A SANFL without the Port Magpies.

[Wedgie]

Dont know if anyone else has mentioned it but who saw the post on adelaidenow from the maggies supporter who said that with no magpies in the comp the sanfl will have 2 byes per round.......absolute gold!!!

Another pearler from the gutter that is the AdelaideNow comments section was someone claiming that Centrals only dominated this decade because the SANFL gave them extra recruiting concessions at the expense of Port Adelaide!

Oh Dear - Port are rolling out the intellectual giants now!

Yep, it's only Port who have the odd idiot support them....

What's odd about them?

[on the rails]

Not even an idiot would post that!

[Booney]

Not even an idiot would post that!

So I'm an idiot?

[Wedgie]

Not even an idiot would post that!

So I'm an idiot?

No he's saying the author was beyond being an idiot with that sort of stupidity, Im still a fan of the "2 byes" comment by one though, a pearler!

[Gingernuts]

Guys, to me the time has come for Port people to abandon these debates and embrace both teams as Port Adelaide. I think the set-up of the PAM and PAP driven by SANFL demands and Port Adelaide desires, conflicted by Collingwood's pre-existing rights to the B&W colours and magpies emblem created 2 competing Port Adelaide teams. I believe all involved in the setup at in 1996 did not expect this outcome we have today (obviously - doh).

It's a unique situation with a club being "promoted" to a higher comp but ALSO retaining it's club in the original comp. There's no right answer IMO. The Brisbane Lions share the Fitzroy history with the Fitzroy Football Club that still exists to this day so there is some precedent.

To me, it's one history and now 2 clubs. If that's confusing for some people, well it's confusing. I think too much time is spent on "which is which" debates which I don't think help either PAM or the PAP. Not so much when those debates are had by non-Port people. Moreso when it happens between Port faithful. I think that was one of the goals of the merger - to unite the supporter base again. Now the merger is off, I don't see why it can't be a spur to the PAM and PAP people to unite anyway after 13 years.

If us non-Port people choose to get persist with the identity debate that's up to us.

That Hondo is the best post I have ever read on this site.The three points in bold are fantastic and the truth in all it's glory.

Very well written and I'll be keeping that post.

Yep, good post. I'm totally happy with 2 Port Adelaides, as long as they're both sustainable. Currently they aren't though.

[Booney]

Not even an idiot would post that!

So I'm an idiot?

No he's saying the author was beyond being an idiot with that sort of stupidity, Im still a fan of the "2 byes" comment by one though, a pearler!

Oh, now I get it.

Off the rails is making so many posts about this topic I cant keep up. He/she is obviously very passionate about the subject matter. Very good contributions from the new member.

[on the rails]

Not even an idiot would post that!

So I'm an idiot?

I never said that and you are definately quite the opposite however you would have to know nothing about SANFL football or as I said an idiot (and / or moron!) to post that stuff on a public forum. Seriously doesn't help galvanise support if that is representative of your supporters emotions and minds at the momment.

[Dogwatcher]

Guys, to me the time has come for Port people to abandon these debates and embrace both teams as Port Adelaide. I think the set-up of the PAM and PAP driven by SANFL demands and Port Adelaide desires, conflicted by Collingwood's pre-existing rights to the B&W colours and magpies emblem created 2 competing Port Adelaide teams. I believe all involved in the setup at in 1996 did not expect this outcome we have today (obviously - doh).

It's a unique situation with a club being "promoted" to a higher comp but ALSO retaining it's club in the original comp. There's no right answer IMO. The Brisbane Lions share the Fitzroy history with the Fitzroy Football Club that still exists to this day so there is some precedent.

To me, it's one history and now 2 clubs. If that's confusing for some people, well it's confusing. I think too much time is spent on "which is which" debates which I don't think help either PAM or the PAP. Not so much when those debates are had by non-Port people. Moreso when it happens between Port faithful. I think that was one of the goals of the merger - to unite the supporter base again. Now the merger is off, I don't see why it can't be a spur to the PAM and PAP people to unite anyway after 13 years.

If us non-Port people choose to get persist with the identity debate that's up to us.

That Hondo is the best post I have ever read on this site.The three points in bold are fantastic and the truth in all it's glory.

Very well written and I'll be keeping that post.

Yep, good post. I'm totally happy with 2 Port Adelaides, as long as they're both sustainable. Currently they aren't though.

I'm with Ginger on this one.

[devilsadvocate]

I'm with Ginger on this one.

Yet on the previous page, you trolled with the history rubbish?

I'm confused.

[Gingernuts]

I'm with Ginger on this one.

Yet on the previous page, you trolled with the history rubbish?

I'm confused.

I don't think he was trolling, you can't just pretend that the identity issue isn't there. It's part of the problem so it at least needs to be discussed in working forward to a possible solution, particularly in the current situation where it appears that one Port Adelaide is destined to cease.

I hope you don't think I was trolling with my post either. I am actually genuinely interested in Port Adelaide supporter's views on the matter.

[devilsadvocate]

I don't think he was trolling, you can't just pretend that the identity issue isn't there. It's part of the problem so it at least needs to be discussed in working forward to a possible solution, particularly in the current situation where it appears that one Port Adelaide is destined to cease.

I hope you don't think I was trolling with my post either. I am actually genuinely interested in Port Adelaide supporter's views on the matter.

The majority who bring up the identity issue do it to create a heated response - trolling. Having gone back and read your post a second time, I'll pay it that yours wasn't a troll. The beginning of DW's was on the other hand.

My view on the Port identity - basically word for word what Hondo wrote. I believe it's one history, shared by the Power and Magpies. The Power competes at a national level, the Magpies compete in the same place that generated that history. But as Hondo also said - everyone has a different interpretation, Port supporter or not. I know Port Magpies fans who despise the Power. I also know Power fans who have forgotten about PAMFC. Each to their own.

One things for sure, I'll support PORT - the Magpies and the Power - till I die. If anyone tries to take either away - LOOKOUT!!!!!!!!

[Dogwatcher]

My post was not a troll.
There hasn't been an identity issue?
There haven't been people claiming the same history for two clubs in the past decade and then specifically in the past few days as we work through this mire?
Were they not meant to be two separate clubs?
If the merger had worked and they became one club, my questions would no longer be relevant.
As the merger was not allowed they are still relevant.
I was asking relevant questions, playing the Devil's Advocate, if you like.
As Ginge said, I'm happy with two Port Adelaides, as long as they're both sustainable.
I can hate/respect them both.
Currently two aren't sustainable.

Look through the many posts that I've made on this topic (and in fact this forum) and you will see I'm not a troll.

[Gingernuts]

I don't think he was trolling, you can't just pretend that the identity issue isn't there. It's part of the problem so it at least needs to be discussed in working forward to a possible solution, particularly in the current situation where it appears that one Port Adelaide is destined to cease.

I hope you don't think I was trolling with my post either. I am actually genuinely interested in Port Adelaide supporter's views on the matter.

The majority who bring up the identity issue do it to create a heated response - trolling. Having gone back and read your post a second time, I'll pay it that yours wasn't a troll. The beginning of DW's was on the other hand.

My view on the Port identity - basically word for word what Hondo wrote. I believe it's one history, shared by the Power and Magpies. The Power competes at a national level, the Magpies compete in the same place that generated that history. But as Hondo also said - everyone has a different interpretation, Port supporter or not. I know Port Magpies fans who despise the Power. I also know Power fans who have forgotten about PAMFC. Each to their own.

One things for sure, I'll support PORT - the Magpies and the Power - till I die. If anyone tries to take either away - LOOKOUT!!!!!!!!

Yep, and it's that sort of passion that makes footy such a great game.

The whole situation looks to me like a case where all key stakeholders (Port, SANFL, other SANFL clubs) set out to have their cake and eat it too at the time of Port's entry to the AFL, and now they've realised that there's actually not enough cake to go around.

I also feel as an impartial observer that the existence of both clubs has diluted the strength of the Port Adelaide 'aura'. I don't feel that both sides are formidable or intimidating like they used to be and I wonder if it's a case of the celebrated Port Adelaide culture being spread too thin by the existing set up. I guess that's what the merger proposal hoped to rectify in a way but that wasn't to be.

I hope I am wrong and both PA's can not only continue to exist but also become formidable once more (not before South and the Crows though! Lol).

[devilsadvocate]

The start of that post was a troll.

Yes, there has been an identity issue. It just shits me when that gets wheeled out every time someone gets passionate about the history of Port Adelaide.

The bottom line is, you're not going to get the same answer from any two people - Port supporters or not. So what's the point. It will just continue as an excuse for people to try to sink the boot in.

[Dogwatcher]

Well, you should get the same story. It's one or the other, not both.

Anyway, why exactly is it a troll?
I'm not sticking the boot in at all.
As an example, I've been toying with donating some money to the Magpies? But which one is the original Port Adelaide?
I'm sure there are other people who would ask the same question when considering where their money is going to go.
If you look through my posts on this issue, you'll see that I've asked questions of proponents of both sides about the issue.

[Hondo]

If the merger had worked and they became one club, my questions would no longer be relevant.
As the merger was not allowed they are still relevant.

I don't think they had to be merged for that identity debate to disappear. And, even if they had merged, there would still have been 2 teams, 2 emblems, different colours in 2 different competitions. Was it definite that the PAM entity would disappear or would it have continued under PAP control? If there was still 2 entities I think there would have been enough fuel on the fire the for real trolls to keep going on and on and on about it.

Yet, for you, an off-field merger would have been enough to solve the identity issue?

EDIT: I see your still asking which is which. You seem to want the identity debate to keep bubbling along? Do you only wish to donate to the PAM if you are satsfied they are the original club or are you trying to sway others? How are you going to find your answer?

[Hondo]

Well, you should get the same story. It's one or the other, not both.

With respect, so you say

You want it to be either (A) or (B) because you say it can't be (C). Who set these rules?

I am provoking discussion BTW, not having a go. I could ask this of anyone who says "it has to be one or the other".

[Wedgie]

If there can be a (c) why not a (d) neither?

[Gingernuts]

Well, you should get the same story. It's one or the other, not both.

With respect, so you say

You want it to be either (A) or (B) because you say it can't be (C). Who set these rules?

I am provoking discussion BTW, not having a go. I could ask this of anyone who says "it has to be one or the other".

$$$$$$ sets the rules hondo, and currently $$$$$ says there's not enough for both of them.

Fortunately this situation can be changed with some hard work though, as other SANFL clubs have shown.

[Hondo]

If there can be a (c) why not a (d) neither?

I agree

DW, left it at only 2 options it seemed to me

Without a precedent there's potentially endless options so do we keep debating it forever?