News Powertiser Reports Cash cow Dead

[noddy]

So we sell our soul & footy heritage for a few $ & let the Victorian dominated AFL/VFL run roughshod over us.

When does pride come into the discussion ?

 

[feenix67]

If the SANFL could get an extra $4 million per year for a name change - given the structure change of U18s has already occured that would pay entirely for the SANFL club dividends each year - taking that 'unique' load off the two AFL clubs.

Im pretty sure that we have received some, if not all, of that additional funding subsequent to the restructure of the under age comp (which happened in 2009), so Im not quite sure what you're getting at here.

You also mention increased funding of $4M, but i can only see an increase from $1M to $2.5M unless I missed something?.

So we sell our soul & footy heritage for a few $ & let the Victorian dominated AFL/VFL run roughshod over us.

When does pride come into the discussion ?

Damn right

 

[Papa G]

See, not surprisingly, you're missing the point here. For every Gowans, there's 20 South Aussie players in the comp. Maintaining the SANFL as a strong second tier comp gives those blokes the opportunity to play top level footy for decent coin. These second tier comps are going to become more important in the not too distant future as more AFL clubs look for ready made mature age recruits. So what if there's a few interstaters in our comp?

Get your head out of your arse and see the bigger picture for a change.

List of non South Australian's that are Centrals team regulars: James Gowans, Chris Gowans,Trent Goodrem, Lee Spur, Andrew Hayes, James Boyd, Kyle Jenner, Ian Callinan, Chad O'Sullivan, Heath Lawry, Jack Gunston. That's about half a team if my maths is correct.

 

[feenix67]

List of non South Australian's that are Centrals team regulars: James Gowans, Chris Gowans,Trent Goodrem, Lee Spur, Andrew Hayes, James Boyd, Kyle Jenner, Ian Callinan, Chad O'Sullivan, Heath Lawry, Jack Gunston. That's about half a team if my maths is correct.

Well I did say the comp

You still havent told me what you'd prefer - thats what Im really interested in.

 

[Allefgib]

truly national comp with a truly national reserves comp is what I'd love to see.

look to the future people.

 

[Papa G]

Well I did say the comp

You still havent told me what you'd prefer - thats what Im really interested in.

I just disagree that the whole fabric of South Australian football would change if we decreased the SANFL's salary cap, accepted more money from the AFL and decreased the over reliance on taxing/taking money from the 2 AFL clubs to support the whole structure.

The fabric of SA football has changed so much over the last 20 years, starting in the 80's with the massive player movement across the border, the player retention scheme, the advent of the Crows in 91 and Port entering AFL in 1997. Times change, times have changed. We really do have a case now where the absolute minority player is maintaining it's power base to it's 2 largest constituents detriment.

I have nothing against the SANFL comp. I've been to a few games this year, but lets face it, what was the crowd there yesterday, with 4 teams playing finals on a pretty nice spring day? Was there 10,000 people there? It isn't the main game in town, not by a very long way. I respect it's history and I respect it for developing junior footballers in SA, but I just don't see the link between being able to recruit 6 or 7 not quite AFL good enough players from Victoria helps with junior development. I just don't.

I know you love my WAFL example Feenix, so I'll give it again, they have been producing more AFL listed talent and winning more Under 18 titles than we have in recent years, but apparently the WAFL is in dissaray? It actually isn't. The sky won't fall in.

You guys want to maintain the SANFL's independence, it's pride. Fact is the SANFL is almost totally dependent on the AFL through it's 2 cash cows, it's 2 AFL licences. They aren't paying Brant Chambers' salary through the 2,345 paying customers at Unley every second week. You can argue that the SANFL clubs own these licences and they can do what they want with them and you'd be right. But I have no doubt, that the big bad AFL still weild a certain amount of influence on what goes on with those licences, the $4 mill the SANFL "granted" Port gave me little doubt of that.

So what we have is a situation where the SANFL hold this air of independence and even defiance to the AFL, over burden their 2 licences with a much higher salary cap and much higher junior development costs (effectively making 2 clubs pay for what the other states spread across the whole comp), but hey we have the second best league in the country.

 

[Huntercrow]

What would you prefer? No SANFL? A Junior development program run by the AFL? The best senior comp in SA being Div 1 Ammos? I hear a lot of bleating about the SANFL's so called mismanagement, but toss up some alternatives why dont you?

As an old West Torrens supporter I see the SANFL in a different light to you.
They abandoned my club to make way for the Crows, so I changed allegiance to the AFC (it made perfect sense), now its the SANFL's turn to make sacrifices.

The SANFL clubs have too much power in the running of the AFL licenses and have been obstructive in their development of the Crows and Power from day one. Power put forward a solution to their problems last season but the merger plan was unanimously thrown out.
The clubs based that decision on their fear that a merged Port would be too strong at SANFL level. How do you think the AFL would've reacted to that hick decision? It was based on Club fears and not on what was best for the 2 AFL clubs.
Don't get me wrong I understand the reasons why so many went against Port during that vote but the AFL wouldn't give a monkeys about that, they only see an obstructive system eroding the value of 2 AFL licenses.

If things don't change soon I can see the AFL stepping in, so before that happens the SANFL should think about organizing a separate entity within the SANFL (but totally independent of the clubs) to have responsibility for the welfare of the 2 AFL licenses.
This same entity should also be responsible for junior development in SA.
The clubs would then only receive a dividend after the bills are paid for the 2 AFL clubs and Junior development.

 

[feenix67]

(to Papa G)

I love your WAFL example

The problem with what you are saying is very simple. The AFL is not an independant national competition. It doesnt matter how you brand it, it's still the expanded VFL and will remain so whilst the current structure is in place.

In that environment, I have no problems with the SANFL hanging on to it's independance for the good of footy in our state. The WAFL had no choice but to sell their soul to the VFL - they were broke. We weren't. Make no mistake, the AFL needs endorsed teams from SA to be viable. We are just as important to them as they are to us.

Benevolent governing bodies do not try to manipulate thier constituents by blackmailing them over junior development funding, or manipulating a political situation to undermine the most important asset of their constituent to financially destablise them, or provide the most diabolical fixturing for their two teams in order to minimise attendances (revenue to the SANFL) and maximise media revenue (revenue to the AFL).

Im all for a truly national competition run by an independant body embracing the needs of football everywhere, not just in Victoria. But while we have the Chas, and the VFL/AFL history, an AFL(VFL) "Commission", an unsustainable 10 Victorian teams propped up by the rest of us, etc etc, I'm bloody happy that the SANFL are standing their ground and using their leverage to maintain ownership of the development and maintenance of the game here.

You blokes at Port have shown your propensity to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to your own self interest. Your current plight is nothing but your own doing. Im glad it's the SANFL looking after the game in SA and not your mob, or else we'd all be broke begging the Vics for money.

 

[Tas]

I never understood the system of Crows and Port profits being channelled into developing future AFL draftees for all 16 clubs.

Does similar happen in Victoria?
Do Carlton, Collingwood etc have the same burden of responsibility?

Most of the junior development in Victoria comes from membership, sponsorship, fund raising and grants.

AFLVic says the major source of the grant revenue is from Federal, State and Local Governments, Philanthropic Foundations and Corporate Foundations.

AFLVic has a pretty good site and information on how those involved in junior development should structure their organisations to generate revenue and encourage them to apply for grants, they claim hundreds of millions are given out each year for sports, this is well beyond the AFL's means to support but am sure they also contribute to grass roots development as much as they can.

AFL kicks in a lot more into grass roots development in development states via grants where they wouldn't have the same kind of access to grants largely because there is more money there for rugby than there is for AFL.

 

[KTFM]

I think we're all missing the point that AAMI would be losing out at all Port home games with dismal crowds and the SANFL and the two clubs are going to foot the bill.

 

[PortBrillance]

I think we're all missing the point that AAMI would be losing out at all Port home games with dismal crowds and the SANFL and the two clubs are going to foot the bill.

big lol's at this post. Clearly you have no idea.

SANFL make a set fee, even if 2 people show up to a Port or Crows game, they still make (or take) money from us.

As Allefgib said, we need an AFL reserves comp. SANFL comp can die in a hole for all I care