SA Footy

I thought there was hope after reading yesterday's factual report and I gave credit for it, but alas, we've gone backwards big-time today.

There's no point analysing today's offerings, except to say it better belongs in the gossip columns. We're also long past any semblance of independent reporting or journalistic integrity.
We have to search for Geoff Roach’s article to see someone acknowledge that the SANFL had no option on the figures to make any other decision, so perhaps it’s just easier to ask Michelangelo why he hasn’t addressed some questions that any independent observer would think go to the core of this matter.

What are the actual benefits in dollar terms of the potential merger?

Why are the SANFL the villains for not approving the merger and supposedly destroying the Magpies, when the original proposal itself proposed the end of the Magpies and them becoming a Power Reserves side in effect, wearing the teal guernsey?

What analysis have you done on the management performance of the Magpies and the Power?

What analysis have you done on the large amounts paid to interstate recruits in past, but relatively recent, times?

Why is it the SANFL’s fault regarding stadium deals when Port can’t draw a crowd at the stadium?

Do you acknowledge that the Crows are sustaining SA football right now?

If you want Port to have a better stadium deal, do you support a reduction in the SANFL dividends , because there’s only one pool of money in SA to go around. If you don’t , then where is the money coming from to give the Power more?

The SANFL directors have voted with their heads for the benefit of the SANFL.

On a personal note, I hope the Magpies survive. I’m disappointed in them for seemingly blaming everyone but themselves for their position. Other clubs have had to face similar situations and have succeeded through their own efforts. I hope their current situation spurs them on to look internally and I hope you can stop blaming it all on conspiracy theories, gossip and some facts embellished with nonsensical theories.

Good Post I totally Agree, I too would like to see them still around but stop blaming everyone else.
Did anyone hear Steven Williams on 5AA last night - Arogant and bragging as uasual and talking up jealousy etc of other Clubs..
I hope they get off their backsides and come up with a plan to survive and would probably have to be on a shoestring budget like Sturt had to..

redandblack wrote:I thought there was hope after reading yesterday's factual report and I gave credit for it, but alas, we've gone backwards big-time today.

There's no point analysing today's offerings, except to say it better belongs in the gossip columns. We're also long past any semblance of independent reporting or journalistic integrity.
We have to search for Geoff Roach’s article to see someone acknowledge that the SANFL had no option on the figures to make any other decision, so perhaps it’s just easier to ask Michelangelo why he hasn’t addressed some questions that any independent observer would think go to the core of this matter.

What are the actual benefits in dollar terms of the potential merger?

Why are the SANFL the villains for not approving the merger and supposedly destroying the Magpies, when the original proposal itself proposed the end of the Magpies and them becoming a Power Reserves side in effect, wearing the teal guernsey?

What analysis have you done on the management performance of the Magpies and the Power?

What analysis have you done on the large amounts paid to interstate recruits in past, but relatively recent, times?

Why is it the SANFL’s fault regarding stadium deals when Port can’t draw a crowd at the stadium?

Do you acknowledge that the Crows are sustaining SA football right now?

If you want Port to have a better stadium deal, do you support a reduction in the SANFL dividends , because there’s only one pool of money in SA to go around. If you don’t , then where is the money coming from to give the Power more?

The SANFL directors have voted with their heads for the benefit of the SANFL.

On a personal note, I hope the Magpies survive. I’m disappointed in them for seemingly blaming everyone but themselves for their position. Other clubs have had to face similar situations and have succeeded through their own efforts. I hope their current situation spurs them on to look internally and I hope you can stop blaming it all on conspiracy theories, gossip and some facts embellished with nonsensical theories.

What get's me is it's now degenerated into mud slinging, so much that so an unnamed person (of course) said something sitting in a barber's chair!
He's basically rubbishing the integrity of the members of the SANFL commission, all highly respected individuals who Rucci claims are not capable of digesting the information put in front of them. When you think about it what he suggests is absurd.
He can't name people, just make emotive, highly questionable statements based on rumours and innuendo.
Before the vote it was about threats and blackmail (ie the AFL will take away the licences) now it's about vendettas and trashing people's reputations.

Ronnie wrote: What get's me is it's now degenerated into mud slinging, so much that so an unnamed person (of course) said something sitting in a barber's chair!

He has quite clearly in his article pointed that "barb" at NAFC President Bohdan Jaworskyj as an article a couple days ago suggested Bohdan's agenda was to get onto the Commission.

Rucci is simply using the paper to foster his own agenda. I cannnot recall Sturt, North, Norwood or West getting anywhere near the coverage the Magpies are getting and most of it simply because Rucci is a Port person. Talk about conflict of interest.

At least there was an article by Zac Milbank re the state of the other clubs finances however he left the NAFC out of that or I suspect that North probably knocked back any 'Tiser request for details based on the current anti-North campaign although Zac could have found out via a couple of forums or via the SANFL that the NAFC had the biggest financial turn of all clubs re 2008-2009 going from a $176K loss to a $521K profit.

His extraordinary claim that North are trying to 'take over' the SANFL Commission is unbelievable nonsense.

They have 1 member and they would need several other appointments in a row to have any hope. The appointments are made on merit and it defies belief that Michelangelo would give credence to such a silly claim.

note to otr - I'm sticking up for the Roosters on this one. I'd better not make it a habit

Just picking myself up off the floor R&B

Seriously at least the supporters of the other SANFL clubs can also see that this anti-North crap over the merger is just that crap.

At the AGM last night the club said they would wait a little for the dust to settle before posting a factual reply on the NAFC website including the fact that the NAFC Board and CEO met twice with the Port Merger consortium - initally back in Nov 09 and then again on the 2nd Feb 2010.

Sadly too last night prior to the AGM North had to advise SAPOL and ensure a Security Guard was at the club due to the threatening phone calls the club has received over the past week or so and more so after the vote on Tuesday. Threats against the club facilities, supporters in general if we turn up at Alberton and also direct threats against certain club officials.

Yep some of you so called Port supporters are doing your club proud. Those advocating violence and making threats are pathetic and gutless cowards. I will have no problem turning up to Alberton to watch North play the Magpies - faceless threats will not put me or many other North people off just because my club was 1 of 8 that unanamiously voted the same way yet most of the Port people are being blinded and led by the crap Rucci and others are spewing in the media.

I giggled at the Rucc's mention today of a "certain board member and his discussion with a barber"
WTF????

Dogwatcher wrote:I giggled at the Rucc's mention today of a "certain board member and his discussion with a barber"
WTF????

Good journo's always do their research.










* Footnote - Rucci is not a good journo *

He isn't referring to Jaworskyj when mentioning barbergate, but rather the president of another club who tried to get all eight club presidents to meet at his office.

I have heard that two different clubs, the have a lot in common in that they both have a predominantly black guernsey with a sash and merged during the was. I don't know which president though he was referring to.

I just wrote this big long post then lost it...arrrgghh.

In summary, I like your posts rnb but you have some things wrong in the opening post.

Firstly, Port raises 12 million in revenue for the SANFL from match days. How is this not pulling their weight? Port dont see any of that money.

Secondly, the stadium deal is an issue, whether people choose to accept it or not. There is no reason why the SANFL cant work a better deal for the two AFL clubs whilst still keeping the same dividends for the SANFL clubs. The SANFL clubs get at most $4 million between them. Port raises three times that for the SANFL on its own. Add in what the Crows make for the SANFL and I think its pretty clear that the SANFL can loosen the chains a bit and still make more than enough money to run the league and dish coin off to the SANFL clubs. Whether they choose to is another matter, but I think its pretty clear cut. The fact that both AFL clubs in this state are significantly behind the eight ball on match days compared to the rest of the league says it all.

This isnt the blame game. Its just the facts. The fact that people always say 'stop blaming everyone else' when simply stating what the deal is is something that really annoys me quite a bit. You can state the facts without portioning the blame. In this case though, the SANFL do need to come to the party. Whicker even admitted yesterday that the clubs are $7 million combined behind the average in stadium deal.

robranisgod wrote:He isn't referring to Jaworskyj when mentioning barbergate, but rather the president of another club who tried to get all eight club presidents to meet at his office.

I have heard that two different clubs, the have a lot in common in that they both have a predominantly black guernsey with a sash and merged during the was. I don't know which president though he was referring to.

It certainly wasn't a club with a red sash.

redandblack wrote:

robranisgod wrote:He isn't referring to Jaworskyj when mentioning barbergate, but rather the president of another club who tried to get all eight club presidents to meet at his office.

I have heard that two different clubs, the have a lot in common in that they both have a predominantly black guernsey with a sash and merged during the was. I don't know which president though he was referring to.

It certainly wasn't a club with a red sash.

Well he is referring to Gary Metcalfe - GFC President in that case but I am confused because his "pot shot" ealier this week was at Bugs and his supposed Commission ambitions. Maybe Metcalfe has that ambition too but even if he or both do have that eventual goal there is nothing wrong with that IMO. So if Rucci is taking shots at both the NAFC and GFC Presidents then it appears he is tyring to infer that anyone who is a league director is likely to be "knobbling" or manipulating the voting and being clandestine for their own self agendas!!!

Pity the League Directors can't "knobble" Rucci - that would be another 8-0 decision (not counting Port who would vote for him because they stupidly believe most of his crap!)

Perhaps this was the barber discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VxuTBfBppE

Sue him for slander and libel...........

How he has lasted in the media for this long astounds me, he like a particular TV station must sit in the gutter in Hindley Street to get alot of their facts because 9 times out of 10 they are way off the mark, bit like my tipping actually

locky801 wrote:How his has lasted in the media for this long astounds me, he like a particular TV station must sit in the gutter in Hindley Street to get alot of their facts because 9 times out of 10 they are way off the mark, bit like my tipping actually

I take offence at that Locky as I spend much time in the gutter of Hindley St and I hear much more informed stuff.

Wedgie wrote:

locky801 wrote:How his has lasted in the media for this long astounds me, he like a particular TV station must sit in the gutter in Hindley Street to get alot of their facts because 9 times out of 10 they are way off the mark, bit like my tipping actually

I take offence at that Locky as I spend much time in the gutter of Hindley St and I hear much more informed stuff.

perhaps you sit on the more imformative side Wedgie

Just my 2c

Stop reading his columns and reacting to them. All ur doin is helping the Advertiser sell papers. More papers they sell the longer Rucci stays.

Simple really.

If i want quality journalism, i certainly wouldnt be lookin through the Advertiser

duncs wrote:Just my 2c

Stop reading his columns and reacting to them. All ur doin is helping the Advertiser sell papers. More papers they sell the longer Rucci stays.

Simple really.

If i want quality journalism, i certainly wouldnt be lookin through the Advertiser

Absolutely spot on. Couldn't have put it better myself.

duncs wrote:Just my 2c

Stop reading his columns and reacting to them. All ur doin is helping the Advertiser sell papers. More papers they sell the longer Rucci stays.

Simple really.

If i want quality journalism, i certainly wouldnt be lookin through the Advertiser

Easy...Boycott the Advertiser! (If you haven't already)