SA Footy

zipzap wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:First bit of research Gucci has done for quite a while, looked back through his own archives and rehashed one of his own articles. Well done Muppetangelo Gucci you can now add "investigative journalist" to your crayoned resume.

ROFL

You laughing at Cutterman for :

A - Reading Rucci articles
B - Knowing the articles well enough to know it's rehashed
C - All of the above

D- Calling him "Muppetangelo Gucci".
E- Suggesting he has a crayoned resume.
F- Suggesting he does research.

Come on Booney, this is obviously a much more complex post than you have understood it as, I am sure there are other nuances Zip Zap is potentially laughing at that you have also missed.
Loss of cred big fella...

Dutchy wrote:Once you take out the AFL players how many spots are left for genuine VFL players?

So vfl sides doesn't require a developement league but for afl sides reserves are essential for their developement

Anyone else see the Contradiction ??

therisingblues wrote:D- Calling him "Muppetangelo Gucci".
E- Suggesting he has a crayoned resume.
F- Suggesting he does research.

Come on Booney, this is obviously a much more complex post than you have understood it as, I am sure there are other nuances Zip Zap is potentially laughing at that you have also missed.
Loss of cred big fella...

A - Why bother reading his shit?

Because we like to be diverse, to know how the lowest possible denominator might be thinking in order to be that one step ahead.

Have a read more TRIPE from Cornsey

Hey if ya cannot read this story just google the headline and ya will then get in to read the article.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 7cdf3245dc

Cornes + Rucci + paywalls + Murdoch - WTF are you people doing to yourselves FFS?

Booney wrote:Cornes + Rucci + paywalls + Murdoch - WTF are you people doing to yourselves FFS?

Thats a rough formula of how to destroy happiness.

Apachebulldog wrote:Have a read more TRIPE from Cornsey

Hey if ya cannot read this story just google the headline and ya will then get in to read the article.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 7cdf3245dc

Would've thought someone with a Glenelg background from the 70s and 80s would delight in wiping Port from the history books.

Apachebulldog wrote:Have a read more TRIPE from Cornsey

Hey if ya cannot read this story just google the headline and ya will then get in to read the article.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 7cdf3245dc

When I tap on the link it doesnt give me the headline jusy takes me the subscription page. I cantsee the headline on my phone. What is the headline and ill google it as you said?

Well we've got no hope of promoting the SANFL with the insane media coverage for the AFL (or is it sponsorship these days?? ) . Last night watching the Channel 7 nightly news, the first story was about a homicide. A young man lost his life and Police are investigating. The second story was, lo and behold, Eddie Betts has had an appendix operation, a relatively straightforward procedure these days. The roving reporter stood outside the hospital and gave the solemn news. Stories like serious claims about ambulance shortages came later. Maybe we really are an odd town.

Here's the entire Cornes article for ya, Pistol Pete:

Attack on Port Adelaide’s history hurts entire SANFL, says Graham Cornes

HATE! It’s a malicious, destructive word but used in a football context, it softens and more simply describes some of the feelings that are evoked when club loyalties are displayed.

In the good old days before the AFL devoured the football market, if you didn’t live at Alberton or on the LeFevre Peninsula, you “hated” Port Adelaide.

Over the decades, like a diaspora of displaced people, the Port supporters and their loyalties spread north, south and east beyond the Cheltenham Cemetery.

Heck, you might even have had one living alongside you. However, if you “hated” a football club it didn’t mean you didn’t respect them.

It just added an extra dimension of emotion when you played them.

But you could never deny them their history and their record. Until last week.

The SA Football Budget, has for over a century, been the official program of the SANFL.

It’s a publication crammed with footy articles, players’ lists and club statistics that, over the seasons, we’ve loved and collected with a passion.

It is rarely inaccurate. However, last week Port supporters were horrified and outraged to discover that their club had been stripped of its history before the year 2011. It wasn’t a misprint.

It read that Port and Central had only met 15 times (with Port winning seven) since the club’s formation in 2010. Port was yet to win a premiership.

This rewriting of history has infuriated the club. Surely it was an oversight or a practical joke? Apparently not.

Writing on the Talking Footy SA forum on Friday, June 30, Mark Beswick, a West Adelaide Football Club board member, said: “During the week as Official SANFL Historian, I asked the budget to reset Port Adelaide WIN/LOSS records from 2011-2017.”

Beswick’s rationale was that as the Magpies and the Power had amalgamated as “One Club” in 2010, the Port Adelaide (Magpies) must be seen as a new SANFL entity since 2011.

So the editor of the Budget complied and stripped Port of its history.

Port Adelaide chief executive, Keith Thomas, was livid — although as a former Norwood player and champion, he understands football passion.

“It made my blood boil”, he told the Advertiser on Wednesday.

“The ramifications of this remarkable decision are as vast as they are obvious … I will be writing to John Olsen (SANFL Chairman) today.”

Beswick’s post actually had unanimous support on the forum, as among the SANFL purists there is much angst (hatred) directed towards our two AFL clubs’ presence in the SANFL, but you can’t rewrite history.

Whether we supported Port Adelaide or “hated” them, they have been an integral part of South Australia’s grand football landscape.

If you strip Port of its history you strip every other club of its. It’s been a journey of mutual benefit with even the least successful clubs playing important roles.

Port supporters often will tell you how much the SANFL owes their club because of the crowds and the revenue Port Adelaide has generated since 1870.

It’s such an ignorant opinion because without the other clubs, Port Adelaide would be nothing. Conversely, however, we are nothing without them.

The passion and contributions of SANFL volunteers such as Beswick should never be underestimated or disrespected because the very existence of SANFL clubs depends on them, but it has to be tempered.

It wasn’t the only time this week that West Adelaide supporters upset one of the AFL clubs ... but hopefully all has been resolved.

Whether we traditional SANFL supporters like it or not, the AFL will continue to consume the football market and indoctrinate young footy fans.

The SANFL nevertheless will continue to have major role in the football industry, and its history is the solid foundation on which it has been built.

Never disrespect or neglect that history.

When he was made aware of the bizarre decision to rewrite Port’s history last week, SANFL chief executive Jake Parkinson told The Advertiser that the decision “wasn’t a position the SANFL supported”.

One can assume from his comment that Port’s history will be restored in next week’s SA Football Budget. Won’t those West Adelaide supporters hate that?

"Unanimous support"? LMFAO - 1 other Westies and 1 Bay drongo agree and it's unanimous.

*Edit - It's one and one*

I'm interested to understand this a little more.
We've recently had the AFL "rewrite" history, which significantly lifted the top-flight premiership status of, particularly, Port and Geelong.
I guess, when that sort of history is adjusted, and I'm not saying it's wrong, it's going to cause a conversation and it has a ripple effect on how other people, possibly with their own agendas, view the past.

Dogwatcher wrote:I'm interested to understand this a little more.
We've recently had the AFL "rewrite" history, which significantly lifted the top-flight premiership status of, particularly, Port and Geelong.
I guess, when that sort of history is adjusted, and I'm not saying it's wrong, it's going to cause a conversation and it has a ripple effect on how other people, possibly with their own agendas, view the past.

I'm not sure history can be adjusted, thus my stance on the matter.

But it does get adjusted, all of the time.

The significance and interpretation of events can get adjusted over time I agree, history, what actually happened, can't be, IMO.

Booney wrote:The significance and interpretation of events can get adjusted over time I agree, history, what actually happened, can't be, IMO.

Which is adjusting history.
Semantics, Booney.

Pistol Pete wrote:

Apachebulldog wrote:Have a read more TRIPE from Cornsey

Hey if ya cannot read this story just google the headline and ya will then get in to read the article.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 7cdf3245dc

When I tap on the link it doesnt give me the headline jusy takes me the subscription page. I cantsee the headline on my phone. What is the headline and ill google it as you said?

Copy and paste the full URL into google and you will find it and be able to read it

It is an interesting one.
I think I would rather Port's history be recorded as the one beginning in 1870, rather than 2011.
If they were going to start from zero again, I would have thought it would be the year they entered the AFL, as that was the year they (apparently) moved into the AFL and then formed a new club officially called the PAMs to play in the SANFL.
That side called PAM I think has won 1 or 2 flags.
But, as I said, I think I would rather they retain that history dating back to 1870.