by goraw » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:34 pm
by am Bays » Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:08 pm
by dedja » Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:15 pm
by drifter » Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:49 am
by JK » Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:25 am
by CUTTERMAN » Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:11 am
by auto » Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:37 am
CUTTERMAN wrote:Wonder who Rucci and his Pied Piper troupe will blame this debacle on.
by whufc » Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:29 am
by auto » Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:37 am
whufc wrote:In fairness though if they had a reserves side in the SANFL they probably would have only lost by 103 points
by whufc » Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:10 am
auto wrote:whufc wrote:In fairness though if they had a reserves side in the SANFL they probably would have only lost by 103 points
saying the same **** over and over again is getting old![]()
![]()
by Booney » Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:30 am
whufc wrote:auto wrote:whufc wrote:In fairness though if they had a reserves side in the SANFL they probably would have only lost by 103 points
saying the same **** over and over again is getting old![]()
![]()
mate your club is junk and will be junk for a long time to come with their current playing list and the comprimised drafts so you might want to get use to things getting old.
by whufc » Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:32 am
Booney wrote:whufc wrote:auto wrote:whufc wrote:In fairness though if they had a reserves side in the SANFL they probably would have only lost by 103 points
saying the same **** over and over again is getting old![]()
![]()
mate your club is junk and will be junk for a long time to come with their current playing list and the comprimised drafts so you might want to get use to things getting old.
Yep, and you have short memory as your club for many, many years meant nothing to anyone South of Gepps Cross and the wheel has turned to see you at the top of the tree. It doesn't and wont last for ever sunshine.
by auto » Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:41 am
whufc wrote:auto wrote:whufc wrote:In fairness though if they had a reserves side in the SANFL they probably would have only lost by 103 points
saying the same **** over and over again is getting old![]()
![]()
mate your club is junk and will be junk for a long time to come with their current playing list and the comprimised drafts so you might want to get use to things getting old.
by whufc » Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:57 am
auto wrote:whufc wrote:auto wrote:whufc wrote:In fairness though if they had a reserves side in the SANFL they probably would have only lost by 103 points
saying the same **** over and over again is getting old![]()
![]()
mate your club is junk and will be junk for a long time to come with their current playing list and the comprimised drafts so you might want to get use to things getting old.
Thanks for your discussion on "what's wrong with Port". I particular love the points you make and the logical arguments you use to back up your points....cheers mate.
by auto » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:07 pm
by whufc » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:14 pm
auto wrote:Atlast we can agree on something....recruiting, both the wrong players and the wrong types of players, has been a major problem over an extended period of time. Case in points M. Westhoff.
by auto » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:22 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:24 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Jim05 » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:37 pm
by The Sleeping Giant » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:46 pm
auto wrote:Yep, Mark Williams proved he liked to take brothers, and im guessing he thought if one brother had talent then the other had the same genes and with a bit of time in the system would step up. In Choco's time he chose the Cornes's, Shaun Burgoyne, The Murray's (anyone remember them?), and the Hoffs. Cant recall if theres any others but im guessing 4 brothers over a ten year period would be close to a record ???
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |