Port Magpies to be dissolved. Is it true?

[UK Fan]

I actually thought it was a great piece of work by the Rucc

Should make the short list for the Booker Prize, an outstanding work of fiction...

100% agree.

[Barto]

I actually thought it was a great piece of work by the Rucc

Should make the short list for the Booker Prize, an outstanding work of fiction...

It's outstanding isn't it? And the Power fans follow it blindly like brainwashed Scientologists.

If some of Port's famous players are saying that the Power have stolen the heritage of the real club, that's good enough for me. They'd know more than blokes in the outer.

[Sojourner]

Leigh Whicker mentioned when asked on tonights sports show on 5AA, that they are looking into the possibility of bringing forward their dividend from Football Park and that they may underwrite the club with an interest free loan. Whicker stated that it is the "responsability" of the SANFL to do that....

Seems a very different tune to the one that was played when North went into financial problems????

[UK Fan]

If the SANFL does that for Port Magpies you must do it for all SANFL clubs.

Well all have debt we would love not to pay interest on.

[Tredrea]

Well according to Ruccis article in todays advertiser its the SANFL clubs fault now. ANybody else surprised.

How long until the story comes out of the 8 SANFL clubs conspired without Port Magpies knowledge with Geelong. Thats what made Port Adelaide lose the 2007 GF by a record 119 points.

Any chance Port Power itslef could accept the blame for not running to a budget. Silly suggestion i know but i just thought Id throw it out their. Ive heard its the SANFL's ,The 9 SANFL clubs, and now its the Port Magpies fault.

Any VFL clubs getting the blame for Melbournes financial difficulties ?????

Correct me if Im wrong hasnt Port just received $3 mill in handouts via the SANFL ($2 mill) and AFL (1 mill) in the last month.

ANd your still bitching ????

And this was the better alternative than cutting your on field expenses and receiving financial assistance from the AwFuL Haysman. This is your definition of "toughing it out". YOu are an embarrasment.

What a great football club you are Port. No wonder a percentage of your old fans can not stand you anymore.

If you are referring to the article in todays Tiser "Smokin' gun exposed" I gather you completely misread the article.

He is indeed laying blame on the SANFL for demanding a Magpie presence be kept in the SANFL, and as a result a backlash eventuated between the 8 other SANFL clubs who demanded this "Magpie" entity base itself out of Alberton, hence training at Ethelton and its administration in Cheltneham.

No where in that article did he lay blame on the 8 SANFL clubs for the Port Adelaide Football Club's (AFL Version, the one that was elevated to the National league for those playing at home that are a little confused) financial woes. He is though saying it is the SANFL's fault for the current financial crisis of the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club (the SANFL club that replaced the PAFC when it joined the National competition), simply because it placed strict conditios upon both the PAFC and PAMFC so that it would supposedly not become a "Powerhouse Club" and continue to spank those SANFL clubs lingering in the SANFL long after Port Adelaide left the competition.

I suggest you re-read the article before posting misinformed opinions.

[topsywaldron]

He is though saying it is the SANFL's fault for the current financial crisis of the Port Adelaide Magpies

Why? Because the other eight clubs insisted on a level playing field?

Surely the other eight clubs should not be held accountable for the Magpies inabilty to adapt to the inclusion of the Power in the AFL. Seems to me the other eight clubs have managed the transition from the pre-AFL environment relatively well and the Magpies are looking to blame anyone but them for their lack of financial nous.

[Tredrea]

He is though saying it is the SANFL's fault for the current financial crisis of the Port Adelaide Magpies

Why? Because the other eight clubs insisted on a level playing field?

Surely the other eight clubs should not be held accountable for the Magpies inabilty to adapt to the inclusion of the Power in the AFL. Seems to me the other eight clubs have managed the transition from the pre-AFL environment relatively well and the Magpies are looking to blame anyone but them for their lack of financial nous.

(Here is a short answer to your question, below is my opinion more detailed), Because we (Port supporters) did not ask to have two seperate entities. It was either the SANFL and AFL side together. Or one only in the AFL).

The Magpies werent adapting, they were simply setting themselves up, dont get me wrong, I agree entirely that the financial woes of the PAMFC is the amdinistration of the clubs fault. It obviously has been handled poorly, considering just under $1 Million dollars was handed to them from the Port Adelaide Football Club at the end of the 1996 season and they continue to rank up there for the highest memberships, attendances and sponsorship, so what is going wrong?

But what many of us Port Adelaide supporters are saying (and what the club was trying to say at the time of its AFL entry) is that if the SANFL wanted a Port Adelaide entity in the SANFL post 1997, both the Magpies and Power should have been kept under the one banner or there should of been no Port Adelaide left in the SANFL at all.
Now Magpie supporters who dont follow the Power will say, "but we wont let our Magpies die, or we wont support Football altogether".
Only .5% at the clubs historic meeting voted against the Port Adelaide F.C. joining the AFL, that percentage now seems to have reached say 10%, purely because they believe the now AFL Club has left the Magpies financialy unviable, which simply is not the case.
If the SANFL wanted to keep a Port Adelaide side in the SANFL then why cant it have its training base at Alberton (this issue has been rectified recently), its administration seperate to the Power but at Alberton, and most importantly if you are going to demand a Port presence be kept in the SANFL then surely it needs to have a little more than 15% of the income at a social club? These were all strict conditions placed upon Port Adelaide (Power and Magpies) by the SANFL and the other 8 SANFL Clubs at the time, a fact which many S.A. football followers like to ignore, yet blame on the PAFC.

The SANFL should have either kept the two together, or simply accepted that Port Adelaide was leaving the SANFL (as a non related question, do you believe the SANFL is financialy capable without a Port Adelaide), now there is a mess left behind that is only growing bigger. Both the PAFC and the SANFL should have crossed a few more T's and dotted a few more I's before joining the AFL.

[dedja]

What is Rucci's problem? ... the guy must be bipolar I think.

Apparently he knows better than the Port people he mentions in his diatribe, including those who were on the board. He blames everything on the SANFL and there's no possibility of Port Magpies or Power having any responsibility for the current predicament. Then there's the stab at Cornsey for daring to speak out in favour of the Magpies.

Did he and Hutchy go to the same slimebag school of gutter journalism??? Scatter as much mud as you can hoping some of it will stick?

Jeez, when the Crows were formed, the Bays were absolutely decimated ... they lost a host of players, coach, and support staff. Somehow they managed to make the GF in '92 before falling into a very big hole for the next decade and a half. Did we cry about it, blame everyone else, including those who were sympathetic or wanted to help? Hello no, the Bays got up off their arse, restructured the club from the top down and made things happen ..... the result is what you see today.

A number of other clubs in deep poo did the same thing ... now it's Port's turn to do some hard yards.

Gee most of us hate their guts but we don't want to see them die.

Rucci, if you are really a Port man at heart, play the ball not the man, stop your stupid vendetta against Choco, the Board and anyone else who has been in a position of influence at the power, the SANFL, the SACA and whoever else you aim to alienate ... and just write factual, well researched and if you like, entertaining scribe on the great game that is football.

If not, then f*** off to Rome with your toy boy and leave us all in peace.

[Macca19]

Well according to Ruccis article in todays advertiser its the SANFL clubs fault now. ANybody else surprised.

How long until the story comes out of the 8 SANFL clubs conspired without Port Magpies knowledge with Geelong. Thats what made Port Adelaide lose the 2007 GF by a record 119 points.

Any chance Port Power itslef could accept the blame for not running to a budget. Silly suggestion i know but i just thought Id throw it out their. Ive heard its the SANFL's ,The 9 SANFL clubs, and now its the Port Magpies fault.

Any VFL clubs getting the blame for Melbournes financial difficulties ?????

Correct me if Im wrong hasnt Port just received $3 mill in handouts via the SANFL ($2 mill) and AFL (1 mill) in the last month.

ANd your still bitching ????

And this was the better alternative than cutting your on field expenses and receiving financial assistance from the AwFuL Haysman. This is your definition of "toughing it out". YOu are an embarrasment.

What a great football club you are Port. No wonder a percentage of your old fans can not stand you anymore.

The most ridiculous hyperbolic post ive ever read on an internet forum. Congratulations.

So Rucci works at Port Adelaide now does he? Whats Haysman got to do with Ruccis article?

[UK Fan]

He is though saying it is the SANFL's fault for the current financial crisis of the Port Adelaide Magpies

Why? Because the other eight clubs insisted on a level playing field?

Surely the other eight clubs should not be held accountable for the Magpies inabilty to adapt to the inclusion of the Power in the AFL. Seems to me the other eight clubs have managed the transition from the pre-AFL environment relatively well and the Magpies are looking to blame anyone but them for their lack of financial nous.

(Here is a short answer to your question, below is my opinion more detailed), Because we (Port supporters) did not ask to have two seperate entities. It was either the SANFL and AFL side together. Or one only in the AFL).

The Magpies werent adapting, they were simply setting themselves up, dont get me wrong, I agree entirely that the financial woes of the PAMFC is the amdinistration of the clubs fault. It obviously has been handled poorly, considering just under $1 Million dollars was handed to them from the Port Adelaide Football Club at the end of the 1996 season and they continue to rank up there for the highest memberships, attendances and sponsorship, so what is going wrong?

But what many of us Port Adelaide supporters are saying (and what the club was trying to say at the time of its AFL entry) is that if the SANFL wanted a Port Adelaide entity in the SANFL post 1997, both the Magpies and Power should have been kept under the one banner or there should of been no Port Adelaide left in the SANFL at all.
Now Magpie supporters who dont follow the Power will say, "but we wont let our Magpies die, or we wont support Football altogether".
Only .5% at the clubs historic meeting voted against the Port Adelaide F.C. joining the AFL, that percentage now seems to have reached say 10%, purely because they believe the now AFL Club has left the Magpies financialy unviable, which simply is not the case.
If the SANFL wanted to keep a Port Adelaide side in the SANFL then why cant it have its training base at Alberton (this issue has been rectified recently), its administration seperate to the Power but at Alberton, and most importantly if you are going to demand a Port presence be kept in the SANFL then surely it needs to have a little more than 15% of the income at a social club? These were all strict conditions placed upon Port Adelaide (Power and Magpies) by the SANFL and the other 8 SANFL Clubs at the time, a fact which many S.A. football followers like to ignore, yet blame on the PAFC.

The SANFL should have either kept the two together, or simply accepted that Port Adelaide was leaving the SANFL (as a non related question, do you believe the SANFL is financialy capable without a Port Adelaide), now there is a mess left behind that is only growing bigger. Both the PAFC and the SANFL should have crossed a few more T's and dotted a few more I's before joining the AFL.

Both clubs were happy and given plenty of cash to set themselves in their respective leagues about 13 years ago. Why did Port agree to the deal ?? You really wanted to join the AFL from memory which you did. Both Port's SANFL and AFL clubs have got separate issues financially. Linking them together and making the SANFL and the 8 SANFL clubs your scapegoat is getting tiresome and is a pussweak excuse to cover boths clubs ineptness separately. why should the SANFL clubs care about the PAMFC when the PAFC doesnt.


Short Answer : Leave us out of your mess.

[pipers]

Question! Are you a member of the Port Magpies?

Yes, I am, and not just the base membership level.

What is your point?

[dedja]

I see Rucci is at it again today trying to bait Cornsey in his Roast in today's Advertiser.

F*** off to Rome you idiot.

[Booney]

Short Answer : Leave us out of your mess.

Short response : Mind your own business then.

[mr o]

i just whanted to say that, what tredrea has posted is exactly what has happened with the port magpies and the power. we can debate about this to the cows come home but the truth is , the sanfl and the other eight clubs, mine included, would not let the port adelaide football club go to the afl unless a port magpies was left in the sanfl.the new side is not the power, they are the magpies trading as the power in the afl, the new side is the new port magpies who had to by a licence back in 96. again , tredrea, you are spot on, to everybody else all i can say is now read this.

[Booney]

Good luck with that O.

[Psyber]

.. The SANFL should have either kept the two together, or simply accepted that Port Adelaide was leaving the SANFL (as a non related question, do you believe the SANFL is financialy capable without a Port Adelaide), now there is a mess left behind that is only growing bigger. Both the PAFC and the SANFL should have crossed a few more T's and dotted a few more I's before joining the AFL.

I agree.
At the time my ideal solution was to let Port leave the SANFL, and fully support themselves, then reshuffle the boundaries of the western SANFL clubs to take up the vacated SANFL zone.
Then, I advocated retaining and reinforcing the Player Retention Scheme to ensure neither they, nor other VFL teams, bled the SANFL dry.
It is interesting to speculate about how that would have panned out financially for both Port and the remaining SANFL teams.

[UK Fan]

Short Answer : Leave us out of your mess.

Short response : Mind your own business then.

I would but the SANFL and its 8 clubs keep getting made a scapegoat for your club(s) complete incompetence (nice come back BTW ).

i just whanted to say that, what tredrea has posted is exactly what has happened with the port magpies and the power. we can debate about this to the cows come home but the truth is , the sanfl and the other eight clubs, mine included, would not let the port adelaide football club go to the afl unless a port magpies was left in the sanfl.the new side is not the power, they are the magpies trading as the power in the afl, the new side is the new port magpies who had to by a licence back in 96. again , tredrea, you are spot on, to everybody else all i can say is now read this.

just to clarify did the SANFL hold a gun to Ports head to sign the deal in 1996 to join the AFL ??? NO

Did Port sign the agreement to join the AFL knowing all the terms and conditions.??? YES

Who did Port outbid to gain AFL entry ??? 8 other SANFL clubs bids

And now this is the SANFL and the 8 SANFL clubs fault. Not Port Adelaides at all. I dont buy it at all.Didnt these two clubs hate each other 12 months ago ????

Maybe Port Power should not of over estimated the crowds they would receive. Maybe just maybe Port Mapgies with the 1 mill they received back in 1996 should of set up some future revenue streams. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but to blame the SANFL who gave the PAFC an AFL licence (with interest free repayments) , an AFL stadium and 35 of the comps best players to set up the club is an absolute disgrace IMHO.

Its not the SANFL who over estimated itself.

[mr o]

uk fan , as i have stated, read what tredrea has said, and what i have said, the sanfl put alot of conditions on port to join the afl. port did not wont to leave a side in the sanfl. the debate should be,should port have been allowed to join the afl, considering how domanant they were, or was the sanfl wrong in allowing port to join, considering how much of a mess we have 12 years later .

[UK Fan]

uk fan , as i have stated, read what tredrea has said, and what i have said, the sanfl put alot of conditions on port to join the afl. port did not wont to leave a side in the sanfl. the debate should be,should port have been allowed to join the afl, considering how domanant they were, or was the sanfl wrong in allowing port to join, considering how much of a mess we have 12 years later .

Mr O . Read what I have said. Did Port agree to those conditions in 1996 ????
Did the SANFL and 8 SANFL clubs put a gun to Ports head and make them sign ????

If you remember correctly and stop re-writing history Port really really wanted to join the AFL and maybe didnt do their sums properly in their haste to achieve the 2nd licence in the AFL. And maybe also made false promises on the size of crowds they could attract. How is that 15 years later the WAFC or the SANFLS fault ???

We gave Port Adelaide and Magpies everything to be successful. Even Tredrea will admit the port Magpies only has its own administation to blame for its financial situation. So why blame the SANFL ??

Seems to me SANFL did their research and worked out a good deal for itself.

Mr O. Port were never ever going to join the AFL independently. I think they learnt that lesson the hard way in 1991. ??? Sitting back and claiming not our fault we should have got in indepenently (a situation that was never achievable)is quite simply pathetic.

To point the blame back onto the agreed sanctions from 15 years ago as an excuse is laughable.The two clubs have got compeltely seperate issues off the field. None of which could possibly be blamed on the SANFL.

Only the truly dimwitted would even entertain this theory. ie Most Port fans.

BTW didnt the Eagles vacate Football Park in 1990 when the crows were formed??? So can Crows and Eagles financial situation be linked and blamed on the SANFL ????

[Macca19]

ignorance is bliss i guess