SA Footy

How does winning 110 to 68 give you a 77 point margin? (last Sturt v Port game)

How does Sturt v Port player listing result in both the league and reserve score boxes (which you fill in) have the teams Sturt and South, now I know Port played badly today, but still...

Not good...

... again I think we're at a crossroad where the budget should be re-drafted as an A5 publication...

What about where space it provided to fill in the scores (both League and Reserves):

CENTRAL
EAGLES



And then, where the weekly tipper prize is announced, it says that Shed Lot tipped the correct margin of 10 points.
What's 87 minus 76?

And it doesn't need to be A5 - that would be another excuse to have less content. What it does need is people who care about the League to do it to get rid of these inexcusable mistakes. Proofreader anyone?

spell_check wrote:What about where space it provided to fill in the scores (both League and Reserves):

CENTRAL
EAGLES



And then, where the weekly tipper prize is announced, it says that Shed Lot tipped the correct margin of 10 points.
What's 87 minus 76?

And it doesn't need to be A5 - that would be another excuse to have less content. What it does need is people who care about the League to do it to get rid of these inexcusable mistakes. Proofreader anyone?

I think all the games were a week out .

Page 18 - For the team line ups with the Norwood v South Under 18's game they have South written as the team but Westies "Bloods" logo...

Page 21 - For the quarter by quarter scores for both league and reserves they have Centrals and Eagles (who aren't even playing each other) for the Eagles v North game.

Page 23 - For the quarter by quarter scores for both league and reserves they have North and West (who aren't even playing each other) for the Glenelg v Central game.

Page 25 - For the quarter by quarter scores for both league and reserves they have Glenelg and Port (who aren't even playing each other) for the Norwood v South game.

Page 27 - For the quarter by quarter scores for both league and reserves they have South and Port (who aren't even playing each other) for the Sturt v Port game.

Although only trivial, on the front cover they have a picture of Glenelg's Ben Mules and Central's Jonathon Giles form their clash back on ANZAC Day but Giles played reserves today.

Its a bloody disgrace

And if I wanted to be cruel, on page 7:

"It's pretty hard not to socialise at a club like Central - their a very social bunch"

Try "they are" or "they're", again, lack of proofreading.

spell_check wrote:And if I wanted to be cruel, on page 7:

"It's pretty hard not to socialise at a club like Central - their a very social bunch"

Try "they are" or "they're", again, lack of proofreading.

In last week's Budget the 'last result' between Centrals and Eagles had the correct score, with the 8 point margin - quoted as '7' of course. I think they do it to keep us guessing.

ST...

Yes I know we all got stuck into the Budget a few weeks ago & I don't want to continually remind the SANFL of this issue - but c'mon Mr Editor - get some decent checking mechanisms into gear - the mistakes made in this week's edition create an impression that the Budget editorial staff can't cut,copy or paste efficiently...

spell_check wrote:And if I wanted to be cruel, on page 7:

"It's pretty hard not to socialise at a club like Central - their a very social bunch"

Try "they are" or "they're", again, lack of proofreading.

And its not true. We are pretty grumpy this week after failing to beat Glenelg

rd wrote:Yes I know we all got stuck into the Budget a few weeks ago & I don't want to continually remind the SANFL of this issue - but c'mon Mr Editor - get some decent checking mechanisms into gear - the mistakes made in this week's edition create an impression that the Budget editorial staff can't cut,copy or paste efficiently...

yeah the previous weeks games printed where you write down the scores for this weeks game surely that mistake should never have happened, the odd spelling mistake could be made occaisionally but not that

i suggest give spelly the job as he'll do it professionally & with up to date stats

You reckon the budgets bad - have a close look at the SANFL website. Some clangers on that. Simply not good enough in a public forum. Then again smacks of smugness from an inept organization that can't concede it actually makes mistakes.

Why don't they just have squad numbers now we have AFL listed players retuning each weekend?There is someone missing every bloody week.This week an unlisted guy had 7 goals at halftime.I thought Blighty had been smuggled out there

well, while we're being picky, This very site says that Glenelg drew with Port.

The SA Footy Budget is a disgusting publication, not worth the trees its written on and the SANFL need to do something about it for the sake of the competition.

matt1 wrote:The SA Footy Budget is a disgusting publication, not worth the trees its written on and the SANFL need to do something about it for the sake of the competition.

My feeling is that both the budget and the SANFL website are run / edited / designed by AFL fans, not fans of the SANFL. If the SANFL could pay me what I'm paid now, my life would revolve around that website.

CENTURION wrote:well, while we're being picky, This very site says that Glenelg drew with Port.

But how much are people paid to update this site?

...... and the Star Search nomination for this round, Toby Schulz wasn't in Norwood's list, either League or Reserves.

Who is responsible for this? I've always thought the clubs provide this information.

perhaps this in the true tradition of safooty this thread should be retitled ''has the footy budget imploded''

Maybe Ashley Porter does both publications - similar errors

Sinking the boot in further, apparently Brodie Smith debuted today. His games in Round 15 and 16 must have been someone else.