Community football board

[Clever Dick]

[quote="Howard"]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"!

[Howard]

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.

[Raking Left Foot]

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?

[Clever Dick]

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.

[Howard]

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?

I do not believe the CFB will be able force sponsorship agreements with clubs, if that arrangement sees that club worse off.

I know the conspiracy theorists amongst us do have a different view, and that's fine with me, but I'm prepared to listen to all sides of the argument, not just the biased perspective given by many on this thread.

[Howard]

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.

Mr Clever why didn't you highlight the word ASSUME??

[Raking Left Foot]

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?

[Jimmy_041]

My word they do RLF

[Howard]

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??

[Raking Left Foot]

BINGO!!

[Clever Dick]

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"![/quote][/quote]

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.[/quote][/quote]

Mr Clever why didn't you highlight the word ASSUME??[/quote]


Because I never assume anything! I stick with the facts.

And the facts are that if the SANFL cease their funding arrangement with the CFL, there is only two ways to raise the required funds, sponsorship and club levies, affiliation fees are already in place.

[Old Dog New Tricks]

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??

Now you're getting the hang of it

[Clever Dick]

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??

Now you're getting the hang of it

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.

[Old Dog New Tricks]

No I got it CD. I was just identifying the principle of it.

[aceman]

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.[/quote][/quote]

Mr Clever why didn't you highlight the word ASSUME??[/quote]


CD, I can sense you may be getting under someone's skin, 'H' has forgotten your name or is sar..... on the comeback trail?

[Howard]

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??

Now you're getting the hang of it

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.

Morning Clever (I'll stop calling you Mr Clever) but I'm heartened to see that we can agree on something, even if it is only the definition of what I actually said!

If we could back track slightly to the Affiliated leagues council, which most people agreed were hamstrung by vested interests, could I not argue that the overseeing administrator of competitions should be an independent body and as such, by definition, are not going to please everybody when they need to make decisions relating to some of their competitions.

[Clever Dick]

If we could back track slightly to the Affiliated leagues council, which most people agreed were hamstrung by vested interests, could I not argue that the overseeing administrator of competitions should be an independent body and as such, by definition, are not going to please everybody when they need to make decisions relating to some of their competitions.




The ALC were a body of people who did not interfere with the function of any leagues, hamstrung or otherwise, they did not impose their attitudes or ideals on anyone.

Don't disagree with you on the Independent body or the pleasing or otherwise of people, but if you can put together a body of people without a past or present affiliation with a football club and without any subsequent baggage of some sort, be it favouritism, bias or the like, then I'll find you not only Santa Claus, but Easter Bunny too!
The term "hand picked" is very relevant in this, I wonder why? I doubt they would select anyone that may be of a dissimilar faith!

[aceman]

Some of them were seen "at the trough" tonight. A couple of them looked as though they'd had a fair day on it too!

[supercoach]

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.

[The Gimp]

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.

Why would you refuse it? All they do is take your details? Surely you make sure your coaches get a police check?? Do you have something to hide??