by SDK » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:31 pm
by Booney » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:38 pm
beenreal wrote:saintal wrote:Yep, Thomas, Koch and co. don’t want blood on their hands. This was basically the views of the South hierarchy and the other directors.
How ridiculous. It the PAFC hierarchy wanted no blood on their hands they simply could have accepted the $ANFLs rejection of their Reserves model.
Interesting that the directors are in disarray on their views towards the AFC plan but can all of a sudden be in unison when it comes to their attitudes towards Port Adelaide.
by smac » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:40 pm
by Booney » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:44 pm
smac wrote:Perhaps, boonbag, the Crows had to earn a little more distrust than Port? They play a good game of catch up.
by The Sleeping Giant » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:46 pm
Booney wrote:beenreal wrote:saintal wrote:Yep, Thomas, Koch and co. don’t want blood on their hands. This was basically the views of the South hierarchy and the other directors.
How ridiculous. It the PAFC hierarchy wanted no blood on their hands they simply could have accepted the $ANFLs rejection of their Reserves model.
Interesting that the directors are in disarray on their views towards the AFC plan but can all of a sudden be in unison when it comes to their attitudes towards Port Adelaide.
Adelaide put several models forward, league directors go from all voting no, to all voting yes and every possible varitaion to the 8 vote tally possible and they are still entertaining the bullshit idea after who knows how many meetings and discussions.
Port didnt even get to finish a sentence.
Strange how people are finding their dislike of the AFC growing, I'm starting to feel the same about the 8 league directors.
by Booney » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:51 pm
by saintal » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:53 pm
by Look Good In Leather » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:01 pm
Macca19 wrote:http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/crows-reserves-vote-to-miss-friday8217s-deadline/story-fnelctok-1226693817425Two clubs - Central and Norwood - want the Magpies' licence to play in the SANFL (that was signed on December 1, 2010) to be revoked.
If this move is successful, the Power would then have no choice but to replicate the Crows with a stand-alone team in the SANFL.
And people try and tell us that theres no more open wounds towards Port Adelaide?
by Jim05 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:04 pm
Booney wrote:I know. Can you imagine all the top up players Port would have needed to take from the other SANFL clubs? Hang on....
by Mr Beefy » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:11 pm
Look Good In Leather wrote:
What I take exception to is that Sturt, for 112 years has played against Port Adelaide, in multiple Grand Finals and, at times, a very intense rivalry. You could replace Sturt, with the name of any of the other 7 clubs.
Why is it now that Sturt is only worthy of playing Port's reserves team?
by Macca19 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:15 pm
Booney wrote:smac wrote:Perhaps, boonbag, the Crows had to earn a little more distrust than Port? They play a good game of catch up.
Yeah, maybe. Just remember, it might be Adelaide who load the gun but it will be each and every SANFL club that has it's finger prints on the murder weapon.
by Macca19 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:18 pm
Jim05 wrote:Booney wrote:I know. Can you imagine all the top up players Port would have needed to take from the other SANFL clubs? Hang on....
This is correct.
Ports model is better although there was an issue of which top up players would be used, I dont think the other clubs would be keen for current Magpies league players to be used as top ups.
by Booney » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:25 pm
Macca19 wrote:Jim05 wrote:Booney wrote:I know. Can you imagine all the top up players Port would have needed to take from the other SANFL clubs? Hang on....
This is correct.
Ports model is better although there was an issue of which top up players would be used, I dont think the other clubs would be keen for current Magpies league players to be used as top ups.
The top up players used was already stated in the proposal.
ex-AFL recruits? Not allowed any.
ex-PAFC AFL players? Only 1 allowed in a leadership role
ex-SANFL recruits? Not allowed any.
All top up players except 1 would have come from Ports zones.
And at least in this model, if an AFL recruit is way off the pace (as a lot of them are when they first come across) or doesnt have the body for league football (like a ruckman) they'd be able to play SANFL reserves. What the hell is the Crows plan?
by The Sleeping Giant » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:28 pm
by Booney » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:32 pm
by whufc » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:33 pm
The Sleeping Giant wrote:Top up players is the point I'm least concerned about.
by Jim05 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:36 pm
by Jim05 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:38 pm
The Sleeping Giant wrote:Top up players is the point I'm least concerned about.
by Look Good In Leather » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:52 pm
Macca19 wrote:Jim05 wrote:Booney wrote:I know. Can you imagine all the top up players Port would have needed to take from the other SANFL clubs? Hang on....
This is correct.
Ports model is better although there was an issue of which top up players would be used, I dont think the other clubs would be keen for current Magpies league players to be used as top ups.
The top up players used was already stated in the proposal.
ex-AFL recruits? Not allowed any.
ex-PAFC AFL players? Only 1 allowed in a leadership role
ex-SANFL recruits? Not allowed any.
All top up players except 1 would have come from Ports zones.
And at least in this model, if an AFL recruit is way off the pace (as a lot of them are when they first come across) or doesnt have the body for league football (like a ruckman) they'd be able to play SANFL reserves. What the hell is the Crows plan?
by UK Fan » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:53 pm
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |