Page 4 of 5

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:45 pm
by Wedgie
StrayDog wrote:
UK Fan wrote:
topsywaldron wrote:Good for clubs like South and Centrals to have wins in the trial games, gives their long suffering supporters some hope for the season ahead.


Norwoods board will send out an e-mail midweek stating they lost the trial for the good of the competition.

Topsy and the rest of the brainboxes down at the parade will believe it.

A bit unfair on Topsy, IMO.

Agreed, Topsy to his credit has been steadfast in his criticism of his board and pres and is one of those few people at various clubs who at least thinks for himself and doesn't believe bullshit that is fed to him.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:47 pm
by StrayDog
Wedgie wrote:
StrayDog wrote:
UK Fan wrote:
topsywaldron wrote:Good for clubs like South and Centrals to have wins in the trial games, gives their long suffering supporters some hope for the season ahead.


Norwoods board will send out an e-mail midweek stating they lost the trial for the good of the competition.

Topsy and the rest of the brainboxes down at the parade will believe it.

A bit unfair on Topsy, IMO.

Agreed, Topsy to his credit has been steadfast in his criticism of his boardand pres and is one of those few people at various clubs who at least thinks for himself and doesn't believe bullshit that is fed to him.


Correct, though I think there may be a fair few around the place.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:07 pm
by Wedgie
StrayDog wrote:
Correct, though I think there may be a fair few around the place.

Agreed, I know my club is rife with them.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:23 pm
by smac
To be equally fair, Potsy was a flogger before the vote on AFL reserves.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:13 pm
by topsywaldron
smac wrote:To be equally fair, Potsy was a flogger before the vote on AFL reserves.


If you think that I reckon I'm doing pretty well .

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:24 pm
by topsywaldron
StrayDog wrote:To say the least, a bit unfair on Topsy. Hardly the biggest fan of all that has transpired out there of late.


Joe's cut and run, voting yes then resigning, doesn't really need commenting on. His actions speak for themselves.

What sh*ts me to tears more than anything is that there'll be no washback for the gutless hacks that sit on the SANFL Boards and on the Commission. By the time their insane decision has reached the endpoint, the effective death of the SANFL, they'll all be gone.

I had one animated discussion with a noted Norwood advertising shill who sits on the Commission who simply couldn't have been more pleased with himself about what he and his cronies had forced through. That he couldn't answer the simple question about how he expected the SANFL clubs to attract members under the age of forty from now on says everything.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:11 pm
by RB
topsywaldron wrote:
StrayDog wrote:To say the least, a bit unfair on Topsy. Hardly the biggest fan of all that has transpired out there of late.


Joe's cut and run, voting yes then resigning, doesn't really need commenting on. His actions speak for themselves.

What sh*ts me to tears more than anything is that there'll be no washback for the gutless hacks that sit on the SANFL Boards and on the Commission. By the time their insane decision has reached the endpoint, the effective death of the SANFL, they'll all be gone.


I had one animated discussion with a noted Norwood advertising shill who sits on the Commission who simply couldn't have been more pleased with himself about what he and his cronies had forced through. That he couldn't answer the simple question about how he expected the SANFL clubs to attract members under the age of forty from now on says everything.

The unaccountability of the hacks who voted yes also infuriates me. The smug self-satisfaction they will have when sitting back with the big wigs in the best seats in the house for the Showdown doesn't bear thinking about.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:36 pm
by topsywaldron
RB wrote:The unaccountability of the hacks who voted yes also infuriates me. The smug self-satisfaction they will have when sitting back with the big wigs in the best seats in the house for the Showdown doesn't bear thinking about.


Truly hideous.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:03 pm
by csbowes
The members of the clubs failed to make them accountable.

I'd be almost certain no one at Sturt grilled the board at the AGM, hardly anyone ever did, people just don't care.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:20 am
by UK Fan
Wedgie wrote:
StrayDog wrote:
UK Fan wrote:
topsywaldron wrote:Good for clubs like South and Centrals to have wins in the trial games, gives their long suffering supporters some hope for the season ahead.


Norwoods board will send out an e-mail midweek stating they lost the trial for the good of the competition.

Topsy and the rest of the brainboxes down at the parade will believe it.

A bit unfair on Topsy, IMO.

Agreed, Topsy to his credit has been steadfast in his criticism of his board and pres and is one of those few people at various clubs who at least thinks for himself and doesn't believe bullshit that is fed to him.


Topsy only stopped believing the bullshit after a Centrals fan helped him read the SANFL constitution tbf.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:30 pm
by bulldogproud2
Wedgie wrote:
Jim05 wrote:Where was the guy thats going to kick a million goals?

The scoresheet couldn't accommodate how many goals he kicked.


To be fair, 'Yoey' Wagner did kick 8 goals in the State game between Country SA and Country WA last year. Those who are giving him stick at the moment may in time have to eat their words.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:01 pm
by Booney
csbowes wrote:
The members of the clubs failed to make them accountable.

I'd be almost certain no one at Sturt grilled the board at the AGM, hardly anyone ever did, people just don't care.


Probably true in some cases, not in others. Fair to say though the general anger felt on these pages didn't permeate through the memberships of all the clubs to the point of boards having no choice but to vote no.

UK and Centurions campaign certainly made the Bulldog staff sit up and take notice (along with the police as Weslo :lol: ) but it seems more people shrugged their shoulders than those that picked up the phone or punched out an email stating their position.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:30 pm
by whufc
Booney wrote:
csbowes wrote:
The members of the clubs failed to make them accountable.

I'd be almost certain no one at Sturt grilled the board at the AGM, hardly anyone ever did, people just don't care.


Probably true in some cases, not in others. Fair to say though the general anger felt on these pages didn't permeate through the memberships of all the clubs to the point of boards having no choice but to vote no.

UK and Centurions campaign certainly made the Bulldog staff sit up and take notice (along with the police as Weslo :lol: ) but it seems more people shrugged their shoulders than those that picked up the phone or punched out an email stating their position.


Agree, while the passion is still there and I know of many people who were very anti the no vote but remained silent due to being uneasy about a backlash (eg weslo Centurian incident) and the fact that football on the weekends nowadays is not the bee knees. We live in a society where there is now shitloads to do on weekends etc (nightclubs open wes-sun, shops and trades open 7 days a week, working weekends, lots of ammo and country sport to watch, cost of living etc etc)

It's easier to remain silent and walk away to something else than it is to fight what to some looked a lost cause

I have stuck to my guns and will only be taking a home membership out, will go to home games except the Crows home game, will head to Noarlunga and at absolute most Norwood Friday night away (cricket club is running a mini bus including parade pub crawl, will get smashed before going in and won't spend a cent in the ground) and West away (samudogs first game back from England in 3 years big welcome back party that day)

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:45 pm
by UK Fan
SANFL club membership 2013

Total : 27681

SANFL club membership 2014

Total : 20063

A decrease of 27.52% in membership in the first year is a damning statistic for me.

Admittedly people can still buy memberships up until June 30th.

But according to the stats produce on the SANFL website today West Adelaide is the only club that will increase its membership on last year. Outside of West every clubs membership is down over 20% on last year.

88% of SANFL clubs will experience a decrease in membership. Taking into account an increase in marketing revenue for SANFL clubs and that membership price are less than last year across the board(I wonder why they needed to be reduced this year). 100% of clubs look to face a decrease in revenue from membership this year and I wouldn't be surprised if sponsorship figures aren't to dissimilar.

Patronage of clubs looks to decrease by the same percentage is a scary proposition for all clubs. Grand Central(only figures I have) made $6 mill in revenue last year via its 2326 members . 20% loss of members/patrons means the club stands to lose $1.2 mill in revenue this year.

SCARY!!!

Centrals and South voted the way their members wanted. Norwood members weren't given a chance to argue its clubs vote due to its board misrepresenting how it intended to vote to its members. North Sturt and Glenelg boards in voting YES acknowledged they were going against their members wishes. Port Power were never going to listen too Port Magpies members wishes.

SANFL members have had little choice but to protest by walking away IMHO. And it looks as if they have.

You'll also note many SANFL fans pledged to buy South and Centrals memberships due to the clubs voting NO. Yet both clubs have experienced a drop in membership.

The future of our comp and its clubs have never looked so dire. Unless we see a massive increase in membership
Or the figures on the SANFL website are incorrect

Is anyone really surprised by this ???? I certainly am not .

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:55 pm
by topsywaldron
Great post Golden Dynasty.

You or Centurion involved at all with this proposed protest at the SANFL Commissioners lunch at Adelaide Oval next week?

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:01 am
by dedja
It's totally meaningless to compare this years membership numbers with previous years this early ... come back in a few months time with some solid facts.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:13 am
by prowling panther
agree, how do the numbers stack up against this time last season?

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:32 am
by topsywaldron
dedja wrote:It's totally meaningless to compare this years membership numbers with previous years this early ... come back in a few months time with some solid facts.


West are reporting nearly 3000 members so I'm not sure anyone looking for'solid facts' is searching in the right place on the SANFL site.

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:11 am
by dedja
Yeah, OK, I meant it too early to make conclusions ...

Re: Trial Game Week 2 Discussion

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:15 am
by UK Fan
dedja wrote:It's totally meaningless to compare this years membership numbers with previous years this early ... come back in a few months time with some solid facts.


Not according to the SANFL it isn't!!!

You expect bays to increase membership by 40% to match last years numbers in the coming months ???

Not taking into account memberships costs are down 10-20% down on last year.