by Sojourner » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:11 am
by Psyber » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:59 am
by overloaded » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:06 pm
therealROSSCO wrote:Now listen to this loud and clear.....
I have not been approached to coach at the WFC this year, next year or any year. I have not approached the WFC to coach this year, next year or any year. This is an unconditional statement.
by once_were_warriors » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:10 pm
by once_were_warriors » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:11 pm
overloaded wrote:The state government should do for Sturt what they did for Port Adelaide Magpies....sweet FA
by Dogwatcher » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:30 pm
by tipper » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:52 pm
Sojourner wrote:Going on from the post in the SANFL section relating to Sturts Financial Situation, does the State Government have a role in giving Sturt assistance to remain viable?
Options open could be,
A grant to assist the club with debt reduction,
A grant to move and to establish the club at Mt Barker or another Zone location, potentially in a stadium set up as it was at Noarlunga done for the South Adelaide FC.
Funding to the Royal Show Comittee to rebuild the Wayville Oval that the Sturt FC and the Royal Show Committee might form a joint venture in having Sturt and a licenced Sturt club at the Wayville site.
It occurs to me that the State Government were proactive in changing laws to allow North Adelaide to have their pokies venue at a Shopping Centre, is there scope for the same to occur on a site at the showgrounds?
Thoughts?
by am Bays » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:44 pm
by mick » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:04 pm
tipper wrote:Sojourner wrote:Going on from the post in the SANFL section relating to Sturts Financial Situation, does the State Government have a role in giving Sturt assistance to remain viable?
Options open could be,
A grant to assist the club with debt reduction,
A grant to move and to establish the club at Mt Barker or another Zone location, potentially in a stadium set up as it was at Noarlunga done for the South Adelaide FC.
Funding to the Royal Show Comittee to rebuild the Wayville Oval that the Sturt FC and the Royal Show Committee might form a joint venture in having Sturt and a licenced Sturt club at the Wayville site.
It occurs to me that the State Government were proactive in changing laws to allow North Adelaide to have their pokies venue at a Shopping Centre, is there scope for the same to occur on a site at the showgrounds?
Thoughts?
hang on, when did this happen?? the way i remember it was that North had to close the premises that they had spent a lot of good money on renovating and installing their pokies in because it was considered to be "part of a shopping centre". the only thing the government did was allow us a limited grace period of time to remain operation in breach of the ruling while searching for another venue to install our pokies.
ultimately they still had to move, it wasnt an unlimited period of time that they could remain there, and in the end we only just managed to negotiate for another venue in time. still got stuck with the bill for extensive renovations on 2 venues, 3 if you include the subsequent leasing and renovation of the northern tavern, (which did not require a change in law as the "no pokie venues in shopping centres allowed any existing venues to remain, it only prohibits new venues) also allowing the extension of time didnt cost the government anything, it actually made them money on the tax collected from what was a very successful venture.
back on topic, i will have a lot more sympathy for Sturt than i do for the Magpies, however i do agree with Psyber, i dont think the government can help them out without leaving themselves open to critiscism for allowing any other sporting group to go under, that and they dont seem to have the money. If they need help it will either have to come from within their club or from within the SANFL.
by tipper » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:04 pm
by Psyber » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:41 pm
And the "One" club's roots are in ALP heartland..once_were_warriors wrote:Not entirely correct, Adelaide Oval redevelopment assists the "One" Cluboverloaded wrote:The state government should do for Sturt what they did for Port Adelaide Magpies....sweet FA
by Squawk » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:11 pm
by dedja » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:57 pm
by Gozu » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:15 am
dedja wrote:fatal flaw in your argument re obtaining govt funds ... how many labor voters are in Unley?
by Sky Pilot » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:11 am
once_were_warriors wrote:SANFL's responsibility.
by once_were_warriors » Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:20 am
dedja wrote:fatal flaw in your argument re obtaining govt funds ... how many labor voters are in Unley?
by Psyber » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:14 pm
by Dogwatcher » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:25 pm
Psyber wrote:The discussion above suggests people are overlooking the fact that people who attend SANFL or AFL football in SA are a tiny minority of the population.
Wouldn't the majority prefer any grants available went to hospitals or schools?
by Psyber » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:57 pm
That only accounts for the less than 2% who attend Adelaide footy matches.Dogwatcher wrote:They say they do but then they'll still attend Adelaide Oval when its redeveloped.Psyber wrote:The discussion above suggests people are overlooking the fact that people who attend SANFL or AFL football in SA are a tiny minority of the population.
Wouldn't the majority prefer any grants available went to hospitals or schools?
by smac » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:14 pm
Psyber wrote:The discussion above suggests people are overlooking the fact that people who attend SANFL or AFL football in SA are a tiny minority of the population.
Wouldn't the majority prefer any grants available went to hospitals or schools?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |