The South Australian Political Landscape

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:58 am

Feel for Wingard. Would've been criticised no matter what event he chose.
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby jo172 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:14 am

Executive Member wrote:I see Wade has taken to publically smacking down his leader in a press conference as he stood next to him

Looks like the Wet's and Dry's have started early

Last time they at least let Dean Brown get a couple more months in :lol:

I wonder if Marshall has asked Julie Bishop if there is somewhere she can send Vicki off to in a nice little diplomatic post ;)


Such that the Libs have factions Marshall and Champman would both be very wet.

It's more a loose grouping of various personalities/grudges.

Makes for a less dictatorial internal organisation than the ALP but far less disciplined.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Dogwatcher » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:19 am

Booney wrote:
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:
GWW wrote:Backflip on Star-Force usage at parties.

Good start for Corey


You've got to give people some time to settle into their new jobs, work out what they can and can't do. It's been a long time.


Speaking to the police before announcing you're going to send the STARries in to handle teen parties might be something you should know.

I understand SAPOL was very unhappy.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Dogwatcher » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:32 am

I'm not advocating for/against rate capping, but...

I can see how rate capping would be a popular policy. I'm not totally averse to it.

If it is to work, how is the State Government going to help councils to get back to their 'core roles'?

There are many, many services councils now provide due to cost shifting - such as immunisation. Why is a Council providing immunisations? Shouldn't that be a Health Department role? Which services will the State Government provide greater support for, or take responsibilities back from Council?

Also, infrastructure, particularly for growth councils, is very important as the state tries to meet population growth measures. There are a vast number of electorates that are 'safe seats' and don't get as much government love as other political seats, which are marginal or under question. Does the State Government propose to spend money in these safe seats, particularly if they don't have a political reason to spend money in that area?
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Booney » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:45 am

Dogwatcher wrote:I'm not advocating for/against rate capping, but...

I can see how rate capping would be a popular policy. I'm not totally averse to it.

If it is to work, how is the State Government going to help councils to get back to their 'core roles'?

There are many, many services councils now provide due to cost shifting - such as immunisation. Why is a Council providing immunisations? Shouldn't that be a Health Department role? Which services will the State Government provide greater support for, or take responsibilities back from Council?

Also, infrastructure, particularly for growth councils, is very important as the state tries to meet population growth measures. There are a vast number of electorates that are 'safe seats' and don't get as much government love as other political seats, which are marginal or under question. Does the State Government propose to spend money in these safe seats, particularly if they don't have a political reason to spend money in that area?


Unlikely, one would think, however, the previous gubinment did spend some money in and around the Port as part of the Northern Economic Plan...albeit 1, in the lead up to an election and 2, when the closure of Holden was imminent. Could be seen as a grab for votes.
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:45 am

Dogwatcher wrote:I'm not advocating for/against rate capping, but...

I can see how rate capping would be a popular policy. I'm not totally averse to it.

If it is to work, how is the State Government going to help councils to get back to their 'core roles'?

There are many, many services councils now provide due to cost shifting - such as immunisation. Why is a Council providing immunisations? Shouldn't that be a Health Department role? Which services will the State Government provide greater support for, or take responsibilities back from Council?

Also, infrastructure, particularly for growth councils, is very important as the state tries to meet population growth measures. There are a vast number of electorates that are 'safe seats' and don't get as much government love as other political seats, which are marginal or under question. Does the State Government propose to spend money in these safe seats, particularly if they don't have a political reason to spend money in that area?
We have

Climate change strategy
Economic development
Environmental health
Youth Development
Biodiversity teams
Community Events
Social services

All or some of that could be cut or shifted back to the state. We had staff working on child obesity for **** sake.

Since local government is, achem, local, we've had a bit more ability to get stuff delivered, but it's time to stand up for ourselves and hand a whole bunch of stuff back to the state. If not the renewal tidal wave that a lot of people in the infrastructure and asset management space have been talking about combined with rate capping will have the ability to make a whole bunch of Council's insolvent.
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Dogwatcher » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:54 am

Booney wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:I'm not advocating for/against rate capping, but...

I can see how rate capping would be a popular policy. I'm not totally averse to it.

If it is to work, how is the State Government going to help councils to get back to their 'core roles'?

There are many, many services councils now provide due to cost shifting - such as immunisation. Why is a Council providing immunisations? Shouldn't that be a Health Department role? Which services will the State Government provide greater support for, or take responsibilities back from Council?

Also, infrastructure, particularly for growth councils, is very important as the state tries to meet population growth measures. There are a vast number of electorates that are 'safe seats' and don't get as much government love as other political seats, which are marginal or under question. Does the State Government propose to spend money in these safe seats, particularly if they don't have a political reason to spend money in that area?


Unlikely, one would think, however, the previous gubinment did spend some money in and around the Port as part of the Northern Economic Plan...albeit 1, in the lead up to an election and 2, when the closure of Holden was imminent. Could be seen as a grab for votes.


Correct. That's the point, both governments do it. Meanwhile, safe seats (in rural and city locations) are left to flounder as there's no political expediency for sending funding in that direction.

As for that funding to the Port - I reckon that was a farewell present from a Premier, a proud Portonian, who knew he was on the way out.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Booney » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:06 am

Dogwatcher wrote:
Booney wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:I'm not advocating for/against rate capping, but...

I can see how rate capping would be a popular policy. I'm not totally averse to it.

If it is to work, how is the State Government going to help councils to get back to their 'core roles'?

There are many, many services councils now provide due to cost shifting - such as immunisation. Why is a Council providing immunisations? Shouldn't that be a Health Department role? Which services will the State Government provide greater support for, or take responsibilities back from Council?

Also, infrastructure, particularly for growth councils, is very important as the state tries to meet population growth measures. There are a vast number of electorates that are 'safe seats' and don't get as much government love as other political seats, which are marginal or under question. Does the State Government propose to spend money in these safe seats, particularly if they don't have a political reason to spend money in that area?


Unlikely, one would think, however, the previous gubinment did spend some money in and around the Port as part of the Northern Economic Plan...albeit 1, in the lead up to an election and 2, when the closure of Holden was imminent. Could be seen as a grab for votes.


Correct. That's the point, both governments do it. Meanwhile, safe seats (in rural and city locations) are left to flounder as there's no political expediency for sending funding in that direction.

As for that funding to the Port - I reckon that was a farewell present from a Premier, a proud Portonian, who knew he was on the way out.


It was a parting gesture in part, it was also a sign the ALP felt SA Best had ( as I chuckle to myself ) some traction in that electorate and there's never been a blue blood or green/independent to do so.

In the end nor did the SAB candidate.
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Jimmy_041 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:23 am

morell wrote:Jimmy, for like the 4th time

Many people can't read the articles you link. Copy and paste the pertinent parts.

And yes, Councils pay FBT, but like any business structure things to minimise that as best as possible. Afterall, it would be paid with public money.


Oh sorry morell, I’ll do whatever you tell me to do

How about spending some money and buying your own subscription if you want to read it
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:17 pm

Jesus you're so touchy. Rub one out or something.

If you want to look like an incoherent git, then fine, link to articles no one can read with points no one can understand. Just trying to help you out and make the place more comprehensible. It's not hard to copy and paste a section that you want to make a point about. Highlight the text in the article, hit ctrl c, then come in here and put the cursor where you want the text to go and then hit ctrl v

And I will never, ever, ever spend a single cent paying for media online. It's an absolute rort.
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Dogwatcher » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:17 pm

Crikey.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Booney » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:38 pm

Dogwatcher wrote:Crikey.


Par for the course.
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Dogwatcher » Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:27 pm

Booney wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:Crikey.


Par for the course.


I was just being meta ;)
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby DOC » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:25 pm

Corey Wingard isn't the first rookie police minister to confuse his powers over policy with the operational powers invested in the Police Commissioner.
User avatar
DOC
Coach
 
 
Posts: 17913
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:15 pm
Has liked: 723 times
Been liked: 2076 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Jimmy_041 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:44 pm

morell wrote:Jesus you're so touchy. Rub one out or something.

If you want to look like an incoherent git, then fine, link to articles no one can read with points no one can understand. Just trying to help you out and make the place more comprehensible. It's not hard to copy and paste a section that you want to make a point about. Highlight the text in the article, hit ctrl c, then come in here and put the cursor where you want the text to go and then hit ctrl v

And I will never, ever, ever spend a single cent paying for media online. It's an absolute rort.


You are all class morell.

Your last sentence pretty much sums you up. Wont spend your own money but think you should have the right to spend taxpayers money without control or scrutiny. Classic public sector logic.
As for this: "If we want Councils to stop spending legal fees, we should stop with the petty bullshit like investigating flowers, apple watches and golf memberships" Yeah, we should just let councils spend what and how, they want without any scrutiny. And, hey they shouldn't have to declare it either, even if required by law (but more on that later). These people are self appointed Gods and we should be thankful for their sacrifice serving us

But this ones better: "That constituted 0.9% of Onkas legal fees for that FY. Tree and forest"
We'll spend $22k to hide something but its only taxpayers money and a small proportion of our total spend so is insignificant. Oh, and that's only 13c per ratepayer. No wonder you don't want rate capping. We are just a bottomless pit for some people. Great public sector logic. You really fit into the system well.

Oh, and "Jimmy going for a role with Today Tonight it seems. Hot tip Jimmy you burgeoning little press reporter you..."

Actually, this incoherent git read this report: http://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/wp-conte ... ership.pdf

I wont copy and paste it as you demand. Hopefully you know how to click

There are so many parts of it that show that the Council were "wrong" (as defined, but you can go find it)
Oh, and, not only was the benefit never shown in the register of remuneration, salaries & benefits, the report lays out the extent to which they tried to hide it

So, however much you try to trivialise this, and use abusive language, that document shows you are, actually, full of $hit (as usual)

I will go back to my original position that it is not the cost of the golf membership; it is the extent of the councils actions (and money spent) to hide it.
I couldn't give a toss about his, or anybody else's, salary package, but there is a reason they have a register of remuneration, salaries & benefits.

Is that too much for such a superior & coherent mind as yours to comprehend? Probably not, so we can expect another of your unhinged rants.
Me? I'm getting back to work. I'm sick of some public servants trying to justify their warped opinions with vacuous comments
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby jo172 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:47 pm

As an analogy if a Board offered to pay it's CEO's Golf Club membership and then spent a considerable sum to hide it from its shareholders there would (rightfully) be hell to pay for that Board.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Dogwatcher » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:49 pm

I feel as if Jimmy was setting Morrell up from the start...

Jimmy_041 wrote: How about spending some money and buying your own subscription if you want to read it


Knowing that Morrell would respond this way...

morell wrote: And I will never, ever, ever spend a single cent paying for media online. It's an absolute rort.


So that he could draw this line...

Jimmy_041 wrote: Your last sentence pretty much sums you up. Wont spend your own money but think you should have the right to spend taxpayers money without control or scrutiny. Classic public sector logic.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:02 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:
morell wrote:Jesus you're so touchy. Rub one out or something.

If you want to look like an incoherent git, then fine, link to articles no one can read with points no one can understand. Just trying to help you out and make the place more comprehensible. It's not hard to copy and paste a section that you want to make a point about. Highlight the text in the article, hit ctrl c, then come in here and put the cursor where you want the text to go and then hit ctrl v

And I will never, ever, ever spend a single cent paying for media online. It's an absolute rort.


You are all class morell.

Your last sentence pretty much sums you up. Wont spend your own money but think you should have the right to spend taxpayers money without control or scrutiny. Classic public sector logic.
As for this: "If we want Councils to stop spending legal fees, we should stop with the petty bullshit like investigating flowers, apple watches and golf memberships" Yeah, we should just let councils spend what and how, they want without any scrutiny. And, hey they shouldn't have to declare it either, even if required by law (but more on that later). These people are self appointed Gods and we should be thankful for their sacrifice serving us

But this ones better: "That constituted 0.9% of Onkas legal fees for that FY. Tree and forest"
We'll spend $22k to hide something but its only taxpayers money and a small proportion of our total spend so is insignificant. Oh, and that's only 13c per ratepayer. No wonder you don't want rate capping. We are just a bottomless pit for some people. Great public sector logic. You really fit into the system well.

Oh, and "Jimmy going for a role with Today Tonight it seems. Hot tip Jimmy you burgeoning little press reporter you..."

Actually, this incoherent git read this report: http://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/wp-conte ... ership.pdf

I wont copy and paste it as you demand. Hopefully you know how to click

There are so many parts of it that show that the Council were "wrong" (as defined, but you can go find it)
Oh, and, not only was the benefit never shown in the register of remuneration, salaries & benefits, the report lays out the extent to which they tried to hide it

So, however much you try to trivialise this, and use abusive language, that document shows you are, actually, full of $hit (as usual)

I will go back to my original position that it is not the cost of the golf membership; it is the extent of the councils actions (and money spent) to hide it.
I couldn't give a toss about his, or anybody else's, salary package, but there is a reason they have a register of remuneration, salaries & benefits.

Is that too much for such a superior & coherent mind as yours to comprehend? Probably not, so we can expect another of your unhinged rants.
Me? I'm getting back to work. I'm sick of some public servants trying to justify their warped opinions with vacuous comments
See, this is all I ask for... Logic, citation and a thought process.

I mean it's all utter claptrap, and i'll rip it apart later, but at least you're having a crack and putting forward something of note that resembles an argument rather that snide off the cuff one liners that don't make any sense with links no can read.

So thank you.
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby am Bays » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:16 pm

morell wrote:
I mean it's all utter claptrap, and i'll rip it apart later,
Attachments
deckchair.jpg
deckchair.jpg (45 KiB) Viewed 3641 times
beer snacks.jpg
beer snacks.jpg (52.91 KiB) Viewed 3641 times
beers on ice.jpg
beers on ice.jpg (28.07 KiB) Viewed 3641 times
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
User avatar
am Bays
Coach
 
 
Posts: 18498
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: The back bar at Lennies
Has liked: 162 times
Been liked: 1804 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby morell » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:31 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:You are all class morell.
Wait, are you saying I am classless? But I thought I was elitist? This place needs to make up its mind as to which box I fit in.

Jimmy_041 wrote:Your last sentence pretty much sums you up. Wont spend your own money but think you should have the right to spend taxpayers money without control or scrutiny. Classic public sector logic.
Are you correlating me choosing, as an individual consumer, to not pay for something with some sort of globally long bow to public sector wastage?

I've seen some wack analogies in my time, but that's right up there.

Jimmy_041 wrote:As for this: "If we want Councils to stop spending legal fees, we should stop with the petty bullshit like investigating flowers, apple watches and golf memberships" Yeah, we should just let councils spend what and how, they want without any scrutiny.
What? No. That not what I am saying at all.

I am saying just the opposite. There are many areas of Council spending that is utterly ridiculous. I've mentioned many in this thread barely 10 posts ago. Go back and *read* what I post.

Tree and forest, remember? Take Council to court for ******* up million dollar projects or being stupid with development applications ... important stuff, not the trivial shit like flowers and apple watches.

Jimmy_041 wrote:And, hey they shouldn't have to declare it either, even if required by law (but more on that later). These people are self appointed Gods and we should be thankful for their sacrifice serving us
Misrepresentation of my argument to simplify it to make it easier to refute. Colloquially known as the classic strawman.

Jimmy_041 wrote:But this ones better: "That constituted 0.9% of Onkas legal fees for that FY. Tree and forest"
We'll spend $22k to hide something but its only taxpayers money and a small proportion of our total spend so is insignificant. Oh, and that's only 13c per ratepayer. No wonder you don't want rate capping. We are just a bottomless pit for some people. Great public sector logic. You really fit into the system well.
They didn't spend $22k to hide anything - you've swallowed up an Advertiser online headline and gagged on it. They spent $22k trying to short circuit a redundant process/investigation because they knew it would be for nothing. Which, as it turned out, was spot on. Mark Dowd is still the CEO. Lorraine Rosenberg is still the Mayor. Areas to improve on? Absolutely. But ultimately there was nothing found to in any way justify the hysteria.

Also, I've spent larger portions of my career as a private consultant booking my time to 15 minute blocks and ensuring I find my own work to justify my wage than in LG. There was far more bullshit corruption, boys club culture, old school bias **** going in that system than any public sector organisation I have worked for. I actually get hired into Council's because of my private industry methodology and way of thinking, but keep trying to pigeon hole me into a shovel leaving ditch digger.

Jimmy_041 wrote:Oh, and "Jimmy going for a role with Today Tonight it seems. Hot tip Jimmy you burgeoning little press reporter you..."

Actually, this incoherent git read this report: http://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/wp-conte ... ership.pdf

I wont copy and paste it as you demand. Hopefully you know how to click
Good stuff. Sucks most of it is redacted.

I particularly like this part:

In this instance, to be satisfied that the definition of maladministration has been met, I
would need to be satisfied that the practice of the council in approving the
reimbursement of the CEO’s golf club membership resulted in substantial
mismanagement of public resources


and the this part

In light of the above, I consider that by approving the reimbursement of the golf club
membership for the CEO: the council did not commit an act of maladministration in public administration within
the meaning of section 5(4) of the ICAC Act. the council acted in a manner that was wrong for the purposes of section 25(1)(g) of the
Ombudsman Act. I do not consider it necessary to make any recommendations in relation to this issue.


So yeah, in the ombudsman's opinion, he didnt think they should reimburse the CEO, but in doing so, no great maladministration of public resources was done.

in other words.. who cares, this is insignificant - which is precisely my point.

Jimmy_041 wrote:There are so many parts of it that show that the Council were "wrong" (as defined, but you can go find it)
Oh, and, not only was the benefit never shown in the register of remuneration, salaries & benefits, the report lays out the extent to which they tried to hide it
OK, defending yourself or your organisation is not trying to hide anything, as Trader mentioned if they wanted to hide it, there are far better ways

Jimmy_041 wrote:So, however much you try to trivialise this, and use abusive language, that document shows you are, actually, full of $hit (as usual)
Pfffft abusive language, calling you a git? Mate step out of your precious little bubble, that's almost a term of endearment!

Jimmy_041 wrote:I will go back to my original position that it is not the cost of the golf membership; it is the extent of the councils actions (and money spent) to hide it.
I couldn't give a toss about his, or anybody else's, salary package, but there is a reason they have a register of remuneration, salaries & benefits.
Fair enough. I completely disgree that they tried to hide it. But whatever.

Jimmy_041 wrote:Is that too much for such a superior & coherent mind as yours to comprehend? Probably not, so we can expect another of your unhinged rants.
Me? I'm getting back to work. I'm sick of some public servants trying to justify their warped opinions with vacuous comments
Nah I like it, something to get my teeth into, much better than your usual rubbish. :D
User avatar
morell
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:56 pm
Has liked: 2017 times
Been liked: 1138 times
Grassroots Team: Mitchell Park

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |