Magpies and Power merger to be announced in a fortnight.

[Booney]

To refer to any game of football as a "theatre experience" is just folly.

[am Bays]

To refer to any game of football as a "theatre experience" is just folly.

Don't worry Boon I don't limit that comment to just Port Power supporters at Footy park based on my experience of games involving Crows fans...

"Theatre experience" based on the incredulous comments you get - the same as the ill-informed punters at a Le Mis or a Phantom gig at the Festival theatre. Along the lines of "what are they doing that for" "whats happening".....

[on the rails]

There is a very interesting commentary piece on the nafc website about this whole saga.

http://www.nafc.com.au/news/2010/p3233.aspx

Let's see if Rucci can report it accurately this time around instead of misquoting and creating an anti-North bias?

[beenreal]

An article written with venom, contradiction and paranoia.

On the one hand we read:

"It appears that every time this issue is promoted in the local media, North Adelaide Football Club is promoted as being against the concept. For the record, we would like to advise members of the Club’s position, a position which is not open to journalistic licence. This position has also been conveyed to the SANFL, SANFL Clubs, Power and Crows."

Fair enough, obviously the media world has been hell bent on maliciously, misrepresenting the official position of the NAFC. Until we read the very next line:

North Adelaide Football Club does not support the merger or direct association of any SANFL Club with an AFL Club

The article then goes on about the NAFC managing a $1.7M debt. No mention that debt is guaranteed by Rob Gerard. Yep there's that name again.

Rucci won't have to touch it, he'll be able to quote directly and still have the same impact.

[spell_check]

Sorry for going all pedantic and such, but Norths' victory in 2003 was by 15 points - ironically against Port

Round 6 2003
North 5.0 12.1 16.5 22.8 (140)
Port 5.3 10.11 16.15 18.17 (125)
Prospect

[Dutchy]

The article then goes on about the NAFC managing a $1.7M debt. No mention that debt is guaranteed by Rob Gerard. Yep there's that name again.

I think you will find Gerard doesnt guarantee their debt, when they have assets >$3m why would he need to guarantee?

And even if he did guarantee the debt what does that have to do with servicing/managing it?

[hereselmo1]

"The chilling memory of 2003 was how little our Club’s rich heritage meant to the football world and the media outside our own people. There was no concerted support, in fact a quick look over our shoulder at the time only showed those with a red and white bent. Our history would have perished without a whimper or barely a mention in the classified columns of the local paper."

"It is ironic that the Port Adelaide machine rode off into the sunset in pursuit of the big League with the granting of the AFL Licence to the distain of the remaining SANFL Clubs. It is a strange twist of fate that they now return seeking the support of those whose future they danced on – it is indeed a long road which does not turn!"

Could this football club have a bigger chip on their shoulder?

"It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on."


This is the only sensible bit.

[Mr Irate]

Time to start worrying about your own clubs boys, because the days of kicking the Magpies around are coming to an end!

And I can think of nothing better. Reading so many of you whinging about it runs a close second though.

One assumes this is the appreciation and humility the North Adelaide Football club is referring to

[Barto]

"The chilling memory of 2003 was how little our Club’s rich heritage meant to the football world and the media outside our own people. There was no concerted support, in fact a quick look over our shoulder at the time only showed those with a red and white bent. Our history would have perished without a whimper or barely a mention in the classified columns of the local paper."

"It is ironic that the Port Adelaide machine rode off into the sunset in pursuit of the big League with the granting of the AFL Licence to the distain of the remaining SANFL Clubs. It is a strange twist of fate that they now return seeking the support of those whose future they danced on – it is indeed a long road which does not turn!"

Could this football club have a bigger chip on their shoulder?

"It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on."


This is the only sensible bit.

North do love to use hyberbole in their press releases but they're entitled to feel that way if they wish.

North Adelaide Football Club does not support the merger or direct association of any SANFL Club with an AFL Club

Nor does any other SANFL club (besides the Magpies of course) but it's good that the Port mob are blaming North, takes the heat off the rest of us

[StrayDog]

An article written with venom, contradiction and paranoia.

On the one hand we read:

"It appears that every time this issue is promoted in the local media, North Adelaide Football Club is promoted as being against the concept. For the record, we would like to advise members of the Club’s position, a position which is not open to journalistic licence. This position has also been conveyed to the SANFL, SANFL Clubs, Power and Crows."

Fair enough, obviously the media world has been hell bent on maliciously, misrepresenting the official position of the NAFC. Until we read the very next line:

North Adelaide Football Club does not support the merger or direct association of any SANFL Club with an AFL Club

The article then goes on .....

When I read "It appears that every time this issue is promoted in the local media, North Adelaide Football Club is promoted as being against the concept", I see it as a criticism of the local media - allegedly - singling out the NAFC as being the ogre of the piece "every time this issue is promoted in the local media", and not a criticism of being presented by the media "as being against the concept".

As I read it, the "journalistic licence" applies to - alleged - misrepresentations of the reasons why the "North Adelaide Football Club does not support the merger or direct association of any SANFL Club with an AFL Club", not on the stance itself.

No "contradiction" that I can see.

[Hondo]

From that article on our web-site it sounds like it's a done deal. Port must have finally come up with the right model because, as I read it, North say that their representative on the SANFL commission is duty bound to support it if it is in the best interests of football in this state (as supported by a risk analysis). I'd assume each club representative on the Commission will similarly have their hands tied if that's the right phrase.

It sounds like the SANFL have been working on this with PAM/PAP so it's difficult for the Commission to stop it this time I assume.

Last time Port must have had something in their proposal that allowed the clubs to oppose the move without this causing their representatives on the Commission to have a conflict in their roles as directors.

I recall last time it was reported that the Port proposal was changing regularly and they weren't able to justify the business case. I wonder what are the key changes from the last proposal?

[birdmanptr]

There is a very interesting commentary piece on the nafc website about this whole saga.

http://www.nafc.com.au/news/2010/p3233.aspx

Let's see if Rucci can report it accurately this time around instead of misquoting and creating an anti-North bias?

No chance not with him its all port port port for the rooch

[Barto]

It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on.

As if that's going to happen.

[beenreal]

It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on.

As if that's going to happen.

That's Rich! Every other club has enjoyed sinking the boots in and reveled in the Magpies plight for over a decade. But now it's Port Adelaide that's supposed to show humility?

[Barto]

It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on.

As if that's going to happen.

That's Rich! Every other club has enjoyed sinking the boots in and reveled in the Magpies plight for over a decade. But now it's Port Adelaide that's supposed to show humility?

Well after years of whining and stamping your feet, you'll be getting your way. I fully expect things like this to be a prime example of the response from Port people:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost. ... tcount=249

I'm just worried about what's going to happen if Port are still unsustainable.

As for sticking the boots in. I dont recall any Port person sinking the boots in when Sturt were wooden spooners. No siree.. not one at all.

[beenreal]

I never had time to sink the boots in, I was too busy donating to your mob.

[Mr Irate]

It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on.

As if that's going to happen.

That's Rich! Every other club has enjoyed sinking the boots in and reveled in the Magpies plight for over a decade. But now it's Port Adelaide that's supposed to show humility?

Oh dear oh dear......been a little upsetting for you over the past decade has it.........ooohhhhh what a shame

Dry your eyes princess and TTFU......

[hereselmo1]

It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on.

As if that's going to happen.

That's Rich! Every other club has enjoyed sinking the boots in and reveled in the Magpies plight for over a decade. But now it's Port Adelaide that's supposed to show humility?

Oh dear oh dear......been a little upsetting for you over the past decade has it.........ooohhhhh what a shame

Dry your eyes princess and TTFU......

I guess this is the sort of humility the Magpies should be aiming for?

[Media Park]

It is our considered opinion that the One Port Adelaide Model will be approved with or without unanimous SANFL Club support. If a Risk Analysis report projected an expected financial benefit to football, the Directors would be duty bound to support it under the terms upon which they are appointed. One Port Adelaide, the Power and the Magpies will again emerge victorious, this time we trust with a degree of appreciation and humility. These are challenging times for standalone SANFL Clubs. Once the decision is taken, we accept same and move on.

As if that's going to happen.

That's Rich! Every other club has enjoyed sinking the boots in and reveled in the Magpies plight for over a decade. But now it's Port Adelaide that's supposed to show humility?

Oh dear oh dear......been a little upsetting for you over the past decade has it.........ooohhhhh what a shame

Dry your eyes princess and TTFU......

If the internet is to be believed, the South Adelaide Football Club hasn't played in a Grand Final since 1979- haven't heard any posters on here whining about that.

Port supporters, do what Mr Irate says, and add my dosage of drinking some concrete.

[jim5112]

I agree with North that the Mudpies are again seeking an unfair advantage over other league clubs.

Still, it makes it more likely Centrals can add them to our 21st century runners-up collection. Imagine how they will squawk then.

Perhaps they will want to shift the goalposts again...