SA Footy

Those were the exact words of SANFL Chief Executive Leigh Whicker when interviewed on 5AA this afternoon. Seven out of nine clubs recorded a loss and Leigh stated that he had issues with clubs that have four assistant coaches on their payroll and want to behave as if they are AFL clubs.

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

.. Might also be referring to Salary cap abuse, as one club is about to find out.

Has the club you r suggesting had a president leave and r u hearing a $ for $ breach as the penalty????

Disband the AFL clubs and revert to a state based comp perhaps.

Get yer retention scheme lottery tickets 'ere!

WHAT?

None of this makes any sense someone please explain!

MagareyLegend wrote:WHAT?

None of this makes any sense someone please explain!

Is that you Pauline?

I think this is a serious issue. I've been saying for some time that the financial imbalance between clubs will need to be addressed. It won't be easy, because it's not right to penalise clubs who are financially successful, so finding a balance will be difficult.

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.

In an attempt to be succesful on field clubs are clearly spending beyond their means in the off field departments.

So what will the SANFL introduce, a salary cap for coaching staff or limit the numbers of paid coaching staff?

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.

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.

Indeed.

Who opened that can of worms

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.

Looking for financial assistance?

Received it, or soon will, I believe.

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.

I think he was talking about getting a decent South Australian beer at all grounds and not just Norwood.
That Japanese owned swill currently at most grounds is keeping millions away!!!!

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.

I would not be surprised if this is very much on the cards either, when Woodville and West Torrens merged, a sweetner was offered that relieved the debts of both clubs, set them up financially and gave them Football Park as a home ground for the first year which clearly helped the new club be set up and to be successfull.

It would be interesting to see what would be on the table this time around, I would suggest it would be debt reduction and maybe even an increased Salary Cap for the first year to set the club up which would be an interesting move in light of recent events. The club would likely get a cash payout as well to compensate them for one of the club shares in Football Park lapsing.

Will be then interesting to see which SANFL boards beat the door down of the SANFL to speak to them about it???

If true i'm a bit mystified with the attitude of the SANFL. Go back to 1995 when Sturt and North were considering merging and the league were more interested then too in pushing the merger option than seeing two traditional clubs stand on their own two feet. Since then North have recovered financially and Sturt have won a premiership and enjoy large public support although their financial position is not so good.
I would personally find it disgraceful if the merger option is encouraged to the detriment of assisting all clubs to develop viable business plans and alternative revenue streams. Budgets may have to be cut to suit the current financial situation, something all businesses are facing. Hard maybe, but at least you don't destroy the heritage of the league. One merger was bad enough, no more please.

I don't want to see any teams merge. In the current economic climate it's a strange thing to say but I don't think we can afford to lose any more of our history from this comp because without that it's meaningless. I don't have a practical alternative solution but I don't back that one.

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).

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).

Why is the number of years it was an 8 team comp at all relevant to this discussion Tas? We are potentially talking about actually reducing the number of teams and all that involves. You may as well argue last in first out would solve this argument.

blueandwhite wrote:.. Might also be referring to Salary cap abuse, as one club is about to find out.

Can you please name the club you are referring to Blueandwhite?