Hoops

junior GF results

Bunnings, you have absolutely no credibility. A comment is made about Sturt poaching, Jack jokes about it. You fly off the handle and play the man (Jack). All you have done is confirmed you have participating in poaching.

Hopscoth 40, I will.

Bunnings is just another SASI coach from Sturt

Oh dear, like I said above, "I see this is your "first post" on Hoops so you may not understand sarcasm when you it."

Unfortunately, you have proven my point that sarcasm is only understood by intelligent people. How are those knuckles from dragging along the ground?

I'm not telling any stories about clubs poaching. If you read my post above, I have stated that inter-club transfers is very low. I doubt if any of those 3% were poached.

Judging by your over-reaction and you banging on about SASI coaches, it clear "poaching" is a raw nerve for you. Why is this such a raw nerve for you?

Player movement between clubs is pretty low. Using Under 16 Div 1 Boys Winter 2012 season as an example. Based on where those players played Under 14 Div 1 boys two years before, I can only see 3 boys who swapped clubs, some are playing different divisions and some are not playing at all. Out of say 100 players, only 3% have played at two clubs, hardly massive numbers.

What % of kids do you think change clubs?

Looks like I have touched a raw nerve eh "Bunnings"

I see this is your "first post" on Hoops so you may not understand sarcasm when you it.

I am sure all clubs try to attract the best kids to their club. The rate of recruiting (poaching) from other clubs is actually quite if you care to look at the statistics, but kids do swap clubs for a number of reasons. Massaging the egos of parents who have underachieved in their sporting career and promising that their Little Johnny/Jenny will do better at another club and make state teams because the state coaches are there is an old chestnut. I have heard it all before with come kids changing clubs because a state coach for a particular team was at Norwood, or Sturt, or Forestville, or Centrals. Did their Little Johnny/Jenny make the state team? Don't know, but if they were any good they were going to make it regardless of where they were.

Have you got the runs on because you're one of those who makes those promises?

710, Oh dear, who has been told "your son/daughter has a better chance of making state with Sturt" this time?

that was probably the best under 12 game I've ever watched.....
The standard (for a div 2 game) was incredible!!

But of course, the Southern parents were a very rowdy mob, Sturt parents were very well behaved. Same with the coaches, well done to all!!!!

Division 2 under 12 boys, Southern vs Sturt went into Double OT. Southern scraped home a tight win.
One certain ref did a superb job!

U18 Boys Sturt 68 - Southern 64

How did games go?

So much butthurt. Butthurt everywhere. Ha! So funny and sad at the same time.

I don't really care where it is played, I am not arguing fairness. All I am arguing is the fact that people who thing the stadium is "Free" tonight are fools. The stadium is not free.

Hopscotch, It's actually common accounting practice.

BSA have secured stadiums at a long term lease rate of $X/month. In order to recover that cost they hire the stadium to clients. In the case of a district club, it's a pretty clear landlord/tenant arrangement. The stadium gets used for Z hours per week and the rental is $Y/hr. As BSA have secured a good rate for the long term use of the stadium, it is in their best interest to ensure that they are making a bit of money on the deal and so if the going rate is $35/hr for stadium hire and they can get it for an affective $25/hr, then they should be sub-leasing it out at say $30/hr to provide some benefit to the long term tenant as well as making some money for the association. Only a fool would secure something for $X and aim to get $x back for it, not $X+ a bit.

Now, the crunch part comes when they are the tenants AND the landlord. This occurs during district competition, state champs etc. When budgeting the competition in order to determine the nomination fees, BSA need to allocate a set rate for their stadiums to reflect the true cost of holding the district competition. If they assume zero contribution from the stadium, or a significantly lower hire rate, then they are kidding themselves, the true cost of the competition is not reflected.

I'll take a non-basketball example to show you. I'll pick on Isaac because I know he has a fancy red car. Let's say Isaac's business is paying $1,000/month in rent for their premises. That's an overhead cost of doing business. Based on the number of widgets he sells, the cost of that rent is reflected in the sales price of that widget. Let's say that he then buys the premises. Just because he now owns the place, doesn't mean he don't pay no rent. It's tempting to now pay zero rent, the actual costs of production go down and he can potentially drop his price to his customers, but if he does that he is not getting any return on his asset and not accurately reflecting his true cost of business. By maintaining that rent charge, the $1,000/month rent effectively goes from one of his pockets to another, so it becomes a savings exercise for him. Those savings then accumulate and he is ahead in the long term. After all, if his business wasn't there, then he could get someone else paying the same money as he is.

The same deal applies to BSA stadiums. Securing a long term lease to reduce the costs of incoming hire is good business sense. By not obtaining the best return from that arrangement is poor practice. BSA and/or the basketball community need to get rid of the attitude that the stadium is free. The stadium is not free, the costs associated with the running of the competition have been reduced.

BSA need to charge themselves the proper court hire rate to reflect the true cost of the competition. The extra revenue then accumulates and can go into growing the sport.

(Apologies to Isaac for using him as an example, but hopefully people can realise what should happen)

Blue Devil, don't confuse cash flow with cost.

Cash flow wise, yes, BSA don't have any cash flowing from their accounts tonight. The cash flowed out at the end of the month when they pay their rent on the stadium.

Cost wise, if they don't do it already, BSA need to "charge" their district competitions cost centre a fee for tonight to ensure that the true cost of the competition is reflected. It would be very foolish accounting not to do that.

You could be mistaken. The games will be closer than you think and very few real clear winners IMO.

U12G: West-Forestville. 1st 2 games Forestville blew them out of the water, but West have come back hard last two games. Should go within single figures.
U14G: Centrals-Forestville. The results for Forestville have gone +31, +13, -5 and that's a constant 18 ppg improvement each time to Centrals. It's on neutral ground so could go either way. Within single figures.
U16G: North-Forestville. North have gone +21, +9, +18 and should get this one
U18G: Tigers-Sturt. Another close one. Tigers have gone -2, +7,+9 so have the 2:1 split with +14. It is as Pasadena though, so the reffing usually gives Sturt +10 and fouls? "what foul?" Within single figures.

U12B. Forestville have gone 3 from 3, will end up 4 from 4.
14B. Centrals are 2:1 and are up +23. Why would Sturt win? Oh, that's right, it's being played at Pasadena. Sorry Centrals, it's OK for us to grab and push tonight. Could go either way, but needs good umpiring to make sure it does.
16B. Both teams are 1 win each, but Sturt are +10 on the split. Should be within single figures....hang on, it's a Pasadena. Could go either way, but needs good umpiring to make sure it does. If a player is grabbed from behind on a fast break it should be an unsportsmanlike foul.
18B. Sturt-Tigers. Results went 2 & 1 with Sturt going -9, +5, +16, +12 split with Sturt and they are improving so should get this without the help of the refs tonight.