Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:28 pm
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:50 pmPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:52 pmPunk Rooster wrote:Port supporters have long given North supporters grief over the 2nd lowest total in a GF, 1 goal 8 pts, yet we have the delicious irony that the vote that sealed Port's fate was 1-8 (against)!
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:22 amPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:05 amPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:50 amPunk Rooster wrote:Port supporters have long given North supporters grief over the 2nd lowest total in a GF, 1 goal 8 pts, yet we have the delicious irony that the vote that sealed Port's fate was 1-8 (against)!
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:01 pmredden whites wrote:Yes Punk .The directors seemed to attend the meeting "with 1 goal in mind"
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:02 pmPerfect Drug wrote:Punk Rooster wrote:Port supporters have long given North supporters grief over the 2nd lowest total in a GF, 1 goal 8 pts, yet we have the delicious irony that the vote that sealed Port's fate was 1-8 (against)!
Delicious irony that sealed our fate? Last time I checked we were still in the AFL while North languish in a league which is becoming weaker. North has pretty much "Stuff all" to do with our fate. You are insignificant.
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:11 pmPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:16 pmon the rails wrote:Perfect Drug wrote:Punk Rooster wrote:Port supporters have long given North supporters grief over the 2nd lowest total in a GF, 1 goal 8 pts, yet we have the delicious irony that the vote that sealed Port's fate was 1-8 (against)!
Delicious irony that sealed our fate? Last time I checked we were still in the AFL while North languish in a league which is becoming weaker. North has pretty much "Stuff all" to do with our fate. You are insignificant.
Not counting the pies then as a club languishing in a weak league then?
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:16 pmPerfect Drug wrote:Punk Rooster wrote:Port supporters have long given North supporters grief over the 2nd lowest total in a GF, 1 goal 8 pts, yet we have the delicious irony that the vote that sealed Port's fate was 1-8 (against)!
Delicious irony that sealed our fate? Last time I checked we were still in the AFL while North languish in a league which is becoming weaker. North has pretty much "Stuff all" to do with our fate. You are insignificant.
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:28 pmPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:44 pmPunk Rooster wrote:Port supporters have long given North supporters grief over the 2nd lowest total in a GF, 1 goal 8 pts, yet we have the delicious irony that the vote that sealed Port's fate was 1-8 (against)!
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:34 pmTimmiesChin wrote:Punk Rooster wrote:Port supporters have long given North supporters grief over the 2nd lowest total in a GF, 1 goal 8 pts, yet we have the delicious irony that the vote that sealed Port's fate was 1-8 (against)!
Unlike that scoreline, Port still has a chance to recover.
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:57 pmPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:59 pmWedgie wrote:Geez I wish my AFL club was as good as Port are at the moment, oozing jealousy!
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:31 pmTimmiesChin wrote:Punk Rooster wrote:Port supporters have long given North supporters grief over the 2nd lowest total in a GF, 1 goal 8 pts, yet we have the delicious irony that the vote that sealed Port's fate was 1-8 (against)!
Unlike that scoreline, Port still has a chance to recover.
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:44 pmVoice wrote: '2' byes per round
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:27 pmam Bays wrote:I thought irony was James Micklejohn appearing in a front page photo under the headline "Save our Soul"?
Didn't he want out from the Magpies and had to be dragged back kicking and screaming....
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:03 pmBarto wrote:Voice wrote: '2' byes per round
Nevermind, there is 2 byes per round anyway. Whoever has the bye and whoever plays South 