Michelangelo - we deserve better - Part 1

[redandblack]

I know he was, otr, take it easy

My dislike of them (some members of the board and influential supporters) has nothing to do with 1991 or anything other than what I see as a boorish, destructive and vengeful approach to some football matters. This is shared by many prominent North posters on here.

[on the rails]

I know he was, otr, take it easy

My dislike of them (some members of the board and influential supporters) has nothing to do with 1991 or anything other than what I see as a boorish, destructive and vengeful approach to some football matters. This is shared by many prominent North posters on here.

You may be on the money there R&B - certainly in some circumstances and you wont get an arguement from those who you say agree!

[redandblack]

I would also ask Michelangelo that if the merger is so good and goes through, would he still expect the SANFL Commission to put in even more money, or will the merger miraculously solve the problems of both the Power and the Magpies.

Does he think the Power are just being altruistic?

[TimmiesChin]

Did North get basically handed a pub or not ? .

No, and neither did Sturt, Norwood, Woodville or West Torrens.

Ok,

I had read elsewhere that Rob Gerrard had basically handed the club a pub.... obviously I read incorrect information.
although the other information about North getting a leg up from outside that I had head (but not yet mentioned) has been heard by our Treasurer (even though I dislike the guy):

Mr Foley said North Adelaide had got into trouble over a licence for poker machines and the previous Liberal government had been forced to introduce legislation which, in effect, had ensured the future of that club.

"For North Adelaide to say now that they can't support Port Adelaide is not a fair cop," he said.

[on the rails]

Mr Foley said North Adelaide had got into trouble over a licence for poker machines and the previous Liberal government had been forced to introduce legislation which, in effect, had ensured the future of that club.

"For North Adelaide to say now that they can't support Port Adelaide is not a fair cop," he said.

The change to legislation was essentially just a small amendment by the Govt. re a reprieve to allow a reasonable time period to move the pokies from Sefton Park to Greenacres. We still had to move them and expend more funds and increase our borrowings to do so whilst selling the old Sefton Park Building as well. The 2 politicians who backed North through all it's legal issues were John Rau - Independent Member for Enfield and not a North Supporter and also Jane Lomax-Smith who is a regular attendee at North games and a member of the NAFC and is member of Foley's Labor Party.

As for not supporting Port Adelaide - where has North said that??? All they have said is they do not support a merger between any SANFL club and an AFL Club. The statement made and is up on the NAFC website says that it supports the Magpies in the SANFL and hope they can work through the difficult times like other clubs have had to. Talk about a pollie putting a twist on words to suit his own argument!

[Dogwatcher]

As for not supporting Port Adelaide - where has North said that??? All they have said is they do not support a merger between any SANFL club and an AFL Club. The statement made and is up on the NAFC website says that it supports the Magpies in the SANFL and hope they can work through the difficult times like other clubs have had to. Talk about a pollie putting a twist on words to suit his own argument!

Some might say that's spin by the NAFC....

[on the rails]

As for not supporting Port Adelaide - where has North said that??? All they have said is they do not support a merger between any SANFL club and an AFL Club. The statement made and is up on the NAFC website says that it supports the Magpies in the SANFL and hope they can work through the difficult times like other clubs have had to. Talk about a pollie putting a twist on words to suit his own argument!

Some might say that's spin by the NAFC....

Well their stance would have been the same if it were Norwood seeking a similar deal with the Crows it's just that it happens to be the PAMFC seeking the merger so that can be inferred I suppose.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Good to see you finally admit your dislike for the NAFC redandblack. Just wondering which board members and "prominent" supporters have made you feel this way?

[Dogwatcher]

As for not supporting Port Adelaide - where has North said that??? All they have said is they do not support a merger between any SANFL club and an AFL Club. The statement made and is up on the NAFC website says that it supports the Magpies in the SANFL and hope they can work through the difficult times like other clubs have had to. Talk about a pollie putting a twist on words to suit his own argument!

Some might say that's spin by the NAFC....

Well their stance would have been the same if it were Norwood seeking a similar deal with the Crows it's just that it happens to be the PAMFC seeking the merger so that can be inferred I suppose.

Not saying you're wrong but we'll never really know that will we?

[redandblack]

You're very persistent in pursuing that agenda, TSG, but perhaps you should read what I've said. That is, that I don't agree with the NAFC"s motives, but I defended them against Rucci's accusations. I haven't mentioned the North players and coaches at all.

In any event, I'm entitled not to like North. I'd even suggest your posting shows a stronger dislike of West, which is fine.

As for which board members and influential supporters, I'm sure Wedgie would be happy for me to send the names to you by PM, to save any potential problems.

Stand by and I will do so.

Edit: PM sent.

[on the rails]

Well there's only 1 more AFL club to amalgamate with but I am dead set sure North would lodge the same objection no matter who it was.

The only reason North is copping all the crap is that it has come out publically and stated it's position however I don't think any of the other 8 clubs would be thinking any different based on my very reliable mail and what has been reported in some of the press.

Maybe North should have just shut up and not had any public opinion and when the vote was 8-0 against the merger proposal then who would the Port supporters target then top take out their anger etc? North is just a present handy target for them to deflect from the real issues surrounding this whole merger proposal and because things are not going their way one of their few tatics is to sling mud (via Rucci) and try and discredit North - desperate if you ask me and you have to wonder why they didn't show this sort of fight months and month ago when the writing was starting to appear on the wall.

I think Ports own arrogance thinking that the merger would go thru un-challenged and the fact they think the SANFL owes them has made them complacent and now they are in panic mode for fear that it is looking like a losing battle - that's if it was left to the club vote to decide. Maybe the Commission will buckle and allow it as I said in another topic.

[robranisgod]

Did North get basically handed a pub or not ? .

No, and neither did Sturt, Norwood, Woodville or West Torrens.

Ok,

I had read elsewhere that Rob Gerrard had basically handed the club a pub.... obviously I read incorrect information.
although the other information about North getting a leg up from outside that I had head (but not yet mentioned) has been heard by our Treasurer (even though I dislike the guy):

Mr Foley said North Adelaide had got into trouble over a licence for poker machines and the previous Liberal government had been forced to introduce legislation which, in effect, had ensured the future of that club.

"For North Adelaide to say now that they can't support Port Adelaide is not a fair cop," he said.

Mr Foley doesn't have a good grasp of history. North's problems were in May 2003 (ask Wedgie he could tell you the exact date). Labor had been in power for over 12 months at that stage. It was the Labor government who had to put through legislation with the support of Rob Kerin.

[Wedgie]

Spot on robranisgod, Labour have been in since February 2002. You'd think with the way they're currently sliding that Labour politicians would have learnt by now to keep their mouths shut so they can get a narrow election win. The way Rann, Foley and Atkinson are going your think they currently have an inhouse bet to see who can be dumb, dumber or dumbest. Still that's an issue for another forum.

[Dogwatcher]

Did North get basically handed a pub or not ? .

No, and neither did Sturt, Norwood, Woodville or West Torrens.

Ok,

I had read elsewhere that Rob Gerrard had basically handed the club a pub.... obviously I read incorrect information.
although the other information about North getting a leg up from outside that I had head (but not yet mentioned) has been heard by our Treasurer (even though I dislike the guy):

Mr Foley said North Adelaide had got into trouble over a licence for poker machines and the previous Liberal government had been forced to introduce legislation which, in effect, had ensured the future of that club.

"For North Adelaide to say now that they can't support Port Adelaide is not a fair cop," he said.

Mr Foley doesn't have a good grasp of history. North's problems were in May 2003 (ask Wedgie he could tell you the exact date). Labor had been in power for over 12 months at that stage. It was the Labor government who had to put through legislation with the support of Rob Kerin.

Ahhhh brilliant.

[The Sleeping Giant]

You're very persistent in pursuing that agenda, TSG, but perhaps you should read what I've said. That is, that I don't agree with the NAFC"s motives, but I defended them against Rucci's accusations. I haven't mentioned the North players and coaches at all.

In any event, I'm entitled not to like North. I'd even suggest your posting shows a stronger dislike of West, which is fine.

As for which board members and influential supporters, I'm sure Wedgie would be happy for me to send the names to you by PM, to save any potential problems.

Stand by and I will do so.

Edit: PM sent.

I hate all clubs equally.

[jamdog]

It wwill be interesting to see how many Port People turn out to greet the SANFL directors.

Seeing they don't get many turn up when they are playing there, it could be telling by how many Port Power / Magpies supporters do turn up.

If this is so critical for their survival you would expect a turnout in the thousands based on their percieved support base being so large. I suspect many or the Power supported don't really give a rats arse about the merger.

[Mr Beefy]

What would rallying achieve given that minds have been made up already?

[grant j]

Michelangelo has done a great dis-service to all journalists. He has broke one of the golden rules of journalism

REMAIN FREE OF ASSOCIATIONS AND ACTIVITIES THAT MAY COMPROMISE INTEGRITY OR DAMAGE CREDIBILITY.

AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, REAL OR PERCEIVED.

Shame Michelangelo, Shame

[Mr Beefy]

Michelangelo has done a great dis-service to all journalists. He has broke one of the golden rules of journalism

REMAIN FREE OF ASSOCIATIONS AND ACTIVITIES THAT MAY COMPROMISE INTEGRITY OR DAMAGE CREDIBILITY.

AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, REAL OR PERCEIVED.

Shame Michelangelo, Shame

Is there a football journalist who doesn't have an association of some sort with a club?

[stan]

Michelangelo has done a great dis-service to all journalists. He has broke one of the golden rules of journalism

REMAIN FREE OF ASSOCIATIONS AND ACTIVITIES THAT MAY COMPROMISE INTEGRITY OR DAMAGE CREDIBILITY.

AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, REAL OR PERCEIVED.

Shame Michelangelo, Shame

Is there a football journalist who doesn't have an association of some sort with a club?

Yeah, and they tend to handle situations like these a lot better.
But look im biased because I tend not to like his writing.