therisingblues wrote:Are they holding some sort of metaphorical gun to the club's heads? What is it they have over us to make the clubs go from a unanimous "NO" vote to a minimum required "YES" vote and then putting up with all this god damn arrogant crap? Surely if their proposal was so tenuous, with so many clauses written into the agreement, the clubs had grounds for specifying them.Pseudo wrote:
I was led to believe that the terms of the Clowns presence was to be reviewed annually, purportedly so that fine-tuning could occur. Chiggy mentioned this at the GFC information night.
I have heard that since then the clubs have made suggestions for change to the SANFL - and have been broadly told to **** off. "A deal is a deal" , apparently.
I very much suspect that a review of the license fee will be handled in a similar fashion.
Our biggest "blockers" to any licence renegotiation are Olson and Parkinson, they're the ones hell-bent on keeping the AFL clubs "sweet"
With this issue hanging over the sport: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-2016-wealthiest-clubs-in-funding-battle-with-afl-20160915-grhf6q.html the SANFL are fearful any any more money being taken out of their share of the Adelaide Oval pie.
The SMA distribution will be negotiated first before any SANFL licence fee, and the SANFL doesn't want that to happen, hence why it keeps the AFL clubs happy over the SANFL clubs
The reality is the SANFL and it's sovereign clubs are between a rock and a very hard place.