morell wrote:No, I'd go as far as saying its satisfactory provided the AFL sides don't win multiple flags in a dominant fashion.
ok, now im back ona pc instead of my phone ill give further answers to the bits here i missed. its not "satisfactory". the whole argument against the reserves sides is that they are reserves sides. i dont care if they finish first, or last, they shouldnt be in the league competition at all. the fact that they have a rule set that makes it easier for them to be successful is just sauce on the shit sandwich that the sanfl has served itself up.
morell wrote:So they finished second, and then 4th, and you're butt hurt? Really your whole argument is about Port doing well isn't it. Man how did you cope in the 90's?
i couldnt care less if they dragged themselves up off the bottom using hard work and effort, like they previously would have had to do, you know, when all the sides in the sanfl had the same rules as each other? no side was gifted 15 or so afl listed players in one season to suddenly improve itself. show me where i said i dont want the "magpies" to be successful? my post was purely pointing out the fact that the "magpies" were handed an artificial leg up that is not available to any of the other sanfl clubs, and never will be. that isnt "fair" that isnt "even" that is a compromised competition. if they had have improved of their own hard work, im sure none of the anti afl posters would have a problem with it. supposedly nothing is better than beating the maggies in a gf. not that any side can any more, they can only beat the "power lite"
morell wrote:You see there is "even" in terms of rules and regulations
Then there is "even" in terms of actual on field results.
I am talking about the latter - which is based in reality and actual data.
You're talking about the former - which is based on hypotheticals and what ifs.
now, here is where i supposedly started being a "bell end". lets clear this up. it isnt hypothetical that the two afl reserves sides have different rules, that is reality. to the sanfl supporter, we want all of the teams to have the same rules and regulations. that is factually even. that means that if a side like centrals wins multiple flags in a decade (was it ten from 12 years? i forget) it is an achievement to be envied, and i for one also admire it.
their club put in a hell of a lot of hard work attracting and keeping the right sort of players, replacing retirees and those who moved on to the afl each year better than any other club, and they did it all using the same rules as every other club in the competition. we all had the same opportunity to do it, and we failed. that is on us. while they dominated, everyone played under the same rules, and the competition was fair
now we have a situation with the reserves sides in the competition, and they have different rules around their off field, and on field requrements. that is a fact, that is the reality, that isnt hypothetical. what is hypothetical, is how that affects their on field results. so far they have finished "mid table" so all is "satisfactory" according to you. what you fail to realise, it isnt just their final table position that is the problem. it is the fact they are reserves sides playing in a league competition.
seeing though as you fail to grasp this, and have seemingly left the thread to the "fresh meat" i doubt you will read this, but i felt it needed to be said. i am not anti port adeladie (well, no more than any sanfl supporter of another club) i am anti afl in the sanfl. while they are part of the sanfl, the comp is compromised (and more so than before) and a farce.