stampy wrote:never read so much bollocks in all my life

I find that hard to believe

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:51 am

North will need their own thread for outs

Yep can't bring myself to return to the SANFL

Watched both of Centrals finals on tv (didn't even consider going) and to be honest didn't have the passion of gone years.

Do I miss the weekly routine of going to watch the dogs, do I miss my life being scheduled by Centrals fixture, do I miss the banter on the hills at suburban games............bloody oath I do

Can I bring myself to put in all that effort, passion, expense in a competition that doesn't have respect or see a future for itself no ******* way!!!

The SANFL is well and truly did in my mind
Did as a dor nil

Easy 3 points against Everton and what a difference a week makes
24 passes for the goal, 2nd behind Man City with 26 for the longest passing sequence resulting in a goal. Should shut the "long ball" critics up including me. Looked pretty good on TV too.

Up to 6th and pushing for a CL place

Is Brogue an going to be the coach or just a trainer only last time he spats the dummy when he got the boot and although this is a different platform heal do it again. Cuban count on it.

Looking forward to JTC's review of the city-clarets game. I thought the penalty was dubious - looked like the keeper got plenty of the ball?
Hard to hold City back the way they're playing, but that didn't help.

Aaron Mooy tek a boo son. What an absolutely class piece of play and peach of a finish. Who cares if he's not usain bolt, he is quality.

Massive opportunity for Spurs tonight.
Two disappointing decisions DA. The penalty happened at the other end of the ground to where we were sat, but even from there looked ropey. The Burnley lads are a pretty honest bunch of players in the scheme of things and their reaction suggested he dived. Watching it later on the gogglebox confirms City were very fortunate.
The other incident happened at our end when Woods broke through and the keeper came out to claim the ball. From behind the goals he clearly didn't have both hands on the ball and Arfield was well within his rights to take the ball and go for goal. The ref was blindsided and couldn't possibly tell if the keeper had the ball or not, but chose blow and signalled it was because the keeper had the ball. Had Arfield been allowed to play on as he should have been, he would have been in on an open goal with only a City defender on the line. In fact the reaction from the two City defenders who both ran goalwards just confirms that they didn't think the keeper had the ball either.

There's no doubt that City are probably the best side in the league this year, but one thing the Clarets are good at and that's parking the bus and defending at all costs. Take away the penalty goal and chalk one up to Arfield and it might have been a different result. We might have even got a draw.

Interesting that the free kick rule in place for out of bounds against last team kicking - refer video 2.45 min.

That free was from a kick in from the full back after a point had been scored. It has always been a free to the opposition in that circumstance if the ball goes out of bounds without it being touched.
Spot on Barrie.
He's not Barrie. And it would be Mr Robran to you. ;)

I see Everton's Oumar Niasse is the first player to be suspended for Successful Deception of a Match Official after he dived and won a penalty in the game against Crystal Palace. Well played FA
Good start but with tech available these days it could and should have been dealt with when it happened which might have changed the result. I’m not sure Palace will be celebrating his suspension

I was actually going to call him Robbie, then realised that it should actually be Robbrie, which sounds too much like robbery...
Then my head exploded and after I put the pieces together I discovered I was blogging with a North supporter from Almost Scotland and I had no idea how to respond to the last thing he typed. After pondering something abusive I decided that none of this is really happening because it is the off season and no one is reading this and who the hell supports North and lives in bloody Almost Scotland anyway?
Send Bazza my love!
;)
when you live as far north as I do being a North supporter seemed apt my nippon friend.
I’ll pass on your love to Mr R

mighty hounds wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:

mighty hounds wrote:
You were saying?

Hey you beat Burnley 1-0 from a gifted penalty. I think my point still stands

Hey, you LOST. What’s that now? 3 90th minute winners in a row now for Arsenal agaisnt Burnley?

1-nil to the Arsenal

I’m depressed

FFS there must be an image on the net of Wenger sucking Masons dick because he paid him back this afternoon.
Says something when even Sky Sports turn on their love child
******* Joke

Any danger of not conceding JTC! That goal just ruined my Dream Team score! Lol

Managed to catch the first half of Arsenal Huddersfield. Cut Them apart for the first goal and put them to the sword in the second half. Looking forward to United match this week. I heard Mason is the ref \o/
I’ll take the 3 points and a nose bleed.
Question is can Spurs keep up with the big 6 ;)

One for Drebin today
Onya mate, enjoy

Magellan wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Not trying to be disrespectful but who is Mark Stone? Where is he from?

Boulder, Colorado.

Nanoo nanoo

So frustrating, can beat the best teams in the world like Borussia Dortmund and Real Madrid but can't beat shit sides like West Brom or Arsenal. :evil:

Arsenal shit? We jump above you with a win tonight. If we’re shit what does that make you? :lol:
Ha you wish. Clarets to sit proudly above both north London ‘giants’ come tea time Sunday. :lol:

I’m struggling to think of two bigger under achievers than Spurs and Arsenal considering the size of both clubs.


Ok, so I was a fortnight early. Lol
Clarets sit proudly 4th in a CL spot tonight looking down on Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal

:lol: :lol:


Terrible game tonight. Terrible conditions for both teams
Never going to be pretty in that weather but once we’d soaked up Stokes opening pressure we were never threatened. Stoke are just rough and tumble, a typical Mark Hughes team. They played direct and long looking for Crouch, (37 and still going in the EPL, fair do’s to him too. Good honest player and perfect for Hughes’ style of play). Some of the tackles were a bit OTT from Stoke considering the wet conditions and the ref compensated for it.
Great strike from BARNES finishing off the best move of the night.
Another 3 points, another step to safety. 100/1 now to be relegated from 5/4 at the start of the season.

Would England have been a vastly better/different side with Stokes in it?
England wouldn’t have been any better if you’d wired their testicles to a car battery and driven to Darwin.

Their problem is they spend all summer bowling on green pitches with plenty of seam and swing in moist air
They come south and haven’t any answers to the dry, straight, hard tracks.

devilsadvocate wrote:P.s. will you be there cous?

Of course my colonial sibling

Have Spurs fans with us so it looks like jaeger bombs in coffee cups

Stuff this I'm off to the pub!

Haha, good man.. :lol:

Hundley is no Rodgers that's for sure but he didn't have the cattle to work with either. No Adams, Nelson, Rodgers or Jones in the offence meant scoring was alway going to be tough. Having to play with 2 undrafted rookies just made it harder, although to be fair they gave it their best shot.

Looking at the stats, the Packers gained more yardage on the plays, had more passing yards, more rushing yards and only 2 first downs less. The big difference was converting the plays into points.

Vikings won, but against a very undermanned Packers without our star QB and our morale at a very low ebb. If that's the best you've got Vikings, then say good bye to the SB for this year as anyone of the NFC South top 3 would smash you.

Even though the Vikings had a whole lot more to play for than the Packers it was a disappointing performance. So unpacker like :(
You’re totally underselling the Vikings, mate.
A shut out at Lambeau is no mean feat, regardless of Packers injuries. Minnesota will get the first week off now & are a serious contender.
They have come back from injury set backs too the last couple of seasons.

That’s not quite guaranteed yet. Rams, Saints, Carolina all playing today can catch Minnesota. They still need to win their last game to guarantee the week off. Admittedly it is against the Bears, but one can only hope.

Anyway not underselling the Vikings would be like being complimentary to Bastard Rovers. I just couldn’t bring myself to do it ;)

Jim05 wrote:Go f$$k yourself Atlanta. How the hell did they let that utter trash of a side win

Do you mean the no1 seeds, playing at home with a 13-3 record. That trash team.

Come on Saints

Panthers sign two former Eagles Tom Whittlesea and Jake Summerton.
Whittlesea is the son of Sturt Magarey Medallist Greg?
Good to see him with at least a little more blue on his guernsey, if that is the case. Hopefully we can perform a full conversion at a later date.
Whitts' son will make his league debut this year.....




as an umpire.

He's a good one!
Ah, so he is still with the Eagles then

PhilH wrote:Stay tuned, hopefully, for further announcements in the near future, hopefully the next couple of weeks. ( John 11 43-44 )

Life fm is going to be broadcasting Phil ??

Caught the 2nd half of Burnley v Man City, it was great to watch and a well deserved point to Burnley.
Im a bit worried for JTC, the noise when Burnley equalised was intense and I was imagining him jumping out of his box.
Haha, I did manage a cheer or two.

Terrific second half, not so good first half. City should have put the game to bed before half time. I think the Clarets showed them too much respect in the 1st half and at some point in the 2nd they just decided, f$¥k it let’s have a go at them.
We had City fans with us and it felt like a loss to them at then end.

Gotta say the travelling City fans are a bunch of conceited oiks. They spent most of the day singing about how rich they were and how poor we were. :roll: until we shut them up with that late equaliser that is :lol:

Great, and unexpected, point take us one step nearer safety and with Leicester only managing a draw, keeps us in 7th.
Dyche has signed a new 4 year deal worth £3.5m a year so if he does go, not that I can see that happening anytime soon, then at least we will get some compo.

Big play on the 4th to keep the drive alive.
You think the Eagles have to score from this drive or it’s just about over

Dyche has signed a new 4 year deal worth £3.5m a year so if he does go, not that I can see that happening anytime soon, then at least we will get some compo.

Heard that during the call and meant to ask how compo works for a Manager?
I think it is similar to players as far as being tied in. I think if a club tries to approach him and they can’t agree a value, then it is set by tribunal. The longer the remainder of the contract has, the more compensation the tribunal would award.

I think that’s how it works.

Cheers Johnny, I wondered if that might be the case .. Must admit I'd never really thought about it before, I assume Managers can have release clauses built in like players?
I would guess so JK

Haven't seen Kiwi about for a while.
Coorong is a notable omission, especially since Westies won the flag.
The Drebin v Sturtpeter saga was a good one to follow. Drebs would get so worked up, meanwhile SP would quite innocently be protesting the fact that Sturt really is the best at whatever it is he was saying they were good at.
I love some of Failed Creation's Avatars. And of course Blacky's (previous) avatar deserves to be in the SAFooty hall of Fame.
Smithy was a good one for posting untrustworthy links. Click on them at your own peril. But he disappeared, as many others did, witht he advent of AFL reserves. Actually, a heap of Sturt supporters just stopped posting when the Ravens, Powders entered: ZipZap, Purch, Shanghaied, ORDoubleBlues, Rhino, Barto, Lesthemechanic, Mr66, and Godoubleblues, just off the top of my head, and Csbowes just posts an annual synopsis of the season just past now.
There are still a few of us Sturt folk about, like Jimmy, Gadj, Cambridge Clarrie and Heater, but even their output has diminished.

Late Reply but I can assure you that my lack of posting has nothing to do with AFL involvement in the SANFL. It doesn't bother me because for every positive Port and Crows have at this level, there is always something that drags them back to the field. Don't have shits either, just the way it is
:D 2 1/2 years, your internet must be slower than mine :lol:
Reminds me of the bloke who found a snail on his doorstep and threw it over his neighbours wall. 3 weeks later there was a knock on his door and when he opened it the snail said “what did you do that for”.

News of the Eagles match followers dropping from 4000 in 2012 to 1500 is shocking,
especially for such a highly successful club.
Note the average member age is 56 years.
Interest in the SANFL continues to diminish by the year.
The SANFL has got to do a lot lot better in everything they do.
ps
Bring back radio broadcasts.
Have a good look at programming,byes and split rounds,
only 18 games in 23 weeks of footy!
The season only goes for about 6 months yet most clubs are struggling but are closed for business for 1 month (2 months if they miss the finals).
Give the followers and members what they want,
games of footy to watch not reasons to defect to other sports and competitions.
If lots more promotion of the league compotition is not forthcoming guess what the attendance numbers will be going in 2018.
Not to mention club's membership numbers!
Torrens is a highly successful club :shock:

10 GF’s in 27 years, I’d say that makes them successful

I wish North were as unsuccessful as WWT

Everyone moaned like f$¥k about RPH and to some extent about Life FM.
Crap game callers, crap quality, high diddle diddle, Smithfield crash clangers and the wild man of Borneo, DB and his sausage rolls and guess the name of the player with the ball.

Sure do miss them though warts and all. At least they had a connection to the everyday fan. They were calling what was happening here and now (well for me about 12 seconds behind the now) but if you were out and about or were at another game, or just listening in the garden shed, they brought the SANFL alive and into whatever you were doing. It was real and you could relate to it.

The digital pass doesn’t have that connection for me. Not just because of my crap internet but mainly because it is a catch up type of thing. It’s like match of the day or a replay of the Melbourne Cup on the 10 o’clock News. Even if you don’t know the winner, the kudos just isn’t there.

When North was on the Radio I had a routine. Up at 5:00am, on a Sunday more often than not, write out today’s teams in their likely positions and research the opposition to guess who would likely match up on who. You had to visualise where the ball was during the game, you got to know the opposition as well as you own fringe players, the youngsters given a chance at league level, players coming back from injury an so on.

It was a real connection between the fan and the league. It was live and it was now. Even when your team was losing, you still listened in, in case they made the miracle come back, like North did against Sturt and the Eagles in 2007.

Now I don’t bother getting up at 5:00am anymore. I can watch a scattered Digital Pass game anytime I want, should I have the time and the inclination. I don’t connect with fellow Roosters from around the globe or fans from other clubs like Jimmy, TRB, Jane, Loyalist and many others who all had the same common connection. I don’t connect with the Aussie Roosters who weren’t at the game for whatever reason. I don’t connect with them because they aren’t there anymore. The one thing that brought fans together on this forum and, for me, on the Roost was the Radio. Game day live.

I know there are many other factors that have impacted on the average SANFL fan, but the loss of live Radio coverage and the great job both Life and RPH did in bringing games to the fans, has had a much deeper effect on the fans and their connection to their club and the league as a whole than the powers that be could ever realise.

Panther Pack wrote:IN: South Premiership
OUT: 50 plus years of pain

Shouldn’t this post be in the ‘The Things that make you laugh” thread

So I am open to ideas re the new pre-game show.
Normally it will run 1pm to 2pm before crossing to the broadcast game starting 2.10pm.

The show will be ONE hundred percent SANFL ... so what do you want included?
Preview of each game that week end
Preview of the Reserves
Any injuries update
Player feature following progress of a key player from each of the teams on the featured game

30 min post match
Review of all the SANFL games with scores, scorers and stats and match report
Review of the Reserves and U18 with scores

The SANFL obviously have jurisdiction over the SANFL, independent of the AFL, which is why the AFL needed permission to field the reserves teams in the SANFL.

But the SANFL have no jurisdiction over the Crows or the Power anymore, they sold those licences. So if they wanted to play in an AFL reserves comp, ran by the AFL and not the SANFL, i doubt they would have anything to do with it. Just like they have nothing to do with the Crows playing in the AFL now.

I think that is the point. By selling the licences the SANFL probably also handed over governance of the two clubs to the governing body of the AFL. Whether that included two Reserve teams is questionable. If it didn’t then the AFL would still need to get approval from the SANFL to have a Reserves League play in SA.

They wouldn’t need approval to play in Victoria or any other state and they don’t need approval to withdraw the Reserves from the SANFL neither,, although I’d suspect there are contractural issues around that.

Region.............................................................Governing body........................................Major competition(s)
Australian Capital Territory.........................AFL NSW/ACT.............................................North East Australian Football League / AFL Canberra
New South Wales New South Wales..........AFL/NSW/ACT............................................ North East Australian Football League / Sydney AFL
Northern Territory Northern Territory......AFL Northern Territory..........................…Northern Territory Football League
Queensland Queensland............................AFL Queensland........................................Queensland Australian Football League
South Australia South Australia.................South Australian Football Commission..South Australian National Football League
Tasmania Tasmania.....................................AFL Tasmania............................................Tasmanian Football League
Victoria (Australia) Victoria..........................AFL Victoria................................................Victorian Football League
Western Australia Western Australia........West Australian Football Commission....West Australian Football League

John, what is the basis of your assertion that the description "governing body" provides an exclusive right to sanction the playing of football?

Do you accept the Australian Cricket Board of Control was the governing body of Australian cricket during World Series Cricket?

Governing by its very nature retires the consent of the governed

Pull out your school dictionary and look up the word govern
Lol, they can call themselves the governing body all they like, and yes of course they are a powerful organization affiliated with most or all football leagues in South Australia, but calling themselves the 'governing body' doesn't vest the league with some sort of legal power to prevent private citizens from organising matches of footy.

Show me where I said it did. I think ‘private’ is your keyword there

Pull out your school dictionary and look up the word govern
Lol, they can call themselves the governing body all they like, and yes of course they are a powerful organization affiliated with most or all football leagues in South Australia, but calling themselves the 'governing body' doesn't vest the league with some sort of legal power to prevent private citizens from organising matches of footy.

Why would they prevent it. Private citizens kicking a footy on the Oval nothing to do with sanfl.

It’s a nothing event. What to organise a league on the other hand.

So can I organise 200 mates, divide them into 8 teams and stage a tournament without the SANFLs approval?

Where in your view is the line?

Nothing to stop you doing that. Unless it was sanctioned then it wouldn’t be official, you wouldn’t have official officials (referees) and I guess you wouldn’t have any protection for the participants like a players union or whatever it is called these days, player insurance or insurance for the organisers. You wouldn’t have to play by the rules either, it’d be no different than half a dozen bloke playing in a park.

You seem to think that every match has to be individually approved or something. Don’t you think there is already a well established tier system in place. After all they’ve only been doing it for 130 years. Football did exist in SA before the the AFL arrived.

Do you think I’m suggesting there is a little bloke in an office somewhere that has to sign off every game or something. Lol.

Region.............................................................Governing body........................................Major competition(s)
Australian Capital Territory.........................AFL NSW/ACT.............................................North East Australian Football League / AFL Canberra
New South Wales New South Wales..........AFL/NSW/ACT............................................ North East Australian Football League / Sydney AFL
Northern Territory Northern Territory......AFL Northern Territory..........................…Northern Territory Football League
Queensland Queensland............................AFL Queensland........................................Queensland Australian Football League
South Australia South Australia.................South Australian Football Commission..South Australian National Football League
Tasmania Tasmania.....................................AFL Tasmania............................................Tasmanian Football League
Victoria (Australia) Victoria..........................AFL Victoria................................................Victorian Football League
Western Australia Western Australia........West Australian Football Commission....West Australian Football League What do you notice about the last column? Do you see AFL as the major competition anywhere? What does that tell you?

The SANFL are the governing body for the state based competitions and affiliated leagues. Not for *all* football and especially not for the *national* competition. The AFL are not an affiliated league, Port and the Crows are not owned by the SANFL anymore. The SANFL have no say about what happens at AFL level other than perhaps being part of the SMA and having input on scheduling at the venue.

They're stakeholders and obviously have logical ties, but if you for one second think the AFL need to get the SANFL's approval to run an AFL Reserves comp you're utterly deluded.

It's like 1990 happened and everyone ITT just kind of forgot. Unbelievable.

I don’t know what you think I’m “utterly deluded” about. Show me where I’ve suggested that the AFL need to get sanfl approval to run a Reserves competition. They are the governing body in 6 of the states, Sure they can run a Reserves Competition.

As for SA, the AFL was represented by the two clubs who operated under license to the SANFL. Note, “under license”. If the SANFL ( See SAFC) isn’t the governing body in SA why did the AFL clubs have to operate under license, why didn’t the AFL just franchise 2 expansion teams like they did in Queensland or NSW. It’s simple, they could franchise expansion teams in those states because they are the governing body in those states. They had accept two teams under license to the SANFL in SA because they aren’t the governing body in SA.

The fact that the SANFL have subsequently sold those licenses to the clubs / AFL is irrelevant to governance. So throwing it straight back at you, if you think that during the course of those license transfers there wasn’t a detailed agreement between the SANFL and the AFL on all foreseeable aspects of the clubs operating in SA, then I think it isn’t me that is “utterly deluded”.

Incidentally, I’m not suggesting those contractural agreements are to the benefit of the SANFL (SAFC). They haven’t proven to be very good negotiators, as the admittance of the Reserves into the SANFL has proven.

MW wrote:Allow me to summarise
AFL should be out of the SANFL, but SANFL should be compensated for it, and then paid ongoing fees for AFL reserves to play in SA

Seems perfectly reasonable. Thanks for the offer

UK Fan, to put it at a bit of a simpler level (which I suspect may be necessary) tomorrow Payneham! Norwood Union and Tanunda are playing a trial match at Port Wakefield.

I can assure you that this has been solely organised between the two clubs and neither the SANFL nor any affiliated leagues permission has been sought or granted.

Is your view that one or all of the parties mentioned above is in breach of the SANFL'S right as "governing body" capable of injunctive remedy?

You are missing the fact that both Paynham and Tanunda are probably registered clubs affiliated to a registered league that is affiliated to the registered governing body.

You are also confusing the role of the governing body with the freedom a registered club / league has to organise its own matches,

Why do you think all clubs in all leagues in SA playing Australian Rules Football play by the same rules, (unless the SANFL is trialling a rule change).

And of course, if a bunch of blokes get together on a park for a kick about, then they don’t have to be registered. But if that same bunch of blokes decide they want to start a team and join a league with 200 other blokes, then they will have to register and accept the rules of the governing body.

So you really think the SANFL authorise the AFL clubs to play games in SA and it has nothing to do with the AFL?

Is the AFL not a governing body too?
You are asking if the AFL isn’t a governing body.

I’m not sure it is a governing body, but if it is, it is likely to be the governing body for Victoria via the VFL, and maybe the other states where Australian Rules footy didnt really have a strong presence prior to the creation of the expansion teams. Even then, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t already a governing body in Queensland and NSW, that would have accepted absorption into the AFL to facilitate the new expansion teams.

SA and WA already had a well established Australian Rules Football league structure with a well established governing body. I’d be surprised if the SANFL commission, despite being spineless and sycophantic, has given its governing powers over to the AFL.

If the AFL had presidence over the SANFL, they wouldn’t have had to make all those bullshit promises to ‘persuade’ the SANFL to approve the two Reserves teams playing in the SANFL in the first place.

On that basis UKF is probably right, in that the AFL would need clearance from SANFL to play a Reserves league is SA. I’m not suggesting it wouldn’t get approval. For a start off the matches would require registered referees, whom, you would have to assume have their registrations held by the SANFL.

HB Spargo

Saints through after a 2-0 birthday present to Spargo
Hughes played 2 up front
Saints missed a penalty and Wigan had some chances in the 1st half.
Banana skin averted

Anyway........back on topic,

Personally, the Reserves leaving the SANFL will be a good thing. As raised many times before, the $50k a year the clubs get is far outweighed by lost membership and refreshments revenue. Not everyone can afford, or would anyway, spend the $10k a year that Wedgie did, but work it out, if each person spends only $100 on entry, few beers and something to eat, maybe with a nipper in tow, then it’s soon gone. 50 members x $100 x 10 games and that’s the $50k gone.

There hasn’t been any other benefits the Reserves brought. The 4,000 fans never materialised, in fact the numbers went down, the extra media exposure never materialised, if anything that has only been to the advantage of the AFL clubs, the TV deal cost the SANFL more than a million dollars to broadcast games involving either Reserves teams (take a look at this year’s schedule), and I haven’t seen any real evidence of the increased sponsorship that was going to pay for it.

So what has the sanfl got to lose.? Any AFLite is welcome to interject here.

On the other hand the SANFL has an opportunity to promote itself as a real alternative, offering real traditional football at traditional venues. It might attract back some of its lost fan base which would replace the lost $50k.
As for new / younger fans, there are two routes to that. Father and kids, most current SANFL fans support their team because their parents did. Whilst it will be difficult, there is still a generational connection between the current existing fanbase and their offspring.

But there is another market. There are 000’s of 15 - 30 year olds playing good old traditional football, the rough and tumble kind of footy that used to played. It’s a different brand to the sanitized AFL game and maybe the SANFL might be better appealing to those fans than trying to replicate the AFL game but with players who don’t have the skill sets to pull it off. Instead we end up with a boring negative brand with countless turnovers and few goals.
Offer an alternative brand with an alternative style and you might just start attracting fans who can relate to game being played. Matches that produce 30 - 40 goals are always going to be more exciting than two teams slugging out 8.6 def 6.7. Nowadays the team that can kick 10 goals is usually the winner and does nothing to attract new fans.

Sadly the current SANFL committee seem bereft of any ideas that doesn’t involve rolling over for the AFL to give them a little tickle.

The SANFL aren't the governing body, the SA Football Commission is.

Let's just clear that up so UK stops posting it.


http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=3477014

Just quoting the laws of the game You can't be this thick.

Do AFL teams play under AFL or SANFL rules when in SA?
AFL Rules. Who’s disputing this. They play under AFL Rules because that would have been agreed when the 1st license was approved by the SAFC. Or for the point of semantics, they play under AFL governance. Ref am bays

Do you actually read any posts or just sit thinking up ways to be insulting and playing to your audience.

Man I wish I was still stuck in 1989.

Listen to some Tears for Fears. Watch the Goonies and then Major League when mum wasn't looking. Pour over the Beckett only to realise my cards sucked. Play some knock off Pac Man on my Atari.

Good times man, good times.

Why are you describing my childhood? It was a simpler time em dubs, back then the SANFL was boss and things were clear.

Then this whole fangdangled Victorian league came along and dang they just ruined it all!!

Soon enough they'll be running their own reserves league!

Don't they know the "N" stands for National!!

Mate, you are like a schoolyard bully. You’ve offered nothing to the discussion other than throw insults and then when that doesn’t work you revert to ridicule and encourage your little buddies to join in.

Of course, stereotypical of an AFL fan you seem to think anyone who actually cares about the SANFL is a dinosaur who lives in the past. You don’t seem able to comprehend people can, and want, to support an alternative league to your AFL. You have no history so you have no respect for for anyone else’s history.

SANFL fans are rightly proud of that great history, and proud of the clubs who made it, but they are also realists and know the challenges the league faces and where it sits in the pecking order. No one is under any illusions on either of those issues.

Anyway thanks for the mature debate. :roll:

Yeah that about sums it up.

I'll question the complicating things though. I get in strife elsewhere for being patronising and condescending by not going into detail and just poking fun at people. So I don't do that and carefully explain through my opinion. Now I get criticism for that!

Bunch of bloody Goldilocks in here.
The reason you're getting in trouble is that your basic argument is flawed.
Simple.
You can put on all the icing and cherries that you want, it's still going to smell like shit if it's a turd. and yet there isn't a single refutation of any significance beyond "nah you're wrong".

If my arguments area flawed. Prove it.
What, all of them

Ok, in the beginning Sanful made Adelaide. But he could see that Adelaide was lonely so he created Port that she may mate with Adelaide. But Port was greedy and disobeyed Sanful and ate from the forbidden Aful tree, so Sanful banished Adelaide and Port from the garden of sanful.
Adelaide and Port travelled far until they came upon the sinful and corrupt city of AvFL. But there was no room in the inn, for AvFL already begat a Magpie and for sure would not allow another.
Port begat two sons, Power and Magpie, but Power slain his brother Magpie in an act of treacherous fraticide so he could dwell in the sinful city of AvFL.
Port begate another offspring, and named that bastard child also Magpie.

Benevolent sanful came upon Port and her bastard offspring Magpie, but the immaculate conception was surely weak and deformed. Sanful took pity upon mother and child, and fed them with 15 million loaves and fishes. Then a wondrous miracle did occur, for Power would preach to his followers in the church of the blind faith,. He would preach of his history, of his time in the garden of sanful, but sanful had begat other offspring whose followers were from the church of the nonbeliever, who knew what was true and that the Magpie was surely cunning.
For these were the followers of the Bulldog and the Tiger, the Rooster and the Panther, of noble beast who served sanful and obeyed the ways of sanful.

Adelaide begat another son and named him Raven for he was the child of evil and deceit. Adelaide and Port returned to sanful and asked that he would let their children enter the garden. For sure sanful was weak and easily fooled by his lust for false promIses, promises of many followers, of wealth and good fortune. And truly the Rooster, the Tiger the Woodeagle and the beastless ones did sucker to sanful and threw open the gates to the garden.
Only the Panther and the Bulldog could foresee the plagues that would beset sanful, but he was blinded.

The Raven and Magpie were conceited and vain children, and like their parents had done, stole and ate the harvest from the garden, that their siblings would have none. Surely sanful grew weak as his children grew weak and his followers did abandon them. But sanful did love Raven and Magpie and did foresake his own. Then AvFL did awaken and did call to Adelaide and Port and did proclaim, bring your children to me for I am the word and my word is the law. And low Adelaide and Port would take their children from the garden of sanful because they were indeed powerful and would lead them to the promised land, a land where all the children of the AvFL would live and prosper.
And AvFL did proclaim that sanful was a blasphemer and did crucify him and his children be enslaved to serve the new king. And his word was so.

Of course the AFL are a private league. It might get an enormous amount of exposure, and attract mass audiences, but it's still a private league. It has the right to determine its membership and do anything it damn well likes, within the law.

I agree that it's a moot point given that contractual agreements between the AFL, its clubs and the SANFL (or SAFC etc.) probably provide for this situation, but I find it utterly bewildering that grown adults don't understand that the SANFL has no real governing authority over football in this state. OK sure, due to its size, finance, history, and affiliations it has some de facto power over the administration of footy in SA, but to suggest that the AFL needs the SANFL's permission to schedule games here (except obviously on land owned by the SANFL), otherwise than where required under a contract, is ludicrous.

I think people on here know my thoughts about the AFL reserves sides, and I would be personally happy to see the back of the cancers ASAP, with or without compensation, but when someone makes stupid remarks I'm gonna call them out for what they are...
100% spot on

UK Fan and johntheclaret read this then read it again.

Having read it and, as instructed, read it again, RB is simply confirming what I have been saying all along,
A) agrees re: “contractural agreements between the AFL, it’s Clubs and the SANFL (SAFC) probably provide for this situation”
B) agrees re: “OK sure, due to it’s size, finance, history and affiliations it has some power over the administration of footy in SA”

C) please show anywhere where I have said the AFL needs SANFL permission to schedule AFL games. See point A)
I think maybe you need to go back read through the last couple of pages without you black and white striped afl glasses on ;)

Your “100% Spot On” comment at leasts shows signs we are finally getting through.

But for the pages where you both pretended the words "governing body" conferred some kind of mystical power.

Do you accept there's a distinction between bilateral contracts entered into between the SANFL and AFL Clubs and the concept of a "governing body" having total control of a sport?

Please don’t dramatise. Mystical Powers..... puhleeease ;) :)
I do t think I’ve ever inferred they had mystical powers or even ‘total’ control. You have to stop putting words into my mou.... posts.
And by the way, if the SAFC didn’t had some level of authority as the governing body why would the AFL need to enter into some ‘bilateral contracts’ with them in the first place.

I think this pond is all fished out now Jo.

morell wrote:"Real" Magpies fans.

I wonder. What's the qualification for being a "Real" Magpie's fan?

Come from Collingwood I’d guess

Hey Wedgie, I was genuinely surprised at the average Spurs attendance this year considering they are at Wembley
United top the league ( the only league they are likely to top for the foreseeable future :lol: ) with 75,000. Spurs are 2nd with 68,300. I thought it would be higher than that. Arsenal come in 3rd on 59,200 which I guess ain’t bad considering their season ended months back.
Then comes WHU, Man City, Liverpool and Newcastle in that order all in their 50’s
Clarets come in 4th from bottom with 20.3k which is our sellout every week
I haven't studied it but I did read somewhere that police restrictions on number of ticket sales have had a big influence and is the reason we got more to the Everton game than the Chelsea game for example.
Still some big games to come at our home ground such as the FA Cup semi final and final. ;)
Ah, creative accounting :lol: in fact 2 semi finals and a rugby league cup. Not to mention a Rhianna concert. ;) averages can only get better

56k members. Many more than that "supporters" who I would count as part of the community. Roy Morgan research estimated a total supporter base of 298k for Port in 2017.

1% of 298,000 is 2,980.

You think there would be more than three thousand people that are Magpies only fans? I don't.

Many more than that.
Get your head out of the sand mate.


Hey Amber, why don’t you and all your Real Port Buddies just start up and new club like AFC Wimbledon or FC United. Instead of the Teal Port Adelaide you could be the Real Port Adelaide. Hang on, that could be your slogan. Forget the Teal, join the Real.

If you can scratch only the 3,000 members left that Morrell has scientifically calculated on his smart phone, you’d still have more members than most of the traditional SANFL Clubs would have. We’d welcome you back with open arms and apparently you don’t even need to go through any formalities to do it, just start a team. Jo has a spare oval you can use and you could even call yourself the Magpies.

:lol:

This is, in a roundabout way, exactly what happened in 1997.

Go ahead I say. Just don't call yourself Port Adelaide.

Just don't reference soccer in any way to aussie rules and certainly not to Port Adelaide.

We go there to watch the spectacle that is the game. If you want choir practice there's plenty of churches about or if you're attracted to bright lights you're as smart as a moth.
I thought the reference to AFC Wimbledon and FC United were pretty apt in the context of the discussion. Both are clubs formed by fans disenfranchised with their original clubs, so started new ones for the real fans.

Booney wrote::lol:

Surely you want people going to the games and not watching TV, yeah?

Absolutely, but that wasn’t really the argument was it.

Nice deflection though

Dear oh dear.
That would explain a lot.
The ashes series should be declared null and void and the urn returned

Glenelg side with a few new faces :

F: Mackenzie, Reynolds, Koster

HF: Bailey, Scott, Chalmers

C: Nicholson, Snook, Hawkins

HB: Scharenberg, Curran, McCarthy

B: Uebergang, Proud, Joseph

R: White, T. Milera, Motlop

INT: McGinty, Wanganeen, Schott, Vea Vea, Sawford
What's the go with Amato?
Injured I believe.

Snook in the middle. Sound fishy.

Sounds more Steelers Wheel to me ;)