by on the rails » Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:40 pm
by southee » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:14 am
Wedgie wrote:Special One wrote:When you all realise the sanfl is a farm system and you'll know there was no real options to choose from. Go ask league coach's what they would prefer? This year or last year. I know they would prefer this years structure. Anyway the magpies loses their zone, under 18's and recruiting rights due to it constricts afl draft rules. It's maybe time that clubs be more professional instead going through the motions eg like North Adelaide.
A South supporter saying North are just going through the motions!!!
At least North have won a flag or two since man landed on the moon!
What next?
A Collingwood supporter teaching us about dentistry?
by therisingblues » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:17 am
whufc wrote:Jim05 wrote:Yes im worried we will end up the VFL.
Bendigo has folded and will pull out at end of season, Frankston also look like doing the same. Crowd numbers are dropping off alarmingly since the first few game novelty factor wore off. Never expected any Cows fans to attend as I predicted that last year but must be a huge concern that a side that is sitting top in both comps now cant even draw two cats and a dog to their games. I honesy expected Port to be drawing big crowds with the way they are playing
Yep the current Port situation is equally as worrying.
I actually thought that with Port reserves being top and the Power flying and now being 'one club' like they all wanted that the numbers would be coming back to watch the 'magpies'
Hasnt been the case though.
When was the last time a top of the table team at end of the minor round would have an average home crowd of less than 3k.
History (VFL with Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn) showed us that 50K plus members doesnt equal big crowds to watch reserves play.
by Dogwatcher » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:22 am
Wedgie wrote: A Collingwood supporter teaching us about dentistry?
by Dogwatcher » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:27 am
Wedgie wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Wedgie wrote: A Collingwood supporter teaching us about dentistry?
How about a Geelong supporter not wearing ugg boots?
You been talking to my girlfriend?
by areaman » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:32 pm
Wedgie wrote:He changed his team after my post from South to Eagles, perhaps you shouldn't make false assumptions telling people to re-read things?
Point still stands since he's changed from South to Eagles as they went through the easiest possible pathetic motions when they merged.
If their supporters had some balls in the 80s we probably wouldn't be in this mess now!
by stan » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:02 pm
Tech1 wrote:I agree with Jim05, this evens things up massively but i don't think we should scrap the cap either, we still need some sort of salary cap otherwise we will have a new set of problems to deal with, something like an increase to around $450,000 and the league should fund the extra amount and the clubs can either use it for the cap or not. The crowd numbers for Port have been terrible for a team top of the ladder, surely it's decreased this year? and the crows numbers are going to end up crap too. Surely at the end of the year the alarm bells should be ringing at SANFL headquarters that big changes need to be made to both port and the crows structures to save the competition before it's too late.
by southee » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:56 pm
Wedgie wrote:southee wrote:Wedgie wrote:Special One wrote:When you all realise the sanfl is a farm system and you'll know there was no real options to choose from. Go ask league coach's what they would prefer? This year or last year. I know they would prefer this years structure. Anyway the magpies loses their zone, under 18's and recruiting rights due to it constricts afl draft rules. It's maybe time that clubs be more professional instead going through the motions eg like North Adelaide.
A South supporter saying North are just going through the motions!!!
At least North have won a flag or two since man landed on the moon!
What next?
A Collingwood supporter teaching us about dentistry?
South supporter ??? Please re-read post and the team they follow mate.
He changed his team after my post from South to Eagles, perhaps you shouldn't make false assumptions telling people to re-read things?
Point still stands since he's changed from South to Eagles as they went through the easiest possible pathetic motions when they merged.
If their supporters had some balls in the 80s we probably wouldn't be in this mess now!
by arthur5038 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:02 pm
by heater31 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:15 pm
by Rising Power » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:28 pm
heater31 wrote:Put Fremantle and West Coast up on the scoreboard when the stand alone clubs play Peel and East Perth.....
by RB » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:44 pm
heater31 wrote:Put Fremantle and West Coast up on the scoreboard when the stand alone clubs play Peel and East Perth.....
by Hazydog » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:23 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:52 pm
by RB » Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:59 pm
by spell_check » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:14 pm
Rising Power wrote:heater31 wrote:Put Fremantle and West Coast up on the scoreboard when the stand alone clubs play Peel and East Perth.....
Even for their reserves and colts?
by mighty_tiger_79 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:18 pm
RB wrote:Peel president John Ditchburn said it was a "one-off"...
So that makes it OK? (Assuming it is merely a one-off)
and that the Thunder made their decision in consultation with Fremantle.
If anything, that sort of collusion with the AFL cancers makes the whole thing worse.
He said only clubs in finals contention - who stood to lose from Subiaco's win - had voiced their disapproval.
No shit - seriously, how selfish are clubs like that who put their self-interest in making the finals ahead of the AFL clubs' interests? How many clubs aren't in finals contention in late June anyway? Just Peel?
Subiaco president Mark Lawrence said he had no issue with Peel starting the match two players short.
Oh well lardy ****ing dah, how gracious of him.
by Jim05 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:14 pm
by bennymacca » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:00 am
Jim05 wrote:Rucci mentioned tonight there will be changes next year but also mentioned that both sides are looking at forming an alliance with a SAAFL side
by johntheclaret » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:30 am
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:RB wrote:Peel president John Ditchburn said it was a "one-off"...
So that makes it OK? (Assuming it is merely a one-off)
and that the Thunder made their decision in consultation with Fremantle.
If anything, that sort of collusion with the AFL cancers makes the whole thing worse.
He said only clubs in finals contention - who stood to lose from Subiaco's win - had voiced their disapproval.
No shit - seriously, how selfish are clubs like that who put their self-interest in making the finals ahead of the AFL clubs' interests? How many clubs aren't in finals contention in late June anyway? Just Peel?
Subiaco president Mark Lawrence said he had no issue with Peel starting the match two players short.
Oh well lardy ****ing dah, how gracious of him.
what team wouldn't have an issue with the opposition starting two players short???
I hope the Eagles rock up 2 players short on sunday, just to give us a chance for 5 mins
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |