auto wrote:Hey Mosi, how far do you guys set your boundaries?
A = What are the dimensions of a stamp?


by Goat Herder » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:17 pm
auto wrote:Hey Mosi, how far do you guys set your boundaries?
by mozzie » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:41 pm
by moses » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:56 pm
by Cougar » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:38 pm
moses wrote:This week's Poll Question: Does this comp need Shaun Holland back? And will he dominate it again when he returns?
by Cougar » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:40 pm
by Cougar » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:45 pm
by The Riddler » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:25 pm
by The Riddler » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:32 pm
by mozzie » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:35 pm
by Phantom Gossiper » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:54 pm
by The Riddler » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:57 pm
Phantom Gossiper wrote:Surely you mob can't be serious? What a pathetic, whinging, selfish point of view..
by Phantom Gossiper » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:03 pm
The Riddler wrote:Phantom Gossiper wrote:Surely you mob can't be serious? What a pathetic, whinging, selfish point of view..
Oh what a surprise look who pops up
He's obviously guilty until proven innocent
by moses » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:04 pm
Phantom Gossiper wrote:Surely you mob can't be serious? What a pathetic, whinging, selfish point of view..
by moses » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Phantom Gossiper wrote:The Riddler wrote:Phantom Gossiper wrote:Surely you mob can't be serious? What a pathetic, whinging, selfish point of view..
Oh what a surprise look who pops up
He's obviously guilty until proven innocent
Well considering you gutless pricks are having a swipe at both Enfield and the committee - knowing full well they don't have profiles on here, what did you think?!?
I'm sure most if not all teams would've agreed that denying the permit was in the best interests of the comp not you prima donnas!! World doesn't revolve around Rose Park, all you do is whinge and complain!
by Phantom Gossiper » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:07 pm
moses wrote:Phantom Gossiper wrote:The Riddler wrote:Phantom Gossiper wrote:Surely you mob can't be serious? What a pathetic, whinging, selfish point of view..
Oh what a surprise look who pops up
He's obviously guilty until proven innocent
Well considering you gutless pricks are having a swipe at both Enfield and the committee - knowing full well they don't have profiles on here, what did you think?!?
I'm sure most if not all teams would've agreed that denying the permit was in the best interests of the comp not you prima donnas!! World doesn't revolve around Rose Park, all you do is whinge and complain!
Aren't you from Enfield? U have a profile, so does Hughes, etc
by mozzie » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:11 pm
by Phantom Gossiper » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:12 pm
by Phantom Gossiper » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:12 pm
mozzie wrote:Please tell me how it is in the best interest of the league to not let him play when saca cancelled the meeting? How would you know the situation anyway unless you are getting feed info. You coe into this comp thinking you are the **** saviour of Church Comp, no doubt when things don't go your way you will **** off and blame everyone else.
by moses » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:16 pm
Phantom Gossiper wrote:Right let's clear this up:
Parrish clearance denied
Para Hills claim owes $600
He denies
C&CCA grant not one, not two but THREE permits
ATCA have asked C&CCA to support them on this and not allow Parrish to play
I think the association have been more than accommodating and fair in allowing him to play, they risk their own integrity and reputation by allowing him to continue playing until cleared, no other sport organisation or association would allow it so why should C&CCA??
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |