Lately the issue of the Western Australian and South Australian AFL clubs and players not being able to be developed in ways the respective AFL clubs would like due to the needs and demands of state league clubs. When you consider that 4 of the last 5 premierships have been won by Geelong and Collingwood, its hardly a surprise that most clubs feel the need to emulate the reserves systems of those clubs.
Examples of this in the 2012 season include Salopek being taken by Port Adelaide (AFL) from Glenelg and being moved to Port Adelaide (SANFL) to get a decent game, and West Coast having to deal with Ashton Hamm not getting a game in the seniors because he was surplus to Claremonts needs in the WAFL.
The common theme to all WA and SA AFL clubs is that they believe they are disadvantaged under the current system, where the top Victorian clubs, as well as the Swans, have the distinct advantage of having all their players under the one coaching banner.
On August 14th, 2012 Sportsnewsfirst reported that the WA and SA clubs were likely to be invited to be part of a proposed new reserves competition being put forward by the big Victorian AFL Clubs. However costs estimated at 2 million a season including travel and accommodation are expected to be considerable stumbling blocks to any participation by WAFL and SANFL owned clubs. (QLD and NSW clubs are firmly entrenched in their NEAFL arrangements).
On August 30, The Age reported that SA and WA AFL clubs were looking for AFL assistance to set up their own breakaway reserves competition, with Freo not ruling out putting a team in the WA Amateur competitions and Adelaide implying it may join the VFL.
Aside from the thorny reserves issue, the AFL has apparently decided that its time to lose the state league dependency on its AFL clubs in WA and SA.
According to the AFLs official spokesman, Patrick Keane, “the league’s preferred position was that the licences eventually would return to the clubs“.
Port Adelaide, Adelaide and the SANFL
New Crows coach Brenton Sanderson proposed Adelaide have a reserves side in the SANFL in december 2011, with another proposal favouring the Eagles and Dockers “play state sides on their bye” plan (see below).
“For the development of our younger kids it’s imperative at some stage down the track we have a reserves side. We understand it’s a delicate issue but at the same time, from my point of view as senior coach, we would love to have it.”
Previous coach Neil Craig had been content to deal with the SANFL system as it stood, but Sanderson believed that it was important to keep track with developments at other clubs, namely Geelong and Collingwood.
In June 2012, the SANFL have flatly rejected any chance of reserves in the SANFL, with the Chairman of the SANFL, John Olsen, saying that Crows and Power reserves teams would not be part of the ongoing license discussions.
“Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable – that will not be part of our discussions on the licences, We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams).”
On July 28th, 2012, the Advertiser reported that the SANFL had put off all talks regarding licenses and reserves sides until November 2014, allowing it at least a season at Adelaide Oval to gauge the financial value of the move more clearly.
The same article estimates the costs of playing a SANFL reserves side at $750,000 a year, almost double the cost an AFL side pays to have a reserve side in the VFL.
On August 7th, the Advertiser reported with the money from Adelaide Oval, Adelaide would be able to afford a reserves team in the VFL in 2015. The article also said that an option to be considered would be placing reserves teams in the SANFL reserves competition. This can be quite easily accommodated by Adelaide, but Port would have no have an entirely separate reserves team to its Port Adelaide SANFL reserves team. This would have some financial repurcussions for Port which is already struggling.
The article assumes that an AFL takeover of Ports license is a fait accompli, while Adelaide neither wants nor needs separation from the SANFL.
On August 23rd, the Advertiser reported that the Adelaide and Port Adelaide licenses will almost certainly be returned to the AFL, that the biggest sticking point was the worth of the Adelaide license (estimated at 20 million) while the Port license would appear to have been written off.
The article states that there are three critical outstanding issues:
- TIMING. Should the licences be transferred back to the AFL Commission immediately or after the Crows and Power are playing at Adelaide Oval in 2014?
- GOVERNANCE. Does the AFL Commission set up “self-appointed” boards or leave any seat for a member-elected director
- VALUE. The debt-hit SANFL expects a compensation package from the AFL. This is the major sticking point.
On September 25th, the Advertiser reported that the license issues had all come down to the final hurdle – money. The article reports that the SANFL will not keep the profitable Crows and offload the loss making Port, with Leigh Whicker stating that “both licenses are equal”. The Advertiser claims the SANFL want a resolution sooner rather than later.
The Article also notes that the Crows prefer a similar constitution to that given to Gold Coast and GWS where the clubs appoint most directors, the members one or two directors and only the AFL has the right to veto appointments.
On September 28th, the Advertiser reported that compensation for money contributed to keeping Port Adelaide afloat is a major stumbling block in the license handovers from the SANFL to the AFL with the SANFL believing that the AFL should apparently take over the portion of its debt attributed to keeping Port afloat (estimated around 14.5 milion)
On October 3rd, The Advertiser reported that the SANFL presidents were urgently seeking information on the progression of talks with the AFL over the license changes to Port and Adelaide with clubs warning the SANFL required their vote to offsell SANFL assets.
The Advertiser also claimed that:
- There will be no lump sum paid for the return of the Adelaide license (SANFL valued at $26 million)
- There will be no repayment of debt incurred in keeping Port alive (SANFL valued at 15 million)
- There will be no repayment of the $4 million license fees paid by the SANFL
- The AFL is offering between $800,000 and $1 million a year in compensation
- The SANFL wants this to be kept for 20 years.
On October 11th, the Adelaide Advertiser reported that the Crows were considering buying the debt laden SANFL club, Sturt, but were mindful of the 2.2 million club debt and other issues involved. The Advertiser went on to list a number of issues with this
- SANFL recruited players having to play against their original clubs
- Adelaide no longer being consider the team for all South Australians
The Advertiser further reported that Adelaide views the reserves team as essential with Crows football Operations manager Phil Harper quoted as saying
“We need our players wearing one jumper from the day they are drafted to the Adelaide Football Club. We currently have (Woodville-West Torrens draftee) Cam Ellis-Yolmen spending two years at our club now and he has never worn the Crows jumper”.
SANFL Clubs are disturbed by the comments from the Crows with a number of club presidents quoted in the article.
“The image is the AFL clubs don’t trust us to look after their players for two hours every weekend”
– Gary Metcalf (Glenelg president)
“We embrace the AFL players and in doing so upset the balance of what we are trying to achieve by developing our under-18s. Then we face not having AFL players during the finals because they either are having surgery or don’t want to play in the SANFL anymore. But do you hear us complaining?”
– Joe Tripodi (Norwood president)In response to changes to the Dockers and Eagles alignments, the Advertiser quoted Port Adelaide chief Keith Thomas expressing concerns that the Power were being left behind.
“The clock is ticking against us, and we can’t allow that to happen – we can’t be left behind while every other AFL club has a reserves team or a development squad” – Keith Thomas
The SANFL has responded by saying its not one of the top priorities right now, with Adelaide Oval and the license issues more pressing.
“No.1 is the move to Adelaide Oval in 2014. Then we have to resolve one way or the other if the (Crows and Power) licences are returned to the AFL. We’re shifting to a new oval and trying to find a new structure for SA football. We’re far more advanced than the West Australians on these issues”
– John Olsen
Fremantle, West Coast and the WAFL
WAFL clubs recently voted no as well, rejecting the latest suggestion by the Eagles and Dockers to take their players out of the league for the first 6 weeks of the season, and emphatically refusing to allow AFL expansion into the WAFL.
West Coast and Fremantle had originally given a 52 page proposal in June 2011 allowing for payments of 125,000 per WAFL team paid as a license, compensation payments to cover the loss of AFL players, and additional bar, gate and signage revenue.
The proposal also included a means to recruit up to 10 top up players, none of which would come from established WAFL lists, instead coming from country leagues, interstate or non WAFL listed metro players.
When the first proposal was rejected, West Coast and Fremantle presented a second option in December 2011, allowing for payments to teams who beat the AFL clubs reserves on their WAFL bye. In this model the AFL clubs reserves would not play in the WAFL at all, but would play WAFL teams on their week off and paying them an additional $15,000 if they defeated the AFL reserves side in question.
At the June 2012 presidents meeting, The WAFL presidents rejected all of the following suggestions
- two stand alone teams in the WAFL
- playing scratch matches during WAFL byes
- WAFL club alignments – and threatened boycotts against clubs who would
At one point the WAFL presidents were insisting that each AFL club pay a 1.35 million annual license fee (Victorian AFL clubs pay $230,000) to have a reserves team.
South Fremantle president Haydn Raitt was quoted in the West Australian on June 30th 2012 as saying that it was time to say no once and for all.
“The WAFL clubs are together on this. We are 100 per cent united. This has been going back and forth for more than a year without any substance and it is time to say that it is over.”
The West Australian revealed on July 14th, that SAIL, a south african sporting company had tried to by 49% of West Coast in the early 90s, an attempt which was ultimately rejected by the WAFC and West Coast.
The article in the West Australian on July 14, 2012 also indicates that the AFL is intent on pushing its case for the WAFL to relinquish its licenses the next time they meet. The paper also believes such a deal is iminent with the SA clubs.
On July 25th, the West Australian reported that professional negotiators had been brought in to handle the stand off between the WAFL clubs and AFL clubs over the issue of AFL reserves.
“The future of both our clubs depends on the strength of all our players and not just the 22 playing AFL. This is not something that is going to go away,”
– West Coast chief executive Trevor Nisbett.The WAFL clubs havent changed position either, and its understood that there wont be a quick resolution with club chiefs predicting a 3 month process, but expecting that the two sides will come to a mutually acceptable agreement.
On July 31st, the West Australian reported that the WAFL and AFL groups had a meeting which both sides categorised as positive.
“It was a good discussion and it was good for all of the parties to hear directly from each other. There was good recognition of the needs of the AFL clubs – to have their players training and playing together. But there was also good recognition that any change needs to enhance the WAFL.”
– WAFL Chairman Frank CooperOn August 24th, the West Australian reported that both Fremantle and West Coast would take advantage of an AFL Commission visit to Perth to push for control of their licenses. The WAFC maintains a position that the license can only change hands as long as the revenue stream remains unchanged. The Article puts AFl contributions to the WAFL at 1.8 million a year, but says this amount is reduced by transfer fees.
West Coash Chairman Alan Cransberg said he was keen to remove the middle man between his club and the AFL.
“We are very keen to have a direct licence with the AFL. Every other club does and the South Australian clubs are heading that way. Most of our dealings are done direct with the AFL and from an efficiency and bureaucracy point of view, we think it is better to have a direct licence arrangement with the AFL.”
WAFC Chairman Frank Cooper says the WAFC sees no real need for change at this time.
“The WAFC firmly believes that the integrated football structure in Western Australia has worked well for this State for two decades and has contributed greatly to the growth of all levels of footy, including community, club and the pathway via the WAFL to the AFL.”
On August 28th, the West Australian and WA today reported that Andrew Demetriou had said the AFL could not order any change to the license structure of the WA clubs, despite the desire of both West Coast and Fremantle, as well as the AFL to remove the clubs from the shadow of the WAFC. He also said there was no specific time frame for it to happen.
“This is a decision for WA and WA football,” he said. “It is something the AFL does not seek to impose on WA football. These aren’t our licences.
What was clearly stated by everyone around the room is that first and foremost everyone’s priority is to continue the investment in the game in this State.
Whatever happens with the licences will be done collaboratively and will be done with the best interests of West Australian football at heart. There is no time line on it and we will work through with the football commission and the two clubs if we can offer any assistance
.”On September 29th, The Sunday Times reported that the Dockers were considering a host club in Peel Thunder, with Peel saying they would welcome it as long as they retained their identity. The Times reports that a return to the host club system could not occur before 2014.
On October 16th, The West Australian reported that the WAFC will pitch the idea of returning to host clubs for the 2014 season. Speculation is that the WAFC may greenlight East Perth-Eagles, and Peel-Fremantle. East Perth didnt comment, and Peel said they had not seen a proposal yet.
“We are waiting for the commission to put a proposal to us. We have heard the rumours like everyone else has but all we can do is wait to see what line the commission takes on this.”
– Peel Thunder President, John DitchburnOn October 31, the issue of reserves appeared settled, with The Age and The West Australian reporting that West Coast will be taking an alignment with East Perth, and Fremantle taking one with Peel. The new deals will take place from 2014 and will see both clubs pay $450 a season, while non aligned WAFL clubs will receive an increase in their funding (up from $425,000 – $525,000). Peel and East Perth will receive $350,000. The deals also allow for West Coast and Fremantle to have final say over coaching appointments to their aligned clubs.
“I hope (this alignment) is going to be in place forever and a day. This looks like a sustainable model – a model that can help the other (WAFL) clubs.”
– Trevor NesbittThe new alignments bring the WA clubs into line with most Victorian clubs and their alignments with the VFL.
On November 1, however, the West Australian reported that the WAFL clubs were holding a meeting to thrash out the details as they had not expected any deal to be finalised and expected more consultation.
“They were expecting we would come back with a proposal that would then go into a further consulting phase”
– Frank CooperThe Article also quoted the WAFL Council of Presidents, Hayden Raitt, as saying
“It did get a rough reception but we are meeting on Friday to short list the things that we believe they missed and resubmit them.
At the end of the day, the commission can do it without our consent anyway and we could end up with nothing.
I think we will all have a look at it from a sensible point of view. The commission has done rather a good job, they have just missed out some smaller detail. I think they tried to put a good deal to the WAFL and to help the WAFL
Media and references
- Nov 1, 2012 – “Clubs move to finetune AFL deals” – The West
- Nov 1, 2012 – “Eagles, Dockers form new reserves” – The Age
- Oct 31, 2012 – “Eagles happy with new WAFL alignments” – The West
- Oct 31, 2012 – “Crows, Power running on empty without reserves” – Advertiser
- Oct 16, 2012 – “Host clubs closer for eagles, dockers” – The West Australian
- Oct 11, 2012 – “Crows may buy Sturt as its reserves team” – The Advertiser
- Oct 03, 2012 – “SANFL demanding immediate answers” – The Advertiser
- Sep 29, 2012 – “Retention of identity deciding factor” – Sunday Times
- Sep 28, 2012 – “License handover stumbles” – The Advertiser
- Sept 25, 2012 – “Talks on deals for Crows and Power” – The Advertiser
- Aug 30, 2012 – “SA, WA clubs to go it alone” – The Age
- Aug 28, 2012 – “Demetriou tells WAFC to avoid clashes” – West Australian
- Aug 27, 2012 – “Rugby causes AFL finals fixture headache” – WA today
- Aug 24, 2012 – “Eagles, Freo push for total control” – The West Australian
- Aug 23, 2012 – “Port, Crows licence switch looms” – The Advertiser
- Aug 14, 2012 – “New league push for AFl power clubs” – Sportsnewsfirst
- Aug 7, 2012 – “Port fights, Adelaide wins” – The Advertiser
- Jul 31, 2012 – “Clubs positive after lastest WAFL/AFL club meeting” – The West Australian
- Jul 28, 2012 – “SANFL calls halt to license debate” – The Advertiser
- Jul 25, 2012 – “More talks in bed for reserves teams” – The West Australian
- Jul 14, 2012 – “Eagles toyed with South African ownership” – The West Australian
- Jun 30, 2012 – “Keep your AFL leftovers” – The West Australian
- Jun 22, 2012 – “SA Clubs say no to reserves” – The Advertiser
- May 28, 2012 – “Magpies hovering to grab Salopek” – The Advertiser
- May 22, 2012 – “Salopek on Magpies radar” – The Advertiser
- May 18, 2012 – “AFL extras pose SANFL conundrum” – The Advertiser
- May 4, 2012 – “Dockers, Eagles reserve plans collapse” – The West Australiam
- Apr 30, 2012 – “Rookie backs Crows reserves side” – Foxsports
- Apr 27, 2012 – “Primus shocked by Salopek dumping” – portadelaidefc.com.au
- Feb 27, 2012 – “Money not the key factor in reserves deal” – The West Australian
- Feb 10, 2012 – “New WAFC boss backs AFL reserves” – The West Australian
- Dec 23, 2011 – “Sando in SANFL reserves team call” – The Advertiser
- Dec 3, 2011 – “WAFL Cash carrot for reserves” – The Sunday Times
- Jun 2, 2011 – “WA teams push for standalone reserves” – Afl.com.au
