

How can the clubs vote yes when their members are against the idea? It astounds me - If they were listed companies they would be gone!

All for what? A few dollars that will act as a short term fillip to the clubs bottom line.

I am willing to throw the NFC membership in the bin if they vote yes!

R&B do you support WAFC voting yes to the proposal?

I'm opposed to it, but I think it's inevitable.  There's a lot of downside, but there are some advantages if we're worried about the future of the SANFL.

I tend to adapt to change if it happens.

There are a lot of details about this whole deal which many of us aren't across and which I'll be interested to see when (and if) they become public knowledge.

As for West, I'm disappointed they haven't consulted their members that much, but I trust the Board to arrive at the best decision for the Club.  It won't be just about money.

Whichever way they vote, I'll look forward to their reasons.

I won't be throwing my Life Membership in the bin whatever happens.

redandblack wrote:I'm opposed to it, but I think it's inevitable.  There's a lot of downside, but there are some advantages if we're worried about the future of the SANFL.

I tend to adapt to change if it happens.

There are a lot of details about this whole deal which many of us aren't across and which I'll be interested to see when (and if) they become public knowledge.

As for West, I'm disappointed they haven't consulted their members that much, but I trust the Board to arrive at the best decision for the Club.  It won't be just about money.

Whichever way they vote, I'll look forward to their reasons.

I won't be throwing my Life Membership in the bin whatever happens.

Will you enjoy watching the young west adelaide lads playing for the crows reserves and potentially knocking Westies out of a spot in the finals?

These sorts of scenarios will occur and seem to me, to be complete absurd!

If my club votes Yes and we miss out on the premiership we've been striving for since 1983 because we lose to a team of full-time footballers with a salary cap 25 times ours who don't even want that premiership as much as us, I'll be interested to hear how our club justifies that to members (or ex-members) like me.

Flag No.9 wrote:I don't think Norwood will be voting No ettg.

 
Please support that with some more information if you have it, at the last Members and Supporters Meeting Joe Tripodi our Club President and our League representative to the SANFL in this whole issue stood up as he has done 2 other times in the media and said he would be voting No unless the Crows played in our (SANFL) seconds.

He is a man who stands by what he commits to, in Business, Sport and Life, I can only applaud those club representatives who have done the same for either side of the Yes/No argument, but I take umberence to a club supporter denigrating another clubs President when their own club wont even talk to its members nor commit to any particular stance to its own members.  

No, I won't enjoy seeing young West footballers playing for the Crows, but I've spent many years watching our best juniors playing top AFL football interstate and for the Crows and Port.

I don't think the AFL Reserves teams will be too strong for most of the SANFL teams anyway. They won't have the same team spirit for a start, they'll be playing away every week and they'll have to play several 18 year olds who will be physically smashed by the bigger bodies they'll be playing against. That's one of the things I doubt they've considered.

I do think the compensation SANFL clubs get for drafted players is totally inadequate and needs to be addressed.

My main concern is that if they come in, the rules and restrictions on them are kept to.

Go Legs wrote:

Flag No.9 wrote:I don't think Norwood will be voting No ettg.

 
Please support that with some more information if you have it, at the last Members and Supporters Meeting Joe Tripodi our Club President and our League representative to the SANFL in this whole issue stood up as he has done 2 other times in the media and said he would be voting No unless the Crows played in our (SANFL) seconds.

He is a man who stands by what he commits to, in Business, Sport and Life, I can only applaud those club representatives who have done the same for either side of the Yes/No argument, but I take umberence to a club supporter denigrating another clubs President when their own club wont even talk to its members nor commit to any particular stance to its own members.  

I don't know what "umberence" is so feel free to take it wherever you like.
Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that expressing a view about how a club might vote denigrates someone? What if your President changes his mind and votes Yes, will he be denigrating himself?

See below

Umbrance means "exception"

I asked you to provide some evidence to this forum that Joe Tripodi making it a yes vote, even that Head Writer for Sport in the Advertiser this morning said the only voters for No were still Norwood and South.

I also clearly stated that Joe was happy to change to a Yes Vote to see the Crows Seconds side in the SANFL Seconds which I recon most on this forum would agree too.

Something the Crows will not accept, saying the Ammos are better than that  

I also note the Crows will accept a 6:2 vote now when early this month it wouldn't.

Seems to me you should be looking very hard at Westies and 5 other clubs who have no backbone to negotiate either with its members or the SANFL Commission if the Yes vote gets up. It would also mean that Centrals have also rejected their clubs members and supporters who stood head and shoulders above any other club on other forums expressing No AFL in the SANFL

If you cant find any evidence of Joe Tripodi changing his mind then Leave Norwood and South who discussed this matter fully within its board and members/supporters to form a decision well out of your remarks.

I hesitate to say this, Go legs, but I also won't be surprised if Norwood vote 'Yes', despite what Mr Tripodi has said.

There's often a long way between such statements and a final decision and I've learnt over the years to take football club statements on such matters (all clubs) with a degree of scepticism.

I refer to comments made by my own club and Norwood about our salary cap breaches, which tended to dismiss them as minor, when they were anything but.

R&B you won't get an argument out of me about Salary Cap indiscretions, I rightly got shot at the wall at dawn about that as we all know. (Thankfully those forumites missed or fired blanks )

My argument was not with Joe on that occasion but with another person at the club who I would like to see pack up his kit and leave.

I will fight for that within the club at the appropriate time and place not on this forum.

So, if I read between your lines it will be a 8:0 result so that no hard feelings can be enforced against those who vote against with a No vote, how soft do you think that is, pathetic for mind.

Lets all wait back and see who votes what and reasons why.

given the situation we (all teams) may as well not play any listed player for the rest of the year & give OUR young players game time

bayman wrote:given the situation we (all teams) may as well not play any listed player for the rest of the year & give OUR young players game time

I agree, Bayman.

I also think no AFL players should be avaiable for SANFL finals.




The fact West won't have any has nothing to do with it. 

redandblack wrote:

bayman wrote:given the situation we (all teams) may as well not play any listed player for the rest of the year & give OUR young players game time

I agree, Bayman.

I also think no AFL players should be avaiable for SANFL finals.




The fact West won't have any has nothing to do with it. 

i was told during the foxtel cup grand final that all players except for Crouch will be released, personally there is little point having any of them & maybe the coaches can say ''i don't want you to take someones spot'' (ring a bell with anyone ?)

We probably need them to to win a premiership, but then again the thought of doing so is like Judas getting his bag of 30 pieces of silver from the Jews. Its doing the dirty on the real SANFL of old that I cannot uphold.

Never thought I would say this but it would be true justice for Centrals to win this years flag, it would have been nice if South could be their opponents on GF day as well but for their current impossible task to do so.

Go Legs wrote:Umbrance means "exception"

I asked you to provide some evidence to this forum that Joe Tripodi making it a yes vote, even that Head Writer for Sport in the Advertiser this morning said the only voters for No were still Norwood and South.

If you cant find any evidence of Joe Tripodi changing his mind then Leave Norwood and South who discussed this matter fully within its board and members/supporters to form a decision well out of your remarks.

1. I think you mean "umbrage".
2. Given your record here with the salary cap debacle, perhaps it's now time you stopped telling people what they should and shouldn't post about your club.

How long did it take you to look up that word?

Make a pact, I will if you do too.

My argument is now with the entire NFC Board, Unfortunately we can only get rid of 3 per year.

Go Legs wrote:
Make a pact, I will if you do too.

The pact you need to make is to get more accurate information about your club.