Opinion My fix for SA Footy

[feenix67]

This is my view on what should happen with footy in SA, including the ongoing issue of the Crows/Power 2nds.

I'll preface by saying that my view is based on the fact that the landscape of SA footy has changed and we haven't changed with it. Our comp is weakening and is financially unsustainable. Paradoxically, crowds and general interest in the local comp is up. Therefore, we have an opportunity to make a change and harness this interest and maybe forge a new path for local footy.

Additionally, our production of junior footballers is stifled by lack of funding and an overload on the resources of the SANFL clubs. I have seen this first hand. SANFL clubs do not have the capacity to produce AFL footballers and the motivation for doing so is weakened when you consider that the best that each club produces will be lost to them. It's a no win situation currently.

So here goes...

U 18: Scrap the current system of SANFL clubs running junior teams. They havent got the resources to do so. Instead, establish a junior competition run and funded solely by the SANFL. This comp would have 6 teams - North Metro, South Metro, East Metro, West Metro, and two country teams. These junior clubs would be established by the SANFL and run by SANFL appointed staff. There are plenty of good coaches etc in the current system to employ. Each junior club would also oversee the school comps in their zone (instead of the current SANFL clubs doing it). The U18 comp would be there solely to develop young players, without the burden of retention that currently exists.

Every year, players from this system will then move on to senior football. There will be two pathways - the AFL draft and an SANFL draft. Obviously players who dont make the AFL draft will go into an SANFL draft and be distributed to the SANFL clubs. Those that dont go in either draft will obviously filter into other competitions like the Amateurs.

Crows/Port: The Crows need to be established as a club, the same way Port is. Hence, we will have a bona fide club in the SANFL, filled with current listed but not playing Crows players and recruits from the draft. This will then mean that the Crows and Port will be the same - an AFL club and an SANFL club. Both clubs will be legitimate members of the SANFL, play for points etc. If there are concerns about the strength of these clubs from a playing list perspective, place limits on their SANFL draft participation.

SANFL: Move Sturt's home base to Mount Barker. I dont know how Glenelg got the Murraylands zone this year, but Sturt has a major presence in the Hills and Murraylands areas and attaching them to this area will be their way out of the wilderness. All clubs participate in the SANFL draft and run league and reserves teams (except the Crows and Port, who wont have reserves teams). Without the financial burden of junior development, these clubs can concentrate on league success. Salary Cap and Draft provide an amount of equalisation. Limit the amount of non SA players allowed to be on each list.

Why do I like this model?

• removes the financial burden of junior development from the SANFL clubs
• provides a centralised development body and a clear, well funded pathway for kids, without the burden of club alignment
• enables Port and Adelaide to operate as legitimate clubs, running SANFL teams, in a manner that benefits both clubs without undermining the SANFL (indeed, enhancing the SANFL).
• lowers the cost base of operating an SANFL club
• aligns us with the Victorian model without losing the SANFL identity (TAC cup/"VFL")
• is a sustainable model for the long term benefit of all parties

Our junior development pathway is a mess at the moment. Some clubs have severely reduced their investment in junior development because of the costs involved versus the benefits gained. Something has to change here. Allowing Port and Adelaide to be legitimate SANFL clubs gives strength to the comp without undermining it. By giving all SANFL clubs equal access to the junior talent pool (via a draft), the existing clubs will have a better chance of building good squads rather than having to buy their way out (which many cannot afford to do currently).

Im sure there are plenty of details which would need to be thrashed out but this is my general model. Would be good to hear people's thoughts.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don't think it is the cost of running the junior programs that is putting the current model under pressure.

It is the cost of running the league teams - the salary cap, coaching staff, membership staff, marketing, administration, sponsorship, match day event management etc.

Clubs feel they have to keep up a certain standard with their league team which is why the junior and development arm of the club suffers. They sacrifice here to prop up the faltering league model.

I think the zone-based system with the metro/country pathways is one of the strengths of the state. I also like the SANFL club model with the full season U18's, half season U16's and then development squads below that. I would have thought that the number of players drafted in recent years would reflect well on the system? Haven't crunched the numbers on this though, just my impression.

I think what needs to happen is that the SANFL clubs need to reduce the running costs of their league teams. Salary caps is biggest part of this. Full time staff employed by the club along with the associated running costs (cars, office space) the next one. Game day costs the next.

Trying to have nine venues that are SANFL standard is another question that must be asked. Nine clubs all trying to provide state of the art training facilities, gymnasiums, venues for after match functions, offices etc. Ground rationalisation came and went but the AFL has settled on two venues in Melbourne for nine teams.

Ultimately, the SANFL clubs are trying to provide a professional product without generating enough return to cover the costs of doing so.

 

[feenix67]

I know of at least 3 clubs that dont run U16 programs, they just select from schools and run a two week "clinic" to find the best 25 or so. Most clubs dont run development programs below U18 level. The cost of running 3 or 4 squads (U12, U14, U15, U16) is far too high, so most dont anymore. Moreover, the Private School system undermines our U18 comp to the extent that many U18 games played through the college season are essentially U16 games.

Funding for Junior development comes from the SANFL but is far too low. In the last 10 years the $ spent has reduced considerably, with clubs unable to fund the shortfall between running a junior program and the funding from the SANFL. Administratively, it's also a huge burden on clubs to basically look after all junior development in their area, from Auskick all the way through to U18. And for what benefit? The clubs that I have had an association with at this level have produced precious few league standard players, let alone AFL standard. The talented kids get through (and usually end up drafted and hence lost to their SANFL club), but the slightly less talented - who could succeed at SANFL level with a bit of good coaching - fall by the wayside.

My model does more than just remove this burden from the clubs. It also evens the playing field for the SANFL clubs from a recruitment perspective. This is a major issue when it comes to discussing the entry of an Adelaide team in the SANFL. If all clubs have equal access to the state's talent, then there is less to fear in terms of destabilising the SANFL comp with the entry of a Crows team. This is crucial for the ongoing health of the league. We need the AFC to be a legitimate club at SANFL level, all other models are contrived and will undermine the health of the league. For the AFC to be a legitimate SANFL club, the rest of the league needs to be streamlined and costs reduced, whilst spreading the talent to give each club a good opportunity for success. Carving out the U18 program is vital in order to achieve this outcome.

Enabling the SANFL to operate the junior development program (which they oversee and part fund now anyway), enables a consistent approach to junior development in SA. It also allows the SANFL clubs to focus on their league team whilst reducing the operating costs of running a club. Further, if you limit the number of non SA players allowed on a list, you're further reducing the cost base, whilst promoting teams to use young players out of the U18 system. This will become a secondary pathway to the AFL, as we have seen the increase in mature age recruiting at AFL level.

It's all well and good to say "I like the current system", but it's not working. The landscape has changed and we need to change with it.

 

[Cap]

you might also want to deal with the fact country football pays better....

 

[Crowked]

I think it has merit.

I definately think the TAC cup system works well in Vic. Its become a factory for ready made AFL players.

I also like the thought of reducing the juniors to 6 teams. Looking at the current system there is definately a shortage of quality when its spread accross 9 clubs. Centrals team this year is a joke. I think reducing the number of clubs will lift the quality of the games and the benchmarks for getting a game at the level.

Good ideas IMO.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Some good ideas in the OP.

SANFL do need to keep an open mind & look at the bigger picture as times have changed.

Agree Sturt should be based at Mount Barker too.

 

[feenix67]

you might also want to deal with the fact country football pays better....

Yeah agree its an issue. Perhaps the SANFL becomes a younger man's comp due to the use of drafted players out of the U18 comp, still looking for a crack at the AFL via mature recruiting. Older players who feel they no longer have a shot will naturally drift out to get a few $$. I dont think the country dollars are sustainable anyway in the longer term, so much contraction of country leagues already. There's probably no immediate answer other than SANFL = possible mature age AFL pathway. Of course, if the SANFL get a commercial TV deal and the popularity continues to reinvigorate, perhaps there will be more dollars in the system.

 

[*PAF]

It will also give juniors from country areas a chance to be recruited without being forced to leave home at a young age.

100% agree that it is time to review the whole system and, having done so after the other states it can learn from them and come up with something even better and custom made to suit SA ... but first they need to want to.

 

[Deaneus!]

I noted on seek.com last night, that both Glenelg and WWT are looking for Finance Managers. Without any evidence, perhaps it's difficult to find appropriate people for positions like that, because it's a hard job to make the numbers stack up?

 

[spenze]

you might also want to deal with the fact country football pays better....

Hasn't that, to a point always been the case?

I can remember a mate at school back in the early 80s, his eldest brother played for North and won their best first year player award and looked a good player. One of the Pirie clubs offered him $650 a match to come up and play for them with a job attached. That was for a kid of 20 who'd played less than 50 games

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I know of at least 3 clubs that dont run U16 programs, they just select from schools and run a two week "clinic" to find the best 25 or so. Most clubs dont run development programs below U18 level. The cost of running 3 or 4 squads (U12, U14, U15, U16) is far too high, so most dont anymore. Moreover, the Private School system undermines our U18 comp to the extent that many U18 games played through the college season are essentially U16 games.

I only intimately know of the systems at a couple of SANFL clubs and the situation in both is quite different to what you are describing. They have quite comprehensive programs for all age groups. Which club(s) are you describing?

I notice that some clubs have added younger development squads to what they have been doing in the past. I do know that some aspects of SANFL juniors have been scaled back but that was because of the sheer amount of football the kids were playing already (school, local club, association, SAPSASA, state).

The private school thing has been an issue forever and won't be solved by the SANFL running its own junior squads.

Funding for Junior development comes from the SANFL but is far too low. In the last 10 years the $ spent has reduced considerably, with clubs unable to fund the shortfall between running a junior program and the funding from the SANFL. Administratively, it's also a huge burden on clubs to basically look after all junior development in their area, from Auskick all the way through to U18. And for what benefit? The clubs that I have had an association with at this level have produced precious few league standard players, let alone AFL standard. The talented kids get through (and usually end up drafted and hence lost to their SANFL club), but the slightly less talented - who could succeed at SANFL level with a bit of good coaching - fall by the wayside.

My understanding may be out of date on this but I was under the impression that the clubs don't look after this. They have a development officer plus trainee paid for by the SANFL who do it all. So essentially the SANFL are funding it all already but just dress the guys up in club gear. Each club also has a talent manager (also paid for by the SANFL) who oversee their junior squads. And this is where the 'uniformity' across the competition is supposed to come from. I might be wrong though.

The clubs can value add to this spend. I assume that is what you are talking about? The junior programs do have a network of volunteers and honorarium payment roles so maybe the club(s) you are talking about are finding it harder to find people for these roles? I guess what I'm asking is, is it just poor management by two clubs that you have observed meaning that the whole system has to be overhauled? Is your proposal just a fancier version of getting rid of these 2-3 dud clubs who are not doing the right thing by their juniors?

My observations are that talented young sportspeople are choosing to go down the football path at quite early ages rather than their other preferred sports (basketball, cricket, soccer) because of the system that is in place at the SANFL clubs. Plus what their pathway leads to.

My model does more than just remove this burden from the clubs. It also evens the playing field for the SANFL clubs from a recruitment perspective. This is a major issue when it comes to discussing the entry of an Adelaide team in the SANFL. If all clubs have equal access to the state's talent, then there is less to fear in terms of destabilising the SANFL comp with the entry of a Crows team. This is crucial for the ongoing health of the league. We need the AFC to be a legitimate club at SANFL level, all other models are contrived and will undermine the health of the league. For the AFC to be a legitimate SANFL club, the rest of the league needs to be streamlined and costs reduced, whilst spreading the talent to give each club a good opportunity for success. Carving out the U18 program is vital in order to achieve this outcome.

I agree 100% with the need for streamlining. I'm just not sure that the cost of running the development squads and juniors are the cost centres that are chewing up significant dollars. One club CEO I heard speak said that if they get a couple of players drafted in a year then all their junior development activities are effectively done for free.

The costs are centered around the league team. If there were two simple actions:
1) Limiting the salary cap
2) Limiting the number of players that can be recruited

Wouldn't this have the effect of forcing clubs to invest more resources into developing their zones? Seems a much simpler solution to me.

Enabling the SANFL to operate the junior development program (which they oversee and part fund now anyway), enables a consistent approach to junior development in SA. It also allows the SANFL clubs to focus on their league team whilst reducing the operating costs of running a club. Further, if you limit the number of non SA players allowed on a list, you're further reducing the cost base, whilst promoting teams to use young players out of the U18 system. This will become a secondary pathway to the AFL, as we have seen the increase in mature age recruiting at AFL level.

This type of argument gets brought up in all sports. The mindset is that it's better that the governing body has more control rather than leaving it to associations or clubs.

Pros that you are guaranteed quality coaching, facilities and take away club quirks etc. Cons that you take away the element of tribalism, access to network of club coaches/volunteers, history, life-long links with a club etc.

It would be interesting to follow TAC Cup footballers who miss the AFL draft and how the 'strike rate' of conversion to VFL footballers compares to our system.

It's all well and good to say "I like the current system", but it's not working. The landscape has changed and we need to change with it.

What specifically is not working? Is the system producing fewer draftees? If it is then you have a valid concern. If it is just that the cost of running a league team is beyond the means of most clubs and other programs are having to be sacrificed, then you don't. And I don't know - I'm just asking.

One of the advantages the SANFL and WAFL have is that our talented 17 and 18 year olds get to play league and reserves football. You system would take this away. Now - again - if our drafting numbers are drying up then you have a point. This 'advantage' may not really be worth it and a TAC Cup stye system may be worth investigating. If I can be bothered later tonight I'll go through the last 10 years of drafts and put up some figures.

Anyway, interesting topic. I think at the moment the SANFL and the SANFL clubs are struggling to understand their role.

Is it to develop AFL players?
Is it to develop SANFL league players?
Is it to win league premierships?

Of course, all three are important. But the trouble is that these goals sometimes conflict with each other which is why it is very important for the clubs to understand their role.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I noted on seek.com last night, that both Glenelg and WWT are looking for Finance Managers. Without any evidence, perhaps it's difficult to find appropriate people for positions like that, because it's a hard job to make the numbers stack up?

And it would be poorly paid compared to similar roles in other businesses.

You'd end up trying to generate enough income just to pay for your position.

 

[hugecannon]

Some good ideas in the OP, only thing I'd add would be to look at scrapping the reserves comp as well, give each league side approx. 30 players to pay and train etc

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Some good ideas in the OP, only thing I'd add would be to look at scrapping the reserves comp as well, give each league side approx. 30 players to pay and train etc

That is an excellent idea

The players below reserves level get farmed out to SAAFL clubs (often players will go back to their own club). No reason this can't happen one level up.

Also means that U18's and League can be played on the same day at the same venue. Clubs only need to organise only one set of club volunteers / support staff on a given day, rather than two.

 

[*PAF]

Don't you hate it when you "like" posts on both sides of the debate?

 

[fairfooty]

Move over John Olson and Leigh Whicker - feenix67 for Chairman and GM!

(And while you're at overhaul the governance will you? What a shambles of a structure!)

ETA: Yes I know you can't do both - its only to make a point!

 

[Crowked]

Some good ideas in the OP, only thing I'd add would be to look at scrapping the reserves comp as well, give each league side approx. 30 players to pay and train etc

Wouldnt that create the same problem for the SANFL teams that the Crows and Power are trying to fix?

 

[feenix67]

I only intimately know of the systems at a couple of SANFL clubs and the situation in both is quite different to what you are describing. They have quite comprehensive programs for all age groups. Which club(s) are you describing?

I notice that some clubs have added younger development squads to what they have been doing in the past. I do know that some aspects of SANFL juniors have been scaled back but that was because of the sheer amount of football the kids were playing already (school, local club, association, SAPSASA, state).

The private school thing has been an issue forever and won't be solved by the SANFL running its own junior squads.

What you're describing illustrates my point perfectly. A few clubs (such as North) are investing heavily in youth programs, and good on them. Other clubs, like West, have had to reduce their investment. The result? An uneven playing field, which we can't have if you want to introduce the Crows and Port into the system as legitimate SANFL clubs.

One club has ONE person running the entire junior program. Auskick, multiple school comps, SAPSASA, plus the club's own junior program. The person is a saint and very dedicated, but it's not an efficient or effective way to run a junior development program.

Im tipping your involvement in junior footy is with the Bays, Norwood or North

As for the private school issue, of course it's always been a problem. Hence, reducing the comp from 9 to 6 teams, thus not spreading available talent to thinly.

My understanding may be out of date on this but I was under the impression that the clubs don't look after this. They have a development officer plus trainee paid for by the SANFL who do it all. So essentially the SANFL are funding it all already but just dress the guys up in club gear. Each club also has a talent manager (also paid for by the SANFL) who oversee their junior squads. And this is where the 'uniformity' across the competition is supposed to come from. I might be wrong though.

Yes, you are wrong. The SANFL does have a Junior development team, but it is the clubs, using club players and staff, who run the School programs.

The clubs can value add to this spend. I assume that is what you are talking about? The junior programs do have a network of volunteers and honorarium payment roles so maybe the club(s) you are talking about are finding it harder to find people for these roles? I guess what I'm asking is, is it just poor management by two clubs that you have observed meaning that the whole system has to be overhauled? Is your proposal just a fancier version of getting rid of these 2-3 dud clubs who are not doing the right thing by their juniors?

No, these clubs do as much as they can, and have a mountain of volunteers to assist, from coaches to support staff. These clubs I know of are not alone. You are looking at my suggestion for a revamp of the junior system in isolation, rather than looking at the bigger picture that I described in the OP.

My observations are that talented young sportspeople are choosing to go down the football path at quite early ages rather than their other preferred sports (basketball, cricket, soccer) because of the system that is in place at the SANFL clubs. Plus what their pathway leads to.

You're incredibly wrong here. Soccer has made huge inroads at a primary school level, despite the Auskick program. Essentially parents are happy for their kids to do Auskick (no contact, drill based clinics), but when it comes to games, they're much happier with the non contact soccer (even though Aussie Rules is modified until year 5/6). There's a massive drain on kids away from football in the 8-12 year old range, and most of these kids dont find their way back to footy. but this is straying off topic.

I agree 100% with the need for streamlining. I'm just not sure that the cost of running the development squads and juniors are the cost centres that are chewing up significant dollars. One club CEO I heard speak said that if they get a couple of players drafted in a year then all their junior development activities are effectively done for free.

The costs are centered around the league team. If there were two simple actions:
1) Limiting the salary cap
2) Limiting the number of players that can be recruited

Wouldn't this have the effect of forcing clubs to invest more resources into developing their zones? Seems a much simpler solution to me.

Can you see the paradox you described? The club can only afford junior development if the club develops players who will leave the club.

This type of argument gets brought up in all sports. The mindset is that it's better that the governing body has more control rather than leaving it to associations or clubs.

Pros that you are guaranteed quality coaching, facilities and take away club quirks etc. Cons that you take away the element of tribalism, access to network of club coaches/volunteers, history, life-long links with a club etc.

It would be interesting to follow TAC Cup footballers who miss the AFL draft and how the 'strike rate' of conversion to VFL footballers compares to our system.

I'd take that list of pro's any day of the week. Plus you forgot equalisation and spread of talent across the competition. It hasn't seemed to have damaged the AFL, has it?

What specifically is not working? Is the system producing fewer draftees? If it is then you have a valid concern. If it is just that the cost of running a league team is beyond the means of most clubs and other programs are having to be sacrificed, then you don't. And I don't know - I'm just asking.

One of the advantages the SANFL and WAFL have is that our talented 17 and 18 year olds get to play league and reserves football. You system would take this away. Now - again - if our drafting numbers are drying up then you have a point. This 'advantage' may not really be worth it and a TAC Cup stye system may be worth investigating. If I can be bothered later tonight I'll go through the last 10 years of drafts and put up some figures.

Ive argued in the past that SA produces a fair share of AFL talent. But in terms of the health of the SANFL as a whole, and our ability to produce and sustain a quality STATE product, there are definite issues. I dont think "how many draftees do we produce" is a valid measure.

Anyway, interesting topic. I think at the moment the SANFL and the SANFL clubs are struggling to understand their role.

Is it to develop AFL players?
Is it to develop SANFL league players?
Is it to win league premierships?

Of course, all three are important. But the trouble is that these goals sometimes conflict with each other which is why it is very important for the clubs to understand their role.

Yeah it is interesting and Im enjoying the discussion. I agree that the SANFL is at a crossroads but I think it's vital that it has it's own identity.

The AFL provide funding to the SANFL for junior development, so that the best talent can be identified and brought to the AFL comp. It makes no sense for the SANFL clubs to be involved in this process, when they themselves do not benefit from it to any great degree. These are not the 70's where SANFL clubs developed their own zones for their own future. They are now developing players for another comp, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Your points about the junior side of things ignore the fact that I was presenting that as part of the complete picture. The essence of the plan is, in order for the SANFL to remain relevant and viable if the Crows and Port are in the comp with AFL listed players, the junior development load needs to be centralized to enable the clubs to streamline operations and reduce costs, plus enable the talent pool to be equally shared amongst the the clubs, so that the comp doesn't become unbalanced.

Enjoying your input DaBMc

 

[Papa G]

Some very good discussion here, but I think what is the main sticking point is your thoughts on the Crows structure. This I feel in all debate about SANFL reserves/structure etc is what is causing the most constenation. The simple fact is that there are 8 SANFL clubs who are shit scared of the Crows entering the SANFL because they think they will steal their supporters. Under what you're proposing, this I think will be exacerbated.

 

[Cap]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...ith-channel-nine/story-e6freckc-1226662121984

SANFL could return to commercial television next season, for the first time since 1991, as the ABC prepares to walk away from football in both Adelaide and Perth.

But the league would need to pay $1 million a season for production costs.
The SANFL is in talks with Eddie McGuire's media production company to keep the local league on television.
The SANFL's preferred network is Channel 9, which last telecast the state league in partnership with the ABC in 1991. It is the only local television station that can give the SANFL exclusive hold on the Saturday afternoon timeslot.

If this doesn't provide an incentive for the SANFL to let the Crows in nothing will

What are people going to watch? The Crows reserves on Ch.9 or Port Power on Ch.7? (or random delayed AFL matches)

 

[Geoffa32]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...ith-channel-nine/story-e6freckc-1226662121984





If this doesn't provide an incentive for the SANFL to let the Crows in nothing will

What are people going to watch? The Crows reserves on Ch.9 or Port Power on Ch.7? (or random delayed AFL matches)

I wonder if this deal is going hand in hand with us having an SANFL side.

A Crows Reserves side would rate higher on TV than most SANFL games.

 

[feenix67]

Some very good discussion here, but I think what is the main sticking point is your thoughts on the Crows structure. This I feel in all debate about SANFL reserves/structure etc is what is causing the most constenation. The simple fact is that there are 8 SANFL clubs who are shit scared of the Crows entering the SANFL because they think they will steal their supporters. Under what you're proposing, this I think will be exacerbated.

It's a very good point. I feel, however, that those already supporting SANFL through attendance will remain loyal to their SANFL club. Initially, I think people will "follow" the Crows, whilst "supporting" their existing SANFL club.

The future, however, is more difficult to predict. If the SANFL regains traction in the commercial media then I think theres a fairly good opportunity for all clubs to gain new supporters. Otherwise, it could be difficult.

 

[Geoffa32]

Some very good discussion here, but I think what is the main sticking point is your thoughts on the Crows structure. This I feel in all debate about SANFL reserves/structure etc is what is causing the most constenation. The simple fact is that there are 8 SANFL clubs who are shit scared of the Crows entering the SANFL because they think they will steal their supporters. Under what you're proposing, this I think will be exacerbated.

