SA Footy

tipper wrote:just voted. its up to 70% think that the sanfl would be better without them. watch the poll be quickly swept under the carpet when the advertiser offices open this morning

Or Mark Riccuito is given the casting vote.

tipper wrote:

Dogs72 wrote:

goddy11 wrote:this is a dodgey poll. you can vote as many times as you like.

Keep voting! I just voted for my 10 family members. Up to 67%.

dont suggest that to him. Goddy11 is an adelaide crows stooge and is in favour of ******* up the league

Don't presume I am an Crows stooge. WWT is my SANFL side always. AFC is my AFL side always. No middle ground. I don't like the AFL sides in. Terrible to see our players playing against us. Just saying the Advertiser poll is open manipulation and it looks like it has been.

goddy11 wrote:

tipper wrote:

Dogs72 wrote:

goddy11 wrote:this is a dodgey poll. you can vote as many times as you like.

Keep voting! I just voted for my 10 family members. Up to 67%.

dont suggest that to him. Goddy11 is an adelaide crows stooge and is in favour of ******* up the league

Don't presume I am an Crows stooge. WWT is my SANFL side always. AFC is my AFL side always. No middle ground. I don't like the AFL sides in. Terrible to see our players playing against us. Just saying the Advertiser poll is open manipulation and it looks like it has been.

how then am i to interpret you posting a link in the to 'let it go" in the adelaide v centrals thread? none of the discussion appeared to be sour grapes to me. your post seemed very pro crows.....

and im not sure it is that open to manipulation. after your post i deliberately tried to vote multiple times in a row. while i could click on the option, it didnt actually increase the count number on that option. sure, i could use multiple browsers, but why would i try to boost the failvertisers readership numbers?

goddy11 wrote:

tipper wrote:

Dogs72 wrote:

goddy11 wrote:this is a dodgey poll. you can vote as many times as you like.

Keep voting! I just voted for my 10 family members. Up to 67%.

dont suggest that to him. Goddy11 is an adelaide crows stooge and is in favour of ******* up the league

Don't presume I am an Crows stooge. WWT is my SANFL side always. AFC is my AFL side always. No middle ground. I don't like the AFL sides in. Terrible to see our players playing against us. Just saying the Advertiser poll is open manipulation and it looks like it has been.

Apart from dogs72's admission of multiple votes (which maybe legit if 10 members of his household in fact do not support the reserves and they haven't already voted), what's to indicate that people have submitted repeat votes?

Yes correct; no poll where multiple voting can take place, i.e the majority of online polls has any credibility; I multiple voted on that poll just to see if you could, fully expecting to be able to, and surprise surprise I could.

Keep voting! I just voted for my 10 family members. Up to 67%.[/quote]

dont suggest that to him. Goddy11 is an adelaide crows stooge and is in favour of ******* up the league[/quote]

Don't presume I am an Crows stooge. WWT is my SANFL side always. AFC is my AFL side always. No middle ground. I don't like the AFL sides in. Terrible to see our players playing against us. Just saying the Advertiser poll is open manipulation and it looks like it has been.[/quote]

how then am i to interpret you posting a link in the to 'let it go" in the adelaide v centrals thread? none of the discussion appeared to be sour grapes to me. your post seemed very pro crows.....

and im not sure it is that open to manipulation. after your post i deliberately tried to vote multiple times in a row. while i could click on the option, it didnt actually increase the count number on that option. sure, i could use multiple browsers, but why would i try to boost the failvertisers readership numbers?[/quote]

I just tried it and added 3 votes to the "yes for sure" total. I don't know why but there is a return to poll button at the bottom of the results box that allows you to do it. (Note that I have an Advertiser digital membership that may allow me additional votes.).

goddy11 wrote:
I just tried it and added 3 votes to the "yes for sure" total. I don't know why but there is a return to poll button at the bottom of the results box that allows you to do it. (Note that I have an Advertiser digital membership that may allow me additional votes.).

interesting, thats exactly what i did, and it didnt add any numbers to the poll. the membership may be the difference.

anyway, it is no different to any other online poll the advertiser conducts. they can all be "abused". they spruik the results of the ones that show what they want them to, and quietly delete the ones that dont. it wont prove anything either way

tipper wrote:

goddy11 wrote:
I just tried it and added 3 votes to the "yes for sure" total. I don't know why but there is a return to poll button at the bottom of the results box that allows you to do it. (Note that I have an Advertiser digital membership that may allow me additional votes.).

interesting, thats exactly what i did, and it didnt add any numbers to the poll. the membership may be the difference.

anyway, it is no different to any other online poll the advertiser conducts. they can all be "abused". they spruik the results of the ones that show what they want them to, and quietly delete the ones that dont. it wont prove anything either way

I am guessing that there are more AFL fans who subscribe to the advertiser website than pure fans of the SANFL. Now, I'm basing that on the lack of SANFL coverage, as opposed to the pages and pages devoted to the Crows and Power, so I think that's a fair assumption.
If that is the case, and the only people who can vote multiple times are subscribers, then an anti-reserves poll result might be more indicative of the views of many pro-AFL fans. Thus, a significant shift in attitudes?

tipper wrote:just voted. its up to 70% think that the sanfl would be better without them. watch the poll be quickly swept under the carpet when the advertiser offices open this morning

Without any knowledge of how the poll turned out, or how the advertiser is spinning it, I'll add stick my neck out and back this prediction.
Dies anyone have access to the poll and the spin this morning?

robranisgod wrote:I was able to read the article and then vote by simply googling "Let Grudges Go" and then accessing the article that way.

Thanks man got in and voted

Fantastic article if you are pro AFL reserves all this supposedly written by a ex Crow Captain and Crow board member.

I suggest he takes of his POPSICOLORED glasses off and maybe next year head out to a few SANFL games and do a poll with the true SANFL supporters to really find the sentiment that has been there since the inception of these INTERLOPERS entering the comp.

ITS A FARCE .

NO AFL IN THE SANFL !!!!!!!

therisingblues wrote:

tipper wrote:just voted. its up to 70% think that the sanfl would be better without them. watch the poll be quickly swept under the carpet when the advertiser offices open this morning

Without any knowledge of how the poll turned out, or how the advertiser is spinning it, I'll add stick my neck out and back this prediction.
Dies anyone have access to the poll and the spin this morning?

67.96% at 10:04 this morning.

Interesting that the comments (usually a very dark place for anyone with a life and standard cognitive function) are quite balanced, I would've thought it'd be overwhelmingly in favour of Roo's point of view.

For those that can access the Crudvertiser and are interested, Warren Partland is holding a blog session on the reserves issue from 12:30pm today.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6901ed2254

THE SANFL clubs are nervous in the wake of Adelaide’s smashing of Central District in the elimination final.

The Crows belted the Doggies by 72 points and take on South Adelaide this Sunday from 12.10pm.

SANFL clubs are worried that crowd numbers will continue to drop if Adelaide becomes a powerhouse in the league. Are they justified in their concerns?

Blog with Warren Partland in the comments section below from 12.30pm today.

Magellan wrote:For those that can access the Crudvertiser and are interested, Warren Partland is holding a blog session on the reserves issue from 12:30pm today.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6901ed2254

THE SANFL clubs are nervous in the wake of Adelaide’s smashing of Central District in the elimination final.

The Crows belted the Doggies by 72 points and take on South Adelaide this Sunday from 12.10pm.

SANFL clubs are worried that crowd numbers will continue to drop if Adelaide becomes a powerhouse in the league. Are they justified in their concerns?

Blog with Warren Partland in the comments section below from 12.30pm today.

As I said before, my guess is that subscribers to the Advertiser would mostly be of the AFL variety owing to the massive coverage of that competition offered by the Advertiser. On the other hand, if I want SANFL coverage I seldom fund it in the Advertiser. I wish we could get our voice better heard, from my stand point Roy Laird's comments have really thrust our complaint right out into the spotlight at least now these articles are proliferating, it won't be much longer until they get all the issues correct also.

Magellan wrote:For those that can access the Crudvertiser and are interested, Warren Partland is holding a blog session on the reserves issue from 12:30pm today.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6901ed2254

THE SANFL clubs are nervous in the wake of Adelaide’s smashing of Central District in the elimination final.

The Crows belted the Doggies by 72 points and take on South Adelaide this Sunday from 12.10pm.

SANFL clubs are worried that crowd numbers will continue to drop if Adelaide becomes a powerhouse in the league. Are they justified in their concerns?

Blog with Warren Partland in the comments section below from 12.30pm today.

As I said before, my guess is that subscribers to the Advertiser would mostly be of the AFL variety owing to the massive coverage of that competition offered by the Advertiser. On the other hand, if I want SANFL coverage I seldom fund it in the Advertiser. I wish we could get our voice better heard, from my stand point Roy Laird's comments have really thrust our complaint right out into the spotlight at least now these articles are proliferating, it won't be much longer until they get all the issues correct also.

therisingblues wrote:

Magellan wrote:For those that can access the Crudvertiser and are interested, Warren Partland is holding a blog session on the reserves issue from 12:30pm today.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6901ed2254

THE SANFL clubs are nervous in the wake of Adelaide’s smashing of Central District in the elimination final.

The Crows belted the Doggies by 72 points and take on South Adelaide this Sunday from 12.10pm.

SANFL clubs are worried that crowd numbers will continue to drop if Adelaide becomes a powerhouse in the league. Are they justified in their concerns?

Blog with Warren Partland in the comments section below from 12.30pm today.

As I said before, my guess is that subscribers to the Advertiser would mostly be of the AFL variety owing to the massive coverage of that competition offered by the Advertiser. On the other hand, if I want SANFL coverage I seldom fund it in the Advertiser. I wish we could get our voice better heard, from my stand point Roy Laird's comments have really thrust our complaint right out into the spotlight at least now these articles are proliferating, it won't be much longer until they get all the issues correct also.

Indeed. No wonder hits on the shithouse SANFL site, Facebook and Twitter accounts has increased, there's barely any coverage in the mainstream media so you have to go and find it somewhere.

Booney wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

Magellan wrote:For those that can access the Crudvertiser and are interested, Warren Partland is holding a blog session on the reserves issue from 12:30pm today.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6901ed2254

THE SANFL clubs are nervous in the wake of Adelaide’s smashing of Central District in the elimination final.

The Crows belted the Doggies by 72 points and take on South Adelaide this Sunday from 12.10pm.

SANFL clubs are worried that crowd numbers will continue to drop if Adelaide becomes a powerhouse in the league. Are they justified in their concerns?

Blog with Warren Partland in the comments section below from 12.30pm today.

As I said before, my guess is that subscribers to the Advertiser would mostly be of the AFL variety owing to the massive coverage of that competition offered by the Advertiser. On the other hand, if I want SANFL coverage I seldom fund it in the Advertiser. I wish we could get our voice better heard, from my stand point Roy Laird's comments have really thrust our complaint right out into the spotlight at least now these articles are proliferating, it won't be much longer until they get all the issues correct also.

Indeed. No wonder hits on the shithouse SANFL site, Facebook and Twitter accounts has increased, there's barely any coverage in the mainstream media so you have to go and find it somewhere.

but surely that isnt correct. we were all assured that the introduction of the reserves sides would bring a renewed interest by the media in the league. you arent saying that media interest has decreased are you? blow me down, maybe the "anti's" were correct after all....../sarcasm

Twitter and Facebook hits are 100% up on 1960, the SANFL is saved!

Wedgie wrote:Twitter and Facebook hits are 100% up on 1960, the SANFL is saved!

And 3 of the 10 teams have increased crowds this year.


good times .

Wedgie wrote:Twitter and Facebook hits are 100% up on 1960, the SANFL is saved!

They are actually up an infinite amount since 1960

I've had my gripe. Now to see if they allow it in the comments of Roo's article: Apologies an adaptation of what I've posted here previously.

Mark writes:


"Just for the record, the Crows had 10 players 21 years old and younger"

Yes, one was Milera that played for Central last year. Central had 13 Players 23 or under.

"Eleven of them had no AFL experience at all."

Central 19 of them had no AFL experience at all

"Six had played 20 AFL games or less"

Central, two have played 12 AFL games or less

"only five had played an AFL game this year"

Central, only zero had played an AFL game this year.
None had played 200 plus AFL games.
None are fulltime footballers.
None get to train "here a lot" -Younie (Adelaide Oval)
All are full time workers outside of football.
None fall under a $10.6million salary cap or an extra $1m outside of the cap if veterans. They do come under a cap 26.5 times less.

None have access to 24/7 state of the art medical and rehab facilities to assist with injury recovery.

"Let's not get emotional about one week of footy" - Surely, you can't be serious? I can understand win or lose you're not overly fussed as you have an AFL team. For SANFL supporters a premiership that their players have "busted a gut" for, is considered quite important. We know winning in the SANFL is not the prime goal of the SANFL reserves as has been stated by Trigg, Sanderson and Younie this year.

"Let's not focus on whether they should be there or not, three years after the decision was made", so you're saying that if the Crows board or a company made a decision three years ago which was proving to be costly, damaging and threatening their existence, let's not focus on it but continue on as if all is fine?

If the Alma made a decision that led to a significant drop in patronage, if advertising on commercial t.v was costing you money (for no result), but as long as people were visiting your website, downloading your app and two wealthy patrons still wanted to use your facilities then continue as the decision was made three years ago?