SA Footy

Totally correct !
It is an AFL imposed condition as they do not want the SANFL as a viable option to watching a basketball version of Australian Football.

SDK wrote:Totally correct !
It is an AFL imposed condition as they do not want the SANFL as a viable option to watching a basketball version of Australian Football.

Sounds like a conspiracy, better get some coffee from cibo's on the parade to find out more.

Dogwatcher wrote:The salary cap is not there to protect the clubs.
It is there to keep the SANFL in check.

That was how it started, not sure it's viewed the same way these days

What gives that impression, JK?

Dogwatcher wrote:What gives that impression, JK?

Just get the feeling there's a lot of concern around the collective financial health of the clubs now and into the future. Maybe it's just an excuse from the SANFL to keep hold of the existing paltry AFL $ contribution, I don't know for sure??

It's a fair call.
An adjustment in thinking (perception).

But we were told that with the inclusion of the 2 AFL teams that all our financial woes would pretty much be solved.

o five wrote:But we were told that with the inclusion of the 2 AFL teams that all our financial woes would pretty much be solved.

We if the figures are correct at the moment the sanfl are doing pretty well from Adelaide oval that really the 50k they give each side is chump money. Th cap cpyldt easily be increased and the Sanfl could fund the cap increase. In essence the 2 AFL would be funding it via the sanfls share ut of AO.

But I cant see that happening unfortunately as it would give the 8 clubs an additional hand.

Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review

Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review

But Jim, did they do this a cibos?

Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review

Hang on a minute, whoa whoa WHOA!

Are you implying a board member, whilst gossiping over a latte, may have given false information?

That's an interesting way to put it, Jim.

All clear? Hardly.

Unable to gather sufficient evidence even though all parties know the truth? Yep.

smac wrote:That's an interesting way to put it, Jim.

All clear? Hardly.

Unable to gather sufficient evidence even though all parties know the truth? Yep.

Speaking from experience there mate?

Ha! Maybe...

Booney wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review

Hang on a minute, whoa whoa WHOA!

Are you implying a board member, whilst gossiping over a latte, may have given false information?

Or that the original post was bullflop and mostly a troll......

stan wrote:

Booney wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review

Hang on a minute, whoa whoa WHOA!

Are you implying a board member, whilst gossiping over a latte, may have given false information?

Or that the original post was bullflop and mostly a troll......

No, my mail is Centurian was on the money.
A major sponsor/board member was being investigated for employing players but due to said employer not being compelled to hand over the books the investigation has ended and Norwood are in the clear.
FWIW I dont have a problem with what Norwood did its been going on for years and I dont think its got anything to do with the SANFL to say who a person can/cant work for. If a employer wants to pay someone that doesnt attend work or does very little hours thats their choice IMO

As long as it is declared, a sponsor or board member can employ any or all players is my understanding.

Weren't the Gowan's employed in a similar situation when they first arrived?

Red Rocket wrote:

stan wrote:

Booney wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review

Hang on a minute, whoa whoa WHOA!

Are you implying a board member, whilst gossiping over a latte, may have given false information?

Or that the original post was bullflop and mostly a troll......

No, my mail is Centurian was on the money.
A major sponsor/board member was being investigated for employing players but due to said employer not being compelled to hand over the books the investigation has ended and Norwood are in the clear.
FWIW I dont have a problem with what Norwood did its been going on for years and I dont think its got anything to do with the SANFL to say who a person can/cant work for. If a employer wants to pay someone that doesnt attend work or does very little hours thats their choice IMO

But the real question mr Rocket, did you post this while at Cibo's?

teaoby wrote:As long as it is declared, a sponsor or board member can employ any or all players is my understanding.

True, but it shouldn't be a sham arrangement and the employee (player) should be remunerated at market rates for their employ.

Problem is that it's unenforceable unless you're stupid enough to admit it.

We should all remember though that generally SANFL players are poorly paid, so they need to survive on other employment to survive. You can only applaud Board members and sponsors who employ players to keep them at the club.

In this case, perhaps the said Board member is just making good the loss they incurred on behalf of the club in dabbling in Beulah Park real estate.

In any case, good luck to the pricks.

Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review

There will be howls of protest from some posters...

regards,

REB