Maggies fate to be announced this morning

[Hopeful Jelly]

So will Unley Oval now be known as 'Ransacked House' Oval or 'Demolished House' Oval. Well done Sturt, tell 'em to jam their House up their bung-hole!

Nup, that will be the new name of Ethelton once the debt collectors come rolling in.

[Barto]

All you supporters of the other 8 teams ask yourself a question.
Look back on your greatest memories, your greatest moments in football.
Which ones DID'NT involve Port Magpies ? Not many I bet.
We all love to beat Port and personally nothing beats the feeling of knocking off Port in a GF or at Alberton or winning a typical tough fight under lights at the Parade.
Do you really want to lose that ?

In order for me:
1) v Glenelg 87 GF
2) v West 91 GF
3) v Collingwood 86
4) v Melbourne 86
5) v South 83 Elim
6) v South 91 2nd semi
7) v Norwood 87 2nd semi
v Norwood x 2 at Norwood Oval 1990
10) v Norwood, Central, South & Glenelg 1983 Minor Round
14) v Eagles 07 Prelim
15) v West 04 Elim
16) v Eagles 07 Qual
17) v Sturt 05 Elim?

Might be a good win at Alberton or the 89 Fathers Day match after those

Also, my first memory of attending a SANFL game was West Torrens at Thebby, cant do that anymore either.

[on the rails]

Macca, the merger was the worst possible result for the Magpies. Trust me on that. The Power is a lame duck, and any financial affiliation with it would have sounded a definitive death-knell in the very near future.

As it stands we remain independent, and answerable to no-one, and will live or die based on the actions of our board, members and the latent supporter base over the next 6-10 months.

Had the merger been approved we would have been on our knees, and there are only two things you can do on you knees and neither of them are particulalrly gratifying.

Better to live on your feet than die on your knees.

Hooray - finally a Port supporter with some actual rational thoughts! (I'm sure there are many more). Pipers is spot on - the merger would have in 3 years (or most probably much earlier) meant that your own (being the Power) would have been the ones who killed off the Magpies.

At least you do have a slim chance now of doing something about it which should have happened half way through 2007 when your club couldn't meet it's players match payments even then. Not sure why the club didn't really try to rally it's own back them???

[CUTTERMAN]

Yeh, well done pipers, what a relief there's some sanity.
Give it time and a calm perspective, the no vote by the 8 clubs could've just saved PAMFC from certain doom in the next 3-5 years as they would then be under the direct control of the PAFC, and I don't think they would think twice about culling them off. After all the PAFC wasn't interested in merging unless they could get the pub and pokie licences, so why would they want the irksome burden of the PAMFC. At least they have their destiny in their own hands again.
Magpie supporters can thank the clubs when they feel comfortable with it.

[Hondo]

I think the SANFL clubs and the commission have just united and galvanised the PAM & PAP people moreso than any official merger would have done.

They've re-ignited the us v them approach which was so successful in the past but had, in recent times, been seemingly replaced by apathy

So I don't think the PAM are going anywhere soon. You don't have to be officially merged to be one united force.

[Dogwatcher]

Give it time and a calm perspective, the no vote by the 8 clubs could've just saved PAMFC from certain doom in the next 3-5 years as they would then be under the direct control of the PAFC, and I don't think they would think twice about culling them off.

I'm sure the Port Magpies fans would, however, at least liked to have the opportunity to prove that wrong/right.

[Wedgie]

Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

I heard that it may be Sturt and House Brothers, allegedly they advised that if Sturt voted against the proposal they'd pull their money.
Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

Looks like I was on the money, my Sturt member friend tells me he put up quite a stink at the AGM and stormed out despite the club explaining it well and being professional in all dealings.

[Barto]

Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

I heard that it may be Sturt and House Brothers, allegedly they advised that if Sturt voted against the proposal they'd pull their money.
Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

Looks like I was on the money, my Sturt member friend tells me he put up quite a stink at the AGM and stormed out despite the club explaining it well and being professional in all dealings.

I know I have no editorial control on this particular site but rest assured the club management have acted not only in the best interest of the SFC but the local league as a whole. The question was put forward to the Sturt board on why they didn't seek additional information from the Port Adelaide delegates and the response was that it is up to the Port Adelaide representatives to provide all relevant information in regards to their cap in hand bid to the SANFL.

If you apply for a job and it's expected that you address certain selection criteria, dont whine that the employer didn't ask you to submit additional information if you only address 4 out of the 5 essential requirements.

At the end of the day if the vote was 100% against, that should say something.

No club should be held to ransom by a sponsor when the club's board is acting with nothing but the club's interest in mind.

[Wedgie]

Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

I heard that it may be Sturt and House Brothers, allegedly they advised that if Sturt voted against the proposal they'd pull their money.
Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

Looks like I was on the money, my Sturt member friend tells me he put up quite a stink at the AGM and stormed out despite the club explaining it well and being professional in all dealings.

I know I have no editorial control on this particular site but rest assured the club management have acted not only in the best interest of the SFC but the local league as a whole. The question was put forward to the Sturt board on why they didn't seek additional information from the Port Adelaide delegates and the response was that it is up to the Port Adelaide representatives to provide all relevant information in regards to their cap in hand bid to the SANFL.

If you apply for a job and it's expected that you address certain selection criteria, dont whine that the employer didn't ask you to submit additional information if you only address 4 out of the 5 essential requirements.

At the end of the day if the vote was 100% against, that should say something.

No club should be held to ransom by a sponsor when the club's board is acting with nothing but the club's interest in mind.

Agreed 100% Barto, IMHO the Sturt Football Club has acted very professionally and have done nothing wrong, I hope the sponsor sees this and continues to support them for many years to come as they deserve.
It's quite clear where the blame lay for the vote not even getting close to get up, most will see it and hopefully eventually all will.

[beenreal]

Commission has rejected proposal, major sponsor for another SANFL struggling club to pull their sponsorship because of concerns for comp viability, very very sad day for SANFL clubs.

I heard that it may be Sturt and House Brothers, allegedly they advised that if Sturt voted against the proposal they'd pull their money.
Good on Sturt for standing up to those sort of bully boy tactics if correct.

Looks like I was on the money, my Sturt member friend tells me he put up quite a stink at the AGM and stormed out despite the club explaining it well and being professional in all dealings.

I know I have no editorial control on this particular site but rest assured the club management have acted not only in the best interest of the SFC but the local league as a whole. The question was put forward to the Sturt board on why they didn't seek additional information from the Port Adelaide delegates and the response was that it is up to the Port Adelaide representatives to provide all relevant information in regards to their cap in hand bid to the SANFL.

If you apply for a job and it's expected that you address certain selection criteria, dont whine that the employer didn't ask you to submit additional information if you only address 4 out of the 5 essential requirements.

At the end of the day if the vote was 100% against, that should say something.

No club should be held to ransom by a sponsor when the club's board is acting with nothing but the club's interest in mind.

To adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. You're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break.

Club interests were supposed to have NO place in this vote, so you're saying the Sturt representatives did not abide by the official stipulations?

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

[UK Fan]

YEah how dare we expect Port to know what going on with their proposal.

We should have just accepted whatever hey Been Real.

Does the term clueless mean anything to you ?????

[dedja]

YEah how dare we expect Port to know what going on with their proposal.

We should have just accepted whatever hey Been Real.

Does the term clueless mean anything to you ?????

You're obviously very familiar with it ...

[Barto]

To adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. You're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break.

Club interests were supposed to have NO place in this vote, so you're saying the Sturt representatives did not abide by the official stipulations?

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

The question was raised on why Sturt didn't ask Port for more information, I'm not sure why that is our job. It's not pig headeness to take the proposal presented, review it and make a decision. We were not the ones wanting something, why would Sturt go back to Port and ask them for more information?

If you're tendering for a contract and haven't presented a compelling reason why you should get it, bad luck.

Roll your eyes somewhere else.

[beenreal]

To adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. You're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break.

Club interests were supposed to have NO place in this vote, so you're saying the Sturt representatives did not abide by the official stipulations?

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

The question was raised on why Sturt didn't ask Port for more information, I'm not sure why that is our job. It's not pig headeness to take the proposal presented, review it and make a decision. We were not the ones wanting something, why would Sturt go back to Port and ask them for more information?

If you're tendering for a contract and haven't presented a compelling reason why you should get it, bad luck.

Roll your eyes somewhere else.

Absolute Frogs Droppings. Virtually every contract my company has ever won is because an interested party has requested clarification or further information about one or more issues. It's standard practice in the business world.

But then, of course I did mention an "interested party"?

[Barto]

To adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. You're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break.

Club interests were supposed to have NO place in this vote, so you're saying the Sturt representatives did not abide by the official stipulations?

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

The question was raised on why Sturt didn't ask Port for more information, I'm not sure why that is our job. It's not pig headeness to take the proposal presented, review it and make a decision. We were not the ones wanting something, why would Sturt go back to Port and ask them for more information?

If you're tendering for a contract and haven't presented a compelling reason why you should get it, bad luck.

Roll your eyes somewhere else.

Absolute Frogs Droppings. Virtually every contract my company has ever won is because an interested party has requested clarification or further information about one or more issues. It's standard practice in the business world.

But then, of course I did mention an "interested party"?

How interested were Port in helping us in 1995? Don't recall that they were on the phone asking what they can do to save us.

Not just Sturt but the entire eight clubs said no because it was clearly a poor proposal. They gave their time to Port Adelaide to present it, they met for hours over it, the delegates considered it and voted accordingly. Even North looked at it despite their initial stance, if that is a lack of interest in your eyes then so be it.

[Wedgie]

lol, now its the 8 clubs fault that Port's proposal didn't get up because they didn't ask everything a poorly presented, ever changing proposal didn't have, could have spent 9 months working that out for them instead of playing footy this year. Shame on those clubs for actually worrying about the day to day running of their businesses instead of spending time holding hands with a basket case that can't put a simple paper together profesisonally.
Everyone's fault except for Ports.
Boohoo.

[cje]

wedgies last comment = brilliant

[Barto]

lol, now its the 8 clubs fault that Port's proposal didn't get up because they didn't ask everything a poorly presented, ever changing proposal didn't have, could have spent 9 months working that out for them instead of playing footy this year. Shame on those clubs for actually worrying about the day to day running of their businesses instead of spending time holding hands with a basket case that can't put a simple paper together profesisonally.
Everyone's fault except for Ports.
Boohoo.

I thought of this one today as well, in the hypothetical business tender, if the decision was made by a committee of 8 people and you told each of the eight a slightly different proposal, what is going to happen when they meet to make their decision?

[Hopeful Jelly]

To adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. You're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break.

Club interests were supposed to have NO place in this vote, so you're saying the Sturt representatives did not abide by the official stipulations?

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

The question was raised on why Sturt didn't ask Port for more information, I'm not sure why that is our job. It's not pig headeness to take the proposal presented, review it and make a decision. We were not the ones wanting something, why would Sturt go back to Port and ask them for more information?

If you're tendering for a contract and haven't presented a compelling reason why you should get it, bad luck.

Roll your eyes somewhere else.

Absolute Frogs Droppings. Virtually every contract my company has ever won is because an interested party has requested clarification or further information about one or more issues. It's standard practice in the business world.

But then, of course I did mention an "interested party"?

Beenreal, this comparison is not quite correct - it was not a case of a company requesting tenders for a contract, it was a company trying to sell their product to 8 other parties.

Just like a telemarketer calls asking for me to switch phone company providers, they need to tell me the benefits of it. If I'm not convinced by what they tell me and I stay with my current phone provider, it's then not my fault if the phone company eventually goes out of business.

[Barto]

To adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. You're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break.

Club interests were supposed to have NO place in this vote, so you're saying the Sturt representatives did not abide by the official stipulations?

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

The question was raised on why Sturt didn't ask Port for more information, I'm not sure why that is our job. It's not pig headeness to take the proposal presented, review it and make a decision. We were not the ones wanting something, why would Sturt go back to Port and ask them for more information?

If you're tendering for a contract and haven't presented a compelling reason why you should get it, bad luck.

Roll your eyes somewhere else.

Absolute Frogs Droppings. Virtually every contract my company has ever won is because an interested party has requested clarification or further information about one or more issues. It's standard practice in the business world.

But then, of course I did mention an "interested party"?

Beenreal, this comparison is not quite correct - it was not a case of a company requesting tenders for a contract, it was a company trying to sell their product to 8 other parties.

Just like a telemarketer calls asking for me to switch phone company providers, they need to tell me the benefits of it. If I'm not convinced by what they tell me and I stay with my current phone provider, it's then not my fault if the phone company eventually goes out of business.

That's probably a better analogy.