FUTURE OF THE BAY SHEFFIELD

SA Whisperer wrote:

Z Score wrote:Dont fall for Mr Hide everything from the EO games, he knows theres only one way to woo the athletes back to the saal and that is to return to Colley.
Wont it look really good for him if he comes out and goes against all the advantages at Glenelg oval to return to Colley, thats why hes flooded the Glenelg Oval option to make a dumb person look smart.

I've listened to the people, I've listened to what they want. We are heading back to the Bay

Doubt it, IMO, he isnt clever enough to come up with a plan like this, is he?

I'll be attending this meeting. See what he is planning.

I heard the Flagstaff Hill never went ahead because it was "too much work", last seasons meet went ahead seems purely due to JLR's previous ground work. All the information was there for it to go ahead this year but no it was too hard. Wow, so easy options for Mr Colin are the only way forward.

Anyone that wants to catch up and discuss any of the issues, plans moving forward and/or potential outcomes, you know who I am. Happy to discuss.

Adelaide Crows play Sunday afternoon.
Absolutely real bright to schedule a meeting then.

All about getting it back to the Bay at Council and Government cost , its a game thats being played.

Im a little bit bemused and amused .
We got told at the beginning of the season that a meeting wouldnt go ahead unless it was going to be run at a profit.Is that correct ?
If thats the case then why is the EO oops former EO worried about her entitlements and why is the move back to Colley a money issue.
We should be swimming in 15 meetings of profits unless the baker has been making porky pies instead of the real deal meat ones.

SA Whisperer wrote:Im a little bit bemused and amused .
We got told at the beginning of the season that a meeting wouldnt go ahead unless it was going to be run at a profit. Is that correct ?
If thats the case then why is the EO oops former EO worried about her entitlements and why is the move back to Colley a money issue.
We should be swimming in 15 meetings of profits unless the baker has been making porky pies instead of the real deal meat ones.

If it is mostly about money, then how did always go ahead in previous years? Covid hits and suddenly its all about money and convenience lets not forget that too, its the easy option. Sounds like he wants to do as little as possible then make it look like he is doing alot and then take the credit for it. Credit where credit is due, he deserves none!

I know from the Flagstff Hill meet it became too difficult to fill out forms so it was scraped.

Why is this even being voted on? Who in their right mind would want the Bay Sheff at Glenelg Oval instead of Colley?

Sanchez wrote:Who in their right mind would want the Bay Sheff at Glenelg Oval instead of Colley?

COLIN!

Top Sport wrote:

Sanchez wrote:Who in their right mind would want the Bay Sheff at Glenelg Oval instead of Colley?

COLIN!

The same bloke who took it away from Colley.
All roads lead to Burnie

From an interstate perspective.
Taking the Bay Sheff back to Colley is crucial to its survival but only the first step.
The handicap system and stewarding has no credibility and needs an overhaul or scrapped.
POD/Hippo squads etc will continue to turn up no matter where it is held. Same with other individuals who treat the event as a holiday over that period. However I would be astounded if any of them did not want it back at Colley.
To get the masses back will take time but can happen if change occurs soon. Get the right systems and processes back in place and it can build to the event it once was not so long ago.

With the mass exist of squads this season, is there enough votes to make a change?

Zonked wrote:From an interstate perspective.
Taking the Bay Sheff back to Colley is crucial to its survival but only the first step.
The handicap system and stewarding has no credibility and needs an overhaul or scrapped.
POD/Hippo squads etc will continue to turn up no matter where it is held. Same with other individuals who treat the event as a holiday over that period. However I would be astounded if any of them did not want it back at Colley.
To get the masses back will take time but can happen if change occurs soon. Get the right systems and processes back in place and it can build to the event it once was not so long ago.

Yep, certainly alot of things need to be done to bring it back to something like it used to be. Bring it back to Colley is just one part of the plan other elements of change are also vital. Being at Colley without other changes eg handicapping, wont solve much.

Kicker wrote:With the mass exist of squads this season, is there enough votes to make a change?  

My understanding is that there are enough members collectively from current members in conjunction with significant sized squads who either never supported the current President or did support him but no longer do.
Some squads might have stopped or reduced competing but hopefully will support the vote for a new president.
Squads and/or member numbers will certainly drop further again next season if the current president is elected back for 2 more years. I dont know how the league will survive another 2 years if this happens.

So why the rush for this Bay Sheffield interest.
Why not wait until the new committee is elected at the AGM, why the rush.
AGM could be brought forward, got to be after end of April and before end of July.
So why the rush.
Unless someones trying to protect interests

SA Whisperer wrote:So why the rush for this Bay Sheffield interest.
Why not wait until the new committee is elected at the AGM, why the rush.
AGM could be brought forward, got to be after end of April and before end of July.
So why the rush.
Unless someones trying to protect interests

Certainly does make you wonder if a deal hasnt already been done.
Once the end of the season ends when the tenure of the President also ends with an election of a new President is possible the role should be in care taker mode until the election is held.
I dont mind the idea of asking members what they expect for the Bay Sheffield, although I would have thought its a given. The final decision should be that of the newly elected committee/president, definitely not prior.

I assume after the discussion session the committee will meet in the professional manner as they now do ...... at Craig Trewartha's home!

Will the AGM also be at someones house? Pro in pro running has been lost with this committee.

Top Sport wrote:I assume after the discussion session the committee will meet in the professional manner as they now do ...... at Craig Trewartha's home!

Will the AGM also be at someones house? Pro in pro running has been lost with this committee.

Perhaps the committee meets at Twarthas house and dont give the EO the address r
Really the previous boffos must be laughing that they got someone silly enough to take the baton.

Well based on what I heard at the meeting my money is on that under Colin unfortunately the Bay Sheffield will be at Glenelg Oval again this year.

Typical when Colin faces opposition he attacks. I had support from one Committee member to be able to speak without being attacked to which I was told later that they will now cop it from Colin as a result.

The VAL needs to follow up on this type of attacks which could be perceived as bullying. Other have had similar experiences by phone or in person by Colin, its not acceptable or appropriate behavior in todays standards.

Further more. Part of the question to where the Bay Sheffield should be falls onto the financial situation of the SAAL and the Bay Sheffield itself. As we all accept here is the Handicap System is part reason why the numbers have fallen. Colin refuses to acknowledge this is part of the problem.
Being told at the meeting that the numbers are up, well only slightly, in 2020 the numbers were at an all time low so yes 2021 the nomination numbers where up but they fall way short of where they used to be.
I raised the issue of handicapping and its direct result on competing numbers only to be told, "now is not the time for this discussion" or that I'm "taking pot shots from the sidelines".
Sorry but if you have 300 less athletes in 2021 than what you had in 2016 it creates a significant hole in the budget.
If you had 60 nominations in the mens 120 at $50 a pop thats $3000, if you only have 37 nominations at $50 its $1850. Factor this drop in nominations over all events it soon adds up.

$15000 came from gate takings, at $7.50 day 1 and $10 day 2 at an average of $8.50 means only 1768 people paid to enter over 2 days! This falls way short of the 6000 expected. Yet the 15k from gate takings is considered a success?

$30000 from sponsors going into $75000 total prize pool falls way short. Sure getting sponsors is not an easy task but alot more needs to be done to fill this void. A local meet wont put a meet on if only half the cost is covered by sponsors. The full prize pool must be covered by sponsors alone.

Over $40000 comes from the Holdfast Council, it was 48K the year prior, it drops back to 32K in 2 years time, where does this 40k go? I cant say I found the answer to this at the meeting.

You dont have to be real smart, that if you drive away the open athletes who pay premium for registrations and nominations and promote the Over 35 and kiddies who pay peanuts, that finanancially you are going to be worse off.
So why are the Open athletes deserting the saal, we aLL KNOW.
And if they think that one day all these kiddies are one day going to all grow up and be open athletes , then I will send them an sms and tell them they are receiving a parcel from aust post because I know they will fall for it.

A lot of interstate athletes come on here voicing their opinion of wanting to return to Colley.
Stawell is a good place to discuss this with each other about a return to Colley , but it wont happen whilst Stables continue to support the meeting at Glenelg oval.
Probably a good idea to discuss with those that come over here or are intending to come over here , that they are not helping to have it returned to Colley.
As for discussing it with the saal president, vice president or treasurer at Stawell, you would have a better chance finding a gold nugget in the main street.

We were told at the meeting (despite no-one asking) a deal hasnt been done with GFC, but its not what I am now hearing. Something was signed but what deal exactly who knows.
So regardless of spending almost 3 hours with the unbearable President its sounding like opinions dont matter, the deal is done with GFC.

What I am not understanding is this. If a club puts on a meet, raises lets say $3000 in sponsorships, the prize pool would be approx 90% of this amount. It certainly would not be a prize pool of $7500, right.
So why is it that $30000 in sponsorships were raised for the Bay Sheffield yet the prize pool is around $75000?
Why is it the clubs have follow a set of rules or guidelines yet for the Bay Sheffield run by the committee and sub committee does not have abide by the same rules or guidelines?

Seems to me that the $40000 + given by the Holdfast City Council is going directly into use as prize money!

The 40K from the council should be used to run the event not used for prize money. Perhaps 5K could be allocated to 2 races in acknowledgement of the Council.

If the committees and those involved in seeking sponsorships are failing to cover the full prize pool then with all due respect not enough is being done  either that or the prize pool needs to reflect the sponsorship $$

Is this right Jenny? Email me if its not.

Hi TS
You mentioned a deal?. Is that deal similar to the one that was doing the rounds about 2 years ago.
Yes news travels far and wide!
It sounds like a golden deal for those involved

Golden did a much better job than Colin has or ever will. Despite his failings mostly in the end, he had done some pretty good stuff.

Is it any wonder there are problems. I mentioned how a significant factor in the numbers falling is due to the handicap system failure.
This was met by a barrage of denial consisting of Colin, Trewartha, Trewartha's partner, Poole and Turner, specifically and aggressively from Colin. No they all said, numbers are up. Well the juniors and over 35's no doubt make up the shortfall but the barometer of the Bay Sheffield is the 120 Mens and the 120 Womens.
The mens 120 Bay Sheffield has 6 heats with 37 competitors this season, in 2020 it had 7 heats with 41 competing, back in 2014 there were 11 heats with 68 competitors.
They have their heads in the sand or perhaps they have stuck them somewhere else?