SA Footy

SANFLnut wrote:If the Crows promised 4000 per game and are only getting 2000 per game then the SANFL should send them an invoice for the shortfall.
2000 fans x 18 games x $10 average spend (not even going to bother with admission) = $360 k

That's what I said at the time we sold our soul, they should have been forced to underwrite an attendance figure if they were that confident/arrogant/full of shit about their drawing power.

Or the clubs that voted yes could have done their due diligence too...

bennymacca wrote:Or the clubs that voted yes could have done their due diligence too...

It's not like that hasn't been acknowledged a million times

Hey, it is the never ending thread after all

bennymacca wrote:Hey, it is the never ending thread after all

lol fair point

JK wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Hey, it is the never ending thread after all

lol fair point

If we dont start bringing up old shit again we risk running out of material.

SANFLnut wrote:If the Crows promised 4000 per game and are only getting 2000 per game then the SANFL should send them an invoice for the shortfall.
2000 fans x 18 games x $10 average spend (not even going to bother with admission) = $360 k

I brought this up with Burtenshaw numerous times trying to get a straight answer due to Sturt having the highest match day overheads in the comp. Eventually he said that they wouldn't be overwriting a break even crowd for the host club.
They weren't putting their money where their mouth was. Now it's looking the same way with Power reserves and their attendances.

stan wrote:

JK wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Hey, it is the never ending thread after all

lol fair point

If we dont start bringing up old shit again we risk running out of material.

Agreed
No AFL in the SANFL .

CUTTERMAN wrote:

SANFLnut wrote:If the Crows promised 4000 per game and are only getting 2000 per game then the SANFL should send them an invoice for the shortfall.
2000 fans x 18 games x $10 average spend (not even going to bother with admission) = $360 k

I brought this up with Burtenshaw numerous times trying to get a straight answer due to Sturt having the highest match day overheads in the comp. Eventually he said that they wouldn't be overwriting a break even crowd for the host club.
They weren't putting their money where their mouth was. Now it's looking the same way with Power reserves and their attendances.

IF the Crows genuinely believed they were going to bring through big crowds why didn't they ever try to establish a home base and have their own matchday revenue?

johntheclaret wrote:

stan wrote:

JK wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Hey, it is the never ending thread after all

lol fair point

If we dont start bringing up old shit again we risk running out of material.

Agreed
No AFL in the SANFL .

Lol back to basics.

bennymacca wrote:Or the clubs that voted yes could have done their due diligence too...

Clubs didn't get a vote, league delegates did.

Forgive my ignorance, what's the difference?

bennymacca wrote:Forgive my ignorance, what's the difference?

The delegates went against members wishes. In Norwood's case about 60% didnt want them in and either did several board members.
I also believe some delegates went against their board's wishes

But the delegate is appointed by the club to represent the club, correct?

bennymacca wrote:But the delegate is appointed by the club to represent the club, correct?

Not when they are looking after their own interests rather than the club

Jim05 wrote:

bennymacca wrote:But the delegate is appointed by the club to represent the club, correct?

Not when they are looking after their own interests rather than the club

That's a separate issue though.

bennymacca wrote:But the delegate is appointed by the club to represent the club, correct?

Appointed by the club, but to be impartial. At Glenelg's information night Nick Chigwidden explained that the vote was his alone to make and that he had to do it not in the interests of Glenelg but in the interests of the SANFL.

I am not excusing how he or five other delegates voted. A lot of people voiced concerns to them before the vote was made. In many cases these concerns were ignored, or given token recognition via "information nights" which had no bearing on the delegates' decision. Fair to say that most of these concerns have since been demonstrated to be well-founded.

JK wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:

SANFLnut wrote:If the Crows promised 4000 per game and are only getting 2000 per game then the SANFL should send them an invoice for the shortfall.
2000 fans x 18 games x $10 average spend (not even going to bother with admission) = $360 k

I brought this up with Burtenshaw numerous times trying to get a straight answer due to Sturt having the highest match day overheads in the comp. Eventually he said that they wouldn't be overwriting a break even crowd for the host club.
They weren't putting their money where their mouth was. Now it's looking the same way with Power reserves and their attendances.

IF the Crows genuinely believed they were going to bring through big crowds why didn't they ever try to establish a home base and have their own matchday revenue?

As part of giving back to the clubs and helping them increase their game day revenues

I knew it. Finally, it's happened. Someone blamed Barack.

Dogwatcher wrote:I knew it. Finally, it's happened. Someone blamed Barack.

The bloody yanks have to stick their beaks into everyone's business.