AFL Teams in SANFL next year

It's started.

Norwood's President is pushing for Port to play its home games at opposition grounds next year, as the Crows already do. He also wants them to pay a fee, as the Crows do.

I thought they already paid a fee, so I'm surprised if that isn't the case.

My thoughts are this:

They should pay a fee.

They should have the same deal as the Crows.

They should play as the Power - their crowds at opposition venues appear to be poor, so let's accept reality.

But; they should be accepted into the SANFL and we should accept reality.

I agree with R&B Port should have the same deal as the crows which includes there top up players.
Secondly their Captain Summerton should look elsewhere to play SANFL as his supposed $400.00 a game contract is an absolute joke.
They shouldn't be allowed to wear the Magpies strip either

I know I've already had my say on this and I'm aware the other 8 clubs are starting to talk about it among themselves. I've already spoken to Sturt's President and made my views, and those of others I know, quite clear. R&b would be up with West's stance on the matter. This nonsense with Port has to stop, and they have to abide by the same agreement as Adelaide. They can call themselves Magpies, Cuckoos, Turkeys, anything they like. They can wear black and white, or pink pyjamas, for all I care. None of that matters. They can even keep Summerton, as long as he really is only getting $400 a game. But all the rest of the unfair advantages they squeezed out of the SANFL have  to go.

I think it's time for them to become the Power and have the same concessions the Crows do (I think it's inevitable that'll be the case), however I'd like Alberton to stay as their home ground as long as the Crows are given a 'home' stadium (ideally I'd like this to be a down-sized Football Park in the future but why not Richmond or Norwood in the mean time).

No matter what "rules" they end up playing by, one thing is certain in my mind now.

And that is the "Magpies" brand, stripes must disappear. They may fool (yeah right!) us this year with this "community engagement" tag. But with the plan for next year, no way.

They are the Power reserves and must assume that tag.

Norwood's suggestion is interesting, but does have some credibility.

I agree whatever guise Port and the Crows take in the sanfl, MUST be identical. Anything other than that is unacceptable.

.... But Norwood voted them (afl) in with those conditions.

Interesting !

Anyway , this year in sanfl footy has been so far a complete farce !

Both AFL clubs should play home and away. Ridiculous to complain about the different sets of rules within the comp but support a differently lop-sided fixture. Put the salary cap up to around $500k and the AFL clubs can pay the difference - after all they are the reason it needs to be increased.

I think whichever mechanism is ultimately adopted, the afl clubs will need to come to the party to even things up.

And that is not only from a direct playing point of view.

The amounts of money available to the 2 afl clubs compared to the rest, will eventually make things unsustainable.

I read where a couple of the sanfl coaches are saying they need to get up to the bar where the afl clubs are, particularly Port. But I just can't see how they are going to do that with such a disparity in the budgets of afl clubs v sanfl.

Something is going to have to give, but it is a shame that this year's competition is a big chemistry experiment which has some chances of blowing up in the faces of the sanfl admin.

Why don't Adelaide get half of Port's zones, manage the top up player situation better with Port, make Adelaide play home games at a venue......why not make them more of a "club" so the SANFL community accepts them as that, not just an "interloper" with differing motives to the remainder of the SANFL sides?

Port's set up this year is advantageous, Adelaide's is a joke, why not meet in the middle for some sort of acceptable set up?

Port and Adelaide share the PAFC zones, top up players with no AFL or SANFL experience ( perhaps the Summerton / Callinan types one or two per club ) and players from the zones are there to fill the SANFL league side and make Adelaide field an SANFL reserves side?

Why not?

Booney wrote:Why don't Adelaide get half of Port's zones, manage the top up player situation better with Port, make Adelaide play home games at a venue......why not make them more of a "club" so the SANFL community accepts them as that, not just an "interloper" with differing motives to the remainder of the SANFL sides?

Port's set up this year is advantageous, Adelaide's is a joke, why not meet in the middle for some sort of acceptable set up?

