Sturt Football Club AGM

[on the rails]

LOL, even in a Sturt FC AGM thread you continue your attack..

Good write up cs, well said. It is noticable where your stance lies in the issues debated but your posts above are well balanced and show both parties points of view.

Perhaps OTR can get you and Rucci together so Rucc at least gets one story right....

booney - I was having a crack at beenreal for his stupid post so what is your point unless you agree with him?

[Booney]

Following a 3 hour presentation, for the Sturt Board to adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. They're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break. Perhaps they wanted a 136 Page proposal presented over 7 hours! But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

How is it that all 8 of the other SANFL clubs voted for exactly the same reasons outlined at the Sturt AGM???

Typical sooky Port arrogance to come up with an answer like that! Even in the face of overwhelming fact and evidence that the merger proposal was a failed business model that would disadvantage all the other SANFL clubs we still have idiots like you refusing to accept it and blaming everyone else but your own club for the mess it is in. Geez you wonder why a majority of SANFL supporters find it hard to have sympathy for your club's current plight!

So call it beenreals "sooky arrogance" instead of suggesting all Port people agree with it.I dont agree with it.

[on the rails]

So call it beenreals "sooky arrogance" instead of suggesting all Port people agree with it.I dont agree with it.

Fair enough but you seem to be in a minority atm re all the PAMFC issues!

[Booney]

I probably am, but how many Port fans are on here voicing an opinion? 6 or 8 perhaps, so the cross section is only a very small % of those of us who are interested.

[beenreal]

Following a 3 hour presentation, for the Sturt Board to adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. They're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break. Perhaps they wanted a 136 Page proposal presented over 7 hours! But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

How is it that all 8 of the other SANFL clubs voted for exactly the same reasons outlined at the Sturt AGM???

Typical sooky Port arrogance to come up with an answer like that! Even in the face of overwhelming fact and evidence that the merger proposal was a failed business model that would disadvantage all the other SANFL clubs we still have idiots like you refusing to accept it and blaming everyone else but your own club for the mess it is in. Geez you wonder why a majority of SANFL supporters find it hard to have sympathy for your club's current plight!

You mean the ones who attended the clandestine meeting at Metcalfs office?

How is it that the ONE individual openly intending to vote FOR the proposal was excluded from that meeting and suddenly disqualified due to some "loophole"?

[smac]

Your continued insistance that 7 SANFL boards can be directed by one other on any issue is insulting to those 7 clubs and the intellingence of most posters on this site. It's almost as tiresome as the continued inability to accept some responsibility for your clubs plight.

Surely there are more productive things you can do for your club?

[on the rails]

You mean the ones who attended the clandestine meeting at Metcalfs office?

No secret now that all the 8 other SANFL clubs met (on more than one occasion) to discuss their thoughts on what was presented by the 2 Port clubs and why shouldn't they - just goes to show that NO club took it lightly.

How is it that the ONE individual openly intending to vote FOR the proposal was excluded from that meeting and suddenly disqualified due to some "loophole"?

Rob Kerin is not tied up with an SANFL club so why would he be invited to a meeting between the clubs organised off their own backs???

Also it was the SANFL's own Lawyer that agreed that the Affiliated Leagues Rep had no legal right to be at the League Meeting or to vote.

It wouldn't have mattered even if he had got to vote and voted Yes to the merger so what is your point rehashing all this because your still bitter and twisted and cannot accept the facts?

[nickname]

You mean the ones who attended the clandestine meeting at Metcalfs office?

How is it that the ONE individual openly intending to vote FOR the proposal was excluded from that meeting and suddenly disqualified due to some "loophole"?

How was it 'clandestine'? Behind whose back was it held?
And I don't think one vote for the proposal was going to worry them overly when they knew full well the way the clubs were feeling.

[CUTTERMAN]

I can understand that the other 8 clubs would want to get together to work out just exactly each club had been told during the proposal, considering the talk that the proposal was changing each time it seems to be a sound decision to work out as a group just what the proposal was about. Maybe Portx2 shouldve done that from the start.

[Dutchy]

As for Baazar, the robbery last year destroyed income for 4-6 weeks, which doesn't sound like much, but that essentially wiped many 100s of 1000s in revenue from the bar for the year and considering this year we were ever so close to gaming revenue giving us a profit, that bad period probably cost us.

Why did the robbery destroy income?

[MST]

Pretty obvious I would have thought. Consumers tend to shy away from establishments where a recent violent robbery took place. The people in the bar/pokies at the time, some of whom would have been regulars, would have been spooked for a while too I dare say.

That being said, perhaps the quote of '100's of 1000's' in revenue dollars may have been a little exaggerated, but it would have had an impact none the less.

[Dutchy]

Pretty obvious I would have thought. Consumers tend to shy away from establishments where a recent violent robbery took place. The people in the bar/pokies at the time, some of whom would have been regulars, would have been spooked for a while too I dare say.

That being said, perhaps the quote of '100's of 1000's' in revenue dollars may have been a little exaggerated, but it would have had an impact none the less.

Thanks MST, can understand that to a degree but hundreds of thousands seems a bit over the top...does insurance cover this type of thing?

[Barto]

It wouldn't have mattered even if he had got to vote and voted Yes to the merger so what is your point rehashing all this because your still bitter and twisted and cannot accept the facts?

Maybe 8-2 would've been a narrow enough loss to demand a recount?

[csbowes]

Pretty obvious I would have thought. Consumers tend to shy away from establishments where a recent violent robbery took place. The people in the bar/pokies at the time, some of whom would have been regulars, would have been spooked for a while too I dare say.

That being said, perhaps the quote of '100's of 1000's' in revenue dollars may have been a little exaggerated, but it would have had an impact none the less.

Thanks MST, can understand that to a degree but hundreds of thousands seems a bit over the top...does insurance cover this type of thing?

Actually I think I might have taken something the wrong way. I'm as amazed as anyone when it comes the money put through poker machine establishments on a weekly basis and in the Unley area (so not just SFC), it appears the average throughput is something like $250K-$450K per week. Now I'm guessing they're talking an establishment and not per gaming machine.

I repeat they are not SFC figures, I believe we're about midway in that range...

That of course, is not pure profit, its probably not even revenue, but rather the money being pumped into the machines, of which some 90% or more is probably returned to gamblers and the rest becomes revenue, which is then cut down to gross profit and then net profit. I'm sure someone on here knows about this way more than me, so the point here is with 4-6 weeks worth of turnover affected you are talking big bucks.

If that turnover is halved, then you're talking a reduction of $150K or so per week... now only a percentage of that affects the bottom line, so in this instance maybe it wouldn't have returned us to a break even point, but it would obviously have made the bottom line better had it not happened.

[csbowes]

LOL, even in a Sturt FC AGM thread you continue your attack..

Good write up cs, well said. It is noticable where your stance lies in the issues debated but your posts above are well balanced and show both parties points of view.

Perhaps OTR can get you and Rucci together so Rucc at least gets one story right....

If the proposal was as depicted by the SFC and I've got no reason to doubt that, then I definitely do agree with the decision to vote against it. At the same time I'm a very strong supporter of the Port Adelaide Football Club and their desire to stay in the competition. Personally, I think the loss of Port Adelaide would be a huge blow to the league, I just don't think it would be the same.

For many, Port is "just another club", but for me, having grown up with SANFL football from the early 1980's onwards, Sturt v Port Adelaide is my most favourite series of fixtures during the season. I don't subscribe to the thoughts of some that Port Adelaide is evil incarnate, no doubt they've made some poor decisions, but what club hasn't, I can certainly think of some clubs who voted stupidly on other topics in recent times.

So bottom line is while I don't think this proposal was going to work, I think its paramount that Port is given a fair go to get itself out of trouble, like other clubs have, as the league is better with them around.

[therisingblues]

Sounds like House is a home wrecker.

Well certainly not helpful. I don't mind him being disgruntled with Sturt voting against, lets say, "his" preferred club, but I think that disatisfaction with the club can be put across in private to the President, the Board and the General Manager.

By saying it publicly, not only does he attract criticism from the members present and those that find out second hand, but he affects his company brand and overall brings unnecessary embarrassment to the club and really, himself more than anyone else.

An AGM is the perfect forum to air grievances, it happens all the time, including the recent Port Adelaide AGM.

Following a 3 hour presentation, for the Sturt Board to adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. They're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break. Perhaps they wanted a 136 Page proposal presented over 7 hours!

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

It is amazing how some people think.

[Mr Irate]

Your continued insistance that 7 SANFL boards can be directed by one other on any issue is insulting to those 7 clubs and the intellingence of most posters on this site. It's almost as tiresome as the continued inability to accept some responsibility for your clubs plight.

Surely there are more productive things you can do for your club?

Walk down Port Rd with 31 other people ?

[Barto]

Your continued insistance that 7 SANFL boards can be directed by one other on any issue is insulting to those 7 clubs and the intellingence of most posters on this site. It's almost as tiresome as the continued inability to accept some responsibility for your clubs plight.

Surely there are more productive things you can do for your club?

Walk down Port Rd with 31 other people ?

It was 31 in total.

[Mr Irate]

Your continued insistance that 7 SANFL boards can be directed by one other on any issue is insulting to those 7 clubs and the intellingence of most posters on this site. It's almost as tiresome as the continued inability to accept some responsibility for your clubs plight.

Surely there are more productive things you can do for your club?

Walk down Port Rd with 31 other people ?

It was 31 in total.

Your assuming that "Beenreal" was one of the 31......I'm suggesting he would be an addition

[pipers]

And yes there is a conflict of interest there re Port Adelaide.

House is not conflicted. Quite simply he is not on the SFC board of management and as such has no say in the running of the club. He is however apparently under some allusion that as major sponsor of the club he is to be consulted on all decisions made by the board...

No board acting within their terms of reference should allow themselves to be unduly influenced by external opinion, especially when that opinion is suggesting a course of action that they do not believe is in the best interests of the organisation they represent. Otherwise it is they who could rightfully be accussed of being conflicted or compromised.

Three cheers for the Sturt board upholding the principles of good governance...

The SANFL commission, on the other hand... Possibly the most conflicted organisation in the history of the world, ever!