Community football board

[Howard]

[

Aceman - your post re: clubs using preferred suppliers etc, I don't know anything about that, except to say, if the CFB are able to negotiate better deals for clubs (ie for their apparel etc) it then gets down to the individual clubs to make those financial decisions, they (the clubs) will go wherever they can get the best price. In the end the CFB have only given clubs the option to use these suppliers, it's the club that makes the final call.

Well maybe you should do some catching up!
Sorry Howard, you are so far removed from what's happening it's just not funny.
I refer to your comment about "sew on or iron on badges" which is possible but it's not that easy. Will the preferred supplier do them at No Charge? I think not but it might be a good exercise in public relations if they did. So my club replaces their jumpers every 5-6 years, our current set is 12 months old and in 2012 we have to have the CFL logo on them. Incidentally, we are almost in West Australia, we're that far from Adelaide. I approach one of the PS for a price, how much is it going to cost me to "badge" 100 jumpers, A B, Senior & Junior colts. A sewon badge around $6.60 then someone's got to sew it on. A heat transfer, which has to be put on with a special machine, costs probably similar to apply cause you can't do them with your everyday iron, so I have to send the jumpers to Adelaide which will cost me $50.00 min each way to transport them.
Cost of all this 100 @ $6.60 $660.00 plus transport $100.00 all this because the CFL wants their name up in lights.
A few years ago SAB did a deal with SACA for XXXX beer and supplied every club with transfers to be applied which could be put on using a normal iron,nowhere near as big a task but at least they showed some initiative and diluted the costs. So why couldn't the brains trust at West Lakes think along these same lines and give clubs not requiring to purchase jumpers until 2012 the same opportunity?



Another example;
Hypothetically, I own a sports store at Nungikompita and have been supplying jumpers, shorts & socks to 3 clubs within a 100km radius for 20 years, I buy all of this from a manufacturer in Adelaide who gives me a "wholesale rate of around 10-15% off invoice " to enable me to onsell and at least make something for my trouble. I now am at the whim of the 6 PS who, before they even 'get out of bed', have committed to pay a rebate to the CFB and give free stock in the form of jumpers,shorts,socks to out fit SA Country teams so the SANFL doesn't have that expense, so e.g. a 10% impost goes on the price of the jumpers before anything is done, so my buy price has increased which I can't absorb so I have to pass this on to clubs. The clubs ring the 6 PS, they're given a price which is obviously cheaper than I can do it so I stand to lose the sale or cut the price to the bone and go broke.
Remember, for 20 years I have been giving these clubs vouchers, discount footies(SFA in footies anyway) and many other things including 60 or 90 days credit so where does this leave me with the supply of footy gear to the local clubs?
I'll tell you, up sh*t creek in a barbwire canoe minus the paddle, thanks very much.[/quote]

The point I was trying to make re the sew on badges etc was that clubs do not have to purchase new sets of guernseys by 2012. You have calculated all the costs involved in sewing on or iron on style, then further down describe how the SACA negotiated a deal to supply an (ordinary) iron on version and were able to dilute the costs, therefore, it is possible to get (ordinary) iron on style transfers - the SACA proved that, and secondly has anyone bothered to put this to the CFB? Now is the time to negotiate, they the CFB are obviously aware of the situation and may well come to the party to assist - not sure but worth asking surely.

Your other comments re owning your sports store etc; your first few points about that state that once you've taken the order you buy all this from "a manufacturer in Adelaide" - the rest is irrelevant as why can't this fictitious manufacturer be a preferred supplier - they will still operate the same ie "wholesale rate 10 - 15% off invoice" still enabling you to on sell. With six preferred suppliers, why can't you negotiate a good deal???

[uncle_fester]

Your other comments re owning your sports store etc; your first few points about that state that once you've taken the order you buy all this from "a manufacturer in Adelaide" - the rest is irrelevant as why can't this fictitious manufacturer be a preferred supplier - they will still operate the same ie "wholesale rate 10 - 15% off invoice" still enabling you to on sell. With six preferred suppliers, why can't you negotiate a good deal???

do you think wholesalers are going to want to make less $$ - i dont think so!
if they have to pay a rebate (or kickback) they have to find the $$ from somewhere.
easiest place is to decrease the discount offered to resellers.
and/or increase the pricing of merchandise.
(remember, NOTHING is for free - you pay for it one way or another)

how does any of this help clubs?

[Howard]

Your other comments re owning your sports store etc; your first few points about that state that once you've taken the order you buy all this from "a manufacturer in Adelaide" - the rest is irrelevant as why can't this fictitious manufacturer be a preferred supplier - they will still operate the same ie "wholesale rate 10 - 15% off invoice" still enabling you to on sell. With six preferred suppliers, why can't you negotiate a good deal???

do you think wholesalers are going to want to make less $$ - i dont think so!
i[b]f they have to pay a rebate (or kickback)[/b] they have to find the $$ from somewhere.
easiest place is to decrease the discount offered to resellers.
and/or increase the pricing of merchandise.
(remember, NOTHING is for free - you pay for it one way or another)

how does any of this help clubs?

Hi Fester, loved you in the Adams family by the way - anyway, a couple of highlighted points -
every wholesaler in business is obviously there to make a profit etc, I don't see the difference here, clubs have got a choice - negotiate the best deal from either your local supplier, or one of the six preferred - it happens in business all the time, clubs make these financial decisions about where there dollar goes. proof will be in the final number - I still think having the largest amount of choices is going to result in better deals for clubs, not the other way around.

The clubs are being helped by having these choices presented to them, and then being able to negotiate the best deals possible. I'd be interested to hear from clubs who are actually in the process of purchasing and compare previous prices etc. The ultimate proof I guess, would be are clubs actually paying more or less for their apparel??

[aceman]

The point I was trying to make re the sew on badges etc was that clubs do not have to purchase new sets of guernseys by 2012. You have calculated all the costs involved in sewing on or iron on style, then further down describe how the SACA negotiated a deal to supply an (ordinary) iron on version and were able to dilute the costs, therefore, it is possible to get (ordinary) iron on style transfers - the SACA proved that, and secondly has anyone bothered to put this to the CFB? Now is the time to negotiate, they the CFB are obviously aware of the situation and may well come to the party to assist - not sure but worth asking surely.
Your other comments re owning your sports store etc; your first few points about that state that once you've taken the order you buy all this from "a manufacturer in Adelaide" - the rest is irrelevant as why can't this fictitious manufacturer be a preferred supplier - they will still operate the same ie "wholesale rate 10 - 15% off invoice" still enabling you to on sell. With six preferred suppliers, why can't you negotiate a good deal???


Surely I don't have to spell this out to you;

The SAB went to a maker of these badges and bought 5.000 of them so of course it's possible to get them, no argument about that. Why doesn't the CFL take a leaf out of SAB's book and do it without any prompting (as you suggest, it shouldn't be up to clubs to think up these solutions) if they want them on the apparel, get of their ar$e, get them made and give them to the clubs that need them! That's what they are there for, not sitting waiting for ordinary Joe to come up with all the ideas.

Your other point, albeit not clear so we'll do some maths;

Season 2009 jumpers from Supplier X $42.00 + GST, negotiable for a quantity(100) to maybe $38.00 + GST 100 units
Season 2010 jumpers from Supplier X who is now a Pref Sup. $46.50 + GST or down to $42.00 + GST for 100 units

My price as a sports store was $42.00 - $4.20@ 10% retailer discount = $37.80
My new price is $46.50 - $4.65@10% retailer discount = $41.85 less 10% rebate to CFL = $37.66

so the CFL supplier is losing an additional .14 cents a unit from 12 months ago if his discount remains constant.

The major beneficiaries in this are the companies who source product from o/seas, cost to produce much cheaper so can give more discount.
Production cost local $27-$30, O/seas $18 -$20 so you don't need to be Einstein to work it out.

Do you honestly believe that's good business and it doesn't matter what your starting price is, the numbers still come out the same.

Supplier X is very happy to tell people that he is not going to lose the 10% he pays to the SAAFL or the CFB in rebates on his sales of jumpers, shorts & socks.
No supplier (sorry with 1 exception who is trying to make a big impact on the SA footy scene) will forego the 10% from their bottom line or whatever figure they may have offered as rebate figures which could be different, but I doubt it.
We have reached an impasse on negotiation as a 'middle man" because the 10% will always be there for pref Sup.

[the watcher]

can someone please explain why we need there logo on our gear , what benifit is it to anyone ?

[Mythical Creature]

can someone please explain why we need there logo on our gear , what benifit is it to anyone ?

This is the whole issue summed up in one sentence. As far as I can figure, the CFB want logos on jumpers by 2012 so that each club is forced to buy new jumpers, thus ensuring that 10% goes to the CFB. Surely competition between all of the suppliers that we have statewide is better than limiting it to 6! Don't let the CFB tell you they are getting jumpers cheaper for you because this is not the case.

[Howard]

The point I was trying to make re the sew on badges etc was that clubs do not have to purchase new sets of guernseys by 2012. You have calculated all the costs involved in sewing on or iron on style, then further down describe how the SACA negotiated a deal to supply an (ordinary) iron on version and were able to dilute the costs, therefore, it is possible to get (ordinary) iron on style transfers - the SACA proved that, and secondly has anyone bothered to put this to the CFB? Now is the time to negotiate, they the CFB are obviously aware of the situation and may well come to the party to assist - not sure but worth asking surely.
Your other comments re owning your sports store etc; your first few points about that state that once you've taken the order you buy all this from "a manufacturer in Adelaide" - the rest is irrelevant as why can't this fictitious manufacturer be a preferred supplier - they will still operate the same ie "wholesale rate 10 - 15% off invoice" still enabling you to on sell. With six preferred suppliers, why can't you negotiate a good deal???


Surely I don't have to spell this out to you;

The SAB went to a maker of these badges and bought 5.000 of them so of course it's possible to get them, no argument about that. Why doesn't the CFL take a leaf out of SAB's book and do it without any prompting (as you suggest, it shouldn't be up to clubs to think up these solutions) if they want them on the apparel, get of their ar$e, get them made and give them to the clubs that need them! That's what they are there for, not sitting waiting for ordinary Joe to come up with all the ideas.

Your other point, albeit not clear so we'll do some maths;

Season 2009 jumpers from Supplier X $42.00 + GST, negotiable for a quantity(100) to maybe $38.00 + GST 100 units
Season 2010 jumpers from Supplier X who is now a Pref Sup. $46.50 + GST or down to $42.00 + GST for 100 units

My price as a sports store was $42.00 - $4.20@ 10% retailer discount = $37.80
My new price is $46.50 - $4.65@10% retailer discount = $41.85 less 10% rebate to CFL = $37.66

so the CFL supplier is losing an additional .14 cents a unit from 12 months ago if his discount remains constant.

The major beneficiaries in this are the companies who source product from o/seas, cost to produce much cheaper so can give more discount.
Production cost local $27-$30, O/seas $18 -$20 so you don't need to be Einstein to work it out.

Do you honestly believe that's good business and it doesn't matter what your starting price is, the numbers still come out the same.

Supplier X is very happy to tell people that he is not going to lose the 10% he pays to the SAAFL or the CFB in rebates on his sales of jumpers, shorts & socks.
No supplier (sorry with 1 exception who is trying to make a big impact on the SA footy scene) will forego the 10% from their bottom line or whatever figure they may have offered as rebate figures which could be different, but I doubt it.
We have reached an impasse on negotiation as a 'middle man" because the 10% will always be there for pref Sup.

Apologies aceman for being thick but it seems you do have to spell it our for me - if that's what it takes to get the full story I'm sure you won't mind.

When discussing the logos, it seems you're pissed because the CFB hasn't already thought about providing the logos, that's why I suggested you ask them??

I do struggle with all this mathematics, it's just so confusing for a thickhead like me, but am I right in assuming, as per your calculations, that the difference in costs equate to .14 cents per unit (if the discounts remain constant) so we're talking about $14.00 on an order of 100 units??

Also, if one supplier is prepared to forego the 10% why don't clubs use them? The other suppliers will soon have to match it to compete, that's what a competitive market will give you.

DISCLAIMER: IF I HAVE GOT THE NUMBERS WRONG I DO APOLOGISE IN ADVANCE AND HOPE YOU WILL NOT THINK TO HARSHLY OF ME AS A CONSEQUENCE

[Clever Dick]

There are around 12 manufacturers/ distributors in SA of footy playing apparel excluding sports stores.

Jax Sports*
SportsCentre*
Graphpak*
Custom Corp*
JS Sports
Kombat - Qld
KooGa - Qld*
Sandy Nelson - Canterbury
Tony Roach - Sports Bureau
IDM* with Cougar Vict
Hughes & Loveday - with Cougar Vict
AllSports Athol Park
Sekem Sam Parkinson

If I've missed anyone, my apologies, feel free to add it in.



And what about this anomaly, the Western Border league is affiliated with the SANFL, yet their jumpers are badged VCFL and come via Cougar in Melbourne who have the VCFL license.
I wonder if that could eventually rear it's ugly head in other SA leagues at some stage?

[Howard]

Your other comments re owning your sports store etc; your first few points about that state that once you've taken the order you buy all this from "a manufacturer in Adelaide" - the rest is irrelevant as why can't this fictitious manufacturer be a preferred supplier - they will still operate the same ie "wholesale rate 10 - 15% off invoice" still enabling you to on sell. With six preferred suppliers, why can't you negotiate a good deal???


OMG, how do you work out "the rest is irrelevant?"

The pref Supplier now has to add on/find an EXTRA 10% to pay his rebate to the CFL FGS. and he more than likely maybe a pref Supplier that I would use.
There are around 12 manufacturers/ distributors in SA of footy playing apparel excluding sports stores.

Jax Sports
SportsCentre
Graphpak
Custom Corp
JS Sports
Kombat - Qld
KooGa - Qld
Sandy Nelson - Canterbury
Tony Roach - Sports Bureau
IDM with Cougar Vict
Hughes & Loveday - with Cougar Vict
AllSports Athol Park
Sekem Sam Parkinson

If I've missed anyone, my apologies, feel free to add it in.



And what about this anomaly, the Western Border league is affiliated with the SANFL, yet their jumpers are badged VCFL and come via Cougar in Melbourne who have the VCFL license.
I wonder if that could eventually rear it's ugly head in other SA leagues at some stage?

Apologies Clever what I meant to say was the rest of his (aceman's) post was irrelevant. It's amazing how two people can read the same thing and come up with two different versions of the story. Anyway, sorry bout that.

In all our discussions, I think we may be going round in circles and surely the question should be - are the clubs paying more, less or the same for their apparel? This is what will truly determine if this arrangement is beneficial to the clubs. Can you at least agree with me on that point?

[Clever Dick]

Your other comments re owning your sports store etc; your first few points about that state that once you've taken the order you buy all this from "a manufacturer in Adelaide" - the rest is irrelevant as why can't this fictitious manufacturer be a preferred supplier - they will still operate the same ie "wholesale rate 10 - 15% off invoice" still enabling you to on sell. With six preferred suppliers, why can't you negotiate a good deal???


OMG, how do you work out "the rest is irrelevant?"

The pref Supplier now has to add on/find an EXTRA 10% to pay his rebate to the CFL FGS. and he more than likely maybe a pref Supplier that I would use.
There are around 12 manufacturers/ distributors in SA of footy playing apparel excluding sports stores.

Jax Sports
SportsCentre
Graphpak
Custom Corp
JS Sports
Kombat - Qld
KooGa - Qld
Sandy Nelson - Canterbury
Tony Roach - Sports Bureau
IDM with Cougar Vict
Hughes & Loveday - with Cougar Vict
AllSports Athol Park
Sekem Sam Parkinson

If I've missed anyone, my apologies, feel free to add it in.



And what about this anomaly, the Western Border league is affiliated with the SANFL, yet their jumpers are badged VCFL and come via Cougar in Melbourne who have the VCFL license.
I wonder if that could eventually rear it's ugly head in other SA leagues at some stage?

Apologies Clever what I meant to say was the rest of his (aceman's) post was irrelevant. It's amazing how two people can read the same thing and come up with two different versions of the story. Anyway, sorry bout that.

In all our discussions, I think we may be going round in circles and surely the question should be - are the clubs paying more, less or the same for their apparel? This is what will truly determine if this arrangement is beneficial to the clubs. Can you at least agree with me on that point?

I do agree with that.
In my experience, they are paying more for all playing apparel from the majority of the preferred suppliers. I have done the hard yards on this and have comparable pricing and that tells me that only 1 of them is just under the $40 mark for jumpers, and the highest is 10% more than they were in 2009 at $46.50. The others have all increased their list price from last season.

[aceman]

Apologies aceman for being thick but it seems you do have to spell it our for me - if that's what it takes to get the full story I'm sure you won't mind.
Sarcasm is not one of your better points Howard!

When discussing the logos, it seems you're pissed because the CFB hasn't already thought about providing the logos, that's why I suggested you ask them??
Why aren't they proactive and think of these things instead of waiting for someone else to come up with the idea?
I do struggle with all this mathematics, it's just so confusing for a thickhead like me, but am I right in assuming, as per your calculations, that the difference in costs equate to .14 cents per unit (if the discounts remain constant) so we're talking about $14.00 on an order of 100 units??
Also, if one supplier is prepared to forego the 10% why don't clubs use them? The other suppliers will soon have to match it to compete, that's what a competitive market will give you. The market is no longer totally competitive as more than half of the suppliers are not included in it, it's only competitive between the preferred 6.
DISCLAIMER: IF I HAVE GOT THE NUMBERS WRONG I DO APOLOGISE IN ADVANCE AND HOPE YOU WILL NOT THINK TO HARSHLY OF ME AS A CONSEQUENCE[/quote]



1/ I'm not sure any supplier is in business to lose money irrespective of the value
2/ The Pr Supp I'm certain are not prepared to forego the extra 10% they need to pay the CFL rebates( if you go back to a previous post you will find approx production costs of which I have a reasonable knowledge, I suggest maybe 25-30% is the maximum margin they are working on) and as the instruction stands from that body, from 2012, they are the only suppliers/manufacturers who are licensed to put the CFB logo on playing apparel. That precludes all of the others from the contest as per CD's list


Plus the fact a lot of clubs are sh*t frightened to go against what the CFB are saying they MUST do.

[EB53]

Can any of the posters shed some light on the future of juniour football and its various associations if it comes under the banner of the CFB ?

[Howard]

Hi aceman - I promise to stop the sarcasm, as long as you agree to do the same eg with comments like - " Do I have to spell this out for you" etc etc - so let's just stick to the issue and stop trying to put each other down??

Anyway, in response to your previous post, I am wondering, why are you going completely ballistic over the point of whether the CFB has or has not thought about supplying logos, surely it's a bit of an over reaction.

You also say that there is only competition between the 6 preferred suppliers, but clubs are still in the position of determining who they use, they can still use someone from outside the preferred six, once again big question is:- What do the clubs eventually pay for the product? - Clever Dick has posted some prices - which is an initial indication of costs etc. but it may well be the case that the suppliers need to be more flexible to gain the business, but does this mean that clubs will get a better deal in the end. I assume we are here to get what's best for the clubs - not the suppliers??

[aceman]

Hi aceman - I promise to stop the sarcasm, as long as you agree to do the same eg with comments like - " Do I have to spell this out for you" etc etc - so let's just stick to the issue and stop trying to put each other down??

Anyway, in response to your previous post, I am wondering, why are you going completely ballistic over the point of whether the CFB has or has not thought about supplying logos, surely it's a bit of an over reaction.

I don't believe that something that is being forced on clubs as is this "badging of apparel" should be at a cost to the clubs. Therefore, as the SACA/SAB XXXX deal was done a few years back, so should this, but the Marketing people at the SANFL/CFL are paid to think of these ideas/options, not me.

You also say that there is only competition between the 6 preferred suppliers, but clubs are still in the position of determining who they use, they can still use someone from outside the preferred six, once again big question is:- What do the clubs eventually pay for the product? - Clever Dick has posted some prices - which is an initial indication of costs etc. but it may well be the case that the suppliers need to be more flexible to gain the business, but does this mean that clubs will get a better deal in the end. I assume we are here to get what's best for the clubs - not the suppliers??

]May I suggest to you that most clubs in SA are sh*t frightened to go against the direction the CFB has put out into the footy world about only using "Preferred Suppliers". This message, along with some information circulated by some of those suppliers has got clubs quite jumpy and they are not game enough to go against these instructions. If you go back through this thread you will note some instances, actual copies of emails etc from club people with "real concerns". This is a "real issue, not a make out" one and even to the point as we have discussed previously, a club secretary was told by Glen Rosser they faced "loss of points" if they did not adhere to the CFL instructions.

[aceman]

Which league board member has been "invited" to join the CFB? Problem is, it can only happen providing he resigns from his position as a Director of that league?
Seems they don't want people holding dual positions. Now that brings up all sorts of questions, I seem to recollect something along this line in another league but it isn't seen as a problem.
Double standards maybe????

From a reliable source;
Maybe this spot is up for grabs because of Tim Jackson's resignation about 4 weeks ago from the CFB.
I wonder why that happened?

[Howard]

Which league board member has been "invited" to join the CFB? Problem is, it can only happen providing he resigns from his position as a Director of that league?
Seems they don't want people holding dual positions. Now that brings up all sorts of questions, I seem to recollect something along this line in another league but it isn't seen as a problem.
Double standards maybe????

From a reliable source;
Maybe this spot is up for grabs because of Tim Jackson's resignation about 4 weeks ago from the CFB.
I wonder why that happened?

The reason I entered this debate was to question some of the rubbish that has been wheeled out by disgruntled administrators, who have had their positions threatened by the creation of the CFB.
They (the SANFL) created this new body to take the place of the Affiliated leagues council, I'm sure you know that, the old model was full of people with vested interests ie they were members of leagues and clubs that could be adversely or positively affected by decisions made by the council, that was the main reason the new group was to be totally autonomous, so that no conflict of interest could get in the way of their decision making.

Once again you have entered into the realm of conspiracy theories questioning why Tim Jackson resigned, if there is something in it (his resignation) let's hear about it, not "wonder why that happened" If you don't know (why he resigned) please don't assume the sky is falling in.

[Howard]

Hi aceman - I promise to stop the sarcasm, as long as you agree to do the same eg with comments like - " Do I have to spell this out for you" etc etc - so let's just stick to the issue and stop trying to put each other down??

Anyway, in response to your previous post, I am wondering, why are you going completely ballistic over the point of whether the CFB has or has not thought about supplying logos, surely it's a bit of an over reaction.

I don't believe that something that is being forced on clubs as is this "badging of apparel" should be at a cost to the clubs. Therefore, as the SACA/SAB XXXX deal was done a few years back, so should this, but the Marketing people at the SANFL/CFL are paid to think of these ideas/options, not me.

You also say that there is only competition between the 6 preferred suppliers, but clubs are still in the position of determining who they use, they can still use someone from outside the preferred six, once again big question is:- What do the clubs eventually pay for the product? - Clever Dick has posted some prices - which is an initial indication of costs etc. but it may well be the case that the suppliers need to be more flexible to gain the business, but does this mean that clubs will get a better deal in the end. I assume we are here to get what's best for the clubs - not the suppliers??

]May I suggest to you that most clubs in SA are sh*t frightened to go against the direction the CFB has put out into the footy world about only using "Preferred Suppliers". This message, along with some information circulated by some of those suppliers has got clubs quite jumpy and they are not game enough to go against these instructions. If you go back through this thread you will note some instances, actual copies of emails etc from club people with "real concerns". This is a "real issue, not a make out" one and even to the point as we have discussed previously, a club secretary was told by Glen Rosser they faced "loss of points" if they did not adhere to the CFL instructions.

Aceman - I am questioning your basic premise that clubs have to go via the preferred suppliers - I reckon we've already discussed (and proved) that local clubs can go through local suppliers (who in turn go to the preferred guys) but if a club wants to remain loyal to their local supplier they can. It may well be the case that the information being circulated that have the clubs "quite jumpy" is not coming from the CFB but rather the suppliers in an attempt to have the clubs come to them direct.

The point about a club secretary being told that their club could lose points - I'd be interested to know the context of that discussion, was it over the apparel or something else?? Or was there a misunderstanding?? I suspect you'll say there was no misunderstanding but as far as I'm concerned I'd like to get the full story ie what can they lose points for??

[aceman]

Which league board member has been "invited" to join the CFB? Problem is, it can only happen providing he resigns from his position as a Director of that league?
Seems they don't want people holding dual positions. Now that brings up all sorts of questions, I seem to recollect something along this line in another league but it isn't seen as a problem.
Double standards maybe????

From a reliable source;
Maybe this spot is up for grabs because of Tim Jackson's resignation about 4 weeks ago from the CFB.
I wonder why that happened?

The reason I entered this debate was to question some of the rubbish that has been wheeled out by disgruntled administrators, who have had their positions threatened by the creation of the CFB.
They (the SANFL) created this new body to take the place of the Affiliated leagues council, I'm sure you know that, the old model was full of people with vested interests ie they were members of leagues and clubs that could be adversely or positively affected by decisions made by the council, that was the main reason the new group was to be totally autonomous, so that no conflict of interest could get in the way of their decision making.

Once again you have entered into the realm of conspiracy theories questioning why Tim Jackson resigned, if there is something in it (his resignation) let's hear about it, not "wonder why that happened" If you don't know (why he resigned) please don't assume the sky is falling in.

Howard for God's sake, it's a simple question!
I don't know why, I was told by a respected SA journalist he had resigned so I posed the question and if the "sky falls in" you'll no doubt hear about before anyone else.
How that becomes "a conspiracy theory" is beyond not only me, but most other mortals as well!
You are suggesting questions cannot be put forward, is that how you think? That sounds very much like someone who is geared to speak "spin'. Are you a reject politician?
Sh*t, I probably shouldn't ask that as it will be perceived by you to be as you call it, reverting to whatever.
Please pm your number, I'd love to discuss this, you sound somewhat familiar.

[aceman]

The point about a club secretary being told that their club could lose points - I'd be interested to know the context of that discussion, was it over the apparel or something else?? Or was there a misunderstanding?? I suspect you'll say there was no misunderstanding but as far as I'm concerned I'd like to get the full story ie what can they lose points for??[/quote]


Would it really matter to you about the "context of that discussion"?
I suggest you are accusing both me and also the club secretary of mishandling the truth. Why can't or won't you accept that this did happen, who gives a "rats" about the context, this guy was told by Rosser that it was possible his club could be deducted/ lose/ retracted or whatever term you wish to invent, premiership points for non compliance and you are trying your best to create something that is not within the limitations of your jurisdiction.

[aceman]

can someone please explain why we need there logo on our gear , what benifit is it to anyone ?

This is the whole issue summed up in one sentence. As far as I can figure, the CFB want logos on jumpers by 2012 so that each club is forced to buy new jumpers, thus ensuring that 10% goes to the CFB. Surely competition between all of the suppliers that we have statewide is better than limiting it to 6! Don't let the CFB tell you they are getting jumpers cheaper for you because this is not the case.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FOOTBALL LEAGUE INC
REGULATIONS
V:\Community Football\Rules and Regulations\Community Football League Regulations Updated December 2009.doc
Page 26
30.1.1 Observe, obey and comply with:
30.1.1.1 The SANFL Constitution, the SANFL Regulations, the
SACFL Constitution and these Regulations in so far as
they apply to such person, Affiliated League or Affiliated
League Club; and
30.1.1.2 Any decision or direction of or direction made by the
Football Commission and/or the Board; and
30.1.1.3 Any agreement to which the SANFL, SACFL, Affiliated
League or Affiliated League Club is a party to the extent
that he is legally capable of so doing.


The above probably sums it up nicely.