"It appears that SAC takes a lot more than it contributes and has scant regard for any centralized basketball body."

What is the evidence that SAC takes more than it contributes? In which instances has this occurred?
Furthermore, who have you spoken to within SAC that have said that they have scant regard for the new basketball body?

What about SA Church and all of the other Rec Centres that come under the BSA banner? Do they too contribute less than what they take? What is their regard for the centralized basketball body?

SAC, Church and Rec centres all pay no money for the services provided by BSA, other than court hire. It is the junior and social competitions that provide all the wages for BSA.

BSA should deny affiliation to any body that doesn't pay affiliation fee's for all their members. SAC should not be provided stadiums for their tournaments or BA affiliation for Nationals Champs. And all players and referee's who participate in SAC competitions should be baned from the BSA competitions. Also, funding from BSA for development officers in the country reigon should be put back to members that are paying for them through affiliation.

Church should be denied stadium hire on Saturday afternoons, and this time should go towards domestic competitions.

Neither should be allowed to have the insurance that BSA provides, even if it is poor.

How do you suppose BSA opperates when the clubs don't play for 1 term? And BSA goes broke! Again.

It does appear that the original post comes from someone in the BSA office (sadly).
Having personally spoken to representatives from Country and Church Associations it would appear that the problem actually lies in the BSA Office with unilateral decisions being made without reference to any associations. Committees were implemented but have not been consulted with regards to decisions e.g. State Coaching appointments. Certain people in the front office have a great sense of their own self importance and believe that they actually are running basketball in SA and can make decisions. The GM does not appear to want to stop this problem, or possibly doesn't know how to stop the problem. These same people are closely associated with a particular club/s and are unable to differentiate between what is good for basketball and what they want for their club (?conflict of interests). The problem unfortunately extends to the Board with some, not all, members more interested in being "seen" at events (for free of course) and don't not seem to care that they are supposedly responsible to "basketball" in SA. BSA doesn't really own any stadiums outright and if the other stakeholders were to withdraw (which is a possibility) then where would basketball be in SA. BSA doesn't even have a headquarters, they are tenants in the Dome and if a new owner didn't want them there then where would they go?

Cow 07 - "Also, funding from BSA for development officers in the country reigon should be put back to members that are paying for them through affiliation."

Did you know that SAC is looking at employing a Referee Development Officer (who will work in the SAC Admin side of things in a shared role)? Did you also know that it was put at the AGM that the Country associations increase registration (or door prices) by $2 in order to pay for this position? Thus, the funding for the development officer for the country region IS put back to members that are paying for them through affiliation!

Cow 07 - "How do you suppose BSA opperates when the clubs don't play for 1 term? And BSA goes broke! Again."

BSA cannot go broke "again" as you claim. BSA would go broke for the first time. It was BASA that went broke. Please note that SAC was a seperate entity from BASA at that point!

To everyone in this thread ... You all are the problem!

Instead of working together to build basketball you all are fighting each other. Get over your petty issues and build the sport, if your not willing to do that then shut up so those that really want to can!

Children, play nicely or this will end in tears.

The posts in question do not appear to have come from the Dome (as far as I can tell).

BA only deals with 1 peak body in this state that is BSA. All BA funding goes to BSA then onto SAC. If BSA wants to they could take all the funding for themselves and yes SAC only can play at the nationals with agreement with BSA. Why would BSA want to take away all this from SAC when there is all these kids from the country playing in there comp? So why would BSA lose money in the process for themselves and the clubs? If you count how many kids play from the country you'll soon realize that the fee's that the BSA clubs would rise and so would entry fees to game just to cover the loss of these people. I know there are agreements for and against but at the end of the day it comes down to $ as BSA and SAC are a business.

So re BSA & SAC where to? question my opinion is Leave it alone nothing broken to fix.

Lick my BSAll SAC...

Why would the metro clubs be willing to fund BSA? Which they are doing now. Same argument SAC and Church are using.

If SAC don't affiliate, none of their players would be eligible to go to the AIS unless they move to a metro club that is affiliated. At this point in time they would not be allowed to play for their country teams.

The country DNSP and HP would not have BA accreditation and players participating would be ineligible for Nationals, AIS and Australian junior teams as they would be playing in a non-affiliated competition.

starting to fight amongst ourselves now are we ?

#9423, just a point SAC wouldn't be able to enter country cup as that is also a BA event just like the nationals.

Again, who then pays for BSA? Who pays for the person to organise the grants? Who pays for the person to manage the facility that SAC run their country carnivals at? Who pays for

BSA provide affiliation with BA, and therefore admittance to Nationals. Country Cup is a BA affiliated competition, without being affiliated, all SAC members will be ineligable. Referee's and coaches as well.

Agree that for 90% of SAC affiliation is useless, but that is the same for 90% of Metro club members. The clubs would make more money running the Div 2 and below competition, which is exactly what will happen. Clus will pull out of the BSA comp, sending them broke, hire the stadiums, not pay affiliation fee's for those players who are not in Div 1.

Yes, but they don't get funding from Basketball Victoria, and they don't have members on the Basketball Victoria governance council. They don't use Basketball Victoria stadiums for their country carnivals, and they don't have Basketball Victoria ref's at their tournaments.

Again not saying that for 90% of country playes BSA do anything, but $90K+ in funding for development officers comes from BSA. And if country don't affiliate, you can bet that they will not get that money nor use of the stadiums, insurance nor referee's.

#209498

I infact asked some questions in my original post, to seek clarification, and these were not answered.

In any posts that I have made (in relation to this thread), I have simply stated some facts that other people were not aware of, as then it becomes public knowledge and it may answer some of the questions put forward on this forum. I hope the answers and responses that I have given have in fact passed on some knowledge to those parties who are either nuetral and/or uniformed.

#209508

Fair point. Thanks!

Thank you #209497,

My point exactly, the State Government used the bail out to organise a structure that they thought was best for ALL basketball in SA, rightly or wrongly. SA country and Church are unwilling to pay an affiliation fee to assist in the running costs of the association. Not saying I disagree or agree.

Mr Ryan

My point is the if SAC and Church think the ORC (a governament department) and BA ( who signed off on the agreement) are going to allow BSA to go broke, and still allow them to recieve the benefits of the organisation, (ie court hire, development officer money, participation in National Champs etc) then they are crazy!!

Cow 07 - "My point is the if SAC and Church think the ORC...and BA...are going to allow BSA to go broke, and still allow them to recieve the benefits of the organisation,...then they are crazy!!"

(Sorry to paraphrase, just took out all of the brackets)

I understand that if BSA goes broke, then SAC and Church go broke too. I also understand that if there is no money, then there would be no fascilities.

Never once have I stated anything contrary to the above.
In my posts, I have merely sought clarification or provided some information.

Furthermore, have you personally spoken to people from SA Country Basketball (actually front office and admin people) to find out whether they actually, as you state, "are unwilling to pay an affiliation fee to assist in the running costs of the association"?

Have you asked them if they are?

I understand that if BSA goes broke, then SAC and Church go broke too.

Mr Ryan,

Peter is correct. If BSA goes broke, then members of the council, (note: not the commission) are personally responsible for any and all debts. The council is made up of 3 country 2 church and 3 district representatives.

The reason for the current structure is that when BASA went broke the presidents of the clubs were told to re-write the new constituation to give country and church a share of the BSA governance. If not, (and they didn't agree initially) they were told that they would be personally financiallly responsible for the then debt. As the clubs were the shareholder of BASA. For their agreement in the new governance, they government would write-off the debt.

I doubt the current group will get of a lightly if the group they represent choose not to pay affiliation!

Does anyone like BSA?

anon #209615,

I at least KNOW how to spell, have correct grammer and I am not a sexist!

Please explain what the current situation is then, if you are wise to all the facts.

209667 - please don't piegon hole a (few?) anonymous poster/s into "SAC people".

Take a spoonful of your own medicine and play the ball, not the man.