One CLUB Approved

[alex_is_on_fire]

should starbucks be responsible for education?

I agree with your general premise that the governing body of Australian Rules Football should not be responsible for any national junior development programs, but i also believe the AFL clubs or more appropriately the Adelaide Crows should not be responsible for it either. And that's what's happening in SA< the profits from the AFC are funding development for future clubs to take advantage of.

That's like saying, Starbucks should be responsible for Hudson or Gloria Jeans training and development of staff members. It's ludicrous.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'm really talking about the lowest levels, the true grassroots.

its probably appropriate that there is a social "tax" or contribution sourced from the national pro game, but it should not administer it.

the afl is not the national body, it is the pro-league.

maybe thats the problem? the sanfl is the state body, the wafl is the state body, the afl isn't really the national body. though it does play at it sometimes.

 

[Mego Red]

I'm really talking about the lowest levels, the true grassroots.

its probably appropriate that there is a social "tax" or contribution sourced from the national pro game, but it should not administer it.

the afl is not the national body, it is the pro-league.

maybe thats the problem? the sanfl is the state body, the wafl is the state body, the afl isn't really the national body. though it does play at it sometimes.

This is pretty much what I think. Though I think there are two bodies who should be financially contributing to the lowest levels: the pros and the national body (i.e. the govt).

But they can't actually administer that cash. The lower levels need their own independence and need to be making their own contribution.

 

[*PAF]

Damn, two posters having a good ol fashioned debate and I agree with both of them.

 

[Mego Red]

maybe thats the problem? the sanfl is the state body, the wafl is the state body, the afl isn't really the national body. though it does play at it sometimes.

Interesting, though I'm also not sure that the SANFL is the true state body. I think they are state in the same way the AFL is national; they play at it, but really they're looking out primarily for themselves and their member clubs.

 

[jo172]

Interesting, though I'm also not sure that the SANFL is the true state body. I think they are state in the same way the AFL is national; they play at it, but really they're looking out primarily for themselves and their member clubs.

The SANFL is alot more intrinsically involved with junior development and genuine grass roots football relative to the AFL.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The SANFL is alot more intrinsically involved with junior development and genuine grass roots football relative to the AFL.

What funding (if any) does the AFL provide to the SANFL or SANFL clubs for the development positions? Eg for whoever it is at the SANFL clubs who drive Auskick participation in their zone.

 

[Crow-mo]

the afl provides very little to the sanfl for jnr development.

its a longstanding bug bear

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

the afl provides very little to the sanfl for jnr development.

its a longstanding bug bear

Comparatively to larger, expanding markets, yes. Per capita?

I don't know but I would be interested to hear how the trickle down system is set up and where the salaries for SANFL development officers, development managers, staff who go out to schools/clubs/country zone etc are generated.

I remember hearing Matt Richardson speak when he was the SANFL Port CEO and he talked about the money the club receives from having players drafted to the AFL effectively funding their junior development programs and the stuff they do on the Eyre Peninsula.

 

[Mego Red]

the afl provides very little to the sanfl for jnr development.

its a longstanding bug bear

I remember reading it was $80m or so, which isn't nothing. You could argue about who gets the money and why, but it is still a reasonable amount ...

 

[Malibu#27]

the afl provides very little to the sanfl for jnr development.

its a longstanding bug bear

They dont - because the SANFL refused some of their conditions attached to it.

One of them was an U18 comp. rather than U17 and U19, which is now ticked off. I cant find the original news article from a few years ago, but I believe a rename to AFL-SA was a condition, and some common approach to rule making.
But as smart-arsed as the AFL can be, there is also an element of the SANFL wanting to maintain autonomy and control - and I guess while they can exist financially by plundering our AFL sides, they will continue to stand off the AFL on this.

 

[aneale]

They dont - because the SANFL refused some of their conditions attached to it.

One of them was an U18 comp. rather than U17 and U19, which is now ticked off. I cant find the original news article from a few years ago, but I believe a rename to AFL-SA was a condition, and some common approach to rule making.
But as smart-arsed as the AFL can be, there is also an element of the SANFL wanting to maintain autonomy and control - and I guess while they can exist financially by plundering our AFL sides, they will continue to stand off the AFL on this.

there shouldn't be any 'conditions' attached to it. Their job is to run a professional national league first and foremost and then secondary to that is custodian of the game that has been bestowed upon them.

If they want to manufacture an QLDAFL and ACT/NSWAFL to expand into enemy territory then so be it, but first tier leagues like the SANFL and WAFL shouldn't be forced into losing their identity just to get money that they should get anyway because the custodian blurs the line of its job.

Other States got $2.5M, SA got $1M

The U17 and U19 issue is a classic example. Only the AFL could argue that you don't get junior development money unless you get rid or juniors. The U18 comp is about the AFL (the league) thinking of itself rather than the AFL (the game's custodian) thinking about what is the best for the game overall.

We already have the AFL running a 'Australian Football Hall of Fame" but labelling it as their's and then making it about who was better rather than contribution to the game. They establish a rules committee (as a national comp league) and then whine when the rest of the football playing world doesn't follow it. Newsflash - they don't have to, nor should they be forced to.

They don't own the game any more than the NBA owns basketball and no way should we as South Australian's agree to turn into a generic one of these;

They couldn't use SAAFL anyway, the SAAFL have already said they won't change their name, and the SANFL can't use it and that doesn't even begin to deal with the issues the SANFL Affiliated Leagues Commission has.

There is zero reason why a De Facto needs to sit atop the tree and have 7 identical structured State Leagues below it that then follows to affiliated Ammo and Country clubs and then have achildlike tanty and withhold money when they don't get their way.

 

[Crow-mo]

I remember reading it was $80m or so, which isn't nothing. You could argue about who gets the money and why, but it is still a reasonable amount ...

say what?

 

[Mego Red]

say what?

About six months ago there was something about the AFL spending $80m a year in junior development. I guess it is nearly all on Auskick and programs in developing football areas, but it's still a reasonable spend on their part.

 

[Crow-mo]

that's the problem isn't it?

there was some vague mention, somewhere, about some money being spent somehow for some purpose.



not the most visible, transparent or accpuntable process is it? no one really know what they do with money that doesn't belong to them.