SA Footy

UK Fan wrote:All of this the week after you get 600 people attending your home game.


Kick them out

blueandwhite wrote:I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

Vamos wrote:Ambit. Twice in 3 posts, the whinge brings out the best of vocabulary amongst users, impressive!

Vamos wrote:Ambit. Twice in 3 posts, the whinge brings out the best of vocabulary amongst users, impressive!

Booney wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, why do the SANFL want Port Adelaide to survive?

Must be something in it for the SANFL, you'd think.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Booney wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, why do the SANFL want Port Adelaide to survive?

Must be something in it for the SANFL, you'd think.

The SANFL hoping to recoup some of the debt?

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Booney wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, why do the SANFL want Port Adelaide to survive?

Must be something in it for the SANFL, you'd think.

The SANFL hoping to recoup some of the debt?

cracka wrote:Chandler said they can't leave because they're contracted to playing in the SANFL until 2028

cracka wrote:Chandler said they can't leave because they're contracted to playing in the SANFL until 2028

Booney wrote:
I'd happily accept that if we'd not contributed anything to the kitty over the last 150 years. I'm sure we'd helped the bottom line for a while.

am Bays wrote:I also didnt like the 24 goal touch up we got at Alberton in 2014, proof that things go in cycles if you get the foundations of your program right and then put the players in around that.

I blame the runner we had that day.....

Booney wrote:I'd happily accept that if we'd not contributed anything to the kitty over the last 150 years. I'm sure we'd helped the bottom line for a while.

gazzamagoo wrote:

am Bays wrote:I also didnt like the 24 goal touch up we got at Alberton in 2014, proof that things go in cycles if you get the foundations of your program right and then put the players in around that.

I blame the runner we had that day.....

Who was the runner

Booney wrote:

gazzamagoo wrote:

am Bays wrote:I also didnt like the 24 goal touch up we got at Alberton in 2014, proof that things go in cycles if you get the foundations of your program right and then put the players in around that.

I blame the runner we had that day.....

Who was the runner

Bit mouthy, bit chubby from memory.

Booney wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal, then go elsewhere.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, why do the SANFL want Port Adelaide to survive?

Must be something in it for the SANFL, you'd think.