by maccad » Sun May 04, 2014 3:00 pm
by RB » Sun May 04, 2014 3:14 pm
by Tassie Blues » Sun May 04, 2014 3:16 pm
maccad wrote:When was the last time an SANFL team was not playing in a televised game, for this weekend only port power and crows supporters get to see their teams on TV. I would have happily watched a the south and eagles game on TV today, I will not be watching another game where the crows or power are playing.
by Mic » Sun May 04, 2014 3:33 pm
kickinit wrote:Mic wrote:A couple quick questions:
-What was the result of the vote for the Power reserves side in the SANFL? DId any club vote "no"?
-Are Power paying each of the SANFL clubs $40,000/$50,000 this year to have their reserves side in the comp, like the Crows are?
Pretty sure the vote was 7-1.
Port will forego $400K of their Club distribution. Also the only members that get into games free are magpies members. If you have a power membership you get 0 SANFL games.
by kickinit » Sun May 04, 2014 3:38 pm
Mic wrote:kickinit wrote:Mic wrote:A couple quick questions:
-What was the result of the vote for the Power reserves side in the SANFL? DId any club vote "no"?
-Are Power paying each of the SANFL clubs $40,000/$50,000 this year to have their reserves side in the comp, like the Crows are?
Pretty sure the vote was 7-1.
Port will forego $400K of their Club distribution. Also the only members that get into games free are magpies members. If you have a power membership you get 0 SANFL games.
Who voted "No"?
by Mic » Sun May 04, 2014 4:10 pm
kickinit wrote:Mic wrote:kickinit wrote:Mic wrote:A couple quick questions:
-What was the result of the vote for the Power reserves side in the SANFL? DId any club vote "no"?
-Are Power paying each of the SANFL clubs $40,000/$50,000 this year to have their reserves side in the comp, like the Crows are?
Pretty sure the vote was 7-1.
Port will forego $400K of their Club distribution. Also the only members that get into games free are magpies members. If you have a power membership you get 0 SANFL games.
Who voted "No"?
Think it was centrals. That deal was handed to Port, Port then voted if they would accept or decline.
by sjt » Sun May 04, 2014 6:59 pm
by Tech1 » Sun May 04, 2014 7:26 pm
kickinit wrote:Mic wrote:kickinit wrote:Mic wrote:A couple quick questions:
-What was the result of the vote for the Power reserves side in the SANFL? DId any club vote "no"?
-Are Power paying each of the SANFL clubs $40,000/$50,000 this year to have their reserves side in the comp, like the Crows are?
Pretty sure the vote was 7-1.
Port will forego $400K of their Club distribution. Also the only members that get into games free are magpies members. If you have a power membership you get 0 SANFL games.
Who voted "No"?
Think it was centrals. That deal was handed to Port, Port then voted if they would accept or decline.
by on the rails » Sun May 04, 2014 7:34 pm
by Dutchy » Sun May 04, 2014 7:38 pm
tipper wrote:Well here I am at lameroo. Top of the table clash (who would ever have thought I could say that abkut peake??) $5 to get in, including car park, $7 for a rum can, $3 for a glass of port!! And two teams fighting hard for a win under the same rules...plus the president of peake isnt a ****.
ill watch a great game, spend less cash and get more hammered than if I was at prospect. Bohdan, once the people you have driven away fill their weekends with other things, and the novelty of reserves sides wares off, all you have tok look forward to will be an empty stand and a few geriatric haply clappers to blow smoke up your arse.
Enjoy
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
by on the rails » Sun May 04, 2014 7:43 pm
by sjt » Sun May 04, 2014 7:44 pm
Dutchy wrote:tipper wrote:Well here I am at lameroo. Top of the table clash (who would ever have thought I could say that abkut peake??) $5 to get in, including car park, $7 for a rum can, $3 for a glass of port!! And two teams fighting hard for a win under the same rules...plus the president of peake isnt a ****.
ill watch a great game, spend less cash and get more hammered than if I was at prospect. Bohdan, once the people you have driven away fill their weekends with other things, and the novelty of reserves sides wares off, all you have tok look forward to will be an empty stand and a few geriatric haply clappers to blow smoke up your arse.
Enjoy
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Ezactly what Im doing and really enjoying grassroots footy. Not missing the SANFL at all, which saddens part of me.
by kickinit » Sun May 04, 2014 7:44 pm
Tech1 wrote:Thought it was West Adelaide, this all got lost though when the decision was made, hence people asking who rejected it. The original offer was exactly the same as the crows deal, you said no and somehow ended up with this current deal with only one club rejecting it, got to hand it to the people running your club, you have got a very very good deal and it's still staggering that this was excepted and nothing was mentioned about the differences in the media, it was if they all thought it was the same deal before the season started.
by sjt » Sun May 04, 2014 7:47 pm
kickinit wrote:Tech1 wrote:Thought it was West Adelaide, this all got lost though when the decision was made, hence people asking who rejected it. The original offer was exactly the same as the crows deal, you said no and somehow ended up with this current deal with only one club rejecting it, got to hand it to the people running your club, you have got a very very good deal and it's still staggering that this was excepted and nothing was mentioned about the differences in the media, it was if they all thought it was the same deal before the season started.
The original offer handed to us was the same as the crows. We rejected and put forward what we wanted, which was rejected by the SANFL. We where then handed the deal we have currently. The deal was voted on by the SANFL clubs before it was even handed to Port.
by cennals05 » Sun May 04, 2014 7:49 pm
by kickinit » Sun May 04, 2014 7:51 pm
sjt wrote:kickinit wrote:Tech1 wrote:Thought it was West Adelaide, this all got lost though when the decision was made, hence people asking who rejected it. The original offer was exactly the same as the crows deal, you said no and somehow ended up with this current deal with only one club rejecting it, got to hand it to the people running your club, you have got a very very good deal and it's still staggering that this was excepted and nothing was mentioned about the differences in the media, it was if they all thought it was the same deal before the season started.
The original offer handed to us was the same as the crows. We rejected and put forward what we wanted, which was rejected by the SANFL. We where then handed the deal we have currently. The deal was voted on by the SANFL clubs before it was even handed to Port.
I don't think that's true.
by johntheclaret » Sun May 04, 2014 7:53 pm
kickinit wrote:sjt wrote:kickinit wrote:Tech1 wrote:Thought it was West Adelaide, this all got lost though when the decision was made, hence people asking who rejected it. The original offer was exactly the same as the crows deal, you said no and somehow ended up with this current deal with only one club rejecting it, got to hand it to the people running your club, you have got a very very good deal and it's still staggering that this was excepted and nothing was mentioned about the differences in the media, it was if they all thought it was the same deal before the season started.
The original offer handed to us was the same as the crows. We rejected and put forward what we wanted, which was rejected by the SANFL. We where then handed the deal we have currently. The deal was voted on by the SANFL clubs before it was even handed to Port.
I don't think that's true.
what part?
by kickinit » Sun May 04, 2014 7:59 pm
johntheclaret wrote:The "we where then" part
What the SANFL have come back to us with is the following model:
by Tech1 » Sun May 04, 2014 8:01 pm
cennals05 wrote:I posted something on Twitter to the 6 clubs that voted yes saying well done for handing Port Reserves the premiership. Had a reply from an Eagles supporter calling me a sooky lala and no one cares what I think. Then when I said he obviously did because he replied, he said that he studies negative people so that's why he's interested. I doubt that's even true, but I hope he recognises the irony in his first reply.
I am really finding it hard this year to go to the football. It is such an unfair competition. The clubs have made their decision and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't want to be angry and annoyed every time I go to the football or read the results. The only solution is to remove myself from the situation, which means no longer following the SANFL. I just don't know if I'm ready yet, but it's something I see happening in the near future.
by sjt » Sun May 04, 2014 8:30 pm
kickinit wrote:sjt wrote:kickinit wrote:Tech1 wrote:Thought it was West Adelaide, this all got lost though when the decision was made, hence people asking who rejected it. The original offer was exactly the same as the crows deal, you said no and somehow ended up with this current deal with only one club rejecting it, got to hand it to the people running your club, you have got a very very good deal and it's still staggering that this was excepted and nothing was mentioned about the differences in the media, it was if they all thought it was the same deal before the season started.
The original offer handed to us was the same as the crows. We rejected and put forward what we wanted, which was rejected by the SANFL. We where then handed the deal we have currently. The deal was voted on by the SANFL clubs before it was even handed to Port.
I don't think that's true.
what part?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |