by pipers » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:13 pm
by Dirko » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:18 pm
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:31 pm
by Squawk » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:37 pm
pipers wrote:our willingness to challenge the status quo back in 1990.
by rod_rooster » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:49 pm
pipers wrote:
Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.
by am Bays » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:06 am
by Strawb » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:50 am
by Punk Rooster » Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:54 am
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by SnappyTom » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:51 am
by CK » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:39 am
by JK » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:49 am
CK wrote:Without taking any sides in the debate, for me the human side of it is the hardest part. A close mate of mine has been with the Magpies all his life. Has worked around the club, bought his membership every year, goes to every home match and has ridden through the bumps and highs.
When he rang me in tears last night about the decision, it was another time - among many - that it really hit home again to me just how many people are affected by this decision. These are people that won't pick up another club. They will be GONE to SANFL. Gone. A big group taken, just like that. They are the ones that I feel the worst for.
by CK » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:08 am
Constance_Perm wrote:CK wrote:Without taking any sides in the debate, for me the human side of it is the hardest part. A close mate of mine has been with the Magpies all his life. Has worked around the club, bought his membership every year, goes to every home match and has ridden through the bumps and highs.
When he rang me in tears last night about the decision, it was another time - among many - that it really hit home again to me just how many people are affected by this decision. These are people that won't pick up another club. They will be GONE to SANFL. Gone. A big group taken, just like that. They are the ones that I feel the worst for.
It would be hard to believe if it came to that, and to be honest for some reason I still don't accept it as a given that the Magpies will be lost, and I very much hope I'm right.
I still can't understand how the governing body (SANFL) who should be there (IMHO) to assist and protect our clubs, could lose one of them.
They nearly lost Sturt and North in recent times, has nothing been learnt?
by JK » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:11 am
CK wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:CK wrote:Without taking any sides in the debate, for me the human side of it is the hardest part. A close mate of mine has been with the Magpies all his life. Has worked around the club, bought his membership every year, goes to every home match and has ridden through the bumps and highs.
When he rang me in tears last night about the decision, it was another time - among many - that it really hit home again to me just how many people are affected by this decision. These are people that won't pick up another club. They will be GONE to SANFL. Gone. A big group taken, just like that. They are the ones that I feel the worst for.
It would be hard to believe if it came to that, and to be honest for some reason I still don't accept it as a given that the Magpies will be lost, and I very much hope I'm right.
I still can't understand how the governing body (SANFL) who should be there (IMHO) to assist and protect our clubs, could lose one of them.
They nearly lost Sturt and North in recent times, has nothing been learnt?
Sturt accepted in 1995 they were going to have to make some very tough decisions if they were to survive, and played the kids, took on a rookie coach, all at low expenses, and took their knocks, for the sake of cutting their costs for one year to survive for more. North had to make similar tough decisions at times.
Without editorialising on it, the option for the Magpies looks to be to give game time to the passionate kids that WANT to be at the club and want to bleed for the black and white; assess the situation of any player that isn't there for the right reasons and look at moving them on if it frees up space, even if it means hurting them on-field for a time; and follow these models. If it means they get the wooden spoon in 2010, but gives them a chance of seeing life beyond October 2010, then that looks their solution. It will also ensure that if the good times return there, they will have a passionate group that WANT to be there desperately.
For all of the pain of both Sturt and North, both clubs were playing off again in grand finals within five years of their lowest ebbs. The Magpies need to keep that in mind when the times look dark.
by Psyber » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:19 am
That revisionism is precisely why nobody could trust Port Adelaide's plan now.pipers wrote: In the meantime, we would have existed as something of a retarded strangling - loathed, ridiculed and spat upon by the very people now benefitting from our willingness to challenge the status quo back in 1990.
by Psyber » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:24 am
How many SA footy clubs in the SANFL, or its predecessor associations, have died or merged since, say, 1878.Constance_Perm wrote: Im aware of all that mate, my point is more that a governing body should have some responsibility in helping the clubs ... And I don't mean just at the last minute or via large $ bailouts.
by stan » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:27 am
rod_rooster wrote:pipers wrote:
Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.
You could always attempt to do something about the situation to try to save your club. Too hard is it? Glad North supporters didn't think that way back in 2003. Better to try and fail than to not try.
As for saying:
"The other 8 SANFL clubs can go and get f**ked for their selfish and short-sighted vindictiveness."
I say to that go and get f*cked yourself and stop expecting handouts that no other club has been afforded. It is not the fault of any SANFL club that Port finds itself in this situation. Port only has itself to blame and if they can't work their way out of their current problems by themselves then sadly it's goodbye Magpies.
by stan » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:29 am
Psyber wrote:How many SA footy clubs in the SANFL, or its predecessor associations, have died or merged since, say, 1878.Constance_Perm wrote: Im aware of all that mate, my point is more that a governing body should have some responsibility in helping the clubs ... And I don't mean just at the last minute or via large $ bailouts.
Is it all that unusual for these changes to occur in any sporting association?
by tipper » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:32 am
stan wrote:rod_rooster wrote:pipers wrote:
Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.
You could always attempt to do something about the situation to try to save your club. Too hard is it? Glad North supporters didn't think that way back in 2003. Better to try and fail than to not try.
As for saying:
"The other 8 SANFL clubs can go and get f**ked for their selfish and short-sighted vindictiveness."
I say to that go and get f*cked yourself and stop expecting handouts that no other club has been afforded. It is not the fault of any SANFL club that Port finds itself in this situation. Port only has itself to blame and if they can't work their way out of their current problems by themselves then sadly it's goodbye Magpies.
So correct me if Im wrong, but Robs funds had nothing to do with your survival?
Nothing at all...........?
Seriously correct me if Im wrong.
by stan » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:34 am
tipper wrote:stan wrote:rod_rooster wrote:pipers wrote:
Port Adelaide Magpies 1870-2010
You will live forever in our hearts.
You could always attempt to do something about the situation to try to save your club. Too hard is it? Glad North supporters didn't think that way back in 2003. Better to try and fail than to not try.
As for saying:
"The other 8 SANFL clubs can go and get f**ked for their selfish and short-sighted vindictiveness."
I say to that go and get f*cked yourself and stop expecting handouts that no other club has been afforded. It is not the fault of any SANFL club that Port finds itself in this situation. Port only has itself to blame and if they can't work their way out of their current problems by themselves then sadly it's goodbye Magpies.
So correct me if Im wrong, but Robs funds had nothing to do with your survival?
Nothing at all...........?
Seriously correct me if Im wrong.
He went guaranteur(spelling?) for the loans we took out to renovate\move\move again, our pokie venues, but the loans are in north's name and the repayments are made by north. he may have made a donation(i wouldnt be surprised if he did), but so did a lot of supporters. North also asked the sanfl to guarantee the loans first but they refused. we found another way.
by JK » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:36 am
Psyber wrote:How many SA footy clubs in the SANFL, or its predecessor associations, have died or merged since, say, 1878.Constance_Perm wrote: Im aware of all that mate, my point is more that a governing body should have some responsibility in helping the clubs ... And I don't mean just at the last minute or via large $ bailouts.
Is it all that unusual for these changes to occur in any sporting association?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |