SAAFL Division 6 2013

[bagster]

FYI

Round 18 match between Central United and Blackfriars OS has been changed to Adelaide Airport Stadium this Saturday the 10th of August

All match times are as previously scheduled.

Adjustments have been made via Sportingweb.

Why?

Your club would not be happy about this?

central united were only informed of the change of oval at 4pm thursday night, the SAAFL didnt seem to worry that we had planned for our last home game/function of the season for 6 weeks, hired a marquee for our sponsors day, hired a dj for our 50s club, bought a load of food for the function as well as stocked the canteen and bar, our club would have lost upwards of $3,000+ for the day, then they told us we have to travel to thebarton and have every player and supporter pay to get in... also we had to work the score board and prepare/remove the goal posts padding etc. WHY ????? so all the pompass ******* politicians (in the local blackfriars council area ) can come along with our ******* saafl committee and have a government press conference with penny wong and kate ellis and all the the tv cameras and tell everyone that the saafl are getting a 6.5 million dollar grant...... but HANG ON !!! they wont re-reimburse a club who is a struggling NON profit club from the unemployment heartland of our community and struggles for every single dollar they make... and those decision makers are the same people who caused us to lose that income... The pompass MC with the microphone even had the nerve to congratulate "his" Blackfriars on their Bgrade win (the press conference was after the Bs and before the As) and told everyone he is a proud blackfriars boy from wayback .. as far as i am concerned, it wasnt about punishing CUFC or TOS it was about having blackfriars there, no matter who they were playing... it just happen to be CUFC.... REALLY... why would the SAAFL want CUFC there for their big announcement ???? they didnt... they just wanted BOS there to keep the pompass private school suits happy.... AND within 10 minutes of the announcement... they all jumped in their chauffer driven limos and left !! didnt even watch the footy... i understand that our club ( some individuals) has been in some trouble this season, but changing a club doesnt happen overnight. and there are many club members doing the right thing , all clubs have some members that cause grief for everyone and we will work through our issues and get better. but the last thing we needed, is to lose revenue as well ...... go the Units... we will be back !! well done to Dutchy and the coaching staff for their efforts throughout this difficult season..

[morell]

If true, an abject disgrace.

I thought it was because they wanted to control who attended the game.

[bagster]

If true, an abject disgrace.

I thought it was because they wanted to control who attended the game.

there was no-one controlling who attended the game... not that they could anyway.
it was a good game without ANY incidents . CUFC even hit the front with 3 minutes to play.. the mawson lads that were there were cheering louder than our supporters.

[The Ash Man]

If true, an abject disgrace.

I thought it was because they wanted to control who attended the game.

[Footy Chick]

Draft finals fixture is on Sporting Pulse:

D6 EF: Lockleys v Blackfriars - TBA
D6R QF: Lockleys v Mitchell Park - shows as Lockleys, therefore assuming the above will be at Locks too.


D6 QF: Rosewater v Westminster OS - Eric Sutton
D6R EF: Westminster v Rosewater - Eric Sutton

[sprinttospace]

FYI

Round 18 match between Central United and Blackfriars OS has been changed to Adelaide Airport Stadium this Saturday the 10th of August

All match times are as previously scheduled.

Adjustments have been made via Sportingweb.

Why?

Your club would not be happy about this?

central united were only informed of the change of oval at 4pm thursday night, the SAAFL didnt seem to worry that we had planned for our last home game/function of the season for 6 weeks, hired a marquee for our sponsors day, hired a dj for our 50s club, bought a load of food for the function as well as stocked the canteen and bar, our club would have lost upwards of $3,000+ for the day, then they told us we have to travel to thebarton and have every player and supporter pay to get in... also we had to work the score board and prepare/remove the goal posts padding etc. WHY ????? so all the pompass ******* politicians (in the local blackfriars council area ) can come along with our ******* saafl committee and have a government press conference with penny wong and kate ellis and all the the tv cameras and tell everyone that the saafl are getting a 6.5 million dollar grant...... but HANG ON !!! they wont re-reimburse a club who is a struggling NON profit club from the unemployment heartland of our community and struggles for every single dollar they make... and those decision makers are the same people who caused us to lose that income... The pompass MC with the microphone even had the nerve to congratulate "his" Blackfriars on their Bgrade win (the press conference was after the Bs and before the As) and told everyone he is a proud blackfriars boy from wayback .. as far as i am concerned, it wasnt about punishing CUFC or TOS it was about having blackfriars there, no matter who they were playing... it just happen to be CUFC.... REALLY... why would the SAAFL want CUFC there for their big announcement ???? they didnt... they just wanted BOS there to keep the pompass private school suits happy.... AND within 10 minutes of the announcement... they all jumped in their chauffer driven limos and left !! didnt even watch the footy... i understand that our club ( some individuals) has been in some trouble this season, but changing a club doesnt happen overnight. and there are many club members doing the right thing , all clubs have some members that cause grief for everyone and we will work through our issues and get better. but the last thing we needed, is to lose revenue as well ...... go the Units... we will be back !! well done to Dutchy and the coaching staff for their efforts throughout this difficult season..

