Footy Budget

[Felch]

Geoff Emmell. Played a bit of cricket with him and he is a dead set legend. Recon he made the state team a few times back in the day.

Totally agree with you there Stretch. He is a legend, and was a big supporter of us and the way we did things last year. He gave our lads a couple of motivational talks last year too.

[Shirtfront]

Are we getting one this week?? Or skipping due to the bye.

[Footy Chick]

no edition this week.

[hawkseye]

no edition this week.

Slack.

[Rupert My Boy]

A fairly extensive article on the front page of this weeks budget on the subject of "apparel licenses. Not sure that the subject would warrant 100's of emails but it is an interesting state of affairs that one league can have 5 licensees, 3 of whom are interstate companies, that are willing to pay $18K per year into the SAAFL for the privilege.
I note also a reference to the AFL and clubs being able to seek out the best deals available, what is not mentioned is that all suppliers of ALL GOODS to those clubs are AFL approved suppliers and pay royalties on the sales of all of their items. In a nutshell, the supplier,ie Reebock, who has the lion's share of the market in the AFL with about 10 clubs would pay more in royalties than Adidas and Puma.
I do believe the current SAAFL situation is almost untenable because some suppliers who have the major portion of the work are unable to meet the deadlines so why doesn't the SAAFL look into the same sort of arrangement. An interstate company has told me they will not be in the next round of dealings because he's got very little out of it for his $18K which is to be expected, since he doesn't have a presence in this state, yet is one of the biggest suppliers of licensed sports apparel in Australia.
My suggestion is that Licensees would be required to pay a fee to the SAAFL(eg $1000.00) and a percentage of their total sales of branded apparel is given to the SAAFL in the form of a rebate.
This would enable clubs to deal with their preferred supplier who is an SAAFL approved licensee and the clubs can select their supplier of choice,not forced to deal with someone who has a monopoly or produces inferior products.
This is probably not the best idea for revenue raising for the league but a fairer way to the clubs who constitute the league.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Shirtfront]

Its messy, i know after talking to a few of the lads that our club had a huge amount of trouble with our socks n shorts not being ready by the first game, ordered well before the start date of the season. The league apparently would fine any club not wearing the correct socks n shorts, but when we were waiting for the stock from the desired company its a bit hard to fine us!!

[aceman]

A fairly extensive article on the front page of this weeks budget on the subject of "apparel licenses. Not sure that the subject would warrant 100's of emails but it is an interesting state of affairs that one league can have 5 licensees, 3 of whom are interstate companies, that are willing to pay $18K per year into the SAAFL for the privilege.
I note also a reference to the AFL and clubs being able to seek out the best deals available, what is not mentioned is that all suppliers of ALL GOODS to those clubs are AFL approved suppliers and pay royalties on the sales of all of their items. In a nutshell, the supplier,ie Reebock, who has the lion's share of the market in the AFL with about 10 clubs would pay more in royalties than Adidas and Puma.
I do believe the current SAAFL situation is almost untenable because some suppliers who have the major portion of the work are unable to meet the deadlines so why doesn't the SAAFL look into the same sort of arrangement. An interstate company has told me they will not be in the next round of dealings because he's got very little out of it for his $18K which is to be expected, since he doesn't have a presence in this state, yet is one of the biggest suppliers of licensed sports apparel in Australia.
My suggestion is that Licensees would be required to pay a fee to the SAAFL(eg $1000.00) and a percentage of their total sales of branded apparel is given to the SAAFL in the form of a rebate.
This would enable clubs to deal with their preferred supplier who is an SAAFL approved licensee and the clubs can select their supplier of choice,not forced to deal with someone who has a monopoly or produces inferior products.
This is probably not the best idea for revenue raising for the league but a fairer way to the clubs who constitute the league.

What are your thoughts on this?

Rupert, If my maths is correct this brings in 5 lots @ $18K per year = $90K, your idea is $5 @ $1k = $5K so the shortfall is $85K plus a rebate figure,now that's a lot of extra fines that will need to be paid to make up the shortfall, not sure clubs would be too happy about that.
Not all that sure the guru would be either, isn't he getting a slice of the $$$'s over a certain figure of sponsorship income?

[The Riddler]

What were peoples thoughts on the front page of the budget last week in regards to the current umpiring situation going on in the SAAFL? I felt they hit the mark right on the head.

[mypaddock]

What were peoples thoughts on the front page of the budget last week in regards to the current umpiring situation going on in the SAAFL? I felt they hit the mark right on the head.

Agree with most of what was written.

The SAAFL need to re-allocate some funds from all the money they waste on 'media' e.g. website, Grassroots, publications etc and put it solely into re-educating/ educating umpires of the rules of the game and interpretation of the rules.

All this media crap is a waste of member clubs money and adds no value to the strength of the competition whatsoever.
All it does is make certain people think they are more important than they actually are!

First and foremost, the number one priority for the SAAFL should be to provide a spectacle for both players and supporters alike. And currently they are only turning people away from the game due to inept umpiring!

[Boris]

What happened to the Jars with Jimmy page?

Did the old fart run out of people who would drink with him?

[BobbyNeil]

I hear the budget is having some troubles with legal issues this week. Hosie is running scared.

[EddieV]

I hear the budget is having some troubles with legal issues this week. Hosie is running scared.

Care to give more detail?

[NO-MERCY]

I hear the budget is having some troubles with legal issues this week. Hosie is running scared.

Far from the truth Bobby.
The Budget has a known columnist that wants to push his buttons & boundries a little to far & Hosie won't let him & so he shouldn't.
Hosie has a responsibility himself for what is published & if this columnist had his way & ran riot like we know he would sh!t would hit the fan.
I must say its good to see Hosie acting responsible!

[Browny25]

Boozehound or Shrek!?

[BobbyNeil]

Hosie needs better legal advice and to balls up. Seems he is running scared from the SAAFL.

[NO-MERCY]

You know yourself Bobby, Hosies smarter than he looks!

[Jimmy_041]

Interesting stuff!!

Not mine I hope!!!

I wonder if the contributor (whoever he is) realises they would be named as a defendant in any legal action....... Hope they've got worthwhile employment and plenty of funds.....

Might be James Kunhdt getting sick of the free publicity in D4.................

[BobbyNeil]

You know yourself Bobby, Hosies smarter than he looks!

Well No Mercy I have seen Luke tie up his shoe laces so he must be smarter than he looks.

[BobbyNeil]

Interesting stuff!!

Not mine I hope!!!

I wonder if the contributor (whoever he is) realises they would be named as a defendant in any legal action....... Hope they've got worthwhile employment and plenty of funds.....

Might be James Kunhdt getting sick of the free publicity in D4.................

If there was legal action. Have you read it Jimmy?

[Jimmy_041]

Cant wait for the 7pm early edition to see who got the hip and shoulder