AFL Reserves Discussion...

[Jim05]

This is how they view recruitment zones "we also believe that the retention of its recruitment zone and junior structures are culturally significant to the Club, and provide a uniquely powerful connection to the community which must be retained." KT should mention that they are important to build players into SANFL league footballers for the Magpies. Shows we are only a marketing tool for them.

Other AFL clubs dont have juniors or zones so why should Port.
You wanted to join the big boys so off you go

[beenreal]

October 2010
http://www.portmagpies.com.au/newsarchi ... ews_id=635

Sometime before and in between.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6304421836

June 2013
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... ceo-june-4



Is it any wonder...

The PAFC must be an absolute fascination to you if you can pull up archives like this so quickly Aerie. But it proves what? Back in 2010, AFL clubs weren't moving towards Reserves sides, now they are. Doesn't matter what USED to happen, it matters what IS happening.

If as Jim05 states, the PAFC must have what other AFL clubs have, then a Reserves side fits that model.

[heater31]

October 2010
http://www.portmagpies.com.au/newsarchi ... ews_id=635

Sometime before and in between.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6304421836

June 2013
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... ceo-june-4



Is it any wonder...

The PAFC must be an absolute fascination to you if you can pull up archives like this so quickly Aerie. But it proves what? Back in 2010, AFL clubs weren't moving towards Reserves sides, now they are. Doesn't matter what USED to happen, it matters what IS happening.

If as Jim05 states, the PAFC must have what other AFL clubs have, then a Reserves side fits that model.

Yes but you can't also have recruiting zones either. So which would you prefer?

[on the rails]

Shows nothing of the sort. The club is the Magpies, the Magpies are the club. It's only hard to comprehend if you want it to be.

As for Keith Thomas being indoctrinated into the Port Adelaide way, GREAT!

Perhaps if clubs like North Adelaide had a similar mentality over the years, they might have been more successful.

A similar self serving self interest selfish attitude? No thanks but again as per an earlier post I put up "slaying" the PAFC it still goes to show your (that being the PAFC and thick heads like you!) contempt for the other clubs who helped you acheive your success! You were not playing in a one team comp but how quickly you and the PAFC are dismissive of what the other clubs in the SANFL want.

FFS it is where you club came from and gave it the base for being in the AFL now but all you see it now is as your lot put it "A pissant league" that steals dollars off your club and it is only valuable in as far as you can load your under performing Magpies with AFL players to again take the cheap selfish option.

[Aerie]

October 2010
http://www.portmagpies.com.au/newsarchi ... ews_id=635

Sometime before and in between.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6304421836

June 2013
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... ceo-june-4



Is it any wonder...

The PAFC must be an absolute fascination to you if you can pull up archives like this so quickly Aerie. But it proves what? Back in 2010, AFL clubs weren't moving towards Reserves sides, now they are. Doesn't matter what USED to happen, it matters what IS happening.

If as Jim05 states, the PAFC must have what other AFL clubs have, then a Reserves side fits that model.

I couldn't care less about PAFC, but I do care about the Eagles and the competition they play. That's why I googled "Port One Club Proposal" and "SANFL finances Port Adelaide" to find the articles to illustrate what I am about to say.

The first link proves PAFC gained the vote of the SANFL Directors by promising a financial model only:

"Importantly, however, the club’s AFL and SANFL football operations will be run independently of each other.

The Magpies will not operate as a Reserves side for the Power. Power players would continue to be distributed throughout the SANFL and play for their aligned SANFL Club. The Magpies would have the same salary cap as all other SANFL clubs, but would also have a total expense cap imposed, recognising the unique relationship with an AFL club. That cap would be commensurate with the average expenditure of other League clubs."

The second link shows how many $ have been pumped in by the SANFL to make sure Port survive.

The last link shows that what was important just over 2 years ago is no longer important and that Port couldn't give a stuff about the SANFL and only care about themselves.

Morally, Port should be told to pack their bags, pay back money given to them by the SANFL over the past few years and find somewhere else to play their matches outside of the Adelaide Oval or Footy Park.

The PAFC come across as a scheming, lying, liability of a club that should just be left to their own devices. Cut your losses SANFL.

[Jim05]

October 2010
http://www.portmagpies.com.au/newsarchi ... ews_id=635

Sometime before and in between.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6304421836

June 2013
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... ceo-june-4



Is it any wonder...

The PAFC must be an absolute fascination to you if you can pull up archives like this so quickly Aerie. But it proves what? Back in 2010, AFL clubs weren't moving towards Reserves sides, now they are. Doesn't matter what USED to happen, it matters what IS happening.

If as Jim05 states, the PAFC must have what other AFL clubs have, then a Reserves side fits that model.

I have never been agsinst Port having a Reserves side just not in the SANFL league comp.
The whole situation with Port was a cockup since day 1, the SANFL should of severed ties with them the day they joined the AFL. Was handled extremely poorly by the SANFL at the time

[Booney]

Much of what Aerie posted can't be disputed. It's there in black and white. But clearly October 2010 and June 2013 are different points in time and things change. I'd be pretty confident Adelaide FC were not as set on having a reserves side back then either, but they are now. WOW! How things change.

As for the money the SANFL has paid to Port Adelaide, that has been well documented on here. What do you want me to say about that? ( BTW, I cant write a cheque on behalf of the PAFC, nor can I authorise any sort of payback scheme. ) I'm happy to read what your thoughts are though. Just type as you normally would, I'll filter out the insults.

If you truly think the SANFL would be as prestigious, as enjoyable and as important to the wider footballing community without any Port Adelaide involvement then thats your opinion. As they say, opinions are like arseholes, we all have one.

Enjoy your day.

[beenreal]

October 2010
http://www.portmagpies.com.au/newsarchi ... ews_id=635

Sometime before and in between.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6304421836

June 2013
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... ceo-june-4



Is it any wonder...

The PAFC must be an absolute fascination to you if you can pull up archives like this so quickly Aerie. But it proves what? Back in 2010, AFL clubs weren't moving towards Reserves sides, now they are. Doesn't matter what USED to happen, it matters what IS happening.

If as Jim05 states, the PAFC must have what other AFL clubs have, then a Reserves side fits that model.

I couldn't care less about PAFC, but I do care about the Eagles and the competition they play. That's why I googled "Port One Club Proposal" and "SANFL finances Port Adelaide" to find the articles to illustrate what I am about to say.

The first link proves PAFC gained the vote of the SANFL Directors by promising a financial model only:

"Importantly, however, the club’s AFL and SANFL football operations will be run independently of each other.

The Magpies will not operate as a Reserves side for the Power. Power players would continue to be distributed throughout the SANFL and play for their aligned SANFL Club. The Magpies would have the same salary cap as all other SANFL clubs, but would also have a total expense cap imposed, recognising the unique relationship with an AFL club. That cap would be commensurate with the average expenditure of other League clubs."

The second link shows how many $ have been pumped in by the SANFL to make sure Port survive.

The last link shows that what was important just over 2 years ago is no longer important and that Port couldn't give a stuff about the SANFL and only care about themselves.

Morally, Port should be told to pack their bags, pay back money given to them by the SANFL over the past few years and find somewhere else to play their matches outside of the Adelaide Oval or Footy Park.

The PAFC come across as a scheming, lying, liability of a club that should just be left to their own devices. Cut your losses SANFL.

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to underwrite in the early '70s?

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to shift 6 games to in order to generate some SANFL income back in 1974?

This is the same Footy Park into which Port Adelaide has pumped over $57M of revenue (not profit as it's the SANFLs job to turn that revenue into a profit) since 1997?

Talk about ungrateful!

[kickinit]

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to underwrite in the early '70s?

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to shift 6 games to in order to generate some SANFL income back in 1974?