I think you'll find Bagster that this was an election time announcement occurring at a game where the politician had a past association with the Blackfriars school (not the football club). As secretary of the club I know there were 2 emails about the game - one on Thursday afternoon to advise the venue change and the arrangements for the day and another on Friday advising the B grade would start at 12pm.

Absolutely agree with your later post that the games were played without incident. The past is the past and as I pointed out in a previous post our 2 clubs have had some spirited contests in the past and are likely to do so in the future.

[bagster]

i understand it is election time, and we got the emails too, but it still doesnt tell me why the games needed to be moved and our club needed to be 3k down. if they wanted CUFC there to keep a watch on us why did they all leave , i highly doubt cufc would be their #1 choice to showcase SAAFL to the pollies and tv crews, surely 2-3 officials could have travelled north to our club and viewed our game and even have the oppotunity to view how their div 6 umpires handle a game (with the tv crews camped outside holdens everyday, the pollies could have done two press conferences in elizabeth ) and just for the record, i am not a committee member at cufc, im just a former player and my opinion is only my opinion. good luck to all clubs playing finals and good luck to our u-16s sitting top at the moment.

[zedman]

maybe it was moved from mofflin as punishment for the poo-gate affair?..if so, some prior warning should have been given you would think..

bad luck to the lakers getting pushed out of the 5 in rd 18..we know what that feels like after last year..

[morell]

A couple of people have since told me that there were a few reasons why it was moved. Mostly related to the on and off field record CU have and the need to mitigate as much risk as possible for the last round of the year.

Fair enough I would have thought.

[Robb_Stark]

Rosewater rest half the team on the weekend

[Cohiba]

A couple of people have since told me that there were a few reasons why it was moved. Mostly related to the on and off field record CU have and the need to mitigate as much risk as possible for the last round of the year.

Fair enough I would have thought.

Up to Round 18 "they did the crime" and "then they did the time"....metaphorically speaking. If the reason to mitigate a potential risk is based on past transgressions, that then should have been made clear to CU that they are in affect "on parole" with restrictions at the time of being handed the penalties (which they thoroughly deserved). The Leagues actions (if true) are seemingly based on the premise the entire Club is not to be trusted so presume the worst without any regard the impact any such action may have on a club that has already paid for its past transgressions....The Club has an image problem, they know it, and have already taken action to address these problems. If the League Executives concern is for a group of Pollies whose own governance has seen them effectively "stuff up" this country (IMO) during their time in office, are so sensitive about being exposed to Amateur League Football or wherever it is played, let them have the meeting at a Blackfriars Schoolboys game where there sensibilities may be less offended. But don't stuff up a Club's (good or bad) endeavours to raise finances from promoted events at such short notice based on the assumption of what might occur. At the very least the should have the decency consider to compensate them if the want to play "politics" ahead of the interests of one of its own members.

[secondstring]

A couple of people have since told me that there were a few reasons why it was moved. Mostly related to the on and off field record CU have and the need to mitigate as much risk as possible for the last round of the year.

Fair enough I would have thought.

Up to Round 18 "they did the crime" and "then they did the time"....metaphorically speaking. If the reason to mitigate a potential risk is based on past transgressions, that then should have been made clear to CU that they are in affect "on parole" with restrictions at the time of being handed the penalties (which they thoroughly deserved). The Leagues actions (if true) are seemingly based on the premise the entire Club is not to be trusted so presume the worst without any regard the impact any such action may have on a club that has already paid for its past transgressions....The Club has an image problem, they know it, and have already taken action to address these problems. If the League Executives concern is for a group of Pollies whose own governance has seen them effectively "stuff up" this country (IMO) during their time in office, are so sensitive about being exposed to Amateur League Football or wherever it is played, let them have the meeting at a Blackfriars Schoolboys game where there sensibilities may be less offended. But don't stuff up a Club's (good or bad) endeavours to raise finances from promoted events at such short notice based on the assumption of what might occur. At the very least the should have the decency consider to compensate them if the want to play "politics" ahead of the interests of one of its own members.

Probably one of the best posts i have read on this site. Yes the club has had some bad publicity in the past, but having no consideration for the effort they had put in for there home game crowd and sponsors day is wrong in my book.
If the club is to be punished, do it at the time, not on a Thursday before the game and making your decision on what you think may happen.

[morell]

I don't profess to knowing all the details and I agree that it's tough on CU who would have budgeted for that money, but...

Sometimes you have to lay in the bed you make.

EDIT - and furthermore, CU record is more than bad publicity or an image problem. Multiple multi-week suspensions and I think the worst tribunal record in a season for a long time. Understand better than most that its not an easy issue to fix and that brush shouldn't taint all, but lets not pretend CU are just a bunch of hard done by larakins who smeared some poo around. A club one division lower has been kicked out for similar things and from all reports CU are lucky to have avoided a similar fate and to be playing in that round at all.

[johnny bravo]

A couple of people have since told me that there were a few reasons why it was moved. Mostly related to the on and off field record CU have and the need to mitigate as much risk as possible for the last round of the year.

Fair enough I would have thought.

Up to Round 18 "they did the crime" and "then they did the time"....metaphorically speaking. If the reason to mitigate a potential risk is based on past transgressions, that then should have been made clear to CU that they are in affect "on parole" with restrictions at the time of being handed the penalties (which they thoroughly deserved). The Leagues actions (if true) are seemingly based on the premise the entire Club is not to be trusted so presume the worst without any regard the impact any such action may have on a club that has already paid for its past transgressions....The Club has an image problem, they know it, and have already taken action to address these problems. If the League Executives concern is for a group of Pollies whose own governance has seen them effectively "stuff up" this country (IMO) during their time in office, are so sensitive about being exposed to Amateur League Football or wherever it is played, let them have the meeting at a Blackfriars Schoolboys game where there sensibilities may be less offended. But don't stuff up a Club's (good or bad) endeavours to raise finances from promoted events at such short notice based on the assumption of what might occur. At the very least the should have the decency consider to compensate them if the want to play "politics" ahead of the interests of one of its own members.

Great Post
Mawson Lakes have reason to be angry also IMO, if this game was played at Central United they'd be playing finals this weekend. Football can be such a cruel mistress!

[morell]

I don't profess to knowing all the details and I agree that it's tough on CU who would have budgeted for that money, but...

Sometimes you have to lay in the bed you make.

EDIT - and furthermore, CU record is more than bad publicity or an image problem. Multiple multi-week suspensions and I think the worst tribunal record in a season for a long time. Understand better than most that its not an easy issue to fix and that brush shouldn't taint all, but lets not pretend CU are just a bunch of hard done by larakins who smeared some poo around. A club one division lower has been kicked out for similar things and from all reports CU are lucky to have avoided a similar fate and to be playing in that round at all.

For a Club that has had its own image problems in the past its good to see you cast the first stone M.

I’ll address this first.

What is it with SA Footy and casting and or throwing stones? Anyway. Mitchell Park’s on and off field discipline record is very, very good. I recently calculated us to be ranked around the 35th position (thug score of 2.53) out of 73 based on 10 years of tribunal and send offs data very graciously provided by an anonymous source. Central United are 5th (thug score of 4.79) – not including this year!

So yes, Mitchell Park’s public image issues are related to rumours, misconceptions, bad tattoos, silly haircuts and an ugly jumper rather than reality.

Central United’s public image issues shouldn’t even be classified as that as they are much more serious and grounded in the reality of on field thuggery and very poor off field behaviour.

You simply cannot compare Mitchell Park and Central United and I get real angry when Mitchell Park continually get brought up as some sort of thuggery poster child. We have been saints and scholars for a long time and even at our worst had nothing even close to CU’s record this season. I hazard a guess if Mitchell Park did get suspensions similar to what CU have gotten we would have been booted out by now.

Completely different clubs with completely different records. The only comparison to be made is perhaps the manner in which both sides play football – hard at it.

I have had the opportunity to speak to CU's President and understand that every element which has seen the club embarrassed brought into disrepute has or is being addressed. They are salvaging what has been a horror season on and off the field. If your compering the reasons why Smithfield got kicked out to against CU's record your a bit naïve.

Sure, I completely agree that the good eggs at CU, of which there are quite a few, are doing their utmost to rid the club of this cancerous rubbish, which heard about when our A grade were playing - carey very quickly stamped out some crap behind the goals and it was good to see. But still - there was crap going on behind the goals. Enough for me not to want to stick around after the B grade game. This was three weeks ago…

As for comparisons to Smithfield, I actually think CU have a worse on field record than Smithfield. Yes, I understand the extra reasons why Smithfield are potentially a bigger issue, however, in my opinion on field thuggery is generally a reflection of a clubs culture, both of which of late have been rooted in violence, one way or another.

If you know that the circumstances actually mirror each other then state your case and tell us by degree when Clubs should be suspended..........

If a player gets 16 weeks (?) they get a life ban. I think there should be something in place that if a club gets a combined ‘x’ amount of suspensions they should be looked at very strongly for a team suspension. At the moment this appears to be done ad-hoc and at the discretion of the league.

The fact is rightly or wrongly they did avoid a similar fate, they acknowledge the penalties as being deserving, but you don't punish a Club on the presumption of what may happen. In hindsight it probably as less to do with Photo ops, than keeping one's nose clean when you have sanctions placed upon you for behaviour.

Nah disagree. If a pattern of behaviour has been noticed and there are danger signs, the league should act as quickly as they can to mitigate that risk. That’s not acting on presumption, that is using a bit of strategic thought. If it means unfortunately taking away funds from a club that has repeatedly transgressed then so be it. Having said that maybe CU can look at reimbursements somehow - I am not sure on the realities of this however.

They can’t win the SAAFL, get kicked if they act, get kicked if they don’t.

[Cohiba]

I don't profess to knowing all the details and I agree that it's tough on CU who would have budgeted for that money, but...

Sometimes you have to lay in the bed you make.

EDIT - and furthermore, CU record is more than bad publicity or an image problem. Multiple multi-week suspensions and I think the worst tribunal record in a season for a long time. Understand better than most that its not an easy issue to fix and that brush shouldn't taint all, but lets not pretend CU are just a bunch of hard done by larakins who smeared some poo around. A club one division lower has been kicked out for similar things and from all reports CU are lucky to have avoided a similar fate and to be playing in that round at all.

Their record and subsequent penalties already deservingly "dished" out are not in dispute. If CU already had sanctions in place and was on notice to behave and failed to adhere to the conditions specified within those sanctions the League has a mandate to act accordingly. The consequences of that is they lost their home match without notice which in all probability could not be imposed before it was. A Really tough penalty but with the benefit of hindsight the Pollies photo op is good story but more a coincidence even more so because of the BOS affiliation and not relevant to what has transpired. To think otherwise as I had pointed out to me if their was a concern about image of or behaviour problem why would they have risked showcasing that negative in front of anyone no matter who they were. My earlier assertion was more a matter of due process and support for Club trying to survive on limited funding who at least is trying to get its act together or themselves face the real prospect of being suspended from this League or folding if they don't.

[Cohiba]

I deleted my earlier post M after reading through it. You were obviously lying in wait to pounce...go on yah.

[morell]

Probably agree the process perhaps wasn't the best.

Don't agree the outcome wasn't justified.

[morell]

I deleted my earlier post M after reading through it. You were obviously lying in wait to pounce...go on yah.

haha, not at all, I can type pretty fast!

As I said, without knowing the details of the internal process and from the outside it would appear as though it was flawed and perhaps some better communication and management might have helped.

... but in the end if the SAAFL thought that moving the game might save someone's jaw or perhaps even worse, then IMO that is enough of an argument for me.

[secondstring]

I deleted my earlier post M after reading through it. You were obviously lying in wait to pounce...go on yah.

haha, not at all, I can type pretty fast!

As I said, without knowing the details of the internal process and from the outside it would appear as though it was flawed and perhaps some better communication and management might have helped.

... but in the end if the SAAFL thought that moving the game might save someone's jaw or perhaps even worse, then IMO that is enough of an argument for me.

This is a cop out, what would have stopped this from happening at Thebarton? By all reports there was no SAAFL officials watching anyway? If it was going to happen it would've happened at any ground.