the javelin wrote:changing the subject, i know it's early into footy season but is there any ins and outs/retirements that we know of?
Panelli from Kensington an out from the First grade. But will still play lower grades.
by heater31 » Thu May 12, 2016 12:24 pm
the javelin wrote:changing the subject, i know it's early into footy season but is there any ins and outs/retirements that we know of?
by Dogwatcher » Mon May 16, 2016 8:48 am
by Eagles2014 » Mon May 16, 2016 10:15 am
Dogwatcher wrote:I understand the Liberals will today vote to support the parliamentary review into the current SACA situation.
There's no margin in not supporting the review, which is seen by many as a vote-getting exercise for Labor's Paul Caica, who is pushing for investigation.
There's a perception that SACA has followed all the correct protocols and have enough evidence to support their decision-making processes.
by heater31 » Mon May 16, 2016 10:23 am
by Dogwatcher » Mon May 16, 2016 10:53 am
Eagles2014 wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:I understand the Liberals will today vote to support the parliamentary review into the current SACA situation.
There's no margin in not supporting the review, which is seen by many as a vote-getting exercise for Labor's Paul Caica, who is pushing for investigation.
There's a perception that SACA has followed all the correct protocols and have enough evidence to support their decision-making processes.
If you read SACA's five page rebuttal to Parliament, you would realize that last statement of yours is totally false - more holes in it than swiss cheese!! They are extremely worried by this enquiry, as it will show up all their lies and deceptions.
Also, this has nothing to do with Paul Caica wanting a promotion or being a vote getting exercise, he just wants SACA to be held accountable seeing the government give them so much money!
Notice SACA continue to be underhanded, just appointed two people to the SACA Board with no cricket experience, more "yes" men/women for them to get thru all of Bradshaw/Sinclair's wishes, what a joke. They knew one more person quit Board over their handlings of this disaster and they had no quorum to make this decision.
by Aerie » Mon May 16, 2016 11:00 am
Dogwatcher wrote:Eagles2014 wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:I understand the Liberals will today vote to support the parliamentary review into the current SACA situation.
There's no margin in not supporting the review, which is seen by many as a vote-getting exercise for Labor's Paul Caica, who is pushing for investigation.
There's a perception that SACA has followed all the correct protocols and have enough evidence to support their decision-making processes.
If you read SACA's five page rebuttal to Parliament, you would realize that last statement of yours is totally false - more holes in it than swiss cheese!! They are extremely worried by this enquiry, as it will show up all their lies and deceptions.
Also, this has nothing to do with Paul Caica wanting a promotion or being a vote getting exercise, he just wants SACA to be held accountable seeing the government give them so much money!
Notice SACA continue to be underhanded, just appointed two people to the SACA Board with no cricket experience, more "yes" men/women for them to get thru all of Bradshaw/Sinclair's wishes, what a joke. They knew one more person quit Board over their handlings of this disaster and they had no quorum to make this decision.
Just telling you how the Libs see it.
by Eagles2014 » Mon May 16, 2016 11:32 am
heater31 wrote:Great more delays into moving forward from this
by ferret » Mon May 16, 2016 11:39 am
by Eagles2014 » Mon May 16, 2016 11:46 am
ferret wrote:Paul Caica is the Patron of the WTDCC. The cricket club is in his electorate. A lot of people involved with the cricket club are his constituents, why wouldn't he want to represent them to the best of his ability. A fantastic local member who does not have to resort to Xenaphon like stunts to get elected. The misinformation and misrepresentation being perpetrated by the SACA is scandalous and should be exposed.
by Aerie » Mon May 16, 2016 2:15 pm
by oyster » Mon May 16, 2016 3:26 pm
by Aerie » Mon May 16, 2016 4:08 pm
oyster wrote:I'm led to believe that both Labor and Liberals will today vote to have a parliamentary enquiry into the SACA. It would appear many phone calls have gone to politicians from both sides, from both clubs. It would appear that with mutual support, the SACA will get the enquiry that they don't want to happen. That's just amazing news if it all comes to fruition. Well done to the people from both clubs who have rang their old mates, and politicians from both sides to ensure that this enquiry will happen. The SACA did not know so many people from the western suburbs were so well connected and willing to take the fight up with them. Bad mistake SACA. Never, never, take on a mungril dog, as the mungril dog won't stop
by oyster » Mon May 16, 2016 5:13 pm
Aerie wrote:oyster wrote:I'm led to believe that both Labor and Liberals will today vote to have a parliamentary enquiry into the SACA. It would appear many phone calls have gone to politicians from both sides, from both clubs. It would appear that with mutual support, the SACA will get the enquiry that they don't want to happen. That's just amazing news if it all comes to fruition. Well done to the people from both clubs who have rang their old mates, and politicians from both sides to ensure that this enquiry will happen. The SACA did not know so many people from the western suburbs were so well connected and willing to take the fight up with them. Bad mistake SACA. Never, never, take on a mungril dog, as the mungril dog won't stop
Yes, the efforts put in by all volunteers across many sports and clubs is something to admire.
The efforts of the volunteers involved in these clubs put under the pump by SACA is something extraordinary and something that will never be forgotten.
by Dogwatcher » Mon May 16, 2016 5:17 pm
by heater31 » Mon May 16, 2016 5:20 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Just a clarification, as I was curious, here's the definition of mungril: http://slangwordsdictionary.com/mungril
by oyster » Mon May 16, 2016 7:30 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Just a clarification, as I was curious, here's the definition of mungril: http://slangwordsdictionary.com/mungril
by The Hound » Mon May 16, 2016 7:53 pm
by Tony Clifton » Mon May 16, 2016 8:43 pm
by Eagles2014 » Mon May 16, 2016 9:12 pm
Tony Clifton wrote:Has anyone from WT or Port been given a reason that the Sheidlich Report is not available to them?
by The Hound » Tue May 17, 2016 10:01 am
Eagles2014 wrote:Tony Clifton wrote:Has anyone from WT or Port been given a reason that the Sheidlich Report is not available to them?
Been told it is an "in house, confidential report". When they are placing so much emphasis on this report when justifying their decision on this merger, we feel it is only fair to be able to read it and see where he got the information from. One of the main reasons for the parliamentary enquiry is we will finally get to read it!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |