SA Footy

Does it seem to you that there are certain people in the football world who are trying to undermine the SANFL at the moment? The onus last year was on the popularity of the SANFL. But now as soon as financial statements are released, now the onus is on doing all sorts of drastic moves that ultimately continues the trend of turning this century plus icon of SA into just another AFL feeder competition. And this appears to be just looking at a figure on each of the clubs finanical report. Never mind the rest of the report, just use the profit/loss figure to drive the League to where the AFL wants it.

Agreed spelly ..... I am putting together something to tell the other side of the story ... stay tuned for another SAfooty Philospohy over the next few days.

agree with both & it is a disgrace considering most 'football experts' got their start with sanfl football they seem to have no respect or loyalty from where they came from & to why they have their jobs now


we people that have kids or are uncles, aunties etc must take the kids to sanfl football (even if it's a chore) & 'blood' them into the sanfl culture & it does work little bayman has no interest in afl (apart from bryce gibbs & richard douglas)

bayman wrote:agree with both & it is a disgrace considering most 'football experts' got their start with sanfl football they seem to have no respect or loyalty from where they came from & to why they have their jobs now


we people that have kids or are uncles, aunties etc must take the kids to sanfl football (even if it's a chore) & 'blood' them into the sanfl culture & it does work little bayman has no interest in afl (apart from bryce gibbs & richard douglas)

My number 1 who is far from little he only watches SANFL finds AFL boring .

I agree Spellcheck - something doesn't smell right. Leigh Whicker needs to come out and say that the Commission is not interested in watering down the SANFL and that if anything, they recognise and encourage the growth of the competition in recent years.
The longer talk such as reducing salary caps continues without the SANFL commenting, the more worried I get.

yeah well we (the sanfl) bent over for the afl & changed an historic path to league football to the u/18's so is that change the first of many.....maybe port power will get an afl hand out when the sanfl is even more so watered down to their liking

Don't the tools who write the article realise that that the SANFL (and the other state leagues) are the foundations for the AFL. If you remove the foundations from a building, the building falls over. If you remove the SANFL (and the other state leagues), the AFL and the game itself falls over.

Some of you guys are getting carried away arent you ?????
-I havent read anywhere that anyone wants to remove the SANFL

G wrote:Some of you guys are getting carried away arent you ?????
-I havent read anywhere that anyone wants to remove the SANFL

we said watered down & surely the analogy of a building & its foundations are obvious that it was an anology

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

U may find we are not the only ones!!!!!, the AFL are trying their tricks elsewhere

I reckon you're spot on Spelly ... Finances have always been important, but both the AFL and SANFL are solely driven by it these days (regardless of how they dress it up).

Between the 9 SANFL clubs there's quite an income stream, and guess where the big boys would prefer to see that income going?

Despite being fierce competitors on the field, I think it's in the best interest's of all SANFL clubs to have good relations, particularly these days.

Yep...there seems to be something in the air to get rid of the great SANFL comp. Fear???

Constance_Perm wrote:I reckon you're spot on Spelly ... Finances have always been important, but both the AFL and SANFL are solely driven by it these days (regardless of how they dress it up).

Between the 9 SANFL clubs there's quite an income stream, and guess where the big boys would prefer to see that income going?

Despite being fierce competitors on the field, I think it's in the best interest's of all SANFL clubs to have good relations, particularly these days.

In fact, even discounting the previous years where clubs made profits, too.

Hypothetically, a club a few years ago broke even with accumulated funds.
The next year, they reported a $60,000 net profit.
The year after they reported a $150,000 net profit.
However, this year gone, they reported a $100,000 loss.
So the accumulated funds is at $110,000 to the good.

Yet all that is paid attention to is the $100,000 loss.

It is not just the SANFL that is getting squeezed by the AFL

VICTORIAN Football League chiefs fear an AFL takeover bid could strip the league of its "heart and soul" and put every club at risk of expulsion. The AFL wants unprecedented power to control the make-up of the VFL competition and the AFL Victoria board, and could cut millions of dollars of funding unless VFL clubs agree.

The two bodies are headed for a bitter showdown if, as expected, most VFL clubs reject the AFLV's proposed constitutional amendments at the league's annual general meeting tomorrow night.

It could have dramatic consequences for Australian football's oldest competition, with the AFL thinking about a new eastern seaboard reserves league as part of its bold expansion plans.

Outspoken VFA/VFL great Phil Cleary said the AFL's plan to gain full control of who was on the AFLV board and which clubs played was "undemocratic".

"If the AFL's plan goes through, it will be a step towards the death of the VFL competition," Cleary said.

"It will turn the VFA/VFL, a league steeped in 130 years of football tradition, into a satellite competition, a mini-AFL.

"I am concerned. This puts the very heart and soul of Victorian football at risk. Maybe the people will have to fight back."

The AFL denied funding was at stake and insisted the proposed changes, endorsed by the AFLV board, would improve the structure governing the VFL.

"We think it is in the best interests of football, especially in times of increasing competition, to improve the governmental structure and work even closer together," said the AFL's general manager of game development, Dave Matthews.

Six of the nine AFLV directors have already been offered a position on the revamped board.

The most controversial of the proposed amendments would give the AFL the only vote at general meetings and the power to change the constitution.

It would also give the AFL power to veto any director elected by VFL clubs to an AFLV board position.

"It means VFL clubs will be locked out and basically have no say in any situation," Williamstown president Trevor Monti said.

"We will have to put our full faith in not only the current AFL administration, but future AFL administrations, and we know there could be a lot of pressure to admit interstate teams, such as West Sydney and the Gold Coast. But at what cost?"

Casey president John Sharkie added: "My fears are that as a result of this, some of our less robust clubs may go out of existence."

The AFL pours $15 million a year into the VFL and has undertaken joint VFL facility projects with State Government and local council worth more than $30 million.

"The AFL understands the place Victorian football has in the overall health in the game," Matthews said.

To pass the controversial amendments, AFLV needs at least 25 of 32 votes in favour.

North Ballarat and Bendigo, two clubs who fear for the league's susceptibility without full AFL funding, appear set to break ranks with other clubs by voting in favour of the proposal.

Club presidents have formulated a counter-proposal but AFL representatives are yet to discuss it with them.

can somehow the vfl,sanfl, wafl & others supporters get a petition on this to show the afl that ''the game of the people for the people'' not be ruined anyfurther than it is now ? & start our own campaign

spell_check wrote:In fact, even discounting the previous years where clubs made profits, too.

Hypothetically, a club a few years ago broke even with accumulated funds.
The next year, they reported a $60,000 net profit.
The year after they reported a $150,000 net profit.
However, this year gone, they reported a $100,000 loss.
So the accumulated funds is at $110,000 to the good.

Yet all that is paid attention to is the $100,000 loss.

like anything Spelly a loss is a concern if it cant be turned around, you can only cover losses from built up capital for so long

spell_check wrote:In fact, even discounting the previous years where clubs made profits, too.

Hypothetically, a club a few years ago broke even with accumulated funds.
The next year, they reported a $60,000 net profit.
The year after they reported a $150,000 net profit.
However, this year gone, they reported a $100,000 loss.
So the accumulated funds is at $110,000 to the good.

Yet all that is paid attention to is the $100,000 loss.

The problem is we now have a very serious financial crisis and Aust is close to slipping into recession, if it isn't already

If you lost money in 2008, chances are 2009 and 2010 will be the same, if not worse

That's why there's much more scrutiny on financial results than before - the money is drying up across the board.

The problem with sporting clubs is that they are often asset rich (land and buildings) but cash poor. Port Power have accumulated funds of $4m yet they feel that need $2-$3m extra cash over the next 3 years just to keep money in the bank, despite the high value of their assets. These assets come with debt meaning you need to over-achieve on your bottom line to run your footy ops + pay off some debt.

You can either take the scrutiny on financial results as 1 a conspiracy by the AFL to take over the SANFL or 2 an attempt to make sure our comp survives intact at all

Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle?

Dutchy wrote:

spell_check wrote:In fact, even discounting the previous years where clubs made profits, too.

Hypothetically, a club a few years ago broke even with accumulated funds.
The next year, they reported a $60,000 net profit.
The year after they reported a $150,000 net profit.
However, this year gone, they reported a $100,000 loss.
So the accumulated funds is at $110,000 to the good.

Yet all that is paid attention to is the $100,000 loss.

like anything Spelly a loss is a concern if it cant be turned around, you can only cover losses from built up capital for so long

What I was saying is that the attention is only paid to the loss and nothing before it. As we know too, there are clubs that posted losses last year that indicate that they can turn it around.

Constance_Perm wrote:Despite being fierce competitors on the field, I think it's in the best interest's of all SANFL clubs to have good relations, particularly these days.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Spot on.

hondo71 wrote:

spell_check wrote:In fact, even discounting the previous years where clubs made profits, too.

Hypothetically, a club a few years ago broke even with accumulated funds.
The next year, they reported a $60,000 net profit.
The year after they reported a $150,000 net profit.
However, this year gone, they reported a $100,000 loss.
So the accumulated funds is at $110,000 to the good.

Yet all that is paid attention to is the $100,000 loss.

The problem is we now have a very serious financial crisis and Aust is close to slipping into recession, if it isn't already

If you lost money in 2008, chances are 2009 and 2010 will be the same, if not worse

That's why there's much more scrutiny on financial results than before - the money is drying up across the board.

The problem with sporting clubs is that they are often asset rich (cash tied up in facilities) but cash poor. Port Power have accumulated funds of $4m yet they feel that need $2-$3m extra cash over the next 3 years just to keep money in the bank, despite the high value of their assets.

You can either take the scrutiny on financial results as 1 a conspiracy by the AFL to take over the SANFL or 2 an attempt to make sure our comp survives intact at all

Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle?

That's a good point and it does bring up a question I'd like to know.

What has happened in the past with a recession? Yes, there was one amalgamation around that time, but other factors played parts in that happening. So how did the other clubs cope?