by Clever Dick » Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:50 pm
by Howard » Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:25 am
Clever Dick wrote:Howard wrote:Am still here CD, but really not sure we can get much more out of our debate - considering you guys are dead set against the CFB and I'm not going to sway you in your opinion.
The only reason I started getting involved was that I thought their were a fair few distorted comments about the CFB so I was just looking for some balance in the argument.
Besides that, it does seem like I'm the only one batting for my point of view, which doesn't make you right by the way! I just don't think anyone else is that "fired up" over the topic.[/quote]
Maybe you should attend a few meetings of different leagues around the state, you might come back with a different point of view.
You cannot continue to deny that people much smarter than you and I and those who have far greater insight into the running of their own leagues within the SA Football setup are not in favour of this "one little bit"!
by Raking Left Foot » Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:29 am
by Clever Dick » Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:44 am
Howard wrote:Clever Dick wrote:Howard wrote:Am still here CD, but really not sure we can get much more out of our debate - considering you guys are dead set against the CFB and I'm not going to sway you in your opinion.
The only reason I started getting involved was that I thought their were a fair few distorted comments about the CFB so I was just looking for some balance in the argument.
Besides that, it does seem like I'm the only one batting for my point of view, which doesn't make you right by the way! I just don't think anyone else is that "fired up" over the topic.[/quote]
Maybe you should attend a few meetings of different leagues around the state, you might come back with a different point of view.
You cannot continue to deny that people much smarter than you and I and those who have far greater insight into the running of their own leagues within the SA Football setup are not in favour of this "one little bit"!
As I understand the scheme of things these smarter people you talk about are still doing exactly what they have done previously, "running their own leagues".
Some, however, are absolutely paranoid about the "takeover" - from day one the CFB has been saying that leagues and clubs will still have the power to make all the decisions to run the operational aspects of their competitions, the CFB has no intention of kicking individual boards or committees out of their current positions, and I think 95% of the bleating about the CFB is either coming from disgruntled suppliers of products and/or board or committee members who, for some strange reason, assume their positions of power are being threatened.
I think the ONLY worthy argument in this ongoing discussion is the associated costs of creating the CFB. As a totally autonomous body they need to be able to raise sufficient funds to maintain their positions, how they raise these funds, whether through sponsorship, affiliation fees or however they decide will be the crunch issue.
by Howard » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:07 am
Raking Left Foot wrote:and once the CFB sign up sponsorship, the written agreement with the affiliated Leagues is that they will enforce those sponsorship agreements with the clubs - am I wrong Howard?
by Howard » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:12 am
Clever Dick wrote:Howard wrote:Clever Dick wrote:Howard wrote:Am still here CD, but really not sure we can get much more out of our debate - considering you guys are dead set against the CFB and I'm not going to sway you in your opinion.
The only reason I started getting involved was that I thought their were a fair few distorted comments about the CFB so I was just looking for some balance in the argument.
Besides that, it does seem like I'm the only one batting for my point of view, which doesn't make you right by the way! I just don't think anyone else is that "fired up" over the topic.[/quote]
Maybe you should attend a few meetings of different leagues around the state, you might come back with a different point of view.
You cannot continue to deny that people much smarter than you and I and those who have far greater insight into the running of their own leagues within the SA Football setup are not in favour of this "one little bit"!
As I understand the scheme of things these smarter people you talk about are still doing exactly what they have done previously, "running their own leagues".
Some, however, are absolutely paranoid about the "takeover" - from day one the CFB has been saying that leagues and clubs will still have the power to make all the decisions to run the operational aspects of their competitions, the CFB has no intention of kicking individual boards or committees out of their current positions, and I think 95% of the bleating about the CFB is either coming from disgruntled suppliers of products and/or board or committee members who, for some strange reason, assume their positions of power are being threatened.
I think the ONLY worthy argument in this ongoing discussion is the associated costs of creating the CFB. As a totally autonomous body they need to be able to raise sufficient funds to maintain their positions, how they raise these funds, whether through sponsorship, affiliation fees or however they decide will be the crunch issue.
by Raking Left Foot » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:15 am
by Howard » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:42 am
Raking Left Foot wrote:Then, I'm not sure you have seen the agreement between the CFB and the afilliated leagues howard
And dont some of the leagues enforce their league sponsorship on the clubs already, to the detriment of the clubs individual rights to seek sponsorship?
You dont think the CFB are going to insist on the same thing when it is happening already?
by Clever Dick » Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:38 pm
by Old Dog New Tricks » Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:24 pm
Now you're getting the hang of itHoward wrote:Raking Left Foot wrote:Then, I'm not sure you have seen the agreement between the CFB and the afilliated leagues howard
And dont some of the leagues enforce their league sponsorship on the clubs already, to the detriment of the clubs individual rights to seek sponsorship?
You dont think the CFB are going to insist on the same thing when it is happening already?
If leagues are forcing sponsorship arrangements on clubs, how can they justify an argument that the CFB should not be able to do the same to them (the leagues).
Would that not be the pot calling the kettle black??
by Clever Dick » Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:09 pm
Old Dog New Tricks wrote:Now you're getting the hang of itHoward wrote:Raking Left Foot wrote:Then, I'm not sure you have seen the agreement between the CFB and the afilliated leagues howard
And dont some of the leagues enforce their league sponsorship on the clubs already, to the detriment of the clubs individual rights to seek sponsorship?
You dont think the CFB are going to insist on the same thing when it is happening already?
If leagues are forcing sponsorship arrangements on clubs, how can they justify an argument that the CFB should not be able to do the same to them (the leagues).
Would that not be the pot calling the kettle black??
by Old Dog New Tricks » Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:53 pm
by aceman » Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:10 pm
by Howard » Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:22 am
Clever Dick wrote:Old Dog New Tricks wrote:Now you're getting the hang of itHoward wrote:Raking Left Foot wrote:Then, I'm not sure you have seen the agreement between the CFB and the afilliated leagues howard
And dont some of the leagues enforce their league sponsorship on the clubs already, to the detriment of the clubs individual rights to seek sponsorship?
You dont think the CFB are going to insist on the same thing when it is happening already?
If leagues are forcing sponsorship arrangements on clubs, how can they justify an argument that the CFB should not be able to do the same to them (the leagues).
Would that not be the pot calling the kettle black??
I think you may have misinterpreted the words of Howard ODNT.
I think he's saying that if the local leagues can make clubs(thru sponsorship/licensing/or the like) use particular suppliers or products, why is it not okay for the CFL to make leagues do the same thing.
I reckon the answer to that is simple, ALL leagues are made up from the clubs within them who vote to set/ make rules for their exec to follow on their behalf, not a group of "special people" selected for their ability and likelihood to fall in line with the instructions of the SANFL/CFB.
I seem to remember a song from a few years ago with words to the effect, "ego, is not a dirty word"! Maybe that's what this is all about.
You only have to talk to a couple who are on there, they too think it's quite hilarious.
by Clever Dick » Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:05 pm
by aceman » Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:34 pm
by supercoach » Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:20 am
by The Gimp » Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:36 am
supercoach wrote:Here is another interesting one from within - why do the league (SANFL) want clubs to give the name of every single coach from under 8 up anwhere in the state to them for their so called "data base". They use the excuse of needing it to protect kids and make sure coaches reach a ceretain level, but I know otherwise. Mr R Oatey of the boys brigade I believe is collating the data for the SANFL league thru his affiliates. I know in our league we are refusing or ignoring their requests.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |