SA Footy

Not many on here like it. What about the clubs now? A few posters on here have posted a turn in opinion ? Not so sure its credible.

Its not that simple . What is the agreed time frame of being in the competition , what is the time frame for them to be removed and where do the clubs get the $100,000k from them not being in ? Chuck in TV which leads to sponsorship .................

A short sighted dollar vision decision by 6 clubs. Will the AFL reserves teams stay ?

They will be gone, hopefully as early as next season

Unfortunately, the economic situation means a huge amount in this state at this time, new sponsors with plenty to spend are like hen's teeth.

Keep them in, take all the money, give them 20 games and NO finals because that's not what they really want, they just want development games.

Double points for any SANFL club that beats them also.

The AFL Players association are lobbying the AFL to get rid of rookies and increase the primary AFL list. So let's say the primary list goes to 46 and everyone is fit what does this mean for players like Callihan and Summerton as AFL listed players will get priority selection in reserves.

Should rules regarding the 1 mature player not on AFL list be looked at?

Bounce of the ball wrote:Not many on here like it. What about the clubs now? A few posters on here have posted a turn in opinion ? Not so sure its credible.

Its not that simple . What is the agreed time frame of being in the competition , what is the time frame for them to be removed and where do the clubs get the $100,000k from them not being in ? Chuck in TV which leads to sponsorship .................

A short sighted dollar vision decision by 6 clubs. Will the AFL reserves teams stay ?

We are losing more than the $100,000, due to low attendance levels. I'm a sponsor & having games televised, in my opinion, is NOT good for sponsors.
I would rather have 5,000 people at the game, constantly reading my signage, than have it on TV, where people rarely catch a glimpse of my signage.

CENTURION wrote:

Bounce of the ball wrote:Not many on here like it. What about the clubs now? A few posters on here have posted a turn in opinion ? Not so sure its credible.

Its not that simple . What is the agreed time frame of being in the competition , what is the time frame for them to be removed and where do the clubs get the $100,000k from them not being in ? Chuck in TV which leads to sponsorship .................

A short sighted dollar vision decision by 6 clubs. Will the AFL reserves teams stay ?

We are losing more than the $100,000, due to low attendance levels. I'm a sponsor & having games televised, in my opinion, is NOT good for sponsors.
I would rather have 5,000 people at the game, constantly reading my signage, than have it on TV, where people rarely catch a glimpse of my signage.

As a south supporter, I can't remember going to many games with 5,000 people,

CENTURION wrote:

Bounce of the ball wrote:Not many on here like it. What about the clubs now? A few posters on here have posted a turn in opinion ? Not so sure its credible.

Its not that simple . What is the agreed time frame of being in the competition , what is the time frame for them to be removed and where do the clubs get the $100,000k from them not being in ? Chuck in TV which leads to sponsorship .................

A short sighted dollar vision decision by 6 clubs. Will the AFL reserves teams stay ?

We are losing more than the $100,000, due to low attendance levels. I'm a sponsor & having games televised, in my opinion, is NOT good for sponsors.
I would rather have 5,000 people at the game, constantly reading my signage, than have it on TV, where people rarely catch a glimpse of my signage.

Centrals also lost a $40000 sponsorship from Channel 9 because the games are telecast on Channel 7. The SANFL said they weren't allowed to sponsor us. On that basis I would rather not have Centrals games telecast. Apparently a team does that in Perth.

cennals05 wrote:Centrals also lost a $40000 sponsorship from Channel 9 because the games are telecast on Channel 7. The SANFL said they weren't allowed to sponsor us. On that basis I would rather not have Centrals games telecast. Apparently a team does that in Perth.

In the current economic climate the league and it's sponsors need to pull their head in, even the AFL & Toyota allow other car manufacturers to sponsor clubs, North missed out on both Schweppes and Coopers in the past 5 or 6 years because they weren't allowed to sponsor a SANFL club, both times had to have new guernseys made after they jumped the gun getting them made. I'm sure other clubs have had similar issues re: sponsorship.

Back on topic, NO AFL IN THE SANFL!!

Ian wrote:

cennals05 wrote:Centrals also lost a $40000 sponsorship from Channel 9 because the games are telecast on Channel 7. The SANFL said they weren't allowed to sponsor us. On that basis I would rather not have Centrals games telecast. Apparently a team does that in Perth.

In the current economic climate the league and it's sponsors need to pull their head in, even the AFL & Toyota allow other car manufacturers to sponsor clubs, North missed out on both Schweppes and Coopers in the past 5 or 6 years because they weren't allowed to sponsor a SANFL club, both times had to have new guernseys made after they jumped the gun getting them made. I'm sure other clubs have had similar issues re: sponsorship.

Back on topic, NO AFL IN THE SANFL!!

Norwood must have missed that memo

Suri wrote:

Ian wrote:

cennals05 wrote:Centrals also lost a $40000 sponsorship from Channel 9 because the games are telecast on Channel 7. The SANFL said they weren't allowed to sponsor us. On that basis I would rather not have Centrals games telecast. Apparently a team does that in Perth.

In the current economic climate the league and it's sponsors need to pull their head in, even the AFL & Toyota allow other car manufacturers to sponsor clubs, North missed out on both Schweppes and Coopers in the past 5 or 6 years because they weren't allowed to sponsor a SANFL club, both times had to have new guernseys made after they jumped the gun getting them made. I'm sure other clubs have had similar issues re: sponsorship.

Back on topic, NO AFL IN THE SANFL!!

Norwood must have missed that memo

Incorrect, their deal was in place before the collective agreement was made by the SANFL.
Existing sponsorships were allowed to remain in place but no new ones were allowed to be entered into.

South had a sponsorship deal with Schweppes, as one of our major sponsors, but were required to cover the logos on their guernseys in round 1 a few years ago before having new jumpers made. As a result, in large part due to the lack of promotion (restrictions on displaying logos etc) Schweppes didn't renew their deal and Coca Cola are now the drink supplier (as they are for the SANFL) but not a major sponsor, as Schweppes were.

Scoop wrote:South had a sponsorship deal with Schweppes, as one of our major sponsors, but were required to cover the logos on their guernseys in round 1 a few years ago before having new jumpers made. As a result, in large part due to the lack of promotion (restrictions on displaying logos etc) Schweppes didn't renew their deal and Coca Cola are now the drink supplier (as they are for the SANFL) but not a major sponsor, as Schweppes were.

Think it was reported at the time that South asked and nobody at the SANFL bothered to get back to them about the jumper sponsorship until after they were made...