SA Footy

Happy Endings wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:

Happy Endings wrote:Glenelg voted yes. Get over it and stop besmirching the character of a great bloke who works tirelessly for his club.

Besmirching? Nice one.

Chiggy deserves exactly the same level of opprobrium as all of the weak as p*ss club presidents who sold their club and, by extension, competition down the river.

I'll get over it when those clowns have left the competition.

Firstly great use of the word opprobrium. I think you will find the 6 guys that voted yes are actually 6 clubs.
No, actually, it really was only 6 guys. I can only speak for my club, but at our 'members information night', it was one boofhead telling a room full of skeptics why he was doing what absolutely nobody wanted him to do. I am told that the same occurred at Glenelg and North.

These clubs won't be going anywhere soon.
Totally irrelevant to the broader issue of whether they should be in the comp.

We have a ten team comp now and it's here to stay. You don't have to like it but it is unfair of you to continually attack Chiggy for making a club decision.
...which didn't actually involve any consultation with the soul of the club (the members)


You will be eating your words when the Bays win the premiership
Will he? How will that change anything? The decision made by Chiggy and the other five will still be a piece of shit. This is about the future of the comp; every year, exactly one team will win the flag. Occasionally it'll be Glenelg. So what, will the Bays win flags thanks to Chiggy's genius? The same could be said for any team who wins the premiership.

(Maxwell Smart voice) "Would you believe make the 5?" " Would you believe improve".

Definitely will improve this year and it all starts April 3 at the Bay. Happy for you to join me and Chiggy for a beer when we beat South

on the rails wrote:Further to my earlier post - the two clubs that voted NO were not penalised, both still got their AFL Funded dividend and were no better or worse off than the 6 clubs who voted Yes. The spin doctors who point to crowd stats to support the argument about their inclusion are people who can't see that stats can be manipulated to suit an arguement depending on what view / angle you take.

I have read just about all the Clubs financial reports for 2014 and I cannot see anywhere in any of the figures where the inclusion of AFL Clubs into our comp helped or looks like helping long term re the perilous situations some clubs find themselve in re revenue and servicing large debts. I think personally that the situation will get worse over time and the spin fed by the likes of Trigg and Chapman re the $$$ windfall would bring the SANFL will prove to be what it is - a bunch of lies.

Happy Endings wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:

Happy Endings wrote:Glenelg voted yes. Get over it and stop besmirching the character of a great bloke who works tirelessly for his club.

Besmirching? Nice one.

Chiggy deserves exactly the same level of opprobrium as all of the weak as p*ss club presidents who sold their club and, by extension, competition down the river.

I'll get over it when those clowns have left the competition.

Firstly great use of the word opprobrium. I think you will find the 6 guys that voted yes are actually 6 clubs. These clubs won't be going anywhere soon. We have a ten team comp now and it's here to stay. You don't have to like it but it is unfair of you attack chiggy for making a club decision

kickinit wrote:

on the rails wrote:Further to my earlier post - the two clubs that voted NO were not penalised, both still got their AFL Funded dividend and were no better or worse off than the 6 clubs who voted Yes. The spin doctors who point to crowd stats to support the argument about their inclusion are people who can't see that stats can be manipulated to suit an arguement depending on what view / angle you take.

I have read just about all the Clubs financial reports for 2014 and I cannot see anywhere in any of the figures where the inclusion of AFL Clubs into our comp helped or looks like helping long term re the perilous situations some clubs find themselve in re revenue and servicing large debts. I think personally that the situation will get worse over time and the spin fed by the likes of Trigg and Chapman re the $$$ windfall would bring the SANFL will prove to be what it is - a bunch of lies.

Did the annual dividend increase for the 8 clubs?

on the rails wrote:

kickinit wrote:

on the rails wrote:Further to my earlier post - the two clubs that voted NO were not penalised, both still got their AFL Funded dividend and were no better or worse off than the 6 clubs who voted Yes. The spin doctors who point to crowd stats to support the argument about their inclusion are people who can't see that stats can be manipulated to suit an arguement depending on what view / angle you take.

I have read just about all the Clubs financial reports for 2014 and I cannot see anywhere in any of the figures where the inclusion of AFL Clubs into our comp helped or looks like helping long term re the perilous situations some clubs find themselve in re revenue and servicing large debts. I think personally that the situation will get worse over time and the spin fed by the likes of Trigg and Chapman re the $$$ windfall would bring the SANFL will prove to be what it is - a bunch of lies.

Did the annual dividend increase for the 8 clubs?

The AFL Dividend fluctuates each year depending on things such as gate receipts. I would say AO attendances and a shit load the SANFL made as a result heavily contributed to an increase. I want to see some real hard figures as to how much the league has gain having the crows and Power playing in the comp? Just as well the AFC committed to a set match fee for each game because it proved to be Trigg and Chapmans lies about all the extra fans they would bring each week would have cost clubs big time relying on gate revenue.

Out of interest kickinit - what did the PAFC bring the league as a positive let alone what in real $ dollars as the AFC actually did?

topsywaldron wrote:

Happy Endings wrote:You don't have to like it but it is unfair of you to continually attack Chiggy for making a club decision.

Refer to OTR's post why I can and will continue to attack Chiggy and his five mates for their outrageously poor decision.

on the rails wrote:In any case the whole comp is compromised and will eventually lie down and die under the suffocation and bullying of the AFL. Those 6 Presidents and their supporting CEO's will be remembered for only that in years to come but only if people can be bothered to remember!

kickinit wrote:

on the rails wrote:In any case the whole comp is compromised and will eventually lie down and die under the suffocation and bullying of the AFL. Those 6 Presidents and their supporting CEO's will be remembered for only that in years to come but only if people can be bothered to remember!

I don't get how you can say the afl has bullied the sanfl. They asked for what they wanted and the sanfl clubs gave it to them. Like I said port second proposal didn't change a lot from the first. 7 of the 8 clubs were asked what they wanted changed and in result it was 7-1 vote for yes.

Bounce of the ball wrote:

kickinit wrote:

on the rails wrote:In any case the whole comp is compromised and will eventually lie down and die under the suffocation and bullying of the AFL. Those 6 Presidents and their supporting CEO's will be remembered for only that in years to come but only if people can be bothered to remember!

I don't get how you can say the afl has bullied the sanfl. They asked for what they wanted and the sanfl clubs gave it to them. Like I said port second proposal didn't change a lot from the first. 7 of the 8 clubs were asked what they wanted changed and in result it was 7-1 vote for yes.

Sad thing is .....you are serious.

Bounce of the ball wrote:Don't attack Glenelg supporters. What they do is hang crap when they are winning but run to the hills when things become normal again. You will notice a trend that one posts and a few back it up. I'm still waiting on a response about what Chiggy did to save the club.

kickinit wrote:

on the rails wrote:In any case the whole comp is compromised and will eventually lie down and die under the suffocation and bullying of the AFL. Those 6 Presidents and their supporting CEO's will be remembered for only that in years to come but only if people can be bothered to remember!

I don't get how you can say the afl has bullied the sanfl. They asked for what they wanted and the sanfl clubs gave it to them. Like I said port second proposal didn't change a lot from the first. 7 of the 8 clubs were asked what they wanted changed and in result it was 7-1 vote for yes.

Pseudo wrote:

kickinit wrote:

on the rails wrote:In any case the whole comp is compromised and will eventually lie down and die under the suffocation and bullying of the AFL. Those 6 Presidents and their supporting CEO's will be remembered for only that in years to come but only if people can be bothered to remember!

I don't get how you can say the afl has bullied the sanfl. They asked for what they wanted and the sanfl clubs gave it to them. Like I said port second proposal didn't change a lot from the first. 7 of the 8 clubs were asked what they wanted changed and in result it was 7-1 vote for yes.

Standover tactics like threatening to deny coin and media exposure, and threatening to join the ammos should be rightly regarded as bullying.

stan wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

kickinit wrote:

on the rails wrote:In any case the whole comp is compromised and will eventually lie down and die under the suffocation and bullying of the AFL. Those 6 Presidents and their supporting CEO's will be remembered for only that in years to come but only if people can be bothered to remember!

I don't get how you can say the afl has bullied the sanfl. They asked for what they wanted and the sanfl clubs gave it to them. Like I said port second proposal didn't change a lot from the first. 7 of the 8 clubs were asked what they wanted changed and in result it was 7-1 vote for yes.

Standover tactics like threatening to deny coin and media exposure, and threatening to join the ammos should be rightly regarded as bullying.

That ammos call from Trigg was such a load of flog. Seriously how anyone would think having your reserves playing in a comp they will smash each week would actually be better than the previous setup.

But hey Trigg seems to see the world differently.......

dedja wrote:Why isn't this stuff in the whinge thread?

It's distracting everyone from the real job of Glenelg bashing.