SA Footy

tipper wrote:

Booney wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Last season showed we dont need them

Good sample size you've used to support your argument.

better than the sample size the crows used when they claimed they would get 4k crowds to their reserve games

and better than the sample size used when the reserve sides were introduced and we were told it was going to be a good thing...

Maintain the rage

tipper wrote:

Booney wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Last season showed we dont need them

Good sample size you've used to support your argument.

better than the sample size the crows used when they claimed they would get 4k crowds to their reserve games

and better than the sample size used when the reserve sides were introduced and we were told it was going to be a good thing...

Booney wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Last season showed we dont need them

Good sample size you've used to support your argument.

By god you're right, we need more data! Better keep them out for another decade or two so we can collect a decent sample...

Agreed, Pseudo. In the interests of science, if nothing else.

Pseudo wrote:

Booney wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Last season showed we dont need them

Good sample size you've used to support your argument.

By god you're right, we need more data! Better keep them out for another decade or two so we can collect a decent sample...

And break the contract? I don't think so.

Booney wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

Booney wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Last season showed we dont need them

Good sample size you've used to support your argument.

By god you're right, we need more data! Better keep them out for another decade or two so we can collect a decent sample...

And break the contract? I don't think so.

Isn't the contract already broken? By changing their logo, haven't Port Magpies already admitted they have changed to being Port Power Reserves?
Cheers

bulldogproud wrote:Isn't the contract already broken? By changing their logo, haven't Port Magpies already admitted they have changed to being Port Power Reserves?
Cheers

The Port Adelaide Football Club logo?

Booney wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:Isn't the contract already broken? By changing their logo, haven't Port Magpies already admitted they have changed to being Port Power Reserves?
Cheers

The Port Adelaide Football Club logo?

I get confused with all of these Port Adelaides

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Booney wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:Isn't the contract already broken? By changing their logo, haven't Port Magpies already admitted they have changed to being Port Power Reserves?
Cheers

The Port Adelaide Football Club logo?

I get confused with all of these Port Adelaides

Struggling counting to 1? Poor chap.

Booney wrote:

bulldogproud wrote:Isn't the contract already broken? By changing their logo, haven't Port Magpies already admitted they have changed to being Port Power Reserves?
Cheers

The Port Adelaide Football Club logo?

They have ditched the magpie in favour of the Power's logo indicating they are no longer Port Adelaide Magpies. They contracted with the SANFL as the Port Adelaide Magpies.
Cheers

Booney wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

Booney wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Last season showed we dont need them

Good sample size you've used to support your argument.

By god you're right, we need more data! Better keep them out for another decade or two so we can collect a decent sample...

And break the contract? I don't think so.

They've broken it before; I'm sure they can break it again, especially for the sake of due diligence.

Pseudo wrote:They've broken it before; I'm sure they can break it again, especially for the sake of due diligence.

So long as our compensation is adequate I guess we could consider it.

Booney wrote:

Pseudo wrote:They've broken it before; I'm sure they can break it again, especially for the sake of due diligence.

So long as our compensation is adequate I guess we could consider it.

Still waiting on the compensation for last year's breach. Tell you what, we'll consider it even.

Pseudo wrote:

Booney wrote:

Pseudo wrote:They've broken it before; I'm sure they can break it again, especially for the sake of due diligence.

So long as our compensation is adequate I guess we could consider it.

Still waiting on the compensation for last year's breach. Tell you what, we'll consider it even.

That's quite favourable to you, we'll consider this and come back. Literally. We'll. Come. Back.

Booney wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

Booney wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Last season showed we dont need them

Good sample size you've used to support your argument.

By god you're right, we need more data! Better keep them out for another decade or two so we can collect a decent sample...

And break the contract? I don't think so.

broken already,
didn't play last season & haven't paid their bill.

gazzamagoo wrote:broken already,
didn't play last season & haven't paid their bill.

Shows how much you want / need us then, doesn't it?

something tells me we've digressed somewhat
Booney, what are your thoughts on this matter,
do you think, with all these borders opening & closing all the time & with the constant threat of Covid outbreaks all the time, is it wise for the 2 clubs in question to field their teams in the SANFL? And I'm actually being serious lol
What would happen if we start the footy season, only for an outbreak to occur & travel bubbles are once again imposed?
What happens if we're 3 or 6 round into the season?
Do Port & Crows forfeit the remaining matches, resulting in their opponents winning by default?
Interesting stuff!

gazzamagoo wrote:something tells me we've digressed somewhat
Booney, what are your thoughts on this matter,
do you think, with all these borders opening & closing all the time & with the constant threat of Covid outbreaks all the time, is it wise for the 2 clubs in question to field their teams in the SANFL? And I'm actually being serious lol
What would happen if we start the footy season, only for an outbreak to occur & travel bubbles are once again imposed?
What happens if we're 3 or 6 round into the season?
Do Port & Crows forfeit the remaining matches, resulting in their opponents winning by default?
Interesting stuff!

Sportsbet odd on favourite the answer is 'do whatever Port needs us to do', let them play until it happens then forfeit if they cant, There 'reserves' players must get a game so we have no choice but to cater for what they need.

gazzamagoo wrote:something tells me we've digressed somewhat
Booney, what are your thoughts on this matter,
do you think, with all these borders opening & closing all the time & with the constant threat of Covid outbreaks all the time, is it wise for the 2 clubs in question to field their teams in the SANFL? And I'm actually being serious lol
What would happen if we start the footy season, only for an outbreak to occur & travel bubbles are once again imposed?
What happens if we're 3 or 6 round into the season?
Do Port & Crows forfeit the remaining matches, resulting in their opponents winning by default?
Interesting stuff!

I think we now have 16 SANFL listed players. We have 42 on our AFL list.

If, by chance, another Queensland based hub was to eventuate ( I don't think this will given the nature of COVID response in Australia is completely different in mid-2021 than it was in early / mid 2020 ) then we would probably do what we did last year, take 30 or 32 players into the hub leaving 10-12 players here + the 16 SANFL listed = 26-28.

Allow for some injuries or quarantine etc ( 4-6 ) then we would have 20+ here in Adelaide with potentially only 4-6 of them AFL listed.

Given the situation I'd say the SANFL would rather us add to our SANFL list via local talent than remove us from the season.

Keep in mind the AFL removed the SANFL sides last year as it was all a complete unknown, in the end it was probably an over reaction but what were they to do? I'd imagine 2021 has far more planning and contingency plans in place if there were to be another AFL hub situation.

Booney wrote:

gazzamagoo wrote:something tells me we've digressed somewhat
Booney, what are your thoughts on this matter,
do you think, with all these borders opening & closing all the time & with the constant threat of Covid outbreaks all the time, is it wise for the 2 clubs in question to field their teams in the SANFL? And I'm actually being serious lol
What would happen if we start the footy season, only for an outbreak to occur & travel bubbles are once again imposed?
What happens if we're 3 or 6 round into the season?
Do Port & Crows forfeit the remaining matches, resulting in their opponents winning by default?
Interesting stuff!

I think we now have 16 SANFL listed players. We have 42 on our AFL list.

If, by chance, another Queensland based hub was to eventuate ( I don't think this will given the nature of COVID response in Australia is completely different in mid-2021 than it was in early / mid 2020 ) then we would probably do what we did last year, take 30 or 32 players into the hub leaving 10-12 players here + the 16 SANFL listed = 26-28.

Allow for some injuries or quarantine etc ( 4-6 ) then we would have 20+ here in Adelaide with potentially only 4-6 of them AFL listed.

Given the situation I'd say the SANFL would rather us add to our SANFL list via local talent than remove us from the season.

Keep in mind the AFL removed the SANFL sides last year as it was all a complete unknown, in the end it was probably an over reaction but what were they to do? I'd imagine 2021 has far more planning and contingency plans in place if there were to be another AFL hub situation.

As each AwFuL linked club would have approximately half a full squad of SANFL players, is it possible that the Crows and Power reserves form into the one team, giving us a nine-team competition if Covid does intervene?