This is the same Footy Park into which Port Adelaide has pumped over $57M of revenue (not profit as it's the SANFLs job to turn that revenue into a profit) since 1997?

Talk about ungrateful!

they all seem to forget about that.

[PatowalongaPirate]

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to underwrite in the early '70s?

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to shift 6 games to in order to generate some SANFL income back in 1974?

This is the same Footy Park into which Port Adelaide has pumped over $57M of revenue (not profit as it's the SANFLs job to turn that revenue into a profit) since 1997?

Talk about ungrateful!

they all seem to forget about that.

Clearly the 1970's and 2013 are different points in time and things change

[Barto]

Like Rucci's suggestion better than any other I've heard. One issue I'd think for the AFL clubs would be when they make the finals but their reserves team doesn't. Wouldn't be ideal for them to have their excess players short on match fitness and form.

It's the most sense he's ever made.

[am Bays]

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to underwrite in the early '70s?

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to shift 6 games to in order to generate some SANFL income back in 1974?

This is the same Footy Park into which Port Adelaide has pumped over $57M of revenue (not profit as it's the SANFLs job to turn that revenue into a profit) since 1997?

Talk about ungrateful!

they all seem to forget about that.

Clearly the 1970's and 2013 are different points in time and things change

If this is true, were they internal trials or by chance were they played agaisnt other SANFL clubs at the time.....

[beenreal]

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to underwrite in the early '70s?

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to shift 6 games to in order to generate some SANFL income back in 1974?

This is the same Footy Park into which Port Adelaide has pumped over $57M of revenue (not profit as it's the SANFLs job to turn that revenue into a profit) since 1997?

Talk about ungrateful!

they all seem to forget about that.

Clearly the 1970's and 2013 are different points in time and things change

If this is true, were they internal trials or by chance were they played agaisnt other SANFL clubs at the time.....

Port Adelaide Home Games moved from Alberton, where yes they would have been played against other SANFL teams.

[FlyingHigh]

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to underwrite in the early '70s?

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to shift 6 games to in order to generate some SANFL income back in 1974?

This is the same Footy Park into which Port Adelaide has pumped over $57M of revenue (not profit as it's the SANFLs job to turn that revenue into a profit) since 1997?

Talk about ungrateful!

they all seem to forget about that.

Why would have Port been asked to underwrite a multi-million dollar project on their own?

Also, were they given any financial inducements to switch those games, or did they do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

[beenreal]

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to underwrite in the early '70s?

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to shift 6 games to in order to generate some SANFL income back in 1974?

This is the same Footy Park into which Port Adelaide has pumped over $57M of revenue (not profit as it's the SANFLs job to turn that revenue into a profit) since 1997?

Talk about ungrateful!

they all seem to forget about that.

Why would have Port been asked to underwrite a multi-million dollar project on their own?

Also, were they given any financial inducements to switch those games, or did they do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

There was a shortfall in the cement budget, which Port Adelaide were asked to guarantee.

If you want specifics about any "inducements", etc. ask Leigh Whicker. As part of the "old boys club" still ruling the roost here in pissant town, he'd have all the answers

[areaman]

If you truly think the SANFL would be as prestigious, as enjoyable and as important to the wider footballing community without any Port Adelaide involvement then thats your opinion. As they say, opinions are like arseholes, we all have one.

And there is the rub.

Is the SANFL weaker without a Port presence? Of course it is.

But an 8 side comp without a Port team is a league with far greater integrity than a 10 team comp with 2 AFL reserves sides as part of it.

Right now Port are saying that they would treat the SANFL with integrity - but as we have seen "things change". We've seen that such a change in attitude can happen in only 2 and a half years so by the end of 2015 we should expect that a new philosophy will emerge on how Port view their involvement in the SANFL.

This debate is getting rather lost because there are two different agendas that are so far apart that they are unlikely to ever meet.

Can I understand why Port (and the Crows) want to field a stand alone reserves team? I think the obvious answer is yes.

But why that necessitates that the other 8 SANFL clubs (and their supporters) should just rollover and accept this is beyond me.

I am yet to hear any reasoned argument how the SANFL competition will benefit from having 2 AFL reserves teams in it.

I am open minded to the topic so can someone please explain to me why as a WWT supporter I should be supportive of this dramatic change to the SANFL competition?

[am Bays]

If this is true, were they internal trials or by chance were they played agaisnt other SANFL clubs at the time.....

Port Adelaide Home Games moved from Alberton, where yes they would have been played against other SANFL teams.

But all clubs had home games moved to Footy Park from 1974, to make it a going concern - we lost up to four each year.

And given the issues at the time Port were having with the council and the Quinn Stand (home games moved to Adelaide Oval in 1975 ) were Port's motive slighly alturistic in playing six games at Football park in 1974??

Just asking

[whufc]

If you truly think the SANFL would be as prestigious, as enjoyable and as important to the wider footballing community without any Port Adelaide involvement then thats your opinion. As they say, opinions are like arseholes, we all have one.

And there is the rub.

Is the SANFL weaker without a Port presence? Of course it is.

But an 8 side comp without a Port team is a league with far greater integrity than a 10 team comp with 2 AFL reserves sides as part of it.

Right now Port are saying that they would treat the SANFL with integrity - but as we have seen "things change". We've seen that such a change in attitude can happen in only 2 and a half years so by the end of 2015 we should expect that a new philosophy will emerge on how Port view their involvement in the SANFL.

This debate is getting rather lost because there are two different agendas that are so far apart that they are unlikely to ever meet.

Can I understand why Port (and the Crows) want to field a stand alone reserves team? I think the obvious answer is yes.

But why that necessitates that the other 8 SANFL clubs (and their supporters) should just rollover and accept this is beyond me.

I am yet to hear any reasoned argument how the SANFL competition will benefit from having 2 AFL reserves teams in it.

I am open minded to the topic so can someone please explain to me why as a WWT supporter I should be supportive of this dramatic change to the SANFL competition?

Yep has not once been answered by officials from the PAFC or posters on SAFooty!!

[FlyingHigh]

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to underwrite in the early '70s?

This would be the same Footy Park that Port Adelaide were asked to shift 6 games to in order to generate some SANFL income back in 1974?

This is the same Footy Park into which Port Adelaide has pumped over $57M of revenue (not profit as it's the SANFLs job to turn that revenue into a profit) since 1997?

Talk about ungrateful!

they all seem to forget about that.

Why would have Port been asked to underwrite a multi-million dollar project on their own?

Also, were they given any financial inducements to switch those games, or did they do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

There was a shortfall in the cement budget, which Port Adelaide were asked to guarantee.

If you want specifics about any "inducements", etc. ask Leigh Whicker. As part of the "old boys club" still ruling the roost here in pissant town, he'd have all the answers

Fair enough if that's story is true. Had never heard it before, and seems a bit odd.

[Armytank]

If you truly think the SANFL would be as prestigious, as enjoyable and as important to the wider footballing community without any Port Adelaide involvement then thats your opinion. As they say, opinions are like arseholes, we all have one.

And there is the rub.

Is the SANFL weaker without a Port presence? Of course it is.

Perhaps years ago, when I was still a boy and Port were a team worth hating.

But now they are a shadow of a club. The Power really has destroyed the Port tradition. The old "there is not SANFL without Port Adelaide" has died a slow quiet death, while everyone was looking away.

I put to you an 8 team League - 10 team Reserves. I don't give a rats if you wear the prison bars, the big V or that netball skirt you paraded around in when you joined the AFL, just piss off out of the league and let the rest of us get on with it. Port Adelaide has been white-anting the SANFL since the inception of the crows.

Right now the SANFL is weaker with Port. It is time to cut the umbilical chord and for both Port and the SANFL to grow up.