by redandblack » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:56 am
by Ronnie » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:06 am
by Magpiespower » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:06 am
Booney wrote:Although I hope the Magpie emblem / guernsey remain.
by nickname » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:13 am
Booney wrote:nickname wrote:Booney wrote:As I had mentioned previously, all the merger will be off-field for financial reasons.
Although I hope the Magpie emblem / guernsey remain.
How is it all off-field if the SANFL side wears the Power jumper, is called Power and contains Power-drafted players from interstate?
You didn't read the article, did you?
by Booney » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:36 am
by Booney » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:38 am
Ronnie wrote:So if Port Power will upgrade the Prince of Wales for Port Magpies can the Crows refurbish the Castle Tavern for Sturt or help Norwood build clubrooms at the oval?
If Port's problems is off field revenue as i've said before, why aren't they expected to guts it out like other clubs have had to do??
by Barto » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:45 am
nickname wrote:A 'decision' might not have been made but Port have told the Commission the SANFL side would be called Power and wear the Power jumper. It doesn't sound like a 'merger' to me. It's an AFL Reserves team by stealth.
by Barto » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:45 am
Booney wrote:Where does it say that the PAFC ( Power ) are funding this?
by nickname » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:51 am
Booney wrote:Perhaps the article failed to mention those 'facts' as the submission has been altered?
by Booney » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:00 pm
nickname wrote:Booney wrote:Perhaps the article failed to mention those 'facts' as the submission has been altered?
Those 'facts' are facts. Are you saying it's a fact that they have changed their position on those three elements?
by Wedgie » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:48 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Barto » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:52 pm
Wedgie wrote:Im still trying to work out how the club losing the most amount of money out of the two is managing to take over the other one.
by TimmiesChin » Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Wedgie wrote:Im still trying to work out how the club losing the most amount of money out of the two is managing to take over the other one.
by Barto » Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:20 pm
TimmiesChin wrote:Wedgie wrote:Im still trying to work out how the club losing the most amount of money out of the two is managing to take over the other one.
They aren't losing money - they know exactly where it is going - or more to the point, who is getting it and bludging off of them.
by nickname » Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:36 pm
Booney wrote:nickname wrote:Booney wrote:Perhaps the article failed to mention those 'facts' as the submission has been altered?
Those 'facts' are facts. Are you saying it's a fact that they have changed their position on those three elements?
I'm not quoting anything as 'fact',as like most people on here, we aren't privy to the 'facts'. What I am saying is that after the initial submission perhaps it was intimated to the club(s) that the proposal would come up against some strong opposition from the other 8 SANFL clubs and perhaps needs to be reviewed.
by zipzap » Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:31 pm
Barto wrote:TimmiesChin wrote:Wedgie wrote:Im still trying to work out how the club losing the most amount of money out of the two is managing to take over the other one.
They aren't losing money - they know exactly where it is going - or more to the point, who is getting it and bludging off of them.
Immigrants?
by nickname » Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:46 pm
Booney wrote:Perhaps the article failed to mention those 'facts' as the submission has been altered?
by Ronnie » Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:45 am
by Big Phil » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:03 am
by Sojourner » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:08 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |