SA Footy

Also this one; (thanks to some info provided by other posters, I've plagiarised);

Mark I understand you're a Crows board member and the thoughts of a majority of SANFL supporters aren't really of a concern to you. I'm guessing you've probably been to a couple of SANFL home and away games over the past few seasons. You've definitely lost touch with the SANFL supporter, this issue hasn't suddenly surfaced after one weekend it's been an issue since the inception of the two afl reserves teams and as we've seen the resultant loss of integrity in a now compromised league.

It's frustrating when you spread blanket mistruths when Google's at hand, or surely you have a researcher that can ensue your statements aren't false (but then that doesn't suit the agenda)

Mark you write "Like it or not, the SANFL has been on the decline since the Crows came in back in 1991...crowds have been falling away since then" --WRONG. Crowds had been reasonably stable until the inception of the AFL reserves now as the SANFL supporter has become disenchanted with the failed experiment they are dropping dramatically (but app use and twitter feeds are up so all is good).

A quick snapshot, average crowds up to round 7 in each season; 2000 (3,296), 2005 (3,241), 2010 (3,580) and 2013 (3,407) anyone with a basic math understanding would recognise this is no decline.

Now the season average crowd2016 was 2,314. This a 21% drop since 2009, 25% since 2010,28.5% drop since 2011and a 19.6% decline since 2012.But "Channel 7 however is very happy with the television numbers when they broadcast their game of the week", so everything must be Grand if 7 is happy. I guess being paid $1m to televise their game of the week would make them happy to.Maybe no one at the Crows told you part of the deal on the entry would be the at no cost commercial coverage (even given 50% of games promote the Crows or Port). However the SANFL (the clubs) pay $300,000 toward it. The SANFL and you are currently hanging your hat on non income producing television ratings - I wonder if this coverage will continue?

You say "The Crows pay each SANFL club $50,000 a year, so $400,000 total annually..That's big money for the clubs...could the SANFL clubs do without it. Isn't it better having 10 teams and not nine?...I'll answer,,the $50,000 is a pittance for the loss of our league (West Coast/Freo pay $150,00 each). Given the clubs are paying $37,500 for the commercial t.v, which probably hasn't attracted one commercial sponsor to a club. Then is 10 better than 9? We now have 18 rounds not 20 like we used to.Plus if you consider we've lost about 80,000 supporters since their inception at $10
ahead that's $800,000 in lost revenue. Yes everythings peachy. So keep telling true SANFL supporters how good we've got it and how we should feel.

are you seriously arguing with the comments of an adelaide now article?

You may as well go argue with the youtube commenters

bennymacca wrote:are you seriously arguing with the comments of an adelaide now article?

You may as well go argue with the youtube commenters

He's arguing with Roo. And it is a good thing too. The article is full of holes but there are still Crows faithful that'll swallow it hook line and sinker. It is important that a balance be presented.
It's interesting that Dogs 72 has produced a list of inconsistencies almost completely different to mine, yet it still runs in paragraphs.
The list of complaints is very long, and they need to be heard.

bennymacca wrote:are you seriously arguing with the comments of an adelaide now article?

You may as well go argue with the youtube commenters

Yes, I've got sucked in. Just can't stand lies and consider it important enough (even if futile), to put a different perspective. I could have written 3 more pages re some of his other statements. I do want the league to continue and not in its compromised way. I do value time with my family going to the games. As I said three years ago, it would have been easy if my club had voted no, then I could walk away.

Did your reply stay on the comments section Dogs72???

The SANFL wouldn't be happy if it did.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Did your reply stay on the comments section Dogs72???

The SANFL wouldn't be happy if it did.

Yes both still there.

I didn't even get to some of it, the change in Tripodis vote, the availability of Seedsman (that wouldn't have happened for WWT or an SANFL club that had the week off), his dismissiveness and questioning of Roy speaking out, whose missed one finals series since 2003, and coached 7 premierships etc. etc.
Do you think they wont be happy because it's inaccurate? Should I expect a fine?

Yep, expect black suits to drag you out of your bed in the middle of the night and take you to Nauru, I mean West Lakes for brainwashing

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

Dogs72 wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Did your reply stay on the comments section Dogs72???

The SANFL wouldn't be happy if it did.

Yes both still there.

I didn't even get to some of it, the change in Tripodis vote, the availability of Seedsman (that wouldn't have happened for WWT or an SANFL club that had the week off), his dismissiveness and questioning of Roy speaking out, whose missed one finals series since 2003, and coached 7 premierships etc. etc.
Do you think they wont be happy because it's inaccurate? Should I expect a fine?

if they arent happy, it wont be because of any inacuracies (they were all in Roos bit). it will be because it is the truth.

if Roy Laird a 7 time premiership coach gets fined for saying "the Sanfl would bend over" does a crows board member for falsely stating this comp is dying. Interestingly He is not the first to use this statement when defending this move.

The Sanfl has not been dying since 1991. In 1991 the Sanfl transformed into a niche market. A niche market the afl/afl clubs now want dead/irrelevant.

But that does not equal a dying league.


I do find it interesting we need to explain to a crows board member that it doesnt matter if it's 3-4 seasons in . The anger pain and mistrust built by something u gave birth to stabbing you in the back is something u cant simply just accept and move on from.

I'd be happy to explain it to the Self indulgent prick.

He's got his usual punishment coming soon, when the pretty boys play a decent team, not bottom feeders.
His article was probably done mostly by Kenny M. anyhow!

Van Berlo on MMM this morning.
KG asks him about professionals v amateurs regarding the reserves debate, he basically answers Yeah, but ON THE FLIP SIDE .. Then starts rattling off all these benefits for the Crows; really just 8 different ways of saying it's beneficial having the squad playing together. Not just for the Crows... But for Port as well!
Wow, the league is saved! Crows and Port are happy.

therisingblues wrote:Van Berlo on MMM this morning.
KG asks him about professionals v amateurs regarding the reserves debate, he basically answers Yeah, but ON THE FLIP SIDE .. Then starts rattling off all these benefits for the Crows; really just 8 different ways of saying it's beneficial having the squad playing together. Not just for the Crows... But for Port as well!
Wow, the league is saved! Crows and Port are happy.

You'd think they'd get the Captain on rather than some nobody

Is Pixie Forrest a Cows supporter?

Only advertisement last night at Adel Oval for today's games was an ad on the scoreboard saying get down to watch the Crows at 12:10. No mention of the 2nd game or that it is a double header. I thought the Crows were going to promote the competition? It would not be hard to give 20 seconds every quarter break to advertise all the SANFL matches at the Crows AFL home games and in particular last night for the finals today.

There is surely now enough evidence and proof that this whole concept has not worked and the path this is going down isn't a bright one for the SANFL clubs. It is time for the directors and administrators who are still around to admit a mistake was made and turn back on their decision. Any compromise (I.e. more restrictions on AFL Reserves teams) would be even more of a disaster. The SANFL need to provide a solution with the AFL that satisfies all elements that make up football in this state. They can, and should, still work together, but not in the current form.

There is opportunity with cash from West Lakes and high speed internet for the SANFL to find its niche in today's football world independent of the AFL.

So if AFL rookies get paid a minimum of 55K per year plus match payments and others are on a minimum100K per year plus match payments does anyone want to estimate what the Crows team today was on compared to South's 350K?
That's not taking into account coaches and trainers.

Wedgie wrote:So if AFL rookies get paid a minimum of 55K per year plus match payments and others are on a minimum100K per year plus match payments does anyone want to estimate what the Crows team today was on compared to South's 350K?
That's not taking into account coaches and trainers.

Stop being so negative, the comp is in a far better place than it would be if they hadn't come in at all.

Grenville wrote:

Wedgie wrote:So if AFL rookies get paid a minimum of 55K per year plus match payments and others are on a minimum100K per year plus match payments does anyone want to estimate what the Crows team today was on compared to South's 350K?
That's not taking into account coaches and trainers.

Stop being so negative, the comp is in a far better place than it would be if they hadn't come in at all.

Evidence?

csbowes wrote:

Grenville wrote:

Wedgie wrote:So if AFL rookies get paid a minimum of 55K per year plus match payments and others are on a minimum100K per year plus match payments does anyone want to estimate what the Crows team today was on compared to South's 350K?
That's not taking into account coaches and trainers.

Stop being so negative, the comp is in a far better place than it would be if they hadn't come in at all.

Evidence?

Mark Riccuito's article. It list all the good things about the Crows' entry and there's no disadvantages. He's on the board of Crows so you can trust him to be fair and even-handed.

Grenville wrote:

Wedgie wrote:So if AFL rookies get paid a minimum of 55K per year plus match payments and others are on a minimum100K per year plus match payments does anyone want to estimate what the Crows team today was on compared to South's 350K?
That's not taking into account coaches and trainers.

Stop being so negative, the comp is in a far better place than it would be if they hadn't come in at all.

You are taking the piss? .................... aren't you? You're supposed to put a after your post when you do that.

I think Grenville is, given the tenor of his other posts and his previously admitted aversion to using emoticons.