Ian wrote:something else needs improving as well, your use of the English language. (I guess nothing's perfect, especially when it comes for free)

Hate to be pedantic, but if we're giving feedback on posters' English, free's an adjective, so you want to say 'free', and not 'for free'.
Play on.

I must say I do like the quick reply option.

Is there any chance that the avatars might be shifted back to the left hand side at all?

Armytank wrote:

scoob wrote:He is the greatest "hand balls received" player the SANFL has ever seen.

Michael Aish?

Aish was the greatest free kicks received player.

And it's a valid point that some people don't follow the AFL that much, but those people would be in the vocal minority and sometimes we have to adapt and love with the changes.

Yeh right, 40,000 Crows fans and 20,000 Power fans can't be wrong. But at the end of the day they still have their Crows, Power and AFL. Why do they need the SANFL too? So far as I'm concerned SANFL fans are the majority in the SANFL comp, and AFLites claiming some sort of right of dominion should apply only to their specific comp.
In a nutshell, I don't care how many you number in your comp, you're not welcome in ours.
Quality post, TRB. Unfortunately the 'AFLites' are used to getting their own way, and few of them really appreciate what exists other than the AFL. They see this whole reserves debate through AFL goggles which distorts things.
As you say, the AFL teams have no right to compromise the SANFL merely because the AFL's bigger. Beeny Mk 2's crap about adapting to changes just typifies the selfish attitude of Sando, Triggy et al.

Big Phil wrote:

RB wrote:

Big Phil wrote:Obst is a risk, both physically and mentally

But he's OK socially, yeah?

Socially has been one of the issues, as well...

So he's a risk physically, mentally, and socially...

beenreal wrote:Of course a Sturt supporter wouldn't complain about no season openers at Unley. Erecting that fence to keep out the dog walkers means Sturt home games run at a loss.

They're going to have the some number of home games over the season anyway, what does the fence have to do with it?

Highlights of the draw for me include:

Sat. 26/4:
Central District v South Adelaide
Sat. 21/6:
South Adelaide v Central District

Good news for the SANFL that an agreement has been reached. Will help clubs attract greater sponsorship with better exposure.

Sad to see it go from the ABC, but overall I think it's a good thing for the competition, as a lot of clubs are struggling financially. When you add in the Crows and Port reserves to the equation, it should help the comp as a whole. As the saying goes...."the only constant is change ".
Jesus H. Christ.

But these players aren't getting in on a talent basis. They're going to be getting league games to fill some holes in the AFL Reserves sides. Sure some of them might be okay league footballers, but they're obviously not the best on offer; their payments reflect this. Either way, they're not getting picked on talent.

This is why it would have been much better if the AFL Reserves teams were in the SANFL Reserves. Nobody would mind if hacks were getting games there. I know the SANFL isn't what it was pre-1990, but that doesn't justify giving players league games who haven't earned them. This is what people meant when they were talking about 'integrity'.

The SANFL shouldn't be a development league - that should be for the U/18s or Reserves. In my mind, as soon as it becomes about development, or 'giving guys a chance' at league level, the SANFL loses its integrity. These things are not consistent with winning at all costs.

it IS a development league
Your opinion.
this doesnt have to be a bad thing - amateur footballers mostly aspire to get games in the SANFL, that does not diminish the integrity of those amateur or country leagues.
Because they are at that standard. To pick them for the SANFL when they aren't up to that standard is what destroys the integrity of the league.

It is the arrogance of people like you who assert that, because the SANFL is not as good as the AFL talent-wise, it is okay for the AFL clubs to use it for their own ends, and in general take a dump on it, that really infuriates SANFL fans.

The Crows have said they will work with the clubs by releasing the player to their local team if they have an important game.
I don't want these hacks in the SANFL, but again it's a farce that league football is going to take a backseat to amateur football in this cases.

Exactly, why would you want young local footballers running around in the SANFL.... :roll:
The only footballers that should be running around in the SANFL are ones that have earned their spot.

Imagine the uproar if Collingwood wore the Big V in a match. This is no different. It's like they're just trying to piss SANFL supporters off. Agree with comments about trying to steal history that isn't theirs etc. I would be pretty pissed off if I were a guy like Russell Ebert who'd earned the right to wear it.

jakovasaurus wrote:Victorians have been wearing this guernsey for years in the sanfl side alongside copious second rate footballers who didn't deserve a game.

Who cares if a few more do.

At least they were representing our state. The Crows do not do that.

Indaily today wrote:I cannot even begin to imagine the joy of seeing Norwood players run on to the MCG in an AFL final – or even a home and away game.

The cultural cringe again. Why is it better to be in the Victorian league than the SA league? Never understood this.

You obviously don't rate Glenelg.

Booney wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:Let's run a book on how many times the bullsh•t phrase 'new era' gets trotted out.

Well, it is a new era. Adelaide have joined the other 9 clubs in the SANFL to make it a 10 team comp again.

That and the replacement of the Magpies with a Power reserves side.

I am a Swans fan who is sitting behind goals/in pocket at the northern end today. Will I be able to hear any of those scary 19th man chants? Hope I'm within laughing distance.

Tassie Blues wrote:Your right it is way to early to know what impact it will have

Maybe, but a few hundred Crows fans rocking up to the first game on a fine day doesn't bode well.

Wedgie wrote:Geezus. Ahh well, Glenelg voted it in.

Damn right. Only South and Central can complain if they get flogged by the Fairies or Magoos.

It's always a farce when a team with a salary cap of $10m plays a team with a salary cap about three per cent of that.

The thing is, even if the floggings inflicted by and on the reserves teams balance out, and they both finish mid table etc., that will in no way compensate for the fact that they are in the Sanfl.

So the gist of this in your view is that the SANFL losses it's identity as an independent league which in turn drives non AFL interested a fans away
Correct, although IMO it loses more than its identity. My overriding point is that removal of the AFL component will not cause the destruction of, or a major setback for, the SANFL. Surely it is strong enough...

Do I make it onto John's Pros List™? :lol:

You want the woodubelieve whinging whinge thread, Mic.

Congratulations, you got 4k for the first time after failing the last three times. Good luck with getting 4k when Walker isn't playing.

[quote="kickinit"]Here is what Port's top up list looks like.

Anthony Biemans - Geelong football league last 2 years
Angus Brogemann - jnrs at the eagles been playing country footy
Danny Butcher - power last year
Sam Gordon - Hampden football league
Ben Haren - Port jnr Syndney swans
Zac Hawkins - Port jnr
Jake Johansen - Port Jnr
Nathen Krakouer - Hasn't played AFL since 2011 WA Ammo's last 2 years
Aseri Raikiwasa - Port Jnr
Ban Sawford - Port Jnr
Louis Sharrad - Port Jnr
Henry Slattery - Leadership player
Steven Summerton - Port Jnr
Matt Venter - No senior footy 24 years old
Robbie Young - Port Jnr

You can't complain about about Port's jnr's. We still have a academy team in the reserves and our development programs across the state. Slattery is our leadership player. The only one you can complain about is Danny Butcher. The other's haven't played league footy within 18 months. So I don't know what the SANFL or the clubs could actually change.
Option 1:
They can say no top up players who have played at any state league level and that includes Port juniors such as Summerton, Raikawasa etc.
Option 2:
Limit age of top up players to under 21 only
Option 3:
Similar to the old VFL model they can limit the ammount of AFL listed players that can play each week, the VFL limit was 12

Or
Option 4:
The SANFL clubs improve their standard of footy to be competitive.
Impossible, we dont have the salary cap room to attract better players and all the decent young talent we produce gets drafted to the AFL. Im a realist and we are a second tier comp and dont have the money.
Im telling you that clubs are restless and there WILL be changes at seasons end.
The clubs hold the bargaining power this time so Port will have to agree to some changes or they will be out

Just remember Jim the clubs held the bargaining power when the voted yes.[/quote] Incredibly, you've made a good point.

I see it as similar to the state games before SOO started in the late seventies.

Groucho wrote:Don't see Central winning another game. That would make them 10th by my Maths. Couldn't even beat the Crows when every one else has. This is the worst team in club history or at the very least in the last 20 years.

It's good to see that you're not overreacting, at least.

Regarding the 'SANFL Showdown' yesterday, the SANFL used to be something footy people could watch that didn't involve the AFL.

There are nine AFL matches every week, with a TV channel 24/7 devoted to the AFL, and pages in the paper everyday on the AFL. Few would argue that there is an AFL saturation.

I've never been completely interested in the AFL, but at least until this season it was discreet enough not to pitch its talons into the SANFL. Until this season.

An attraction for many people to the SANFL was the fact that it wasn't the AFL - it was a point of difference.

The invasion of the AFL into the SANFL thus eliminates the point of difference. As if there wasn't enough AFL on the screen already, you can now sit down, turn on the TV to see the SANFL and end up with the Crows and the Power. Really it beggars belief that it can permeate that far.

It really is amazing how much AFL people want to see, and that they can't realize that some people liked the SANFL because it didn't involve it. It's hard to put into words how baffling it is that the people who are meant to be the custodians of the South Australian game actually thought that it was a good idea to extend the AFL saturation even further and get rid of this point of difference.

I simply can't fathom the joy certain Crows and Power fans have at seeing reserves teams in the SANFL.

Watching part of the match yesterday, I thought, if the 40,000 pieces of silver a year keep the league going, then great, but really, what is the point? What is the point of the SANFL continuing if the match of the round is Crows v Power? Why not just can it and show re-runs of the real Showdown if people love the AFL teams that much.

In brief, if the SANFL is now all about AFL team v AFL team, what is the &%$#ing point?

Vent over. Cheers,

RB.

Put really, really simply the introduction of two clubs whose goals are not shared by the rest of the competition and who play under a different set of rules destroys the integrity of the competition as a whole.

Their strength or weakness as teams is neither here nor there. This. All who are in favour of reserves teams in the Sanfl should at least understand that the opponents of their being in it are putting forward THIS argument, not the argument that they'll be too strong.

Only need to win the one that matters.

scott wrote:Whatever they're called/badged now, they're still the same Port Adelaide Magpies that I've despised for so long.

I think you've got it the wrong way around; they're not badged differently at all. It's everything else that's different.

You'd think it wouldn't be that hard to put up a 10 second advertisement for it on the scoreboard in all seriousness.

Better crowds etc. is a fact. Better competition is an opinion.

Was there a field invasion when Luke Powell kicked his 50th career goal?

scott wrote:Definitely a strange one today. Had a bit of a trial game feel to it.

No kidding...

LPH wrote:I would understand his 'back down' now he was offered the Captaincy of the Club he (& they) love.

His whole point though was that they're not really the same club anymore...

Lol at Shamsi mouthing off to Labuschagne after getting hit for 4. Maybe focus on the job and stop bowling pies champ.

As for the constant Magpies no longer exist rubbish I see running through this laughable thread, you people remind me of climate change deniers. The truth stares you in the face, but you all still scream it's not real it's not real! Magpies in the SANFL, Power in the AFL, it's actually not real hard! Whether they're called the Magpies or wear the prison bars is fairly trivial, but the change from being a sovereign club for the last 137 seasons to a reserves teams is the reason why we maintain that the Magpies are, in substance, dead. It's actually not real hard.

passionatelegsfan wrote:And people thought norwood were finished hahah

No-one from outside Norwood thought they were finished. The only negativity re Norwood came from their own supporters.

About 39,000.

The fact that the club is now allowed to play their AFL listed players in the SANFL, does not make them any less the Magpies in the SANFL, To the extent that the club of Williams, Motley, Ebert, Quinn etc. is capable of becoming a reserves team and somehow retain its essence, sure. Yes, there is a team running out in the Sanfl wearing black and white and calling itself the Magpies. But surely a club's substantial, rather than superficial character is what makes a club?

I'm not in any position to tell Port/Power/magpies fans why they should or shouldn't support which team. However, objectively, this is the story:

A big change happened in 2014. While numerous changes have occurred to the club over 140+ years, the common thread from 1870-2013 was that the Magpies were a sovereign club, playing to win the flag, and not subservient to an AFL's teams developmental and tactical experiments. This year, that changed.

This year, the team exists to give the Power's young/unfit/crap players a run, and to try various things, teach Irishmen how to play, etc. From 1870-2013, it was 100% focused on winning the Sanfl premiership. Now it's about winning the AFL flag; the Sanfl is secondary where an inconsistancy arises. I.e. a reserves team.
Winning flags (in the comp it played in) was always the one and only goal of the Magpies I knew.

Surely, after changing to such an essential degree, this team can't claim to be the Magpies anymore. As Wedgie said, you can call your son Gary Ablett Jnr. Doesn't mean you're Gary Ablett. (Thanks to Wedgie for the analogy! :))

PhilH wrote:Again (where is that recording), the Eagles DO NOT have Pet Memberships. NEVER HAVE, doubt we ever will.

Tell that to Rover and Mr. Cuddles. :grin:

The fact that you don't understand what integrity means will surprise very few.

HoldenV8 wrote:John Olsen is a Westies fan. I hope he's watching this game and see's what he and certain SANFL clubs....including West Adelaide sadly....have done to this competition.

Lol he couldn't possibly care less about West or the Sanfl. Dead set prick if ever there was one.

Crows win by four points. 4,000 Crows fans go wild.

The irony of a Crows supporter referring to Sanfl supporters as 'the masses'.

Gotta love this quote from Harper:

“We understand there are those people who didn’t want us in (the SANFL) and will stick to that through thick and thin but the other 98 per cent of people haven’t been too bad.’’

A few more than that me thinks.

Is that 98% of the extra 4000, Phil? :roll:
Pfft...

Maintain the rage! :lol: Seriously how many arrogant pricks work for that club?

I did start writing this in the Sturt vs Port thread, but quickly realised it was a big whinge...

Another game decided by the ridiculous advantages Port have been given with the top ups. How can Nathan Krakouer be allowed to play as a top up. Age 26, 2 AFL clubs, not a Port junior.


Krakouer hasn't played for an AFL or state league club for 2 years, as is the rule. His point isn't that they're breaking the rules. His point is that the rule is inadequate in the first place.

Peel president John Ditchburn said it was a "one-off"...

So that makes it OK? (Assuming it is merely a one-off)

and that the Thunder made their decision in consultation with Fremantle.

If anything, that sort of collusion with the AFL cancers makes the whole thing worse.

He said only clubs in finals contention - who stood to lose from Subiaco's win - had voiced their disapproval.

No shit - seriously, how selfish are clubs like that who put their self-interest in making the finals ahead of the AFL clubs' interests? :roll: How many clubs aren't in finals contention in late June anyway? Just Peel?

Subiaco president Mark Lawrence said he had no issue with Peel starting the match two players short.

Oh well lardy ****ing dah, how gracious of him.