The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[amber_fluid]

I sometimes sit of toilet and read all this. I believe it makes me smarter

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

It's all relative I guess..........

[UK Fan]

In all honesty, where is the evidence of this $16m SANFL bailout?

The *AFL* provided Port with 3 million a year from 2011 to 2013 - 1 million directly and 2 million in the form of a loan to the SA football commission - which was part of a package which the Crows also benefited from (they got $1m a year)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-30/a ... ne/2778086

Here you go big fella.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... d4ec194722

Which can also be confirmed via the SANFL financial reports.

[therisingblues]

I sometimes sit of toilet and read all this. I believe it makes me smarter

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

I used to do that, but my wife got suspicious of the brown streaks across the I-pad screen. (Always get sucked in buying cheap toilet paper: the skin on cooling custard would provide better resistance, but it all feels the same once you break through)

[stan]

I sometimes sit of toilet and read all this. I believe it makes me smarter

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

I used to do that, but my wife got suspicious of the brown streaks across the I-pad screen. (Always get sucked in buying cheap toilet paper: the skin on cooling custard would provide better resistance, but it all feels the same once you break through)

Cant go Cheap on the toliet paper. Gotta look after your ass. Nobody else has it covered.

[Dogs72]

In all honesty, where is the evidence of this $16m SANFL bailout?

The *AFL* provided Port with 3 million a year from 2011 to 2013 - 1 million directly and 2 million in the form of a loan to the SA football commission - which was part of a package which the Crows also benefited from (they got $1m a year)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-30/a ... ne/2778086

Here you go big fella.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... d4ec194722

Which can also be confirmed via the SANFL financial reports.

Kapow! Knock out.

[Spargo]

Please post the article.

[morell]

In all honesty, where is the evidence of this $16m SANFL bailout?

The *AFL* provided Port with 3 million a year from 2011 to 2013 - 1 million directly and 2 million in the form of a loan to the SA football commission - which was part of a package which the Crows also benefited from (they got $1m a year)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-30/a ... ne/2778086

Here you go big fella.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... d4ec194722

Which can also be confirmed via the SANFL financial reports.

Kapow! Knock out.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't think a wishy washy Leigh "I hate Port Adelaide" Whicker quote is evidence that Port has received 16 million in bail out money. More of a Floyd Mayweather than Mike Tyson knock out that one.

Whicker mentioned that the decision to hold on to the license instead of handing it back to the AFL cost SA Football 16 million. In what way? How was that measured? It could be that they projected to get <x> amount of revenue from that license but only received <y>.

Again, I have yet to see any specific, non-anecdotal, direct evidence of all this money (to the tune of 16M, not denying the SANFL tipped in) Port Adelaide supposedly received from the SANFL. Not saying that it didn't occur, I just havent seen it.

I suspect the 16 million includes the grant money that the AFL loaned the SANFL.

[UK Fan]

In all honesty, where is the evidence of this $16m SANFL bailout?

The *AFL* provided Port with 3 million a year from 2011 to 2013 - 1 million directly and 2 million in the form of a loan to the SA football commission - which was part of a package which the Crows also benefited from (they got $1m a year)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-30/a ... ne/2778086

Here you go big fella.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... d4ec194722

Which can also be confirmed via the SANFL financial reports.

Kapow! Knock out.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't think a wishy washy Leigh "I hate Port Adelaide" Whicker quote is evidence that Port has received 16 million in bail out money. More of a Floyd Mayweather than Mike Tyson knock out that one.

Whicker mentioned that the decision to hold on to the license instead of handing it back to the AFL cost SA Football 16 million. In what way? How was that measured? It could be that they projected to get <x> amount of revenue from that license but only received <y>.

Again, I have yet to see any specific, non-anecdotal, direct evidence of all this money (to the tune of 16M, not denying the SANFL tipped in) Port Adelaide supposedly received from the SANFL. Not saying that it didn't occur, I just havent seen it.

I suspect the 16 million includes the grant money that the AFL loaned the SANFL.

In anticipation of a childish Rucci, Advertiser and Whicker hate PAFC response.

I clearly placed an alternate reference for you in my original post if you required confirmation.

So Instead of going on a rant and beating your chest some more which we are all extremely impressed with..

How about you go into the previously referenced SANFL financials and prove that the above claims aren't true. And whicker is just picking on port as u claim.

And when/if you can't disprove the above like every other PAFC supporter ever. Then you could maybe I don't know STFU and get a clue.

https://www.itsaknockout.net

[morell]

I did. I reviewed the SANFL financial​ plans and found a lot of money, 2.5 in 2009, 4 in 2010. The rest was AFL money.

Nothing like 16M.

So again, rather than being a cockhead, why not just cite and or provide a reference and I'll get my corner to throw in the towel.

[Grenville]

The *AFL* provided Port with 3 million a year from 2011 to 2013 - 1 million directly and 2 million in the form of a loan to the SA football commission - which was part of a package which the Crows also benefited from (they got $1m a year)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-30/a ... ne/2778086[/quote]

Here you go big fella.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... d4ec194722

Which can also be confirmed via the SANFL financial reports.[/quote]

Kapow! Knock out.[/quote]You'll have to excuse me if I don't think a wishy washy Leigh "I hate Port Adelaide" Whicker quote is evidence that Port has received 16 million in bail out money. More of a Floyd Mayweather than Mike Tyson knock out that one.

Whicker mentioned that the decision to hold on to the license instead of handing it back to the AFL cost SA Football 16 million. In what way? How was that measured? It could be that they projected to get <x> amount of revenue from that license but only received <y>.

Again, I have yet to see any specific, non-anecdotal, direct evidence of all this money (to the tune of 16M, not denying the SANFL tipped in) Port Adelaide supposedly received from the SANFL. Not saying that it didn't occur, I just havent seen it.

I suspect the 16 million includes the grant money that the AFL loaned the SANFL.[/quote]


In anticipation of a childish Rucci, Advertiser and Whicker hate PAFC response.

I clearly placed an alternate reference for you in my original post if you required confirmation.

So Instead of going on a rant and beating your chest some more which we are all extremely impressed with..

How about you go into the previously referenced SANFL financials and prove that the above claims aren't true. And whicker is just picking on port as u claim.

And when/if you can't disprove the above like every other PAFC supporter ever. Then you could maybe I don't know STFU and get a clue.

https://www.itsaknockout.net[/quote]

Any time Leigh Whicker's name is mentioned I shudder. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have heard he has been less than a clean skin in many aspects of life, an absolute grub.

[UK Fan]

I did. I reviewed the SANFL financial​ plans and found a lot of money, 2.5 in 2009, 4 in 2010. The rest was AFL money.

Nothing like 16M.

So again, rather than being a cockhead, why not just cite and or provide a reference and I'll get my corner to throw in the towel.

I have named a reference from day one mate. I provided 2. It's not my fault you have spent 5 minutes looking at it then gone screw this Im right.

You'll note the article clearly stipulates the cost was "sa footballs". Maybe read it again fully not just skim read. These costs were related to the retaining of Ports licence in the sanfl. Plus the $9 mill afl Package included funds for the crows $3 mill and port $6 mill. So it's not just port got $6 mill and they have added on the afls $9mill simple. It also doesn't state the cost to sa football was all in grants. It just states the total cost to sa football to save PAFCs licence all up was...



A couple of Logical Questions:
If the $16 million was over inflated by Whicker in anyway shape or form don't you think Rucci would of gone with a different headline ???
Do you reckon he'd let port hating Whicker just make that up without being held to account and tarnish PAFCs name ??
Especially as you claim whicker has over inflated the cost to the sanfl by $10mill 170% higher than the $6 million given. You think Rucci would let that slide do you ??
Do you reckon the financial guru Koch wouldn't question it ??
KT wouldn't write to the members saying the article was totally inaccurate ???

only you dispute it not any of the above....... interesting

[morell]

You provided an op-ed piece. Not a citation. Might as well type up a blog and link that. You then stated I should look up the SANFL financial statements, which I did, and nothing in there added up to 16M either.

You have now changed your argument - as shown by your original post being edited 3 times - to try and claim that you weren't inferring Port received 16M in bail out money to now fluff it out to be some sort of wishy washy "cost to sa football". Whatever that means. I suspect that is because you've taken a Whicker comment as gospel and now realise it isn't quite accurate.

I, however, did provide an SANFL link which shows Port paid 6M to the SANFL for its license. Despite your claims that was exaggerated.

Your new argument states that "SA Football wasted 16M on Port". Then you just now admit that a lot of that money was for the Crows and that a large swathe of it was from the AFL in the form of a loan/grant.

So all in all SA Football didn't waste anything like 16M on Port - that was just your blinkered and myopic football anti-Port worldview talking and a bit of Whicker propaganda. Once you factor in Port paying 6M for the license it's balanced out at best for the SANFL and if anything the money the SANFL get through their SMA deal at the AO the SANFL are probably in front.

As for your questions:

1. Rucci's job is to sell papers. He does this either by flaming the Crows supporter base or writing anti-Port articles. An accurate and detailed account of money transfers really isn't something your average Advertiser reader wants to digest over the Sunday morning tea and crumpets, especially if it doesn't feed into the anti-Port echo-chamber.

2. See #1

3. See #1

4. Koch's job is to promote Port Adelaide as a brand, improve the bottom line and move on, most of this happened before his tenure. He also had to molly coddle the SANFL to get the AO deal over the line. Koch is strategic and pragmatic - going into historical financial palaver would do him and the club no good.

5. See #4.

No, only a teeny tiny minority of old school sad old men SANFL supporters tow your anti Port line. Many of them have seemingly congregated in this thread. The rest of the football community has moved on. Just like Port. I suggest you do too.

Perhaps come over the to the D7 thread and make your bones, they're a bit smarter there.

[goddy11]

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Morrel you win.

[morell]

Yeah that's a ripper! Come up with that one on your own?

Just adding a bit of reality to the hysteric Port propaganda in here. There is no doubt Port were in strife, there is no doubt the SANFL helped. But there is also no doubt that Port have contributed back.

So instead of constantly harping on about Port being bailed out y'all should be concentrating on saving your dying competition.

And no, its not Port's fault either.

[MW]

Yeah that's a ripper! Come up with that one on your own?

Just adding a bit of reality to the hysteric Port propaganda in here. There is no doubt Port were in strife, there is no doubt the SANFL helped. But there is also no doubt that Port have contributed back.

So instead of constantly harping on about Port being bailed out y'all should be concentrating on saving your dying competition.

And no, its not Port's fault either.

I'm not sure many (true) Port supporters would agree with you there

[morell]

How is the SANFL's downfall in any way Ports fault? It's like blaming iPhones for the demise of typing pools.

If anything, and I know everyone in here will bitch and moan, Port's off field success at AFL level has been a lifeline.

[Booney]

Yeah that's a ripper! Come up with that one on your own?
Just adding a bit of reality to the hysteric Port propaganda in here. There is no doubt Port were in strife, there is no doubt the SANFL helped. But there is also no doubt that Port have contributed back.
So instead of constantly harping on about Port being bailed out y'all should be concentrating on saving your dying competition.
And no, its not Port's fault either.

I'm not sure many (true) Port supporters would agree with you there

There's plenty of things conspiring towards the SANFL's current plight, very hard to point the finger at any one entity, bar the SANFL itself, for that.

[MW]

agree. My point is Port is not blameless but one part of many parts that are killing this league.

[Jim05]

This bit from Port still makes me chuckle

[Pseudo]

How is the SANFL's downfall in any way Ports fault? It's like blaming iPhones for the demise of typing pools.

If anything, and I know everyone in here will bitch and moan, Port's off field success at AFL level has been a lifeline.