So, in essence, the SANFL is giving the AFC ( at an estimate ) $2m per year of free rent.

I look forward to the constant references to these monies.

Wow...... i am honestly not sure what else can be said.

how in christs name could anyone at the SANFl agree to such a shit deal?? someone needs to be lined up and shot. that money could go a hell of a long way to improving the situation of all of the sanfl clubs. and if that is the deal they have had all along makes the "bailouts" the power have had over the years pale into insignificance.....

38k+ is a very good Crowd.
SANFL would be very happy with that, one would think?

while its good, i would have thought it should be better.

arguably the biggest "traditional" rivalry in the state (or at least that was how it was marketed...)
the "one club" were all behind it
moved to adelaide oval because "no one liked going to footy park"...

negatives: not a standalone game after the afl season is finished.

i would think that the sanfl would be slightly disappointed by the number. hopefully enough to move it back to october where it should be. if the afl reserves sides dont like it, too bad. if they want to play in our league, they should play by our rules, not expect the league to change the rules to suit them.

(not that i think they will actually do it, but let me have my dream)

but police checks only show anything if the person being checked has already been caught in the past.....

Wedgie wrote:Also just noticed 5 games at Prospect over 6 weeks in the coldest wettest period of the year. Yay.

its ok Wedgie, the priviledged few will be cosy and warm in their glass taj. you know, that building the average members arent even allowed into on match days.....

The saga goes on: http://indaily.com.au/news/2014/12/22/new-rah-move-delayed-cost/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22+December+2014&utm_content=22+December+2014+CID_8865836222480ac85b008a8e7ee2d47d&utm_source=Daily%20EDM&utm_term=Read%20more

personally if i was premier for a day (would never happen, lol) id solve the whole thing by actually keeping the "old" RAH and running it alongside the "new" RAH. with our ageing population, added to an increasing population, we will only need more hospital beds in future, so why bulldoze a hospital we already have? just to give us more parklands that we wont use for anything? (or whatever it is they are going to do with the land)

sure, it would cost more in the short term, having to buy more equipment rather than move it, but it would solve pretty much all of the states hospital crowding issues immediately(with a bit of patient shuffling) provided they could also employ the necessary people to staff both (admittedly a big hurdle to my plan right there) keep the high dependancy/critical patients in the new fancy building, and the more basic stuff a few hundred metres up the road

will never happen of course. we will get stuck with a smaller hospital, in a worse spot, and it will probably turn out to have some critical design defects only uncovered a year or so after opening.... why do i have the theme for "yes minister" running through my head?

Ive already established in an earlier argument with you that you lack any respect for the police, so your opinion means **** all to me, and I assume many others. (I could be wrong, but i doubt it).

It was a regulation traffic stop until Shahin got argumentative, refused to follow police direction. First to get on the footpath, secondly for trying to put any part of his body inside the car after an officer told him not to, thirdly for standing in the officers personal space, and finally for being an absolute wanker of a person.

If he accepted the initial defect notice and was polite to the officer, there wouldve been no problem.

He will lose the case.

No I have a lack of respect for cops that don't follow the law. It was a regulation traffic stop to check the road worthy of the car (which the officer could of said so at the start) why did he have to move to the foot path when the officer hadn't given him any reason what so ever for the stop, he is well and truly within his rights were he wants to stand. He also told the officer that he would retrieve the keys as it isn't as simple as pulling them out. At this point the officer ASSAULTED him, yes it was ASSAULT if it was the other way around he would of been locked up. The cop at no stage had any right to ASSAULT him, not only that but at this stage he still doesn't know why he's been pulled over. After being ASSAULTED and not knowing why you have been pulled over I think the cop could understand why he was in face, even through this entire time he wasn't aggressive or rude to him. Lastly you just think he is a wanker because the money he has, you don't know so how could you comment on him.

So if the cop had done it this way then there wouldn't have been any incident.

Good evening Sir, we are pulling you over tonight to do a road worthy check as we believe your window tint isn't of legal standard. Would you kindly remove your keys from the ignition and hop out the car and stand on the foot path while we conduct our tests.

You're a ******* space case. at no point did the officer ask him to get out of the car, so what was he doing in the street to begin with? and the officer is well within his rights to direct a person to not stand in the middle of the ******* road (its actually an offence to disrupt the traffic as a pedestrian so could have arrested him after he refused to go to the footpath) the officer had already told him it was for the window tint before the whole, get off the road bit too.

and wasnt aggressive or rude? you really didnt listen to the same audio. how do you think i would go giving an officer the hurry up multiple times? it probably wouldnt have ended as well as it did in this instance, i would suspect. the guy was a ****, plain and simple. and not "getting the royal treatment"?? not sure how many other members of the public have the deputy commissioners phone number to call in a complaint to.

and personally i think he is a wanker due to his attitude, nothing to do with his money, just as my opinion of you is based on your attitude and not your bank balance....

neither, cant re elect or sack someone that doesnt exist....

filling in for someone while they are in training at their workstation and being stuck with internet explorer..... :Hangman:

can't you just download firefox?

i never had a problem with IE. use it everyday with no issues
Yep, and some people love itunes. Doesnt mean i want to go anywhere near that steaming pile of bad code

wombats will be competing again this season REB. Cheers

so how long were you leaning on HH3's car Beefy?

nope, wouldnt do it. you dont touch another mans car or missus (without permission.....) no matter the quality/expense of the item in question
Come on, it's not like you're taking the car or missus for a test run

so you would be happy for me to put my hands all over your missus? i highly doubt it. same goes for my car. it is all about respect for other people and their property, and sadly it seems that i and HH3 seem to be in the minority when it comes to respect for others :(

unfortunately guys, if you want your cars to be on the historic scheme, they basically cant be modified at all. and as far as i am aware, that includes brakes and suspension :( its only normally where factory parts are no longer available that a suitable period replacement can be allowed

its not regency that you have to convince either, its the car club you join. they inspect it and issue a certificate to state that it meets the requirements, and as the whole club could lose its certification under the historic vehicle scheme (and therefore all the members will lose their historic status) they dont normally bend the rules for anyone.

basically, if you are considering historic reg, approach the car club you have in mind and have a chat to them about it. they will have someone there that is all up to date on the rules and can help you out (if the club is certified as a historic vehicle club with the registrar of motor vehicles). there is also a code of practice available for historic vehicles from here: http://www.sa.gov.au/topics/transport-travel-and-motoring/motoring/vehicles-and-registration/vehicle-types-and-specifications/historic-left-hand-drive-and-street-rod-vehicles
as well as codes of practice for left hand drive vehicles and street rod vehicles. dont get me started on the hipocrisy of historic vehicles having to be stock and street rod vehicles having to be modified for them to be eligible......

anyway, very nice cars anyway guys. whatever you decide to do with them i hope they bring you much happiness :)

That's annoying.
I understand why the rules were brought in (to stop excessively rodded vehicles being hidden under historic rego), but it's another ridiculous rule in regards to historic cars being registered in our state. Other states have a common sense approach, sadly ours doesn't. :evil:

there has been pressure recently to intorduce a "street machine" type of category, for those that have a vehicle that is modified and also may not get driven very often, however it has so far been resisted by the transport dept. it was even looked at during the last update of the code of practice that certain mods be allowed for historics, safety things such as the brakes and suspension stuff mentioned here, but even that was knocked on the head.

personally i wouldnt have a problem with allowing either a new category (street machines ?) or allowing greater leeway for historics, but from what i have heard, i wouldnt hold my breath. :(

The death penalty debate is a very emotive and polarising subject. What gets me annoyed with this latest matter is Heads of our Govt. and high profile media people calling for or threatening sanctions / actions against Indonesia including people starting FB pages re boycotting Bali but do we take any action or threaten the U.S. Govt.? 32 U.S States plus the U.S. Govt (including Military) have the death penalty as ultimate punishment. Are we starting a boycott of all things American and why isn't that idiot Abbott and Julie Bishop threatening Obama and co.

Hypocrisy lives long in AUS!

this.

on an semi related matter, the australian media seem to latch onto anything happening around the world to australians, and ignore things happening to people from any other country. why is it when there is a massive tradgedy the media focus here is always first and foremost on how many australians are involved?

"overnight there was a tragic plane crash, x people are dead including y australians".... seriously, is it a bigger tradgedy because there were australians involved? personally i think it is completely irrelevant how many aussies were involved, it should be about EVERYONE involved, not just the handful that live here. its disrespectful to the families of all of the others, just because they live elsewhere they are seemingly afforded less sympathy.

indonesia have been executing people for decades (or longer? ive not looked into it), despite a recent break, and no one cared previously. many other countries around the world do the same, yet there are no calls to boycott them. why should we care more for these particular convicted drug smugglers than we have for all of the others indonesia have executed over the years? just because they lived here? why shouldnt we care about the people on death row in the US just because they havent lived here?

i think most people (not all, and im not directing this at anyone in particular) are just jumping on a bandwagon. they dont really care about these two, its just the thing to do on social media, be seen to be supporting them. if they truly believed that the death penalty should be abolished in indonesia, where have they been before now? i havent seen any protests before now? no one holding placards outside the indonesian embassy, no humanitarian trips to meet with the indonesian government on the issue until it involved aussies.

i personally think this will all be forgotten about in 6 months. in that time indonesia could execute 30 people from 30 different countries and as long as none of them are aussies we as a country wont care, and i dont see that as right. aussies dont deserve any better treatment than anyone from any other country, and the fact that we as a country behave like we should is wrong.

why shouldnt the average australian care about an american on death row? arent we all humans? shouldnt we all afforded the same rights? arent most of the people crying out about this particular situation saying that the death penalty is barbaric full stop? or are they just against the death penalty for drug smuggling? or just against the death penalty for australians? im confused...

by the way, i dont actually disagree with the death penalty for certain crimes (i wouldnt personally have included drug smuggling as a capital offence, but im not getting my nickers in a bunch over it), im just asking why the outcry now, over these two, when hundreds of people are put to death by the courts in many countries around the world, and no one here bats an eye. do we as australians really believe that we should be treated differently to people from other countries? i certainly dont. i dont think i am better than anyone else just because i live here, certainly luckier than some, but not better. do you think you are better than others?

obviously i am in the minority though, mustnt be on 'team australia" or something. silly me thinking that all people from all countries should be equal.

slightly diversing away from the current topic but the thing that I see from the outside looking in at early learning centres etc from a neighbour who works at one is the fact that they have taken away many of the learning tools that my generation and those before had, which allowed kids to learn about risk analysis.

Many early learning educators would love to see kids eating dirt, chasing butterflies, catching lizards/worms/bugs, climbing trees, whacking their thumb with a hammer, the type of shit we all did growing up.

absolutely, but liability means otherwise unfortunately

just means we as parents have to up our game and make sure our kids do all of those things on our watch, rather than at school. had my two and a half year old helping me with building something the other day, wood saw (manual not electric), drill and electric screwdriver, he loved it!! all under supervision of course.

and we are heading out camping for Easter, no shower or bath, nothing but scrub and paddocks to play in and a camper to sleep in for 5 days, plus no electronic devices!. both kids loved it last year, and being a year older i reckon it will be better again this year. (the little tippers are now five and a half and two and a half)

just a slightly different point to the current discussion flow.

of the 5 games this weekend just past, only 1 of the games has gathered enough posts to break into the second page. says a lot really for the "increase of interest" when the reserves sides were introduced.

back in the distant past (2013 and before) games used to get several pages on pre game, and have new posts created to post in post game, which would also break into multiple pages. who would have thought that with the introduction of the reserves sides would increase the interest to such a point that no one feels the need to write anything about the games anymore. what a world we live in......

Can we see the weekly attendance at Adelaide Oval / Footy park with the average attendance figures.
I think you will see a direct relationship. I predict there is a stable weekly fixed number of people attending matches in Adelaide . If AFL number goes up, SANFL number total goes down.


i disagree. last season the "pro" afl reserves people were happy stating crowds were up on 2013, at the same time that adelaide oval was sold out every weekend (from memory it was pretty much sold out wasnt it?) you cant get more people to the afl every week than the stadium can hold this season, so therefore there must be less people attending footy this year with the dramatic drop in sanfl crowds.

funnily enough, the "anti" afl reserves people pointed out the novelty factor last season, and that once it had worn off, reserves attendances would drop (we even saw evidence of the fact between early season attendances and the drop to late season attendances for the reserves sides), but we were told we were doomsayers and pessimists. funnily enough, it seems we were right. also funnily enough the "pro" reserve people are strangely silent on attendances this season.........

At some stage, there going to be a need for a review on how the national competition, local leagues, underage competitions will look like in the future and try to get some sort of agreed structure that won't satisfied everyone's needs but will be a workable model.

Just kicking the two teams out of the SANFL may make the small number of people on this forum happy but there is a wider football community that also need to be considered when getting the right model.

on your last sentence, it is clear that the SANFL football community are voting with their lack of attendance to matches.

exactly MT79. crowds are plummeting, memberships seem to be doing the same thing, it seems it is a much wider dissatifaction than just "the small number of people on this forum".... (which is also bullshit, this is the biggest and best footy forum in this state)

"wider football community" reads as "afl fans". footy is about more than afl, a hell of a lot more. but i guess it is a bit hard to see that from the good seats at adelaide oval. the sanfl should not be ****** over to benefit the afl. how about youdetail the benefit to the "wider football community" of keeping the reserves sides in the sanfl. i bet i can counter every point that you try to put forward.

so we are left with 8 Clubs

we play eachother 3 times for a 21 round season

we play each other home and away and perhaps at a neutral venue as part of a double header to try and make the draw as fair as possible.

bring back games at adelaide oval. one home, one away, one game at adelaide oval between each of the clubs. surely in this day and age the oval can cope with 2 games on it some weeks.....

i dont think it can go back to the previous system where the players were spread throughout the sanfl clubs, and i dont want it to go back to that, it was a crap system (but still better than it is now)


I know that I'm in the minority but I did not mind it, and that is probably based on the Stewart Dew, Shannon Hurn and Justin Westhoff examples. I liked being able to see at least some of the local lads being able to play league, some AFL, come back get some kicks and development and help the team. Imported guys like Guerra seemed to have a real feel for the club. The disruption seemed to be balanced against the benefits, but I suppose looking back we were in the middle of the dynasty so that perspective may be rose tinted.

i think it actually worked quite well during the season, but fell over come finals time when the afl clubs were often reluctant to have their players at risk in the sanfl when the afl clubs season was over. it wasnt perfect, but it was better than the current situation

edit: i should say, it was a crap system compared to not having the interferance of the afl players at all. for what it was, it worked, and just fell over at the most important point of the season for 5 clubs. it would be better than what we have now, however i still dont think that we can go back to that system. that bridge has been burned

How much is $2000 worth of bull semen? What size tank are we talking here?

What is the shelf life on bull semen storage?

So many questions.


1) To be honest, it might be only one or two tubes worth, depending on the breeding (if mum and dad were champions, price goes up)

2) Tank might be the size of one of those milk doovies you throw the balls into at the show, if that.

3) I believe it's frozen (like cryogenically, or whatever the word is) but not sure if this makes it last longer. Assuming it would - it's just like freezing sperm and embryos for a human.

4) Was anyone actually meant to answer those questions seriously? :oops:

does the fact you answered those questions, seemingly with some confidence, make you the forums resident bull semen expert???

getting rid of the two afl teams will solve the sanfl's immediate problem. plummeting crowds, plummeting memberships, general apathy towards the comp.... not sure that it will be around too much longer if we just sit on our hands and wait for some magic fairy to bring all of the interested parties together to have a chat first....

the sanfl need to do something now, before it is too late (if it isnt already). get this competition right first, then start agitating for some sort of national forum on the future direction of the game. no good trying to sort out the game nationally if in the meantime the sanfl sputters and dies now is there

meanwhile, i dont see anyone attacking you, i think you are taking our critiscism of your ideas personally. i for one am certainly not attacking you, and i think the idea of a unified approach across the whole country has some merit. i just dont see it being all rosy. the afl would bully its way into getting what it wanted (aflsa anyone??) and it has already proven it doesnt give a stuff about "lower" leagues. it would also take way to much time to organise and hold, then impliment any recommendations coming from it to help the current sanfl situation.

gotcha Cman, didnt intend to come across as having a crack

the only place i have heard about this is right here in this thread, so, unless Dogger supplies a link to said proposal, ill just file it with the rest of his drug addled imaginary posts

of course they are. rego goes up every year, did you really think it wouldnt just because they removed the stickers? it went up here in sa too the year we got rid of stickers too.....

As I said, our embarrassing and pathetic performance in our previous home game would have impacted on Monday's crowd. To suggest otherwise is to pretend that onfield performance does not impact on crowds which everyone knows is plain ridiculous. It was a good weekend for crowds in spite of some of the ridiculously gloomy predictions I saw on here, including predictions of 2k crowds for Sturt v Adelaide at Unley.

Reality is we were hit by an unusual burst of Winter weather early in the season right when crowds are generally at their maximum. Was only talking to someone tonight about Anzac eve at Glenelg; he has been going to that ground for about 45 years and reckons he has never seen rain that heavy, but I guess the weather did not impact crowds both there and at Adelaide Oval that night? That was all no AFL protest too? We now seem to be hitting a run of good weather for this time of year and what happens? Crowds start to edge up! But some on here want to ignore other factors that impact crowds to further their argument against the changes to the comp. I absolutely get that there are passionate views about the current set up and that's fine, but if we are going to have a logical discussion about crowds you cannot ignore factors such as weather and onfield performance that have always been major factors just because you might want to further a point.

lol, by the same token, last season all of the "pro" afl cock gobblers were quite happy telling all and sundry that crowds were up over 2013, conveniently ignoring the fact that they were infact lower than every season for the last 15 years apart from 2013, and conveniently ignoring the same weather factors you are stating here, 2014 was a very dry year. you cant have it both ways.

it gives me the shits the number of smokers that are still quite happy to leave their filthy cigarette butts wherever they like. sitting in traffic behind a car today, and the driver flicked a still burning butt out onto the median strip....

i know it isnt all smokers, but it still must be a fair number of them as the evidence is still easy to spot no matter where you go.

regardless of "the churches" views on "gay marriage" it is completely out of their hands on whether or not it will be allowed. "the church" does not have a monopoly on the word, or the act of marriage, despite what they claim. they lost the exclusive right to marriage decades ago when the government took over.

the number of people i see coming out of births deaths and marriages on grenfell st after getting hitched in a government office is proof enough of that. marriage has already been separated from the church, they lost the argument long ago, they just never realised it.

thankfully it wont be long before it is legalised (either this current bill, or another soon after) and we can all laugh as these religeous nuts proceed to divorce their wives as it "doesnt mean the same thing anymore".

in a world where two people who have never met each other can legally get married for our entertainment on tv, i think the "marriage is sacred" boat has well and truly sailed.....

Gay marriage is fine, it gives the extremely ugly people double the chances.

affords Gay people the opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of us :D

Maybe you need you wife to submit to you.

lol, in my household my wife is the breadwinner. well, moreso than i anyway. she earns significantly more than i do despite not being full time. i guess i should go home and tell her how unhappy our marriage really is then. i guess we have been wrong all these years, who knew??

actually, i saw this the other day

what do you call a book club that has been stuck on the same book for thousands of years?


the church

tbh although it will cost me more I dont really have an issue with this. It was always just a matter of being able to do it cost effectively as to why they didnt do it in the first place

it still wont be cost effective though. it will cos them more to chase those of us for our few dollars gst on our online purchasers than they get back from it. its all just to keep the likes of Gerry Harvey happy.....

meanwhile, have they set a date for it to take effect yet? there are a couple of purchases i need to make. i might have to get them sooner rather than later...

My point was we should have been paying that gst all along. So it isn't an extra tax it is one they have not been collecting. So if there is a cost effective way for them to do that, it is something I support
But thats my point. It wont be cost effective. It will cost more to collect than they get from it. they have just introduced it to keep the likes of gerry harvey happy, nothing more

I still cant work out how she hasnt been charged with fraud?

it cant be fraud when it is all "within the rules" but just "looks bad".... that and what Stan said.

no one in parliament is willing to cast the first stone lest they be the one in the stocks next (im sure Bronnie would squeal like a stuck pig if anyone in parliament turned on her, she wont go down without taking others with her. same reason Labor stuck with slipper) i dare say they all have something that "wouldnt look good" if the public were to find out about it

Jake Parkinson will be able to quote key indicators such as website activity and media interest increasing - everyone's interested in how quickly the thing is falling apart.

yep, because spending a couple of minutes checking your sides team before the game (because of the dearth of info now in the paper, and who would buy that anyway?) and then another minute sunday evening checking the results is really putting money in the clubs coffers. it is by far the best indicator of the health of the competition.....

/sarcasm

Ramrod wrote:This forum is just ridiculous. This pretty much sums up in SA..... Backwards.

lol. who would have thought that SA Footy's latest failed troll would be pro reserves sides. go back to stroking off to your abuse of eagles players please

lol, insults from Ramrod, does that make me internet famous?

No doesnt make you famous at all. Just lets everyone know you are a tool.

ow, you hurt my internet feels. whatever shall i do? a keyboard warrior has insulted me.

i have been called much worse by people much better than you Ramrod. i give you 1/10.

The Clubs thought (wrongly IMHO) that the 'easy cash' from the AFL Clubs was the answer.
It wasn't.
The problem they have made for themselves is that Membership money has diminished significantly, as (I assume) has Sponsorship money, Gate takings & Bar/Food/Beverage. To make it more affordable for people to go to the SANFL, they need to cut Admissions & Costs - going Semi-Ammo instead of Semi-Pro, may well allow this to occur. Under 25s will probably want to play for the 8 Clubs (in general) above playing for other Ammo Clubs because of facilities, etc. Younger Country Zoned Players will still have the pathway to AFL via the SANFL Club, even in "Div 1" - say a Club were relegated, that would give a greater opportunity to play/develop kids.


I agree. Admission now keeps people away. The cost of a trip to the SANFL with the family, or even on your own, has increased to the point that many people would not be able to afford to attend.

Problem with this though, the clubs slice becomes less. I think it needs to be made a more attractive "product" ( I hate using that term ) for people to spend their entertainment $$$'s on.

you honestly think further lowering the standard will bring people back? I dont.

havent been on in a few days, and whilst it was enjoyable reading ramrod, he actually did bring up one decent point - the standard of the comp as a whole would have dropped, as there is an extra team. Could that be another reason the crowds have dropped?

One of the reasons i liked following the sanfl was to see how the afl listed players were doing.
But now I only have to look at the crows match report to do that, so my overall interest has gone down .
Moreover, I dont really feel compelled to go and watch a crows game because it is a reserves game , and if i only have so much time in the week im definitely not spending it going to a reserves game .

So yes, i agree with others that there should be a national AFL reserves comp. But this will also hurt the SANFL. It will be "pure" as some people want it, but it will be at a much lower standard, and with that will come continued dwindling crowds.

Wait... are you now using the same reasons the No AFL posters were stating all along as reasons your interest in the SANFL has dropped? the same reasons you argued so long against?

ffs why couldnt you and the other "pro" people (particularly the sanfl directors.....) realise the sense in the "against" arguments two and a half ******* years ago.....

getting a call from my daughters school. well, not getting the call as such, but the content, which has made me worry.

"miss Tipper is fine, but the principal wanted me to ring you and tell you that she was hurt at lunch time, just a scratch on the wrist, but that he has followed through with the other student and dealt with it"

what? drop the pc double speak and tell me what happened. if it was an accident, fine, they happen. active kids sometimes bump into each other and people get bruises/scratches etc. if that is all it is who cares? i could have found that out from herself. bloody hell my brother broke his arm at school through nothing more sinister than playing chasey.

but the wording makes me think it is something more serious than that. that some little shit has deliberately hurt my little girl. if that is the case, why not just say that ffs? while no one wants bullying to happen, it still does. tell me what happened, and that it has been dealt with and id feel a lot better about it than the waffle i was given. stop trying to hide it by not mentioning it.

i feel like i should leave work early and go get some answers, but i dont want to overreact..... bloody pc world we live in. wouldnt want another parent to find out that little johnny is a bullying little shitstain, so lets call the parent and not actually tell them anything other than your child is fine.....


If it is just a scratch then I don't see the big deal.

Having worked at schools for 20 years I'm not sure what you are expecting from the school. They can't ring and say "This little f@cker troublemaker that we can't control has done it again". Again it all depends on the actual injury but they have communicated it and if they contacted you it means it's been recorded.

Would you have preferred they didn't contact you?

As I said I have been in the system for 20 years and worked at over 200 schools. If you PM me the school and can give you some feedback on what I know of the school but it sounds to me like they have followed procedure.

I worked at a school one day where the child was very sick, chronically Ill. They rang the parent and when the parent arrived it was the wrong child/parent. Pretty funny from a distance but not so funny to the lady who worked on the other side of town.
The procedure is bullshit then. Actually tell me what happened, and what the repurcussions were for the kid that did it. Not this bullshit where they actually havent told me anything. Why cant they say "This little f@cker troublemaker that we can't control has done it again".? Whats wrong with telling me that?

Turns out that an older kid ran up to my daughter and her friends and started laying into them with a stick. Thats assault if it was adults.

Now, because the school wont tell me anything, i can only go on what my 5 year old says, which as you would know can be unreliable at best.

Wouldnt it be better for the school to explain what happened so there are no misunderstandings? As it is i can only believe that nothing was done at the time and it wasnt till after lunch time that a teacher even found out about the completely unprovoked attack. And sure, its just a scratch, but what if she copped it in the eye? What is being done to ensure it wont happen again? Why wasnt the student named? And if as you say they are a problem child, and they cant be controlled, why do the other students have to suffer for her benefit?

Its ******* crap and you know it. And if it happens again the school will have ine very angry parent in their front office quick smart. As i said before, shit happens in the playground, but deliberately laying into reception kids with a stick is not on. Its bullying, its assault, and should have never happened.

And personally, nothing about a chronically ill kid and the school cocking up notifying the parents is funny. Its actually horrifying. If it was my daughter, and they rang someone else, and therefore delayed notifying me i would be livid....

Without knowing the dynamics of the incident it's hard to know what the "follow through" would be bu t it may have been more childhood stupidity than pre meditated sinister bullying . .

this...so this. 5 year olds are not pre-meditative criminals. They're just little shits (and that's even without bringing the whole ADHD crap into it) My friends 6 year old was suspended for sexual harassment because he hold a girl he loved her.

Reasons like this, is why I never finished my teaching degree.

The world has gone mad.

it wasnt a 5 year old. my daughter is 5, the other student was older. and it is my whole point, if the school was just forthcoming about what happened, i wouldnt have a problem. as it is i have to rely on my daughters version of events, and i have relayed that above. if it was an "accident" or "stupidity" just ******* tell me that

I have seen a student trip over a bag that was left on the floor and accidentally knock over a young girl at school. She had a bit of a graze on her knee but was fine. The next day her mum came in accusing the poor kid who knocked her daughter over of violently attacking her...

What happens at school and what parents hear from their kids doesnt necessarily represent the actual story.

Your daughter may have thought she was attacked but that may not actually be the case...

Please dont think I'm calling your little one a liar... but just wanted to provide a possible explanation.

and i get that too Jase. shit happens at school. kids fallover, run into each other etc. and if that is what happened, i couldnt give a stuff. ill tell my daughter to harden up, it wasnt intentional. however, by the school not telling me anything, other than "the other student has been dealt with" i have to rely on my 5 year olds version of events (which i know can be dodgy, i acknowledged that in my first post on this) and if it is true, i want to know what the outcome was. an older student attacking a group of reception kids unprovoked is not on, and as far as the info i have that is what happened. if the school was more forthcoming, and it wasnt that bad, i wouldnt even have made a single post on this.....

and understand me, if the school is following all the proper procedures, it isnt their fault either, the procedures need to be changed. hiding the issue wont make it go away

personally i dont see what this thread is doing in the SANFL section. shouldnt it be moved into the AFl area if it is an afl womens league?

Booney wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:But, hey, we've never thought we had enough money to spend to buy a Dyson.

You aint alone.

yet some posters can apparently afford two.....

cennals05 wrote:Good article...
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger ... e81937edb7

bloody hell that is spot on. anyone know the bloke that wrote it? i want to buy him a beer

Crowds in 2014 were down 6.3 per cent on 2013.


i realise that this part is from the article, so not blaming you Booney, but werent 2014 crowds UP on 2013?? so this blaming of adelaide oval is already proved wrong by the facts that crowds at adelaide oval, and at sanfl games are both lower this year than last?

rewriting history so that they can continue to deny that the reserves sides are a negative influence on the sanfl...... of course, admitting it would also be admitting that they were wrong.....

heater31 wrote:

HH3 wrote:I remember paying $7 for a hotdog.....coz Im not an old c**t!

Paid $3.20 for my first ever schooner in a pub. These days it's nearing $5.

wtf is a schooner?? pints or gtfo

the SANFL built the stadium with the money they got from Port in the AFL!

SANFL makes money from Port for 100 years.

SANFL builds things using that money and then charges Port to use them

Port deal with it and improve things, makes SANFL more money

Port play in elite competition and try and remain competitive by ensuring their on the same level playing field as rivals

SANFL clubs complain (about nothing, really) despite the fact they're getting propped up by Port money and things Port money helped build.

wait, you want the power to be on a level playing field with their rivals, but think its ok for the sanfl clubs to not have a level playing field. do you actually see the hipocrisy of your argument?

Actually Rising Power, I made a suggestion about what you have just raised over a year ago.
My idea was that we have two premiership tables. In a sense this is in action now, if you look at Pseudo's "Pure" premiership ladder.
I thought there could be a system of prize money or whatever for finishing higher on the "compromised" ladder, but so far as finals and all that was concerned it would be an 8 team competition comprised of only the traditional clubs, with a final four, decided by whoever finished higher on the "pure" ladder.
If Crows and Power wanted reserves games into September, maybe they could play each other for a kitty full of cash, or pay off another club for a hit out.
This covers all the bases so far as I can see.
Edit: this is more or less or different version of what Tipper has just written.

yep, not trying to claim the above as my own idea or anything. many posters, including Theri have posted similar variations to what i wrote, and all are a better solution than what we currently have

Anything is better* than anything by Midnight Oil.





*Taylor Swift being the exception. All of her annoying crap is shit.

reminds me of a joke i read the other day

cop knocks on hte door "sir, we have had some complaints about your music"
bloke "you must be joking, its only 7pm"
cop "it wouldnt matter if it was 10am sir, Justin Bieber is shit no matter the time of day..."

This is all very constructive. I think we're close to resolving this.

=)) =)) =)) =))

and as usual your pot shots from the sidelines are the most constructive posts in here. thanks for your contribution

No problems mate. It's not any more or any less constructive than the diatribe of drivel that's going around and around in circles achieving **** all.

But please, go on.

lately its only been going in circles due to your fellow power supporters spouting off bullshit that has already been covered. maybe you could have a word to them for us?

or you could continue to laugh at the league that helped your club get to where it is, and poke fun at those that arent happy about it. your choice

I use race tyres on my race bike they are appropriate for the MAJORITY of what I do. It is not illegal to ride on the road, so while it is not illegal (although inconvenient to you) I will continue to do so. I don't believe I inconvenience any other road user at all. I usually ride either alone, or with one other bloke. I DO care about the traffic flow.... If you have actually read my post, you would see I drive a car as well. I share your frustration at cyclists who do the wrong thing. I also am frustrated when I see motorists do the wrong thing. What say you stick to your "off roading" adventures... while you attempt to be a smart arse and suggest I should try it some day.... I don't need to compensate for a small penis like yourself!

lol. insults now? must have lost the argument then. GG

and for the record, i am perfectly happy with my small penis. it has never failed to satisfy me. no need to compensate for it at all. :lol:

Just remember Booney, Australia is large, and shovels are cheap.

"why yes officer, the Boonster was with me all day, we watched the cricket and got stuck into a carton of James Squire. no we didnt drive anywhere, neither one of us would drink and drive"