Demon Juke wrote:zedman wrote:a bye?..oh dear..
Easier for the league to do that, then try organise the lower grades again. But we (clubs) pay there wages. don't we?
Why wouldn't you fill Div 6 before Div 7?
by The Riddler » Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:30 am
Demon Juke wrote:zedman wrote:a bye?..oh dear..
Easier for the league to do that, then try organise the lower grades again. But we (clubs) pay there wages. don't we?
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:16 am
Footy_Rulz wrote:which are the two clubs geographically closest to each of the potentially folding clubs? who would want the players most?
Smithfield = Elizabeth, Eastern Park and Angle Vale
Paralowie = Salisbury North, Salisbury West, North Pines
by TEX07 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:23 am
by TEX07 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:29 am
Dogmatic wrote:I think the SAAFL should allow current players from Smithfield and Paralowie be able to join other clubs without attracting any points.
It is better than players being lost to the game.
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:46 am
Footy_Rulz wrote:Demon Juke wrote:Footy_Rulz wrote:I agree Dogmatic, there would be somewhere over 100+ players between the two clubs that need to find new homes, the obvious clubs that would benefit would have to be Salisbury, Salisbury West, Brahma Lodge, Eastern Park and Elizabeth
If there is 100 players at the 2 clubs, I would say they would still be in the league.
Paralowie had a good 60-70 players last year, the reason why they are folding is because of bad debt. Smithfield folded because they had players but they never payed fees. I think they could easily have 30-40 players.
by the dirty dog » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:47 am
Footy_Rulz wrote:which are the two clubs geographically closest to each of the potentially folding clubs? who would want the players most?
Smithfield = Elizabeth, Eastern Park and Angle Vale
Paralowie = Salisbury North, Salisbury West, North Pines
by Q. » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:55 am
the dirty dog wrote:Footy_Rulz wrote:which are the two clubs geographically closest to each of the potentially folding clubs? who would want the players most?
Smithfield = Elizabeth, Eastern Park and Angle Vale
Paralowie = Salisbury North, Salisbury West, North Pines
what about central united dont they get any players in your thinking ??
by Mr Beefy » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:02 am
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:05 am
Quichey wrote:the dirty dog wrote:Footy_Rulz wrote:which are the two clubs geographically closest to each of the potentially folding clubs? who would want the players most?
Smithfield = Elizabeth, Eastern Park and Angle Vale
Paralowie = Salisbury North, Salisbury West, North Pines
what about central united dont they get any players in your thinking ??
The already poached half of the Smithfield lads!!!
by Q. » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:11 am
by Q. » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:14 am
Mr Beefy wrote:Does anyone know what Wingfield are doing this year?
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:15 am
Quichey wrote:Fair enough LM. What's your thoughts on a merger?
by Q. » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:19 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:Quichey wrote:Fair enough LM. What's your thoughts on a merger?
Too late, too far apart geographically, colour scheme would be pretty easy though.
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:21 am
Quichey wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:Quichey wrote:Fair enough LM. What's your thoughts on a merger?
Too late, too far apart geographically, colour scheme would be pretty easy though.
I was going to suggest the 'Northern Pantheroos'
by Lance's brother » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:25 am
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:32 am
Lance's brother wrote:Well, Smithfield players being rated 0 would be the opposite of an appropriate solution. Would encourage more to leave rather than stay on at the C level with Smithfield as they try survive and rebuild.
If Paralowie are indeed having to close their doors then their players should be rated at 0 to allow them to move to a club together. Why should the point system get in the way of mates that have lost their club and were teammates continuing to play together?
One club may benefit more than another - so be it. They're not going to be the beneficiaries because they are poaching, paying or because players lack loyalty.
by Mr Beefy » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:34 am
Quichey wrote:Mr Beefy wrote:Does anyone know what Wingfield are doing this year?
AFAIK the coach has resigned due to lack of numbers at training. Highly unlikely they'll put two teams together this year.
by Rita » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:08 pm
by The Real Number 3 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:34 pm
morell wrote:Well, not sure what to believe now...
carey, you are a quality poster but everyone I have spoken to have categorically refuted the claims made in this thread.
Paralowie are still alive and kicking, have not folded, but are rather in some financial strife which they are doing their darndest to get out of.
Mitchell Park will not be given the option of staying in Div 6, even if Paralowie decide not to field a side in 2011. If that happens Div 6 will have a bye round...
by brod » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:45 pm
The Real Number 3 wrote:morell wrote:Well, not sure what to believe now...
carey, you are a quality poster but everyone I have spoken to have categorically refuted the claims made in this thread.
Paralowie are still alive and kicking, have not folded, but are rather in some financial strife which they are doing their darndest to get out of.
Mitchell Park will not be given the option of staying in Div 6, even if Paralowie decide not to field a side in 2011. If that happens Div 6 will have a bye round...
Paralowie have until the 27th of March I think, that is when the doors shut. There was a meeting last night between members and the committee. We have until next friday, which is when the council meet??, to try and figure out how to save the club. Alot of phone calls are apparently going to be made today.
So there are signs of life, just not real strong ones
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |