beenreal wrote:CUTTERMAN wrote:beenreal wrote:That would be our home game to do with as we wish, so I hope not.
All very well for you to say so, with respect. However if this is your club/clubs choice then it is up to them to get the whole thing right as compared to their first disgraceful half arsed attempt. How can this "divine" merger ever be taken seriously with the planning that we witnessed from the Norwood pantomime?
Get what right, the hour between the games? That was a ridiculous AFL edict. And interesting that I think the gap between the West Adelaide match and the Showdown was only about half hour. Port pushed to have the match as a night game so the SANFL could be more normal but it was rejected.
And the double-headers have less to do with making money and more to do with a long-term strategy of bringing the two supporter groups closer together.
No-one says it will happen overnight, but it will happen.
If Sturt are hosting a game at Unley it's up to them to make sure everything is at a decent standard for players, coaches and supporters. So if our 2 headed cousin wants to have a curtain raiser it's up to them to set the same in place. Norwood obviously had some very real concerns and the obvious lack of regard or forethought concerning their basic requirements was insulting.
So my point is that it is up to your club to set this in place, not SANFL, not AFL, it's up to the PAFC! If you want it then make sure its properly organized and thought out and not some sort of navel gazing half arsed experiment. It's called due process and respect.
Stuff knows what you'll do with the "clean stadium" you need so badly if this is how you organize things.
'PAFC don't want any advantages in the SANFL. It would only take away from any achievements we earned.'
Keith Thomas ABC 891 Radio, 21/6/14.