SA Footy

whufc wrote:

stan wrote:

saintal wrote:Think I'm correct in saying Norwood have become the first of the bend-over clubs to have their season ended by an AFL reserves teams. South (x2) and Centrals have also suffered this fate.

Bend over club, go **** yourself mate. The SANFL is ****** and so is all the clubs.

You're right, thanks to your club bending over and copping it.

You might as well take West Coast out of your profile and place Adelaide Crows in there since your SANFL club are in bed with them.

Very true, but I won't be doing that. Norwood have been ****** for years, all the BS and shit that goes on. It's a shadow of what it was. Tripodi is a dodgy corrupt bastard, who know what's been going on being closed doors. Norwood were always going to vote yes no what it's members wanted.

stan wrote:

whufc wrote:

stan wrote:

saintal wrote:Think I'm correct in saying Norwood have become the first of the bend-over clubs to have their season ended by an AFL reserves teams. South (x2) and Centrals have also suffered this fate.

Bend over club, go **** yourself mate. The SANFL is ****** and so is all the clubs.

You're right, thanks to your club bending over and copping it.

You might as well take West Coast out of your profile and place Adelaide Crows in there since your SANFL club are in bed with them.

Very true, but I won't be doing that. Norwood have been ****** for years, all the BS and shit that goes on. It's a shadow of what it was. Tripodi is a dodgy corrupt bastard, who know what's been going on being closed doors. Norwood were always going to vote yes no what it's members wanted.

Your 100% right

Its fundamentally wrong that club presidents etc can make decisions of massive consequence which benefits themselves personally over the wants of the membership base.

Sucks really.

whufc wrote:

stan wrote:

whufc wrote:

stan wrote:[quote="saintal"]Think I'm correct in saying Norwood have become the first of the bend-over clubs to have their season ended by an AFL reserves teams. South (x2) and Centrals have also suffered this fate.

Bend over club, go **** yourself mate. The SANFL is ****** and so is all the clubs.

You're right, thanks to your club bending over and copping it.

You might as well take West Coast out of your profile and place Adelaide Crows in there since your SANFL club are in bed with them.

Very true, but I won't be doing that. Norwood have been ****** for years, all the BS and shit that goes on. It's a shadow of what it was. Tripodi is a dodgy corrupt bastard, who know what's been going on being closed doors. Norwood were always going to vote yes no what it's members wanted.

Your 100% right

Its fundamentally wrong that club presidents etc can make decisions of massive consequence which benefits themselves personally over the wants of the membership base.

Sucks really.[/quote]He's as dodgy as all ****.

stan wrote:

whufc wrote:

stan wrote:

saintal wrote:Think I'm correct in saying Norwood have become the first of the bend-over clubs to have their season ended by an AFL reserves teams. South (x2) and Centrals have also suffered this fate.

Bend over club, go **** yourself mate. The SANFL is ****** and so is all the clubs.

You're right, thanks to your club bending over and copping it.

You might as well take West Coast out of your profile and place Adelaide Crows in there since your SANFL club are in bed with them.

Very true, but I won't be doing that. Norwood have been ****** for years, all the BS and shit that goes on. It's a shadow of what it was. Tripodi is a dodgy corrupt bastard, who know what's been going on being closed doors. Norwood were always going to vote yes no what it's members wanted.

No they weren't, thats the most annoying aspect. Many at the club wanted us to vote yes but Joe was vehemently against it, like seriously staunch. Someone({s) at the club (don't fall for the Pickard stuff, Joe didn't need any extra $$) must have got to Joe because he absolutely hated the idea of the AFL clubs playing anywhere other than SANFL reserves.

whufc wrote:Your 100% right

Its fundamentally wrong that club presidents etc can make decisions of massive consequence which benefits themselves personally over the wants of the membership base.

Sucks really.

Like most people, Joe has faults people in the know could have a go at, but I've looked at this from every angle and researched it as much as I can and I just fail to see how Joe's decision was for personal benefit. He was already an extremely wealthy man.

JK wrote:

whufc wrote:Your 100% right

Its fundamentally wrong that club presidents etc can make decisions of massive consequence which benefits themselves personally over the wants of the membership base.

Sucks really.

Like most people, Joe has faults people in the know could have a go at, but I've looked at this from every angle and researched it as much as I can and I just fail to see how Joe's decision was for personal benefit. He was already an extremely wealthy man.

Just because your wealthy doesn't mean you don't want to be wealthier. The more you earn the more you spend and all that.

Also a great personal development piece which could come in handy in the future, lets just say a relationship builder.

whufc wrote:

JK wrote:

whufc wrote:Your 100% right

Its fundamentally wrong that club presidents etc can make decisions of massive consequence which benefits themselves personally over the wants of the membership base.

Sucks really.

Like most people, Joe has faults people in the know could have a go at, but I've looked at this from every angle and researched it as much as I can and I just fail to see how Joe's decision was for personal benefit. He was already an extremely wealthy man.

Just because your wealthy doesn't mean you don't want to be wealthier. The more you earn the more you spend and all that.

Also a great personal development piece which could come in handy in the future, lets just say a relationship builder.

Of course it doesn't, but I think it's less likely. A lot of people making judgements without even having met the bloke.

I'm not saying I'm right mate, because I wouldn't be close enough to know (and after the way he barrelled me the last time we spoke, I have no need to defend him}, but I genuinely don't believe he would have done it for personal gain. TBH I've always felt he's been a bit of a "fall guy" over it, but I guess that's going to happen when you attach your signature to something.

Fair enough mate, im the first to admit my opinion on this is clouded by my hate for the current situation we are in.

He wasn't the only president to be in support (at the end) of the reserves but I guess the way it happened makes him a fall guy. At least the likes of Chiddy were pro from the beginning.

He's stated he flipped to have the salary cap infringement penalties lifted. To benefit Norwood in the short term (which it did), with the repercussion of destroying the competition in the process. Interesting reflection of the character of those involved to not reveal the back stab until the last moments before the vote.

Dogs64 wrote:He's stated he flipped to have the salary cap infringement penalties lifted. To benefit Norwood in the short term (which it did), with the repercussion of destroying the competition in the process. Interesting reflection of the character of those involved to not reveal the back stab until the last moments before the vote.

That's closer to the mark IMHO hence why I think someone(s) at the clubs gotten to him. Pure speculation on my behalf, but my guess is that someone's said to him Ït's going to happen eventually with or without your vote, this way we'll get something from it.

Still doesn't sit well, but I blame the club rather the man himself.

stan wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

stan wrote:

saintal wrote:Think I'm correct in saying Norwood have become the first of the bend-over clubs to have their season ended by an AFL reserves teams. South (x2) and Centrals have also suffered this fate.

Bend over club, go **** yourself mate. The SANFL is ****** and so is all the clubs.

He isn’t wrong though!
Tripodi the dog sold us out for a few sheckles and to feather his nest

Tripodi is a massive ******* dog but all South fans are Muppets anyway.

Thank you stan I truly appreciate the sentiments.
At least we are muppets with integrity, I am extremely proud my club voted no.

PanthersFan wrote:

stan wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

stan wrote:[quote="saintal"]Think I'm correct in saying Norwood have become the first of the bend-over clubs to have their season ended by an AFL reserves teams. South (x2) and Centrals have also suffered this fate.

Bend over club, go **** yourself mate. The SANFL is ****** and so is all the clubs.

He isn’t wrong though!
Tripodi the dog sold us out for a few sheckles and to feather his nest

Tripodi is a massive ******* dog but all South fans are Muppets anyway.

Thank you stan I truly appreciate the sentiments.
At least we are muppets with integrity, I am extremely proud my club voted no.[/quote]Very true, can't argue with that.

At the end of the day regardless of Joe the dog, the club voted for this and it is where it is because of it.

That simple, ya Muppet

How did Fogarty only get a fine?

Booney wrote:How did Fogarty only get a fine?

Must of had the same lawyer as Greene.

Booney wrote:How did Fogarty only get a fine?

Who does he play for?

Booney wrote:How did Fogarty only get a fine?

Not saying it’s right Fogarty’s was rated as High contact but low impact Grigg kept on playing and there is no injury report. One game down to $200 (with the early plea)

Same as Framptons on Gould, low impact. Both the Incidents on Curran have been rated as high contact and medium impact (concussion injury report) so they are two games down to one (if they want the early plea).

It’s not the force so much anymore it’s the impact.

Under the current system Grangers hit on Cornes in the 82 Prelim could probably be rated as low impact as the great man got up and played the game out, with no real ill-effects despite Grangers intent and high contact.

am Bays wrote:

Booney wrote:How did Fogarty only get a fine?

Not saying it’s right Fogarty’s was rated as High contact but low impact Grigg kept on playing and there is no injury report. One game down to $200 (with the early plea)

Same as Framptons on Gould, low impact. Both the Incidents on Curran have been rated as high contact and medium impact (concussion injury report) so they are two games down to one (if they want the early plea).

It’s not the force so much anymore it’s the impact.

Under the current system Grangers hit on Cornes in the 82 Prelim could probably be rated as low impact as the great man got up and played the game out, with no real ill-effects despite Grangers intent and high contact.

That incident wrinkled Graham for life