The Budget

It's hardly worth buying the Budget any more as the team lists are hardly ever accurate and there are always some players missing.

Yesterday at Richmond Oval, Fort Caruso was not listed AGAIN and Slattery was missing for West as well. There was also at least one South Adelaide player not recorded.

I don't know who's responsibility this is, but they deserve a good kick up the backside.

Oracle wrote:It's hardly worth buying the Budget any more as the team lists are hardly ever accurate and there are always some players missing.

Yesterday at Richmond Oval, Fort Caruso was not listed AGAIN and Slattery was missing for West as well. There was also at least one South Adelaide player not recorded.

I don't know who's responsibility this is, but they deserve a good kick up the backside.

It's actually the clubs themselves that have to submit their sides to the Football Budget, so I guess they are to blame?

I think the Football Budget's deadline is Wednesday night (so they can be printed Thursday and distributed Friday) so I can understand that clubs will often list more players as they are not sure of their final 21 themselves.

Why some players are obviously left out is a mystery to me?

Maybe it's a space thing?
And last week it had D. Hookes as a West Adelaide fan, when everyone knows that he was a Eagles fan from way back, because he played for the West Torrens DCC and played underage football for West Torrens Football Club.

MightyEagles wrote:Maybe it's a space thing?
And last week it had D. Hookes as a West Adelaide fan, when everyone knows that he was a Eagles fan from way back, because he played for the West Torrens DCC and played underage football for West Torrens Football Club.

It's not a space thing in regards to the team listings, it all comes back to the clubs themselves having to provide their team list in the middle of the week.

In regards to the space things, they have reduced the size of the Budget and the amount of content in there so the quality has suffered IMHO.

The author of that article on famous fans knew that Hookesy was a West Torrens fan, it was the Editor who did that little chart with the other famous fans and got that wrong.

I agree in terms of the budget not being value or money anymore. It used to have some interesting articles in it, now it has nothing.

Living in the country, don't get to SANFL much but have subscribed to the Budget since 1995. This is the first year since then I haven't. $3 for the magazine plus $2 for the postage. Just not worth the money. From memory was about $140 for the season. Actually got this seasons AFL record subscription for $129 and that included the 2012 season guide which is $39.95 in newsagents.

Remember -- FOOT-e TIMES SA - 50 pages of SANFL coverage a week (over 2 issues Wed & Fri) .... just $1 per issue.

Also to confirm that team lists are as those supplied by the clubs. (I dont think the budget ever edits those lists).

And the Foot-e-Times has more interesting articles, is full of facts and data, and is far more interesting to read.

Stopped calling it the budget a few years ago, I call it the pamphlet these days

The player number issue could be improved by just printing full lists including AFL listed players, just as they do in the WAFL Football Budget. This would mean issuing a number to an AFL player and this number not being used by another player. e.g. Glenelg tend to use the same number for AFL players when they are dropped back (Hitchcock & Douglas both wearing 36,etc).

The problems with the reserves are players are issued numbers, but then the club have to find jumpers that fit. For example, for weeks the budget had Norwood's Jack O'Leary at 10, but he was wearing 1. I guess that problem will always present itself from time to time as clubs promote U18s into senior teams during the year, but if clubs issued 65 names next to 65 numbers, it should cover most scenarios.

Also, when West played at Norwood last week, Rory Laird who had been listed as 11 all season, suddenly appear in 61. Not sure why, but sometimes it wouldn't be the Budget's fault.

As for content, anyone can submit an article to the Football Budget, so if you think you can improve upon it, go right ahead.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:The player number issue could be improved by just printing full lists including AFL listed players, just as they do in the WAFL Football Budget. This would mean issuing a number to an AFL player and this number not being used by another player. e.g. Glenelg tend to use the same number for AFL players when they are dropped back (Hitchcock & Douglas both wearing 36,etc).

Sounds like a sensible idea.