Pseudo wrote:The Ash Man wrote:Stuff Mt Barker, move 'em to Mt Gambier, get rid of 'em.
Mt. Gambier is in Glenelg's zone. Would this mean the Bays could claim all the decent Sturt players?![]()
They already took Malcolm Greenslade.......
by Jimmy_041 » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:07 pm
Pseudo wrote:The Ash Man wrote:Stuff Mt Barker, move 'em to Mt Gambier, get rid of 'em.
Mt. Gambier is in Glenelg's zone. Would this mean the Bays could claim all the decent Sturt players?![]()
by StrayDog » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:43 am
Dutchy wrote:Thiele wrote:No. To far to travel by public transport
its closer than Elizabeth
by SnappyTom » Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:39 am
Barto wrote:SnappyTom wrote:Sojourner wrote:Should Sturt make the move from Unley to Mt Barker?
Mt. Barker, Western Australia - for sure.
I'd be in that, except with the price of petrol it would cost just as much to go to a home game.
by TroyGFC » Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:13 am
by Dutchy » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:17 pm
StrayDog wrote:Dutchy wrote:Thiele wrote:No. To far to travel by public transport
its closer than Elizabeth
Happy to be corrected, but from a quick glance at this, I reckon the best you'd from the CBD on a Saturday is an hour by bus (vs 35 minutes by train to Elizabeth, 40 minutes to Noarlunga).
Drive time from the CBD, I'd agree Mount Barker compares favourably or equally.
FWIW, here is what safooty posters were saying almost a couple of years back about the Blues playing the occasional game there, containing link to related Doug Robertson article.
by Punk Rooster » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:24 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Pseudo wrote:The Ash Man wrote:Stuff Mt Barker, move 'em to Mt Gambier, get rid of 'em.
Mt. Gambier is in Glenelg's zone. Would this mean the Bays could claim all the decent Sturt players?![]()
They already took Malcolm Greenslade.......
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by sturtpeter » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:40 pm
by Sojourner » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:43 pm
sturtpeter wrote:Another valid point: Attendances would more than likely drop by 30-40%.
Not a great move.
by heater31 » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:22 pm
Sojourner wrote:sturtpeter wrote:Another valid point: Attendances would more than likely drop by 30-40%.
Not a great move.
Why would attendances drop SP?
The Mt Barker area is the fastest growing area in South Australia and is teeming with young familes who would most likely be the target audience of the SANFL?
by Sojourner » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:46 pm
heater31 wrote:Yes but it would take time for those to get on board. Look at the Powder Puffs they have been in the AwFL for over 10 years and struggle to pull a decent crowd. Their trend is likely to continue until the next generation comes through with disposable income. The same would happen with this move. The die hard city based fans will be alienated and refuse to go past the toll gate and the delicate financial position of the club probably would not cope with the transition.
by therisingblues » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:48 am
Sojourner wrote:It is my thoughts that if it did so happen that Sturt went to a position of impending bankruptcy where the recievers were to be called in and the President addressed a special meeting of the club and stated that the only way the club could be saved would be the move to Mt Barker, that it would happen that still a number of members would remain against the move and would prefer to see the club fold than any aspect of its "tradition" be changed.
by smithy » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:19 am
by Dan The Man » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:55 am
by The Ash Man » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:28 am
smithy wrote:What makes people think that the Mt Barker council are going to be more welcoming or helpful than the current Unley COuncil ?
by Inflight » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:55 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |