State League Player Permit Trial from 2014

[justabaraker]

Can anyone fill us in on how this will work ?
The SHEagles publicity is saying that AFL Sydney players will be able to play a capped number of games for the Eagles NEAFL team in 2014. No other info available at this stage.

The best and brightest from the Swans 'catchment' area have been used as top-ups for the Swans NEAFL team for a couple of years. But I don't think that the best and brightest from the Giants 'catchment' area have had much chance.
A few have jumped up into the UWS as top-ups, mostly via the Eagles.

But next year it seems that there will be a clearly defined 'pathway' (hey, don't ya luv THAT word !!) to the Giants via the Eagles....that's how it looks to me anyway.

Sounds like a good way for the Eagles to strengthen their NEAFL team, and to get the brightest and best from Sydney playing in their colours.

We've written in this forum about how it would make some sense for the Eagles PD team to drop down to Div 1 because of their lessened form. But that would make it too much of a step-up to go from Eagles Div 1 to Eagles NEAFL - this new Permit Trial will soften the step-up a bit.

The argument against, is the old one about how the talent would be taken out of the SAFL and cherry-picked into the Eagles. That's true but at least there will be a pathway.

It's a bit confronting to see how good ole' traditional rivalries in Sydney footy are slowly getting eroded by these pathways as players play for different clubs on a weekly basis - perhaps we just have to get used to this Brave New World as the price we pay for development.

Please, somebody who knows something about this fill in the blank spaces as I know nothing more than what I read.

[chatovadafloor]

Interesting....... This neafl comp just gets more interesting.

Last season pathways threw up a interesting result at eagles b and f. One player lead two rounds to go only to play for the giants for nothing... As he couldnt play finals missed a potential b & f, pathway here didnt work.

- - - Updated - - -

www.hillseagles.com.au the latest on this story. Neafl i give 2 years, the system is floored it is merely a top up to keep swans giants suns lions happy and bleed clubs who are in there....

[Mug Punter]

The NEAFL is an absolutely flawed concept from the get go.

It denigrates the local competitions it plunders to make up the numbers and provides unfair advantages to two local teams that happened to be in ascendency at the time it was created, one of which (Sydney Uni) makes no meaningful contribution to junior development other than to plunder other club's talent (and home grounds). The NSWAFL put the "pathway" program in to address the appalling behaviour of these two clubs and it is immediately made redundant and the perpetrators rewarded. All the while sitting on their hands while an ex NSWAFL head honcho proceeds to destroy one of the proudest clubs in the city. What a bunch of clowns. No prospect of promotion-relegation, just a sense of entitlement granted to two clubs that quite frankly do not deserve it.

The simple solution would have been for the Swans, GWS, Lions and Suns reserves to play in the SANFL, bringing it to a 14 team comp. Let NT Thunder join the QAFL if they want, let the ACTAFL merge with a Riverina or Border League as they should have done years ago

An additional 15 players should have been allowed to be added to each of these clubs lists as SANFL players with no drafting concessions to the clubs in question. These contracts should have been standard semi-pro contracts (say $15,000 a season) to be funded by the AFL. These players would train with the AFL clubs and not be available for SFL clubs.

In the case of Sydney, this would have provided a strong pathway for the best 30 local players in our city to play at a decent level and for potential drafting should they excel.

It would have preserved the integrity of the local competitions and when the players came down from the SANFL they would benefit all the local comp.

The problem with the SFL has always been one of self interest by the SFL clubs. The NEAFL does nothing to add to the local comp, it has no interest to the Sydney AFL community and it has completely destroyed any remnants of interest of status on the SFL. FFS, good on Manly for winning it this year but that alone shows how weak it is.

- - - Updated - - -

All that remains now is for Baulko or Uni's reserve grade team to win the SFL

[ShortHalfHead]

The main points of the proposed new State League Trial Permit ?



1. An AFL Sydney team can only release a maximum of 1 player to each Sydney based State League NEAFL team for any given weekend or round.

2. A player can only play a maximum of 4 games with his chosen State League NEAFL team before 30 June. He cannot play with both NEAFL teams in the 1 year.

3. The player can only play with 1 club on any given weekend or round.

4. If the player is not selected in the State League NEAFL team he returns to his club of origin.



The proposal is envisaged as such ?



1. The two Sydney based State League NEAFL Presidents to write to the relevant AFL Sydney President outlining the player[s] they will be approaching as trialists, and outline what the invitation entails [ie pre-season training/fitness trials/in season training.......]

2. The two Sydney based State League NEAFL Presidents to write to only the AFL Sydney player[s] identified to their club?s President, explaining the invitation is to trial/train/play up to 4 games if selected and not to transfer clubs.

3. If the AFL Sydney player is a paid player and is selected to play a NEAFL game, the host NEAFL team assumes the responsibility to pay the player the same match payment as a minimum.

Of course, any of our players that may be selected were going to be paid $5,000 by us on that weekend
Personally, I cannot see it being embraced by many clubs, except for East Coast and Sydney Uni. Having your best player taken out for a game could result in a loss in what could be a very tight competition, especially in PD.

We all know that East Coast and Sydney Uni wouldn't dream of approaching players to switch clubs before the transfer deadline after they had played in their NEAFL team.

[Pekay]

Looks like my dream of playing NEAFL is alive and well...

[Offal]

Looks like my dream of playing NEAFL is alive and well...

Me too - I hope to become the first 40 year old NEAFL rookie. Why not, I was a 35 year old Premier League rookie.

In all seriousness, if they had their time again, they would have created two NEW NEAFL teams such as Sydney East and Sydney West and drawn from ALL Premier League Clubs. Similar to how players are released from their club duties during the season to play in representative fixtures.

I wonder if it's too late to go back to trying out this model?

I wonder if there is any animosity from non-NEAFL clubs in the Queensland and ACT leagues towards their NEAFL counterparts?

[Jupiter]

In all seriousness, if they had their time again, they would have created two NEW NEAFL teams such as Sydney East and Sydney West and drawn from ALL Premier League Clubs. Similar to how players are released from their club duties during the season to play in representative fixtures.

No they wouldn't - much more expensive, much more debilitating effect on Sydney AFL and problematic from many other levels.

[justabaraker]

The main points of the proposed new State League Trial Permit ?





2. A player can only play a maximum of 4 games with his chosen State League NEAFL team before 30 June. He cannot play with both NEAFL teams in the 1 year.



.

Up until now, a top-up player went Swans or westwards according to where he lived. SHH, does it mean that the Swans reserves and Eagles will now compete for the talent ?

PS - looks like Pekay, Offal and me will be doing daily hammy stretches from now on, while we wait for the call...........

- - - Updated - - -

And also, how will it work for Swans reserves - will they be using top-ups too ? They don't have enough players on their roster to do anything else.
So it would be Eagles, SydUni and Swans reserves, all looking for temporary recruits.........surely not. The SAFL would be decimated on a weekly basis if that happened.

[Mug Punter]

The main points of the proposed new State League Trial Permit ?



1. An AFL Sydney team can only release a maximum of 1 player to each Sydney based State League NEAFL team for any given weekend or round.

2. A player can only play a maximum of 4 games with his chosen State League NEAFL team before 30 June. He cannot play with both NEAFL teams in the 1 year.

3. The player can only play with 1 club on any given weekend or round.

4. If the player is not selected in the State League NEAFL team he returns to his club of origin.



The proposal is envisaged as such ?



1. The two Sydney based State League NEAFL Presidents to write to the relevant AFL Sydney President outlining the player[s] they will be approaching as trialists, and outline what the invitation entails [ie pre-season training/fitness trials/in season training.......]

2. The two Sydney based State League NEAFL Presidents to write to only the AFL Sydney player[s] identified to their club?s President, explaining the invitation is to trial/train/play up to 4 games if selected and not to transfer clubs.

3. If the AFL Sydney player is a paid player and is selected to play a NEAFL game, the host NEAFL team assumes the responsibility to pay the player the same match payment as a minimum.

Of course, any of our players that may be selected were going to be paid $5,000 by us on that weekend
Personally, I cannot see it being embraced by many clubs, except for East Coast and Sydney Uni. Having your best player taken out for a game could result in a loss in what could be a very tight competition, especially in PD.

We all know that East Coast and Sydney Uni wouldn't dream of approaching players to switch clubs before the transfer deadline after they had played in their NEAFL team.

So, Baulko and Uni basically get cate blanche to raid any player they like from SFL clubs. What a disgraceful situation where clubs like North Shore and Penno, with all the effort they put into their junior development, being feeder clubs to these two.

It's an absolute disgrace

[Gambler]

What an absolute disgrace to allow a talented player the opportunity to play up to 4 games at the highest level possible in Sydney.

Surely he'd be better off being a big fish in a small pond in the Sydney AFL. I'm sure that'd help his chances of developing.

I'm not privy to the details, but you'd assume that the player would have the chance to say 'no'?

[ShortHalfHead]

What an absolute disgrace to allow a talented player the opportunity to play up to 4 games at the highest level possible in Sydney.

Surely he'd be better off being a big fish in a small pond in the Sydney AFL. I'm sure that'd help his chances of developing.

I'm not privy to the details, but you'd assume that the player would have the chance to say 'no'?

I wonder what the NEAFL clubs would say if you did a "deal" with them after they want your best for one of their matches?

Something like

"No worries, we would like to pick one of your premier division players to fill in for our "lost" player"

I guess everyone is selfish when it comes to this. I think it's a bad idea because my club MAY be affected and have had bad experiences in the past with both clubs and their "recruitment" styles. Gambler thinks it's a great idea as he is an Eagles man through and through and has realised that East Coast fell away this year and will find it tougher next year in the single conference competition.

[Mug Punter]

What an absolute disgrace to allow a talented player the opportunity to play up to 4 games at the highest level possible in Sydney.

Surely he'd be better off being a big fish in a small pond in the Sydney AFL. I'm sure that'd help his chances of developing.

I'm not privy to the details, but you'd assume that the player would have the chance to say 'no'?

A silly post.

The NEAFL is a flawed system to begin with. The AFL reserves clubs still dominate as with previous formats but now we have the local comp being affected in a major way. Top ups for Swans and GWS would be more than sufficient for the small number of elite players in Sydney.

We now have the SFL clubs acting as feeder clubs to Baulko and Sydney Uni which further denigrates the local comp.

Let players who wish to play for one of these clubs do what all players have to do, sign up and commit for a full season with their teammates.

The advantages being given to Bauklo and Sydney Uni over all the other clubs in Sydney, who just happened to be less successful at the end of 2012 is ridiculous. If I was running a club and Sydney Uni took my best player on a weekend when I had a vital match coming up I would be furious and rightly so. But you don't care about that, all you care about is Baulko's god given right to do what is best for them.

It's so insulting to the SFL clubs that it's not funny.

[chatovadafloor]

And we can gather from here that gambler is for eagles and mug punter is clearly not and never has been, I do agree with part of the post, it does hurt the local comp, this is a set up for the AFL reserves teams, where local teams will have no money especially in sydney apart from handouts to be competitive then when it fails they will have to pick up the pieces and rebuild clubs which are fractured.

A silly post.

The NEAFL is a flawed system to begin with. The AFL reserves clubs still dominate as with previous formats but now we have the local comp being affected in a major way. Top ups for Swans and GWS would be more than sufficient for the small number of elite players in Sydney.

We now have the SFL clubs acting as feeder clubs to Baulko and Sydney Uni which further denigrates the local comp.

Let players who wish to play for one of these clubs do what all players have to do, sign up and commit for a full season with their teammates.

The advantages being given to Bauklo and Sydney Uni over all the other clubs in Sydney, who just happened to be less successful at the end of 2012 is ridiculous. If I was running a club and Sydney Uni took my best player on a weekend when I had a vital match coming up I would be furious and rightly so. But you don't care about that, all you care about is Baulko's god given right to do what is best for them.

It's so insulting to the SFL clubs that it's not funny.

[Tim Freedman]

The sky is falling in, the sky is falling in........ oh hang on, it was just an acorn. I think we all need to take a few deep breaths, relax and see how it all plays out.

I'm more than confident that the Eagles won't be going after every clubs "best players" every weekend. I would envisage that there may be some opportunities for young players (sorry Pekay) to be asked "if" they would like to play and from the feedback I have so far, some (not all) coaches will encourage them to play at a higher level.

A major part of every coaches job is to develop their young players and to provide them with the very best guidance and advice. Personally, I have never had a coach say to me that I shouldn't be striving to play at the highest level possible. Every coach I have ever had encouraged me to play at the highest level possible and to take every opportunity given to me.

And Chatova, the same advice was given to the player you mentioned who played the last 2 games at GWS. It was and is in his personal best interests to take every opportunity given to him and he was encouraged to play there. All players at the Eagles are encouraged to play at a higher level as this is in the best interests of the player. This is more important than the club IMHO. One player missing is not going to be the difference between winning and losing on a weekend unless of course his name is Buddy Franklin.

[Steiger]

And we can gather from here that gambler is for eagles and mug punter is clearly not and never has been, I do agree with part of the post, it does hurt the local comp, this is a set up for the AFL reserves teams, where local teams will have no money especially in sydney apart from handouts to be competitive then when it fails they will have to pick up the pieces and rebuild clubs which are fractured.

The AFL are letting 2 PD clubs pick players from other PD and lower clubs that they compete against for their NEAFL squad.

Talk about a conflict of interest.

It sounds like the AFL are taking sides with 2 of their 2nd favourite clubs (we know who the 1st favourite club is) at the expense of the rest of us plebs.


There's no chance certain players might be strategically picked to remove them from certain PD games is there?