2nd call

[blublurag]

I am also of the understanding there were other Clubs unfinancial as at Monday's delegates meeting (they weren't allowed to vote). Why have only some Clubs been punished and not all?

[Blue Boy]

I am also of the understanding there were other Clubs unfinancial as at Monday's delegates meeting (they weren't allowed to vote). Why have only some Clubs been punished and not all?

This could get messy if this is the case !!!

[bandar]

It is possible those clubs made arrangements I think the league takes a dim view of clubs that don't pay and don't explain.

[carey18]

i agree with dutchy when he says we shouldnt get the points for loseing the game!,game shouldnt of gone ahead,but i also think if the clubs new the rules dont go complain when the league enforces them?.we should never off got the points but.

[The Riddler]

I reckon Wingfield would be filthy.....might have cost themselves the double chance!
Paralowie boys I know it doesn't feel like you deserve the points but the rules are there obey them or face the consequences.

[Blue Boy]

I will find out more on this tonight !!!!!

Stay tuned !!!

[carey]

what do you mean blue boy ? from saafl ?

[Blue Boy]

what do you mean blue boy ? from saafl ?

I have a couple of people that can give me some feedback tonight on this !!!

[carey]

no prob's i look forward to hearing what's going on with this issue.

[BM]

This is a huge call by the SAAFL but being a club delegate to the SAAFL for a number of years they have threatened this action many times and have never followed thru. I remember ROCS having trouble a couple of years back and it was blamed on a misguided paper shuffle in at SAAFL house. Tough call on the clubs in lower divisions as it must be hard to raise funds but I would of thought a club like Modbury should of had this covered. I wonder if it was an oversight or a case of genuine financial hardship for the hawks

[stan]

Looking forward to this aswell Blue Boy.

[blublurag]

This story is in The Advertiser this morning...page 113.

Headline "No fees, no points"

Story starts...

SA Amateur league football ranks are in turmoil and premiership tables upset after four clubs had their scores nullified last week for not paying affiliation fees.

CEO Mark Shadiac quoted as saying..."We can't keep rescuing the clubs".

[Blue Boy]

It seems some one has rubbed them the SAAFL up the wrong way and some one is on a power trip.

This was sent out to all clubs - point 1 says they will lose premiership points - yet the scores were scrubbed as well ???

Accounts for this month were sent out on the 18 th May and are due to be paid by
the 31 st May 2006. The consequences of nonpayment
by the due date will result
in the following action as stipulated in the newsletter following the first call for
payment of accounts.
1. A winning team of a defaulting club will not gain premiership points.
2. If a team loses, they will lose all their score
3. A 10% finance charge will be added to the unpaid amount.

*An overdue notice was said to be sent to the clubs that had not paid by the 31st - which would usually allow 7 days to pay - eg notice sent on the 1st pay by the 8th. I know that one of the clubs had paid straight away and before the 8th - yet still no lollies so to speak.

*It seems one club just had a clerical issue as they do have enough money !!!

*There seems to be no consistancy with the leagues rulings at all and there could of been alot that actually were let to slip through to the keeper.

[blublurag]

Thanks Blueboy.

Hopefully more details on the 'inconsistencies' will surface. Also, based on the SAAFL's ruling, Modbury should have kept their score, lost the 2 points and Gepps Cross shouldn't have gained the extra 2 points. Quite a stark difference to what actually has been applied. That is quite clear from the ruling but the SAAFL haven't applied it correctly (why aren't I surprised by that).

As I said in a previous post (that got a bit lost on the bottom of a page), the league should fine these Clubs 10 or 20% and then hold them to account at the time of nominating for next year. If they are unfinancial, they are not allowed to nominate. The later date should give them enough time to raise the money. The fine would discourage clubs from paying late in any case, but it would give those Clubs that are struggling some extra time, it is not as though the league is broke and desparately needs these funds. After all, most Clubs have done it tough at some stage and a little support from the rest of the league would go a long way to ensuring these Clubs survive. For one, I would hate to see the SAAFL without a Pooraka.

I've just had a look through the official rules and regulation of the SAAFL and cannot find the rule that allows the league to do what it has done. If this is a new rule, that would have to be passed by the Club delegates at an official meeting.

[duncs7]

I reckon Wingfield would be filthy.....might have cost themselves the double chance!

They have only themselves to blame. Its up too the club through the football director to get the money mainly through rego's. If they cant get the players to pay up, too bad, they suffer because of it. Cant rely on the SAAFL to bail em out.

Can anyone name the other clubs struggling with their calls?

[leftrightout]

Thanks Blueboy.

As I said in a previous post (that got a bit lost on the bottom of a page), the league should fine these Clubs 10 or 20% and then hold them to account at the time of nominating for next year. If they are unfinancial, they are not allowed to nominate. The later date should give them enough time to raise the money.

If a club is unfinancial during football season how is it meant to raise funds during the off season? Not many clubs can generate dollars in the summer months so I'm not sure what you mean by the later date should give them enough time to raise money. And if they were playing finals you would think that the club would be getting some decent takings over the bar, enabling them to pay the call.

[blublurag]

I think the nomination date is end of September or October. As you state leftrightout, finals could help with the cashflow as you say.

The reason I say to give these clubs more time to pay is that the club could have a fundraiser, chocolate drive, raffle for example, that could raise $10,000, but this neds to be run over a 2 month period. When Clubs realise they are short at call time they can't run a fundraiser to this magnitude in a short space of time. I know it is still poor management but at least the extra time gives them a chance to fix things up.

[dont think do]

the proof will be in the pudding, lets see if any clubs are late for the next call?

[Blue Boy]

Thanks Blueboy.

Hopefully more details on the 'inconsistencies' will surface. Also, based on the SAAFL's ruling, Modbury should have kept their score, lost the 2 points and Gepps Cross shouldn't have gained the extra 2 points. Quite a stark difference to what actually has been applied. That is quite clear from the ruling but the SAAFL haven't applied it correctly (why aren't I surprised by that).

As I said in a previous post (that got a bit lost on the bottom of a page), the league should fine these Clubs 10 or 20% and then hold them to account at the time of nominating for next year. If they are unfinancial, they are not allowed to nominate. The later date should give them enough time to raise the money. The fine would discourage clubs from paying late in any case, but it would give those Clubs that are struggling some extra time, it is not as though the league is broke and desparately needs these funds. After all, most Clubs have done it tough at some stage and a little support from the rest of the league would go a long way to ensuring these Clubs survive. For one, I would hate to see the SAAFL without a Pooraka.

I've just had a look through the official rules and regulation of the SAAFL and cannot find the rule that allows the league to do what it has done. If this is a new rule, that would have to be passed by the Club delegates at an official meeting.

I think it was voted on - but clubs that are not financial could not vote !!!!

[Blue Boy]

Thanks Blueboy.

As I said in a previous post (that got a bit lost on the bottom of a page), the league should fine these Clubs 10 or 20% and then hold them to account at the time of nominating for next year. If they are unfinancial, they are not allowed to nominate. The later date should give them enough time to raise the money.

If a club is unfinancial during football season how is it meant to raise funds during the off season? Not many clubs can generate dollars in the summer months so I'm not sure what you mean by the later date should give them enough time to raise money. And if they were playing finals you would think that the club would be getting some decent takings over the bar, enabling them to pay the call.

I think you will find it is near impossible to raise funds during the off season.

A lot of clubs have cricket clubs or cricket sides associated with there sporting clubs - thus giving the cricket side first dibs on the premises.