SA Footy

Hear, hear to the decision made tonight.

The reasoning for rejecting the proposal is flawed however.

It is unclear in the Magpies would have gained any material advantage from it. Quite the opposite is likely in fact. We would have lost our integrity, our independence and would have become a "brand", presumably answerable to the AFL, rather than to the members of the club. Similar arrangements were in vogue across Eastern-Europe in the latter half of the 20th century.

Quite simply, the deal should have been rejected because no merger of two financially crippled insitutions would ordinarily be approved under normal commercial terms.

The new entitiy would in all probability have continued to lose money hand over fist, and it would have only been a matter of time before the AFL exherted influence on the Power and the SANFL Commission to cut the Magpies "brand" completely.

In the meantime, we would have existed as something of a retarded strangling - loathed, ridiculed and spat upon by the very people now benefitting from our willingness to challenge the status quo back in 1990.

So, while the decision was made on the basis of half-truths, scaremongering and a dirty media agenda, it is nonetheless the correct outcome.

The other 8 SANFL clubs can go and get f**ked for their selfish and short-sighted vindictiveness.

The confused and hopelessly conflicted SANFL Commission can go and get f**ked as well.
And finally, the greedy, morally bankrupt Power can go and get especially f**ked. Sort out your own mess with your evil AFL bedfellows and don't drag my Magpies into it.

Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.

That's a pretty fatal response there.....

Don't worry you can always join the Snouts

I thought you had a great run in the media. Just about every card was played, pollies got involved. The thing that probably let ya down was your supporter base not mobilizing.

pipers wrote:our willingness to challenge the status quo back in 1990.

Therein lies half the problem.

IMHO, the Power is where any of this blame or any revengeful thoughts should be levied. Not the Magpies.

It might just be the case that the SANFL clubs now support the Magpies staying in the comp - just not in the form that has been proposed. Personally, I hope they do. As for the Power, the SANFL clubs should anticipate a dividend from the Power. If the Power is not able to supply a dividend, then the asset (ie licence) should be reviewed. Someone at the SANFL should have been reading the riot act to the Power some time ago. Alas, they are in all sorts of strife and for a whole host of reasons that have been gone over many times. But if the Power is genuinely an investment as the 'operator' of the licence, then the harsh reality might be that the asset owners need to reinvent that business model and all that it entails. And that could mean a new brand, or a sub-lease (Darwin, Tassie), or any other option with business viability.

pipers wrote:
Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.

You could always attempt to do something about the situation to try to save your club. Too hard is it? Glad North supporters didn't think that way back in 2003. Better to try and fail than to not try.

As for saying:

"The other 8 SANFL clubs can go and get f**ked for their selfish and short-sighted vindictiveness."

I say to that go and get f*cked yourself and stop expecting handouts that no other club has been afforded. It is not the fault of any SANFL club that Port finds itself in this situation. Port only has itself to blame and if they can't work their way out of their current problems by themselves then sadly it's goodbye Magpies.

Pipers, your the true Port Adelaide fan who I feel sorry for - one who supports the magpies only. It's sad that it has come to this but as you said two ailing financial clubs was doomed to end in misery for one. I agree with you this decision has only brought forward the inevitable. In 3 years time as the Power with-held $$$$ from the Magpies to run their own ever expanding AFL expenditure (keep up with the Jones' to remain competitive) the Magpies were doomed to die anyways.

In someways perhaps the 8 clubs should've voted yes, it would've had the effect of handing the Power the loaded gun, it would have been them killing the Magpies in 2012/13.

The sad thing is, it is the wrong Port Adelaide who will survive.

Hang on here didn't West Adelaide run at a huge loss last year (2008) but we fought back and dug ourselves out of a hole. When Sturt was dead as a dodo they got themselves outta of a hole. Port supporter should shaft the power and spend their money on a Magpies membership show them who the REAL Port Adelaide is.

many points-

The SANFL Clubs have rejected Plan A- yet it is the SANFL Clubs fault that the PAMFC will fall over

The SANFL & it's clubs owe it to the PAMFC to save them from themselves, as the SANFL & it's clubs are in debt to PAMFC for their actions of 1990

It's the PAMFC- so we must save them

It's only petty jealousy that the SANFL clubs voted against the Proposal

I'm sorry, but wrong.
Both Ports are being made accountable for their actions- which is little comfort to the 2-3000 odd Magpie faithful who are members (yet have been remarkably quiet & invisible on the issue).
I assume it is PAFC arrogance that they have a god-given right to exist.

...I thought it was better to "die on your feet than live on your knees"...

So, if I have this right, most likely in 2011 it'll be bye bye bye...

ST...

Without taking any sides in the debate, for me the human side of it is the hardest part. A close mate of mine has been with the Magpies all his life. Has worked around the club, bought his membership every year, goes to every home match and has ridden through the bumps and highs.

When he rang me in tears last night about the decision, it was another time - among many - that it really hit home again to me just how many people are affected by this decision. These are people that won't pick up another club. They will be GONE to SANFL. Gone. A big group taken, just like that. They are the ones that I feel the worst for.

CK wrote:Without taking any sides in the debate, for me the human side of it is the hardest part. A close mate of mine has been with the Magpies all his life. Has worked around the club, bought his membership every year, goes to every home match and has ridden through the bumps and highs.

When he rang me in tears last night about the decision, it was another time - among many - that it really hit home again to me just how many people are affected by this decision. These are people that won't pick up another club. They will be GONE to SANFL. Gone. A big group taken, just like that. They are the ones that I feel the worst for.

It would be hard to believe if it came to that, and to be honest for some reason I still don't accept it as a given that the Magpies will be lost, and I very much hope I'm right.

I still can't understand how the governing body (SANFL) who should be there (IMHO) to assist and protect our clubs, could lose one of them.

They nearly lost Sturt and North in recent times, has nothing been learnt?

Constance_Perm wrote:

CK wrote:Without taking any sides in the debate, for me the human side of it is the hardest part. A close mate of mine has been with the Magpies all his life. Has worked around the club, bought his membership every year, goes to every home match and has ridden through the bumps and highs.

When he rang me in tears last night about the decision, it was another time - among many - that it really hit home again to me just how many people are affected by this decision. These are people that won't pick up another club. They will be GONE to SANFL. Gone. A big group taken, just like that. They are the ones that I feel the worst for.

It would be hard to believe if it came to that, and to be honest for some reason I still don't accept it as a given that the Magpies will be lost, and I very much hope I'm right.

I still can't understand how the governing body (SANFL) who should be there (IMHO) to assist and protect our clubs, could lose one of them.

They nearly lost Sturt and North in recent times, has nothing been learnt?

Sturt accepted in 1995 they were going to have to make some very tough decisions if they were to survive, and played the kids, took on a rookie coach, all at low expenses, and took their knocks, for the sake of cutting their costs for one year to survive for more. North had to make similar tough decisions at times.

Without editorialising on it, the option for the Magpies looks to be to give game time to the passionate kids that WANT to be at the club and want to bleed for the black and white; assess the situation of any player that isn't there for the right reasons and look at moving them on if it frees up space, even if it means hurting them on-field for a time; and follow these models. If it means they get the wooden spoon in 2010, but gives them a chance of seeing life beyond October 2010, then that looks their solution. It will also ensure that if the good times return there, they will have a passionate group that WANT to be there desperately.

For all of the pain of both Sturt and North, both clubs were playing off again in grand finals within five years of their lowest ebbs. The Magpies need to keep that in mind when the times look dark.

CK wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

CK wrote:Without taking any sides in the debate, for me the human side of it is the hardest part. A close mate of mine has been with the Magpies all his life. Has worked around the club, bought his membership every year, goes to every home match and has ridden through the bumps and highs.

When he rang me in tears last night about the decision, it was another time - among many - that it really hit home again to me just how many people are affected by this decision. These are people that won't pick up another club. They will be GONE to SANFL. Gone. A big group taken, just like that. They are the ones that I feel the worst for.

It would be hard to believe if it came to that, and to be honest for some reason I still don't accept it as a given that the Magpies will be lost, and I very much hope I'm right.

I still can't understand how the governing body (SANFL) who should be there (IMHO) to assist and protect our clubs, could lose one of them.

They nearly lost Sturt and North in recent times, has nothing been learnt?

Sturt accepted in 1995 they were going to have to make some very tough decisions if they were to survive, and played the kids, took on a rookie coach, all at low expenses, and took their knocks, for the sake of cutting their costs for one year to survive for more. North had to make similar tough decisions at times.

Without editorialising on it, the option for the Magpies looks to be to give game time to the passionate kids that WANT to be at the club and want to bleed for the black and white; assess the situation of any player that isn't there for the right reasons and look at moving them on if it frees up space, even if it means hurting them on-field for a time; and follow these models. If it means they get the wooden spoon in 2010, but gives them a chance of seeing life beyond October 2010, then that looks their solution. It will also ensure that if the good times return there, they will have a passionate group that WANT to be there desperately.

For all of the pain of both Sturt and North, both clubs were playing off again in grand finals within five years of their lowest ebbs. The Magpies need to keep that in mind when the times look dark.

Im aware of all that mate, my point is more that a governing body should have some responsibility in helping the clubs ... And I don't mean just at the last minute or via large $ bailouts.

pipers wrote: In the meantime, we would have existed as something of a retarded strangling - loathed, ridiculed and spat upon by the very people now benefitting from our willingness to challenge the status quo back in 1990.

That revisionism is precisely why nobody could trust Port Adelaide's plan now.
Port harmed the SANFL by trying to join the "AFL" behind everyone else's back, and undercutting the independence of the SANFL out of pure self-interest and self-aggrandisement.
They then tried to justify themselves by pretending some other club would have done it if they had not, despite the evidence that other clubs approached by the "AFL" took it to the SANFL.
Then they tried to say they had done us all a favour...
Had they not done so, we may have achieved a proper national league instead of an enhanced VFL in time.

The "more important than any other club" line has been trotted out in semi-disguised form several times in this debate, and alienated potential supporters.
I sympathise with those Port supporters who simply love their club, but don't think it is more important than the rest of SA football.
They have been caught up in the damage wrought by other more arrogant colleagues.

Constance_Perm wrote: Im aware of all that mate, my point is more that a governing body should have some responsibility in helping the clubs ... And I don't mean just at the last minute or via large $ bailouts.

How many SA footy clubs in the SANFL, or its predecessor associations, have died or merged since, say, 1878.
Is it all that unusual for these changes to occur in any sporting association?

rod_rooster wrote:

pipers wrote:
Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.

You could always attempt to do something about the situation to try to save your club. Too hard is it? Glad North supporters didn't think that way back in 2003. Better to try and fail than to not try.

As for saying:

"The other 8 SANFL clubs can go and get f**ked for their selfish and short-sighted vindictiveness."

I say to that go and get f*cked yourself and stop expecting handouts that no other club has been afforded. It is not the fault of any SANFL club that Port finds itself in this situation. Port only has itself to blame and if they can't work their way out of their current problems by themselves then sadly it's goodbye Magpies.

So correct me if Im wrong, but Robs funds had nothing to do with your survival?
Nothing at all...........?
Seriously correct me if Im wrong.

Psyber wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote: Im aware of all that mate, my point is more that a governing body should have some responsibility in helping the clubs ... And I don't mean just at the last minute or via large $ bailouts.

How many SA footy clubs in the SANFL, or its predecessor associations, have died or merged since, say, 1878.
Is it all that unusual for these changes to occur in any sporting association?

Alot of ametre league clubs since 1878 have folded and merged and dont even start on the Country clubs that have fallen into nothing lately.

stan wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

pipers wrote:
Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.

You could always attempt to do something about the situation to try to save your club. Too hard is it? Glad North supporters didn't think that way back in 2003. Better to try and fail than to not try.

As for saying:

"The other 8 SANFL clubs can go and get f**ked for their selfish and short-sighted vindictiveness."

I say to that go and get f*cked yourself and stop expecting handouts that no other club has been afforded. It is not the fault of any SANFL club that Port finds itself in this situation. Port only has itself to blame and if they can't work their way out of their current problems by themselves then sadly it's goodbye Magpies.

So correct me if Im wrong, but Robs funds had nothing to do with your survival?
Nothing at all...........?
Seriously correct me if Im wrong.

He went guaranteur(spelling?) for the loans we took out to renovate\move\move again, our pokie venues, but the loans are in north's name and the repayments are made by north. he may have made a donation(i wouldnt be surprised if he did), but so did a lot of supporters. North also asked the sanfl to guarantee the loans first but they refused. we found another way.

tipper wrote:

stan wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

pipers wrote:
Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.

You could always attempt to do something about the situation to try to save your club. Too hard is it? Glad North supporters didn't think that way back in 2003. Better to try and fail than to not try.

As for saying:

"The other 8 SANFL clubs can go and get f**ked for their selfish and short-sighted vindictiveness."

I say to that go and get f*cked yourself and stop expecting handouts that no other club has been afforded. It is not the fault of any SANFL club that Port finds itself in this situation. Port only has itself to blame and if they can't work their way out of their current problems by themselves then sadly it's goodbye Magpies.

So correct me if Im wrong, but Robs funds had nothing to do with your survival?
Nothing at all...........?
Seriously correct me if Im wrong.

He went guaranteur(spelling?) for the loans we took out to renovate\move\move again, our pokie venues, but the loans are in north's name and the repayments are made by north. he may have made a donation(i wouldnt be surprised if he did), but so did a lot of supporters. North also asked the sanfl to guarantee the loans first but they refused. we found another way.

Thanks Tipper.

I must admit, one thing that I agree with from other supporters, espically Sturts situation, is that there supporters and members need to rally now and fight for them.

Psyber wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote: Im aware of all that mate, my point is more that a governing body should have some responsibility in helping the clubs ... And I don't mean just at the last minute or via large $ bailouts.

How many SA footy clubs in the SANFL, or its predecessor associations, have died or merged since, say, 1878.
Is it all that unusual for these changes to occur in any sporting association?

You don't think we've progessed since those days? How has the AFL managed to keep Hawthorn, Sydney, Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Geelong and the Kangaroo's in their competition after their struggles at one time or another in the past 10 years?