cracka wrote:If I'm sold a product that turns out to be sh!t, I blame myself for being a gullible dick & buying it, not the person who sold it to me.
I'm not sure it's the right analogy, but nonetheless, what you've said above is correct.
But what if you bought that product on the basis that the shopkeeper pointed a gun at your head and said, "buy this or else"?
That's a new twist, I hadn't heard that a gun was held to 6 different club presidents heads.
Not an actual gun. I do remember threats of "going elsewhere" and using their influence to not only take all their sponsors with them, but also to filch sponsors currently supporting the SANFL and SANFL clubs, and doing all that they can to promote whatever league it is that they landed in, in opposition to the SANFL. Not exactly a gun, but certainly a threat that had the potential to kill off the SANFL.
Well they have successfully achieved that, when all the real SANFL clubs have gone broke (Which is happening) we can all go and watch the power reserves play the crows reserves for 18 weeks straight and then also in the finals should be Good!!
Who would of thought it would take 7 pages to explain to a crows fans the anguish/contempt that is caused when you get Stabbed in the back by someone who should know better.
The original proposal was voted against 0-8 by the SANFL.
Two months later approved 6-2 with no changes to the proposal.
If the crows were innocent and just trying to help the SANFL the would of walked after being unanimously told NO.
But they didn't....... They started threatening
Don't like your crows being blamed for the death of the SANFL take it up with Chapman and Trigg. As for Convincing SANFL fans the crows are innocent.
I just don't like your chances tbh.
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
cracka wrote:If I'm sold a product that turns out to be sh!t, I blame myself for being a gullible dick & buying it, not the person who sold it to me.
You're on drugs. If you buy a defective product that's been falsely advertised (like bringing 4,000 people through the gate) you take it back for a refund.
cracka wrote:If I'm sold a product that turns out to be sh!t, I blame myself for being a gullible dick & buying it, not the person who sold it to me.
You're on drugs. If you buy a defective product that's been falsely advertised (like bringing 4,000 people through the gate) you take it back for a refund.
Reddeer wrote:[Well they have successfully achieved that, when all the real SANFL clubs have gone broke (Which is happening) we can all go and watch the power reserves play the crows reserves for 18 weeks straight and then also in the finals should be Good!!
There will be 5 **** byes spread between those 18 games too remember....
helicopterking wrote:Flaggies will choke. Always have.
cracka wrote:If I'm sold a product that turns out to be sh!t, I blame myself for being a gullible dick & buying it, not the person who sold it to me.
You're on drugs. If you buy a defective product that's been falsely advertised (like bringing 4,000 people through the gate) you take it back for a refund.
But if you still go ahead & buy that defective product knowing or even thinking it will be defective then YOUR on drugs.
UK Fan wrote:Who would of thought it would take 7 pages to explain to a crows fans the anguish/contempt that is caused when you get Stabbed in the back by someone who should know better.
The original proposal was voted against 0-8 by the SANFL.
Two months later approved 6-2 with no changes to the proposal.
If the crows were innocent and just trying to help the SANFL the would of walked after being unanimously told NO.
But they didn't....... They started threatening
Don't like your crows being blamed for the death of the SANFL take it up with Chapman and Trigg. As for Convincing SANFL fans the crows are innocent.
I just don't like your chances tbh.
Don't forget the 233 pages of the whinge thread. To be fair the 1st 3 & 1/2 pages of this thread actually stayed on topic.
cracka wrote:If I'm sold a product that turns out to be sh!t, I blame myself for being a gullible dick & buying it, not the person who sold it to me.
You're on drugs. If you buy a defective product that's been falsely advertised (like bringing 4,000 people through the gate) you take it back for a refund.
But if you still go ahead & buy that defective product knowing or even thinking it will be defective then YOUR on drugs.
That's right. But the seller still bullshitted you. Misleading and deceptive conduct is illegal. On that basis your analogy doesn't paint the Crows in a particularly redeeming light.
The consumer is also entitled to go and tell everyone within earshot that the seller is completely dodgy and should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately word of mouth doesn't work against one of the state's most well-oiled PR machines.
"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there...and finding it." - Oscar Wilde
cracka wrote:If I'm sold a product that turns out to be sh!t, I blame myself for being a gullible dick & buying it, not the person who sold it to me.
You're on drugs. If you buy a defective product that's been falsely advertised (like bringing 4,000 people through the gate) you take it back for a refund.
But if you still go ahead & buy that defective product knowing or even thinking it will be defective then YOUR on drugs.
That's right. But the seller still bullshitted you. Misleading and deceptive conduct is illegal. On that basis your analogy doesn't paint the Crows in a particularly redeeming light.
The consumer is also entitled to go and tell everyone within earshot that the seller is completely dodgy and should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately word of mouth doesn't work against one of the state's most well-oiled PR machines.
It was like buying a car. The buyer did not get the adequate checks done and hence brought the lemon. Considering the history of people like Trigg this needed to done.
But regardless I doubt it would have changed anything. My club was always going to sell out and I doubt it was due to the bullshit it was being fed. Tje Agenda was always there for it.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
Don't reckon that's right Stan, Joe was vehemently against it, but someone got to him. As to who, well, there's plenty of theories, but none of them make it right.
cracka wrote:If I'm sold a product that turns out to be sh!t, I blame myself for being a gullible dick & buying it, not the person who sold it to me.
You're on drugs. If you buy a defective product that's been falsely advertised (like bringing 4,000 people through the gate) you take it back for a refund.
But if you still go ahead & buy that defective product knowing or even thinking it will be defective then YOUR on drugs.
A) who's allowed to sell a defective product? B) if you were buying something for the first time how would you know it's defective?
Just admit YOU'RE happy with the arrangement and incapable of holding any form of open minded discussion.
As in he is in a state of happiness rather than his actual name being happy.
I'm gonna sit back, crack the top off a Pale Ale, and watch the Double Blues prevail 1915, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976, 2002, 2016, 2017
JK wrote:Don't reckon that's right Stan, Joe was vehemently against it, but someone got to him. As to who, well, there's plenty of theories, but none of them make it right.
That's how low the Crows are and what they were prepared to do to get in. Threatening Joe was a gutless act by a gutless organisation.
cracka wrote:If I'm sold a product that turns out to be sh!t, I blame myself for being a gullible dick & buying it, not the person who sold it to me.
You're on drugs. If you buy a defective product that's been falsely advertised (like bringing 4,000 people through the gate) you take it back for a refund.
But if you still go ahead & buy that defective product knowing or even thinking it will be defective then YOUR on drugs.
A) who's allowed to sell a defective product? B) if you were buying something for the first time how would you know it's defective?
Just admit YOU'RE happy with the arrangement and incapable of holding any form of open minded discussion.
My opinion can change though which I would think makes me very open minded, can yours. I actually got on triple m & argued against the AFL reserves getting into the SANFL & used some of the points made on here. Was thanked by wedgie IIRC.
Id noticed why someone mentioned your reading difficulties .. I've said numerous times the current setup makes perfect sense for the AFL clubs so perfectly understandable from their perspective. WHUFC post spelled it all out, sure one can haggle over figures but it gets the point across regardless. As to who's to blame, 6 club directors are right up there and no one here has denied it. But the commission taking the soft option and the Crows selling a furphy are almost impossible to argue with adwell I would have thought.
JK wrote:Id noticed why someone mentioned your reading difficulties .. I've said numerous times the current setup makes perfect sense for the AFL clubs so perfectly understandable from their perspective. WHUFC post spelled it all out, sure one can haggle over figures but it gets the point across regardless. As to who's to blame, 6 club directors are right up there and no one here has denied it. But the commission taking the soft option and the Crows selling a furphy are almost impossible to argue with adwell I would have thought.
JK wrote:Id noticed why someone mentioned your reading difficulties .. I've said numerous times the current setup makes perfect sense for the AFL clubs so perfectly understandable from their perspective. WHUFC post spelled it all out, sure one can haggle over figures but it gets the point across regardless. As to who's to blame, 6 club directors are right up there and no one here has denied it. But the commission taking the soft option and the Crows selling a furphy are almost impossible to argue with adwell I would have thought.
