SA Footy

stan wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Grahaml wrote:Not the Crows' fault the SANFL is dying. They didn't vote. Point all you like at 5AA, MMM, Riccuito and anyone whose primary focus is the AFL, but the real villains are the ones whose primary focus was meant to be the SANFL. Glenelg, North, West, Woodville-West Torrens, Sturt and Norwood are the right targets for the anger.

Would love to know whether Tripodi is still proud of the concessions he got in exchange for his vote.

Crows are a valid target too as it was their lies and deceit that helped sway the ignorant directors.
4K per game and only entering the comp if the vote is unanimous ring a bell?

Their arrogance knowing it doesn't matter who they alienate in this state because they have a flock of plastic sheep that fly as one also adds to it. They've alienated many potential and existing followers of their club but they don't care as they don't have to work hard in marketing like most clubs do, another plastic sheep will just take over from any that fall off.

Bang on there but Tripodi is still a bigger prick.

The Crows gave the bullshit and there is no way the clubs actually brought that garbage. It was just the agendas of a fricken deligates that sold us out.

saintal wrote:Well said Dogs72. Sh*ts me that the likes of Ruccuito and vocal crows fans on facebook etc. only think this is an issue b/c of Saturday’s result. They miss the point. They also have short memories, overlooking the fact that Port were a kick away from a flag and finished 2nd last season at end of minor round. People were complaining then, this is nothing new.

As far as media coverage goes…I tuned into 5AA sports show quite a bit last week (yes, some may question my sanity). With no AFL matches on I hoped there might be a bit more SANFL content. The Ellis-Yolmen saga got a bit of air time, and they had a chat with Heath Younie one night about the exciting proposition of playing a final. On a whim I sent them a text late Thusday, which to my surprise they actually addressed. To summarise the text it was basically ‘no AFL this week and yet SANFL still struggles to get a mention on your show. Some publicity of the other clubs may help get the 10K you want to see turn up’.

Both hosts were quite defensive about it, pointing to the chat with Younie as an example of them plugging the league, while Bickley struggled to grasp the concept that the more casual or armchair Sturt/South/Centrals supporters may be more persuaded to attend if they heard a bit about their club or a club representative was given air time to talk about the game in the lead up.

The station’s Thursday night SANFL segment and Sunday night show have both been culled over the past 2 years, this despite the inclusion of the reserves sides.

heater31 wrote:

stan wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Grahaml wrote:Not the Crows' fault the SANFL is dying. They didn't vote. Point all you like at 5AA, MMM, Riccuito and anyone whose primary focus is the AFL, but the real villains are the ones whose primary focus was meant to be the SANFL. Glenelg, North, West, Woodville-West Torrens, Sturt and Norwood are the right targets for the anger.

Would love to know whether Tripodi is still proud of the concessions he got in exchange for his vote.

Crows are a valid target too as it was their lies and deceit that helped sway the ignorant directors.
4K per game and only entering the comp if the vote is unanimous ring a bell?

Their arrogance knowing it doesn't matter who they alienate in this state because they have a flock of plastic sheep that fly as one also adds to it. They've alienated many potential and existing followers of their club but they don't care as they don't have to work hard in marketing like most clubs do, another plastic sheep will just take over from any that fall off.

Bang on there but Tripodi is still a bigger prick.

The Crows gave the bullshit and there is no way the clubs actually brought that garbage. It was just the agendas of a fricken deligates that sold us out.

Correct the one we should be most dirty on is Norwood. Their president sold out for concessions for his own club and possibly other interests as well outside of football.

Other clubs saw the easy money with the licence fees when in hindsight I think the free money doesn't get anywhere close to covering the losses in other areas.

heater31 wrote:Correct the one we should be most dirty on is Norwood. Their president sold out for concessions for his own club and possibly other interests as well outside of football.

JK wrote:
Im not sure any of the "Yes" voting club people can claim the moral high ground, they all ****** up. Every single one of them.

JK wrote:

heater31 wrote:Correct the one we should be most dirty on is Norwood. Their president sold out for concessions for his own club and possibly other interests as well outside of football.

Remember it was Joe, not Norwood that made the vote (mind you I wouldn't be surprised if our club had ****** it up anyway if it was left to them). He also wouldn't have been the only one voting in such a way for personal interests (if that were the case for Joe voting the way he did, which I don't think was the case).

The majority of Norwood members didn't want it IIRC. Thats what hurt the most. Many of the other clubs didn't canvas their members or even allow their members a voice, but ours did. Then our SANFL director voted against it anyway.

Im not sure any of the "Yes" voting club people can claim the moral high ground, they all ****** up. Every single one of them.

therisingblues wrote:How many ballots did they hold before the "acceptable" yes vote was taken?
I remember Port trying to push it through, and getting knocked back at least once, I have a feeling there might've been another vote ir two held before the Crows really applied the pressure. It has been mentioned that at least one club president had his business interests threatened.

heater31 wrote:

JK wrote:

heater31 wrote:Correct the one we should be most dirty on is Norwood. Their president sold out for concessions for his own club and possibly other interests as well outside of football.

Remember it was Joe, not Norwood that made the vote (mind you I wouldn't be surprised if our club had ****** it up anyway if it was left to them). He also wouldn't have been the only one voting in such a way for personal interests (if that were the case for Joe voting the way he did, which I don't think was the case).

The majority of Norwood members didn't want it IIRC. Thats what hurt the most. Many of the other clubs didn't canvas their members or even allow their members a voice, but ours did. Then our SANFL director voted against it anyway.

Im not sure any of the "Yes" voting club people can claim the moral high ground, they all ****** up. Every single one of them.

I seem to recall a C7 interview with Joe on the Parade publicly declaring 'No' a few weeks later he'd changed his position.....what or who got to him to change his mind.

JK wrote:

heater31 wrote:

JK wrote:

heater31 wrote:Correct the one we should be most dirty on is Norwood. Their president sold out for concessions for his own club and possibly other interests as well outside of football.

Remember it was Joe, not Norwood that made the vote (mind you I wouldn't be surprised if our club had ****** it up anyway if it was left to them). He also wouldn't have been the only one voting in such a way for personal interests (if that were the case for Joe voting the way he did, which I don't think was the case).

The majority of Norwood members didn't want it IIRC. Thats what hurt the most. Many of the other clubs didn't canvas their members or even allow their members a voice, but ours did. Then our SANFL director voted against it anyway.

Im not sure any of the "Yes" voting club people can claim the moral high ground, they all ****** up. Every single one of them.

I seem to recall a C7 interview with Joe on the Parade publicly declaring 'No' a few weeks later he'd changed his position.....what or who got to him to change his mind.

Joe had been "No" all along, and staunchly No .. He was definitely "got to", Im just not sure that it was on business grounds. Although with his associations it obviously couldn't be ruled out.

The change of decision for him, as I remember it, seriously came at the 11th hour.

MW wrote:I understand why this whinge is happening, but is there any chance someone can start talking up the SANFL on this forum? Fair dinkum, nearly every thread has a negative tone.

MW wrote:I get that, but how do you expect to get more people along when they read some of the comments on this forum?

another grub wrote:What was the entry fee on sunday?