Port and Adelaide share the PAFC zones, top up players with no AFL or SANFL experience ( perhaps the Summerton / Callinan types one or two per club ) and players from the zones are there to fill the SANFL league side and make Adelaide field an SANFL reserves side?

Why not?

I agree Booney, I have made similar suggestions in the past.

The zones can be divided equally and all players in Ports teams under an age of say 21 be divided by where they live. Port squad needs to be divided between Adelaide and Port. Neither team can recruit any players with recent (2 years) experience in AFL, SANFL, VFL or WAFL. No back loaded contracts and key players such as Callinan must be ex AFl players coming directly from the Crows / Port squads. The Summerton situation cannot be allowed as it is too open to rorts.
It is not going to help this year which is a farce.

For some reason it seems most people think Ports model should be the same as Adelaides. Adelaides model, IMO, is more of a kick in the guts to the other 8 SANFL clubs than Ports is.

Is that because ( up until two days ago ) Adelaide had only won one game?

I think it is because Port's model is too strong and tinkering with it around the edges wont work. It distorts the comp more by having an unbeatable team then having an easy beat that will win a few games against the other cellar dwellers. We play to win premierships. If no other team apart from Port can realistically win the premiership what is the point of the competition?

Adelaide cannot be like Port unless we are going to redraw every team's zones and shuffle every team's list so that Adelaide can field teams in every division. It's too disruptive. So we are left with Adelaide's model unless we can come up with a fairer alternative.

As I said, somewhere in the middle ground.

Booney wrote:For some reason it seems most people think Ports model should be the same as Adelaides. Adelaides model, IMO, is more of a kick in the guts to the other 8 SANFL clubs than Ports is.

Is that because ( up until two days ago ) Adelaide had only won one game?

No they dont, they simply want no AFL players in the Comp, if they are forced to, probably the old system of having them spread throughout the clubs, on a equalisation process as it was. So no one club is advantage or two as is the the case now.

Can we get an emoticon that's me belting my head against a brick wall?

Same Booney.

Sturt fans on db.org are rapt we don't have half a Crows team anymore.

Now that everything is rosy at Port Adelaide and they have successfully acquired the Magpies completely, off field and on, there is no need to carry on with the charade is there?

I give up trying to think of a solution. It is just too hard. I tend to think Port have shot themselves in the foot this season with their domination. Had they used local top ups to develop them instead of bringing in the likes of Biemans, Krakouer, Bruggemann and playing Summerton and Slattery as senior players, then there may have been a future with the zone, but not any more.

They need to be given exactly the same model as the Crows, and if that needs a little tweaking to make them stronger in the future, then so be it. If Port win the SANFL premiership this season it will go a long way to destroying the SANFL as a competition.

Booney wrote:Can we get an emoticon that's me belting my head against a brick wall?

  
 
Or if you might prefer this one Booney..  
 

Booney wrote:Why don't Adelaide get half of Port's zones, manage the top up player situation better with Port, make Adelaide play home games at a venue......why not make them more of a "club" so the SANFL community accepts them as that, not just an "interloper" with differing motives to the remainder of the SANFL sides?

Port's set up this year is advantageous, Adelaide's is a joke, why not meet in the middle for some sort of acceptable set up?

Port and Adelaide share the PAFC zones, top up players with no AFL or SANFL experience ( perhaps the Summerton / Callinan types one or two per club ) and players from the zones are there to fill the SANFL league side and make Adelaide field an SANFL reserves side?

Why not?

while i'll never agree they should be in, we have what we have so i agree with the basic sentiment about that Mr Booney but what happens to your cross the road SANFL neighbours who are rumoured to be getting that area at the expense of the Grange & surrounding areas, where do they go ?

Booney wrote:Why don't Adelaide get half of Port's zones, manage the top up player situation better with Port, make Adelaide play home games at a venue......why not make them more of a "club" so the SANFL community accepts them as that, not just an "interloper" with differing motives to the remainder of the SANFL sides?

Port's set up this year is advantageous, Adelaide's is a joke, why not meet in the middle for some sort of acceptable set up?

Port and Adelaide share the PAFC zones, top up players with no AFL or SANFL experience ( perhaps the Summerton / Callinan types one or two per club ) and players from the zones are there to fill the SANFL league side and make Adelaide field an SANFL reserves side?

Why not?

I don't think AFL clubs are allowed to have zones allocated to them for development.

Perhaps the President of the Norwood FC might take a minute to consider that its his clubs vote for the current model that made it so?

Personally my only beef with the current situation is that the SANFL clubs are expected to be limited to a Salary Cap whilst a single player on the opposition Crows/Power side can earn more than the whole teams Salary Cap. This the area I would address first.

Ben W wrote:Perhaps the President of the Norwood FC might take a minute to consider that its his clubs vote for the current model that made it so?

Personally my only beef with the current situation is that the SANFL clubs are expected to be limited to a Salary Cap whilst a single player on the opposition Crows/Power side can earn more than the whole teams Salary Cap. This the area I would address first.

I agree, but there are only two solutions for that, being AFL players cant play in the SANFL, or increase the clubs cap to say $4 million to guarantee that cant occur. Both answers wont be implemented for obvious reasons.

I'm very surprised that no one else has expressed dismay in this thread at the prospect of these teams continuing in the SANFL next year. I think so far we've seen the two worrying extremes - an AFL-laden team dominating the comp, and another not really concerned about results.

Apart from the "Tex Walker" game at Glenelg, the promised surge in crowd numbers has turned out to be a pathetic joke. One of the big worries the SANFL clubs had was that if we let these AFL clubs go off and play in the Amateur League, thousands of people would trot off there to watch them. I think it's now safe to say that that worry was misplaced.

I guess my thoughts there Flag no 9 is that I opposed the idea / model right from the start, my club was one of the few to offer a meeting with members, we gave them our feedback and let them know we did not want the AFL sides in the SANFL and the club voted accordingly. - Yet we were in the minority and now we are largely stuck with it, it is a little hard to shut the gate once the horse has bolted as is the current situation. The blunt facts are that the other SANFL clubs are going to have to find a way to get better if they want to be able to beat either of these and I guess supporters are going to be left to suck it up if they dont like it. Not very nice apples I agree, yet what other options are there?

Flag No.9 wrote:I'm very surprised that no one else has expressed dismay in this thread at the prospect of these teams continuing in the SANFL next year. I think so far we've seen the two worrying extremes - an AFL-laden team dominating the comp, and another not really concerned about results.

Apart from the "Tex Walker" game at Glenelg, the promised surge in crowd numbers has turned out to be a pathetic joke. One of the big worries the SANFL clubs had was that if we let these AFL clubs go off and play in the Amateur League, thousands of people would trot off there to watch them. I think it's now safe to say that that worry was misplaced.

The reason that I haven't expressed dismay at the continued presence of AFL teams in our comp, is that it's a fait accompli and we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future. The only practical thing we can do, is to ensure that Port go onto the same basis as Adelaide in 2015. No zone, no reserves reserves, no U18s. Two teams, one in the AFL and a reserves side in the SANFL. And I'm sorry Booney, I don't want to pick a fight, but that's what the Port Adelaide Football Club wanted right from the start. To be an AFL club. One club, an AFL club, but we'll concede them a team in the SANFL, to give their leftover players somewhere to play each week. Plus some third string guys that the other 8 clubs don't want, to make up the numbers. Junior development is rightly in the hands of the SANFL, through its 8 remaining clubs. We develop 'em, they go into the draft and the AFL clubs get a shot at them from there. Adelaide and Port Adelaide are part of the AFL and this is the way the AFL want it. Personally I'd rather they ran their own separate reserves competition, but that isn't going to happen. So as I said, we're stuck with a bad deal, we have to make the best of.