Even if the Crows and Power have no presence in the SANFL (ie Reserves in VFL), it will struggle to gain real support. Few people under the age of 30 prefer an SANFL team over an AFL side (not just Crows and Power) and buy memberships and actively support the clubs.

 

[*PAF]

I wonder if this deal is going hand in hand with us having an SANFL side.

A Crows Reserves side would rate higher on TV than most SANFL games.

Deal or handout?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What you're describing illustrates my point perfectly. A few clubs (such as North) are investing heavily in youth programs, and good on them. Other clubs, like West, have had to reduce their investment. The result? An uneven playing field, which we can't have if you want to introduce the Crows and Port into the system as legitimate SANFL clubs.

One club has ONE person running the entire junior program. Auskick, multiple school comps, SAPSASA, plus the club's own junior program. The person is a saint and very dedicated, but it's not an efficient or effective way to run a junior development program.

Im tipping your involvement in junior footy is with the Bays, Norwood or North

Sturt and Norwood are the clubs I'm most familiar with.

This highlights one of my absolute pet hates - the weakest link dictating the structure, rather than the best performing clubs being used as the benchmark. Norwood aren't a financial powerhouse, and Sturt certainly aren't. Yet if they are providing a good structure then all clubs should be able to. If they aren't - West, taking your example - then serious questions should be asked. SANFL may need to up its minimum standards or provide more direct funding.

Tearing it all down because of a couple of weak links though doesn't make sense to me. There are always going to be stronger teams - better coached, smarter operators, better systems, better volunteer network, better culture. I haven't studied the TAC Cup closely but I'm sure there are teams that are more highly thought of and ones with a better record of producing quality footballers.

As for the private school issue, of course it's always been a problem. Hence, reducing the comp from 9 to 6 teams, thus not spreading available talent to thinly.

If there are currently 90 kids being taken out of the 9 teams each week now and that gets reduced to the 60 best kids college missing from 6 teams... what's the difference? Percentages are the same so the hit on quality is the same. Yeah, less teams means higher quality so why not go to 4 teams or even 2? Make it really elite.

One of the strengths football has in this state is that there are effectively 18 "high performance" entry points to the game, with each SANFL club having metro squads and country squads. These squads hoover up the sporting talent and being selected is seen as a big deal - the first step to higher honours. It's above and beyond what other sports can offer and extremely enticing.

Cutting it down to 6 squads from 18 might seem good (fewer players with more resources) but it also risks losing elite talent to other sports at early ages (11-14).

Yes, you are wrong. The SANFL does have a Junior development team, but it is the clubs, using club players and staff, who run the School programs.

I'm pretty sure I'm right on this. The staff may be dressed up in club clothing and working out of the clubs, but they are SANFL Development Staff and their positions are advertised as such. Their names appear in the SANFL annual reports as SANFL staff. They might even play for the club but their work pay cheques are from the SANFL.

No, these clubs do as much as they can, and have a mountain of volunteers to assist, from coaches to support staff. These clubs I know of are not alone. You are looking at my suggestion for a revamp of the junior system in isolation, rather than looking at the bigger picture that I described in the OP.

Some of the other bits and pieces (Sturt to Mt Barker) I haven't commented on. The scrapping of SANFL juniors, replaced by a draft system with junior football run by these six new SANFL run teams is the crux of your proposal?

You're incredibly wrong here. Soccer has made huge inroads at a primary school level, despite the Auskick program. Essentially parents are happy for their kids to do Auskick (no contact, drill based clinics), but when it comes to games, they're much happier with the non contact soccer (even though Aussie Rules is modified until year 5/6). There's a massive drain on kids away from football in the 8-12 year old range, and most of these kids dont find their way back to footy. but this is straying off topic.

Yeah, soccer is kicking plenty of goals with primary school kids but that's happening everywhere. Yet despite this South Australia still has the highest participation rate per capita in AFL football in Australia. And that's with the current system.

Anyway, I was talking more about the pull the SANFL club squads have for elite talents (13-17yo) more so than what's happening at Auskick or primary school level. If you're saying that more resources (staff) are needed for those younger age groups then I agree wholeheartedly, and this should be funded by the SANFL (or the AFL's game development dollars filtering down, I don't quite know how this works) - not the clubs. But this could happen with the current structure.

I'd take that list of pro's any day of the week. Plus you forgot equalisation and spread of talent across the competition. It hasn't seemed to have damaged the AFL, has it?

I'd argue that despite Central's recent domination, the SANFL is more even than the AFL and that is without a draft. How is the draft working for Melbourne? I'd be interested to know if there is any sport where a draft system exists below the elite level. The boundaries are reviewed every 5 years to ensure that each club has equal access to 5-18 year old males in its zone. Unlucky for the 18 year old kid from the Barossa being drafted to South Adelaide I guess.

Ive argued in the past that SA produces a fair share of AFL talent. But in terms of the health of the SANFL as a whole, and our ability to produce and sustain a quality STATE product, there are definite issues. I dont think "how many draftees do we produce" is a valid measure.

What is a valid measure?

The SANFL club CEO I heard talk gave a presentation about how they manage their seniors and juniors. They had a certain % that they were targeting to be produced through their metro/country zones plus a target number to be drafted to the AFL. This dictated their recruiting strategy and also meant that their player payments were kept at a sustainable level.

I would think this would be a valid measure if targets were adopted across the board. I know we're going around in circles, but I still think that a reduced salary cap and a limit on the number of recruits would combat a number of the issues you have raised.

Yeah it is interesting and Im enjoying the discussion. I agree that the SANFL is at a crossroads but I think it's vital that it has it's own identity.

I would have thought that a club representing an area is the very thing that gives a club its identity. Rather than trying to produce a mini version of the AFL, I think it's important to recognise what the SANFL offers that the AFL doesn't - which is the sense of tribalism, community and of ownership.

A generic club that could exist anywhere full odds and sods where every player who walks in the doors is a recruit... I dunno. I reckon a club that's very easy to walk away from for the players will also be very easy to walk away from for the fans - eg Adelaide 36'ers.

Can you see the paradox you described? The club can only afford junior development if the club develops players who will leave the club.

The AFL provide funding to the SANFL for junior development, so that the best talent can be identified and brought to the AFL comp. It makes no sense for the SANFL clubs to be involved in this process, when they themselves do not benefit from it to any great degree. These are not the 70's where SANFL clubs developed their own zones for their own future. They are now developing players for another comp, which makes no sense whatsoever.

I find this just an unbelievable argument.

First, if a club's development program gets a player drafted it is not a negative. It reflects well on their system. It's a badge of honour. And they get financially recompensed. Plus that kid wasn't the only player who played juniors - there would be dozens who went through with him who weren't drafted and the best of them can progress into the reserves and league team.

It's just illogical. The states should stop producing good cricketers in case they get picked for Australia? Maybe the Redbacks have been onto something. Or, closer to home, amateur league clubs should play no role developing young footballers because if they produce a good one the SANFL clubs are just going to take them away. Are they going to do away with their juniors too?

Norwood's ability to get players drafted in recent times would make the club attractive for young footballers and prospective recruits. I'm sure the club doesn't see it as wasted effort.

Your points about the junior side of things ignore the fact that I was presenting that as part of the complete picture. The essence of the plan is, in order for the SANFL to remain relevant and viable if the Crows and Port are in the comp with AFL listed players, the junior development load needs to be centralized to enable the clubs to streamline operations and reduce costs, plus enable the talent pool to be equally shared amongst the the clubs, so that the comp doesn't become unbalanced.

I just don't see the doom and gloom picture of the SANFL you are painting. Heck, West smoked Port Melbourne last night who more than hold their own against other AFL reserves teams.

I reckon Port and the Crows will win games when they have basically their full squads to choose from for their two teams but lose when they don't. They will fall away a lot quicker than the other SANFL clubs. The SANFL competition will be no more unbalanced than it is now.