SA Footy

That's because there is no correlation - Norwood's revenue was unaffected by the situation. They still played in the GF, just as they would have if the Eagles had won the PF. Not sure what point JK is trying to make.
Cheers

bulldogproud wrote:That's because there is no correlation - Norwood's revenue was unaffected by the situation. They still played in the GF, just as they would have if the Eagles had won the PF. Not sure what point JK is trying to make.
Cheers

Lol the point I’m trying to make, is that had the Eagles been ruled the winner, they’d either lose to Norwood in the GF and likely lose money over it, or win the flag and perhaps win money. Exact same scenario for Norwood if they beat or lost to the Eagles. Neither happened, but if the Eagles are seeking damages for lost revenue had they won the GF, theoretically Norwood could too because they might not have necessarily lost to that opponent.

Jimmy_041 wrote:May I ask an innocent question?

Did WWT comply with this?

5.5 COUNTING OF PLAYERS 5.5.1 5.5.2 Request by Captain
The captain or acting captain of a Team may at any time during a Match request that the field Umpire count the number of Players of the opposing Team who are on the Playing Surface.

Most on here seem to be missing this. Great post.
No compensation in my eyes.

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:That's because there is no correlation - Norwood's revenue was unaffected by the situation. They still played in the GF, just as they would have if the Eagles had won the PF. Not sure what point JK is trying to make.
Cheers

Lol the point I’m trying to make, is that had the Eagles been ruled the winner, they’d either lose to Norwood in the GF and likely lose money over it, or win the flag and perhaps win money. Exact same scenario for Norwood if they beat or lost to the Eagles. Neither happened, but if the Eagles are seeking damages for lost revenue had they won the GF, theoretically Norwood could too because they might not have necessarily lost to that opponent.

Its good you thought about your response because I shudder to think what it would have been if it was spontaneous. Seriously makes no sense

goddy11 wrote:

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:That's because there is no correlation - Norwood's revenue was unaffected by the situation. They still played in the GF, just as they would have if the Eagles had won the PF. Not sure what point JK is trying to make.
Cheers

Lol the point I’m trying to make, is that had the Eagles been ruled the winner, they’d either lose to Norwood in the GF and likely lose money over it, or win the flag and perhaps win money. Exact same scenario for Norwood if they beat or lost to the Eagles. Neither happened, but if the Eagles are seeking damages for lost revenue had they won the GF, theoretically Norwood could too because they might not have necessarily lost to that opponent.

Its good you thought about your response because I shudder to think what it would have been if it was spontaneous. Seriously makes no sense

About as much sense as chasing compo after blowing an 8 goal lead

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:That's because there is no correlation - Norwood's revenue was unaffected by the situation. They still played in the GF, just as they would have if the Eagles had won the PF. Not sure what point JK is trying to make.
Cheers

Lol the point I’m trying to make, is that had the Eagles been ruled the winner, they’d either lose to Norwood in the GF and likely lose money over it, or win the flag and perhaps win money. Exact same scenario for Norwood if they beat or lost to the Eagles. Neither happened, but if the Eagles are seeking damages for lost revenue had they won the GF, theoretically Norwood could too because they might not have necessarily lost to that opponent.

Norwood getting a different result in the GF is a hypothetical scenario

Eagles missing out on an opportunity to play in the GF isn’t. This is why I don’t see a correlation JK.


If north were ruled to miss the GF I guarantee Greg Griffin would of demanded compensation. And fair enough.

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:That's because there is no correlation - Norwood's revenue was unaffected by the situation. They still played in the GF, just as they would have if the Eagles had won the PF. Not sure what point JK is trying to make.
Cheers

Lol the point I’m trying to make, is that had the Eagles been ruled the winner, they’d either lose to Norwood in the GF and likely lose money over it, or win the flag and perhaps win money. Exact same scenario for Norwood if they beat or lost to the Eagles. Neither happened, but if the Eagles are seeking damages for lost revenue had they won the GF, theoretically Norwood could too because they might not have necessarily lost to that opponent.

Central may not have lost 10 matches during the year either if we didn't play badly (very very badly!!) in those matches. Does that mean we should also be able to apply for compensation??? After all, if we hadn't lost those matches, we theoretically may have played in the GF. Should the other 7 clubs be able to too??
Norwood at least had the opportunity to win the GF as they participated in it. Therefore, they lost no revenue as a result of the PF situation. If they lost revenue, it is because they didn't play well enough to win the GF. At least they had the chance to, it was all in their hands.
Yes, my arguments are nonsensical but just trying to let you see how nonsensical yours is, JK, my friend.

o five wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:May I ask an innocent question?

Did WWT comply with this?

5.5 COUNTING OF PLAYERS 5.5.1 5.5.2 Request by Captain
The captain or acting captain of a Team may at any time during a Match request that the field Umpire count the number of Players of the opposing Team who are on the Playing Surface.

Most on here seem to be missing this. Great post.
No compensation in my eyes.

Not missing it’s irrelevant.

They didn’t due to a north adelaide officials “gross negligence” as per the sanfl ruling.

If it was as simple as Eagles didn’t ask for a headcount end of story.

North wouldn’t of been fined and deducted points for this year.


Btw for the record I think the SANFL made the correct call but Eagles should receive compensation.

Yet again we aren’t talking about millions of dollars. But $50k - $100k I don’t see as unreasonable.

UK Fan wrote:

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:That's because there is no correlation - Norwood's revenue was unaffected by the situation. They still played in the GF, just as they would have if the Eagles had won the PF. Not sure what point JK is trying to make.
Cheers

Lol the point I’m trying to make, is that had the Eagles been ruled the winner, they’d either lose to Norwood in the GF and likely lose money over it, or win the flag and perhaps win money. Exact same scenario for Norwood if they beat or lost to the Eagles. Neither happened, but if the Eagles are seeking damages for lost revenue had they won the GF, theoretically Norwood could too because they might not have necessarily lost to that opponent.

Norwood getting a different result in the GF is a hypothetical scenario

Eagles missing out on an opportunity to play in the GF isn’t. This is why I don’t see a correlation JK.


If north were ruled to miss the GF I guarantee Greg Griffin would of demanded compensation. And fair enough.

LOL, why would Adelaide United demand compensation?
Would they have got more people to games if the SANFL got less?
Drawing a long bow there!

rd wrote:The Prelim Final last year will be talked about for many years to come - maybe it will take over from the 1982 Granger Prelim Final as the most discussed PF in history. WWT lead by 52 points during the 3rd quarter and yet lose to North Adelaide who by the way had a 19th man on the ground for a few minutes in the last quarter. WWT lost the game and the opportunity to play in a Grand Final which killed off the usual financial benefits associated with being a GF team. North won the game but lost $10,000 to the SANFL. So only the SANFL gained out of this saga - to the tune of $10,000. To me the SANFL should pass that $10k onto the WWTFC and quietly take steps to ensure this 19th man event never occurs again...

Good luck getting that to happen. They would've already increased Parkinson's salary by that + some. Lots of collective 'snouts in the trough' at War Memorial Drive.....

Wedgie wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:That's because there is no correlation - Norwood's revenue was unaffected by the situation. They still played in the GF, just as they would have if the Eagles had won the PF. Not sure what point JK is trying to make.
Cheers

Lol the point I’m trying to make, is that had the Eagles been ruled the winner, they’d either lose to Norwood in the GF and likely lose money over it, or win the flag and perhaps win money. Exact same scenario for Norwood if they beat or lost to the Eagles. Neither happened, but if the Eagles are seeking damages for lost revenue had they won the GF, theoretically Norwood could too because they might not have necessarily lost to that opponent.

Norwood getting a different result in the GF is a hypothetical scenario

Eagles missing out on an opportunity to play in the GF isn’t. This is why I don’t see a correlation JK.


If north were ruled to miss the GF I guarantee Greg Griffin would of demanded compensation. And fair enough.

LOL, why would Adelaide United demand compensation?
Would they have got more people to games if the SANFL got less?
Drawing a long bow there!

Fair point. That would be Greg Edwards sorry Wedgie.

I got my Greg’s mixed up.

bulldogproud wrote:Norwood at least had the opportunity to win the GF as they participated in it. Therefore, they lost no revenue as a result of the PF situation.

This is the subjective part Im trying to point out. If the Eagles playing in the GF could have delivered increased revenue based on them beating Norwood, then surely the opposite is also true that Norwood's revenue could have been increased had they beaten the Eagles?

Every aspect of this discussion and the compensation being sought is based around "If my aunty had balls" scenario's.

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:Norwood at least had the opportunity to win the GF as they participated in it. Therefore, they lost no revenue as a result of the PF situation.

This is the subjective part Im trying to point out. If the Eagles playing in the GF could have delivered increased revenue based on them beating Norwood, then surely the opposite is also true that Norwood's revenue could have been increased had they beaten the Eagles?

Every aspect of this discussion and the compensation being sought is based around "If my aunty had balls" scenario's.

JK's right, the Eagles could have given up an 8 goal lead and lost the GF too.

Booney wrote:

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:Norwood at least had the opportunity to win the GF as they participated in it. Therefore, they lost no revenue as a result of the PF situation.

This is the subjective part Im trying to point out. If the Eagles playing in the GF could have delivered increased revenue based on them beating Norwood, then surely the opposite is also true that Norwood's revenue could have been increased had they beaten the Eagles?

Every aspect of this discussion and the compensation being sought is based around "If my aunty had balls" scenario's.

JK's right, the Eagles could have given up an 8 goal lead and lost the GF too.

As stated in my original post The result is irrelevant to the claim.

it’s the loss of opportunity to “compete” in a GF they are seeking compo for.

Booney wrote:

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:Norwood at least had the opportunity to win the GF as they participated in it. Therefore, they lost no revenue as a result of the PF situation.

This is the subjective part Im trying to point out. If the Eagles playing in the GF could have delivered increased revenue based on them beating Norwood, then surely the opposite is also true that Norwood's revenue could have been increased had they beaten the Eagles?

Every aspect of this discussion and the compensation being sought is based around "If my aunty had balls" scenario's.

JK's right, the Eagles could have given up an 8 goal lead and lost the GF too.

... without Norwood needing an extra man!

Booney wrote:

JK wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:Norwood at least had the opportunity to win the GF as they participated in it. Therefore, they lost no revenue as a result of the PF situation.

This is the subjective part Im trying to point out. If the Eagles playing in the GF could have delivered increased revenue based on them beating Norwood, then surely the opposite is also true that Norwood's revenue could have been increased had they beaten the Eagles?

Every aspect of this discussion and the compensation being sought is based around "If my aunty had balls" scenario's.

JK's right, the Eagles could have given up an 8 goal lead and lost the GF too.

as ive said before, the extra man didn't cost them the win. It was the inability to finish a side off.. But good deflecting by the eagles

UK Fan wrote:

o five wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:May I ask an innocent question?

Did WWT comply with this?

5.5 COUNTING OF PLAYERS 5.5.1 5.5.2 Request by Captain
The captain or acting captain of a Team may at any time during a Match request that the field Umpire count the number of Players of the opposing Team who are on the Playing Surface.

Most on here seem to be missing this. Great post.
No compensation in my eyes.

Not missing it’s irrelevant.

They didn’t due to a north adelaide officials “gross negligence” as per the sanfl ruling.

If it was as simple as Eagles didn’t ask for a headcount end of story.

North wouldn’t of been fined and deducted points for this year.

Btw for the record I think the SANFL made the correct call but Eagles should receive compensation.

Yet again we aren’t talking about millions of dollars. But $50k - $100k I don’t see as unreasonable.

It’s irrelevant because you say it is?
I don't think its irrelevant.
They didn't comply with the Laws of Australian Football. That's relevant.

The next bit is only my opinion:
I would have squashed the entire problem on the following Monday but why do that when you can string it out for a week and get some interest in your GF so the majority of spectators actually pay for a ticket?

Like you paid for a ticket.

Jimmy_041 wrote:

UK Fan wrote:

o five wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:May I ask an innocent question?

Did WWT comply with this?

5.5 COUNTING OF PLAYERS 5.5.1 5.5.2 Request by Captain
The captain or acting captain of a Team may at any time during a Match request that the field Umpire count the number of Players of the opposing Team who are on the Playing Surface.

Most on here seem to be missing this. Great post.
No compensation in my eyes.

Not missing it’s irrelevant.

They didn’t due to a north adelaide officials “gross negligence” as per the sanfl ruling.

If it was as simple as Eagles didn’t ask for a headcount end of story.

North wouldn’t of been fined and deducted points for this year.

Btw for the record I think the SANFL made the correct call but Eagles should receive compensation.

Yet again we aren’t talking about millions of dollars. But $50k - $100k I don’t see as unreasonable.

It’s irrelevant because you say it is?
I don't think its irrelevant.
They didn't comply with the Laws of Australian Football. That's relevant.

The next bit is only my opinion:
I would have squashed the entire problem on the following Monday but why do that when you can string it out for a week and get some interest in your GF so the majority of spectators actually pay for a ticket?

Irrelevant cos the sanfl already ruled that the headcount didn’t occur due to north’s negligence.

Not because eagles stuffed up.

When did they rule that?
I'm not sure how North's negligence could have stopped any head count occurring.

Eagles captain to the umpire 1 minute into the last quarter: "I want a head count"
Umpire: "Sorry mate, North's negligence means that can't happen"