Michelangelo - we deserve better - Part 1

[UK Fan]

North turned it around by taking out loans to pay for fit outs, leases and moves whilst at the same time making smart business decisions. North weren't offered any mergers with an AFL club, North weren't allowed to have a years dividend in advance, North weren't allowed to borrow anything against their share if the SANFL. North didn't lay the blame at anyone they just smartly and diligantly turned things around using nothing but their own people and resources. To their credit they've paid off more than half that debt already and can still show half a million dollars in profits on top of that.

Port wanted an AFL team and hence they accepted the conditions attached to it. Port made the decision, noone else, all fault is Ports.

If they hadn't we probably would have had a much more financially successful second AFL team and a much more successful Port in the SANFL and everyone would be better off.

All fault is Ports, I want the Maggies to survive but some people bleating away and laying the blame on everyone except for the people that created their own mess is actually harming their cause more than helping it.

Bravo..............

thats the crux of the matter. Port are looking at all and sundry to blame, when all this stems from themselves and their own past mistakes. And don't tell me that the Magpies should not have been left in 1997 as an excuse, if you believe that, whats the problem? We're just rectifying past 'errors'.

[Booney]

What has Port Adelaide ever done to you UK?

Let the scars heal mate, the first step is talking about it. Come one, lay down on the couch and tell me all about it.....

[Mr Irate]

North turned it around by taking out loans to pay for fit outs, leases and moves whilst at the same time making smart business decisions. North weren't offered any mergers with an AFL club, North weren't allowed to have a years dividend in advance, North weren't allowed to borrow anything against their share if the SANFL. North didn't lay the blame at anyone they just smartly and diligantly turned things around using nothing but their own people and resources. To their credit they've paid off more than half that debt already and can still show half a million dollars in profits on top of that.

Port wanted an AFL team and hence they accepted the conditions attached to it. Port made the decision, noone else, all fault is Ports.

If they hadn't we probably would have had a much more financially successful second AFL team and a much more successful Port in the SANFL and everyone would be better off.

All fault is Ports, I want the Maggies to survive but some people bleating away and laying the blame on everyone except for the people that created their own mess is actually harming their cause more than helping it.

Bravo..............

thats the crux of the matter. Port are looking at all and sundry to blame, when all this stems from themselves and their own past mistakes. And don't tell me that the Magpies should not have been left in 1997 as an excuse, if you believe that, whats the problem? We're just rectifying past 'errors'.

Spot on....Port wanted to be in the AFL...that is what they have....move on

[UK Fan]

What has Port Adelaide ever done to you UK?

Let the scars heal mate, the first step is talking about it. Come one, lay down on the couch and tell me all about it.....

Yes its all because of Port. Id obviously be singing the praises and 100% in support of a Norwood/Crows merger.

Might have to let this we are against it because its Port thing go buddy. Infact isnt it you guys claiming it should be approved simply cos you are Port ???

[eddie eagle]

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

GOOD CALL GRANT J, GOOD CALL

[eddie eagle]

It's impossible to expect Michelangelo Rucci to ever admit he's wrong, no doubt, but his latest effort on the Magpies situation is an example of shifting sands journalism at its worst. He had enough inside information to write a reasoned and responsible article, but I suppose that doesn't sell papers. That's fine, but he then should accept the criticism that comes with it.

Every day is a different story. Yesterday it was a 6-4 vote, with the unbelievable suggestion that the vote was being 'nobbled'. He said the Magpies wouldn't have a vote, something I pointed out yesterday was wrong. Now he accepts they do have a vote, which makes his original 'nobbling' accusation not only scurrilous, but a nonsense all along, especially when his newspaper reported the day before that the vote from the other clubs would be 0-8.

The problem with writing partisan articles is that you have to shift ground to let the facts fit your agenda and this has been a prime example. Throw in a few facts and embellish it with plenty of biased speculation. Throw in a conspiracy theory, add some potentially libellous comments and some nonsense about the AFL taking over licences over an internal SANFL matter and you have a typical self-righteous article at which the majority of informed readers would be shaking their heads.

Today we've abandoned the 6-4 vote and it's been discovered that the club directors aren't really club directors, they have a higher calling. This wasn't known by Michelangelo yesterday, but today he pompously ridicules some of those directors for also presumably not knowing.

Time doesn't permit further analysis right now, so I'll save that for Part 2.


As I said, posters on here know their SANFL and we deserve better.

PS: In keeping with the agenda, we have a poll result supporting his position. A very independent poll, I'm sure

Much Kudos deserved for that summary R&B, Well Done

[MagareyLegend]

The only sides to ever to beat Port in a GF (since 1897) are:

South 1st
Norwood 2nd
North 3rd
West 4th
Sturt 5th
Glenelg 6th
West Torrens 7th

Hmmmm! No Centrals, WWT or Woodville.

The rest of you are (sorry) Johnny Come Lateleys!

[Strawb]

The only sides to ever to beat Port in a GF (since 1897) are:

South 1st
Norwood 2nd
North 3rd
Sturt 4th
Glenelg 5th
West Torrens 6th

Hmmmm! No Centrals, WWT or Woodville.

The rest of you are (sorry) Johnny Come Lateleys!

West Adelaide have beaten Port for a Premiership.

[on the rails]

The only sides to ever to beat Port in a GF (since 1897) are:

South 1st
Norwood 2nd
North 3rd
West 4th
Sturt 5th
Glenelg 6th
West Torrens 7th

Hmmmm! No Centrals, WWT or Woodville.

The rest of you are (sorry) Johnny Come Lateleys!

ML - I'm glad you edited your post re the Tom Zorich comments which can still be seen in Strawb07 post with his quote of your original post. The comments were very very poor and god knows why you would even think that let alone post it??? To say Centrals learnt from Port is correct but don't forget North also certainly took some advice and moral support etc from Centrals and the likes of Kris Grant and Bill Cochrane when we were hauling ourselves back into the black during the early to mid 2000's. In fact Centrals were our only moral SANFL support back then despite the fact they thrashed us game after game!

[Choccies]

North turned it around by taking out loans to pay for fit outs, leases and moves whilst at the same time making smart business decisions. North weren't offered any mergers with an AFL club, North weren't allowed to have a years dividend in advance, North weren't allowed to borrow anything against their share if the SANFL. North didn't lay the blame at anyone they just smartly and diligantly turned things around using nothing but their own people and resources. To their credit they've paid off more than half that debt already and can still show half a million dollars in profits on top of that.

Port wanted an AFL team and hence they accepted the conditions attached to it. Port made the decision, noone else, all fault is Ports.

If they hadn't we probably would have had a much more financially successful second AFL team and a much more successful Port in the SANFL and everyone would be better off.

All fault is Ports, I want the Maggies to survive but some people bleating away and laying the blame on everyone except for the people that created their own mess is actually harming their cause more than helping it.

Bravo..............

thats the crux of the matter. Port are looking at all and sundry to blame, when all this stems from themselves and their own past mistakes. And don't tell me that the Magpies should not have been left in 1997 as an excuse, if you believe that, whats the problem? We're just rectifying past 'errors'.

Spot on....Port wanted to be in the AFL...that is what they have....move on

They wanted the Magpies to be in the AFL but they got the Power instead and kept the Magpies in the SANFL which I'd guess wasn't their plan at the start ?? The Maggies should have disappeared at this point rather than 13 years later... Correct me if I'm wrong though...

[Ronnie]

Rucci was pushing a pretty hardline agenda there but what do you expect, like a number of Port people the ability for some self analysis is sadly lacking. I'm sure Norwood and others would have voted in favour of the merger if they thought they could but the head has to rule in these matters. As for the nonsense that the SANFL handling of this issue is a pretext for the AFL to step in well that is just fear mongering. The SANFL does have a tough time trying to placate AFL interests with the local comp but they do a good job of it generally.
I hope like hell they find a way to stay in the SANFL, hopefully a consortium that some people are talking about does eventuate and we can see the Magpies beyond 2010.

[Barto]

Rucci on 6PR at the moment claiming that only 6 commissioners were at the meeting today and that 3 didnt listen to the proposal in full.

Blaming the SANFL for Port's (Power) financial position.

[Mr Irate]

The bloke is doing more damage than good.....the laying of blame at everyone elses door, the false threats, the arrogance.....any compassion is being rapidly replaced for a desire to see a revised 2010 draw......

[on the rails]

Rucci on 6PR at the moment claiming that only 6 commissioners were at the meeting today and that 3 didnt listen to the proposal in full.

Blaming the SANFL for Port's (Power) financial position.

Well maybe one of the so called "Independent" Commissioners missing was Bucky Cunningham who should have excluded himself re conflict of interest given he was CEO of both Port entities! Now funny Rucci crapped on about League Directors agendas and conflict of interest but strangely no mention of Bucky and his conflict. Good one Rooooch - you selective self indulging one eyed tool!

[CUTTERMAN]

Rucci, The Pie-eyed piper of the peninsula.

[topcat10]

the SANFL - who wanted to maintain a Port presence in the SANFL.

Er.. no. It's been established time and time again that it was Port who wanted to maintain a Port presence in the SANFL.

BTW: who the hell is handing out these pubs? I want one.

Gordon Pickard apparently

[Booney]

Rucci on 6PR at the moment claiming that only 6 commissioners were at the meeting today and that 3 didnt listen to the proposal in full.

Blaming the SANFL for Port's (Power) financial position.

Well maybe one of the so called "Independent" Commissioners missing was Bucky Cunningham who should have excluded himself re conflict of interest given he was CEO of both Port entities! Now funny Rucci crapped on about League Directors agendas and conflict of interest but strangely no mention of Bucky and his conflict. Good one Rooooch - you selective self indulging one eyed tool!

For once, I believe you are well out of order here.

Darren Chandler publicly stated thet Brian Cunningham's position within the commission remained intact whilst the review was underway. For you ( in a roundabout way ) to question on of ( if not the ) most highly respected football administration identities motives needs to have some substance behind it.

If you are to question Mr.Cunninghams "conflict of interest" then every other person on that commisssion must be questioned too, for they have a history with other SANFL clubs who ( for all intents and purposes ) have a grudge to bear on Port Adelaide.

You continually attempt to educate us on Rucci's downfalls, but you know what? We are well bloody aware of all his faults and misconceptions and your obvious and repeated reading of his articles only gives his form of media more exposure.

* Footnote - Several pints and an emotional state does not exclude me from these comments but I would like it noted in the minutes, chairman. *

[redandblack]

Noted

[on the rails]

Darren Chandler publicly stated thet Brian Cunningham's position within the commission remained intact whilst the review was underway. For you ( in a roundabout way ) to question on of ( if not the ) most highly respected football administration identities motives needs to have some substance behind it.

If you are to question Mr.Cunninghams "conflict of interest" then every other person on that commisssion must be questioned too, for they have a history with other SANFL clubs who ( for all intents and purposes ) have a grudge to bear on Port Adelaide.

You continually attempt to educate us on Rucci's downfalls, but you know what? We are well bloody aware of all his faults and misconceptions and your obvious and repeated reading of his articles only gives his form of media more exposure.

Did not Rucci make claims in the paper about the agendas of the League Directors and a conflict of interest in terms of what they were looking at (the Merger Proposal) and basing their vote on their own clubs needs and not for the greater good of SANFL Football which is a conflict of interest? All my point was (which you are too blinded to see) was that if Rucci is going allege that at the Directors then the same conflict of interest should be levelled at those sitting on the Commission and I am well aware that all have had SANFL Club involvement in the past. The only reason I mention Bucky was that he was a CEO of both the PAMFC and Power in the past and for your info it was raised by himself as to whether he should exclude himself from the vote given his obvious past ties. Personally I had no issue with anyones involvement at League Director's level or Commission and I beleive all are doing what is best for the SANFL overall but it was Rucci who attacked the integrity of some of the League Directors re conflict of interest but choose not to mention the same possiblities at Commission level. Just shows he is a selective "sniper" when it suits his agenda.

[CUTTERMAN]

the SANFL - who wanted to maintain a Port presence in the SANFL.

Er.. no. It's been established time and time again that it was Port who wanted to maintain a Port presence in the SANFL.

BTW: who the hell is handing out these pubs? I want one.

Gordon Pickard apparently

Now this is just funny. Who was the knob on this forum having a go at North Adelaide concerning Rob Gerard and the purchase of their gaming venue? Isn't this just what has happened to Port?
Who are you, stand up and take your medicine.