Community football board

[Clever Dick]

It is patently obvious that the majority of people commenting (and sledging) the CFB have vested interests, namely administrators of leagues (Clever Dick, new dog old tricks etc) and have got their collective noses out of joint over the new structure.
The post relating to $$ earned by the SANFL staff is a joke, the continuous moaning over the CFB taking over is out of touch.
I'd suggest that these 'old' admin guys are spreading a load of rubbish and lies in a campaign to maintain their own control over their leagues and they have done so since the idea of the CFB taking over from the old Affiliated leagues council was first rolled out.[/quote]

"Out of touch", well fill us in then with your obvious vast knowledge of future moves within country footy
And it is patently obvious you don't have much idea of the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"! Change the name sure, but don't force clubs to conform to things against their will. Won't be long and leagues won't need a secretary or a president, it'll all be done via computer from West Lakes which may be possible, but since most people in clubs are volunteers, how are they going to organise, coerce and coordinate that?
Set up a poll to get peoples thoughts for or against the CFB, you would get a resounding negative vote, believe me.
Bet you're first in line to get your free pie warmer though![/quote]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" surely does not apply to the previous affiliated leagues council - this group were totally hamstrung by vested interests and were there in name only. They certainly needed an over haul, as per the original survey suggested most clubs saw this group as outdated an ineffectual. The CFB is a natural progression - get used to it!

Do they deliver the pie warmers? Yes please.[/quote]



So a natural progression in what areas, "takeover tactics"? Vested interests, oh yeah, one of their greatest assets.
Maybe an overhaul was due and warranted but not a dictatorship.
Forcing clubs to do what they dictate to them, yes I suppose that is progression or is it regression, back to the what our forefathers went to war over. You keep believing their story mate and when the clubs start to get sick of it and eventually revolt against it, we shall remind you.

[Howard]

It is patently obvious that the majority of people commenting (and sledging) the CFB have vested interests, namely administrators of leagues (Clever Dick, new dog old tricks etc) and have got their collective noses out of joint over the new structure.
The post relating to $$ earned by the SANFL staff is a joke, the continuous moaning over the CFB taking over is out of touch.
I'd suggest that these 'old' admin guys are spreading a load of rubbish and lies in a campaign to maintain their own control over their leagues and they have done so since the idea of the CFB taking over from the old Affiliated leagues council was first rolled out.

"Out of touch", well fill us in then with your obvious vast knowledge of future moves within country footy
And it is patently obvious you don't have much idea of the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"! Change the name sure, but don't force clubs to conform to things against their will. Won't be long and leagues won't need a secretary or a president, it'll all be done via computer from West Lakes which may be possible, but since most people in clubs are volunteers, how are they going to organise, coerce and coordinate that?
Set up a poll to get peoples thoughts for or against the CFB, you would get a resounding negative vote, believe me.
Bet you're first in line to get your free pie warmer though![/quote]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" surely does not apply to the previous affiliated leagues council - this group were totally hamstrung by vested interests and were there in name only. They certainly needed an over haul, as per the original survey suggested most clubs saw this group as outdated an ineffectual. The CFB is a natural progression - get used to it!

Do they deliver the pie warmers? Yes please.[/quote]



So a natural progression in what areas, "takeover tactics"? Vested interests, oh yeah, one of their greatest assets.
Maybe an overhaul was due and warranted but not a dictatorship.
Forcing clubs to do what they dictate to them, yes I suppose that is progression or is it regression, back to the what our forefathers went to war over. You keep believing their story mate and when the clubs start to get sick of it and eventually revolt against it, we shall remind you.[/quote]

The CFB has been formed to oversee footy at the grass roots level - it needs to administer and assist wherever possible, opportunities arise as a consequence if certain leagues are to stubborn and use tunnel vision as options for their own leagues they will be worse off.

Please don't use the old we went to war line argument, as much as we thank you it is just is not relevant in this instance (surely). Clubs need to be told the truth and not a load of rubbish as previously posted.

[Goldberg]

"Load of Rubbish"

Is it a load of rubbish- that clubs can only choose from a small number of suppliers for their jumpers?
- that the board has plans for a "super league"
- That the board is trying to get individual clubs to sell tickets to benifit themselves more then the club
- that the board is or had plans of controlling First aid suppliers
- that the board is or had plans for Garment suppliers
- that the board is in or have talked about Baked goods (pies etc) sponsorship, and would control this part of clubs aswell

The only rubbish here is the fact that certain friends of members of the Board are getting huge advantages & Insider trading is/will happen & the country "grassroots" clubs will pay for it.

[Clever Dick]

So a natural progression in what areas, "takeover tactics"? Vested interests, oh yeah, one of their greatest assets.
Maybe an overhaul was due and warranted but not a dictatorship.
Forcing clubs to do what they dictate to them, yes I suppose that is progression or is it regression, back to the what our forefathers went to war over. You keep believing their story mate and when the clubs start to get sick of it and eventually revolt against it, we shall remind you.[/quote]

The CFB has been formed to oversee footy at the grass roots level - it needs to administer and assist wherever possible, opportunities arise as a consequence if certain leagues are to stubborn and use tunnel vision as options for their own leagues they will be worse off.

Please don't use the old we went to war line argument, as much as we thank you it is just is not relevant in this instance (surely). Clubs need to be told the truth and not a load of rubbish as previously posted.[/quote]


Firstly let me assure you I am not in control of anything to do with any football league, not a committee member and I am not a returned soldier but I do have some insight into football from a club level.
You have mentioned the word 'truth' in your monologue, some of those at the CFL would not know the meaning of, nor can they foresee the future, but so far their record of doing what will benefit all clubs is not that credible, so if the truth is to be known, ask them what they are getting in return for all the "special favours' from their new allies in the CFL .
You might get a surprise because there is no such thing as a 'free lunch"

[Clever Dick]

"Load of Rubbish"

Is it a load of rubbish- that clubs can only choose from a small number of suppliers for their jumpers?
- that the board has plans for a "super league"
- That the board is trying to get individual clubs to sell tickets to benifit themselves more then the club
- that the board is or had plans of controlling First aid suppliers
- that the board is or had plans for Garment suppliers
- that the board is in or have talked about Baked goods (pies etc) sponsorship, and would control this part of clubs aswell

The only rubbish here is the fact that certain friends of members of the Board are getting huge advantages & Insider trading is/will happen & the country "grassroots" clubs will pay for it.

Two of the preferred suppliers were told the got the job well before the interview process was completed, and that came from the man himself!

[Howard]

"Load of Rubbish"

Is it a load of rubbish- that clubs can only choose from a small number of suppliers for their jumpers?
- that the board has plans for a "super league"
- That the board is trying to get individual clubs to sell tickets to benifit themselves more then the club
- that the board is or had plans of controlling First aid suppliers
- that the board is or had plans for Garment suppliers
- that the board is in or have talked about Baked goods (pies etc) sponsorship, and would control this part of clubs aswell

The only rubbish here is the fact that certain friends of members of the Board are getting huge advantages & Insider trading is/will happen & the country "grassroots" clubs will pay for it.

I would have thought that the CFB's brief would be to present their affiliated leagues and clubs various options with respect to garment suppliers, first aid suppliers, sponsorship opportunities availability to access grants etc etc - then the leagues and clubs make the final decisions that best suits them.

I'd also suggest you (and other negative posters) need to be wary of accusing members of the board gaining personal advantage through this process. Difficult to prove and easily defended, unless you have proof pull your collective heads in.

[Goldberg]

"Load of Rubbish"

Is it a load of rubbish- that clubs can only choose from a small number of suppliers for their jumpers?
- that the board has plans for a "super league"
- That the board is trying to get individual clubs to sell tickets to benifit themselves more then the club
- that the board is or had plans of controlling First aid suppliers
- that the board is or had plans for Garment suppliers
- that the board is in or have talked about Baked goods (pies etc) sponsorship, and would control this part of clubs aswell

The only rubbish here is the fact that certain friends of members of the Board are getting huge advantages & Insider trading is/will happen & the country "grassroots" clubs will pay for it.

I would have thought that the CFB's brief would be to present their affiliated leagues and clubs various options with respect to garment suppliers, first aid suppliers, sponsorship opportunities availability to access grants etc etc - then the leagues and clubs make the final decisions that best suits them.

I'd also suggest you (and other negative posters) need to be wary of accusing members of the board gaining personal advantage through this process. Difficult to prove and easily defended, unless you have proof pull your collective heads in.[/quote]


Fair enough mate, but the facts above regarding Garments etc are still very valid

[shoe boy]

[
I would have thought that the CFB's brief would be to present their affiliated leagues and clubs various options with respect to garment suppliers, first aid suppliers, sponsorship opportunities availability to access grants etc etc - then the leagues and clubs make the final decisions that best suits them.

I'd also suggest you (and other negative posters) need to be wary of accusing members of the board gaining personal advantage through this process. Difficult to prove and easily defended, unless you have proof pull your collective heads in.[/quote]

Howard why dony u get your head out of the CFB arse and wake up!!!!

[Howard]

[
I would have thought that the CFB's brief would be to present their affiliated leagues and clubs various options with respect to garment suppliers, first aid suppliers, sponsorship opportunities availability to access grants etc etc - then the leagues and clubs make the final decisions that best suits them.

I'd also suggest you (and other negative posters) need to be wary of accusing members of the board gaining personal advantage through this process. Difficult to prove and easily defended, unless you have proof pull your collective heads in.

Howard why dony u get your head out of the CFB arse and wake up!!!![/quote]

You can abuse me all you like shoe boy, but attacking me on a personal note actually weakens your argument - let's just stick to facts and not get to concerned about having a cheap shot at someone who argues against the conspiracy theories that abound on this topic.

[Clever Dick]

[
I would have thought that the CFB's brief would be to present their affiliated leagues and clubs various [b]options with respect to garment suppliers, first aid suppliers, sponsorship opportunities availability to access grants etc etc - then the leagues and clubs make the final decisions that best suits them. [/b]
I'd also suggest you (and other negative posters) need to be wary of accusing members of the board gaining personal advantage through this process. Difficult to prove and easily defended, unless you have proof pull your collective heads in.

You have nailed it one one sentence............... but that's not how its happeneing. The board made the decision for the clubs so in effect they have assumed control on behalf of the clubs, that's exactly my argument. The clubs have been taken out of the decision making, the guys on the board now make the decisions so where and when do clubs get the chance to exercise their rights??? They don't!
I know of a club who was threatened that they stood to lose premiership points if they didn't adhere to the CFL directions, now there's a democracy.

[Howard]

[
I would have thought that the CFB's brief would be to present their affiliated leagues and clubs various [b]options with respect to garment suppliers, first aid suppliers, sponsorship opportunities availability to access grants etc etc - then the leagues and clubs make the final decisions that best suits them. [/b]
I'd also suggest you (and other negative posters) need to be wary of accusing members of the board gaining personal advantage through this process. Difficult to prove and easily defended, unless you have proof pull your collective heads in.

You have nailed it one one sentence............... but that's not how its happeneing. The board made the decision for the clubs so in effect they have assumed control on behalf of the clubs, that's exactly my argument. The clubs have been taken out of the decision making, the guys on the board now make the decisions so where and when do clubs get the chance to exercise their rights??? They don't!
I know of a club who was threatened that they stood to lose premiership points if they didn't adhere to the CFL directions, now there's a democracy.

Are you able to be more specific ie which club and over what??

[Clever Dick]

[
I would have thought that the CFB's brief would be to present their affiliated leagues and clubs various [b]options with respect to garment suppliers, first aid suppliers, sponsorship opportunities availability to access grants etc etc - then the leagues and clubs make the final decisions that best suits them. [/b]
I'd also suggest you (and other negative posters) need to be wary of accusing members of the board gaining personal advantage through this process. Difficult to prove and easily defended, unless you have proof pull your collective heads in.

You have nailed it one one sentence............... but that's not how its happeneing. The board made the decision for the clubs so in effect they have assumed control on behalf of the clubs, that's exactly my argument. The clubs have been taken out of the decision making, the guys on the board now make the decisions so where and when do clubs get the chance to exercise their rights??? They don't!
I know of a club who was threatened that they stood to lose premiership points if they didn't adhere to the CFL directions, now there's a democracy.

Are you able to be more specific ie which club and over what??

I certainly could but not sure it's a wise move. I have no idea who you are and probably that's not a bad thing. Let's just say that someone at WL told this club person that if he didn't do things as the CFL had instructed, the ramifications could include loss of points. Suffice to say, this person told everyone he knew about the discussion including the secretary of their league.

[Howard]

[
I would have thought that the CFB's brief would be to present their affiliated leagues and clubs various [b]options with respect to garment suppliers, first aid suppliers, sponsorship opportunities availability to access grants etc etc - then the leagues and clubs make the final decisions that best suits them. [/b]
I'd also suggest you (and other negative posters) need to be wary of accusing members of the board gaining personal advantage through this process. Difficult to prove and easily defended, unless you have proof pull your collective heads in.

You have nailed it one one sentence............... but that's not how its happeneing. The board made the decision for the clubs so in effect they have assumed control on behalf of the clubs, that's exactly my argument. The clubs have been taken out of the decision making, the guys on the board now make the decisions so where and when do clubs get the chance to exercise their rights??? They don't!
I know of a club who was threatened that they stood to lose premiership points if they didn't adhere to the CFL directions, now there's a democracy.

Are you able to be more specific ie which club and over what??

I certainly could but not sure it's a wise move. I have no idea who you are and probably that's not a bad thing. Let's just say that someone at WL told this club person that if he didn't do things as the CFL had instructed, the ramifications could include loss of points. Suffice to say, this person told everyone he knew about the discussion including the secretary of their league.

I guess it's fair enough that you'd prefer not to go into specifics on a public forum, although it might suggest that there is no basis to what you allege happened. That has partly been my point in this thread, ie people are making a lot of assumptions based on hear say and innuendo. I believe these people are being mischievous and don't really want the CFB idea to work, for whatever reason.

I reckon the concept (of the CFB) makes a lot of sense, to have more opportunities presented to our clubs - for better deals with respect to saving money, having national databases etc - lets move into the 21st century and not just obstruct for the sake of it.

By the way, you don't need to worry about who I am, just someone who cares about footy.

I've enjoyed the debate so far!

[Clever Dick]

The gentleman I speak of has no reason to lie to me nor do I have any reason to lie about this on this forum so your assumption that there is "no basis" is a fair way off the mark.

I can assure you that if you were to contact many clubs in many leagues, you will find they are fearful of what may happen beyond 2010 given that clubs are under instruction from the CFB already and little or no consultation has taken place.

Surely clubs & individual leagues have a right to either accept or decline what is put to them, but in many instances, this is not how it stands.

[Mythical Creature]

What I don't understand in regards to the jumper issue is, Why do we all need to have CFL Logo at all? I understand the reasoning behind putting your association logo on the jumper due to many similar guernseys in neighbouring leagues such as Bombers, Tigers, Roosters, Magpies, Demons etc. But to have a CFL logo as well is just a pointless exercise unless of course you design and sell jumpers. This is why so many clubs are asking questions.

Apparently the APFL have a delegates meeting sometime next week so it will be interesting to see what comes up in regards to the CFL. I know for a fact that the clubs voted NO to the IDM sports tape deal at the AGM yet our league accepted it as they considered it in the best interest for the clubs. I would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting.

[uncle_fester]

What I don't understand in regards to the jumper issue is, Why do we all need to have CFL Logo at all? I understand the reasoning behind putting your association logo on the jumper due to many similar guernseys in neighbouring leagues such as Bombers, Tigers, Roosters, Magpies, Demons etc. But to have a CFL logo as well is just a pointless exercise unless of course you design and sell jumpers. This is why so many clubs are asking questions.

Apparently the APFL have a delegates meeting sometime next week so it will be interesting to see what comes up in regards to the CFL. I know for a fact that the clubs voted NO to the IDM sports tape deal at the AGM yet our league accepted it as they considered it in the best interest for the clubs. I would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting.

saw a clever idea on the safooty forum somewhere. a club has put the cfl logo down on the bottom of the jumper.
(surely clubs cant be expected to have it at the top as how messy are they going to start looking - 1 or 2 sponsors, club logo, league logo, cfl logo!)

[aceman]

Apparently the APFL have a delegates meeting sometime next week so it will be interesting to see what comes up in regards to the CFL. I know for a fact that the clubs voted NO to the IDM sports tape deal at the AGM yet our league accepted it as they considered it in the best interest for the clubs. I would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting. [/quote]

saw a clever idea on the safooty forum somewhere. a club has put the cfl logo down on the bottom of the jumper.
(surely clubs cant be expected to have it at the top as how messy are they going to start looking - 1 or 2 sponsors, club logo, league logo, cfl logo!)[/quote]


That's the CFL requirement as per the AFL jumpers. Only problem, it consists of 3 different logos in a "badge" style. League, CFL & Apparel Supplier all in sequence as below. A "walking billboard"!

guernseyfront.jpg (46.96 KiB) Viewed 707 times

[uncle_fester]

That's the CFL requirement as per the AFL jumpers. Only problem, it consists of 3 different logos in a "badge" style. League, CFL & Apparel Supplier all in sequence as below. A "walking billboard"!

guernseyfront.jpg

but in that case surely 3 sponsors up the top is a bit over the top!!!
my preference is for one or 2 at the most

[Howard]

The gentleman I speak of has no reason to lie to me nor do I have any reason to lie about this on this forum so your assumption that there is "no basis" is a fair way off the mark.

I can assure you that if you were to contact many clubs in many leagues, you will find they are fearful of what may happen beyond 2010 given that clubs are under instruction from the CFB already and little or no consultation has taken place.

Surely clubs & individual leagues have a right to either accept or decline what is put to them, but in many instances, this is not how it stands.

The reason I've suggested there may be "no basis" to your post is simply due to the fact you're not prepared to go into specifics, just because you were told something and they "have no reason to lie" does not stand up, with respect to proving whether something did or did not happen.

Also, you suggest that "in many instances" clubs are not able to make the decisions - but once again, just because you say that does not necessarily make it so, unfortunately, my point all along is, posters on this thread have been telling a few "porkies" - so we need specifics to clarify the situation, not hearsay and/or ridiculous accusations.

[Clever Dick]

The gentleman I speak of has no reason to lie to me nor do I have any reason to lie about this on this forum so your assumption that there is "no basis" is a fair way off the mark.

I can assure you that if you were to contact many clubs in many leagues, you will find they are fearful of what may happen beyond 2010 given that clubs are under instruction from the CFB already and little or no consultation has taken place.

Surely clubs & individual leagues have a right to either accept or decline what is put to them, but in many instances, this is not how it stands.

The reason I've suggested there may be "no basis" to your post is simply due to the fact you're not prepared to go into specifics, just because you were told something and they "have no reason to lie" does not stand up, with respect to proving whether something did or did not happen.

Also, you suggest that "in many instances" clubs are not able to make the decisions - but once again, just because you say that does not necessarily make it so, unfortunately, my point all along is, posters on this thread have been telling a few "porkies" - so we need specifics to clarify the situation, not hearsay and/or ridiculous accusations.

So Howard, can you tell me, who are "WE" or is that a 'freudian slip" I wonder?
Mine are not "porkies" as you put it, but detailed accounts of phone calls made to/from various people and told to me by a person involved in the conversations and this person is a relation of mine BTW. There is no way I am going to bleat the names of persons, clubs or leagues to you but I assure you, according to my source it has happened, whether you believe it or not is your choice. If you are the person who made the comment then you would know, if you're not, then you'll never know!
I tell you what, you pm to me who you are and your phone number and I'll fill you in, can't get much fairer than that!