I do then wonder if the "Major Correction" is an SANFL side being either forced out of the competition or amalgamated with another side?

by Sojourner » Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:01 pm
by blueandwhite » Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:09 pm
by dash61 » Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:13 pm
by Barto » Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:41 pm
by MagareyLegend » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:08 am
by Psyber » Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:59 am
MagareyLegend wrote:WHAT?
None of this makes any sense someone please explain!
by redandblack » Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:44 am
by Booney » Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:55 am
by nickname » Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:20 am
redandblack wrote:
I suspect Whicker is possibly commenting about clubs who are looking for SANFL financial assistance, are making losses, but still have a bloated football operations budget.
by redandblack » Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:23 am
nickname wrote:redandblack wrote:
I suspect Whicker is possibly commenting about clubs who are looking for SANFL financial assistance, are making losses, but still have a bloated football operations budget.
Port Power ticks all three boxes there r&b.
by Booney » Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:36 am
nickname wrote:redandblack wrote:
I suspect Whicker is possibly commenting about clubs who are looking for SANFL financial assistance, are making losses, but still have a bloated football operations budget.
Port Power ticks all three boxes there r&b.
by nickname » Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:51 am
by darley16 » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:01 am
by Wedgie » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:09 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Sojourner » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:25 am
darley16 wrote:It appears from various sources (unamed of course) that the SANFL may be offering incentives to a few clubs to consider merging in light of both their own financial position, debt load etc and that of the larger global crisis which will impact on sponsorship and membership of some clubs. The SANFL see an 8 team comp with reduced salary cap in the vacinity of $150k as survival for the league. This could happen as soon as next year as a large accounting practise investigates the fical future of the comp. At this stage no supporter can feel safe that their club is imune the SANFL are serious in the survival of the comp if not in it's current structure.
Enjoy the 2009 season it may not be this way in 2010.
by Ronnie » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:43 am
by nickname » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:44 am
by am Bays » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:59 am
by Ronnie » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:16 am
1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:I dunno I think South would like to get some of their traditional Southern Adelaide suburbs back (well the ones they had in the 19th Century) off Sturt....![]()
Isn't eight teams the "most traditional" amount of teams we've had in the league 43 years compared to 27 with 10??
Personally I would hate to see the league weaken the competition by significantly cutting back the salary cap even though the AFL are putting the pressure on them to weaken our State League to the same standard of the VFL and WAFL.
I would hope any current review of the clubs' finacial situations would take into account current cashflows now that pokie punters have adjusted to the smoking legislation and redevelopments of licensed facilities have finished (Norwood, Eagles and Glenelg).
by o five » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:35 am
blueandwhite wrote:.. Might also be referring to Salary cap abuse, as one club is about to find out.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |