by The Dark Knight » Wed May 05, 2010 7:45 pm
by woodublieve12 » Wed May 05, 2010 7:52 pm
Jabber wrote:zedman wrote:number2 wrote:Who cares if you guys out at elizabeth are so good then don't worry about it and get on with playing footy.
I believe Plympton have a lot of improvment in them with some very good players to come back in over the next 2 weeks and they will knock elizabeth off next time fair and square!
fido bedow's brother?
Sssssomeones gone mmmmmmental!
by woodublieve12 » Wed May 05, 2010 8:01 pm
by woodublieve12 » Wed May 05, 2010 8:09 pm
Jabber wrote:barbs wrote:boozehound wrote:We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....
In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.
By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?
I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.
We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.
It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.
by BenchedEagle » Wed May 05, 2010 8:49 pm
woodublieve12 wrote:Jabber wrote:barbs wrote:boozehound wrote:We would have absolutely no reason to do this....Everyone knew Ben Halliday was playing at Elizabeth after having a year off. There was never a danger of Salisbury North not clearing him....
In all honesty it would be a joke if the decision stands but hopefully if it does (which will not surprise me with the morons running the league) it will not effect our position on the ladder come round 18.
By the same token wouldn't everyone have known he was a registered Salisbury North player? Also whoever does the clearances would know it's a straight registration after 2 years off not just 1. Surely it would raise alarm bells?
I cant believe the SAAFL's "incompetence" is under scrutiny when clearly there was only one party out of Plympton, Elizabeth, and SAAFL, that made an error.
We're talking about the same club that wasnt aware how many were allowed on the bench of a C5 game in round 1, and the team manager came into the centre to speak with the umps to ask why plympton had so many on the bench.
It seems as if admin is afterthough for the eags.
that was funny....
by NO-MERCY » Wed May 05, 2010 9:14 pm
(S)aintbackline wrote:I know for a fact that these players approached Rosewater (Very Reliable Source as well!), not Rosewater approaching them, so going by that maybe there is trouble at Seaton if players are looking to jump ship this early in the year........................
by The Dark Knight » Wed May 05, 2010 9:25 pm
NO-MERCY wrote:(S)aintbackline wrote:I know for a fact that these players approached Rosewater (Very Reliable Source as well!), not Rosewater approaching them, so going by that maybe there is trouble at Seaton if players are looking to jump ship this early in the year........................
You know jack sh!t pal, we are talking about 1 player here no more, their is no trouble ( as much as you would love their to be ) at Seaton whatsoever, no-one's looking to jump.
One lad i know was approached by Rosewater & was offered $$ which he declined after a meeting with them last Tuesday.
He's obviously changed his mind since, probably after a bigger offer.
The club won't stand is his way providing his subs are payed, he's a player that doesn't like paying subs obviously.
The club has stated if theirs no sign of subs being payed you will not be playing until sign's are shown of payment, its simple pay the required $$ & you have the clearance signed, the lads attitude stinks anyway & i'd be more than happy to see the back of him & his dad.
by The BulldogLover » Wed May 05, 2010 9:28 pm
NO-MERCY wrote:(S)aintbackline wrote:I know for a fact that these players approached Rosewater (Very Reliable Source as well!), not Rosewater approaching them, so going by that maybe there is trouble at Seaton if players are looking to jump ship this early in the year........................
You know jack sh!t pal, we are talking about 1 player here no more, their is no trouble ( as much as you would love their to be ) at Seaton whatsoever, no-one's looking to jump.
One lad i know was approached by Rosewater & was offered $$ which he declined after a meeting with them last Tuesday.
He's obviously changed his mind since, probably after a bigger offer.
The club won't stand is his way providing his subs are payed, he's a player that doesn't like paying subs obviously.
The club has stated if theirs no sign of subs being payed you will not be playing until sign's are shown of payment, its simple pay the required $$ & you have the clearance signed, the lads attitude stinks anyway & i'd be more than happy to see the back of him & his dad.
by The BulldogLover » Wed May 05, 2010 9:33 pm
The Dark Knight wrote:NO-MERCY wrote:(S)aintbackline wrote:I know for a fact that these players approached Rosewater (Very Reliable Source as well!), not Rosewater approaching them, so going by that maybe there is trouble at Seaton if players are looking to jump ship this early in the year........................
You know jack sh!t pal, we are talking about 1 player here no more, their is no trouble ( as much as you would love their to be ) at Seaton whatsoever, no-one's looking to jump.
One lad i know was approached by Rosewater & was offered $$ which he declined after a meeting with them last Tuesday.
He's obviously changed his mind since, probably after a bigger offer.
The club won't stand is his way providing his subs are payed, he's a player that doesn't like paying subs obviously.
The club has stated if theirs no sign of subs being payed you will not be playing until sign's are shown of payment, its simple pay the required $$ & you have the clearance signed, the lads attitude stinks anyway & i'd be more than happy to see the back of him & his dad.
I reckon you should make the trip down to Rosewater NM and give them a piece of your mind!! That will sort things out
by woodublieve12 » Wed May 05, 2010 9:43 pm
by (S)aintbackline » Wed May 05, 2010 9:57 pm
NO-MERCY wrote:(S)aintbackline wrote:I know for a fact that these players approached Rosewater (Very Reliable Source as well!), not Rosewater approaching them, so going by that maybe there is trouble at Seaton if players are looking to jump ship this early in the year........................
You know jack sh!t pal, we are talking about 1 player here no more, their is no trouble ( as much as you would love their to be ) at Seaton whatsoever, no-one's looking to jump.
One lad i know was approached by Rosewater & was offered $$ which he declined after a meeting with them last Tuesday.
He's obviously changed his mind since, probably after a bigger offer.
The club won't stand is his way providing his subs are payed, he's a player that doesn't like paying subs obviously.
The club has stated if theirs no sign of subs being payed you will not be playing until sign's are shown of payment, its simple pay the required $$ & you have the clearance signed, the lads attitude stinks anyway & i'd be more than happy to see the back of him & his dad.
by Footy Chick » Wed May 05, 2010 10:06 pm
by Howgdizhe » Wed May 05, 2010 10:27 pm
Let em go FC, I think its hilarious! The player approached us! we approached the player! who f----n cares! Its like DAYSOFOURLIVES on here!Footy Chick wrote:Is all this arguing over one little unknown player? Anyone would think you were fighting over Gary Ablett![]()
Let's tone it down to a dull roar, eh?
by boozehound » Thu May 06, 2010 2:23 am
by Jabber » Thu May 06, 2010 8:19 am
boozehound wrote:P.S........I hate Plympton and cant wait to kick a bag next time i play them. Hopefully we play them in a prelim......![]()
Futhermore if you think every other side has the same lack of credibility to accept points you CLEARLY dont deserve you are mistaken. Aussie Rules Footy (particularly at amateur level) is about team spirit, courage, and mateship. Not about sharking points on a clerical error and then defending the SAAFL for handing them to you. As you would know most roles around a footy club are filled with volunteers and if they should be responsible for losing points for a simple clerical error then why would you do it..... We'll see how it pans out anyway I suppose but looking forward to the return bout sooooooo much more.
by mypaddock » Thu May 06, 2010 8:34 am
boozehound wrote:P.S........I hate Plympton and cant wait to kick a bag next time i play them. Hopefully we play them in a prelim......![]()
Futhermore if you think every other side has the same lack of credibility to accept points you CLEARLY dont deserve you are mistaken. Aussie Rules Footy (particularly at amateur level) is about team spirit, courage, and mateship. Not about sharking points on a clerical error and then defending the SAAFL for handing them to you. As you would know most roles around a footy club are filled with volunteers and if they should be responsible for losing points for a simple clerical error then why would you do it..... We'll see how it pans out anyway I suppose but looking forward to the return bout sooooooo much more.
by cossi11 » Thu May 06, 2010 9:56 am
NO-MERCY wrote:(S)aintbackline wrote:I know for a fact that these players approached Rosewater (Very Reliable Source as well!), not Rosewater approaching them, so going by that maybe there is trouble at Seaton if players are looking to jump ship this early in the year........................
You know jack sh!t pal, we are talking about 1 player here no more, their is no trouble ( as much as you would love their to be ) at Seaton whatsoever, no-one's looking to jump.
One lad i know was approached by Rosewater & was offered $$ which he declined after a meeting with them last Tuesday.
He's obviously changed his mind since, probably after a bigger offer.
The club won't stand is his way providing his subs are payed, he's a player that doesn't like paying subs obviously.
The club has stated if theirs no sign of subs being payed you will not be playing until sign's are shown of payment, its simple pay the required $$ & you have the clearance signed, the lads attitude stinks anyway & i'd be more than happy to see the back of him & his dad.
by Executive Member » Thu May 06, 2010 10:01 am
cossi11 wrote:NO-MERCY wrote:(S)aintbackline wrote:I know for a fact that these players approached Rosewater (Very Reliable Source as well!), not Rosewater approaching them, so going by that maybe there is trouble at Seaton if players are looking to jump ship this early in the year........................
You know jack sh!t pal, we are talking about 1 player here no more, their is no trouble ( as much as you would love their to be ) at Seaton whatsoever, no-one's looking to jump.
One lad i know was approached by Rosewater & was offered $$ which he declined after a meeting with them last Tuesday.
He's obviously changed his mind since, probably after a bigger offer.
The club won't stand is his way providing his subs are payed, he's a player that doesn't like paying subs obviously.
The club has stated if theirs no sign of subs being payed you will not be playing until sign's are shown of payment, its simple pay the required $$ & you have the clearance signed, the lads attitude stinks anyway & i'd be more than happy to see the back of him & his dad.
by cossi11 » Thu May 06, 2010 10:03 am
Executive Member wrote:cossi11 wrote:NO-MERCY wrote:(S)aintbackline wrote:I know for a fact that these players approached Rosewater (Very Reliable Source as well!), not Rosewater approaching them, so going by that maybe there is trouble at Seaton if players are looking to jump ship this early in the year........................
You know jack sh!t pal, we are talking about 1 player here no more, their is no trouble ( as much as you would love their to be ) at Seaton whatsoever, no-one's looking to jump.
One lad i know was approached by Rosewater & was offered $$ which he declined after a meeting with them last Tuesday.
He's obviously changed his mind since, probably after a bigger offer.
The club won't stand is his way providing his subs are payed, he's a player that doesn't like paying subs obviously.
The club has stated if theirs no sign of subs being payed you will not be playing until sign's are shown of payment, its simple pay the required $$ & you have the clearance signed, the lads attitude stinks anyway & i'd be more than happy to see the back of him & his dad.
*paid*[/quote]
ah
just like you after a game
by valleys07 » Thu May 06, 2010 10:32 am
Farbs wrote:The Bartman wrote:The Ash Man wrote:Plympton vs Blackfriars (Plympton)
Hectorville vs Smithfield (Daly Oval)
Elizabeth vs Rosewater (Argana Park)
Hope Valley vs Adelaide Lutheran (Hope Valley)
Brahma Lodge vs North Haven (Brahma Lodge)
I'm back from O/S now LM so I wont miss any more tips
I'll have the same as this chap thanks LM.
I'll have the same too thanks LM
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |