by old moz » Fri May 08, 2009 10:25 pm
by 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
by 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!
by 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!
by 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
by blacknred » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:37 pm
by 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
by 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!
by Rotter » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:06 am
by aceman » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:32 am
Rotter wrote:Ace, was there any talk on booze sponsorship and licensing
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by Phantom Gossiper » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:56 am
by 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?
by 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!
by 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?
by 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!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |