The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[blueandwhite]

I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

[Vamos]

Ambit. Twice in 3 posts, the whinge brings out the best of vocabulary amongst users, impressive!

[Vamos]

All of this the week after you get 600 people attending your home game.


Kick them out

Careful, wouldn't be much less than your A grade and it was an away from home home game on a cold Satdee night.

[Booney]

I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, why do the SANFL want Port Adelaide to survive?

Must be something in it for the SANFL, you'd think.

[Ronnie]

Agree that this is a diversion technique along with the jumper nonsense, to get focus off Ken.
As well detailed by blueandwhite, the history is that SANFL put significant financial amounts into Port, when their own supporters were leaving in droves.
It amuses me when Koch says they play under significant restrictions, as if the SANFL clubs they are playing against are rolling in finances and resources! The SANFL salary cap is little more than chips, and the depth of SANFL clubs is not what it used to be for starters.

[am Bays]

Ambit. Twice in 3 posts, the whinge brings out the best of vocabulary amongst users, impressive!

Make that 3 in 4

[gazzamagoo]

Ambit. Twice in 3 posts, the whinge brings out the best of vocabulary amongst users, impressive!

Don't use a big word when a singularly unloquacious and diminutive linguistic expression will satisfactorily accomplish the contemporary necessity.

[mighty_tiger_79]

I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, why do the SANFL want Port Adelaide to survive?

Must be something in it for the SANFL, you'd think.

The SANFL hoping to recoup some of the debt?

[Spargo]

I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, why do the SANFL want Port Adelaide to survive?

Must be something in it for the SANFL, you'd think.

The SANFL hoping to recoup some of the debt?

[Panther Pack]

Seems like a whinge from Port Adelaide.

If the conditions of playing in the league are so unfair how can Adelaide be third on the ladder.

Let's not forget Port Adelaide & Adelaide have much higher salary caps then the 8 SANFL clubs and they also have the ability to raid the SANFL clubs in the mid season draft.

[cracka]

Chandler said they can't leave because they're contracted to playing in the SANFL until 2028

[Booney]

I suspect as others have mentioned that it is both a deflection to take the heat off Hinkley and an ambit claim to get a better deal from the SANFL.

Port Adelaide magpies since its merger with the Port Adelaide AFL franchise has become "one club."
The fact is, the only reason the magpie name still exists, is a marketing exercise by the AFL franchise to garner support from those magpie diehards who still embrace the sanfl magpies.
The Port Adelaide Magpies team that currently plays in the sanfl is in fact an AFL reserves team, playing by license in the SANFL.
Port Adelaide have NOT been a member club of the SANFL since the "one club" merger.
Like the Crows they do NOT have a delegate who sits on the SANFL League club delegates table.
The Crows are paying the SANFL to field a reserves side in the SANFL.-Port Adelaide are not.

Before the "one club" merger the SANFL bailed Port Adelaide out of financial ruin - both SANFL and AFL (when they held the license) on numerous occasions .In fact the week before Port Adelaide played its first game at Adelaide Oval,Port asked the SANFL for a further 1 mill to see them through.
The SANFL went into debt, to borrow money to give to Port Adelaide to keep them afloat. Port Adelaide could not get a loan from anyone.

The SANFL have bent over backwards for Port Adelaide. they have helped them financially to survive. The SANFL have changed vast numbers of rules and requirements for them to field a team in the SANFL and compromised the competition to accommodate them.

As for Kochy bleating about a game where Finlayson was the only senior player representing them in an SANFL game earlier in the year....Not that he would know or even care...but Finlayson's salary alone would be more than double the opposing teams entire salary cap for the year.

If Port Adelaide want a better deal,then go elsewhere.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, why do the SANFL want Port Adelaide to survive?

Must be something in it for the SANFL, you'd think.

The SANFL hoping to recoup some of the debt?

I'd happily accept that if we'd not contributed anything to the kitty over the last 150 years. I'm sure we'd helped the bottom line for a while.

[stampy]

Chandler said they can't leave because they're contracted to playing in the SANFL until 2028

there would be a number of "clauses" in there, ie and afl reserves comp

[Booney]

Chandler said they can't leave because they're contracted to playing in the SANFL until 2028

He'll do as he's told and everyone on here knows it.

[am Bays]

I'd happily accept that if we'd not contributed anything to the kitty over the last 150 years. I'm sure we'd helped the bottom line for a while.

I dont disagree with that mate, and I'd argue based on support Port probably did more than most, but not the majority of it.

What raises my diastolic though is the common assertion by some Port fans (not you) and the perception coming out from Port senior administrators is that if it wasnt for us/Port, the SANFL would exist and we bankrolled you for a 120 years.

Umm what were you doing playing with yourselves? "Treating [your] self like an amusement parlour" to borrow a line from Seinfield?

We were all in this together and we all needed each other to have the best damn footy competition in my mind in Australia.

I dont like Port but I like having them in the SANFL.

[am Bays]

I also didnt like the 24 goal touch up we got at Alberton in 2014, proof that things go in cycles if you get the foundations of your program right and then put the players in around that.

I blame the runner we had that day.....

[gazzamagoo]

I also didnt like the 24 goal touch up we got at Alberton in 2014, proof that things go in cycles if you get the foundations of your program right and then put the players in around that.

I blame the runner we had that day.....

Who was the runner

[Doddy]

I'd happily accept that if we'd not contributed anything to the kitty over the last 150 years. I'm sure we'd helped the bottom line for a while.

i'd say that sincere thanks and solidarity with a brother was demonstrated in agreeing to lend Port the cash when nobody else would. But if you borrow under a contract, you still need to pay it back fellas.

[Booney]

I also didnt like the 24 goal touch up we got at Alberton in 2014, proof that things go in cycles if you get the foundations of your program right and then put the players in around that.

I blame the runner we had that day.....

Who was the runner

Bit mouthy, bit chubby from memory.

[gazzamagoo]

I also didnt like the 24 goal touch up we got at Alberton in 2014, proof that things go in cycles if you get the foundations of your program right and then put the players in around that.

I blame the runner we had that day.....

Who was the runner

Bit mouthy, bit chubby from memory.

Stampy's a runner??