

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"?

#209508
Fair point. Thanks!

#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.

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!

"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?
