Macca19 wrote:TPFP....ive been banned there for over two years and Im still unsure as to why.
Probably 'coz you're too level-headed for 'em Macca

by Pseudo » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:55 pm
Macca19 wrote:TPFP....ive been banned there for over two years and Im still unsure as to why.
by SABRE » Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:05 am
LoudEagleHooligan wrote:I was told that Bruce Webber was on the grassy knol
by LPH » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:45 am
Barto wrote:"Look out behind you Magpie! He's got a knife!"
by ORDoubleBlues » Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:29 pm
LEH wrote:beenreal wrote:I stand by every fact I've stated, because that's exactly what they are, FACTS.
Port Adelaide did not want to keep a side in the SANFL but it was stipulated by the Controlling Body (SANFL)
The PAFC did not force the Magpies from Alberton, the other 8 clubs did.
Port Magpies financial woes are a direct result of not having effective access to its own revenue stream, or a generous benefactor such as Rob Gerard.
And finally, Port Adelaide did not cause the extinction of the Dinosaurs, nor is it responsible for Global Warming, or the assassination of JFK.
Anyone disputing the above needs to provide tangible evidence to the contrary.
Are you sure?
I was told that Bruce Webber was on the grassy knol
by sjt » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:03 pm
beenreal wrote:Psyber wrote:The poor buggers drafted by Port would never learn anything except how to play episodic football, unless they got exposed to a less incestuous coaching and club environment somehow.topsywaldron wrote:Certainly didn't work in W.A. when they tried it.beenreal wrote:But why shouldn't all interstate draftees (mostly kids) play at the one club. It certainly wont make the Magpies worldbeaters, but would benefit the Power no end by having their recruits playing together and learning the same message.
And before anyone trots out the 2004 episode again - I credit that to "Bucky" Cunningham's active influence that one year as he tried to keep the major sponsor on board.
The WA experience was still dealing with 2 composite sides. Port Adelaide remains a unique situation in that it is still 1 AFL club, with an SANFL affiliate.
As for the present? All the "Team for SOME South Australians" knows is how to Bomb out in Finals, so come back to me when they win something this Millennium. But that's for the AFL Board I'm sure!
by sjt » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:15 pm
UK Fan wrote:drifter wrote:I dont mind if the Maggies go under because their proposal isnt any good or a win for both them or the other 8 clubs. What gets me is when small minded people base it on something that happened 20 years ago, or because their team at the time couldnt stand the heat of a Grand Final, namely Glenelg, North, Centrals,Eagles etc etc and they hate Port because they were good.
Maybe North just want them to go under so they can pick at the bones of the leftover Maggies with their slush fund ?
They go on about when they were broke. Dont forget the times Port supporters sent 10,000 supporters to your home games over the years all spending 10 bucks each in the pre crows era. Happy to take the money then, no questions asked.
Also, how can losing 3000 supporters be good for the SANFL ? I'm not saying give us a handout, just listen and if its a good idea give it a chance to work.
No chance.
In no way do I want any SANFL club to share facilities/administration/medical staff/marketing dept with an AFL club. With the addition of receiving the same amount of dividends from the AFL club. The fact is it is simply not fair to the other 8 SANFL clubs.
by Barto » Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:57 am
Pseudo wrote:Macca19 wrote:TPFP....ive been banned there for over two years and Im still unsure as to why.
Probably 'coz you're too level-headed for 'em Macca
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |