by Dutchy » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:38 am
by areaman » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:42 am
bennymacca wrote:areaman wrote:bennymacca wrote:As I said, you can't be that "died in the wool" if you chuck a tantrum and leave when something doesn't go your way.
I'd be pretty concerned about anyone who blindly accepts what happens and doesn't question and evaluate what their club does.
Dyed in the wool refers to support for the team and players no matter how poorly they are performing.
Dyed in the wool does not mean blind acceptance of the bad decisions and administration of the club.
Would you still support the Crows if they decided to relocate to Darwin or Hobart?
Yep I would support them. I would be pissed off no doubt but I don't think chucking in the towel is the appropriate response
by mighty_tiger_79 » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:43 am
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:00 pm
areaman wrote:bennymacca wrote:areaman wrote:bennymacca wrote:As I said, you can't be that "died in the wool" if you chuck a tantrum and leave when something doesn't go your way.
I'd be pretty concerned about anyone who blindly accepts what happens and doesn't question and evaluate what their club does.
Dyed in the wool refers to support for the team and players no matter how poorly they are performing.
Dyed in the wool does not mean blind acceptance of the bad decisions and administration of the club.
Would you still support the Crows if they decided to relocate to Darwin or Hobart?
Yep I would support them. I would be pissed off no doubt but I don't think chucking in the towel is the appropriate response
Nothing they could do to make you lose interest?
Location change, name change, fraudulent conduct etc?
by Pseudo » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:01 pm
Dutchy wrote:They are saying the pros for the Crows to join with Uni Blacks are -
> They can drop a player to the Ammos
> They can develop players within the same structure and not be reliant on SANFL clubs to provide players.
Both of these reasons where given as pros for the SANFL clubs to vote the Crows into the SANFL!!!!
AFL clubs never liked SANFL clubs playing their players in the SANFL reserves, now they want the option?
They promoted the ability to pick a top up player form the SANFL clubs, develop them and then hand them back a ready made SANFL player, this will no longer happen under the new plan.
SANFL no longer run football in this state, the boys club at the Crows do....
by Booney » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:15 pm
Pseudo wrote:Dutchy wrote:They are saying the pros for the Crows to join with Uni Blacks are -
> They can drop a player to the Ammos
> They can develop players within the same structure and not be reliant on SANFL clubs to provide players.
Both of these reasons where given as pros for the SANFL clubs to vote the Crows into the SANFL!!!!
AFL clubs never liked SANFL clubs playing their players in the SANFL reserves, now they want the option?
They promoted the ability to pick a top up player form the SANFL clubs, develop them and then hand them back a ready made SANFL player, this will no longer happen under the new plan.
SANFL no longer run football in this state, the boys club at the Crows do....
At last years info night at Glenelg, one of the reasons given by Chiggy for his support of the admission of garbage into the SANFL was that the Clowns had threatened to join the ammos instead. Chiggy believed this threat was dinkum and voted yes in part to keep interest and media attention in the SANFL.
Now the Clowns want to infect the Ammos anyway.
Wonder how Chiggy feels now...
by tipper » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:15 pm
bennymacca wrote:
Yep of course there are things that could do that.
But the addition of a few teams for the comp is not on that list
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:20 pm
by Dogwatcher » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:25 pm
bennymacca wrote:I make less of a deal of that than you that's where we differ. Of course they have different rules but to me the sanfl already had that in a lower form with the afl players spread out through the clubs, conflicts of interest between sanfl and afl, etc etc.
I see this as an extension of that rather than something that irrevocably changed the comp. of course you are free to disagree
by tipper » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:26 pm
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:28 pm
by tipper » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:36 pm
by LPH » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:42 pm
by Dutchy » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:45 pm
Pseudo wrote:Dutchy wrote:They are saying the pros for the Crows to join with Uni Blacks are -
> They can drop a player to the Ammos
> They can develop players within the same structure and not be reliant on SANFL clubs to provide players.
Both of these reasons where given as pros for the SANFL clubs to vote the Crows into the SANFL!!!!
AFL clubs never liked SANFL clubs playing their players in the SANFL reserves, now they want the option?
They promoted the ability to pick a top up player form the SANFL clubs, develop them and then hand them back a ready made SANFL player, this will no longer happen under the new plan.
SANFL no longer run football in this state, the boys club at the Crows do....
At last years info night at Glenelg, one of the reasons given by Chiggy for his support of the admission of garbage into the SANFL was that the Clowns had threatened to join the ammos instead. Chiggy believed this threat was dinkum and voted yes in part to keep interest and media attention in the SANFL.
Now the Clowns want to infect the Ammos anyway.
Wonder how Chiggy feels now...
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:03 pm
tipper wrote:not saying its automatically worse. but there are many people that have pointed out the negatives. the only positives i see would have still been there if the reserves sides went elsewhere..... why gimp the comp for benefits we would still have gotten if they took their sides to the ammos?? some possible negatives which from the looks of the crows latest plan will come about anyway?? lose lose lose situation the sanfl has put itself into
by topsywaldron » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:13 pm
bennymacca wrote:yep I would support them. I would be pissed off no doubt but I don't think chucking in the towel is the appropriate response
by smac » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:18 pm
smac wrote:Can you show me where Centrals have benefited from the entry of Crows and Port reserves?
by topsywaldron » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:23 pm
by Zorro » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:36 pm
topsywaldron wrote:Also curious to know the answer to this for Norwood, sure a detailed breakdown of all the positives can't be too far away.
by UK Fan » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:41 pm
bennymacca wrote:tipper wrote:not saying its automatically worse. but there are many people that have pointed out the negatives. the only positives i see would have still been there if the reserves sides went elsewhere..... why gimp the comp for benefits we would still have gotten if they took their sides to the ammos?? some possible negatives which from the looks of the crows latest plan will come about anyway?? lose lose lose situation the sanfl has put itself into
That's just pushing the problem onto somebody else. Hardly a solution, rather just a nimby situation.
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |