by Wedgie » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:49 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Dutchy » Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:33 pm
tipper wrote:
that and the sanfl acting as a guarantor for the club, and the sanfl giving the club money are two different things. acting as a guarantor only means they pay the money if the club eventually folds completely, which they havent, yet
by tipper » Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Dutchy wrote:tipper wrote:
that and the sanfl acting as a guarantor for the club, and the sanfl giving the club money are two different things. acting as a guarantor only means they pay the money if the club eventually folds completely, which they havent, yet
Guarantee provides much more exposure and risk to the SANFL, at the time the debt was over $2m.
It just shows how close Sturt were to the brink that the SANFL had to offer a guarantee for their debt.
Yet my understanding is they haven't done this for any other club that has had its issues (North, Glenelg, West)
by therisingblues » Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:09 pm
Aerie wrote:Heard discussion on 5AA this morning and disappointing they were comparing stats to the year before the AFL sides came in. This was the worst year of crowds up to that point and many SANFL fans were disrupted that year by all the discussion - which probably contributed in some way to the poor turn outs that year as well.
Sturt are a positive club at the moment. Good on them, it is working on and off the field. But trying to say anything positive about the inclusion of AFL teams to the competition and the positive impact of the AFL to anything to do with the league is pulling the other one. Especially with the benefit of hindsight, which we now have.
For those who don't understand, you only have to think about how you'd feel if the AFL competition was compromised to the extent the SANFL has been. Then understand that there are/were people who prioritised their SANFL clubs over anything else. These people were treated like a joke. Hence the drop off.
by Sadismo » Fri Jul 01, 2016 5:39 pm
Dutchy wrote:Sadismo wrote:Dutchy wrote:csbowes wrote:Well I see Sturt FC was on CH7 espousing how great it is to have the AFL reserves teams in the league.
The GM commented that people should watch they wish for with regards the AFL teams going, as it would hurt the league significantly.
Marty Mattner was also on saying how it makes the teams better etc.
So clear that Sturt's position has not changed since voting yes. They are obviously a massive supporter of their presence and also commented on the $100K they are getting each year for their presence. I didn't think they got $100K, but that's what the GM said.
Well Sturt is the only club that has their debt guaranteed by the SANFL so they need to stay in their good books
Absolutely not true that Sturt had their debt guaranteed by SANFL. They traded out of their financial woes through the debt demolition campaign, benefactors and hard work by board and management. The only thing the SANFL did was advance their distribution for two months so as they could pay long term creditors. SANFL categorically did not or have not provided the club with an extra cent period.
I can categorically guarantee they did.
by Sadismo » Fri Jul 01, 2016 5:44 pm
Dutchy wrote:tipper wrote:
that and the sanfl acting as a guarantor for the club, and the sanfl giving the club money are two different things. acting as a guarantor only means they pay the money if the club eventually folds completely, which they havent, yet
Guarantee provides much more exposure and risk to the SANFL, at the time the debt was over $2m.
It just shows how close Sturt were to the brink that the SANFL had to offer a guarantee for their debt.
Yet my understanding is they haven't done this for any other club that has had its issues (North, Glenelg, West)
by Spargo » Fri Jul 01, 2016 5:53 pm
by Reddeer » Fri Jul 01, 2016 6:38 pm
by Wedgie » Fri Jul 01, 2016 7:27 pm
Sadismo wrote:Dutchy wrote:tipper wrote:
that and the sanfl acting as a guarantor for the club, and the sanfl giving the club money are two different things. acting as a guarantor only means they pay the money if the club eventually folds completely, which they havent, yet
Guarantee provides much more exposure and risk to the SANFL, at the time the debt was over $2m.
It just shows how close Sturt were to the brink that the SANFL had to offer a guarantee for their debt.
Yet my understanding is they haven't done this for any other club that has had its issues (North, Glenelg, West)
The SANFL did not give money and also did not act as guarantor for Sturt's debt. That debt would have landed in the laps of the Directors had the Club gone under.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Dutchy » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:55 pm
Sadismo wrote:
Do it then Dutchy because you will only make yourself look foolish. I was present at the meeting when SFC went to the SANFL with hand on heart. Sturt got themselves out of the mess because of the reasons above and that alone. Sure they wanted SANFL to help but that was not and has never been the case.
by heater31 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:02 am
by Wedgie » Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:26 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by UK Fan » Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:51 am
Sadismo wrote:Dutchy wrote:tipper wrote:
that and the sanfl acting as a guarantor for the club, and the sanfl giving the club money are two different things. acting as a guarantor only means they pay the money if the club eventually folds completely, which they havent, yet
Guarantee provides much more exposure and risk to the SANFL, at the time the debt was over $2m.
It just shows how close Sturt were to the brink that the SANFL had to offer a guarantee for their debt.
Yet my understanding is they haven't done this for any other club that has had its issues (North, Glenelg, West)
The SANFL did not give money and also did not act as guarantor for Sturt's debt. That debt would have landed in the laps of the Directors had the Club gone under.
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
by Dogs72 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:29 pm
by Spargo » Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:19 pm
Dogs72 wrote:Hmmm with sadismos statements made inferring they were backed by facts, is he really;
A) steven trigg
B) rob chapman
C) Keith thomas
D) john Olsen
E) Tripodi
F) David burtenshaw
G) Pinocchio?
by daysofourlives » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:46 pm
by Jim05 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:50 pm
daysofourlives wrote:Big Phil is normally the one that starts the live scores thread, havnt had it for quite awhile and only on a few occasions this year.
The cynic in me tells me he has been told not to start them to boost online numbers in other areas
I for one cant be assed finding it elsewhere and dont care that much that I have to find out the scores, i just get them as they filter through in the match threads, sometimes this can take a day or so. This is what the comp has become
by Dogs72 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 6:29 pm
Jim05 wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Big Phil is normally the one that starts the live scores thread, havnt had it for quite awhile and only on a few occasions this year.
The cynic in me tells me he has been told not to start them to boost online numbers in other areas
I for one cant be assed finding it elsewhere and dont care that much that I have to find out the scores, i just get them as they filter through in the match threads, sometimes this can take a day or so. This is what the comp has become
Yep, interest at an all time low.
One of the smallest crowds I've seen at the Parade today
by VALE PARK » Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:28 pm
by Dogs72 » Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:33 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |