SA Footy

Booney wrote:

stan wrote:

Brett wrote:Obsessed . LMA and Booney . 1 little comment and youre on. You blokes should be Salmon. Always jump on . Never a reply with some sense , just dodge it . Good on you boys ! lol

Brett, mate you have been going on and on about Port in each thread having beefs with Booney and LMA each time.

This happens in nearly all threads, you are looking at being a bit obsessed here.

Calm the farm and stop feeding the trolls.

We're the trolls?

The clown offers nothing constructive whatsoever.

Come on mate it's like you guys are picking on a old bloke that's new to the interweb.

Stan, he ain't new there are some identical constructed posts out there from another user , if you know what I mean .

LMA wrote:Stan, he ain't new there are some identical constructed posts out there from another user , if you know what I mean .

Yeah mate, read you loud and clear.

LMA wrote:Stan, he ain't new there are some identical constructed posts out there from another user , if you know what I mean .

A Jarman Impey you mean?

regards,

REB

LMA wrote:Regardless of who's playing this week and probably more applicable to the AFL but I've always thought that the jab is a form of enhancement that has never really been scrutinised. Players can get rubbed out for smoking a bit of hooch but you can juice them up to the eyeballs with all sorts of gear to get them through a game.

tend to agree

Aidyn Johnson can only be replaced by an AFL player, according to Lokan at the press conference. That leaves Frederick, Pudney and Grundy as options.

So the SANFL forces the AFL clubs to play 4 top ups in the finals so they're not "too" good, but they're not allowed to play more than 4 top ups if there are 17+ AFL players available. Makes sense. More than 4 players actually trying to win is too much of an advantage I guess.

Rising Power wrote:Aidyn Johnson can only be replaced by an AFL player, according to Lokan at the press conference. That leaves Frederick, Pudney and Grundy as options.

So the SANFL forces the AFL clubs to play 4 top ups in the finals so they're not "too" good, but they're not allowed to play more than 4 top ups if there are 17+ AFL players available. Makes sense. More than 4 players actually trying to win is too much of an advantage I guess.

Whatever suits Glenelg is the best way to do it. If Port are weaker by having to play an AFL listed player then he plays, simples!

Booney wrote:

stan wrote:

Brett wrote:Obsessed . LMA and Booney . 1 little comment and youre on. You blokes should be Salmon. Always jump on . Never a reply with some sense , just dodge it . Good on you boys ! lol

Brett, mate you have been going on and on about Port in each thread having beefs with Booney and LMA each time.

This happens in nearly all threads, you are looking at being a bit obsessed here.

Calm the farm and stop feeding the trolls.

We're the trolls?

The clown offers nothing constructive whatsoever.

Pot calling . NFI

3 years on, a few boys will run around this Sunday...

https://www.facebook.com/daniel.franzon.94/videos/659069640924030/

Spot the Port player in the Bays tracksuit....

Rising Power wrote:Aidyn Johnson can only be replaced by an AFL player, according to Lokan at the press conference. That leaves Frederick, Pudney and Grundy as options.

So the SANFL forces the AFL clubs to play 4 top ups in the finals so they're not "too" good, but they're not allowed to play more than 4 top ups if there are 17+ AFL players available. Makes sense. More than 4 players actually trying to win is too much of an advantage I guess.

,,, And who says the rules are contrived to make their inclusion acceptable?
Gee, anyone who says the inclusion of reserves is bad really has no idea, right?

Well well the FARCE continues

The AFL Power Reserves play in their 3 rd Grand Final since 2014 hey 3 in six years pretty good by the AFL contigent.

A lot of back slapping by the media regarding the ( Magpies ) LOL.

Yes the FARCE continues.

FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl Farce.

Rising Power wrote:Aidyn Johnson can only be replaced by an AFL player, according to Lokan at the press conference. That leaves Frederick, Pudney and Grundy as options.

So the SANFL forces the AFL clubs to play 4 top ups in the finals so they're not "too" good, but they're not allowed to play more than 4 top ups if there are 17+ AFL players available. Makes sense. More than 4 players actually trying to win is too much of an advantage I guess.

If you don't like it, there's the door and take the Crows with you.

Groucho wrote:

Rising Power wrote:Aidyn Johnson can only be replaced by an AFL player, according to Lokan at the press conference. That leaves Frederick, Pudney and Grundy as options.

So the SANFL forces the AFL clubs to play 4 top ups in the finals so they're not "too" good, but they're not allowed to play more than 4 top ups if there are 17+ AFL players available. Makes sense. More than 4 players actually trying to win is too much of an advantage I guess.

If you don't like it, there's the door and take the Crows with you.

Righto.

Apachebulldog wrote:Well well the FARCE continues

The AFL Power Reserves play in their 3 rd Grand Final since 2014 hey 3 in six years pretty good by the AFL contigent.

A lot of back slapping by the media regarding the ( Magpies ) LOL.

Yes the FARCE continues.

FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl Farce.

Your last farce was lacking substance and feel it effected the point you were trying to make, it's a no from me!

LMA wrote:

Apachebulldog wrote:Well well the FARCE continues

The AFL Power Reserves play in their 3 rd Grand Final since 2014 hey 3 in six years pretty good by the AFL contigent.

A lot of back slapping by the media regarding the ( Magpies ) LOL.

Yes the FARCE continues.

FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl FARCE sanfl Farce.

Your last farce was lacking substance and feel it effected the point you were trying to make, it's a no from me!

LOL luv it Touche LOL.

I think there is an agreement in place that the 2 Franchises stay in the SANFL for a certain number of years. I also think the whole thing is reviewed after a few years . A hypothetical is what if the SANFL clubs review it and made some changes . The first franchise would be Port Power to ark up. No doubt.
What would happen if the AFL decided on an AFL reserves comp ? Would the SANFL say no and make the them both see out the contract or cave like when they sold the AFL licences after Port again lost them millions ?

Brett wrote:I think there is an agreement in place that the 2 Franchises stay in the SANFL for a certain number of years. I also think the whole thing is reviewed after a few years . A hypothetical is what if the SANFL clubs review it and made some changes . The first franchise would be Port Power to ark up. No doubt.
What would happen if the AFL decided on an AFL reserves comp ? Would the SANFL say no and make the them both see out the contract or cave like when they sold the AFL licences after Port again lost them millions ?

Dunno mate, I guess it just depends on how the ball bounces.

Thanks for your PM's .

Im sure someone would be aware of the rule /agreement . I dont expect Norwood to comply of course.

Brett wrote:I think there is an agreement in place that the 2 Franchises stay in the SANFL for a certain number of years. I also think the whole thing is reviewed after a few years . A hypothetical is what if the SANFL clubs review it and made some changes . The first franchise would be Port Power to ark up. No doubt.
What would happen if the AFL decided on an AFL reserves comp ? Would the SANFL say no and make the them both see out the contract or cave like when they sold the AFL licences after Port again lost them millions ?

More of a question for the 'No AFL whinge" thread but the contract is 15 years, reviewed annually. Don't think there will an AFL reserves comp anytime soon with the AFL trying so desperately to make GWS and GC a success along with the development of the AFLW.