Mini-League back?

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Postby Dutchy » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:30 am

Wedgie wrote:
Aerie wrote:Hopefully the SANFL clubs will take up Phil Herden's idea of having the mini-league across the centre of the oval so parents and their kids can still have kick to kick at half time. The best of both worlds!

I'd prefer the full oval but yes that would seem a fair compromise, that Phil Herden is a smart man!

Only concern would be the boundaries of the game and people having a kick and a catch, could be balls going everywhere.


I think you will find that is what will occur, good thing will be that the families of participating kids will be able to go out onto the oval and stand on the boundary and get closer to the action, having a ring of people around the makeshift ground will create a better stmosphere for the kids, and the other kids get to have a kick at each end using the main goals
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 46250
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2648 times
Been liked: 4314 times

Postby BPBRB » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:36 am

Dutchy wrote:
Wedgie wrote:
Aerie wrote:Hopefully the SANFL clubs will take up Phil Herden's idea of having the mini-league across the centre of the oval so parents and their kids can still have kick to kick at half time. The best of both worlds!

I'd prefer the full oval but yes that would seem a fair compromise, that Phil Herden is a smart man!

Only concern would be the boundaries of the game and people having a kick and a catch, could be balls going everywhere.


I think you will find that is what will occur, good thing will be that the families of participating kids will be able to go out onto the oval and stand on the boundary and get closer to the action, having a ring of people around the makeshift ground will create a better stmosphere for the kids, and the other kids get to have a kick at each end using the main goals


Good post dutchy and if it turns our that way then good. I know our club had a number of "activities" lined up for kids to participate in on the oval at half time for those who wanted more than just a kick and catch with friends and family (or others). This included involvement by injured Senior Squad players in assisitng with these activities which will still take place no matter if the "formal" mini-league is re-instated.
BPBRB
 

Postby Pseudo » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:42 am

Snaggletooth Tiger wrote:'Gabba, Gabba
we accept you,
we accept you,
one of us!'

(Quoting the RAMONES song 'Pinhead' ...the retalitory payout's gonna be too fugg'n obvious! :wink: )
:axe:


Which in turn was no doubt quoting (or even sampling? I don't know the song) from Tod Browning's "Freaks" - the most excellent black and white movie ever made. The big video shop on Daws Road had a copy - do yourself a big favour and rent it this weekend 8)
Clowns OUT. Smears OUT. RESIST THE OCCUPATION.
User avatar
Pseudo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12246
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:11 am
Location: enculez-vous
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1655 times
Grassroots Team: Marion

Postby Pseudo » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:47 am

Dutchy wrote:I think you will find that is what will occur, good thing will be that the families of participating kids will be able to go out onto the oval and stand on the boundary and get closer to the action, having a ring of people around the makeshift ground will create a better stmosphere for the kids, and the other kids get to have a kick at each end using the main goals


Why specifically bring Unley Oval into this discussion? :lol:
Clowns OUT. Smears OUT. RESIST THE OCCUPATION.
User avatar
Pseudo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12246
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:11 am
Location: enculez-vous
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1655 times
Grassroots Team: Marion

Postby redandblack » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:49 am

BPBRB wrote:
redandblack wrote:I'm posting for myself, not West Adelaide, BP. As with most clubs, I don't think they've made any comment or are blaming anyone, as far as I can tell
It's not a question of choosing what I believe, they're the facts, whether youy like it or not. What's the problem?


So tell us then where you got this supposed information from??? Your info is not factual and now you claiming "most" clubs have made no comment nor are they apportioning blame for the decision - YOU THINK! :shock: A bit of guess work on your behalf from what you have just posted so how could that be factual?

Surely with your WAFC "connections"/involvement we can only guess that your info comes from your CEO or Board otherwise why would you point the finger just at North if you have no direct involvement in this matter?

The real fact with this whole sage is that all 9 SANFL clubs and the SANFL hierachy voted to axe the mini-league and last time I checked the WAFC is one of 9 SANFL clubs as is the NAFC so why your non factual anti-North bias???


Well, BP, I'm not going to tell you where I got it from, but I'll tell you one thing.

It wasn't from the West Adelaide Football Club either directly or indirectly. I think I started by saying that I posted for myself, not Westies, so read that bit again if you missed it. I have no authority whatsoever from the WAFC to post anything.

The mini-league will be back, as I said.

Once again, I stand by what I said, regardless of your sensitivities.

Time will tell if I'm right.
redandblack
 

Postby BPBRB » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:42 am

redandblack wrote:
BPBRB wrote:
redandblack wrote:I'm posting for myself, not West Adelaide, BP. As with most clubs, I don't think they've made any comment or are blaming anyone, as far as I can tell
It's not a question of choosing what I believe, they're the facts, whether youy like it or not. What's the problem?


So tell us then where you got this supposed information from??? Your info is not factual and now you claiming "most" clubs have made no comment nor are they apportioning blame for the decision - YOU THINK! :shock: A bit of guess work on your behalf from what you have just posted so how could that be factual?

Surely with your WAFC "connections"/involvement we can only guess that your info comes from your CEO or Board otherwise why would you point the finger just at North if you have no direct involvement in this matter?

The real fact with this whole sage is that all 9 SANFL clubs and the SANFL hierachy voted to axe the mini-league and last time I checked the WAFC is one of 9 SANFL clubs as is the NAFC so why your non factual anti-North bias???


Well, BP, I'm not going to tell you where I got it from, but I'll tell you one thing.

It wasn't from the West Adelaide Football Club either directly or indirectly. I think I started by saying that I posted for myself, not Westies, so read that bit again if you missed it. I have no authority whatsoever from the WAFC to post anything.

The mini-league will be back, as I said.

Once again, I stand by what I said, regardless of your sensitivities.

Time will tell if I'm right.


I never said you posted on behalf of West officially. I was questioning your sources re the blame being pointed at North for the original decision. I'm not disputing (and never did previously) in any way your info that the mini-league decsion will be reversed as your right on the money there. I only took you to task re your info blaming North for leading the charge.

And for your info the SANFL raised the matter once Coke advised them they would not fund the mini-league and the joint decision was made from that point with most clubs raising their thoughts at the league table which resulted in the unanimous decision. Now try and argue that West or any other club objected at the time of the decision to axe it because that would incorrect.

I think North's feelings (and made public to the members) on the subject as outlined by Wedgie in his posts is quite clear but just because of how North view it they didn't table it or lead the charge to axe it or hold a gun at another clubs head to vote a certain way. End of story IMO.
BPBRB
 

Postby redandblack » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:52 am

BP, I find it hard to understand why you attack my understanding of what happened, but then presume to tell me what you think happened as fact.

I posted a long time ago that it wasn't an SANFL decision, but was led by the Clubs' CEO's. Whether you like it or not, I think your club was a major instigator of the decision. You can't show me where I have ever said West or any other club objected, because of course I've never said it, so I'd appreciate you not inventing statements and then using them in your answers.

It also had little to do with Coke, who have maintained their sponsorship to the SANFL, but asked for it to be redirected away from mini-league sponsorship.
redandblack
 

Postby Rushby Hinds » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:55 am

And for your info the SANFL raised the matter once Coke advised them they would not fund the mini-league and the joint decision was made from that point with most clubs raising their thoughts at the league table which resulted in the unanimous decision. Now try and argue that West or any other club objected at the time of the decision to axe it because that would incorrect.



How could you know it was unanimous?

If a well run board makes a decision to do something, it is normally announced as "we have decided to...." and it doesn't matter if the vote was 5-4 or 9-0.

And if the people who sit at the board don't agree with a vote, if they are (generally) good and proper board members they shouldn't and wouldn't publically come out and say that they disagree, they should support the majority.

All (footy) clubs make decisions @ board level all the time, i'd presume that a very large % would have a few people voting against the motion.
He's still my hero even if he is a little bit crap.
User avatar
Rushby Hinds
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:40 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby Coorong » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:55 am

Productivity is obviously down in some adelaide offices ATM
User avatar
Coorong
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:48 am
Location: In the Coaches Box
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 8 times

Postby Wedgie » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:05 pm

redandblack wrote:BP, I find it hard to understand why you attack my understanding of what happened, but then presume to tell me what you think happened as fact.

