Interesting point for discussion

Adelaide Footy League Talk

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby old moz » Fri May 08, 2009 10:25 pm

who is the alternative board? does the league as a whole run and function well ? we all can find fault with any person[s] who run a large organisation but who of the critics is prepared to put their hand up to do the job? [ and are they capable]. would not know any of the people mentioned here if i fell over them,but to me the SAAFL is going ok so they must be doing something right
old moz
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:45 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby aceman » Fri May 22, 2009 9:28 pm

old moz wrote:who is the alternative board? does the league as a whole run and function well ? we all can find fault with any person[s] who run a large organisation but who of the critics is prepared to put their hand up to do the job? [ and are they capable]. would not know any of the people mentioned here if i fell over them,but to me the SAAFL is going ok so they must be doing something right




If you refer to the post about the RPH footy show and read the issue about "conflict of interest" regarding a couple of volunteers who were told by Ashley Porter, "no longer required" due to a perceived conflict of interest, I will make this point.
Without exception, the entire Executive of the SAAFL could be seen to be in a similar situation as they ALL have either present or immediate past affiliations with a SAAFL club.
Is this a situation of "double standards"?

I understand fully how difficult it would be to find the alternative and appoint persons without that affiliation, but it's food for thought when club's can and should make the call on something such as this, not someone paid by the clubs administrating body supposedly for the leagues benefit. The clubs are the league, so who gets the say?
Has this been a directive from someone higher up the food chain I wonder? Interesting!
Always behind the 8 ball
User avatar
aceman
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: At home by the fire with Rupert at my feet.
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby wristwatcher » Sat May 23, 2009 1:19 am

aceman wrote:
old moz wrote:who is the alternative board? does the league as a whole run and function well ? we all can find fault with any person[s] who run a large organisation but who of the critics is prepared to put their hand up to do the job? [ and are they capable]. would not know any of the people mentioned here if i fell over them,but to me the SAAFL is going ok so they must be doing something right




If you refer to the post about the RPH footy show and read the issue about "conflict of interest" regarding a couple of volunteers who were told by Ashley Porter, "no longer required" due to a perceived conflict of interest, I will make this point.
Without exception, the entire Executive of the SAAFL could be seen to be in a similar situation as they ALL have either present or immediate past affiliations with a SAAFL club.
Is this a situation of "double standards"?

I understand fully how difficult it would be to find the alternative and appoint persons without that affiliation, but it's food for thought when club's can and should make the call on something such as this, not someone paid by the clubs administrating body supposedly for the leagues benefit. The clubs are the league, so who gets the say?
Has this been a directive from someone higher up the food chain I wonder? Interesting!



i know some people wish they could say or do more but cant...if you can help anyone whos being wronged then do it.the SAAFL is a club based institution. the power is with the people.just dont mention caddyshack,coz apparently the sequel of this cant be viewed..its that bad. an its not about the lack of bill murray.
The PNU Falcs 2005,06,13 x 2,14 and Div 1 Premiers in 2019......The SA 3peat - 2003,04,05
User avatar
wristwatcher
Coach
 
Posts: 7060
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Adelaide Oval. The happiest place on earth
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 866 times

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby old moz » Sat May 23, 2009 10:12 pm

aceman wrote:
old moz wrote:who is the alternative board? does the league as a whole run and function well ? we all can find fault with any person[s] who run a large organisation but who of the critics is prepared to put their hand up to do the job? [ and are they capable]. would not know any of the people mentioned here if i fell over them,but to me the SAAFL is going ok so they must be doing something right




If you refer to the post about the RPH footy show and read the issue about "conflict of interest" regarding a couple of volunteers who were told by Ashley Porter, "no longer required" due to a perceived conflict of interest, I will make this point.
Without exception, the entire Executive of the SAAFL could be seen to be in a similar situation as they ALL have either present or immediate past affiliations with a SAAFL club.
Is this a situation of "double standards"?

I understand fully how difficult it would be to find the alternative and appoint persons without that affiliation, but it's food for thought when club's can and should make the call on something such as this, not someone paid by the clubs administrating body supposedly for the leagues benefit. The clubs are the league, so who gets the say?
Has this been a directive from someone higher up the food chain I wonder? Interesting!

was not referring to any post about the radio show [posted 2 weeks prior]. was about people bagging the SAAFL but not prepared or capable to do the job. PS have not ever tuned into that show so have no opinion on it
old moz
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:45 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby aceman » Sun May 24, 2009 4:43 pm

old moz wrote:
aceman wrote:
old moz wrote:who is the alternative board? does the league as a whole run and function well ? we all can find fault with any person[s] who run a large organisation but who of the critics is prepared to put their hand up to do the job? [ and are they capable]. would not know any of the people mentioned here if i fell over them,but to me the SAAFL is going ok so they must be doing something right




If you refer to the post about the RPH footy show and read the issue about "conflict of interest" regarding a couple of volunteers who were told by Ashley Porter, "no longer required" due to a perceived conflict of interest, I will make this point.
Without exception, the entire Executive of the SAAFL could be seen to be in a similar situation as they ALL have either present or immediate past affiliations with a SAAFL club.
Is this a situation of "double standards"?

I understand fully how difficult it would be to find the alternative and appoint persons without that affiliation, but it's food for thought when club's can and should make the call on something such as this, not someone paid by the clubs administrating body supposedly for the leagues benefit. The clubs are the league, so who gets the say?
Has this been a directive from someone higher up the food chain I wonder? Interesting!

was not referring to any post about the radio show [posted 2 weeks prior]. was about people bagging the SAAFL but not prepared or capable to do the job. PS have not ever tuned into that show so have no opinion on it



Moz, personal opinion of mine is that it's a bit like SACA, it has become a "boys club" and if you rock the boat, it isn't well received by the boys irrespective of the value of the rocking. It is almost impossible to get people to do jobs at club level so this is certainly no 'snack'.
Always behind the 8 ball
User avatar
aceman
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: At home by the fire with Rupert at my feet.
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby blacknred » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:37 pm

any news on the meeting tonight regards to the proposal of north / south rezoning format

what do you guys think
blacknred
Member
 
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:57 am
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time
Grassroots Team: Plympton

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby aceman » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:46 pm

blacknred wrote:any news on the meeting tonight regards to the proposal of north / south rezoning format

what do you guys think



Out the door, for ever more!
Always behind the 8 ball
User avatar
aceman
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: At home by the fire with Rupert at my feet.
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby Jimmy_041 » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:10 am

aceman wrote:
blacknred wrote:any news on the meeting tonight regards to the proposal of north / south rezoning format

what do you guys think



Out the door, for ever more!


We'll see - i bet it comes back on the agenda
dedja: Dunno, I’m just an idiot.
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15102
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 832 times
Been liked: 1282 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby Rotter » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:06 am

Ace, was there any talk on booze sponsorship and licensing
Rotter
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:33 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby aceman » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:32 am

Rotter wrote:Ace, was there any talk on booze sponsorship and licensing




Yes, some discussion and I think Mark Shadiac answered it fairly well. I think it's fair to say that we all reckon we can do better deals as individual clubs but reality tells us, we are all part of the one league so if we start "breakaway deals' with other suppliers, the bargaining power of the league is minimised so the smaller clubs then suffer. The discussion on apparel was quite enlightening since it's now time for new applications to be put for the next 3 years. The same old chestnut was brought up about production times exceeding the leagues guidelines and I have 2 trains of thought on this.
One is that some licensees takeon too much work to be able to cope with the required timelines and the second one is that clubs for various reasons, do not give themselves enough time for their order to be manufactured. This could be due to committee restructure, waiting on sponsors agreements etc. Having been on both sides of the fence in this issue, this has been my experience over many years. It probably will never change because everyone wants their stuff tomorrow and it cannot work that way.
Always behind the 8 ball
User avatar
aceman
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: At home by the fire with Rupert at my feet.
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby Keepitreal » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:39 am

aceman wrote:
Rotter wrote:Ace, was there any talk on booze sponsorship and licensing




Yes, some discussion and I think Mark Shadiac answered it fairly well. I think it's fair to say that we all reckon we can do better deals as individual clubs but reality tells us, we are all part of the one league so if we start "breakaway deals' with other suppliers, the bargaining power of the league is minimised so the smaller clubs then suffer. The discussion on apparel was quite enlightening since it's now time for new applications to be put for the next 3 years. The same old chestnut was brought up about production times exceeding the leagues guidelines and I have 2 trains of thought on this.
One is that some licensees takeon too much work to be able to cope with the required timelines and the second one is that clubs for various reasons, do not give themselves enough time for their order to be manufactured. This could be due to committee restructure, waiting on sponsors agreements etc. Having been on both sides of the fence in this issue, this has been my experience over many years. It probably will never change because everyone wants their stuff tomorrow and it cannot work that way.


TTG were with CUB, the more they spend the more they get, being a much better deal than west end, but saafl refuse to schedule any finals at perteringa oval because of it.
Keepitreal
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:30 am
Location: knocking back a few johny & drys
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby aceman » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:51 am

Keepitreal wrote:
aceman wrote:
Rotter wrote:Ace, was there any talk on booze sponsorship and licensing




Yes, some discussion and I think Mark Shadiac answered it fairly well. I think it's fair to say that we all reckon we can do better deals as individual clubs but reality tells us, we are all part of the one league so if we start "breakaway deals' with other suppliers, the bargaining power of the league is minimised so the smaller clubs then suffer. The discussion on apparel was quite enlightening since it's now time for new applications to be put for the next 3 years. The same old chestnut was brought up about production times exceeding the leagues guidelines and I have 2 trains of thought on this.
One is that some licensees takeon too much work to be able to cope with the required timelines and the second one is that clubs for various reasons, do not give themselves enough time for their order to be manufactured. This could be due to committee restructure, waiting on sponsors agreements etc. Having been on both sides of the fence in this issue, this has been my experience over many years. It probably will never change because everyone wants their stuff tomorrow and it cannot work that way.


TTG were with CUB, the more they spend the more they get, being a much better deal than west end, but saafl refuse to schedule any finals at perteringa oval because of it.



And that's what is meant by "breakaway deals" The league is there to administer on behalf of the 68 clubs and get the best for ALL clubs so you either go with it or kick up enough fuss to make them revisit it. IMO, they are doing it the correct way to suit all of the clubs.
Always behind the 8 ball
User avatar
aceman
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: At home by the fire with Rupert at my feet.
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby Jabber » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:53 am

Keepitreal wrote:
aceman wrote:
Rotter wrote:Ace, was there any talk on booze sponsorship and licensing




Yes, some discussion and I think Mark Shadiac answered it fairly well. I think it's fair to say that we all reckon we can do better deals as individual clubs but reality tells us, we are all part of the one league so if we start "breakaway deals' with other suppliers, the bargaining power of the league is minimised so the smaller clubs then suffer. The discussion on apparel was quite enlightening since it's now time for new applications to be put for the next 3 years. The same old chestnut was brought up about production times exceeding the leagues guidelines and I have 2 trains of thought on this.
One is that some licensees takeon too much work to be able to cope with the required timelines and the second one is that clubs for various reasons, do not give themselves enough time for their order to be manufactured. This could be due to committee restructure, waiting on sponsors agreements etc. Having been on both sides of the fence in this issue, this has been my experience over many years. It probably will never change because everyone wants their stuff tomorrow and it cannot work that way.


TTG were with CUB, the more they spend the more they get, being a much better deal than west end, but saafl refuse to schedule any finals at perteringa oval because of it.


Same with Plympton, we got a far far far better deal with CUB, but have to forego finals because of it
User avatar
Jabber
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:31 am
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 15 times
Grassroots Team: Plympton

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby Phantom Gossiper » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:56 am

If your going to get better deals else where and in turn make a greater profit margin for your club, surely it would even out in the long run would it not?
Phantom Gossiper
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:35 pm
Has liked: 402 times
Been liked: 285 times

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby Keepitreal » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:00 am

Phantom Gossiper wrote:If your going to get better deals else where and in turn make a greater profit margin for your club, surely it would even out in the long run would it not?


CUB product much better than crap made using water out of the Torrens!
Keepitreal
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:30 am
Location: knocking back a few johny & drys
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby Jabber » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:12 am

Keepitreal wrote:
Phantom Gossiper wrote:If your going to get better deals else where and in turn make a greater profit margin for your club, surely it would even out in the long run would it not?


CUB product much better than crap made using water out of the Torrens!


Correct, and if any of our partons want West End on tap they can by all means go and sit in the urinal with their mouths open!
User avatar
Jabber
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:31 am
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 15 times
Grassroots Team: Plympton

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby aceman » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:24 am

Phantom Gossiper wrote:If your going to get better deals else where and in turn make a greater profit margin for your club, surely it would even out in the long run would it not?




PG, I think you are missing the point.
Currently all clubs benefit from the West End sponsorship deal as the money they pay into the SAAFL helps to keep your club admin costs at a lower level, believe it or not.
Forego that to use CUB or anyone else, the revenue kitty at SAAFL reduces by $35K so clubs will then be asked to find extra money in their calls to cover this shortfall.
It may seem a bit 'one way' but it's the best option available. If your club is not happy with it, get something happening at your end and if the clubs see enough merit in the TOTAL package that's put forward, they may feel inclined to want it changed.
Always behind the 8 ball
User avatar
aceman
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: At home by the fire with Rupert at my feet.
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Interesting point for discussion

Postby Phantom Gossiper » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:28 am

Jabber wrote:
Keepitreal wrote:
Phantom Gossiper wrote:If your going to get better deals else where and in turn make a greater profit margin for your club, surely it would even out in the long run would it not?


CUB product much better than crap made using water out of the Torrens!


Correct, and if any of our partons want West End on tap they can by all means go and sit in the urinal with their mouths open!


hhahahahaha!!!
Phantom Gossiper
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:35 pm
Has liked: 402 times
Been liked: 285 times

Previous

Board index   Football  Other Footy Leagues  Adelaide Footy League

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

Around the place

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