Clubs Financials 2010

[Dutchy]

A south supporter complaining about their zone.
LOL - How populated an area do you want ?
Guess it's easy to point the finger at something else rather than your own club.

yep you are 100% correct smithy we have a fantastic zone; lots of young people between the ages of 14 and 21.
Only trouble is that not may of them play footy or even remotely interested in the game.
The facts are that Souths zone has the lowest participation rate of all the sanfl clubs- by a very long way. I can assure you that is a fact.

So are South doing anything about it or just sitting on their hands complaining?

They have 2 of the best footy comps in the state in their zone (one is based in the SAFC building and plays its GF at Noarlunga!), plus a growing (not aging) demographic...

[HOORAY PUNT]

You are referring to the Southern Football League Doesn't Glenelg have some of that zone ?

The facts mentioned about participation rates are right, Fuller has publicly stated this also.

[85 WAS A GOOD YEAR]

You are referring to the Southern Football League Doesn't Glenelg have some of that zone ?

The facts mentioned about participation rates are right, Fuller has publicly stated this also.

Southern Football League involves 3 SANFL Clubs:
- West Adel is mainly Flagstaff Hill and Happy Valley FC
- Glenelg is mainly Brighton, Morphettville Park & Marion FC.
- Cove FC & Reynella FC are split between South Adelaide & Glenelg.
(Edwardstown don't participate in SFL Juniors as they remained in the Amateurs comp, so I haven't counted them in this equation.)
- The other clubs (Hackham, Aldinga, Lonsdale/O'Sullivans Beach, Christies Beach, Morphett Vale, Pt Noarlunga and Noarlunga) are mainly South Adelaide.

Lonsale, Aldinga & Lonsdale/OSB are working very hard to build up their junior teams, but have struggling for numbers over past few years.
Not many Auskick clinics have been run within the SFL SAFC zone in recent years, and this is one area their development team have addressed to focus on for improvement in 2011.

[Bunton]

Correction - Cove is 100% Glenelg, as is OSB Lonsdale .... and it's the SANFL charter to grow participation - they employ, hire and fire the staff 100% to do so. they put some of these staff in club polo's and base some at club offices, but they report soley to the SANFL.

SAFC have around 8,000 participants in their zone - the lowest in the league. Glenelg have around 12,000 - the highest in the league. I know the club are working hard with the league to get some equality, but are not getting anywhere and may now need to look at a legal challenge.

[sjt]

A south supporter complaining about their zone.
LOL - How populated an area do you want ?
Guess it's easy to point the finger at something else rather than your own club.

Interestingly in 2009 the total no.of Teams-by SANFL Club
(Metro, Country, Junior & Youth Club and School Teams Combined). i.e the talent pool of players to choose from, Sturt had the most teams over 250, followed by Glenelg, North, Norwood, Eagles, Port, West then South second least (approx 175, at least 1,650 less players than Sturt) and Central least at 150 teams. This is quite a difference of available talent to choose from. The contrarian arguement is Central despite having even less than South, have had success, and still had the third highest local content in their team in 2009 (the year the benchmark document related to).
Also, before anyone asks, Central are attempting to do something about it via the Robert Zerella U'15 Academy and with a development team visiting over 20,000 school children each year.

[Dirko]

Correction - Cove is 100% Glenelg, as is OSB Lonsdale .... and it's the SANFL charter to grow participation - they employ, hire and fire the staff 100% to do so. they put some of these staff in club polo's and base some at club offices, but they report soley to the SANFL.

The SANFL do emply the DO's, but the role of participation in the zone involves other people involved directly with the club, usually on a volunteer basis. Auskick Manager, Mini League Manager, School Zone Football Manager, U13/U14/U15 Coaches etc.

[am Bays]

Correction - Cove is 100% Glenelg, as is OSB Lonsdale .... and it's the SANFL charter to grow participation - they employ, hire and fire the staff 100% to do so. they put some of these staff in club polo's and base some at club offices, but they report soley to the SANFL.

SAFC have around 8,000 participants in their zone - the lowest in the league. Glenelg have around 12,000 - the highest in the league. I know the club are working hard with the league to get some equality, but are not getting anywhere and may now need to look at a legal challenge.

Crap Glenelg lost all of OSB and the Lonsdale area in the previous redistribution see the SANFL club boundaries. http://www.sanfl.com.au/the_sanfl/sanfl_club_boundaries/. Areas which produced a three time AFL premiership player and another AFL player in the last 15 years along with league footballers.

AS I said six months ago in a Sojourner thread on teh same topic Glenelg has repeatedly lost area to South over the last two distributions, not that club says anything it goes about building partnerships in the local area and develops new Auskick areas e.g. at Woodend.

yes they are AFL/SANFL run centres (auskick) but a lot of comes back to the energy of the SANFL clubs development officer and AUSkick volunteers that it (the SANFL club) attracts (co-ordinates).

South needs to look in the mirror when it comes to its lack of participation. And yes whilst, I am a Bays person, I've lived in both areas (South - Aldinga) and Glenelg's - Hallett Cove) and being involved in football all that time (played all my local footy in Souths zone) the difference between to the two clubs when it comes to junior development is chalk and cheese.

[nickname]

Correction - Cove is 100% Glenelg, as is OSB Lonsdale .... and it's the SANFL charter to grow participation - they employ, hire and fire the staff 100% to do so. they put some of these staff in club polo's and base some at club offices, but they report soley to the SANFL.

SAFC have around 8,000 participants in their zone - the lowest in the league. Glenelg have around 12,000 - the highest in the league. I know the club are working hard with the league to get some equality, but are not getting anywhere and may now need to look at a legal challenge.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't South move to Noarlunga to tap into that huge growth area and secure their future? They weren't sent there were they?

[Bunton]

Crap Glenelg lost all of OSB and the Lonsdale area in the previous redistribution see the SANFL club boundaries. http://www.sanfl.com.au/the_sanfl/sanfl_club_boundaries/. Areas which produced a three time AFL premiership player and another AFL player in the last 15 years along with league footballers.

AS I said six months ago in a Sojourner thread on teh same topic Glenelg has repeatedly lost area to South over the last two distributions, not that club says anything it goes about building partnerships in the local area and develops new Auskick areas e.g. at Woodend.

You're link shows the OSB Lonsdale ground on Sherrifs Rd in the Glenelg zone, along with the entire suburb of Lonsdale!

While somehow Glenelg did not loose any ground to South in the last distrinbution, with the stats SJT has jjust provided, I would assume they will loose a massive slice to South in the next round.

[Bunton]

Correction - Cove is 100% Glenelg, as is OSB Lonsdale .... and it's the SANFL charter to grow participation - they employ, hire and fire the staff 100% to do so. they put some of these staff in club polo's and base some at club offices, but they report soley to the SANFL.

SAFC have around 8,000 participants in their zone - the lowest in the league. Glenelg have around 12,000 - the highest in the league. I know the club are working hard with the league to get some equality, but are not getting anywhere and may now need to look at a legal challenge.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't South move to Noarlunga to tap into that huge growth area and secure their future? They weren't sent there were they?

that was the plan, but the league does not even provide us with Happy Valley, Hallet Cove, Lonsdale, and Reynella, the club is probably now questing the move

[blueandwhite]

one of the big issues for South is that after arriving at Noarlunga they had Flagstaff hill, Aberfoyle PK a big slice of Reynella and Happy valley taken from them and given to West Adelaide. Since then west have produced some pretty handyplayers from that area.

[am Bays]

Crap Glenelg lost all of OSB and the Lonsdale area in the previous redistribution see the SANFL club boundaries. http://www.sanfl.com.au/the_sanfl/sanfl_club_boundaries/. Areas which produced a three time AFL premiership player and another AFL player in the last 15 years along with league footballers.

AS I said six months ago in a Sojourner thread on teh same topic Glenelg has repeatedly lost area to South over the last two distributions, not that club says anything it goes about building partnerships in the local area and develops new Auskick areas e.g. at Woodend.

You're link shows the OSB Lonsdale ground on Sherrifs Rd in the Glenelg zone, along with the entire suburb of Lonsdale!

While somehow Glenelg did not loose any ground to South in the last distrinbution, with the stats SJT has jjust provided, I would assume they will loose a massive slice to South in the next round.

Well given our boundary used to be Flaxmill Rd and Gulfview rd in the 1990s re-check the boundaries, what used to be OSB home ground is now all in Souths zone. Given the criteria for zone distribution is 15 yo males at the last census and we now have the lowest amount of them (as I understand it) don't think we will be losing anymore "area" to South. Not with the growth of population in the Seaford area as it expands North along Commercial rd and the area just south of Huntfield Heights/hackham

[nickname]

one of the big issues for South is that after arriving at Noarlunga they had Flagstaff hill, Aberfoyle PK a big slice of Reynella and Happy valley taken from them and given to West Adelaide. Since then west have produced some pretty handyplayers from that area.

One of the big issues for West is that up until last year, we'd had the smallest number of eligible males in our zones for the preceeding 15 years. We're now 4th on that table - I'd argue that for fairness' sake we should be 1st on it for the next 15 years.

[sjt]

Crap Glenelg lost all of OSB and the Lonsdale area in the previous redistribution see the SANFL club boundaries. http://www.sanfl.com.au/the_sanfl/sanfl_club_boundaries/. Areas which produced a three time AFL premiership player and another AFL player in the last 15 years along with league footballers.

AS I said six months ago in a Sojourner thread on teh same topic Glenelg has repeatedly lost area to South over the last two distributions, not that club says anything it goes about building partnerships in the local area and develops new Auskick areas e.g. at Woodend.

You're link shows the OSB Lonsdale ground on Sherrifs Rd in the Glenelg zone, along with the entire suburb of Lonsdale!

While somehow Glenelg did not loose any ground to South in the last distrinbution, with the stats SJT has jjust provided, I would assume they will loose a massive slice to South in the next round.

Well given our boundary used to be Flaxmill Rd and Gulfview rd in the 1990s re-check the boundaries, what used to be OSB home ground is now all in Souths zone. Given the criteria for zone distribution is 15 yo males at the last census and we now have the lowest amount of them (as I understand it) don't think we will be losing anymore "area" to South. Not with the growth of population in the Seaford area as it expands North along Commercial rd and the area just south of Huntfield Heights/hackham

If that's correct, to have the second most teams must mean a high rate of participation.

[Barto]

Sturt will be announcing their profit/loss at the AGM on the 14th Feb.

[EAGLES]

I thought minimum requirements in sanfl clubs constitutions was to have at least 14 days for members to look at the annual figures before the agm. Does Sturt have a different constitution to that?

I would question the club if I was a member.

[Dutchy]

Financials would have to be available to members prior to the AGM otherwise why have an AGM?

[Barto]

Dunno the legalities, just passing on what I've been told. The dates may be mixed up, trying to confirm what the go is there.

Perhaps bayman can enlighten us to what's happening at Unley.

[smithy]

To be fair I reckon this has come up every year over the past 3-4 years everytime Sturt have an AGM.

[Barto]

To be fair I reckon this has come up every year over the past 3-4 years everytime Sturt have an AGM.

Cant say I've noticed. I try to tune out to the usual Sturt bashing sesh on SA Footy which seems to be one of the few things that isn't subject to moderation/deletion