I posted a long time ago that it wasn't an SANFL decision, but was led by the Clubs' CEO's. Whether you like it or not, I think your club was a major instigator of the decision. You can't show me where I have ever said West or any other club objected, because of course I've never said it, so I'd appreciate you not inventing statements and then using them in your answers.

It also had little to do with Coke, who have maintained their sponsorship to the SANFL, but asked for it to be redirected away from mini-league sponsorship.


Finally, the truth. It took a while but you got it out of him eventually BPBRB.
I think the moon is made of cheese and we know how real that is! :lol:
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 51721
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2153 times
Been liked: 4093 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Postby Wedgie » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:06 pm

Borat wrote:
And for your info the SANFL raised the matter once Coke advised them they would not fund the mini-league and the joint decision was made from that point with most clubs raising their thoughts at the league table which resulted in the unanimous decision. Now try and argue that West or any other club objected at the time of the decision to axe it because that would incorrect.



How could you know it was unanimous?

Because all 9 clubs CEOs voted in favour of its demise, pretty obvious I thought? :?
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 51721
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2153 times
Been liked: 4093 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Postby Rushby Hinds » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:08 pm

Wedgie wrote:
Borat wrote:
And for your info the SANFL raised the matter once Coke advised them they would not fund the mini-league and the joint decision was made from that point with most clubs raising their thoughts at the league table which resulted in the unanimous decision. Now try and argue that West or any other club objected at the time of the decision to axe it because that would incorrect.



How could you know it was unanimous?

Because all 9 clubs CEOs voted in favour of its demise, pretty obvious I thought? :?


How do we know?

I would not be surprised at all, just curious.

Normally a board doesn't release the voting trend, nor do they have to.
He's still my hero even if he is a little bit crap.
User avatar
Rushby Hinds
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:40 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby Dutchy » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:10 pm

Wedgie wrote:
Borat wrote:
And for your info the SANFL raised the matter once Coke advised them they would not fund the mini-league and the joint decision was made from that point with most clubs raising their thoughts at the league table which resulted in the unanimous decision. Now try and argue that West or any other club objected at the time of the decision to axe it because that would incorrect.



How could you know it was unanimous?

Because all 9 clubs CEOs voted in favour of its demise, pretty obvious I thought? :?


They are not all CEO's....FFS! :wink:
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 46250
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2648 times
Been liked: 4314 times

Postby Wedgie » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:12 pm

Borat wrote:How do we know?

I would not be surprised at all, just curious.

Normally a board doesn't release the voting trend, nor do they have to.

A meeting of CEOs/GMs is nothing like a board meeting, with 9 different interests involved unlike a board which has 1 interest (usually).
Ive got details of board voting trends before from board members (not saying which board), I'd imagine people would get the same information about the voting trend at the SANFL CEO's meeting and it would be much less of a secret.
In fact the SANFL would look better if they came out and said it was a split decision as it would give them more impetus to change the original decision and have them looking less silly.
If you're on half good terms with any of the people present at the meeting Im sure you could get details but it was made public too (in several forums).
It was definately a 9 nil vote in favour of scrapping the mini league by all the SANFL CEOs/GMs. Noone (despite coming from several different angles) has even disputed that.

Borat, Im suprised to see you attacking a fact that everyone has agreed on and not someone's impression (r&bs) which would be obviously more airy fairy. Its almost like you have a common cause? :?

Facts are:
1) Coke pulled their sponsorship
2) All club's CEOs/GMs voted to scrap it
3) That decision might have been changed

Can't we just discuss the facts as opposed to some childish conjecture I would assume is only aimed at some sort of point scoring (and poorly backed up at that)?
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 51721
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2153 times
Been liked: 4093 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Postby Rushby Hinds » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:21 pm

Nah, no agenda, just curious.

I'll admit to not looking back through the thread and seeing if it was in the paper or whomever here first suggested that it was an "all agreed" decision.

Because i'd hate to think that proper board members would leak information outside the board meeting. Not the done thing at all, would lose respect from other people on the committee straight away.

Not that that would ever happen :lol:
He's still my hero even if he is a little bit crap.
User avatar
Rushby Hinds
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:40 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby redandblack » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:22 pm

Wedgie wrote:
redandblack wrote:BP, I find it hard to understand why you attack my understanding of what happened, but then presume to tell me what you think happened as fact.

I posted a long time ago that it wasn't an SANFL decision, but was led by the Clubs' CEO's. Whether you like it or not, I think your club was a major instigator of the decision. You can't show me where I have ever said West or any other club objected, because of course I've never said it, so I'd appreciate you not inventing statements and then using them in your answers.

It also had little to do with Coke, who have maintained their sponsorship to the SANFL, but asked for it to be redirected away from mini-league sponsorship.


Finally, the truth. It took a while but you got it out of him eventually BPBRB.
I think the moon is made of cheese and we know how real that is! :lol:


You're struggling big-time now, Wedgie :D

If you like, I know your club was a major instigator.

If your club tells you they weren't, so be it.



Brick wall.
redandblack
 

Postby Pseudo » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:22 pm

redandblack wrote:It also had little to do with Coke, who have maintained their sponsorship to the SANFL, but asked for it to be redirected away from mini-league sponsorship.

Kind of ironic that Coke, which wishes to be seen as discouraging childhood obesity, withdraws its sponsorship from a children's sporting event which is in danger of folding without said sponsorship.
Clowns OUT. Smears OUT. RESIST THE OCCUPATION.
User avatar
Pseudo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12246
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:11 am
Location: enculez-vous
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1655 times
Grassroots Team: Marion

Postby Jimmy » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:25 pm

smac wrote:
Wedgie wrote:Christ, its a sad state of affairs for 8 clubs if you're on the money then, I hope for your those clubs sake you aren't.

Not really, when put in context of how the CEOs/GMs operate (and have done for years).

Generally, an issue is decided prior to a meeting with the CEOs working together as opposed to against each other. If several clubs see benefit in an idea they effectively 'vote' beforehand with one club chosen to lead the charge at the SANFL meeting.

I have no fear that Kris Grant is working in the best interests of the CDFC, regardless of who led any charge at a SANFL meeting.


dont worry wedgies just spin doctoring it to turn it around...he'd make a good politician...not that there is anything wrong with that... :D
Carn the blues!!!!!
Jimmy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6348
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:02 pm
Has liked: 125 times
Been liked: 44 times

Postby Wedgie » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:25 pm

redandblack wrote:
Wedgie wrote:
redandblack wrote:BP, I find it hard to understand why you attack my understanding of what happened, but then presume to tell me what you think happened as fact.

I posted a long time ago that it wasn't an SANFL decision, but was led by the Clubs' CEO's. Whether you like it or not, I think your club was a major instigator of the decision. You can't show me where I have ever said West or any other club objected, because of course I've never said it, so I'd appreciate you not inventing statements and then using them in your answers.

It also had little to do with Coke, who have maintained their sponsorship to the SANFL, but asked for it to be redirected away from mini-league sponsorship.


Finally, the truth. It took a while but you got it out of him eventually BPBRB.
I think the moon is made of cheese and we know how real that is! :lol:


You're struggling big-time now, Wedgie :D

If you like, I know your club was a major instigator.

If your club tells you they weren't, so be it.



Brick wall.


ha ha, You talk about struggling. You're the one that's changed your story three times now from it being a fact to you merely thinking it to you now knowing it.
I think I'd rather get my facts from 4 or 5 different sources (including the SANFL) actually at the meeting as opposed to a Westies fan with alzheimers who can't even decide from post to post if he thinks or knows something! :lol:

And yeah yeah yeah mate, we know, big bad North were also responsible for the holocaust as well as hypnotising or holding a gun to the head of the other 8 CEOs/GMs. FFS mate. :roll:
Once again, I put more faith in the other club's GMs, boards and members, you must think of them as fools.
Any chance we can discuss the mini league without your poorly backed up little agenda? Please?

Once again, I commend whoever made the original decision, I'd like to know why its taken a hack on 5AA to get things changed around and not the original outburst by SANFL fans when the decision was made so long ago, I think that 5AA dictates how the SANFL is run at times.
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 51721
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2153 times
Been liked: 4093 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Postby Jimmy » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:30 pm

i want the ML back....ppl can have a kick on the field at 1/4 and 3/4 time break.
Carn the blues!!!!!
Jimmy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6348
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:02 pm
Has liked: 125 times
Been liked: 44 times

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |