by SDK » Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:32 am
by stan » Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:31 pm
SDK wrote:Totally correct !
It is an AFL imposed condition as they do not want the SANFL as a viable option to watching a basketball version of Australian Football.
by JK » Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:24 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:The salary cap is not there to protect the clubs.
It is there to keep the SANFL in check.
by Dogwatcher » Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:45 am
by JK » Wed Nov 05, 2014 1:17 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:What gives that impression, JK?
by Dogwatcher » Wed Nov 05, 2014 1:33 pm
by o five » Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:23 pm
by stan » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:30 pm
o five wrote:But we were told that with the inclusion of the 2 AFL teams that all our financial woes would pretty much be solved.
by Jim05 » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:06 pm
by stan » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:56 pm
Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review
by Booney » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:02 am
Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review
by smac » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:16 am
by JK » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:30 am
smac wrote:That's an interesting way to put it, Jim.
All clear? Hardly.
Unable to gather sufficient evidence even though all parties know the truth? Yep.
by stan » Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:35 am
Booney wrote:Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review
Hang on a minute, whoa whoa WHOA!
Are you implying a board member, whilst gossiping over a latte, may have given false information?
by Red Rocket » Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:42 am
stan wrote:Booney wrote:Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review
Hang on a minute, whoa whoa WHOA!
Are you implying a board member, whilst gossiping over a latte, may have given false information?
Or that the original post was bullflop and mostly a troll......
by teaoby » Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:33 am
by stan » Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:48 pm
Red Rocket wrote:stan wrote:Booney wrote:Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review
Hang on a minute, whoa whoa WHOA!
Are you implying a board member, whilst gossiping over a latte, may have given false information?
Or that the original post was bullflop and mostly a troll......
No, my mail is Centurian was on the money.
A major sponsor/board member was being investigated for employing players but due to said employer not being compelled to hand over the books the investigation has ended and Norwood are in the clear.
FWIW I dont have a problem with what Norwood did its been going on for years and I dont think its got anything to do with the SANFL to say who a person can/cant work for. If a employer wants to pay someone that doesnt attend work or does very little hours thats their choice IMO
by dedja » Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:28 pm
teaoby wrote:As long as it is declared, a sponsor or board member can employ any or all players is my understanding.
by Rik E Boy » Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:32 pm
Jim05 wrote:Time to close the thread, the SANFL has given us the all clear after finalising their review
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |