NEW SANFL WIN/LOSS STATS

[hereselmo1]

LOL.

Pathetic

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[scott]

Channel 7 used this subject as their BankSA question on the coverage today. It was along the lines of:

"A SANFL historian decided that Port's win/loss record should be reset to what year?" (or something to that effect).
A. 1991, B. 1997, C. 2011, D. 2014

Tim Ginever wanted none of it, infering the whole discussion was bullcrap. They sat on this for at least 5-10 minutes. Soders eventually said what the answer was (C.), but went on to say he had received confirmation from an SANFL official that this historian was "unauthorised". Soders then made a follow-up remark minutes later about another player, suggesting they should ask this "unauthorised SANFL historian".

There was a lot to read into their discussion with some pretty heavy undertones.

I thought Mark Beswick was an official SANFL historian? Well at least if requesting the Budget to change their stats, that would seem to suggest so?

[matt35]

Bottom line is that the stupidity never should've actually got as far as getting in to the budget. Ridiculous and pathetic. The Port Adelaide Football club has had an uninterrupted presence in the competition and the budget's statistics is no place to push an agenda of not being happy with the current structure/set up.

[Wedgie]

2011 is the only year that makes sense. It's when the original PAFC was dissolved by the Power so they could have a pub.

[scott]

Bottom line is that the stupidity never should've actually got as far as getting in to the budget. Ridiculous and pathetic. The Port Adelaide Football club has had an uninterrupted presence in the competition and the budget's statistics is no place to push an agenda of not being happy with the current structure/set up.

I haven't checked, but does the budget numbers still include all of Port Magpies' history?

[Wedgie]

2011 is the only year that makes sense. It's when the original PAFC was dissolved by the Power so they could have a pub.

Actually, I'll be a bit more objective and admit I have also read some Port documents that says they weren't dissolved but we're "merged".
If that was the case if the Eagles stats go from 1991 and don't include both Woodville and Torrens stats it would only make sense to use the Powers reserves (and league for that matter) since 2011. They're still welcome to celebrate achievements of both clubs in the past like the Eagles do but no right to claim stats before the "merger". Similar with Brisbane.
If that were the case the current Port Power have no premierships in either the AFL or SANFL but the clubs that "merged" did.

[Mark_Beswick]

Ive offered to send Soda's a copy of the official documentation as SANFL historian/statistcian an hour ago. Will be dropping by the telecast team at richmond next time they televise and happily show them in person and seek an on air qualification from the panel of the day

[scott]

Ive offered to send Soda's a copy of the official documentation as SANFL historian/statistcian an hour ago. Will be dropping by the telecast team at richmond next time they televise and happily show them in person and seek an on air qualification from the panel of the day

I just don't understand the need to try and change it now. Who was previously in charge of making this decision and why didn't they change it in 2011?

Mark I did ask this earlier and my post was ignored, but was this decision solely yours? Or did it include other people or SANFL officials?

I only ask as I do remember many years ago that you stated you had decided your personal records would seperate Port pre-2011 from Port post-2011 which I thought seemed unnecessary, but given it wasn't applied in any official capacity, didn't seem to really matter. But now it does.

For all the absolutely fantastic historial and statistical work you do, it does seem like an agenda is being pushed and certainly appears to have stirred a few pots in the SANFL. Happy to be advised otherwise.

[Panther Pack]

Doesnt matter what date you use Hocking still would have a losing record.

[Booney]

Bottom line is that the stupidity never should've actually got as far as getting in to the budget. Ridiculous and pathetic. The Port Adelaide Football club has had an uninterrupted presence in the competition and the budget's statistics is no place to push an agenda of not being happy with the current structure/set up.

Brilliant.

[Reddeer]

As usual the port crowd want it and as per normal get it both their way
Typical
When will they get it that Port are no longer an SANFL entity and they are Port AFL
They should also be paying back what they owe the SANFL and be charged the same fees that the crows pay to practice in the SANFL. But the powers that be (i.e.Olsen and the fatcat crew) are too weak to do that

[Jim05]

Bottom line is that the stupidity never should've actually got as far as getting in to the budget. Ridiculous and pathetic. The Port Adelaide Football club has had an uninterrupted presence in the competition and the budget's statistics is no place to push an agenda of not being happy with the current structure/set up.

Don't agree. They are a Reserves side now and stats should reflect this. Anything Port achieves now or in the future should in no way be added to what the Mighty Magpies have done

[whufc]

The stats should be separated

By Ports own doing the Magpies are now are a reserve side, any stats the Magpies as a first choice team hold are irrelevant to the current reserves side that runs onto the park in the league competition.

[Mark_Beswick]

Hi Scott
There was a Misunderstanding re go ahead on my part
I spoke to a commissioner and said I'd change stats. Yes was reply but he thought yes write up changes for commission and i took yes go ahead no red tape.

At least it has a discussion going which has been the elephant in the room for most of us true sanfl club supporters and shyed awsy from for past few years. I will lodge paper in future with sa history group to ratify and send to commission but doubtful this process will be quick and i have a few health issues to tend with along the way.