It's a knockoutnew state comp!

[*PAF]

The AFL is overstepping it's bounds if it's trying to dictate what sponsor the clubs are allowed to have.

Don't hear about that with any other inter-league competition anywhere in the world, why is the AFL special?

No wonder some clubs declined.

What a bunch of insular wet blankets we are in Adelaide. Always looking for reasons not to do something.
...

Yep agree completely Spacky.
Say no straight away and then list as many reasons as possible with the hope that one of them may actually turn out to have a bit of truth in it.
After that get the sbennos of this world to repeat the garbage over and over and over again.

 

[Huntercrow]

All SANFL clubs have a responsibility to their sponsors, as does the AFL with theirs.
There was always going to be a clash of interest.
The prize money is an insult and they may have to change their jumpers to advertise rival sponsors (that's a tough one).

However if we said to Oprah "No we will not spend the $5mil to ship you and your crew to Australia" That would've been just plain DUMB!!

Any chance to get your product on the National stage should not be taken lightly and if by some miracle this competition is successful and they repeat this as a regular fixture with bigger prize money you can bet your life that these SANFL clubs would not be invited again.

 

[cammo84]

The AFL is overstepping it's bounds if it's trying to dictate what sponsor the clubs are allowed to have.

Don't hear about that with any other inter-league competition anywhere in the world, why is the AFL special?

No wonder some clubs declined.

Why does it matter what sponsor the clubs have? Surely if a club has a sponsor, that sponsor follows them wherever the club goes. Is this a Coopers vs CUB thing? If it's corporate bullshit like that holding this champions league back, then it's a joke. If the clubs are willing to compete, then the sponsors should also be willing to compete against each other.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

SANFL club sponsors would have signed up not knowing this champions league thing was going to happen so it wouldn't have been part of the contract or an expectation. It shouldn't be a barrier to participating.

 

[Woodpecker Warrior]

SANFL club sponsors would have signed up not knowing this champions league thing was going to happen so it wouldn't have been part of the contract or an expectation. It shouldn't be a barrier to participating.

Yeah right.

What message would that send to then sponsor? Thanks for the cash but we are playing in another competition as well. You don't mind if we negate the yearly sponsorship?

Not if you don't mind finding another sponsor.

I'd like to see Adelaide do that with Toyota.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yeah right.

What message would that send to then sponsor? Thanks for the cash but we are playing in another competition as well. You don't mind if we negate the yearly sponsorship?

Not if you don't mind finding another sponsor.

I'd like to see Adelaide do that with Toyota.

Oops

The reception on my tv must be stuffing up again.

I thought I'd seen the Aussie cricket team wearing Commonwealth Bank, Vodafone and KFC logos in the three different formats they compete in. My bad.

 

[P.A.F.C]

Oops

The reception on my tv must be stuffing up again.

I thought I'd seen the Aussie cricket team wearing Commonwealth Bank, Vodafone and KFC logos in the three different formats they compete in. My bad.

It's a decent argument. I mean, this competition would get pretty decent exposure compared to the state leagues. As mentioned, this isn't a competition that is in the sponsors contracts with the clubs. I don't think it's a god given right for the clubs sponsors to expect to be on the guernsey for this.

Dunno where this 'it's all for GWS' thing is coming from. It's a bloody knockout comp! If GC's VFL record is anything to go by, any decent state league side should have no problems dispatching a young GWS group. So all of this is to give GWS one game?

 

[feenix67]

Its a bit hard to have a balanced opinion on this when we dont have access to costings etc. On the surface it seems like a great concept, but its wrong to expect clubs with low revenues and thin margins to jeopardise relationships with sponsors or carry cost overflows.

I would have loved to have seen Sturt on the national stage but not if they take a financial hit for the priviledge. We simply cant afford it and the AFL shouldnt expect it.

The whole thing appears like a good idea hastily arranged and ill thought out. On the other hand, if some smart and wealthy businessman felt like creating a national comp.......

 

[rooboy]

I'm just happy I'll get to see Westies. Only time I get to see them is when I come down to Adelaide.

So I'm very thankful to the clubs that declined to compete.

 

[jo172]

Its a bit hard to have a balanced opinion on this when we dont have access to costings etc. On the surface it seems like a great concept, but its wrong to expect clubs with low revenues and thin margins to jeopardise relationships with sponsors or carry cost overflows.

I would have loved to have seen Sturt on the national stage but not if they take a financial hit for the priviledge. We simply cant afford it and the AFL shouldnt expect it.

The whole thing appears like a good idea hastily arranged and ill thought out. On the other hand, if some smart and wealthy businessman felt like creating a national comp.......

I agree with this.

The costings that I heard basically ensured that unless your club won the tournament they were going to make a loss on it. Considering the relatively precarious financial situation of most SANFL clubs it seems the only sensible course of action.

 

[brucetiki]

Why does it matter what sponsor the clubs have? Surely if a club has a sponsor, that sponsor follows them wherever the club goes. Is this a Coopers vs CUB thing? If it's corporate bullshit like that holding this champions league back, then it's a joke. If the clubs are willing to compete, then the sponsors should also be willing to compete against each other.

Because the AFL have already told Centrals Holden will not be able to sponsor them in this competition and it's the same with Norwood and Fairmont Homes. With Holden sponsoring Centrals since 1988 and Norwood's sponsorship with Fairmont Homes reportedly worth six figures, understandably both clubs would rather protect their sponsors than play in some Mickey Mouse competition that's almost certainly going to last one season for Demitrieous amusement.

From what I've heard, all clubs will have new guernseys (possibly new designs) with Foxtel sponsoring on the guernseys, with club sponsors relegated to a small spot on players shorts.

 

[sbenno]

Yep agree completely Spacky.
Say no straight away and then list as many reasons as possible with the hope that one of them may actually turn out to have a bit of truth in it.
After that get the sbennos of this world to repeat the garbage over and over and over again.

Bugger off! Don't come into the thread, read the first new post and shoot your mouth off!

I posted earlier in this thread saying I regretted that Sturt declined, and then when I find there's a legitimate reason that some clubs may have declined (i.e. Centrals without Holden as their sponsor because of the holden/toyota clash) I post rueing the rule that limited some clubs willingness to join.

I'm not bloody saying it shouldn't happen, I'm saying the AFL should relax and remove the restrictions it places on entrants, you *******.

Honestly, read the ****ing thread before you post.

 

[sbenno]

I thought I'd seen the Aussie cricket team wearing Commonwealth Bank, Vodafone and KFC logos in the three different formats they compete in. My bad.

Exactly, and this is how it should be, but because the AFL's sponsors compete with some of the sponsors of the SANFL clubs, they restrict which sponsors the clubs are allowed if they want to play in the comp.

Typical AFL overstepping it's jurisdiction. FIFA don't dicate who sponsors Man UTD when they play in the champions league, do they?

 

[crowman86]

I can see both sides of the argument, Holden didn't give cash over to Centrals knowing they were going to get national exposure. It wasn't in the initial contract so it would be a massive bonus for them to have that sort of exposure nationally. I don't see too much wrong with having new sponsors for a national comp, but I do see it a problem if the AFL wouldn't allow Holden or Fairmont to sponsor the sides if they were willing to cough up more dollar for the extra exposure they were getting.

We as the spectator are the loser in all of this because now we don't get to see our best state sides fight it out with the other best sides in the country. Correct me if I am wrong but the top WAFL and VAFL sides are all competing? Why is it good enough arrangement for them but not for our clubs?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Typical AFL overstepping it's jurisdiction. FIFA don't dicate who sponsors Man UTD when they play in the champions league, do they?

That's a fair point.

I wish the leading SANFL clubs had progressed with the competition anyway, but if their stance leads to an unrestricted run at it next season then I have to acknowledge that it was worth it.

 

[Poached_Egg]

And at the very least you get to parade some of your 17-18 year old potential draftees on a national stage.

Mind boggling stuff.

Another reason Centrals dont want to play. They are not interested in developing AFL talent, but winning Premierships in the SANFL. Hence they have dominated this decade.

Not they have won a real flag yet anyway.........