by jo172 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:49 pm
by Love a rumour » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:04 pm
Off The Wall wrote:Bullrider wrote:manbitesdog wrote:Footy Chick wrote:From "The Update"
Salisbury West Application for Affiliation
Subsequently, 34 players replied to this email. In the days after, office staff contacted all other players by telephone to bring the email to their attention and explain the need for a response.
I can tell you for a fact that the league has not contacted every player on this list of 55 players. Pretty hard to fully commit to season 2020 when some have only just finished the current season 2 weeks ago
If you are correct, (no disrespect intended) that is a huge allegation.
I dont have an opinion either way regarding SWFC, I do know how hard it is for any football club to have 100% of its current list sign on for the following year let alone a club in SWFC's position. The significant story here is the AdFL, "In the days after, office staff contacted all other players by telephone"
The AdFL has advised members on the basis of its investigation and due diligence it will not allow SWFC back into the AdFl in 2020.
In essence you are saying the AdFL CEO and Executive have lied to its members, therefore not completed proper due diligence and have misrepresented this to its members for its own agenda and benefit. WOW...... a bit to play out here before round 1 2020.
It has been pointed out that SWFC listed players without their knowledge, so wouldnt put it past them that they listed some with bogus email addresses too, that were replied back to by someone else. So if one of those that apparently hasnt been contacted, they could of had their answer sent back for them already
by Love a rumour » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:19 pm
jo172 wrote:I tend to think the focusing on the 55 players by the date is burying the lead a bit.
I tend to suspect if they had 45 players by the cut off date and other matters in place with respect to the other outstanding issues the League would be more minded to give some leeway.
Bullshitting the League by putting people down who weren't proposing to play or behind their backs and causing the League to expend resources on investigating the list , when it should have been allowed to rely on it in good faith is the root cause of this outcome.
by Dutchy » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:20 pm
Love a rumour wrote:Dutchy wrote:They have had over 12 months to get this sorted haven't they?
You don’t have 12 months if you’ve been given no information from the league about whats needed to get back in until July 2019
by Love a rumour » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:28 pm
Dutchy wrote:Love a rumour wrote:Dutchy wrote:They have had over 12 months to get this sorted haven't they?
You don’t have 12 months if you’ve been given no information from the league about whats needed to get back in until July 2019
As others have said Mitchell Park have had to provide a list in the past so its nothing new, so yes they have had 12 months to sort their shit out.
by Off The Wall » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:41 pm
Love a rumour wrote:Off The Wall wrote:It has been pointed out that SWFC listed players without their knowledge, so wouldnt put it past them that they listed some with bogus email addresses too, that were replied back to by someone else. So if one of those that apparently hasnt been contacted, they could of had their answer sent back for them already
They made a bogus list the first time and had go back and start again, emails generally have people’s names in them so that’s a shit argument
by Love a rumour » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:45 pm
Off The Wall wrote:Love a rumour wrote:Off The Wall wrote:It has been pointed out that SWFC listed players without their knowledge, so wouldnt put it past them that they listed some with bogus email addresses too, that were replied back to by someone else. So if one of those that apparently hasnt been contacted, they could of had their answer sent back for them already
They made a bogus list the first time and had go back and start again, emails generally have people’s names in them so that’s a shit argument
Not hard to create emails with people's name in it. End of the day, they stuffed up yet again and got caught out.
by The Bedge » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:05 pm
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
by jo172 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:08 pm
Love a rumour wrote:jo172 wrote:I tend to think the focusing on the 55 players by the date is burying the lead a bit.
I tend to suspect if they had 45 players by the cut off date and other matters in place with respect to the other outstanding issues the League would be more minded to give some leeway.
Bullshitting the League by putting people down who weren't proposing to play or behind their backs and causing the League to expend resources on investigating the list , when it should have been allowed to rely on it in good faith is the root cause of this outcome.
I’d say well written but I’d be lying... Salisbury west juniors are spread all across the SAAFL & most of them were interested in coming back how can blokes say yes to coming back to the club when they haven’t completed there season yet?. Completely unfair and if you don’t think so your a fool
by Footy Chick » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:18 pm
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by KranskyAlliance » Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:44 pm
by manbitesdog » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:21 pm
Bullrider wrote:manbitesdog wrote:Footy Chick wrote:From "The Update"Salisbury West Application for Affiliation
At the most recent General Committee, The League tabled an application from the Salisbury West Football Club to affiliate with The League. As discussed, The League had offered a set of criteria for the SWFC to meet ranging from providing a list of 55 players and then a dossier to address ongoing concerns The League has had of the Salisbury West Football Club that led to its disaffiliation in Season 2018.
Following the SW Submission, The League sought clarification from all players listed following approaches from a small number of players and their 2019 Clubs that they were included in their submission without approval.
Subsequently, 34 players replied to this email. In the days after, office staff contacted all other players by telephone to bring the email to their attention and explain the need for a response.
Of the 57 listed, 37 players had confirmed their intent as committed to the Salisbury West Football Club in 2020. 14 players denied committing to this process and 8 players had either not replied as requested or have only registered interest with considerations such as who would be the appointed coach and or other officials.
In summary, the SWFC submission failed to meet the 55 players required which is considered an absolute minimum to field 2 senior teams.
In the past The League has had occasion to require existing member clubs to submit the same list number to validate their team nominations. We can and will not offer a club who is not currently a member of The League a diluted requirement that was not afforded to existing Member Clubs in the past.
The League has denied the SWFC affiliation and subsequently considers this matter closed.
I can tell you for a fact that the league has not contacted every player on this list of 55 players. Pretty hard to fully commit to season 2020 when some have only just finished the current season 2 weeks ago
If you are correct, (no disrespect intended) that is a huge allegation.
I dont have an opinion either way regarding SWFC, I do know how hard it is for any football club to have 100% of its current list sign on for the following year let alone a club in SWFC's position. The significant story here is the AdFL, "In the days after, office staff contacted all other players by telephone"
The AdFL has advised members on the basis of its investigation and due diligence it will not allow SWFC back into the AdFl in 2020.
In essence you are saying the AdFL CEO and Executive have lied to its members, therefore not completed proper due diligence and have misrepresented this to its members for its own agenda and benefit. WOW...... a bit to play out here before round 1 2020.
by Love a rumour » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:21 pm
jo172 wrote:Love a rumour wrote:jo172 wrote:I tend to think the focusing on the 55 players by the date is burying the lead a bit.
I tend to suspect if they had 45 players by the cut off date and other matters in place with respect to the other outstanding issues the League would be more minded to give some leeway.
Bullshitting the League by putting people down who weren't proposing to play or behind their backs and causing the League to expend resources on investigating the list , when it should have been allowed to rely on it in good faith is the root cause of this outcome.
I’d say well written but I’d be lying... Salisbury west juniors are spread all across the SAAFL & most of them were interested in coming back how can blokes say yes to coming back to the club when they haven’t completed there season yet?. Completely unfair and if you don’t think so your a fool
.... so then why put down people's names without their knowledge?
Why not say so when that was the obligation?
Why not say so when the time was to meet that obligation?
Essentially, why try it on instead of coming clean, which is fundamentally, much of the underlying issue?
by jo172 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:24 pm
Love a rumour wrote:jo172 wrote:Love a rumour wrote:jo172 wrote:I tend to think the focusing on the 55 players by the date is burying the lead a bit.
I tend to suspect if they had 45 players by the cut off date and other matters in place with respect to the other outstanding issues the League would be more minded to give some leeway.
Bullshitting the League by putting people down who weren't proposing to play or behind their backs and causing the League to expend resources on investigating the list , when it should have been allowed to rely on it in good faith is the root cause of this outcome.
I’d say well written but I’d be lying... Salisbury west juniors are spread all across the SAAFL & most of them were interested in coming back how can blokes say yes to coming back to the club when they haven’t completed there season yet?. Completely unfair and if you don’t think so your a fool
.... so then why put down people's names without their knowledge?
Why not say so when that was the obligation?
Why not say so when the time was to meet that obligation?
Essentially, why try it on instead of coming clean, which is fundamentally, much of the underlying issue?
If you actually knew you’d understand they were blokes who said they were interested who’ve played at SW previously that the league found out they weren’t 100%, how can you be 100% when you have finals to play another club there not gonna tell SW they will be there without a coach nor knowing what divison? idiot if you think otherwise..
by Love a rumour » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:30 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |