SA Footy

the javelin wrote:changing the subject, i know it's early into footy season but is there any ins and outs/retirements that we know of?

Panelli from Kensington an out from the First grade. But will still play lower grades.

I understand the Liberals will today vote to support the parliamentary review into the current SACA situation.
There's no margin in not supporting the review, which is seen by many as a vote-getting exercise for Labor's Paul Caica, who is pushing for investigation.
There's a perception that SACA has followed all the correct protocols and have enough evidence to support their decision-making processes.

Dogwatcher wrote:I understand the Liberals will today vote to support the parliamentary review into the current SACA situation.
There's no margin in not supporting the review, which is seen by many as a vote-getting exercise for Labor's Paul Caica, who is pushing for investigation.
There's a perception that SACA has followed all the correct protocols and have enough evidence to support their decision-making processes.

If you read SACA's five page rebuttal to Parliament, you would realize that last statement of yours is totally false - more holes in it than swiss cheese!! They are extremely worried by this enquiry, as it will show up all their lies and deceptions.

Also, this has nothing to do with Paul Caica wanting a promotion or being a vote getting exercise, he just wants SACA to be held accountable seeing the government give them so much money!

Notice SACA continue to be underhanded, just appointed two people to the SACA Board with no cricket experience, more "yes" men/women for them to get thru all of Bradshaw/Sinclair's wishes, what a joke. They knew one more person quit Board over their handlings of this disaster and they had no quorum to make this decision.

Great more delays into moving forward from this

Eagles2014 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:I understand the Liberals will today vote to support the parliamentary review into the current SACA situation.
There's no margin in not supporting the review, which is seen by many as a vote-getting exercise for Labor's Paul Caica, who is pushing for investigation.
There's a perception that SACA has followed all the correct protocols and have enough evidence to support their decision-making processes.

If you read SACA's five page rebuttal to Parliament, you would realize that last statement of yours is totally false - more holes in it than swiss cheese!! They are extremely worried by this enquiry, as it will show up all their lies and deceptions.

Also, this has nothing to do with Paul Caica wanting a promotion or being a vote getting exercise, he just wants SACA to be held accountable seeing the government give them so much money!

Notice SACA continue to be underhanded, just appointed two people to the SACA Board with no cricket experience, more "yes" men/women for them to get thru all of Bradshaw/Sinclair's wishes, what a joke. They knew one more person quit Board over their handlings of this disaster and they had no quorum to make this decision.

Just telling you how the Libs see it.

Dogwatcher wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:I understand the Liberals will today vote to support the parliamentary review into the current SACA situation.
There's no margin in not supporting the review, which is seen by many as a vote-getting exercise for Labor's Paul Caica, who is pushing for investigation.
There's a perception that SACA has followed all the correct protocols and have enough evidence to support their decision-making processes.

If you read SACA's five page rebuttal to Parliament, you would realize that last statement of yours is totally false - more holes in it than swiss cheese!! They are extremely worried by this enquiry, as it will show up all their lies and deceptions.

Also, this has nothing to do with Paul Caica wanting a promotion or being a vote getting exercise, he just wants SACA to be held accountable seeing the government give them so much money!

Notice SACA continue to be underhanded, just appointed two people to the SACA Board with no cricket experience, more "yes" men/women for them to get thru all of Bradshaw/Sinclair's wishes, what a joke. They knew one more person quit Board over their handlings of this disaster and they had no quorum to make this decision.

Just telling you how the Libs see it.

Matt Williams?

heater31 wrote:Great more delays into moving forward from this

Understand your frustration with the delays, you can be rest assured we are all much more frustrated than anyone outside our Clubs could possibly be!

Unfortunately, this will be dragging on for a long time yet! Feel sorry for our players who still don't know what lies ahead for them, even for the current season. Would still guess we will both be in the comp next year at least as 13 team comp, but can never assume anything with SACA.

As has been said many times, put yourself in our shoes with what we know, and you would be doing all you can for your Club to survive. We will be going all the way now, therefore long way to go still!!

Paul Caica is the Patron of the WTDCC. The cricket club is in his electorate. A lot of people involved with the cricket club are his constituents, why wouldn't he want to represent them to the best of his ability. A fantastic local member who does not have to resort to Xenaphon like stunts to get elected. The misinformation and misrepresentation being perpetrated by the SACA is scandalous and should be exposed.

ferret wrote:Paul Caica is the Patron of the WTDCC. The cricket club is in his electorate. A lot of people involved with the cricket club are his constituents, why wouldn't he want to represent them to the best of his ability. A fantastic local member who does not have to resort to Xenaphon like stunts to get elected. The misinformation and misrepresentation being perpetrated by the SACA is scandalous and should be exposed.

Well said Ferrett!!

So we will have:

1) The Zadow Report
Commissioned by the SACA Board a few years ago as an independent report designed to identify what is required for Premier Cricket going forward. Largely ignored it would seem by SACA - except for the too many clubs in the west bit, although ignored Glenelg and Adelaide.

2) The Sheidlich Report
In house report apparently used for reasoning behind everything that has happened with the merger/reduction in teams, although the contents of this report not revealed.

3) A Cricket Australia Governance Accreditation Scheme
All clubs were required to complete this. What were the results?

4) A Parliamentary Report
I guess they will try to make sense of the above?

Hopefully every club is held to account.
Hopefully SACA staff and board members are held to account.
Hopefully the right decisions are made to move the game forward in this State.

I'm led to believe that both Labor and Liberals will today vote to have a parliamentary enquiry into the SACA. It would appear many phone calls have gone to politicians from both sides, from both clubs. It would appear that with mutual support, the SACA will get the enquiry that they don't want to happen. That's just amazing news if it all comes to fruition. Well done to the people from both clubs who have rang their old mates, and politicians from both sides to ensure that this enquiry will happen. The SACA did not know so many people from the western suburbs were so well connected and willing to take the fight up with them. Bad mistake SACA. Never, never, take on a mungril dog, as the mungril dog won't stop

oyster wrote:I'm led to believe that both Labor and Liberals will today vote to have a parliamentary enquiry into the SACA. It would appear many phone calls have gone to politicians from both sides, from both clubs. It would appear that with mutual support, the SACA will get the enquiry that they don't want to happen. That's just amazing news if it all comes to fruition. Well done to the people from both clubs who have rang their old mates, and politicians from both sides to ensure that this enquiry will happen. The SACA did not know so many people from the western suburbs were so well connected and willing to take the fight up with them. Bad mistake SACA. Never, never, take on a mungril dog, as the mungril dog won't stop

Yes, the efforts put in by all volunteers across many sports and clubs is something to admire.

The efforts of the volunteers involved in these clubs put under the pump by SACA is something extraordinary and something that will never be forgotten.

Aerie wrote:

oyster wrote:I'm led to believe that both Labor and Liberals will today vote to have a parliamentary enquiry into the SACA. It would appear many phone calls have gone to politicians from both sides, from both clubs. It would appear that with mutual support, the SACA will get the enquiry that they don't want to happen. That's just amazing news if it all comes to fruition. Well done to the people from both clubs who have rang their old mates, and politicians from both sides to ensure that this enquiry will happen. The SACA did not know so many people from the western suburbs were so well connected and willing to take the fight up with them. Bad mistake SACA. Never, never, take on a mungril dog, as the mungril dog won't stop

Yes, the efforts put in by all volunteers across many sports and clubs is something to admire.

The efforts of the volunteers involved in these clubs put under the pump by SACA is something extraordinary and something that will never be forgotten.

The SACA did not expect the fight from both clubs thats for sure. They would have anticipated a bit of token resistance, but they would never in a year of Sundays, thought that these two western suburbs clubs had enough contacts and be as well connected to have a parliamentary enquiry into the handling of this affair. Never, ever, ever take on the Mungril dog, as the Mungril dog won't give in. Thats the first lesson the SACA should learn.

I have on the weekend read the emails from Glenelg and Adelaide to their members. This had nothing to do with either club and both clubs decided, that they should get involved in something that had bugger all to do with them. Absolutely disgraceful from both clubs

Just a clarification, as I was curious, here's the definition of mungril: http://slangwordsdictionary.com/mungril

Dogwatcher wrote:Just a clarification, as I was curious, here's the definition of mungril: http://slangwordsdictionary.com/mungril

Dogwatcher wrote:Just a clarification, as I was curious, here's the definition of mungril: http://slangwordsdictionary.com/mungril

Instead of giving clarification on words, perhaps delve into the shit fight that the SACA have caused.
Perhaps discuss the disgraceful behaviour of both Adelaide and Glenelg, and entering into something that has nothing to do with them.

Oyster has floated back to the top of the surface!

We are in an election period and Oyster seems to want to deflect attention away like a good politician:)

Has anyone from WT or Port been given a reason that the Sheidlich Report is not available to them?

Tony Clifton wrote:Has anyone from WT or Port been given a reason that the Sheidlich Report is not available to them?

Been told it is an "in house, confidential report". When they are placing so much emphasis on this report when justifying their decision on this merger, we feel it is only fair to be able to read it and see where he got the information from. One of the main reasons for the parliamentary enquiry is we will finally get to read it!

Eagles2014 wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Has anyone from WT or Port been given a reason that the Sheidlich Report is not available to them?

Been told it is an "in house, confidential report". When they are placing so much emphasis on this report when justifying their decision on this merger, we feel it is only fair to be able to read it and see where he got the information from. One of the main reasons for the parliamentary enquiry is we will finally get to read it!

Members of WT obviously didn't meet with HER or didn't report back to the board correctly. Each club had the opportunity by SACA to provide input!