Not sure on the exact circumstances with each of these guys, but it is a reasonable list of former players no longer there. How many of them went to other clubs?

Bock
Dangerfield
Davis
Griffen
Grigg
Gunston
Henderson
Jaensch
Kerridge
Lyons
Maric
McKernan
Tippet
Vince
Wright

I legit don't understand the troll he is trying to make?

It's clear what he's saying.

After round 19, a Saturday 4pm game - our lowest drawing timeslot - vs St Kilda, our average crowd for this year will fall below that from last year.

Declining crowds, despite our rise from 10th to 4th, clearly show that the crowds are becoming bored of the bells and whistles that came with the new oval, and before too long, we will be back to having 25k at games just like the footy park days.
Adelaide Oval will not be the savior of the Port Adelaide Footy Club.

--------------------

Now I'm not sure I agree with all of that, but it's clear that's what he's trying to say.

morell wrote:Get your trend line out you utter spuds.

but we'll rely on safooty.net posters "eye"

Falling both pre and post the oval move.
Falling faster in the modern era too.

#****

I've gone $10 on Geelong 1-24 @ $4.10 and $10 on Geelong 25+ @ $6.50.

As a casual punter, you probably don't care, but just for your info, betting against yourself in the same market is rarely a good idea.

At the moment, you stand to win/lose as follows:

Crows -$20
Draw -$20
Cats 1-24 +$21
Cats 25+ +$45

Had you instead taken $15 at 2.7 for geelong in the head to head market, and then $4 on geelong 25+ at $6.50, you'd be better off on all outcomes:

Crows -$19
Draw +$1.25
Cats 1-24 +$21.50
Cats 25+ +$47.50

Sure, a dollar or two isn't going to make or break anyone, but on a $20 bet, it's 5-10%.

If you have $500 worth of bets over a season, its a carton of beer at the end of the year.

The bookies make enough money as it is, no point giving them more!

Is there a smarter method we can use?

Yes, it's called the luck of the draw.

Just like in seasons where there are only 8 teams in a comp, some teams you'll play more than others. Get the bottom team an extra time and your mids pick up more votes in the medal and your forwards more goals in the coleman.

Or just say you play down south 9 games a year, vs 9 games a year up at trinity. That 80kms impacts rainfall and therefore ground conditions. Higher scoring games out north mean easier to win the association goal kicking, etc.

We like the luck of the draw, just like we like the oval shaped ball. Sometimes it bounces for you, other times against you.

But I didn't see the game, but to be honest I don't really care who it is. We need another tall and/or bigger bodied forward in the Power side so Trengove can go back to his primary role. Pick whatever player fits the role who is in the best form out of:

Eddy
Marshall
Howard
Frampton

It also means we can drop Austin, who was absolutely awful, and put an experienced defender in his place. All the forward needs to do is equal what Trengove has been providing and no-one will convince me that anyone on that list above would do a worse job up forward.

Your argument for Trengove to go back and the impact that has on our structure has been stated a few times now.
Have you considered arguments as to why he needs to be up forward?

eg: As the 2nd ruck, they don't want to have to shuffle the backs each time Ryder needs a rest. Playing Trengove up forward gives us that flexibility to push him into the ruck and ryder can go to the bench or rest forward.

I'm sure there are other arguments for it as well.

Zartan wrote:Broken nose, concussion and very limited input into the remainder of the game when actually on.

Why did Ingle Farm put a bloke with concussion back on the field???

To make it even more difficult there is a large amount of outstanding TOIL and AL on the books which would require a significant hand shake - which of course the Sports Club cannot afford.

So they are running at break even, with increasing TOIL and AL on the books that they have no way of paying?
Sounds like they are possibly trading insolvent.
Serve the papers and you'll have them out within 2 weeks.

VALE PARK wrote:Is he a mid fielder?

Back pocket I believe.

Hypothetical scenarios this week (which won't happen but are fun to explore):

[*]Salisbury North, still filthy at Modbury over the Drainer suspension roll over and let SPOC whomp them by 20 goals, hoping PNU beats Modbury causing Modbury to get relegated with them next year
[*] ROCS and Gullies, both having nothing particularly to play for roll over against Goodwood and Port Districts to ensure that Goodwood goes past PNU on % and Goodwood and PNU miss the filnals

As for Uni and PAOC, hard to find any ulterior motives that could come out of that game!

A couple of the uni lads were saying PAOC have agreed to supply a carton of beer for every goal uni lets Jake Pitt kick. Apparently 7-8 should see him lock in the association goal kicking.

Trent Melville Tea Tree Gully 17 55 4
Heath Commane ROC's 15 49 4
Jake Pitt PAOC 16 49 11

Exactly, with TTG and ROC's rolling over to Goody and PD, 8 should be enough! haha

Tommy-Lee Russo 19 A grade and dropped to play Bs last week must of been unlucky not to get picked for the As that week
You sooking again?

Would look like an idiot if he was. Why would a team heading into a knock out final deliberately drop someone to strengthen their B's at expense of their A-Grade?? :roll:

to play As all year only to be dropped would be a kick in the guts

Fairly common this time of year I would have thought.
Guys miss the odd game during the season, meaning you generally get 23 or so who "always play A's", but come finals, everyone is available.
We have to drop one this week, it will come from one of three who have all only played A's this year (18, 18 and 17 games).
Equally our B-grade had to drop a bloke that's played the last 13 in a row in the B's.

Have no issue with paying a amount at all, just think $15 for a C5 grand final is a bit rich
Stick around and watch the D7/D7R GF's then it's only costing you $5 per game :D 8)

Or even better, get a pass out on your way out, and sell it to someone about to go in and watch the B or A grade games.
Then it costs you nothing!

:D

Have no issue with paying a amount at all, just think $15 for a C5 grand final is a bit rich
Stick around and watch the D7/D7R GF's then it's only costing you $5 per game :D 8)

Or even better, get a pass out on your way out, and sell it to someone about to go in and watch the B or A grade games.
Then it costs you nothing!

:D
Ingenious!

Nah, the truly ingenious thing is to sneak in through the new playground that doesn't have a fence around it, then get the pass out, flog it off, and repeat.

Over a 6 hour day you should be able to get a good amount of beer money in your pocket.

Mouse is good enough to play D1 still.
That said, having seen the injuries that happened on the weekend (dislocated shoulder, fractured fibula, torn driver) on top of the usual rolled ankles and hammys, I'm not sure he wants to play!

I saw the shoulder over the other side and the fellow who looks like he got shot in junk time - can't remember seeing the broken leg?

My spies suggest he broke it kicking a chair after the loss.

BTW, how do you have junk time in a double overtime game that was decided by 2 points?

Also hearing with the split in venues they will be without their ruckman who coaches the B-grade.

I've heard Marion are demanding D5 or they'll stay in the SFL.

That might be supported by the higher grades.
Div's 1-4 see more teams as a stronger overall league and don't really care what grade they are in.
Div 5 sees it as a good buffer as effectively only 1 side will get relegated next season (along with Marion).
Div 6 & 7 dislikes it as it holds one of them back this season.

Overall, the majority of clubs vote yes, then we could see them offered Div 5.

Spare change punter? Sweet. We'll be breaching the salary cap before you know it!

morell wrote:Houghton ... had losses of less than 5 goals 6 times. That's competitive.

Agreed a less than 5 goal loss is competitive.

So in 12 of 18 games they were uncompetitive.

6/18 =/= 'largely'

Before Benny hijacked the thread with his potty mouth, Bedge raised a very good point and I think we need to get back to it.

Ok it's been a fun few hours since the "coaching caper" was released, but it's time to get serious.

I don't think morell is taking this club in the right direction, He hasn't got everyone pulling together and doesn't appear to be investing the required time and energy into improving our club.

I vote we sack him.

I second your motion.

morell wrote:Fine. I'll go to the Gold Coast.

Well in that case, how about a 3 year extension and we triple your pay?[/panic]

Great stuff Jim. A couple of great games by the sound of it!

Average income in 2017 is not 55k, it's $75,275 for South Australia.
You're not even close.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6302.0Main%20Features5May%202017?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6302.0&issue=May%202017&num=&view= Bzzzzt. Wrong. That's average full time earning. You think everyone works full time?

Cmon mate. Surely you've seen enough .6 and .9 contracts down your way.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6302.0May%202017?OpenDocument

Avg for Australia is 60k, SA is 55k. (I think this was 2011 census though, probs higher now)

In case you couldnt be naffed doing the calcs, here is something lifehacker prepared earlier:

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/05/how-much-does-the-average-australian-earn-in-a-year/

My bad, I assumed that if you're working less than full time you don't have a right to complain about any affordability issues.
Probably naive of me to do so.

I would be interested to see the difference in the number of breadwinners in a household between 1990 and 2017.
IE: I'd assume in 1990 less people worked, but those that did worked closer to full time.

As you say, now days there are a hell of a lot more .6 type roles available as workplaces become more flexable, but these are generally the second breadwinner in the household.
So before mum stayed home and dad worked 1.0, now days dad say works 0.8 and mum 0.6 and overall they are actually better off with 1.4 vs 1.0???
(I haven't looked for data to back that up, just a gut feel).

I felt bad that my data from 1990 was cherry picked, so I plotted the entire 30 years for you Morgs.
Seems we are well within normal operating parameters.
http://i65.tinypic.com/2dc8vb6.png Nicely done.

Now instead of using nominal rates, use real rates. So take off inflation from the interest rate.

Actually genuinely interested to see that.

Will potentially have a look at this tomorrow.


Looking quickly though using https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/inflation-cpi, in 1990 for example, we are looking at 6% inflation (out of 17% interest rates), where as in 2001 it was also 6% out of 7%.
The 1990 multiplier of 3.3 and the 2001 multiplier of 3.7 isn't worlds apart, but the "real" interest rate of 11% vs 1% is a huge difference, suggesting those that bought in 2001 are miles better off than the 1990 crowd.

Similarly, 2017 has a real rate of 3% on a multiplier of 6, vs say 1987 with a real rate of 6% and a multiplier of 2.5 - suggesting the cost of the loan isn't too far apart.

I'll try and find time to play around with it a little more tomorrow. The problem will be reading off graphs when the inflation and nominal rates get close together, rounding becomes a big factor, as a real rate of 1 or 1.5% makes a 50% difference to the "cost" calculated.

Round of 16 tonight in the T20s. Are they worked out geographically?

Yes.

Not one Pooraka player asked to play in the association game last Sunday, and ATCA lose on turf to ASCA... :-? Did they make themselves available?
They were "allegedly" never approached or asked.

After you say no to invites year after year, soon people stop asking.

Unless they had the fix on for amount of stumpings and run outs

More likely this.

All 10 wickets were stumped/run out.

To not have a single caught, bowled or LBW in a completed innings is near on impossible.
10,000:1 minimum with the bookies.

That said, given the players didn't even try and hide it, I suspect they were pressured into doing it, so did it obviously so those that were applying the pressure got caught.

it might be in the rules, but spending 40% of the cap in D7 is a bit like the dude that brings his own balls, clubs and caddy to the mini golf course at Glenelg.

Its social football down here man.

In that case, both of these clubs will walk this division. Much better run than "social football", they haven't been playing at the local ICA.

Morell tries to play it down, but don't let him lull you into a false sense of security.
They take things very seriously at MP, so much so that if you happen to warm up at the wrong end of the ground, you can expect a 4 page rant on here by 10am Monday morning.

Email sent to a number of clubs by the turf today.

Yeah I tend to agree.
BTW, it's only 4 combos as I block 2 of the 3 AA.

I still believe a 10 Team Competition is the way forward - 9x2 day games with two weekends set aside (around Xmas) for Triple Headers of T20s - good way for clubs to make $$ through the bar, doesn't compromise clubs especially the strong A1 clubs who have to field two + teams first week back in the new year and just keeps the competition strong.
This would be a great structure. Ten teams with top four plus two relegated keeps it interesting for every team right through to the end of the season.

T20s when the BBL is on and it's flavour of the month would be good too.

Nah, why drop back from 21 weeks to just 18.

The proposal for 8 team comps is FAR better. Play everyone home and away in 7x2-dayers and 7x1-dayers to maintain the 21 weeks cricket.
Also provides a good mix of both 2-day and 1-day games, as over the last 5 seasons there has been a strong push to the 1-day format, lets limit that drain and keep as many teams as possible in the 2-day comp.
Also with 4 of the 8 playing finals, and 2 getting relegated, it keeps all the games relevant.

Days your arithmetic is not great. You must be a bowler.
20-16=4
4÷2=2
Danger area is approx. 1.5metres from the front line.
Or you bring the stumps forward at one end 4 metres.
Its a dumb idea. OK for hard wicket but not on turf.

You been smoking your grass clippings a little too much tigerpie?

At u10 level they will come in further to a 16m pitch or even more if the ability of the kid is such that he needs to be closer. Its absolutely a non issue for turf wickets,

The 1m half volley was clearly a reference to u12s not u10s, who will do 2 fifths of **** all to ruin a deck.

I must admit I am not shocked that ATCA's most conservative groundsman isn't a supporter of this.

He averages 63 > 126 per Test.

63 is his average per completed innings. Doubling it does not get his average runs per test, as there are a number of times he either doesn't bat twice or more importantly, remains not out in an innings.

Smith has scored 6100ish runs over 62 tests. That is, he averages approx. 98 per test.

If teams are equal on runs after the first innings but the team chasing is not bowled out, is that recorded as a tie or a draw in ATCA?

Tie, provided they faced their full allotment of overs.
First innings has compulsory declarations, and therefore results are achieved provided the full allotment of overs are played. On first innings, it is only a draw if the a result hasn't been achieved and the match didn't play the full number of overs.

In short, first innings results are like 1-day games, 2nd innings results are like test matches.

Interesting to see that all GF matches are now loaded in, except A3 which simply says Trinity vs TBC.

Surely the turf cant seriously accept a case from Old Iggies, there is no way that game is a tie.

If it were a regular season match, and the outright tie carries an extra 2.5pts per team, on what grounds does GG deserve the extra points? They only took 5 wickets. It can't possibly be a tie.

Sonofbrowny25 wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Maybe Golden Grove and Old Iggies will progress and the semi final winner will miss out. Unlucky!

maybe saturday morning before driving to trinity they play a super over.

Or make them both drive to trinity for a super over!
Really see who can be bothered playing in the GF!

Don't worry Morell, next year the CEO will get a $15k pay rise, he'll give half of that to the ATO and the other half to the Grange Golf Club.

The council's books will show $0 next to golf course fees, the CEO gets the same take home package and everyone is happy, even the rate payer who doesn't know he's just spent $15k on something he got for $7k last year, but feels good because the cost is now hidden all under the guise of transparency.

Simply put, our guys aren't good enough by foot. mmmm nah.

Our effective disposal % is ok 72.3 - actually higher than Geelong. Clanger count is also reasonable. Most of our guys are pretty good kicks.

I don't disagree with that stat, but I'd love to know where you got it from. I can't find efficiency stats all that easily.
I assume I'm just looking in the wrong spot.

Footywire have a list of the top 100 ball users in 2017. https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?year=2017&rt=LA&st=EP

Port has 3 on the list. Clurey, Houston and Jonas.
By contrast, a side I've always thought had good foot skills, Hawthorn has 16.

I'd love to get a full list though, as generally the top 100 are defenders padding their stats with kicks across the backlines.

So are we guessing the lady has dressed up, Lyon has made a comment along the lines of "Geez, you're not half bad when you put some effort in", she's taken offense. Lyon says sorry on the spot, reports to the club in the morning. AFL look at it and say c'mon Ross, you need to be smarter than that and they leave it at that.
Lady still not happy, reports to workcover, Freo slip her 10k to bugger off and that's the end of it.

Buddy and Dan Hannebery will miss this week... Hope They both play the following week as I am venturing to the G for the first time to watch them play the hawks

Sounds like Franklin might not be back too soon.

Longmire was on Talking Footy last night,in the bit of the interview I stayed awake for he mentioned the Franklin injury was a bit of an unknown.
Yep, sounding like 2-3 more

I heard he got 6 weeks from the AFL following another strike on the afl's drug policy and this heal injury is just the cover story.
That would be about the 5th time he's been rumored to have received his 3rd strike.

So what happens if a coach wants to throw a spare player behind the ball, or start tagging an opposition player, or move their swingman from the backlines up forward? They need to wait til the end of the quarter?

Don't be so daft. Runners are required.

While I don't like Australia bending over to India, from a purely selfish point of view I'll be much happier if we end up with a day time test again. I hate the day-night bullshit.

So how do you propose local government stretches their dollars further? Clearly current methods are not working.

Amalgamations. The fact that a place like Walkerville has 8,000 residents and has a similar management structure to Onkaparinga is baffling.

Remove the "no redundancies" clauses from all local government EBs. Stop people getting permanency then simply doing nothing for the next 20 years.

Removal all council depots, they are a cesspool of inefficiency. Contract out work to businesses working for profit.

Appoint some CEO's who are willing to fight the media. The fact that they are sh!t scared of any bad publicity leads to poor decision making and a blame shifting culture, rather than getting on with it. You see Council's spending 25k to justify a $5,000 decision in case the media gets a hold of it. Local government is full of people who have been taught that making no decision is safer than making a decision, on the off chance it turns out wrong.

Delete managers. You have CEO, GM/Director, Manager, Team leader/Coordinator, Officer. You don't need 5 layers. Cut out the managers, all they do is pass information and don't deliver anything.

Cut the community programs. Get back to Roads, Rates and Rubbish and leave it there. The fact that some council's employ people literally to work down a list of old people in their council area and ring them once a week to check they haven't died yet is a joke.

So now we've established that the policy of Rate Capping is complete waff. Sign the petition below:

https://www.megaphone.org.au/petitions/protect-our-local-services

Nah, I don't do petitions.

I'm against rate capping because I don't think it achieves anything.
That said, I don't believe the LGA are doing a good enough job to convince people that's the case.

The problem the LGA has is SA ranks the highest when it comes to rates (see "taxation" in the below) collection.
https://image.ibb.co/byQtfd/Rate_capping.png

woodublieve12 wrote:buddy-blow-swans-superstar-to-miss-again

Trader wrote:I heard he got 6 weeks from the AFL following another strike on the afl's drug policy and this heal injury is just the cover story.
That would be about the 5th time he's been rumored to have received his 3rd strike.

How many weeks is that now?

Graphic on 360 last night for Showdowns:

Played - 44
Crows won - 22
Port won - 22
Ave. Winning Margin = 7 points

Fair advertisement for these games

The average winning margin has been 27.9 points, not 7.
16 of the 44 have been 1-12 points.
30 of the 44 have been by upto 5 goals.

10 of the 44 have been 50 points plus.
How many of those 50 plus wins have the Crows won?

8/10.

morell wrote:I literally made them up.

But no, I usually get my data from reputable sources

I'm just glad you can admit you're not a reputable source.

...writing some satirical comedy .....writing a piece of comedy
Funny how many things you claim go over peoples head. I reckon it's your go to every time someone calls you out.

Truth be told, I think the majority of the time it's you that misses the point.

I don't subscribe to the theory that site admins or mods should be held to a higher standard, but the trash you adopt with some of your posts and PMs fall below just simple human levels of decency.

I don't mind really, but you'd have to know that it would be driving some of your more high level contributors (the lifeblood of a site like this) away to other mediums.

Ah bugger, I'm bloody agreeing with Morell again!

I didn't comment in the other thread but I did find it funny that after everyone called Wedgie out on that rubbish they posted Wedgie goes and claims it was attempted comedy.

But seriously, when the state government is increasing the waste levy (predominately paid by Councils) by 15%, how is it reasonable for the state to then limit Council's expenses to 2.5%, or some other set figure?

Given players get a fine for umpires running into them during the play, I've got no issues with players who choose to make contact getting a game.

The Carlton lads should each be getting a game, Hawkins should have got 2, that's the problem for mine. The bar was set incorrectly with Hawkins, and now they want to give the Curnow boys less, but can't find a reasonable level.

It's simple, don't touch the umpire.

Having worked directly with Cr Hewitson over the years I'd say he's part of the problem, not the solution.
Ask him about all those "pet projects" he voted for.

He says it himself, even this year with his sleepless nights he couldn't meet a target they set. So why do we expect them to be able to do it once rate capping comes in?

Gotta laugh at all this talk of "in the moment".
It wasn't in the moment, he hadn't just missed out on a free kick.

It was after the game was finished, he went up to the umpire and had a go at him.

I hope he enjoys the next three weeks thinking about "the moment".

For mine a lot of it comes down to the fact Local Government is too small so no one really cares.
Merge the 69 SA councils to a maximum of say 15.
Then they become of a size that their decisions matter and people might actually vote.
If they do a shitty job, vote them out in 4 years time.