SA Footy

Bounce of the ball wrote:What is your point ?

Nobody is blaming afl reserves solely for GFCS financial predicament.

We are just laughing at the claim afl reserves was a financial solution for sanfl clubs. As many of us predicted (refer pages 1-50 of this thread) it's just one of many untruths used to sell this Shitbox.

No less than two seasons after the backstabbers have been included into the comp only 2 of 8 clubs are profitable.

What more needs to be said

Tell us then Wedgie

It is a 3 milllion dollar debt . Surely you are not that silly to think the AFL reserves teams made that . Yes 2 clubs voted no , so what are they now doing to "stop the rot ' if they think it is so important. Have they organised a club only meeting to discuss it and propose a reason why it should not happen and convince clubs to say no ? Have they rejected the 50k from the crows or just taken and ran ? I am against the AFL reserves, have said many times. Too many hide behind the AFL reserves inclusion as to losing money.

Where is your data to say the clubs are losing money because of it. Happy to see it and hopefully it is in your favor.

Go and get the appropriate number , as per the clubs constitution and vote your board out and then it is easily changed.

Bounce of the ball wrote:Tell us then Wedgie

Are u serious ???

Like a little boy wanting daddys approval mate. Funny .insecure but funny.

I remember the Crows Big Wigs saying that 4000 people will go and watch their reserves side.
Clubs were probably banking on some extra money on that!!!
When the Bloods play them, I only see three old ladies in crows track suits and that's about it!!

Bounce of the ball wrote:It is a 3 milllion dollar debt . Surely you are not that silly to think the AFL reserves teams made that . Yes 2 clubs voted no , so what are they now doing to "stop the rot ' if they think it is so important. Have they organised a club only meeting to discuss it and propose a reason why it should not happen and convince clubs to say no ? Have they rejected the 50k from the crows or just taken and ran ? I am against the AFL reserves, have said many times. Too many hide behind the AFL reserves inclusion as to losing money.

Where is your data to say the clubs are losing money because of it. Happy to see it and hopefully it is in your favor.

Go and get the appropriate number , as per the clubs constitution and vote your board out and then it is easily changed.

Apart from repeatedly agreeing with you that GFCS debt can not be blamed on AFL reserves solely I'm not sure what else to say BOuncy. I've maintained constantly Chiggy is the main culprit for GFCS situation.

I think I've stated it three times now. Maybe u need me to write it in crayon for you to fully Understand.

Not sure what else I can do tbh.

UK Fan wrote:

Bounce of the ball wrote:It is a 3 milllion dollar debt . Surely you are not that silly to think the AFL reserves teams made that . Yes 2 clubs voted no , so what are they now doing to "stop the rot ' if they think it is so important. Have they organised a club only meeting to discuss it and propose a reason why it should not happen and convince clubs to say no ? Have they rejected the 50k from the crows or just taken and ran ? I am against the AFL reserves, have said many times. Too many hide behind the AFL reserves inclusion as to losing money.

Where is your data to say the clubs are losing money because of it. Happy to see it and hopefully it is in your favor.

Go and get the appropriate number , as per the clubs constitution and vote your board out and then it is easily changed.

Apart from repeatedly agreeing with you that GFCS debt can not be blamed on AFL reserves solely I'm not sure what else to say BOuncy. I've maintained constantly Chiggy is the main culprit for GFCS situation.

I think I've stated it three times now. Maybe u need me to write it in crayon for you to fully Understand.

Not sure what else I can do tbh.

I'll give it a go.
Glenelg (and 5 other clubs) sold its (their) soul(s) in exchange for financial security.
Now they are broke!!!
Boom tish!
Do you get it now BOTB?

In reality a unanimous NO vote would not have changed the current plight of most of the clubs re finances and debt. so blaming that is naive. Simple fact is the clubs in trouble have incurred debt and spent beyond income.

UK Fan wrote:

Bounce of the ball wrote:What is your point ?

Nobody is blaming afl reserves solely for GFCS financial predicament.

We are just laughing at the claim afl reserves was a financial solution for sanfl clubs. As many of us predicted (refer pages 1-50 of this thread) it's just one of many untruths used to sell this Shitbox.

No less than two seasons after the backstabbers have been included into the comp only 2 of 8 clubs are profitable.

What more needs to be said

Was there an actual claim of this sort made & if so by who.

cracka wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

Bounce of the ball wrote:What is your point ?

Nobody is blaming afl reserves solely for GFCS financial predicament.

We are just laughing at the claim afl reserves was a financial solution for sanfl clubs. As many of us predicted (refer pages 1-50 of this thread) it's just one of many untruths used to sell this Shitbox.

No less than two seasons after the backstabbers have been included into the comp only 2 of 8 clubs are profitable.

What more needs to be said

Was there an actual claim of this sort made & if so by who.

Yep by slaven Tripodi chigwidden and co. at information evenings.


It has been quoted via this thread on numerous occasions. As stated previously refer the first 50 pages of this thread for confirmation.

UK Fan wrote:

cracka wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

Bounce of the ball wrote:What is your point ?

Nobody is blaming afl reserves solely for GFCS financial predicament.

We are just laughing at the claim afl reserves was a financial solution for sanfl clubs. As many of us predicted (refer pages 1-50 of this thread) it's just one of many untruths used to sell this Shitbox.

No less than two seasons after the backstabbers have been included into the comp only 2 of 8 clubs are profitable.

What more needs to be said

Was there an actual claim of this sort made & if so by who.

Yep by slaven Tripodi chigwidden and co. at information evenings.


It has been quoted via this thread on numerous occasions. As stated previously refer the first 50 pages of this thread for confirmation.

So the words were actually said "having the crows & power reserves in the SANFL will solve all our financial woes" or were they misinterpreted that way. I wouldn't know as I wasn't at any of those info sessions so I'm going on the words of forum users who more than likely have an agenda to push.

on the rails wrote:In reality a unanimous NO vote would not have changed the current plight of most of the clubs re finances and debt. so blaming that is naive. Simple fact is the clubs in trouble have incurred debt and spent beyond income.

Correct.

on the rails wrote:In reality a unanimous NO vote would not have changed the current plight of most of the clubs re finances and debt. so blaming that is naive. Simple fact is the clubs in trouble have incurred debt and spent beyond income.

Maybe not but would rather my club die without the cancers in the comp

I can tell you that an AFL club official, in a conversation with me, did say something along the lines of: The SANFL needs the AFL sides in the competition for greater financial security.

I can't remember the exact quote, but it was certainly part of the language that the AFL clubs were using at the time.

Jim05 wrote:

on the rails wrote:In reality a unanimous NO vote would not have changed the current plight of most of the clubs re finances and debt. so blaming that is naive. Simple fact is the clubs in trouble have incurred debt and spent beyond income.

Maybe not but would rather my club die without the cancers in the comp

100% agree.

Dogwatcher wrote:I can tell you that an AFL club official, in a conversation with me, did say something along the lines of: The SANFL needs the AFL sides in the competition for greater financial security.

I can't remember the exact quote, but it was certainly part of the language that the AFL clubs were using at the time.

and that line was being run by the SANFL clubs who voted yes

cracka wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

cracka wrote:

UK Fan wrote:
Nobody is blaming afl reserves solely for GFCS financial predicament.

We are just laughing at the claim afl reserves was a financial solution for sanfl clubs. As many of us predicted (refer pages 1-50 of this thread) it's just one of many untruths used to sell this Shitbox.

No less than two seasons after the backstabbers have been included into the comp only 2 of 8 clubs are profitable.

What more needs to be said

Was there an actual claim of this sort made & if so by who.

Yep by slaven Tripodi chigwidden and co. at information evenings.


It has been quoted via this thread on numerous occasions. As stated previously refer the first 50 pages of this thread for confirmation.

So the words were actually said "having the crows & power reserves in the SANFL will solve all our financial woes" or were they misinterpreted that way. I wouldn't know as I wasn't at any of those info sessions so I'm going on the words of forum users who more than likely have an agenda to push.

Maybe reference The first 50 pages as stated repeatedly if you need direct quotes. But yes it was sold on the basis we needed to do it to secure sanfl clubs financial future(one of many false promises btw)




SANFL fans are the ones with agendas re: afl reserves.

Now I've heard it all.

UK Fan wrote:Maybe reference The first 50 pages as stated repeatedly if you need direct quotes. But yes it was sold on the basis we needed to do it to secure sanfl clubs financial future(one of many false promises btw)

SANFL fans are the ones with agendas re: afl reserves.

Now I've heard it all.

Have already read most of the pages of bullsh!t of this thread.
Not wanting the AFL reserves in the SANFL to start with & wanting them removed now would be what I call having an agenda to push. Never said the crows, power or the AFL weren't pushing their own agenda. You've just proved my point of misinterpretation.

cracka wrote:

UK Fan wrote:Maybe reference The first 50 pages as stated repeatedly if you need direct quotes. But yes it was sold on the basis we needed to do it to secure sanfl clubs financial future(one of many false promises btw)

SANFL fans are the ones with agendas re: afl reserves.

Now I've heard it all.

Have already read most of the pages of bullsh!t of this thread.
Not wanting the AFL reserves in the SANFL to start with & wanting them removed now would be what I call having an agenda to push. Never said the crows, power or the AFL weren't pushing their own agenda. You've just proved my point of misinterpretation.

Sweet Then you'd know what was promised.